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