I recognise your point Lubs but I don't think we're arguing here over the content of the USFLR version. If that were the only place the major tenet of their argument could be found then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. What are you arguing here Lubs? That we don't dare judge a university professor on an opinion piece appearing in a newspaper and that in fact it's not even remotely like the original piece?! If you feel that strongly about all opinion pieces, what are you doing here on the OO site? Bagaric and Clarke chose to place that piece in the Age and to appear on the front page, placing it firmly in the public domain. Knowingly. Which means that the public (and academics) have the right to judge the merit of its argument in that forum. Which also means that it's ridiculous and intellectual elitism to then argue that every detractor is a complete idiot and how dare they question the work of such a 'noble' academic etc, etc. If you don't want comment from 'fools' as you so kindly refer to Malcolm Fraser and everyone else that chose to debunk their argument, then don't put it in the public domain. Most academic argument never sees the light of day beyond subscriber content and maybe 200 avid readers. That can't be deemed the work of a 'true' intellectual if it's out of reach. A bunch of academics arguing dispassionately over sub-clause C in reference to argument B seems a bit in-humane and reminiscent of Hitler when you consider the content of the argument. James is arguing that intellectuals should be aiming: "to foster discourse, engender debate and enrich the community."

From experience, the full argument won't be substantially different to the abridged version. It'll just take longer to get to the point.

First of all, I wonder whether Bagaric and Clarke chose to place that opinion piece in the Age and initiate this debate or whether perhaps what happened was that the import of the research paper to be published in the USFLR had already been leaked and the pre-emptive criticism had started so that the piece in the Age was a defensive attempt to stem the furore...I don't know, it just seems a bit strange for academics to pre-empt their own paper. As such Bagaric and Clarke may not have chosen to put their argument in the public domain prior to the publication of their paper...

Audrey, I don't think i referred to anyone as "fools" and I certainly agree that ordinary people are justified in commenting based on newspaper opinion pieces, no one expects them to go and seek out a 30 page academic treatise before they are justified in having an opinion.

What I take issue with are other university academics, public figures and so-called intellectuals that presume to criticise Bagaric and Clarke without having read their research paper. These people's opinions are cited in public debate as those of experts and thus are expected to be grounded in logical argument rather than pure assertion and gut reaction. As fellow academics they should show the professional curtesy of reading a research paper before they tear it to shreads.

How can the opinions of professional academics who are supposed to be experts in their field and thus bring something new to the debate "foster discourse, engender debate and enrich the community" when they resort to the same plane of argument as ordinary lay people?

Intellectualism is on the decline for precisely because of the often ridiculous ideas that are generated by the intelligentsia. McConvill argues that articles defending torture should be given a fair hearing. Why? I think that, thankfully, rather than being dumbed down as the author argues, the general population is suspicious of such ideas precisely because they are well educated.

The first world war was encouraged by most intellectuals in Europe, as too was the second by the academia of Germany (after they had discharged their opposition of course). Indeed, the present war in Iraq is attributable to the Neo-Conservatives, not just in the US, but around the world. While I support intellectuals and academics, as well as increased funding for education and universities, the population in general expect to be led forwards by their teachers, not to be taken back to the dark ages.

McConvill's paper on this site was not about torture. He used this forum to make a claim that mediocrity is on the rise in universities. He asserted that the outcry that followed the publication in the Age of a paper written by his Head of School and another of his colleagues---which was about torture---was somehow evidence of this rising mediocrity.

My point was that McConvill offered no substantive evidence in support of his claim. He merely castigated those who disagreed with Bagaric and Clarke as anti-intellectual. And because there were so many critics, he concluded that these people represented a downward trend to intellectual mediocrity. By contrast, he insinuates that those who support his views and those of his colleagues are the true intellectuals who deserve respect and should be exempt from the critical scrutiny that came their way.

McConvill's proposition about the role of academics and intellectuals (not necessarily the same, it should be noted) was compromised by the paucity of his own argument.

Torture is wrong. I think it is a universal truth. I always thought that academics were the guardians of human rights. How does torturing people protect that universal truth? How does using state-sanctioned torture protect the rest of us from torture? How does promoting it as valid method of information gathering reduce the likelihood of other inhumane methods being legitimised? I think people who advocate torture undermine basic human rights.

Making fun of the defenders of human rights because they prefer soy de-caf lattes is wrong. I always thought academics respected other people and didn't attack others' culture (especially not to speciously further their own opinion). How does drinking decaf affect your academic ability? I think such carry on undermines the credibility of academic debate.

You might satisfy an immediate end by using torture but ultimately you will help destroy a basic human right. Utilitarianism usually lends itself readily to fascism . I also don't think it is a coincidence that a couple of academics are supporting a procedure that our government apparently supports and a philosophy that Howard's mob have always believed in (Mills' stuff). So the next question. Is it academic discourse or propaganda? Is it philosophically driven or ideologically driven? Can anything be philosophically untainted in our politically charged environment? I think academics concerned here have let us down. People get upset about this kind of thing because they have a memory. They have heard all the justifications for advocating inhumane treatment before and they know where it leads. Haven't these academics read any history?

I think the "reasoning" behind justifying torture is similar as that used by terrorists to justify killing innocent folk, those involved in the tortures of the Inquistition, Stalin, Hiltler and so on. The trouble with some academics is they haven't had a split lip or felt the sting of injustice. I think that if the academics experienced a good dose of sleep deprivation, were "mistakenly" suspected and tortured (and subjected to a daily diet of de-caf soy latte) they'd change their thinking.

"THE DEGREE FACTORIES" – 4 CORNERS MONDAY 27 JUNE

Next on Four Corners: What’s a university degree worth in the 21st century? Is the race for dollars breeding leaner, smarter universities? Or are they dumbing down in a quest to survive?

Four Corners examines the winner-takes-all strategy that will see Dr Nelson manoeuvring key resources – like prestige-loaded research funding – into selected centres of excellence. New private universities, including big name brands from overseas, will be encouraged.

Lacking the funding or the cache to keep their market share of foreign students, some struggling universities may be stripped of their status entirely.

Featuring forthright interviews with vice chancellors, lecturers and scholars, including Nobel laureate Peter Doherty, foreign and Australian students and Minister Brendan Nelson, this report explores the depth of today’s university crisis and what sort of education tomorrow’s students can expect.

Ticky Fullerton reports on "The Degree Factories" – Four Corners, 8.30pm, Monday 27 June.

This program will be repeated about 11pm Wednesday 29 June; also on ABC2 digital channel at 7pm and 9.45pm Wednesday.

Four Corners
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/