Great to see that most students today have seen the futility of acting like ferals in order to be anti authority. I would not like to see the days come back when morons throw urine over soldiers who were ordered to go to Vietnam.
Most at uni these days have seen the results of the 'free thinking permissive 70's 'which has led to many kids ending up without dads and families in dissaray. I take great heart when many young today laugh at the ideologies of the Whitlam/Hawke era. Thankfully its because students do think more these days that they don't go off in droves into the socialist way of thinking.MOst students now do what they went to uni to do (study). If they want to be political they can join parties or get involved off campus

University campuses seem to be overun by over-grown children. The important factors in their 'society' are: sports, fashion and big-brother. A completely unfounded generalisation I know - but have you met the college students?

Interest in politics is something which develops with time, or, as has been the case in the past, during radical movements.

Radicalism is no longer fashionable, nor even moderation. Instead we have a strange form of tolerance, in which any belief that excludes any other is offensive.
And politics are naturally offensive.

As one now going on 86, who early in retirement from the farm, took a part-time university course in the Humanities in 1977, and could say that social studies students at the time possibly were allowed too much to say.

Maybe the tutors were too liberal as well, maybe even radical about the reasons for our participation in the Vietnam War, even more radical about the role of Henry Kissinger a few years before, for advising the attack on Cambodia in order to block a main supply route for the Viet Cong.

It is certainly now the time with our world in such a mess possibly through faulty decisionmaking by our present major powers to look to the more ethical areas of our universities to try to find lessons from history.

Unfortunately it also can be seen from the above, that it is the Humanities sections that could be the most worry to an ultra-conservative government such as we have now. And the worry goes further, in that it is the Humanities which encourages debate in things like human rights, etc, as well as the environment, which of course in a discussion always boils down to a test of looking for a fair go.

Certainly as proven with one-party governments, laws and even ethics and morals can be altered to suit a critical situation as happened with Nazi Germany and to a large extent Soviet Russia.

A point to remember about ultra-conservative governments, is the change brought to Britain by Margaret Thatcher, which earlier proved its advantages. However it is interesting how Thatcher disapproved of the apparently radical tactics of Nelson Mandela later. Further even after Mandela’s comparatively peaceful victory over the South African arpathaidists more recently, Thatcher was apparently still of the same mind?

As one during the present world crisis who has taken a revived deep interest in a global balance of power, mainly for peace, one could believe that shutting down extra ways for Humanities students to intellectually converse, etc, is also a way of putting the handbrake on what we might term democratic decency

chris c, i hope you're a young person because then you'll have an opportunity to go out and work and learn alongside those noble professions you mentioned. however, be prepared for the shock of how few competent people you will encounter among those with diplomas and certificates as long as their arms.
my original remark was based on what percentage of those (academic rent-a-crowd )students actually go on (past BA) to enter a profession which enables them to pay their way in society instead of constantly bleating for more funding. can you produce figures ? i'm sure the answer would be of interest to many.

Senator Stott-Despoja was President of her Students' _Association_ (the political/activist body that organises rallies and provides representation), not the Adelaide University Student Union (the body that provides services).

The Student's Association is _part of_ the Student Union, not the Union in itself.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

some good comments on the forum, especially from Chris C.

The VSU legislation was simply nasty, I agree that there needed to be reform, my mother was working full time as a teacher and was commissioned to study her masters, she got basically no time on campus but had to pay very high student union fees.

The universities have got a bit to answer for, they were too inflexbile,there should have been exemptions, particuarly for part-time students.

However, the Vice Chancellors did eventually come up wtih a compromise, a compulsory amenities fee for most students, none of it going to student unions.

This was a very reasonable compromise and would have saved services on campuses instead on turning them into production lines for the workforce.

The govts. inflexibilty is indicative of their pettiness. They were unwilling to negotiate and have consequently made University a less enjoyable experience for many thousands of students.