Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not sure my take will align with yours but here goes. To me the correlation relates to over reach by both respective governing bodies and the corrosion of values by outside money.

Over reach of course in the sense that they are not owned by an individual and not strictly corporations either but have acted like they are.

I think we have to accept that in a capitalist culture a sole owner of a rugby club can decide he does not want to continue to pay someone who is turning away sponsors. But the governing body of the sport should not have that expediency. I don't accept that they should be so beholden to corporate sponsorship that they could deny one of Australia's best rugby players the chance to play for his country. But this was the case they put to Folau in their initial meeting with him. I'm not saying there shouldn't be avenues for sanctions for non-compliance with rules of employment but the bar of termination for putting the game into disrepute should be set appropriately high with justifications that will stand up in court.

I am not so deep into conspiracy theories that I believe outside funding is the primary driver for Climate change research. However it would be dishonest to claim it had no influence in the decisions of the JCU administrators. JCU is a public university. It should display a higher value system toward inclusion and academic freedom than what we might expect out of a Catholic university or perhaps a Bond University.

So the final judgement in both cases will centre around whether either governing body had the right to place the stipulations of employment they did on either individual, or more to the point whether they are found to be legally enforceable.

As an aside I did consider the stance taken by the National Tertiary Education Union as more commendable than that of the Rugby Player's Association even though a representative of the latter did attend the hearing with Folau.

So what is your take?

Hi Steele,

For once, I agree with you, on these issues.

Jesus, now either I'm a lefty fruit-cake or you're a knuckle-dragging Alt-Right. [Or is it the other way around ?]

Or maybe both of us are somewhere in between :)

Cheers,

Joe

Reflux, you seemed to consider that ill-breeding of yourself was inappropriate to explain your behaviour. If you have a more appropriate explanation of the reason for your disgraceful behaviour, please inform us.

SR,

Actually I don't differ from your view on the issue much at all.

With regards Folau, PC pressure, particularly from Quantas who is their major sponsor is a major factor in the action they have taken, and now that they have announced his sacking before even a tribunal has taken place is the workplace equivalent of a verdict being issued before a trial has started.

While not knowing what was in his contract, the onus to show significant breach of contract lies on RA.

With regards PR, the Uni council clearly failed to understand that the employment contract had contradictory elements where intellectual freedom took precedence. That at no point did the JCU council even challenge the factual validity of PR's statements made the decision very clear. Ruffling the feathers of colleagues is not a dismissable offence. I think that the chance of a successful appeal here is slim.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Since we are being rather congenial on this I'm wondering if you had given any thought to the fact that the protections for Ridd's academic freedom were union driven? It would appear they are the last bastion so to speak. Ultimately giving everything over to the market can only erode those protections. Have we gone too far?

Dear Loudmouth,

I believe most people are pretty decent and when ideology is parked then agreement is almost always assured on the grounds of aforementioned decency, fairness and shared experiences. I'm not saying ideology doesn't have its place as some of the great social leaps forward have resulted in exercising it. However we generally have far more in common than we do differences and not enough attention or respect is paid to those commonalities.

SR,

Given that Intellectual freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of Universities, the propensity of unions against free speech, and the fact that the effort to fire PR came from a "union" of left wing academics, I remain skeptical as to the involvement of the unions in the insertion of clause 14 of the EA.

I would say that Clause 18c is also a major erosion of free speech.