Macquarie university has run into plenty of difficulties lately what with the Fraser case and this one involving economis Peter Abelson . Dealing with repugnant and poorly-argued views like Fraser’s (he’s an unapologetic racist, arguing on the basis of pop sociology, though he’s supposed to be an academic lawyer) presents a university with great difficulties, balancing academic freedom against the need to assure students that they will be treated fairly and will not face the threat of physical violence from his unsavoury associates. I don’t think the university did a great job, but I have some sympathy for their dilemma.

The case of Peter Abelson (whom I know and respect) is a different matter altogether and illustrates the reasons we need a strong commitment to academic freedom, even at the cost of putting up with people like Fraser. It seems clear that Abelson has been punished for speaking out as he ought to in a community of scholars against declining standards in education. As with most Australian universities in the era of refom, Macquarie’s managers have no truck with notions of this kind. Their view is that the bosses of a private corporation wouldn’t tolerate criticism from the hired help, so why should the managers of a university?

If the Abelson case didn’t demonstrate this, the appointment of Stephen Schwartz as vice-chancellor to replace Di Yerbury is proof positive. While many university managers are privately hostile to academic freedom, Schwartz is an open enemy. The article linked is a fine example of the way in which hard cases like Fraser’s can be used to justify a general policy of suppressing dissenters, whistleblowers and so on (note the opening reference to the Steele case)).

I thought we had seen the last of Schwartz when he left Australia to run Brunel university in the UK. But, as happened previously at Murdoch, there was a staff vote of no-confidence and he’s moving on.

While I’m on the topic of education the idea that finishing high school is only for future professionals and that working class kids should drop out at year 10 and try to get a trade has reared its ugly head again (via Tim Dunlop and Andrew Leigh

According to today’s Fin, Bob Carr has been hired as an advisor by Macquarie Bank, and will work for them out of his (publicly-funded) ex-Premier’s office. The Fin notes that this is “sensitive, given the NSW government’s role in the infrastructure programs that have driven the bank’s growth”, and that is putting it mildly. Of all the post-political jobbery we have seen in the last decade or so, this would have to be the worst, beating out even such egregious cases as Reith and Wooldridge.

The Fin’s editorial calls for a cooling-off period between leaving politics and taking on jobs of this kind, but even a three-year gap, as in the US would not be adequate in a case like this. The Carr government’s dealings with Macquarie have involved billions of dollars of public money, and contributed (probably more than any other government) to Macquarie’s reputation as a “millionaire factory”. Any prospect of future employment when those deals were made, no matter how distant, would have created an unacceptable conflict of interest.

New Matilda is running a campaign for Australia to introduce a Human Rights Act. I meant to post about their launch, which was on Wednesday, but I’ve been rushed with work and harassed by spammers. Anyway, have a look at the site and see what you think.

I’ve never given really careful thought to the question of a Human Rights Act or Bill of Rights, but obviously the issue is sharper now, with so many people willing to throw away basic rights in the hope that this will help to stop terrorism. So throw in some comments, and I’ll try to give a considered response later on.

I’ve been reluctant to post on the Latham book, for a variety of reasons. In particular, I don’t much like politics as blood sport. I found the Brogden business pretty depressing, and similarly with this. The whole affair has certainly brought out the worst in a lot of people, including Latham himself.

Although I’ve seen various selected quotes, I didn’t watch the Denton interview until last night and I still haven’t got around to the book itself. Latham made some good points in the interview and had he chosen, he could have used his current position to make severe but constructive criticisms of the Australian political process and the Labor party. But on the whole he failed to do this, preferring instead to seek revenge on real and imagined enemies. Publishing a book of this kind is always a bad idea, and has obviously damaged Latham himself more than the targets of his indiscriminate attack. It’s also damaged the Labor party, though they are at such a low ebb in any case that it will probably not make much difference beyond the short term. But Beazley, his main target, seems to have emerged almost completely unscathed.
Read More »

Via Jack Strocchi, this story about the censorship by Deakin University of an article on the White Australia policy by racist academic Andrew Fraser, accepted for publication in its law review.

There’s a lot of background on this from Catallaxy, Mark Bahnisch and Rob Corr.

My view based on limited information: the refereeing process was highly dubious and, from what I’ve seen of Fraser, any journal with decent academic standards would reject his trash. However, that didn’t happen and the university authorities should not have engaged in ad hoc censorship.

Fraser appears to be right in claiming that an academic publication in good faith is protected under the Racial Hatred Act, so the university would have to find a reason the publication was not in good faith, for example, that normal academic standards were waived in the interests of attracting controversial publicity. This seems plausible, given the recent record of Deakin Law School, but the University hasn’t made such a claim.

Having taken nearly ten years to sell half of Telstra, the government seems to be in an awful hurry to sell the rest, ramming the necessary legislation through Parliament with almost no debate. Yet it’s clear that they still don’t have a clue about how to sell Telstra for an adequate price, what control they want to exercise in the future or how to implement the policy of structural separation.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this resort to the guillotine was not due to any particular urgency about this legislation. Rather the government had the numbers and couldn’t resist using them. This is a bad sign for the future, both for Australia and the government. Such hubris generally turns out badly for all concerned.

I’ve made a Supplementary Submission (over the fold) to the Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto regarding the possibility that bloggers and commenters might fall under Section 328 of the Electoral Act, requiring publication of names and addresses authorising political matter. Comments appreciated
Read More »

New South Wales has a new premier, someone sufficiently obscure (to me, at any rate) that his name didn’t even occur to me when I thought about possible successors to Bob Carr last week, and suggested that the NSW machine would do well to look outside their own ranks. Instead, they’ve picked someone who’s been a minister for two years, and whose main claim to fame is that he’s a protege of Graham Richardson. Having done so, they managed to fix up an uncontested appointment, apparently under the impression that voters are worried by any suggestion that their rulers might not only believe in democracy but practice it from time to time. I’ve seen many instances of this kind of deal, but can’t recall any that led to electoral success. And, given that Iemma’s first action was to sack his deputy, I doubt that this will turn out to be an exception.

What thought process can have led the Sussex Street machine to think this was a good idea? Given the absence of any obvious candidate, wouldn’t it have been a good idea to leave this one to the Caucus to sort out. Even pure self-interest might have suggested keeping their nose out. In the quite likely event that Labor loses the next election, the machine will certainly cop a large share of the blame, whereas, should they win, the credit will go to Iemma personally.

I think this is yet another instance of the hammer-nail problem. What the machine does is stitch up deals, so any problem looks like the occasion for a stitch-up.

The release of the remaining children being held in detention brings an end to the worst single part of this sad and shameful chapter in our history. At the same time, the oppressive use of Temporary Protection Visas has been rejected by the Federal Court. I hope the government will not appeal against this decision, and that we can put the whole sorry episode behind us, and start the search for a more rational and humane solution to the problem of responding to asylum seekers.