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.

I'm so sick of hearing right-wing academics play victim.

Maybe the reason they are under represented in academia is because when the majority of students who evolve into full-time acdemics learn to think critically and analyse social situations based on reason and what is best for society, they are drawn more to a 'leftist' view on politics.

What a miserable smorgasboard of comments! They simply underscore the author's contention that the left can't see the mote in its own eye, and, when challenged, attack the messenger instead of dispassionately debating the message.

In reading this piece from Rohan D'Souza you have to remind yourself that its original purpose and intention was to entertain the self righteous political theories and phobia’s those who religiously read the IPA.

Ssshhh. Preselection in his liberal party branch must be heating up?

Its interesting to note that D’Souza claims to come from a Labor background but I don’t for one minute think he actually knows what a Lefty is. I think he tends to confuse Labor with Leftism. Nothing new in this , so does the current Labor party.

So you’re happy, jeremy29, for Mr D’Sousa to make sweeping statements about Australian academics even when he acknowledges there’s no evidence (“no contemporary statistics about the political leanings of Australian lecturers and tutors.”)?

And you’re happy for him to contradict himself throughout his essay?

If you publish on a forum like this one, it is reasonable to expect your arguments and your evidence to be scrutinised. It was Mr D’Sousa, after all, who said “It is the nature of academics to challenge and criticise popular thought”.

I’ve re-read the original essay and can’t find what you find - Mr D’Sousa saying that “the left can't see the mote in its own eye, and, when challenged, attack the messenger instead of dispassionately debating the message”. jeremy29, I smell a whiff of hypocrisy in your “smorgasbord” attack.

I have long wondered what the terms left and right wing mean, other than lazy thinking. Yes I know there are long if somewhat tedious monographs devoted to defining differences and maybe they are right. To me the terms are shorthand for stated positions for which assertion masquerades as truth. This an assertion or observation of events?

This article apart from pointing out the left, avoids the hurly burly of corporations and is dominant in Universities, based on one citation, does little to clarify the idea of left and right.

Just over 50% against presumably less! Full reference is not given, which may just show my ignorance, conflating politics and scholarship I assume.

The idea of uni is in part to teach the process of thinking or more recently to produce the economic ciphers needed for the Country and its GDP and foreign policy. Which, how to think or belief?
Agreed exclusion of views is and should not be part of education. Only after critical analysis of fact and reasonimg allows entry. Unlikely in the cases you cite.

This seemingly is the opposite of democracy for here the elector can be denied requisite knowledge on the grounds of secrecy or it being the Government’s role within democracy?
Certainly this allows us to get worked up by propaganda material in which the intelligence is made to suit the cause. The intelligence is then found to be the excuse for the action, Flood report.
Certainly given the revelations of the Downing Street Memorandum (report of the UK cabinet 2002) leaked May 1 2005 show the intelligence indeed was made to support the case for war, though the revelations concerning wheat in to-day’s AGE and SMH show the needs of the market may play here as well, the necessary compromises of competition?
The frightened country running to its latest mummy, replacement for the UK, has all the hesitations of youth balancing family and self.
NZ has apparently grown up.
A little less than 50% of academics in Australia need not teach this, excused from implication.

Frankgol, I think you've hit the nail on the head. One of the common place and pathetic right wing strategies is to hit and run and then blow raspberries from a distance. Do they ever really engage in critical discussion with the Left? Of course not. Why? Because it’s too Leftist. What a copout! As for academics all being Lefties, well the last time I looked there were all sorts roaming the corridors of my local university. You can’t help someone not seeing what they desperately want to see.

Finally Rohan D'Sourboy claims that " Some theorists argue that academics always oppose the dominant political system, regardless of what the system is"

Which theorists are these? John Howard? Peter Costello? Keith Windshuttle?

If pure intelligence was the criteria,surely there would not be a 'left' or a 'right'.That sounds a lot like immaturity at best , immaturity at worst.
Pure intelligence should be a straight path leading to correct decisions. There appears to be a T Junction preventing that.

"I have long wondered what the terms left and right wing mean, other than lazy thinking."

From wikipedia.org (left wing):

"The term originates from the French Revolution, when liberal deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair, a habit which began in the Estates General of 1789. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. It is still the tradition in the French Assemblée Nationale for the representatives to be seated left-to-right (relative to the Assemblée president) according to their political alignment."

Personally, I think there are plenty of intelligent and stupid people in all fields of politics, and plenty spouting a lot of rubbish. I encountered similar things amongst academia when I was at university. I think neither the left nor the right (which are both pretty narrow definitions) has a monopoly on truth, intelligence or morality, despite what plenty on both sides would say.

An interesting article Rohan, and to a certain extent I agree with you. The subject is, however, inherently subjective and difficult to analyse. Similar accusations of bias are directed at sections of the Australian media, notably the ABC. Once again, such charges are easily evaded or dismissed through lack of 'evidence'.

To be sure, universities throughout the centuries have trained students to think critically and to question orthodox views - for the benefit of us all.

However, based on my experience as a postgraduate student, I do agree with Rohan that the views of many staff in social science / economics faculties had become ossified. Perhaps without realising, their views had become the new orthodoxy, and they are now intolerant of dissent. This applies no matter whether you question certain assumptions about climate change; mention the corrosive effects of the welfare state upon the self-reliance of individuals; or discuss the benefits of trade. Irrespective of whether the evidence may or may not support a particular view on these issues, I found that some academics were incredulous that you should even raise such points. One lecturer even sneered - 'Look everybody, we have the son of Adam Smith in our class'. Such attitudes, which result in a rush for conformity and stifle honest debate, simply devalue higher education.

Despite being one who despises the amorality of the capitalist system, I find I have to agree with the Mr d'Souza, if there is any truth in his allegations. Education should be impartial, if we are not to follow the usa once again, with their "I salute the flag" propaganda nonsense. I suspect academia is left orientated, in fact I would be disappointed if it wasn't. It just wouldn't be very clever not to be. Nevertheless, all sides of any argument deserve consideration in the search for this year's truth.

The reason why there are so many lefty academics is very simple.Our molly coddled children go from the protected environs of home, then to school and then on to the protected environs of Tertiary Education.When mum and dad provides everything in a protected environment,children expect the real world to be the same.Hence we have molly coddled teachers,academics,govt bureaucrats who see their comfort zones as a right,rather than a priviledge that should be earnt.

Left wing thinking has created a social security dependance of 15% of our working population.This is three times the rate of the 1960's.

Left wing thinking has brought about social and moral decay.

Left wing thinking lacks discipline and respect for past achievers.

Left wing thinking uses political correctness as a tool of supression to enhance their twisted agendas.

Left wing thinking has created huge bureaucracies that have blown the GST on waste and regulation with no money for health education or infrastructure.Need we go on?

In the real world of private enterprise you have to perform or lose your job,since private enterprise with all it's foibles produces a surplus of wealth that can be taxed and largely wasted by Govt.That is the reality.

I shall end with my recent jibe.What is the precise definition of an oxymoron?
Ans.A left wing think tank? Could it also mean,giving oxygen to morons?

PS I don't agree with all of the IR reforms.Some have gone too far.To me it is all about the courage and tenacity of the individual but we also have to be fair.How do we keep the balance?

Isn't it all much more obvious than this? Surely, there will always be a lack of right wing representation on University campuses (right around the world) ... there isn't enough money in education for right wingers!

Right wingers only attack the sector when the sector casts light on the self-serving policies of greedy and ruthless right wing administrations. There is enough history to show that the cause of most wars is always the acquisitive and possessive nature of power/wealth hungry, well-armed nations. We don't need new research - these arguments are centuries old .... you can spot how people think a mile away these days.

As a student, I encounted academics from different sides of the political spectrum. Some made their political leanings known. Others didn't. I would say that there were probably more on the left side of politics. Either way, I found that it in no way adversely affected the quality of teaching that I received, or the research I was involved in.

Are academics now to disclose their political affliation to the university before being appointed, so that the university can ensure a 50/50 mix? Or are universities to permit no political activity from their staff?

While I lean to the left myself, I have not had encountered academics who have failed to challenge me, even if we come from the same side of politics. Most (note most, not all) academics genuinely remain open minded and inqusitive, and many students from the opposite side of the political spectrum simply could not distinguish between a intellectual and person challenge

Another "precise definition of an oxymoron" - A right-wing academic.

Gee Browyn how original!

The definition of a leftwing "academic" = a POXYmoron

Dear James Arvanitakis

Your name raises an opportunity to provide some clarification on an issue the 'left' seems most passionate about "MultiCulturalism".

Equally, the 'Right' as represented by Andrew 'Bolt of lightning' and others are passionate about the way this matter has been abused for the sake of particular ethnic groups.

From your name I would assume you have a Greek heritage. ?

"Leftist" academics at Uni's (or perhaps 'most' Academics ?) seem to sing the praises of Multi culturalism, and the left in particular (from my observation) seek to always advance this cause as though it was inherrantly right, worthy and honorable.

QUESTION.
Do you see any problem with the following ?

a) 3rd Generation Australian mother of Greek ancestry telling a journalist that she is 'so proud to be GREEK' at a cultural festival. (the Age, some months back)

b) Australian born and migrants of Greek heritage taking Greeces side in the Soccer ? (And Italians taking Italy's side)

Given that 'sport' is our modern and peaceful cultural equivalent to "Warriors raiding other (or defending ones own) territory" Do the points above not raise some questions about intrinsic loyalty to this country ?

Is it not reasonable for an Australia of predominantly British background to expect migrants who accepted here to express loyalty to this country rather than the one they came from ?

Is it unreasonable to expect that by the 3rd generation that ANYone from any ethnic background (including 'British') will identify with 'Australia' rather than a foreign country ?

The statement of the mother, was one of the most blatantly racist (in the 'racial superiority' sense) statements I've come across recently.

If I had the power, I would send that woman and all who identified with her remark back to Greece, (or Croatia, Italy, even Britain)and any other country) and deprive them of Australian citizenship.

BOAZ: I understand (and even sympathise to a degree with) what you are saying. However, I'm a bit wary of nationalism in general. I think there are plenty of one-eyed Australians here who can be as much of a problem as those who don't hold much allegiance to the place. At the end of the day, if someone isn't hurting someone else, who cares?

Also, what is it to be an Australian? Without getting into cliches that probably don't fit a fair segment of the populace (eg. not everyone is a mad sports fan), might we say someone who contributes to society in some way? Hypothetically, it's possible that someone who doesn't display allegiance to this country works hard and also is involved in some way in the local community as compared to some bogan who collects the dole yet waves the flag at a sporting event.

BOAZ_David, take you loyalty tests and stick it.

The thought of exiling people because they barrack or identify with another country or that the same is an indication of treason, is horrifyingly idiotic.

Had I know of your stance earlier, I would've been happy to fork out the fare for you to travel to Iraq and live under Saddam's regime - a regime that you so desperately appear to want recreate here in Australia.

You'd have to be some kind of special nutter to want to banish people over a game of football.

Oh, and loyalty is a sick and twisted ideology.

Shorbe.. yes, I totally take your point, and am able to engage on that level.

Nationalism for its own sake, which is blind to evil intent, is indeed misguided. That is quite different from a broad sense of loyalty to ones home, which Australia is to all born here.

The footy angle is symbolic. Of course its neither_here_nor_there if we win or lose, but the loyalty aspect is most important when it translates into OTHER more important areas. Those concerned about my 'loyalty' probe should be far more worried about a Syrian born Australian of high profile and now Victorian Labor political position, who pledged his "unswerving loyalty" to the Syrian President.

"That" is the poisoned tip of the othewise seemingly harmless dart.

Bolt might not be everyones cuppa, but if he speaks 'fact' then the 'personality' is irrelevant.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19610697%255E25717,00.html

Worth a read.

Strayan.
I suggest that if you have no sense of loyalty to Australia as your home, expressed symbolically in our multi-ancestral Soccer team playing other countries, that you yourself do not deserve to be here. If you have a greater sense of loyalty to somewhere else, by my guest and GO there. Shooo... scat... begone..getout.
"We" neither need nor want the likes of you. (my humble opinion :)

I suppose next you will want our national language to be something other than English ? Like the Hispanics who are now flooding the USA with chants of 'TAKE BACK THE TERRITORY' and waving MEXican flags in LA streets.. yes we know ur kind mate.

Next you will be telling us that 'Iraq' is totally represented by its Sunnite minority ?

I think the time has well and truly come to think more seriously about these things. Quite apart from soccer or footy, the CULTURAL 'barracking' is the issue of greater importance. Does barracking for Croatia or Italy or Greece mean you prefer their culture ? Fine, you are invited to depart, and when we visit your country, we will respect your culture and seek to adjust to it. Can you do the same for us ? :)

"I suggest that if you have no sense of loyalty to Australia as your home, expressed symbolically in our multi-ancestral Soccer team playing other countries, that you yourself do not deserve to be here."

If the test of loyalty is whether or not I care about the whereabouts of the Australian soccer team, then I'd fail miserably. But what an absurd test it would be! What kind of nitwit would even bother measuring loyalty? What'd be the point!?

"If you have a greater sense of loyalty to somewhere else, by my guest and GO there. Shooo... scat... begone..getout."

I 'feel' no sense of loyalty to any country. I am however a citizen of Australia and will exercise my civil and political righs as I see fit.

"We" neither need nor want the likes of you."

Why? Because I'd never throw myself in front of gun fire? And who is "we"? The raging nationalists?

"Does barracking for Croatia or Italy or Greece mean you prefer their culture? Fine, you are invited to depart, and when we visit your country, we will respect your culture and seek to adjust to it. Can you do the same for us ? :)"

I live within the multiculture that is Australia and will live however I want to. As an Australian I would certainy resist any attempts by any authority to control or dictate how I live my life, celebrate, my feelings and my beliefs.

If you want to barrack for Croatia or Italy or Greece, go ahead, fine by me - you don't immediately become 'suspect' like you would in BOAZ_David's confused little world.

Boaz D,
My nephew played footy for the NZ national team against Australia.
I naturally backed NZ so does this means I'm disloyal? I've already been shifted about by government in my life for simply being black/indigenous [in my own country].
If I’m disloyal can you tell me which country I should pack up and move to?

BOAZ_David, I really think you need to regain your sense of perspective regarding sport. Who cares which national team someone supports? Quoting an opinion piece by Bolt does not reinforce your case, it merely demonstrates what an idiot Bolt is. Your comment really should have been posted on the soccer thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4639 , but of course that discussion has been hijacked by the one-eyed fans, complaining that all codes of football (except their own) are as boring as bat droppings. Aside from being way, way, waay off-topic, your post falls into the trap of presuming that sport is important. 22, or 26 or 30 grown men chasing a ball around a paddock? I mean, who cares?

I've got to go now, there 's a matter of great significance claiming my attention. Yes that's right, SBS is about to start broadcasting the highlights of day 2 of the Tour de France. I can't miss the most important event of the year, oops....

Insitutions of 'higher' learning are supposed to be INTELLECTUAL, not doctrinal.

lt baffles me that academics would project their ideological doctrines onto their students who are there to learn a particular subject matter, not be lectured in the spurious art of ideological self validation.

The tendency to preach political ideology and do so in condascending and patronising tones is a huge marker of INSECURITY and DISRESPECT. Those who are secure in their beliefs dont preach. Political opinions are best explained to the ballot box. Overtly partisan discussion of politics thoroughly invalidates one of the most powerful aspects of the democratic process, namely... secrecy of the ballot. This, l believe is the only reason for preaching politics... a deep dissatisfaction with the inherently limited nature of one person's vote. Thus the desire to get everyone else to fall into (goose)step behind the ideological proponent.

Academia is also a notorious hiding ground, a sanctuary no less, for those with too little resolve to actually effect any change, sans the cliched 'influencing' of young minds to do the actual bidding on behalf of the academic pundit of 'higher' morality/politics/perspective.

Having a lecturer/tutor so roundly dismiss and denigrate a divergent view just about sums it up. Cutting down a student is about as much power as an academic can ever hope to wield.

The only academics l respect are the ones outside of the faculties of political hocus pocus (the rest). The ultilitarian academics deal in a rigourous, proven body of technical information. And at the least the philosophers and literary fields are open minded and draw from a wide body of divergent ideas. Political and socio-political academics are a hairs breath away from crystal ball gazing and tea leaf reading. And they know it.

Arjay, sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. I agree with you on all those terrible things you said left wing thinking has created. Left wing thinking caused my train to be delayed yesterday. Left wing thinking created dust storms in the Mallee last summer. Left wing thinking has created flood, fire and famine and pestilence in Africa. Left wing thinking has created SARS and bird flu. Left wing thinking has created seizures of the brain. Do you think we could make a hit song out of this, mate?

Arjays national political anthem (inspiration from Frakgol)

Music: Country music /pub anthem style

My train was late again today – ““Because of Left Wing Thinking””
I lost my socks yesterday –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”
My wife and kids left me this morning –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”
The tax man took my last dollar –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”.
My last boss sacked me because I was 5 minutes late –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”
The gross national dept is bloody high - –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”
My AWA gives me no holidays - Because of Left Wing Thinking”
John and Peter are nasty men - –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”
Sadam killed innocent people - –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”
Pauline Hanson got nowhere in national politics –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”
My dog doesn’t’ like me anymore –”Because of Left Wing Thinking”

As one getting a bit old but maybe with a bit of life experience, have memories back when flicks were popular in our little country town, possibly because they only came once a fortnight. It just happened that we had German family neighbours on one side and a couple of Irish neighbours on the other side.

Before the silent flicks began in those days, the Anthem for King and Country was played on the corner piano, and it just happened that one picture night the German and Irish families did not stand up for the Anthem.

Naturally at school on Monday the German and Irish kids were avoided a bit, us kids telling our parents about it.

Can still hear our father's stern words. Forget it. Don't make a song and dance about it. Remember they are our neighbours. We all have to get on together.

BOAZ_David

Your nationalistic fervour has an ugly side to it at times. Immigrants are perfectly entitled to retain a loyalty to their home country. It doesn't mean they are a threat to Australia in any way. There are people all over the world who live happily and peacefully while holding loyalties to more than one country. You need to practice a little more of that Christian charity you are always preaching.

Face it rainer,you're just another little spolt child who is too afraid to venture into the real world of private enterprise for fear of failure.It is those who have the courage to produce something of real worth that sustains you.Have the courage to resign from the nipple of the public purse and actually produce something of worth,rather than appealing to the weakness of your fellow man in this perpetual cycle of using victum status as an excuse to do nothing.

You blame the white man whose genes makes up 80% of your own being but have no acknowledgement or praise for all the luxuries that our western society affords you.It didn't happen by accident.You're just a tad ungreatful.

For the record, Boaz D, Mr Arvanitakis' name is of Albanian origin as described in Greek. The word "Arvanitis" being the Greek word for Albanian. And there is no small irony in the trail that ensued because in Greece, the Arvanitis are the but of their equivalent of our Kiwi or Tasmanian jokes (two heads, watch the sheep etc). To mix the linguistic metaphors even further, "plus ca change .."

But back to the left academia, I can still recall the old trotskyite lecturer who regarded my failure to accept the self evidence of the imminent collapse of the capitalist system as proof of cognitive dearth. He has been replaced by identical thinkers but the terminology has altered just enough to cover the stain left on the floor when reality bumped him off his chair. They now regard the imminent collapse of the ecological systems as a self evident truth. And the failure to accept this is certainly seen as proof of intellectual limitation.

If you let go of the labels and stopped standing behind the flag Boaz, you would realise that everyone is generically the same - we are all simply.... just people. Each and everyone of us representing the most amazing collection of cells known to exist in the Universe. "Greek", "Australian", "British" - they are just manufactured terms to describe human power bases - the sooner there are no flags to wave, the more clearly into view will come the genuine talent of individuals who have acomplished a great deal for the rest of us to sit back and appreciate.

It's awfully sad that Mr Costello calls knee-jerk anti-Americanism 'Left'.

It's not Left at all - its pseudo-left. Or, it's just plain right-wing.

The Left wants to take over from the bosses run the world in a better way. The psuedo-left just wants to hate its 'Great Satan'.

For a discussion and survey of the term pseudo-left:
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

Thanx to all who made comment on my 'whackem with a length of 2x4 about loyalty' comment :)
It opened up some new avenues of thinking and reflection.

Ranier.. don't u know NZ is part of Australia ? :)

Yes, loyalty based on who you barrack for can be a bit of a twitter and bisted yardstick, except...... when you look at the track record of some clubs, and games, and see that the loyalty translates into riots at soccer games between say Greeks and Macedonians or Serbs and Croats.
Strayan, I'm more concerned with your remark, about u saying you would not pick up a gun out of loyalty... not even in defense of this land ? or..would you pick up a stretcher and assist wounded soldiers ? or.. would you take a quick trip to some other country and avoid it altogether ?

One might wonder how this relates to the topic of leftist academics.
It does really, when you connect the general 'left' attitude of supporting our enemies and ripping into our allies.
So, a leftist .. or psuedo left as per David, is quite a worry in academia.

For those who want to run things better, the real left, they don't bother me because socialism has already been shown to be fatally flawed as much as rampant capitalism. Problem...'us'. Solution 'redemption'.

"Its not what goes into a man which corrupts him, but what comes out from the heart- murder, greed, adultery, lies etc" (Jesus)

I had a great chat with my new Iranian muslim friend at gym last night. Taught him "Fair Dinkum" -He eats pork sometimes and drinks beer :) and would even come to my place for a meal without a problem
I'd say he is almost an assimilated Aussie already, after only 2 yrs since departing from the "Muslim" regime in Iran which executed his brother in law for the wrong politics.

Leftists have a worse record of supporting despots than do right-wingers in the last 30 years, so how can they claim the moral high ground? Many leftists supported Mao in the 1970s and some even supported the Khmer Rouge at that time. Most supported the Sandanistas in the 1980s as well as supporting the appeasement of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the US withdrew its support from Marcos near the end in 1986 and strongly criticised the abuses of the Soeharto regime in the 1990s. Most recently some leftists have found comfort in another nearby despot Alkatiri recently deposed under pressure from his own people.

rogindon, I could easily come up with a list of Right wing support for some of most horrific despots ever and provide supporting evidence. Its seems that no such evidence is required when slagging off at the Left and also no definition of what is Left.

For your information the Left usually distinguishes itself from the right because of what it claims to be a dedication to personal liberty, social justice and secularism.

I support social justice, even for ning nongs like you. Its what we Lefties do.

Rainier,
Forgive me for butting in.
What definition of "Social Justice" do you subscribe to?

Horus, Social Justice: The belief in an equitable, compassionate world where racial and cultural difference is understood and valued, and where human dignity, the Earth, our ancestors and future generations are respected. As with other posts in OLO I don't value racial discrimination or cultural xenophobias. My beliefs come first,so if this fits into the political definition of social justice and Leftism (it could be called anything for all i care) then so be it. But I'd rather believe in something than fall for anything.

Rainer,
Does your leftist belief system allow for the possibility that in modern liberal societies, many of the less than equivalent outcomes we see may have more to do with cultural & or individual inadequacies,and less to do with inflexible class structures or systematic discrimination?
Equivalency of input –does not guarantee - equivalency of outcome

Horus, name one social or economic condition that is not systemic?

Are you suggesting societal attitudes to minority groups does not have an impact on the thier relative quality of life?

And who are you talking about? Or are these mysterious people just the usual scapegoats that are pathologically labelled to suite neocon theories?

Steve Madden, works on the premise that Australian tertiary institutions are completely different from their American counterparts so a statistical analysis of them can not shed any light on the situation here. As a conservative student at the top university in the country I assure you that it is the case in Australia as I have found my views too often being the subject of ridicule merely because I support Howard government policy.

In 2005 in a first year subject known as Global Politics it was quickly established that I was the only conservative in the tutorial and anything I said was greeted with scoffs of disbelief and often laughter. I once heard the tutor say to some of the more left leaning students in the class that she had “one like him [which she clarified to mean a Liberal] in every class” and often my views were treated with open disdain by this woman who was supposed to neutrally run discussions in the class
In the same subject I wrote an essay that poked holes in the communitarian world view, arguing for globalization and a less insular model. I was given an extremely low mark. I then tested the bias by calling George W. Bush dangerous and arrogant in my next essay and received a bump in marks of over 30 points.
In my short time at the university, I have also had tutors tell me that America is the f'ing global hegemony and must be stopped, and had a History lecturer (who is also Deputy Vice-Chancellor) talk about Iraq and Voluntary Student Unionism. It was French Revolution history so those topics are completely irrelevant.

Mr. D'Souza raises many valid points in his piece and as someone who experiences the sorts of bias he is talking about regularly I am glad someone is willing to stand up to the left-wing intelligentsia that are happy to take my money and then tell me everything I believe is wrong.

Melbuinartsstudent.

I said if there are no statistics then the opposite may be true.(not that the opposite is true) I think you may have an arguement about Melbourne Uni being the top Uni in the country.

Did you ever consider you wrote a crap essay? University is there to challenge your views and to expand your knowledge.

When I went to uni 33 years ago I challenged my tutors and thier ideas, I suggest you do the same. Of course I only went to ANU a hotbed of socialism, not the Uni of Sir Robert Menzies.

I wonder how many people commenting here is actually at an Australian University, and if they have any idea what it is like to be a conservative student on campus.

Sure, if you are a Greens/ALP voter who went to university in the 1970s, you might not have noticed a whole lot of bias. Even left-leaning students today might not think that academics had strong persuasions one way or the other.

But try to be the lone right-winger in a tute dominated by left-leaning students and an animal liberationist, former communist or anti-American for tutor and then you can talk about academic bias.

When the lecture on Ronald Reagan in your American Studies subject dismisses him as a brain-dead lightweight, when your Ideologies and Movements lecturer spends one lecture on Conservatism and four on the different variations of feminism, and your tutor describes Peter Singer as 'mainstream' - then you can talk about academic bias.

In my time at University I have never had a tutor or lecturer who wasn't at least an ALP voter, let alone Greens or Socialist Alliance.

Melbuniartsstudent: I suggest you secretly tape one of these tutorials where you are ridiculed in the way that you claim, and then take one tape to the vice-chancellor, and other tapes to various muck raking media outlets. Then watch the university go into massive damage control. In the least, they'd probably sacrifice the tutor to save some face. She'd either then have to exist in the real world, or suffer the indignity of being associated with an institution such as Latrobe or Deakin. Either way, any serious academic career would be over.

Don't get angry, get even.

Steve Madden: I think it was the Guardian that ranked international universities and the University of Melbourne ranked as Australia's best at number nineteen. I think it came in somewhere in the top five for Arts. Of course, it's only one study.

shorbe

If you look at http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm ANU comes well ahead of Melbourne Uni. But once again only one survey that is why I said what I did.

melbuniartsstudent, I forgot to welcome you to OLO it is always good to hear from our younger citizens.

Universities would have to be the least accountable publicly-funded institutions in Australia. Who are Humanities departments in universities accountable to? I haven't been able to find out, but it remains one of the great scandals in our country that small cabals of ideologues are able to capture departments and use them to push their own ideological barrow (and to hell with their students, let alone the poor taxpayer who pays for their mortgage). Whether each cabal is left-wing or right-wing is less important than how we create genuine diversity of opinion in practice.

But to create genuine diversity in opinion, means breaking up the cabals who have captured this or that department. And how do we do that? Whose responsibility is it? What legislative and regulatory reform is needed to enable it to happen?

We need an open public debate in Australia about how universities should be structured, who they are accountable to, what the public expects for their money, and what reform agenda in needed to get us an intellectual culture (especially in the humanities) in which diversity of opinion can sometimes be discovered.

Vern Hughes
vern@peoplepower.org.au

Steve Madden: I acknowledge what you say about the case of statistics but I argue that Rohans US statistics can easily be applied to Australian universties. As someone who is still a student at university in Australia I feel I can certainly give an accurate impression of what it is to be a conservative at an Australian University.
James P puts it best when he describes how Reagan, arguably one of the most influential figures during Cold War, is dismissed as trivial by most lecturers. I can validate his claim about 1 lecture on conservatism vs. 4 on feminism as I did that subject in my first year.
As to the suggestion I tape a tutorial and forward a copy on to the VC, My VC is a proud supporter of the ALP and would probably give a payrise to any tutor belittling my support of the Liberal party.

Rainier,
At this stage I’m not suggesting anything, I’m merely gauging how you a representative of leftist academia see the world . Consider me more as one of your students gleaning pearls of wisdom.

Here‘s my first query.
If leftist academia proposes that one group(usually the majority) may act in a manner to suppress/disadvantages the minority, does it also acknowledge there are situations where a minority group by its own actions or inactions etc, disadvantages itself ?
Is disadvantage ALWAYS the result of discrimination –what do you say?

And following on from that:
If the ruling group make “scapegoats” of the minority , might it also be possible that there are cases where the minority uses the ruling group as a “scapegoat” to explain away its own failing(s) ?

I know the left is very mindful of injustice.
To seek to provide all groups in a society a minimum standard of living is one thing –perhaps even an admirable thing. But to explain away one groups failings always in terms of the majority’s suppression may itself be an injustice.

As a uni postgraduate, my best results came from an unbiased approach to my research. I very rarely knew what approach my essay was going to take until I looked at both sides of an argument. The pros and cons of liberal policy when looking at a particular issue area for example, compared with labor policy. The argument that I would put forward would be judged on the argument I considered the most legitimate and with the best information, whilst always acknowledging other approaches. Researching a topic with a biased attitude dooms anyone to failure.

Mickijo/Marilyn - right on.

It is annoying the way people want to tuck peoples' opinions (and the people themselves) away into either "left" or "right" folders.

Fair enough, you can usually pick the ones that have been reading left or right propaganda. Cliches like "bleeding heart", "lefty-loonie", "poxymoron", "snivelling grub", "lackey", "redkneck" and so on and on to dismiss others opinions drip from these pages like vomit from a drunken punk.

Mind you, Rancitas usually backs up her opinion with reasons why someone is, for instance, a redneck - but Citas is a special exception here.

Maybe the reason that the so called left hold the moral high ground is because their ideas are based more on moral ideas and ethical thinking than right wing "practical" thinking. In the case of Liberals this thinking is usually afflicted with Millsean/utilitarian thinking.

I think there are basically two kinds of thinking. The end justifies the means thinking and those that hold firm to absolute universal principles.

History records that whenever societies, people or religious organisations stray from these, then the authority of those principles (being honest, being truthful, being faithful, being kind, respecting human life, respecting others' and so on) is undermined. The Catholic Church will never live down the Inquisition.

Terrorism, such as the USA bombing Iraq's infrastructure to knowingly cause death among the civilian population and folk posing as Islamic representatives flying passenger planes into buildings, is a practice that stems from the immediate end justifies the means thinking. It is very stupid thinking leading to ultimate outcomes further along in time that never justify the means.

Any criticism of either the left or right usually can be traced back to their belief in a certain situation that the use of means counter to universal principles is justified because of the desired outcome.

Bad means will always lead to the degradation of the ultimate end (and thus societies moral boundaries) which is the preservation of the universal principles. The preservaton of universal principles will always ensure a fair and just society. There is no left or right about it.

JameP wrote:
"In my time at University I have never had a tutor or lecturer who wasn't at least an ALP voter, let alone Greens or SocialistAlliance."

So who would you have prefered to tutor you and which text books and theories would you have read and studied?

It seems those who whinge about Leftist education in university have no real ideas about an alternative approach.

Or perhaps they didn't know when they were being instructed or esposed to a right wing perspective at all.

AND: not everything that is anti-leftist is conservative/right. Shock horror!

Ajay

I have to strongly object to your contention of tertiary students as 'moddy coddled'.

My experience of university was degrading poverty. It influenced me to experience 'putting theory into practice' with lectures relating to behavioural science, and at the same time reject the right-winged championed theories of my economic major.

Well said Rancitas, but your thinking does not quite go far enough, cos, in truth , reducing your argument to a position of either/or is playing the same game and falls into the same trap. Let me explain, - left and right are merely symbolic terms - substitute good/bad; black/white; red/blue, in short dual thinking. Life is much more colourful and much more complex. This language is nothing more than 'battlecryspeke' - "with us or against us"!

"left" or "right" dictatorships look, and are in truth, the same thing. Self-proclaimed "Leaders"/"War Presidents" (nb, German translation: Der Fuhrer) on either side, due to fear of losing control, create artificial focal points (9/11? - Arch Duke Ferdinand?)in order to hoist the standard and call to arms...

National reproduction policy usually changes at the same time - as, of course, there may be need for an endless supply of canon fodder (think battery farming - literally, or a need for reconstruction 'drones' once the desired aim is achieved and thousands of lives have been wasted achieving the glory and ego-driven dreams of the few. Either or thinking excludes looking for solutions – common ground becomes ‘no mans land’. Our leaders “will prevail”, “will have victory” I think everyone can agree that these people, whether they claim to be on the left or the right (it will, of course, always be on the opposing side of their "enemy") are megalomaniacs