YEBIGA says, "What makes Marx revolutionary and unique was not his specific theories but the framing of an economic narrative which enables alternative economic theorems to be imagined."

Now have I got this right Yebiga? You are telling us Marx had a good imagination, as we would expect in writers of fiction?

cohenite,

When I tutored at unis, i always made it a point to begin the term by sharing my view that there is no right or wrong answer on the issues we are learning about.

Whether left or right, or labor or liberal, argue what you like, but please do the readings and provide ample evidence. Who was I, still a student of politics, to tell people different.

The Bolt article is interesting. I would describe myself as centre-left, if I had to. I know we need to be much more competitive, but hold my belief that all aussies should have access to a decent health service and education system. In other words, we should all have opportunity to progress. But this view may also be shared by many liberals and national party people and supporters.

But, we all have different views on different issues. Take work-for-the-dole. I support it, but I recognise that there may be some problems with an over-reliance on such scheme. Again, it is up to left and right sympathisers to debate so we can get balance right.

But no, many academics blasted the policy as divisive and unnecessary, despite the overwhelming majority of Aussies supporting it, including a majority on benefits.

Logic would tell anyone that society is going to get tougher if there is fewer resources to throw around, but we can become more competitive and fair at same time. This will be test of Australia in coming years.

So-called right wingers are also progressive at times, so anyone who views one side of politics as progressive (Labor bias), loses me immediately.

That was the whole point of my first Quadrant piece, How the Opposition makes a difference. for example, I noted how the Coalition came to accept medicare rather than merely wipe it out.

A good idea or analysis which can show how a policy can work, or that needs to be addressed like now, is just that.

The bottom line is that liberal democracy is best served by pluralism.

This means there should be a mixture of most perspectives at our universities, and even taught in secondary curriculum. The aim should be imparting critical capacities and ideological/political/values literacy.

Both affirmative and critical perspectives need to be taught whether we are talking about Marxism and its successor schools; or all the various historical streams of Social Democracy; or whether we are talking about 'compassionate conservatism', big 'C' Conservatism, Neo-Conservatism; political liberalism, social liberalism, economic liberalism etc.

But some of the right-wing commentators here seem to want a "one dimensional society"; and would wipe criticism from the face of academia. Some of them seem to want to trash the Humanities and Social Sciences all together.

Again: meaningful democracy involves pluralism; and Pluralism involves comprehension of a broad and representative range of values systems and critical intellectual frameworks.

We need to educate people to be informed citizens participating in a democracy of both breadth and depth. 'Education for the labour market' is not enough. Even pursuing academic excellence is not enough. Because even those who do no excel academically can still acquire crucial life skills - including as active and informed citizens.

This is the problem with the Conservative agenda for education; for instance as promoted by Kevin Donnelly. They want a curriculum which is 'purely celebratory' and frankly Ideological.

But I think Donnelly appears a moderate compared with some people here...

JKJ: The true class analysis of government funding of universities is that the state, being built on a legal monopoly of force and fraud, has need of the services of intellectuals to justify its existence, otherwise the exploitation and slavery that you advocate, would be all too obvious to its victims.

I actually agree with you here.

Rhian: “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.

C.l.: when I did aust history, I never felt comfortable enough to offer my concerns with multiculturalism.

Aristocrat: 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.

I have never been to Uni. I finished school in 1961, did Junior (G10) & failed. However I have made up for it slowly over the past 55 years. with an Engineering Trade & Certificate 111 in Business, IT & Electronics. Somehow I have always been surrounded by Professors of some description. One thing I noticed about the Professors is that most of them couldn't tie their own shoe laces. I guess that's where I came in because I'm SG2+, or able to do & retain anything. My job, to fix everything they #u(k#d up. But enough about me.
Cont.

cont
Life experience is a good teacher. One of my neighbours was an Environmental Scientist Professor at James Cook & married to my cousin whose father was a ridigee dige. "Red on the Bed." As a good ex Catholic school boy we had many great discussions on Communism & what it could offer the world. The professor led many Environmental Campaigns. He told me that if his students didn't attend, so many demonstrations, with him they would be failed.

My now neighbour is also an Environmentalist but not so "Hard Core" & while not so good in the handy department he's learning. My son did a business degree at Griffiths. At his graduation the Guest speaker was introduced as the most prestigious Son of the University. We listened to a list accolades. He did his speech & it was then I remembered what it was that was troubling me about this chap. Every Corporation he had been head of had gone into receivership. Three in all.

When I was finished doing my Certificate in Business at T.A.F.E. (all right, don't laugh.) The CEO of the Corporation came to the after dinner celebration. I asked him why it was that we learn all this stuff but none of it is actually used by the Corporation. His reply, "Because we have a business to run, that's why."
Cont.

Cont.
One of my wife old best friend did her degree, ?. She became a Women's Councillor at Women's Shelter. Her entire demeanour changed though that course. From a nice Lady to a fully fledged Boiler suite wearing Feminist & & ALL men were evil.
.
One of my diggers in the A.R.E.S. was also doing that degree. He put an ad in the paper for people that had been suffered Domestic Violence. I replied & we talked. I gave him many leads of men who had suffered similarly. This was to be his final paper. He handed it in & was told quite bluntly that if he submitted "THAT" paper he would be failed. as only men were violent & all women were victims. He came to see me crying & had to redo the paper. I told him, 'just change the gender." He did & passed.

So Rhian, Aristocrat & C.L. you are right. You either conform to what the Teacher wants to hear or fail. It's a great system we have, eh.