The article states "There are no contemporary statistics about the political leanings of Australian lecturers and tutors, but it is safe to assume that left-wing academics still dominate Australian universities"

Why is it safe to assume this? If there are no statistics it is equally relevant to state that the opposite is correct.

The article is based on a false premise and thus looses much credibility.

An interesting discussion, but probably redundant is only that the main element of the argument is that University culture is 'less' private sector' than commerical entities.

The question is, given the various 'pro-commerical' reforms mooted for the teriary sector, what then for 'left-wing' academics?

While we agree with the last point: "The left-wing domination of universities means that Australian academics should be especially wary of conflating politics and morality."; could not the same point be said of far-right academics?

http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/

In all the articles I have read on Online, this has to be amongst the least researched and most irrelevant – nothing personal, merely based on the observation.

To begin with, relying on a 1970s study as your guide is lazy at best – but more likely academically dishonest. The other evidence is simply chosen selectively to confirm an argument that seems to better fit under the humour section than ‘education’.

The second point is that academics in the humanities teach ‘critical thinking’. This means that whichever government ideology is on the rise, academics will always encourage students to question it. If not the case, then we would run around raving about Fidel, Chavez and others. But these ‘left’ leaning leaders are also critically analysed and criticised.

The third point on ‘selling out’ however, seems the least thought out. Former students of mine work who identify with ‘progressive’ political positions have taken a variety of positions in the Murdoch Press, DIMIA, Defence and even right-wing think tanks! Hardly the ‘left’ conspiracy that the author seems to fantasize about (‘Look, reds in the classroom’)

I have never heard this concept of selling out – except for a friend of mine in a band. But as he puts it, his band is so intent on not selling out they do not even practice anymore.

Universities have always been a place of critical thinking – something that should be encouraged. We also teach pragmatism, ethics and academic standards. There is no doubt some issues discussed cross political grounds, such as, ‘the war in Iraq – invasion on humanitarian intervention’ and ‘same sex parenting: consequences and politics’.

These are taught from a variety of positions. To suggest that they should not be by so called ‘think tanks’ is simply ‘the right’ once again engaging in a crude form of social engineering’

Great post. I'm never surprised by the continued mindless attack on the left by the far right. The author can't seem to put two and two together and fall into the prepared script of the right wing permanently outraged (just bringing up Janet you lose ten cred points). hows this if most Aussies are centre right (hell of a lot of them vote left though?) then the left academic has not "corrupted" them so what the point of your piece. Have a look at US uni's were thay have a right wing bent rather then a left wing one and I'll show you a dysfunctional one, don't believe me go look.

[Deleted]

On Line Opinion lowers the bar when it runs this essay by Rohan D’Sousa who believes Australian universities were dominated by left-wingers in the 60s and 70s – and still are. D’Sousa asserts that “it is safe to assume that left-wing academics still dominate Australian universities” despite that fact he can find “no contemporary statistics about the political leanings of Australian lecturers and tutors.”

So what’s the basis for his historic claim? Peter Costello’s recollection of his time as a student plus a small-scale study in 1970 by Lawrence Saha in one university.

There being no Australian evidence, D’Sousa extrapolates from US surveys which found that among academics, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans. Instead of a clear analysis of that data, D’Sousa gives us a pop psychology explanation: “Academia is a natural career choice for dedicated left-wing graduates.” Curiously, he cites a contrary study and a competing explanatory theory: “In the 1970s, a study of Swedish academics found that they were more conservative than the Swedish public, partly because a socialist government had held power for 40 years. It is the nature of academics to challenge and criticise popular thought.”

Next he tells us that Australian universities are “among the best in the world”. He cites evidence that left-wing academics are more “research oriented and concerned about academic freedoms… spend “more time in committee meetings, assisting students outside class and preparing lectures”.

So what’s D’Sousa’s problem? If I understand him correctly, he thinks there are not enough right-wingers to peddle right-wing ideology which is now left to private enterprise think-tanks. On the dangers of imbalance, he cites a couple of examples of discrimination in American universities and one at Oxford. He can find no Australian examples, so he resorts to unsourced “anecdotal evidence” that “right-wing students are sometimes marginalised by left-wing academics”.

The rest of his essay trails off into bland musings about left-wing academics holding the moral high ground. Were D’Sousa an undergraduate student, I would return this essay with the comment: “Assertions must be based on sufficient and balanced evidence; beware of self-contradictory argument.