Much of the substance of James McConvill's article defends a publication by his professional collegue (and probably friend)Mirko Bagaric, in this context, it is a bit intellectually dishonest of him not to declare his affiliations, however briefly, as part of the article, the impression given is that he is just defending intellectualism in a detached and academic manner when he is (at least partially) going in to bat for a friend. There is nothing wrong with doing that but it should be made clear.

However I disagree with the assertion that McConvill is arguing that people who disagree with Bagaric and Clarke's views are "intellectually mediocre". In fact the article expressly states "Once understanding their views, we are of course free to disagree - even strongly." he is attempting to make the valid and important point that academics should not be pilloried for unconventional and/or unpopular publications by individuals (or by populist media) that have not actually read and understood their work. What he finds intellectually mediocre is not criticism but criticism without even an attempt to read and understand the view being criticised. This is in fact very much what happened, there was an impulsive media reaction against the proposition advanced in the article- that torture is in some cases justified- yet i wonder how many of these critics actually read the paper Bagaric and Clarke published. I suspect much of the furore is due to the unfortunate timing of the publication post Gumantanomo Bay etc, in fact emminent American law professor Alan Dershowitz has for years advanced the same proposition and never faced such criticism.

In fact, as I just realised, the really amusing (actually pathetic rather than amusing) thing is that the paper copping all this flack has not yet even been published - see http://www.usfca.edu/lawreview/upcoming.html - so it's impossible (unless they recieved advance copies) that all it's detractors have even managed to read it yet. That's the kind of intellectual laziness and mediocrity that's really the problem, that's what will intimidate academics from "pushing the boundaries" and publishing contraversial views. That will be harmful to all of us by stemming debate and promoting a "dumbed down", compliant society. By all means criticise people's arguments, that's what intellectual debate's all about, but isn't it fair to at least give them a hearing (ie reading) first?

Lubs - your comments are the kind of intellectual laziness and mediocrity that's really the problem. A version of the article can be found at the link below. The Age 17/05/05.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/A-case-for-torture/2005/05/16/1116095904947.html?oneclick=true

I think it's a bit of a stretch, Audrey, to regard an unreferenced 1000 word SUMMARY in a daily newspaper as a valid "version" of an academic research paper based on which the paper's argument may be dismissed out of hand. Research papers published in Law Journals typically run to 30 pages or more and contain not just assertions but arguments backed up by reference to case law and legal analysis. None of that was present in the short tabloid summary you have cited. To regard the Age article you have cited (complete with disparaging cartoon) as a valid exposition upon which to rest a reasoned academic counter-argument is like deeming newspaper reports about scientific studies to have the same academic standing as the industry journals in which the actual studies are published

Despite my better instincts, I have to support Lubs here. It's not possible for anybody who hasn't read Bagaric and Clarke's paper to offer any kind of real analysis, and the fact that it now turns out that it hasn't yet been subject to peer review only underlines that point.

Mind you, its premature release is a matter of concern (IMHO) - in my experience, while individual academics are undoubtedly held to ransom by the realpolitik of survival in our contemporary 'universities', the academic journals that have always been the bedrock of intellectual discourse (for at least the last few centuries) remain relatively immune to the kinds of pressures to which McConvill refers.

On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer.

This is an interesting forum. I find something to agree on with all the posters - except for frankgol's nitpicking.

Yes McConvill should have been honest about his affiliations. However, the issue he raises is of great concern to me.

When the Bagaric and Clarke piece was summarised in the Age, I predicted the resultant furore that raged about their views. Personally I do not countenance torture under any circumstances, however I will not deny anyone the opportunity to discuss this contemporarily pertinent issue.

I believe it does highlight an encroaching anti-intellectualism - with conservative right wing politics on the ascendancy it is fashionable to dismiss any form of intellectualism as limp left idealism.

We need to foster our great minds and the universities are the only places where they can be nourished.

Mediocrity is a tool for control and has been utilised by both political extremes - currently the far right.

Bagaric and Clarkes paper should be published in its entirety for effective debate to take place - will it see the light of day?