Dr Bonnell asks "that the government has cut some $5 billion from higher education funding, increasing costs for tens of thousands of students, as payback for the disrespect they get from a few humanities academics? Could even the Howard Government be that spiteful and myopic?"

The answer is YES. As can also be seen in the constant attacks on the ABC. It's all part of the dumbing down of Australia. Many contributors to this forum ferociously attack anyone who is seen as even remotely academic. The Australian way now is that gut reactions from people who have researched a topic for a nano-second are more valued than the considered views of people who have spent years researching it.

Expect a torrent of good old uninformed abuse as a response to this well argued article.

The abuse won't be uninformed. Bonnell's comments only serve to reinforce that he is part of the problem. sad that he caanot see the mote in his own eye. The solution has to come from those outside the university, with the federal government leading the way.

Nice piece, Andrew. I've linked to it and added some commentary on my blog:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/02/02/humanities-faculties-hotbeds-of-leftism-variety/

It is amazing the way the Left seem to ignore the worst aspects of their own philosophy, and then accuse their opponents of it. Socialism is virtually synonymous with coercion, and liberalism is all about freedom, yet here we have talk of “coercive liberalism”.

However the worst thing about this article is that it glosses over the alternative to “closing down anything which doesn’t make a buck”.

That alternative, which we presently suffer under, sees “funding”, i.e. money earned through voluntary exchange, taken from individuals (often against their consent) and given to other individuals so they can pursue activities that the rest of us don’t value at all.

Of course we are told that our judgement of value is flawed; that such activities bring great benefits to society and supposedly, therefore, the means (coercing funding from reluctant taxpayers) justifies the ends. Not only does this overlook the fact that value is a subjective, individual judgment, not a quality to be imposed upon us by an elite, but more importantly, such a position undermines several important concepts that can provide a consistent and rational basis for a just society.

These are the concepts of self-ownership, and the associated idea that theft is wrong.

As far as I can find out, at least 30% of University funding comes from taxation. Since taxation is not exactly earned income, how can we talk about “running at a loss”? Did Robin Hood run at a profit or a loss?

Once the alternative to “closing down anything which doesn’t make a buck” - i.e. taking the required funding from other income-generating activity - is accepted, then the door is open to all sorts of other excuses for coercive wealth-transfer. While that is all very nice if it enables one to pursue one’s personal research goals, it’s not so agreeable to those paying for it. Here in Australia this activity has reached epidemic proportions, and can hardly be described as “narrowly utilitarian government policies”. It’s not surprising if it creates enemies.

We now have two contrasting pictures of universities in contemporary Australia - one by Melleuish and one by Bonnell. Pity they couldn't have been published together. Those with direct knowledge of Australian universities will be in a good position to judge which is the fairer description of these institutions. Those without direct knowledge will make a judgment about which version relies on reason and evidence and which relies on ideology and assertion.

Which leads me to ask chronicler why he asserts (but doesn't argue) that Bonnell's comments "only serve to reinforce that he is part of the problem"? What, exactly, is "the problem", chronicler? And in what way is Bonnell part of it?

When we understand the "problem", I assume that readers will then be in a satisfactory position to agree or disagree with chronicler that "the solution has to come from those outside the university, with the federal government leading the way".

Am I naive to expect reasoned argument supported by evidence on this site?

Winston- although 'socialism' has tended, when implemented, toward controling governments, that does not mean that the theory supports that. The concept is that all work at what they are best at, to help everyone.