Liz, I'm reluctantly inclined to agree with you.

If HRS's assertions were even close to correct, our universities & apprenticeship positions would be chock-a-block with supposedly "brainwashed" Marxists & feminist kiddies. They're not. Not even close.

I've spent the last 4 years on a typical uni campus. The undergraduates were in nappies when the Berlin wall fell. Getting involved in Marxism would be like dressing up in their parents' clothes and listening to their Led Zep records - how daggy. About 50 out of 40,000 students go to "rallies".

As for feminism, the girls are getting ready for a career, the boys are getting ready for a career, the girls are getting ready to start a family 'one day, but I want to travel first', the boys are getting ready to start a family 'one day, but I want to travel first'. They're all forming relationships and breaking up, just like kids always have.

Really HRS, you need to stop jumping at shadows.

BTW, here's the list of English HSC prescribed texts in NSW. A very insightful and challenging selection:
http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/hsc_english_poster_A2_0608.pdf

So HRS, what "brainwashing" is taking place with that list of texts? Are they hypnotising the kids and reading them revolutionary passages from Wuthering Heights?

Also, as demonstrated by his/her posts, HRS' definition of "democracy" seems to be limited to parents demanding things from schools in exchange for money. That's not a definition of democracy to be found in any political philosophy I know of. I'm sorry HRS, but demanding things in exchange for money is a plutocracy.

What about the children? What about the teachers? What about the local community? What about the people who don't have money? Where do they fit into your "democracy by purchase"?

Mercuius,

Liz would know. As a democratic and non-feminist teacher, she once said she doesn’t like the “men” in the education system. Ask her.

The situation is not ideal, but the situation is as follows:-

If a parent has children going to a private school, and the parent learns of something that they do not like, they can ask the school to do something about it, because they are paying money.

If a parent has children going to a public school, and the parent learns of something that they do not like, the parent can do naught.

Going to a P&C meeting is normally a joke, and in states such as QLD, going to the local member is normally a joke also, as the state is now run by a highly centralised bureaucratic system called the Premiers Office (that employs more journalists than the Courier Mail and depends on brainwashing the public).

So it is not ideal, but a parent with children going to a private school and paying money can have much more say than any parent with children going to a public school.

Also have a look at the US university system, and wonder why various universities are now on recruitment drives to attract both male students and also male lecturers back into their Universities.

Since I haven't been following this thread, I only just came across this weird post from HRS:

"CJ. Morgan,
Are you a comic, or just someone who wants to throw things and kill."

Since I hadn't posted anything here, I found that comment to be more than a little odd, so I continued to read the thread, with mounting amusement. I subsequently came across this from Liz:

"HRS

You are simply out of your tree.".

I, like Mercurius, am reluctantly inclined to agree with her.

HRS,
On Wednesday, I pleaded with Bunyip, & others invoking "democracy" in their posts to examine evidence [in my Tuesday post] relevant to the subtitle "are we trashing the education system that helped build Australian democracy?" and to say if that evidence is relevant.

I fear you and the others have invoked the word "democracy" without examining the evidence. Could it be you were and still are, a victim of a "brainwashing the public" that began in school, whether funded by tax-payers or parents?

C.J Morgan,
Like Liz, you appear to be highly democratic and non-feminist, and also highly articulate and very capable of expressing yourself.

Humble Jack,
Here is an example of democracy in the education system. A book was published by the NSW education department, but the book was banned and was not able to be distributed.

Very democratic, considering the book was printed with taxpayer money.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Censored-the-boys-own-manual/2005/05/02/1114886318639.html

Also note the bumper stickers available from this site, all funded by the taxpayer.

http://www.women.qld.gov.au/?id=48

Put the 2 together, and make up your own mind about democracy.

HRS,
You seem to have missed my point in asking you you were and still are a victim of "brainwashing the public" that began in school, whether funded by tax-payers or parents.

Please examine the evidence in the following undisputed facts posted on Tuesday. In your words, put them together, and make up your own mind about the education system that helped build Australian "democracy".

On 5 February 2003, uncertainty as to the meaning of “vote for”, as it refers to the conduct of elections held under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, was agreed without dispute or objection before five of the seven Justices of the High Court of Australia. http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/other/hca/transcripts/1998/S126/2.html?query=S126/1998

The above uncertainty was in answer to whether voters can be compelled to “vote for” candidates that they do not wish to “vote for” and is still unsettled despite several subsequent attempts to get appropriate officials, including the parliament, court officers and judges to deal with it.

In 1920, after official errors made him uncertain that a majority of intending voters would have “voted for” Edwin Kerby, High Court Justice Isaacs voided Kerby’s 1919 election. http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/35.html?query=Kean%20v%20Kerby

In his reasons for the above judgment, Justice Isaacs disclosed his understanding of “vote for” by his use of “or” in “evidence as to the intention of those electors to vote for the one or the other candidate”. His “those” were electors disenfranchised by what he called “a great number of official errors”