If Andrew Fraser was genuinely putting forward an intellectually sustainable argument, then James McConvill would be right to defend him. However, it really isn't a matter of academic freedom. It's a matter of an academic trading on his title to promote unfounded and rascist views. Macquarie University is quite right to penalize him on these grounds.

Take this quote from Fraser's letter and interview in the Parramatta Sun - 13/7/05 (which sparked the SMH piece) "Experience practically everywhere shows us that where you have a rising black population, you have an increase in crime, violence and other social problems."

Notice the deliberate vagueness and generalizations: practically everywhere, black population... He makes no attempt to found statements like this in statistical or sociological studies. And they come in the context of an ill-informed defence of a long-gone 'Anglo-Celtic' only Australia.

This is not the intellectual rigour that McConvill argues our Universities need.

Unfortunately James McConvill missed the point. When Professor Fraser was espousing his racist views he was not purpoting to speak just as an individual, but as a professor of public law at Macquarie University.

Having checked with the Department I could not find how racial profiling and the racial screening of migrants to Australia is a public law issue. Nor can I find any papers authored by Professor Fraser in his academic capacity that research any purported racial distinctions.

His racist views are his personal views not his academic views. Therefore Macquarie University are well within their rights to take steps to stop him propounding these views under his academic title.

It is surprising that James McConvill misses this important point because he clearly understands the distinction between personal comment and academic expression with regards to his own writings. I note that Mr McConvill did not sign off "James McConvill, Lecturer in Law, Deakin University Law School, Melbourne, Australia". Rather he concludes his opinion piece with the following important rider:

"The views expressed in this article are his personal views, and do not represent the views of Deakin University."

The question here is not academic freedom. It is academic integrity. Professor Fraser is not a martyr. He is a very silly boy.

regards,

David Shoebridge

Here, Here.

Here we go again - James takes an incident of academic mediocrity and holds it up as an example of how he feels that australian universities are stomping on all the intellectuals and not allowing them to wander around spouting whatever they see fit. Thing is, a senior position in a university brings with it a responsibility to present the facts and not fiction. It doesn't give you a licence to peddle your baseless 'beliefs'.

I think it's a hoot that you've written what is essentially an advertorial for yourself and doesn't actually present any reasonable argument in defence of Fraser. Instead you're just taking the opportunity to carry on about how much better Deakin is than Macquarie. When you say that you ".. praise my lucky stars that I work at a progressive and enlightened institution like Deakin University..", I'm amused because Deakin Law School wasn't so 'enlightened' only recently when it tried to distance itself from it's Head, Mirko Bagaric, after he promoted the virtues of legalising torture. In one of your other articles, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3543, you actually expressed frustration at the lack of intellectual freedom at Deakin.

David Shoebridge, thankyou for saving me the time to research exactly what you've provided as evidence and reason.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to insult - and Fraser has shown he has lost the plot. What he has said is blatantly racist and inflamatory. How indeed, could this be considered scholarship in public law?

We live in a moral community as well as one where free speech should be encouraged and defended. But this comes with a clear responsibility to uphold the public good of our commmunity.

This is really funny coming from an academic who has written countless bullsh*t articles (usually in conjunction with his Deakin Law Professor Mirko Bagaric)!

James, you and Mirko need to help out with the colonic flush by resigning from the Deakin faculty. You're embarrasssing your university and your law school.

I think this article expresses the situation at Aussie Universities quite well, despite what one thinks of those involved (Aslan's comments above)

Sure, disagree on the content or arguments made by the professor/lecturer, but certainly don't criticise them for MAKING their claims unless there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support their claims. And if there is no evidence, then ensure people know this and get the accurate picture.

I was surprised when an academic at my Uni (Adelaide) made a comment in my psychology lectures last Semester stating that on average, blacks have an IQ of 10 points less than whites and asians, on average, have an IQ of 10 points higher than whites. I was surprised because by the sounds of things at Macquarie and Deakin over the border, my lecturer was very lucky to be allowed to make this statement, which he backed up with hard evidence. Fortunately, his views were not criticised, to my knowledge or at least if they were, never amounted to anything like cutting his contract.

So basically, make any claim you like, but have hard evidence to back it up. This is where I would think Marko Bigaric et al probably got things wrong. The proper and only response from the University should have been to remind Mr Bigaric that evidence should be cited to back his claims of advocating torture in some situations. Otherwise, they should just get on with life and let Mr Bigaric know, through the public channels, that his views are baseless and ridiculous.

It appears that a number of claims have been made by Professor Fraser which don't appear to be being tested.
- Comments about the average IQ of sub Saharan African's. Is there a basis for those claims. If so is the average IQ of those making it to Australia reflective of the home situation. Even if the average IQ of the african population was below the australian norm (maybe most of the smarter ones have been persecuted at home) it is be reasonable to suggest that those who make it to our shores might be above average. Also is there any proof that this group is over represented in crime figures in australia?
- Asian's are smarter and therefore more successfull. Again I have not seen proof that this is the case. If it is true it might not help me or my son to rise to the top of the pile but it might make the pile a better place to be. What problem does this cause Australia, other than pecking order consequences to the less gifted?

Lets see the professors proofs and if they exist test them for validity and relevance.

R0bert

I see 'RObert' asking for 'proofs' of the different national IQs alluded to by Macquarie's Professor Andrew Fraser. I would refer him to R. Lynn & T. Vanhanen [the father of the present Prime Minister of Finland], 2002, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Praeger. -- For a summary, see http://www.vdare.com/sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm - or for a fuller review see http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AGDMFV3NSIUCZ/102-7602252-8172125. It is amusing that 'anti-racists' don't seem to read anything these days, even though my own explanation of IQ and its genetic basis has been freely available for some years at http://www.douance.org/qi/brandtgf.htm.

The fact that James has to quote 4 paragraphs from one of his previous op ed pieces as authority in this op ed says it all.

James and Mirko: quantity in publishing doesn't mean its quality.

Why do lawyers who don't cut the mustard in legal practice think academia is an optional (and easier) career move?

Take it easy, Rainier. Most of us agree with you, upaco and Audrey

Dr. Fraser is "learned", not "educated". There is a big difference between the two. I could not fail to notice the lack of "presence". If Fraser walked into a boardroom, I personally would not be impressed - his glasses, personal grooming, choice of clothes, etc, give a first (all important) poor impression. I must say, there are only 3 universities in Australia that are of global reputation and Macquairie is not one of them. One does not need a GMAT score to get into the MGSM. People who cant survive the real world tend to become "academics". In the acedemic world IQ is the buzz word, in the real world it's EI - Emotional Intelligence. And that's the difference between being learned and being educated.

Hills - thanks for a very interesting comment. I left academia after 10 or so years. I returned to the real world of my expertise. I learned more in the last five years of my clinical experience than I could have imagined. Yes, I did marry theory with practice - so I guess that is the reason that I thoroughly enjoyed my return to the practice environment.

When I was a Uni lecturer is was made very clear that I could not speak out during my "private time", whilst at the same time aligning myself with the University employer (all four universities took the same approach).

Getting back to the thrust of the article, vis a vis: IQ and its relationship with behaviour. My parents were told that my IQ was too low for the then, best public academic high school. They were also told that I did not have the IQ to persue a university study pathway. Oh yes, and I lived in a very poor working class suburb where the crime rate was fairly high.

As an adult I became a distance education student for 10 years (whilst holding down a full-time teaching position) - resulting in Dip Teach, B.Ed and M.Ed.

Interesting eh?

While I feel that academics must be free to speak freely, Andrew Fraser is a special case, when you consider his unsavoury connections to the Australian neo-nazi scene.

These include his connection to the Patriotic Youth League (which he initially lied about) via infamous neo-nazi activist Jim Saleam, as well as the Australian KKK. (He was due to give a talk for Jason Rafty's KKK-affiliated group earlier this evening, but cancelled after it was publicised on Stormfront.org. For those who don't know who Jason Rafty is, even the lunatic fringe of the far, far right think that he's a little bit odd.)

This, when coupled with the fact that his theories have been considered bunkum by the scientific community for around 50 years or so, makes for a compelling case for getting him to stop speaking in the name of the university.

May I invite you to peruse www.fightdemback.com for more information?

Full Disclosure: I am a member of FightDemBack, and made the original neo-nazi allegation.

James, James, James ...

(1) Well, I agree with parts of your piece. Drew Fraser's comments are absurd but it's for the 'free market' in ideas to make that determination and for those of us who disagree with him to persuade the public that he's wrong. Macquarie University's response, though, is a pathetic, self-serving response that is incompatible with the very idea of a university - but then that is a moniker that can only loosely be applied to Macquarie. It also shows how almost absolute financial reliance on international student markets has turned many of Australia's universities into institutions that run scared of fulfilling the historical mission of a university - to advance knowledge, to maintain and induct new generations into the canon, and to debate.

(2) But as for the "bulls*it" to which you refer - here's an excellent example -

"Deakin University ... has in terms of research output and impact - probably the most productive and influential law school in Australia."

Only if by impact you mean you got some "odd spot" coverage in the domestic media because a law prof advocated torture.

(3) And your piece has brought out some silly comments here on the Forum, such as this, from someone calling himself "Hills":

"If Fraser walked into a boardroom, I personally would not be impressed - his glasses, personal grooming, choice of clothes, etc, give a first (all important) poor impression. I must say, there are only 3 universities in Australia that are of global reputation and Macquairie is not one of them."

Full marks to "Hills" for a superficial, ad hominem attack. Hills, they're academics, not HR professionals or investment bankers. As you mention, there are at least 3 universities in Australia that are of global reputation (actually, I think there are more), but you'll find that there is an inverse relationship between dress code and the prestige of the university in question. If you really want to see poor "glasses, personal grooming, choice of clothes, etc", you should check out Oxford.

Ray Martin said “That is Adolf Hitler stuff!". Hang on, morals and truth don't always co-exist. Because Hitler believed something to be true, does NOT make that something UNtrue. Nazi scientists also believed that smoking caused lung cancer and campaigns to stop smoking started in the 1930s. They also believed that that swept back wings would help Ray Martin get more frequent flyer points more quickly. So Ray's point was ..... what? Hitler was a baddy, so Fraser is a baddy too?

The Race and IQ debate is anything BUT a debate. It is such an unpalatable concept that emotions and moral vanity reign supreme. I suspect something similar would have happened in 15C Spain when advocating atheism.

Which is a pity. The real moral imperitive is the need to junk emotive guilt by association rhetoric ("It's a Nazi idea!"), and consider the the unthinkable. What are the consequences of the Frasers of this world being right NOT for Australia's sake but for the sake of sub saharan Africans themselves. As I speak, God knows how many souls died in Niger today. Or Sudan last month, Or Eritrea last year. Or the Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leine, Uganda, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria.. and tomorow or next year?

We have an on going problem here and blaming the "racists" (now a weasel word) who departed 45 years ago doesn't hold water any more - if it ever did. My bet is the longer the level of debate is gutter snipe witch hunting, the more often we will see images of emaciated sub saharans on our screens.

In short we need a REAL debate for Africas sake much more than we need it for the future of Australia.

I don't claim to know the truth but only a fool would totally dismiss any future unravelling of the humone genome.

One last point. The idea that Fraser should not be "allowed" to speak outside his domain would mean that Di Yerbury would feel the same about Norm Chomsky. I doubt she would use the same argument. Who would?

Nick Lindsley

From what I’ve read about this, the university's condemnation of this academic is justified. If the statements he made were unrelated to the course he was teaching and did not belong to his area of academic expertise, what else could they be but racist? What I don’t understand is their trying to buy out his contract – that’s public money being flushed down the toilet. This guy is being paid public money to do a specific job. He should either be made to do the job he is contracted to do, as he is contracted to do it, or be sacked.

I remember I had one lecturer who slipped in a few totally inappropriate and racist comments about events that were quite topical in the media at the time. What so offended me was her abusing her position, during time when she was supposed to be educating us about a certain topic, to express her own political views. And it seemed to me especially wrong that she did it in a forum where she was the expert and everything she said was fact that we had to absorb because we would later be examined on it.

I can also recall our lecturer in psychometrics raising the topic of IQ, gender and race. We discussed the incredibly small, but statistically significant differences in IQ by gender and race. They exist. They are also so small as to be socially irrelevant. And the IQ test, like any measurement device, isn’t perfect and is arguably culturally biased. He didn’t impose his own views on the discussion – in fact he gave us the statistics and that was the sum total of his contribution. I condemn that particular lecturer for other things he was doing outside the classroom, but I have to grant he dealt with this topic academically.

And that’s the key question for me – was this lecturer being academic when he made those statements, or did he abuse his position to express his own political beliefs in an educational forum?

FightDemBack supporter Cam Sexenheimer supports bans of people who try to get FDB to speak more respectful of the feelings of mentally ill people. See "lunitc fringe" above. When they persist his fellow FDB's will tell you that you are a "f....ing idiot" and to "bugger off" and then ban pepole. So don't tell us that FDB doesn't have a few of their own with fascistic and racist attitudes in their ranks. There is nothing academic about abuse and threats.