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.