I find the majority of responses to this piece extremely puzzling.

From my viewpoint this is a piece written by a responsible educator; one who questions their own motivations, ponders the effects that one can have on others, questions one's right or abilities or fitness to do so and who is willing to share these uncertainties with a wider audience. In short, the sort of person I would have thought most people would have been relieved to find was in a position to effect upcoming minds and consciousness.

Thus comments about the writer living in a narrow world or "discovering" there are no absolutes leave me gobsmacked.It seems to me that is exactly the point that the article is making.

Schoolchildren are, to differing degrees of course, still influenced by home environments, familial thought and conventions. Undergraduates are so much more vulnerable as part of their rite of passage is to try to make sense of the world on their own terms.

An educator who never questioned themself, who was convinced they knew the right way to think or behave in any given situation and who never was awed and frightened by how close we all sometimes come to mis-using our power to affect younger minds, is not the kind of person I would have thought should have influence on students?

Tertiary education while imparting knowledge and skills is also about teaching people how to think and form opinions based on information available.

The moment you tell students what to think by censorship (well intentioned or otherwise), you have failed by treating them as sub adults who cannot be trusted with "corrupting" information, and training them to deal with dissenting opinion by silencing or ignoring it rather than listening and either accepting or rejecting it based on values or other information.

Censorship of ideas breeds intolerance.

johncee1945, can you only be an imaginative artist if you're a socialist internationalist?

Propaganda isn't art?
Then what the hell is art?

Art is the expression of ideas, so is propaganda.
Take a look at some propaganda posters from the last century, and tell me they aren't "art"!

You just define art as "propaganda" if the ideas are objectionable to you.

You can only define "unAustralian" if you can first define "Australian", something the leftist "intellectuals" try very hard not to do.

They want us all to live in their meaningless cultural wasteland, where "Australia" cannot mean anything at all.

So wars have been fought over wealth and land (which you label capitalism and nationalism)?
Yeah, since history began!

Nationalism expresses whatever qualities a particular nation possesses.
It isn't some universal complex.

An aggressive, authoritarian culture would produce aggressive, authoritarian nationalism.
An egalitarian, irreverent culture would produce egalitarian, irreverent nationalism.

You seem to define all "nationalism" as if it fits only the first definition above.
But Australia is more like the second statement, isn't it?

As for freedom of speech, there's a difference between opinion and lies.
Sedition, blasphemy, homophobia, racism and sexism are *opinions*, which are true or false depending on your personal judgment.

Defamation, false advertising and perjury are "public" lies, not an honest opinion or belief, or even a "private" lie.
That's why they're restricted.

DavidJS: "Racists need to understand this: you have the right to denigrate anyone you like."

Ah, no they don't, not since the Thought Police enacted anti-vilification laws!
"Move to North Korea"? They won't let anybody in!
Why would a white racist want to live in North Korea?!
What a stupid statement.

Art is ideas.
Every idea has an opposite idea.
Any and all ideas should be capable of expression, unless they are "public lies".

Ideas don't kill people. People kill people.

Romany, the educator here professed her left wingers knee-jerk reaction to ideas right wing, and stretched her mind and battled her conscience before allowing a couple of rather mild images passed her censors stamp. As if there is any question that the Sheiks attitudes to women referred to in the article aren't both hostile to and damaging towards women and our society?

At the time he was subjected to vigorous ridicule from many-on both the left and the right. Mike Carltons Friday News Review made great sport with the 'mad Mufti'.

Islam must expect and accept the same level of questioning, criticism and ridicule that the Christian churches, Judaism, the Moonies et al cop.

I don't know what 'unaustralian' means; but I will say that it is a healthy Australian custom of taking the piss out of just about anything.

The author was questioning her totalitarian left wing views and her belief in her right to impose her world view on others. Sad really, but a step in the right direction.

It is always interesting to see the biases and judgemental attitudes that colour our reasoning especially in crossing linguistic and cultural barriers. Sheikh Taj in English appears as a buffoon, but in his native language he is considered internationally as an orator - with humour, subtlety and 'tongue in cheek' attitude - of the highest calibre. With the limited skills of Arabic translators here, his inexcusable lack of English and the inability of his minders to keep him quiet when under pressure, he is an easy target with little chance of reasonable redress. But our judicial system which delivers tortuous sessions in court to rape victims and hands down judgements on the same premises alluded to by Sheikh Taj, are free of similar ridicule and condemnation - sexist judgements and attitudes that cannot claim that they were mistranslated! I wonder how the debate would have been framed if some of our senior judges had been portrayed artistically on a milk carton? 'UnAustralian' or just 'defamatory'?

I do not mean to be recalcitrant - but I still don't see why this author has come in for such a bagging.

You readily agree that she questioned her knee-jerk reaction. Another way of saying that she recognised and interrogated a conditioned response, yes? So surely that's a good thing?

Many of the threads on this forum run into pages and pages which degenerate from niggling to argumentative and into personally abusive responses for lack of this very same self-realisation. Certain words: - Green, Feminist, Christian, Climate Change, Atheist, Immigration - seem to ring Pavlovian bells in some peoples minds who then rush into print regardless of the appropriateness of their conditioned response in the given instance.

You think that she questioned "her belief in her right to impose her world view on others." But I still don't understand why this has placed her in the wrong? Surely it is those who don't do so who are dangerous?

She was not questioning her participation in an arid debate, but her power to influence young minds. This led to a very real dichotomy which, as an educator, artist and private individual could have led to her morality being compromised.

I think that the fact that she took the responsible course she did is laudable. I truly don't understand why, while granting that it was "a step in the right direction" you find her dilemma "sad", nor why others on the thread who obviously do not share what they assume to be her political mindset, are united in condemnation of her decision not to impose it?