rightwingrules,

Out of an entire prospectus you proffer three courses which you give as assertive evidence for this article? This is hardly the application of scholarship. If you deconstruct each precis you will notice the use of the verbs:-
"assumed", "Devles into" "explores" [explorations of]"addressed". (Colour: Identity and Difference - ATSI3005)

"examines" Australian Cultural & Social Environments - AUST2009

As for Women and Men: Gender in Australia - AUST2034 this "considers"
aspects of gender within various paradigms.

Those who are not interested in examining how various viewpoints regarding gender, race or sociology came into being and operate in society need not include these courses. Pretty simple, really.

Throughout University I studied the mythology and historicism of the Bible, of Withcraft, and comparative religions. I am not a Christian nor do I belong to any religious denomination. I freely chose to take up some of the courses on offer as electives - just as I chose to reject others. Does this make a case for claiming that Universities are saturated in religious dogma and rallying the troops to have all such courses banned?

Stick with Uni, mate. You have much to learn.

BOAZ_David says:

"If we are studying Economics.. a responsible lecturer will outline the various approaches and leave the students to decide about them, and enable them to discuss the merits/deficiencies of each approach.....no?"

Actually, no, Boaz. Ever been to an economics lecture? Many of the lecturers are neo-liberals and alternative views don't get a look in.

I don't see the new McCarthyists campaigning against this "heinous crime". Perhaps because it is their Weltanschauung being taught. (Yeah, look it up, YLs!)

Boaz mentions Christian perspectives. Religion is worthy of study. That doesn't mean a Christian perspective can inform rational analysis. I don't see how something irrational can inform rational discourse in the sciences for example. There may be a spot for such irrationality in analysing political and social issues and like a stopped clock it might be right sometimes i.e. even provide some insights.

I assume there are insightful religionists. Keysar Trad on another post on OLO tried but he too failed because he is caught in the same mindset as you, Boaz.

Liberation theology has an interesting approach. And Spong is worth reading. But dogmatic religious fundamentalism? No mind using this tool will provide adequate rational analysis capable of being accepted in the halls of rational thought.

Anyway, the political attack by these intellectuals is beyond the pale. "I disagree with you so you should be sacked." Unbelievable rubbish from supposed Uni students. It just highlights the irrelevancy of the Liberals in the battle of ideas (and the inadequacy of our education system to train people to think critically. But maybe it is the closed shop of the Liberals producing that. A closed shop politically leads to a closed mind analytically.) How appropriate that a dunder head like Nelson leads them. What a role model for these Young Liberals and their moral, political and social turpitude. (Yeah. Look it up!)

Romany,
There are more than three courses listed in the actual web-site.

I have “delved” into similar courses from another university, and I think that the sooner gender vilification laws are introduced the better.

Not one single positive word was said about males in the entire curriculum, with every negative term possible being applied to the male gender. So much for balance.

Passy,
Did you learn the term “dunderhead” from a balanced social science course. Seems rather abusive.

On Wealth: A communist? Mao Revisited Perhaps?

“…among the ancient Romans, the lands of the rich were all cultivated by slaves, who wrought under an overseer, who was likewise a slave; so that a poor freeman had little chance of being employed either as a farmer or as a labourer. All trades and manufactures too, even the retail trade, were carried on by the slaves of the rich for the benefit of their masters, whose wealth, authority, and protection made it difficult for a poor freeman to maintain the competition against them. The citizens, therefore, who had no land, had scarce any other means of subsistence” – Mao? - No - Adam Smith [1776]

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Volume: 2. Contributors: Adam Smith [1776]- author. Clarendon Press. Oxford. Publication Year: 1976 Edition.[ p.557.]

[1] Smith's is saying that the ability to generate wealth is not so dissimilar to Marx's notion our station in life is related to ownership or non-ownership of the means of production. Based on the above, an excellent 101 class question might be; "Is Adam Smith a Communist?" Students then can read both Smith [in context] and Marx [in context]. And THINK.

[2] Capitalism vis~a~vis Wealth generation needs a context. Moreover, alternatives. I see no problem in discussing say The Labour Theory of Value in an Orthodox Economics class. Before 1900, Economics was more closely aligned with sociology; e.g., Marx & Co.

Not More teaching, less preaching, rather: More scope, and more independent thinking and less dogmatic teaching and no preaching. Open systems; not closed.

HRS says:

"Passy,
"Did you learn the term “dunderhead” from a balanced social science course. Seems rather abusive."

You're correct. I apologise to all dunderheads for bringing Brendan Nelson into their circle.

But my comment, although flippant, does reflect a reality for the Liberals, from leadership problems in WA to Victoria to the Federal party, coupled with recriminations in NSW and the dominance there of the extreme right, The Liberal Party looks at the moment incapable of establishing itself as an alternative Government or as a party of alternative ideas.

The Young Liberals' foray into the politics of fear (and perhaps envy of those who have the capacity to think critically) just shows how widespread the political bankruptcy of the Liberals is. John Howard's legacy has been to destroy the Party as a viable flexible thinking representative of the ruling class. (That role has passed to the ALP).

Instead we find the politics exemplified by the Young Liberals of trying to coalesce a small group around a straw person enemy, in this case "left-wing" academics.

The process is the same with racism - find an enemy and appeal to that section of society which fears those who are different physically or in the case of some academics politically and mentally.

As Victoria shows it is then not too far to anti-semitism, although I know the Liberals won't campaign around this. Some of them will just think it. Far better to target academics, as the young Liberals have done, or Muslims as their grown up version did.

The politics of hate are no way forward if the Liberals want to replace Labor as the natural party of the bourgeoisie.

Passy,
I’m not sure of the university you went to, but the term “dunderhead” still seems rather passé and abusive, similar to calling whites “imperialists” or males “oppressors”.

If you are male and white, best to enroll in a maths or science course (and I do not include social science as a science). Otherwise the lecturer may label you an oppressive, imperialistic dunderhead, and you will then have the task of arguing with the lecturer that you are not.

The issue of academic freedom and whether academics should be presenting their own biased or prejudiced viewpoints has been around in countries such as the US for some decades, and I do not think the US has the Young Liberals.

See Academic Bill Of Rights developed by the Students for Academic Freedom.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/documents/1925/abor.html