Your experience sounds identical to mine, Chris. I too did a BA in the Humanities, then a PhD, and then went on to teach for a number of years (I am still teaching).

There is a lot of conformity in the Humanities in a few key areas: gay marriage, multiculturalism, asylum seekers, capitalism, Australian/European history, feminism, race. Never speak too far out of line on these issues, otherwise you will be marginalised and you can kiss your academic career good bye.

The stringent conformity on these issues makes a mockery of what the Humanities is supposed to be about: critical thinking, researching, and good writing. When it comes to these topics, the very thing that makes the Humanities unique (critical thinking) is to be suspended! I found that researching and writing outside the university altogether is a much freer experience.

In my experience the 'groupthink' is too deeply embedded, and therefore reform cannot occur from the inside. Only outside pressures will reform the Humanities, and this will most likely take the form of funding cuts. Unfortunately, "progressive" academics only have themselves to blame. They forgot that the academe is a place of critical thinking and took it to be a political arm of Labor and/or the Greens.

I unaware of any conservative thinkers being used in the Humanities. Maybe Durkheim? But he is the butt of jokes to the Marxist and post-structuralist thinkers. Post-structuralism has pretty much taken full control of how all issues are to be viewed. Added to this is the inherited Marxist view of an oppressor and oppressed class, and that the oppressed class is always innocent and just, while the oppressor is the cause of all misery. This is where all the 'victim' groups become centre stage for Humanities academics. You get gay cheer squads, non-white ethnic/race cheer squads, socialist cheer squads, anarchist cheer squads, feminist cheer squads etc.

@Tristan, just as a matter of interest, how many public advocates for Marxism can you name -- outside of China and North Korea -- who are employed somewhere OTHER than the public service? I doubt very much if the worldwide number would reach four digits, maybe not even three.

JJ: Marxists for today... - off the top of my head - let's see....

Structuralist Marxists - let's see - Wallerstein for instance;

Historians: E.J.Hobsbawm - but he's recently deceased; Ralph Miliband's son, Ed is now leader of the British Labour Party...

Peter Beilharz at Latrobe is an expert on Marxism - especially Gramsci, Trotsky, Revisionism and Orthodox Marxism, Fabianism, modern mainstream social democracy inc in the ALP... I'm not sure if he still considers himself a Marxist - but like me he considers it an inspiration a times... He's also involved in Thesis Eleven (a radical journal)

There are also radicals influenced by Marxism in the Journal of Australian Political Economy, Marxist Left Review, New Left Review, Links Journal, Arena Journal and Arena Magazine

The small Leninist organisations have their own intellectuals... For instance Alex Callinicos in Britain...

Economist John Quiggin is influenced by Marxism - but is "not a revolutionary" - hence "Marxism without revolution'....

The SEARCH Foundation in Australia continues to promote social debate and originated in the Marxist tradition... But today accommodates a relatively broad spectrum: David McKnight, Eric Aarons and others...

Sheri Berman is now a democratic revisionist - though recognises the historical importance of Marxism.... Christopher Pierson has moderated a bit I think - But is still a democratic socialist and an authority on Marxism...

There's Terry Eagleton as well in Britain; Robin Blackburn...

Oh I forgot the post-Marxists - Mouffe and Laclau; As well as Slavoj Zizek; Then there's Critical Theorists like Jurgen Habermas....

So there are a few that make a living from books and films. But most of those you list seem to be subsisting largely or entirely from the public purse.

Chris,

I enjoyed this essay, just as I have your earlier pieces in Quadrant. I think Rhian expressed my view best: a good teacher should be able to set out well the intellectual force of any system of ideas, even if he/she disagrees with them. That's what good teachers are like.

It is so long since I was teaching at university, but then (the 1970s) we also had people who pushed a line and were dismissive of ideas that were not part of their orthodoxy. Maybe it's worse now. I simply don't know.

But I don't think that what you write about is only a modern phenomenon.