The kind of bias that this lecturer claims isn't happening can be quite easily seen here:

http://www.younglibs.org.au/site//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=60

See quotes on aboriginal history:
* "Australian culture...which for over two centuries has used various forms of overt and covert suppression to subjugate indigenous owners of the land"
* "Economics are closely allied to law and religion and were also used to keep Aboriginal people under white control"
* "the vicious divisions between mainstream and minority politics which have arisen under the Howard government"
* "Why is the Anzac legend such a call to Australian arms ... what other legends might we celebrate instead?"

Sounds pretty biased to me.

It's curious that Katharine's list of reasons 'why a lecturer might reveal their position' is noticably absent the one at hand...that lecturers, like all people, want to influence others towards their own worldview/opinion on important topics.

Seeing first hand the sort of bias that Katharine feels is extremely rare, I am somewhat skeptical of her defense. You have only to walk into a sociology course or even law to find that this bias is all too prevalent.

Perhaps Katharine prefers an environment where her own actions as an educator are above scrutiny, but such an entitlement is certainly not due or necessary for someone who is meant to be a provider of a vital service paid for by both the tax payers and students.

"Academics and their institutions are supposed to recognise the areas in need of study, with one of their prime motives surely being the protection of our society and the achievement of the sacred balance between all things human and the environment… and between resource consumption and waste production, and the ability of the environment to keep providing the necessary resources and absorbing the impacts in an ongoing manner. Surely one of the prime motives of academia has got to be this sort of thing, given that our future wellbeing is so strongly under threat."

Nice sentiment Ludwig, however for a superb example of the lengths that those with great wealth and power will go to to protect and 'grow' their interests, check our the very thorough research by Clyde W Barrow who exposed the pernicious ways and means employed by the richest and most powerful tycoons in America to silence academic dissent against unbridled U$ capitalism, war and so on during earlier 'crises' in the Capitalist system.

'Universities and the Capitalist State: Corporate Liberalism and the
Reconstruction of American Higher Education, 1894-1928. University of Wisconsin Press 1990' is a compelling read, as it paved the way, in my opinion, for the mostly unchallenged imposition upon a troubled world economy - decades later - of Neo-Classical or Neo-Liberal economic THEORY.

As Barrow reveals, speaking out in Academe can be a costly 'freedom'.

Modern academia is veiled in agenda, as a function of relativist dichotomies and the elevation of the 'personal narrative' to the status of 'truth.'

Its the 'stooopud factory' of post modernism. Anything goes, as long as you and yourself feel it and can illucidate a personal narrative therefrom.

What do people do with a wide/open perceptual device?... come down very hard on one side to the exclusion of all others. Ironic.

Its hardly any wounder, that when folks engage free licence to rationalise self-referential perspectives, they end up in a battle with themselves. Convincing themselves of the value of their narratives. Capacity for logical, expansive thinking scampers off to the safety of opinion, subjectivity, ideology, toward the arbitrary.

When given the opportunity to think outside of the circle, the relativist hides in corners. Where things can be made to make sense, where its safe, where the ego can snuggle itself with its feelings and trick itself with rationalisation.

On one hand academia is informed by the value of the personal narrative and on the other, the broader society and academia itself, constantly advocates meta-narratives, like left versus right.

The one saving grace is that by the time young adults start university, most of them already know HOW to think, having figured out that schooling, society, family, institutions, government are only interested in teaching one WHAT to think. They prolly learn to switch hats, make the right noises, get the grades, get the ticket-to-ride and then get on with it.

It ties closely in with political correctness. Folks say whats accepted, dont say whats not and then vote with their feet.

'Common sense' is the problem that relativist personal narratives feed into. It not about giving commonly rationalised meaning to what the senses perceive. The point of eduction is to use the brain to THINK, logically, to push beyond the limited ability of the senses and how the appearance of what the senses perceive is often deceptive. eg. my senses tell me that l am not moving, but reason tells me that this planet never stops moving.

What of the Aboriginal academia ? What of their contribution or value ? With their desire and intention to re-write and to re-teach the history or this country ? And from their point of view ? With their stated agendas of "doing it for our people"? for more info on this issue, www.whitc.info/

Katharine starts her article by accusing her opponents of "Anti-intellectualism" but doesn't once stop to prove the charge or even to define what she means by it. This is nothing more than ad hominem attack, which by the way is not very intellectual.

She proceeds to mock the serious charge of indoctrination that has been laid against left wing academics: "Apparently we’re not educators, we’re indoctrinators. What a powerful charge!" Yes it is a powerful charge and it deserves a respectful, logical, powerful reply.

She then misrepresents the case: “I think you’re biased because I disagree with you. Therefore you must be biased. And bias is bad; very, very bad.” The Young Liberals claim that they are against indoctrination and in favour of freedom of expression. If Katharine finds that they are in fact stifling freedom of expression then let her give evidence of it.

As one who has many times seen the propensity of university lecturers in the humanities and social sciences to push left wing causes and intimidate and marginalise any who might disagree, I do see a need for publicly funded universities to be held to account. This is an issue that is beyond "left" and "right" wing categories and goes to the heart of what it is to be a good society, one that values truth-seeking in a climate of free and constructive debate.