Kathe- The Deakin Law Review's mission statement states it should accept only high scholarly work. Now a quick glance at some of the references available, such as the 'Color of Crime' quickly dispels the theory that this in fact is high scholarly work, merely a written piece of his earlier public comments.

Perhaps Deakin were wrong to reject it in terms of the legal action being propsed by Newhouse, but what is clear is that in scholarly circles this did not fit the bill. Even Fraser himself on the radio program 'Hack' told Steve Cannane's audience that the arguments supporting his evidence were in fact weak- and that 'weak' evidence finds itself into his essay.

See it can also be argued that Professor Fraser would not at all be unhappy with the current status quo. As a law professor he would have known that he would face opposition and legal challenges to the article, even more so considering he is currently facing pending legal action also. So he went about emailing all his friends in various right wing places such as AMREN asking them to email support to Professor Sally Walker at Deakin. Yet in the act of doing so, in the event that his article wasn't going to be published he then had ready made support for what we see happening now.

Arguably he may be better off with it not published. After all its now on the net, blogs, forums and the like are in overdrive on the matter. Seems that Fraser got his wish or so it seems- debate is off and running once again, and those free speech champions should have little to complain about now.

Kathe, anyone who chips away at the edifice of multiculturalism must be a racist and xenophobe; well that's how the modern mantra goes. A carapace has been placed around the 'sacred cow' known as multiculturalism and none may dare question the wisdom of bringing into our country racists, religious bigots, misogynists, misanthropes, anhedonic despots and others who will only guarantee the immiseration of our society. Any departure from the bien-pensant consensus that multiculturalism will 'enrichen the tapestry of the Australian way of life' signals a degree of independence which must be exposed and denounced.

In 1988, Fitzgerald was commissioned by the Hawke government to report on multiculturalism. Fitzgerald's report suggested that it should be made clear to people coming to live here that they had to accept institutions and principles such as parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of the individual as well as of speech, the press and religion, equality of women and universal education. Fitzgerald's report was tossed into the political Lethe.

As if to antagonise our politicians, Stephen Rimmer was asked to conduct a study on multiculturalism. "Rimmer asserts that it was costing the taxpayers more than AUD$7.2 billion each year. The costs were shared by direct spending on multicultural programs and indirectly through lost productivity and output, and social welfare and workers' compensation from perceived lack of English. Some 300,000 migrants have little or no English and of these, 170,000 are in the workforce. Claims for compensation that can be traced to migrant workers' inability to understand English total approximately AUD$13 million a year".

The government didn't like his report (1991) so it failed to publish it. Mr Rimmer published it himself.

Academics, pundits, the opinionated, the wise, bigots, racists, woolly thinkers, bleeding hearts, hard hearts, the foolish, the sensible and the outrageous should all be published, as long as what they write is readable.

However, the extraordinary smugness of Europeans (and I am one) who feel comfortable with theories that equate certain skills and abilities with race, terrifies me.

These are more than opinions, these are the tools used in the past to justify slavery, apartheid and mass murder. Let us proceed very, very carefully when we tread in this area.

As a woman, I know what it feels like to be told that things you cannot change about yourself impact on your perceived merit as a thinking human being. These charges should not be tossed about lightly, smugly or regarded as merely an intellectual exercise.

You may be streets ahead intellectually Kathy, but I wonder how your genes rate on compassion and, perhaps, wisdom?

A few quotes from the article: how can you suggest these
belong in a serious academic article?

which can and should be resisted by all patriotic Australians

strange alliance of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies ... set out deliberately to flood the Anglo-Australian homeland with a polyglot mass of Third World immigrants
[with no particulars, details, justification or citations]

Then, for a brief, shining moment, the patriotic instincts of the more "parochial," outer suburban, white Australians found a political voice

The easiest way for Fraser and Deakin Law Review to convince the public that they were entitled to the benefit of the 'academic debate' exemption under the racial vilification laws would be to release the referees' reports on the article. This would be an unusual step (one which would require the referees' consent), but it could help clear up any debate about the article's content and motivations.

If two reputable specialists in what Fraser calls 'racial reality' (who I suspect would need to be found outside Australian law schools, eg in genetics or psychology) recommended its publication, I say let them publish it. Then the rest of us can get to work either refuting it, or changing our minds about these issues. That's what journals should be for, whatever other functions they serve.

Well the problem now seems to be the fact that according to this article Fraser was invited to publlish his article by McConvill. Does this mean that perhaps after the initial rejection of the article as quoted in The Australian that McConvill sought out more suitable referees as to save face after inviting Fraser to publish?

Since Frasers racial realists come from America or so it seems, you would struggle to find someone here who is an expert in 'racial realism' to actually peer review him.

It might be OK to have one overseas referee and one Australian one, if you got the right mix of expertise. The public does need to be reassured that the refereeing process happened properly.

Looking at the article, one could be lulled into thinking that there are only 2 alternatives to the issue of race and society, i.e.

Racial Realism
Social Determinism.

One worrisome aspect which reared it's rather ugly head was the association of the word 'superiority' in association with racial realism.

That there are real differences based on race is without question. Massai are 'taller' than caucasians, Asians generally are 'shorter'.
There are various skin colors. In personality terms, "Italians talk with their hands, and are very emotional" "Malays are very laid back"
Some groups like the Bajau of Sabah, Malaysia are well known for their willingness to kill a passing motorist for nothing more than accidently driving over one of their chickens. Bugis are 'pirates'. Kadazan women are particularly good business people.
Iban/Dayaks will usually expect you know their language if you have stayed with them for a few weeks.

On the other hand, ideology + ethnicity may be more important factors in determining social compatability.

If certain ideologies which would undermine our value system can be linked strongly to a particular ethnic group, then this should be a telling sign on the issue of compatability.

The white australia policy may have been a combination of the flawed 'superiority' view with an afterthought justification of compatability.
We should be past such ideas by this time and focus just on compatability.

The real issue for a host country is to determine social,cultural and political compatability. These are judgements that have to be made, without reference to any sense of superiority, or doctrine of racial pre-eminence

Perhaps the real reason white Americans didnt go into the superdome was because in fact they were able to drive out of there homes more readily.

Fraser has yet to prove exactly how Australia will become a third world nation- where are these hordes of invaders, where are the open borders he describes so vividly- and of course no mention of detention centres anywhere in Fraser's essay.

The only argument he has to back up his essay- "that experience practically everwhere else has shown"- and of course he expects the Australian public to fall for a blatantly poor piece of intellectual garbage.

There is a good discussion of the demerits of the Fraser article on http://www.redrag.net/2005/09/21/fraser/. It looks like the refereeing process did fail.

I think that this latest version of dressed-up white supremacism was actually the result of a typo, when somebody wrote "racial realism" when they meant to say "real racism".

It's also evident that people who advocate this latest racist ideology typically confuse culture with so-called 'race'.

There is one point in which I agree with Kathe, the article, once approved by two 'blind' reviewers, should have been published. Having been such a reviewer on many occasions, I also realise such the merits of reviews are not beyond question. Having read the article, I think there are many obvious flaws in style as well as argument so he should have been rejected because of his use of polemical language to make political rather than academic arguments. I would not accept this type of writing from my students and, note, it is the style I criticise, not the content. I mark down students who may take a line they feel I approve of, because the excercise is to make a case according to academic criteria, not write a polemical screed, however worthy in political terms.

However, these criticism aside and my obvious disagreement with both the content and blind reviewers, I am concerned that not publishing it only gives oxygen to those who want to be martyrs to a presumed 'establishment' view. And it does breach the tenets of academic free speech. His arguments can be refuted as they are both ill founded and incosistent and should have been allowed to suffer the same obscurity of most journal articles. Few make much impact and those of limited quality havelittle afterlife. So banning it makes more of it than it merits. It sets a dangerous precedent of political censorship as well,which could spread to oither views, such as mine in other political climates.

eva cox

"Anti-racist” intellectuals here will pretend to think while the rest of us will pretend to pay attention to their politically correct sermonising. "

I find it more disturbing that Kathe Boehringer thinks anti-racism is simply an intellectual endeavour. I wish it was so simple

The main area of interest about Andrew Fraser is not if he is right or wrong, but if his detractors are right or wrong. And if so, about what? Their theme seems to be that Fraser is misguided or racist or both and his published views should not be taken seriously - at best - or made effectively unavailable to the public. OK, so much for Fraser.

But what do his detractors believe? That all humans are an intellectual blank slate just waiting for the right home? At this point they become a little quieter as DNA still hides more than Andrew Fraser and his detractors can possibly know.

Race and IQ is not a debate. It is a drama. Fraser's detractors concentrate on Fraser and his character and nothing else, least of all a body of evidence to bolster any counter argument. Rather they would deconstruct the very idea of race which would go right over the head of the last Martian that landed. Darwin too, probably. Deconstruction basically scuppers conversation. And scuppering conversation is what it is all about.

Fraser detractors show the same morality that once led efficient clergy and concerned citizens to expose people who doubted the existence of God. And the use of words was similar, "heretic" literally painting a persons character as "racist" does today.

The cruelest cut of all is the possibilty that the drama aspect will work against the very people who are central to the debate - the sub saharan Africans who are dying in droves and have been for years and years - still counting. Remember them? The consequences of Fraser being right and his detractors wrong are predicatable in the unforgiving evolutionary world.

Better to face up to an unpleasant truth if it saves so many from an on going Holocaust.

And that is something that Fraser's detractors, more concerned with their moral vanity-or jobs, will never do.

Once again government interference (i.e. the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act) has resulted in limiting free speech. Surely we are mature enough as a nation to allow people to say what they want without being reduced to tears!

Well it seems that Kathe may have had a conflict of interest on this one- as she actually lives with Fraser:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16742742%255E12332,00.html

So now we have to consider the article from a whole new perspective- was her personal interest outweighed by her professional one in this instance?

She lives with Andrew Fraser! You are kidding!
Hmm, does that mean her racial characteristics include a gene for deceit and shiftiness? Was such shoddy behaviour inborn? Or is it to do with the way she was brought up? Or, is Kathe merely human with the same number of strengths and weaknesses as all the rest of us, white, black or brindle coloured?
If only those who claimed racial superiority ever gave any evidence themselves of living up to their claims, instead they almost always make me wish I belonged to any racial group but theirs.

I am not kidding- stranger even was a post by Fraser himself on the majority rights website which stated his wife thought his initial comments were a "stupid racist rant"

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1153/

scroll down for Fraser's comment.

We can now turn to an ethical debate here- Kathe should have mentioned to the editors of this site that she in fact lives with Fraser. Instead she tell us that they are just collegues- she has surely fooled the readers of the article, not to mention the editors of Online opinion.

No, we didn't know about Kathe's personal relationship when we published. When I saw The Australian yesterday I sent an email to Kathe asking for clarification. I received a response today and she describes herself as a "longterm girlfriend". A declaration will go on the article.

While I agree that conflicts of interest like this should be declared up-front, I don't believe that they invalidate arguments, although they may make you look a little closer at them. We would still have published if we had known in advance.

True Graham- whilst her argument may be reasonable, we might still have to consider where the boundaries of professional and personal interest collide and what, if any impact they have on the article itself.

Any further readers of the article should keep in mind the personal interest of the author, and weigh up whether or not she can still be objective on the issue, irrespective of the quality of her argument.