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?