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.

"You see, academics don't lean towards the left, I have met a handful of conservative over more than two decades at three unis"

Various polls show that humanities academics vote more to the left than the general population - just as journalists, my profession do.

What is more damaging for academics is that they don't admit it. How can Bonnell say with a straight face that academics such as him are not out of sync with mainstream opinion when he goes on to list things which have been electorally popular.

The Liberal Party may not stand up to Locke when it comes to liberalism but who cares. They are trying to be electorally popular, unlike some academics who wear their unpopularity as a badge of honour.

Of all the mainstream parties they would still be the best at sticking up for the individual rights of the most people. Labor would probably be second, followed by Democrats, Nationals and the Greens.

If only they would do the much needed tax reform to give people even greater freedom to spend mony on what they want to - instead of giving it to junkies, minority programs and out of touch professors to rant about the evils of decent, hard-working folk.

t.u.s

What do those who disagree with Bonnell want? Do they want academics that are politically neutral, ideological eunuchs? They simply don't exist.

Oh, hang on, now I get it!

They want conservative right wingers who are blessed with an innate talent for unbiased and level headed objectivity and who would love to read Geoffrey Blainey's historical epics out loud to their classes, set exams that test how well they were listening because this will also would allow them to identify anyone with socialist, feminist, Bolshevik, gay, metro sexual and Aboriginalist sentiments. 'We can't these trouble makers mucking up how we teach'

Melleuish stated in a pontificating little piece in the Review - Institute of Public Affairs;

"Conservatism is about human beings and their values; it is about preserving values that have worked and ensuring that humans do not throw out the baby with the bathwater when they engage in change".

But then he declares this about historical analysis carried out by the ideologically driven academics he despises.

" Nevertheless they should be seen as a challenge to re-consider European history, to overcome Eurocentrism and to provide a much more balanced picture of the history of the human race over the past 2000 years". http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/research/internalgrants/melleuish.html

I have a feeling Greg is still searching for a place in the sun.

The "problem" (as demanded by Frankgol)is that academics are out of touch with mainstream Australia. The issues that cocern them don't concern the rest of the community. Many academics in the humanities would be shocked to find out what the community really thinks of them. Humanities Departments are seen as largely being irrelevant. (And if you ask me how I know I have the unpleasant task of responding to Ministerials from the public on this very matter).Most Humanities academics are living off the goodwill generated by their science and business collegaues and their research and innovation output. How is Bonnel part of it? Well his piece is nothing more than a polemic in favour of his own status quo.

I'm a bit clearer now, thank you chronicler. The "problem" (as you declare it) is that "academics are out of touch with mainstream Australia. The issues that cocern [sic] them don't concern the rest of the community". But then you confuse me by reducing "academics" to "many academics in the humanities" most of whom are living off the goodwill generated by their science and business collegaues [sic]. So that narrows it down a bit.

How does chronicler know this? He has "the unpleasant task of responding to Ministerials from the public on this very matter". Interesting methodology! Reduce the generic "community" to unquantified members of "the public" who write complaints to an unspecified Minister who sends them to chronicler for a reply. That person then assumes the complaints are valid and represents them as the one and only truth about "many academics in the humanities".

What's the response in logic to the argument that most members of the community don't write to any Ministers about academics and therefore that indicates that the "community" is generally happy with universities? (Another possibility is that they are apathetic to the issue, or don't have a view one way or the other, or express their opinions in other ways - but let's not make it too complex for simple minds today.)

And thank you chronicler for advising me how Bonnel [sic] is part of the problem? "Well his piece is nothing more than a polemic in favour of his own status quo." Well that saves us all having to do any analysis of his evidence or to identify how his argument is flawed, doesn't it?

When you draft letters for your Minister, chronicler, how do you assess the claims made by members of the "public"? How do you go about advising your Minister whether his correspondents are representative of the "community"? Did the truth just fall out of the sky one day and hit you on the head? Maybe that's the problem?

Dr. Bonnell should openly declare his affiliation - he is the President of the NTEU at UQ. Much of this article is Strawman argumentation that doesn't really address the core issue of trying to solve a problem that MOST humanities academics are aware of - how do we stay relevant to the wider community?

To answer "more funding" is simplistic and only part of the solution. Much wider & painful organisational change is needed to make Australian universities responsive to the marketplace of ideas and student needs.

Chronicler, 'the issues that concern them don't concern the rest of the community'? Are you serious? You're right, I haven't met many members of the community concerned about the Peloponnesian Wars. Or Russian Literature. Or learning any foreign language whatsoever. We better scrap all that, then. Ironically, when university humanities departments do offer courses in issues that 'concern the community', like 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer' or 'Australian Idol', your mob accuses them of being frivolous and wasting taxpayers money.

Anti-intellectual populism is a distasteful feature of pretty much all societies, and its presence shouldn't be construed as a legitimate argument against higher education.

Unlike most of those responding to Andrew Bonnell I come from what chronicler would classify as the "in-touch-with the public" side of academia as I work in the health sciences, in areas directly affecting public health.

Nevertheless I dont claim that this in some way gives me a divine mandate that allows people like chronicler and Melleuish to know "what the public want" or "what the public are concerned about". But then that's generally been the problem with people like Chronicler isnt it? The belief that they - and no one else - do know. A return of the droit-de-seigneur? Who would they like to deflower then?

The extent to which Chronicler is self-deluded is revealed by his/her occupation (or is it vocation?): does he/she not know that public servants are held in the same degree of contempt in the "general population" for their lack of insight into "what the public want" as he chooses to show academics?

Chronicler,

In another post Frankgol chastised David Flint for writing an “illogical, poorly-researched, offensive, self-serving piece of ideological (factional?) twaddle”. While I agreed with his assessment, this stands in complete contradiction to his/her attack on humanities academics. They at least know how to conduct logical, well researched prose and how to teach this craft to students.

There is clearly a need for many to differentiate between their anti-intellectualism and their ideological/political positioning, especially in their regular slaggings againsts academics [of whatever ideological or political pursuasion] here on OLO.

These cyclops, in their rush to secure some cheep heroic 'OLO' fame - frame themselves as champions of the 'ordinary people', and as advocates of egalitarianism against the elites - become blind to their own logical innconsistencies.

One would think that to remain true to their heroic struggles they would in fact desist from quoting or supporting anyone in public life or politics that has undertaken formal studies in a university humanities faculty. But of course they do not.

Indeed, they should immediately supporting the ideas put forward by the elite Professor Gregory Melleuish. Melleuish appears to have never worked outside of a university and was one of those lucky enough to gain entry into university in the early 70’s – entry that was made possible through those horrible reforms made by that Socialist agitator Gogh Whitlam. (by the way –so did many in Howard’s government).

Perhaps you could include some reference to this in the next ministerial you bang up on this matter? Feel free to cite me. (and if you do, please use Harvard referencing conventions).

Professor John B Goode.

Would it be entirely unreasonable to suggest that any member of the public barmy enough to write to a government minister on the subject of humanities academics being out of touch with the concerns of the broader community should be automatically assumed to be unrepresentative of the community at large? What, chronicler, would the community see as being in touch? What would you suggest humanities academics should be investigating? I shall carry on with my ground-breaking research on the influence of Gilles de Rais on the political thought of Wilson Tuckey while I await your response.

Academics doing what they do best here.

Nothing more to say.

What, thinking?

How un-Australian of them.

As I do not like to have my background discussed without reference to a few solid facts I should like to indicate that a. I started university before Whitlam became PM, having been awarded a Commonwealth scholarship. b. Unlike many of my Marxist colleagues I did not attend a private school but went to what they would describe as a 'working class school'. c. I have worked outside the university both for the Australian Public Service and AGL. For a short time I even did the books for a kitchen design company. I have had some interesting experiences with left wing academics, including when I worked at the University of Queensland. In fact I regularly collaborate with other academics who do not share my politics. But sadly there are many on the left who I would not call tolerant and enlightened. One real concern is that many academics are unable to distinguish between what John Anderson called interestedness and disinterestedness when discussing the nature of the university. They think that they are being objective and disinterested when, alas, they are merely pushing their own barrows.

At uni enrolments this year, I flicked through the arts handbook, and after that I can't take Bonnel's article seriously. Bring on the History Wars! The sooner some blood is shed the better.

Lots of interesting posts here to an article which I agree with. Professor Melleuish's view of the humanities is indeed a caricature - like all caricature's one can find instances of its truth, but a serious examination shows it to be by definition shallow and ultimately foolish.

A couple of points: as some have said it is not "postmodernism" or "Marxism" (funny, real Marxists hate postmodernism) that is a threat to the humanities but marketisation. The confused mix of anti-leftism and populism allows marketisation free reign and will destroy the study of any classical "canon" faster than a room full of these Marxist postmodernists. "How will Greek philosphy get me a job?"

Finally, Professor Melleuish has added a comment here which says that he joined the university system on a Commonwealth scholarship. Presumably this was under Menzies. Menzies was an ardent supporter of Australian universities and presided over much of their post-war expansion. It's a legacy which the present government would do well to take seriously

“what does it mean to be mainstream in academia.” The only academics I know, that have any clue about real life are those that have entered academia later in life, after living it. The rest have just spent their time in classrooms learning out of books, I don't class that as intelligent understanding, just over programmed people.

You can see the results of this approach to education and research, by the declining literary standards and the totally out of touch bureaucracy and political system. When you consider that most politicians are either lawyers or accountants or have some other academic qualifications, and their ability to run this country in a progressive way. You can see why we have the situation we have.

Humanities, studies in nothingness. Just like having a degree in politics, qualified in stupidity and illusion.

Until academia understands what life is outside a book or theory, it will continue to be looked upon by the masses as out of touch and less and less relevant. The only way people will support more funding is for academia to produce positive results for those that pay them, the people.

Learning what real life is about outside their ivory towers, would be a good start for them all.

Golly Alchemist,

There must be something wrong with me. I started uni at the age of 40 after having lived and worked in the real world until then, yet it's quite clear to me that arguments pitting lefty academics against majority opinion is rather like pitting pixies against gnomes. OK if you're into fantasy but not particularly constructive.

Thanks Realist for injecting some sanity into this debate. As for the other arguments, I am reminded of medieval theologians arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

That's right chronicler, you knock yourself out defending your comments. Do you expend as much synaptic effort responding to those many unpleasant ministerials? By the way, it's 'dance' on the head of a pin. Not 'fit'. As we might possibly say about your latest contribution.

One bit of evidence, one bit of reasoned argument - surely it's not too much to ask of you?

I think Dr Bonnell reveals alot about his own opinions when he fails to differentiate between the original feminists, who pushed for equal voting rights, and the later feminists who push things as abortion on demand and men hating arguments.

Equivocation is the poorest of rhetorical tricks that a lecturer in history should know enough not to use.

Yesterday Professor John B Goode (aka Rainier?) wrote here that in another post I chastised David Flint for writing an “illogical, poorly-researched, offensive, self-serving piece of ideological (factional?) twaddle”. He went on to say "While I agreed with his assessment, this stands in complete contradiction to his/her attack on humanities academics."

Three quick points:
(a) Much as I would have liked to have written such an apposite summation of David Flint, alas I didn't.
(b) If Prof Goode (Rainier) means that I attacked humanities academics, I can only say I did not and never have done so in a public forum.
(c) There cannot, therefore, be any contradiction.

Have I been set up or misidentified? God preserve me from my allies.

Well, after reading that, I have now formed a total conclusion: “We Are Stuffed” Academics and the advanced institutions were supposed to be the battery of KNOWLEDGE and advancement; it must be obvious now to everyone that Antipathy of Epistemology has a strong hold and the Looters are out of control.
Once upon a time, PhD meant. Post Honor’s Degree, for know, most are Post Hoc Dribble, But in line with the Chomsky’s, linguistics, it is Very very expensive tax funded toilet paper. Meaningless Garble. Get a real job and see how your skills shape up or go speak to some real intellectuals. In this World, here and now.
Elite Looters work is never done hay, and the increasing number of Elite Looters ,we will be done, and then what?
What ever happened to our real Intellectual minds, I want them back. Please come back. We beg of you, we need you, our kids need you, not this anti Western Sicko’s stuff . And we PAY for it.

And I thought the rot started when the Naked Ape came down from the trees.
Or do I Protestant too much.

Sincere apologies FrankGol. Buggered up. I misread your post.

Factual error, All-: PhD stands, and has always stood, for Doctor of Philosophy. I won't challenge you with the Latin, but you might just manage to understand, by analogy, when I explain that Oxford, and Sussex, among others, don't offer a PhD, but an exactly equivalent degree - DPhil (geddit?). And even if, in whatever alternative universe you inhabit, it stood for Post-Honours Degree, or post hoc dribble, it would be far preferable to the post hoc ergo propter hoc conspiracy theories you propound.

The Howard Govt, and the previous Labor Government are "Yes Minister" revisted.... only in real time!

Both parties stances on HECS are unbelieviably hypocritical.

If Governments are all so concerned about debt in society like they say then to add another layer of debt even before a young person gets into the workforce is outrageous.

In previous times a young person could expect to have a car loan and then later a home loan. Now thanks to Labor and with enhancements from the Govt the Universities they are creating debts for our young people, many in courses that will not lead to employment in that field in the future.

How anyone can call this reasonable behaviour I will never know. I don't care whether you are Liberal or Labor both have weakened the futures of our young people with this ridiculous charge. If Universities and other educational institutions are selling courses that have inadequate job outcomes then they should hang there heads in shame.

Whilst there is a massive shortage of Drs and Pharmicists there is an oversupply of teachers. How can Governments and Universities be getting things so wrong?

It's simple - money! Uni's are funded through a bums on seats system and so now courses often lead students to become highly qualified unemployed people or worse still kids who may never work in their chosen fields just because the jobs never existed there in the first place.

Ask a young person who has come out of Uni with a Drama related degree... where are the jobs? Also ask a teacher in Qld who has just qualified. These wonderfully positive young people suddenly find out that the jobs don't exist in their chosen field.

As an older person I apologise to the young people, even though I was always against HECS, because other complacent people looking at the buck and not the big picture allowed it to be introduced.

Where is the "Duty of Care" responsibility to our young people in this country regarding education?

once upon a time, in a land very nearly our own, universities were places where people went to get 'an education'. afterwards, many left to do things in the wider society. a few stayed on to become the next crop of academics. thinking was not only encouraged, it was required. and the academics did some thinking of their own.

today, in more enlightened times, universities are training colleges where people pay to get trained up so they can work in corporate and govo-corporate land. 'academics' are expected to train people in useful stuff like engineering and econometrics. thinking is for defined purposes only.

institutions that had once been an integral part of the development of western culture, its' science and technology, are now at risk of becoming cheap outsourcing r&d labs for corporations. who should be doing at lot of that work for themselves.

collaborations between industry and acedemia are not new, and are not intrisically bad. but the agenda, the driving ideology, behind "user pays" is a very narrow view of capitalism. one that overemphasises the benefits of "the market" and neatly glosses over negatives.

academia is said to be the refuge for disaffected people who couldn't make it "out in the real world". very, very few academics are removed from reality or the world around them. they live out in the community. many of them travel a heck of a lot more than most people do. the very purpose of their work is to examine this world and these lives we all inhabit.

just because you cannot understand or relate to the work an academic in humanities is doing doesn't make that work irrelevant. it means you don't understand their work. get over it.

how many of you really understand what *anyone* does, outside your own workplace?

to dismiss a sociologist because they criticise government policy as being irrelevant is narrow-minded and probably just proves their point.

and frankly, in a democracy, alternate and opposing ideas are not only acceptable - they're crucial to the health and welbeing of both the demos and the kratein.