Cobber the hound.

Good point, I actually thought about that when writing piece. All I can offer as a defence, is that good research can draw on points across the political spectrum. I still have faith in the Australian experience to feel that good ideas are not the monopoly of the left or right.

To be honest, I think my main source of improvement in recent years, if I am to have an opinion about my work, is from criticism on OLO and even reading more from a variety of think tanks.

Jon J

I have also thought about your experience.

After being in work at unis for 5 years solid, I am now unemployed.

Like most people accustomed to the good life, albeit I was mostly a casual for the period, it has been a bit of a shock.

But now I am free to write what I want, whenever I like. I will return to my labouring roots if need be, and write because I like to. All of my Quadrant pieces and an academic article were achieved when working as a labourer.

I also believe the funding model for humanities research can be improved and rationalised. I think funding is going to be cut anyway, so why not have a debate on how the standard can be improved with fewer resources

This essay is also related to the essay by Peter Jorm re the role and the demands of governments and industry re the purposes and functions of universities. And the essay on Nature too.

But what kind of knowledge is realy allowed in our "universities" or mind factories. These two references depict and describe the situation
http://firmstand.org/articles/separation_of_church_and_state.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel17.html

Which also raises the question of who is or are the real power elites in the Western world. Or WHO really make the decisions as to who is going to live or die. WHO are ALL very much on the right side of the culture wars divide.
WHO decides which country or region will become the next sacrifice zone under the unstoppable logic/momentum of the industrial Mega-machine.

C Wright Mills addressed this topic in his his classic book The Power Elite.
The topic is also addressed in the book by David Watson titled Againt The Megamachine: Essays On Empire & Its Enemies

Theodore Roszak also addressed the topic of knowledge, power and the function of the Academy in his many books, especially in The Dissenting Academy, Where the Waste Land Ends, and World Beware.

Also google the topic The Pentagon & The Universities.

Then as always there is the work of Henry Giroux.
And a relatively new book by Charles Derber titled Sociopathic Society, which could be sub-titled the legacy of Ronald Reagan and the Captains of Industry as described in the book Captains of Consciousness by Stuart Ewen

That having been said in my opinion most/all of those on the right-side of the culture wars divide are very firmly on the side of the REAL elites as described C Wright Mills, and apologists for Empire too - "there is no other way" being their mantra.

All human progress has it's foundation in disagreement and debate, although at the end of the day and as the cornerstone of all research, nothing is better than the truth!
Any research based on a false premise is doomed to fail.
Truth is the only basis for a truly fair and egalitarian society.
Therefore we should always embrace the truth, even if it brings with it, howls of derision or some element of personal discomfort.
One recalls a pair of Noble prize winning medical researchers from WA, who postulated that stomach ulcers had their foundation in unfriendly stomach bacteria.
One also recalls how the medical fraternity, almost to a generic man, howled with derision!
Well, there were billions being earned from treating the problem with antacids and endless resales!
A result that pales into complete insignificance with the billions now being earned by big pharma, with HIV antivirals.
Even though, there is a possible cure, that could be found by combining current arthritis treatment and leukemia chemo.
It seems the Chemo can kill the disease, but the dose is too toxic for most. (We cured the disease but lost the patient.)
All levity aside, reportedly, efficacious outcomes seems improved with much smaller safer non lethal doses of the chemo, with the inclusion of a fairly common and also already approved arthritis or rheumatism treatment/medication.
Given both medications are already approved, all we now need are a few HIV positive,( with virtually nothing to lose,) volunteers and some researchers, not hamstrung by big pharma and their pecuniary interests?
Another noble prize anyone?
And the prize money and or the future capital inflows/royalties, wouldn't hurt any uni's fiscal position either!
Rhrosty.

JKJ wants to label socialism as authoritarian - but wants to destroy the public sphere and bury pluralism. The result would be a barren society devoid of insight or criticism. Barren technocracy buttressed by a mutation and distortion of liberal ideology; narrowed down to the point where it applies only to ECONOMIC liberalism. Liberal democracy demands CHOICE. But JKJ is so convinced HE is right he sees no place for diversity of exposure to a variety of ideas.

At least socialist thinkers like Eric Aarons attempt to ENGAGE with the Austrian School - in Aaron's case a book on Hayek - "Hayek versus Marx". JKJ reminds me of Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks... That the mistakes or a real mass movement are infinitely more valuable than a supposedly 'infallible' central committee.

JKJ thinks HE is infallible. Hence pluralism goes out the window... (and with it meaningful democracy)

I certainly agree all influential schools of thought should be taught. I’m not sure they all need to be represented. Some really influential thinkers laid the foundations for later ideas that no-one really espouses today. You’d be hard-pressed to find a self-described Kantian, Lockean or even Hegelian nowadays, but their intellectual DNA has shaped many subsequent ideologies. I also support the idea that there should be a diversity of positions and perspectives represented in humanities departments.

However, a good teacher should be capable of explaining fairly the strengths of ideas they oppose and the weaknesses of the ones they espouse. Complete impartiality may be unattainable, but this remark saddened me: “There was no way I was going to risk poorer marks just to debate lecturers over supposed knowledge certainties.” In my experience, lecturers do give credit for well-constructed arguments, even if they disagree with them. It sounds like the problem is as much with the quality of your teachers, as their ideologies.

Rhian,

yes I think it a lot to do with quality of teaching which also comes down to each knowing the strengths and weaknesses of their positions, as you suggest.

For example, when I did aust history, I never felt comfortable enough to offer my concerns with multiculturalism. The concept was presented as beyond challenge, as being 100% right. While I also support it, I would have liked to express my concerns about getting the balance right.

there was never an indication from the teaching that this was even possible.

Did get a HD though, but would have liked to have tested the essay question much more.

Now I was in my early 30s, so how would an 18-20 year old go.

That is my whole point about quality humanities. Have extensive debate that address all the points and concerns in society. A normative position should be able to address concerns, without having to ignore them.