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
John Quiggin 
John, your link re Schwartz advises:
“Contrary to what we said in the article below, the staff at Brunel University have neither raised nor passed a vote of no confidence in the vice-chancellor, Professor Steven Schwartz.”
Quoting Schwartz in your link to his paper, “Academic freedom has served us well. It has replaced superstition with science and privilege with inclusiveness. But universities would go too far if they employed alchemists or gave tenure to those who argue for racial genocide. Just as there are limits to free speech in a political democracy, there are also limits to academic freedom when it violates professional competence or strongly held university values. ”
And this makes him an open enemy of academic freedom? You’re kidding aren’t you?
Geoff, I’ve fixed this error, thanks.
Talisker, you’ve missed the point, even though I thought it was pretty clear in the post. Cases like Fraser’s and hypothetical examples are used to justify the actions of managers in suppressing dissenters like Steele and Abelson. This is the usual approach of opponents of free speech.
As usual, public sector administrators are a generation behind their private sector counterparts. IME, good private sector bosses welcome internal criticism and provide outlets for it, since capable, intelligent but disaffected staff will soon leave to join (or set up) the competition. But to accept criticism requires belief in a meritocracy, the notion that people at the bottom of a hierarchy may have ideas worth listening to and acting on. Having worked in Government, in business and in academia, I have to say that Universities are the least meritocratic and their management the most status conscious of the three.
Peter Abelson is a good bloke and a fine economist. I wonder who has lost most from his departure.
My guess is that Macquarie has lost more than he has. Its a pity for their economics area but I am sure he will do well.
I agree with Harry.
Peter was a lecturer of mine when I studied there.
He was a stickler for high standards.
He is Macquarie’s loss.
I remember Schwartz well from when I was an undergrad rep on Academic Board at UQ in 91 and he was President of the Board. A very canny operator indeed.
well I don’t say anywhere in Schwartz’ article which says he would fire whistleblowers or suggest he is hostile to academic freedom. essentially all he says is that a line sometimes has to be drawn and may be drawn in the case of geographers who teach that the earth is flat or people who advocate racial genocide and other examples of shoddy research. it seems that Schwartz’s very prescient article was tailor made exactly for the likes of difficult cases like Fraser’s but does not anywhere indicate a general hostility to academc freedom. The case of Abelson’s treatment may be lamentable I’m not too fussed about the treatment of the likes of Fraser.
I would be concerned with the State censoring speech.Universities, though they may receive public funding, are not part of the State. And if the argument is that no institution or organisation that receives some public funding should be prevented from restricting the speech of its employees, well that covers a large chunk of the economy where employers would be obliged to subsidise their employees’ free speech.
sorry, last sentence should read
‘And if the argument is that *every* institution or organisation that receives some public funding should be prevented from restricting the speech of its employees, well that covers a large chunk of the economy where employers would be obliged to subsidise their employees’ free speech.
I have been telling anyone who could be bothered to listen that (New Left) Cultural Wets and (New Right) Economic Dries are happy to join forces to chill academic freedom when it suits their prerogatives (ie academic and bureaucratic rackets). The Fraser and Abelson scandals provide the kind of proof for this claim that I would not have dared to fabricate.
These kind of managerial bossy boots pretend to have a correct political and professional attitude. But they are just feathering their own nest for bonuses and options. Welcome to the Brave New World of individual contract IR, catering to the “politically correct” and “economicly rational”.
Academic freedom is indivisible. So if one feels inclined to stand aside when someone with whom one has a political animus gets shafted by authority then it is not surprising that authority takes this as a cue to shut down more ethical and politically acceptable forms of speech.
It is a fact that many “small ‘l’ liberals” (Wets) betrayed their nominal political committments to join the Fraser lynch mob. This was a complete disgrace and betrayal of their supposed fidelity to Mill and Milton.
I hope bloggers and commenters who style themselves as small ‘l’ liberals (Wets) will finally get the take home message from this outrage: dissenting academic voices deserve a fair go. Ultimately, robust freedom of academic speech is in everyones interest.
At the risk of grotesque hyperbole I cant resist quoting the following poem, which describes an analogous situation:
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Jack
get over your shrill hysterics
Fraser as far as I can tell is still employed and drawing a paycheck. he’s not the victim of anything.
Jason Soon Says: October 12th, 2005 at 12:48 am
Jason Soon styles himself as a Whig, who were supposed to value freedom above all other social arrangements. So he should get over his apologetics for authoritarianism, left and right.
Jason Soon is wrong every way about the Fraser case. Fraser was bounced off Maquarie uni and forced into early retirement, which comes at the end of this FY. He has been stripped of his administrative privileges.
He was also banned from publishing. I am not aware of any academic in recent history that received this kind of treatment for engaging in free speech.
Jason Soon’s contrived rationale for the banning of Fraser – Deakin Uni could not tolerate a breach of professional standards, poor peer review, speaking outside core competency – is absurd on the face of it. The Australian liberal academy has been infested with communist revolutionaries and cultural theorists who have done nothing but that for generations.
Noone but Jason Soon believes the “professional standards” argument. Abelson was actually protesting the decline in standards in the soft sciences. He was sacked for his troubles.
Deakin Uni insists they banned Fraser on the (shaky) grounds that he breached Racial Vilification Act. In fact, Fraser simply put some powerful peoples noses out of joint, as did Abelson. So they got the sack.
This is how things are in the new workplace. Speak out of turn and you will get fired.
Get on your knees academic crawlers! Its time to really learn how to pucker up.
Once you accept the principle that it is ok to ban people when it suits ones own political and professional interests then it is very hard to stop the authoritarian momentum from gathering. Until only the insiders and their cronies get to say what they want.
Fraser was an acid test for the Wets committment to intellectual freedom and they lay down like dogs.
“well I don’t say anywhere in Schwartz’ article which says he would fire whistleblowers or suggest he is hostile to academic freedom. ”
As I said in the post, look at the first line of the article and read about the Steele case. There’s only one reasonable implication here, namely that Schwartz is endorsing the view that it’s up to university managers to decide the limits of academic freedom. Having mentioned the Steele case, if he wanted to say that this was a case where the wrong thing had been done, he had a perfect opportunity.
And I would have thought the kind of damning with faint praise of the form “Freedom X has served us well … But there must be limits” ought to be familiar to you in the more general context of current debates over rights of free speech and association.
“He was also banned from publishing.”
Jack … Fraser pubished his paper in The Australian. No one tried to stop him; no one is suing him; the police haven’t raided his house at dawn and taken away his computer.
Abelson is a different case altogether. He criticised the university’s academic standards, a subject on which, as a professor, he is perfectly qualified, and should be competely entitled, to pass comment.
Minor edit by JQ
Dave Ricardo Says: October 12th, 2005 at 8:54 am
No. Fraser’s professional career was ruined because of his political values. He was forced out of his academic job and banned from academic publishing. This was a violation of academic freedom beceause Fraser is an academic.
Get it?
This sends a message to independent minded thinkers – of cerrtain persuasions – that they will not be tolerated. This was ostensibly because his remarks were alleged to threaten the security of students. In fact they just annoyed a lobby group with funds at its disposal.
Abelson’s case is slightly different in that he was standing up for professional standars – teaching and research quality in the soft sciences – rather than political values. But he was sacked for what boiled down to the same reason: he said things which upset powerful people’s rackets. So he had to go.
The Fraser and Abelson case proves what I have always been saying about so-called “New” thinking people (New Left and New Right) which is that they really dont care about political values only about professional advancement and a not rocking the boat.
I am just staggered by the monumental hypcrisy of the so-called defenders of freedom (small l liberals or Wets) in this issue. A disgruntled academic dashes off a harmless rant and tries to publish it in an obscure journal and suddenly the sky will fall unless we run him off campus.
How fragile is the Soft Left consensus that it cannot stand the occasional poke by an irate eccentric?
And what would our brave defenders of freedom do if a real threat to freedom came along, say a return to stand-over tactics by the bosses? I am betting that they would roll over.
This proves what I said from the beginning: academic freedom is indivisible. There is no point in having freedom unless “bad” or difficult people are allowed to have their say.
“I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue.”
Jack, this thread is about Abelson, not Fraser, so I won’t persist after this, but you are wrong.
Fraser’s academic expertise is in public law. He has no more academic expertise, or credentials, on the subject he tried to publish on than Homer Simpson.
Suppose an academic physicist tried to publish a paper in a physics journal, using his university’s affiliation to boost his authority, on how the Holocaust is a myth, and even it it isn’t, the Jews deserved their fate because of some fictitious even that allegedly occurred during the Weimar Republic.
Would you say the pysicist had an unalloyed right to publish that paper in that journal?
“Minor edit by JQ”
It was a major edit in the context.
I tend to Dave ricardo’s explanation.
Fraser was not writing in his field of endeavour ( mind you this is what got Galielo into trouble!) whereas Abelson was actually doing his job!!
A job I can testify to he was and is very good at.
given the IR legislation this is a sign of the times.
Dave Ricardo Says: October 12th, 2005 at 9:37 am
No. David Ricardo’s silly analogy is wrong or misleading in every detail.
The Deakin Law Reviw publishes regularly on matters of public policy. Check out this issue. Immigrant selection and settlement policy – the topic of Fraserrs rant – are matters of public policy. Therefore it is not unreasonable for DLR to publish a paper on this matter. It would be silly for a physics journal to publish any kind of paper on the Holocaust.
Moreover Fraser’s academic experience has given him some professional knowledge of constitutional history and immigration law. Enough to warrant him being given the right to have his say:
It is ludicrous for David Ricardo to put Fraser’s pro-“White Australia Policy” viewpoint on a par with the Nazi’s genocidal racism. I disagree with the WAP because it is not in Australia’s national interest. It is unfair to people of colour who might become worthy citizens, always assuming the idiocy of multiculturalism is set aside.
But it is stupid to imply that supporters of WAP – which include Barton, Deakin, Parkes, Curtin, Chiffley, Calwell, Menzies, Hughes, Wentworth – were some kind of proto-Nazi war criminals.
Finally, the subject matter of Fraser’s rant was the correlation of ethnicity to criminal behaviour. I believe that he was wrong to rubbish the Sudanese immigrants for being crime risks. They are blameless for their fate and have not harmed anyone.
But I think that it is entirely fair and reasonable for academic social scientists to investigate whether some ethnic groups are more susceptible to crime than others. As a person of a certain ethnic persuasion I may be expected to have some inside knowledge of this subject! (No names, no pack drill.)
I am annoyed that Fraser’s article was well below intellectual par, this should have been sorted out by proper editing rather than banning. Why dont the Cultural Wets/Economic Dries just admit it – they were wrong to stampede Fraser out of the academy.
Jack, please stick to civilised discussion. If an analogy is silly, show don’t tell. That is don’t say “Ricardo’s silly analogy is wrong”, give a convincing reason why it’s worng and leave the reader to decide if it’s silly.
Sorry to be pedantic here, but I’ve had to come down hard on several other commentators and then they complain that they’re being singled out.
The key line in Schwartz’s linked article is about ‘strongly held university values’, which it is of course inappropriate to transgress through ‘irresponsible’ exercise of free speech. As the Abelson case shows, these values clearly include the unchallengeable assumption that academic standards are every day, in every way, getting better and better. Reminds me of the taboos around criticism of the explicit and absurd optimism of the latest Soviet five-year plan.
I disagree with Jason on the Fraser matter – it doesn’t do to insist on academic freedom only within the narrowly defined confines of ‘professional’ competency. Bigots, holocaust deniers, history whitewashers, climate change sceptics and the like should be able to spout their stuff without let or hindrance, and have the manifest weaknesses of their cases equally exposed to debate. It seems to me that disbarring physicists from airing their views about jurisprudence or comparative Slavonic linguistics and vice versa actually attacks the whole concept of a university. As the term ‘university’ suggests, it’s about a catholic attitude to illumination, examination and analysis of ideas of all sorts, no matter whence they come. Once upon a time, there was only one subject – philosophy. It was perhaps a sad day when ‘natural philosophy’ split from that primordial unity, and now academic specialties multiply like lemmings in the Nordic summer.
I know the good Professor Q’s field of economics has in recent decades embarked upon campaigns of imperial conquest through almost every sphere of human and academic activity. Economists thus feel competent to hold forth on any topic from the utility of studying black holes to the value of education in classical languages. Linguistics and literary criticism have similarly beseiged the ivory towers of other disciplines like barbarian hordes through their pernicious and banale doctrine of post-modernism. However, the fact that these vogue disciplines have pumped themselves full of hot air and claim the right to speak on any subject does not disqualify specialists from other fields from embarking on like extra-disciplinary frolics.
I’ve never found the ‘I know more about this than you do, so there!’ line to be an effective argumentative trump card, any more than the ad hominem smears that pass for debate in the opinion pages of our newspapers are.
Academic freedom is like judicial independence and (as the motto on the editorial page of the Courier-Mail anomalously used to cite) freedom of speech – it can’t be limited without being lost.
My old mum is fond of remarking how they only advertise virtues when they’ve already been lost – eg David Jones advertising service only now when they no longer provide it. We live in an age where universities advertise themselves as being ‘for the real world’ and to ‘expand your mind’. Seems to me the proliferation of Schwartzes on the thrones of the academy suggests she has a point.
I am happy with this. But I feel sorry for my critics because if we are going to constrain verbal argy-bargy then they will be left speechless.
John, thank you for your consideration, but I am a big boy and can handle myself against the likes of Jack Strocchi.
“I disagree with Jason on the Fraser matter – it doesn’t do to insist on academic freedom only within the narrowly defined confines of ‘professional’ competency. Bigots, holocaust deniers, history whitewashers, climate change sceptics and the like should be able to spout their stuff without let or hindrance, and have the manifest weaknesses of their cases equally exposed to debate”
I think many people in this debate including Hal9000 and Jack Strocchi are continuing to conflate two things
1) an academic’s freedom, unconstrained by *legislative* restrictions to speculate, even wrong headedly, on any topic under the sun as private citizens
2) an academic’s ability to flaunt his or her title and affiliations and use it to present his or her own personal opinions on matters outside their specific competency without suffering any adverse consequences whatsoever whether it be in terms of distancing themselves (the best minimalist response) or suspending their position (an extreme response but one that may be proportionate in extreme cases) if their employer thinks that such actions reflect badly on their institutional integrity
I am unreservedly in favour of 1 but in regards to 2 there is more than one party involved whose reputation is at stake and university administrators are put in a very difficult situation. I would tend to cut them a bit of slack as they are likely to have a better understanding of the special considerations involved than outside parties. If using the affiliatation of my employer I were t write a series of op-ed pieces asserting the case for, say, East Asian ethnic supremacy, I think it’s fairly predictable and understandable what the response of my employer would be. While a university is not equivalent to a profit-making consultancy, it occupies an intermediate position between non-profit and profit status and even then non-profit considerations of integrity would dictate certain constraints on the ability of its employees to use its ‘brand’ to promote their personal views.
Jason has just shown why Fraser and Abelson should be treated as different cases.
It is interesting that Abelson get sacked for doing his job.
As I recall he was quite a fan of Rawls, John that is.
I agree with Jason’s view on this – issues only arise when academics use their university title. I think there are ethical issues in academics falsely claiming or implying expertise that apply to the academic personally and the university institutionally, and reputational issues for the university (the academic should be free to wreck his or her reputation). As Jason suggests, the call on this should be left to the university, but I have no in-principle objection to universities taking disciplinary action against academics who persistently produce rubbish under the university’s name.
I’m not clear that the Abelson case is an academic freedom issue – according to media reports, it is about outside work policy. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16815100%255E12332,00.html. Other people are drawing the connection with Abelson’s past statements. Academics are second only to the people who think that instructions from the world government are being beamed through the Deakin telephone exchange in their love of conspiracy theories, so claims that Abelson’s resignation is related to his past statements on dumbing down should be treated sceptically without further evidence.
Jason Soon Says: October 12th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Great. So now we can go ahead and sack, or ban, from the academy most of the humanities academics who have the cheek to pop up in the op-ed pages in order to tell us how to run our lives the way they think best? Because for sure these folk are flaunting [their] title and affiliations … to present [their] own personal opinions on matters outside their specific competency”. And usually in a way that is half-cocked, ideologically tendentious and intellectually vacuous.
“I’d rather be ruled by the first hundred names in the Cambridge phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University.” William F. Buckley
Fraser was doing no worse than whats been done a million times before by the hordes of other thoroughly unprofessional and overly politicised humanities academics who have graced the pages of our metropolitan dailies or tonier magazines. He flapped his jaws in an offensive way on a subject that he is ill-equipped to handle.
The only difference is that Fraser grossly violated a tenet of political correctness – he was rude about race. And that put alot of important peoples noses out of joint, not to mention threatening to upset the foreign students gravy train. So he got banned whilst the madding crowd of communist revolutionaries, national liberationists and post-modernists who have corrupted in the liberal academy these past couple of generations got a free pass. You call that justice?
The scandal isn’t the illegal behavior–the scandal is what’s legal. Michael Kinsley.
Jason Soon has changed tack more times in this debate than an America’s Cup skipper. He wants to ban Fraser because of racial vilification, he wants to ban Fraser because of unprofessional peer review process, he wants to ban Fraser because he wandered off the specified competency reservation.
I think Jason Soon just wants to ban Fraser, come what may.
[Fill in the blank with a politically correct person] stands its trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets….The only success victorious defense can possibly produce is a change in the indictment.
Joseph Schumpeter.
Andrew Norton Says: October 12th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
What if an academic has negative knowledge about the thing he is paid to lecture on or publish on? There have been plenty of humanities academics who have actually dissipated knowledge, by confusing or misleading people with mumbo-jumbo or straight out lies. Andrew Norton’s professional propriety principle would open the floodgates to a new index of censorhip (administered by what authority?).
Maybe thats what we need to stop the rot in the humanities. But it certainly isn’t what I would expect to hear coming from a modern day Whig.
“It ain’t what a man don’t know that makes him a fool, but what he
knows that ain’t so.” Mark Twain
BTW, most of the analysis of this issue has focused on the free speech angle, which is completely beside the point to the Powers That Be. That gives the impression that the PTB care about ideas and values, when in fact all they care about is money and power.
I reprint below my Grand Unifying Theory that explains the treatment meted out to Fraser. It also predicts what happened to Abelson (progressive research program!):
Jack Strocchi Says: September 20th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Money talks, everything else walks. Jason Soon and Andrew Norton, as cynical economists, repeat commenters and blog hosts, have no excuse for not being onto this.
Jack
I will leave it to someone with more patience like Katz or Fyodor to deal with you, but you are becoming increasingly demented and your lack of comprehension skills are showing. A few things I can’t let you get away with:
Unlike you I can’t bear repeating myself or at least feel self-conscious when I do but I have to say it again. I am against banning anyone for racial vilification, I object to anti-vilification laws. But though I accept that academics should get more leeway than the rest of us humble employees in being protected against dismissal for expressing objectionable views, no one is entitled to perpetual job security and to perpetually draw a pay check even if their employer thinks they have on balance become a net liability.
You want perfect security against being dismissed because of your views? Be an independent scholar. That’s life, deal with it. Saying this is not equivalent to wanting to ‘ban’ anyone – may I remind you that I linked to the full text of Fraser’s article on my blog?
My line has always been clear and consistent. And incidentally arguments about whether Fraser initially got special dispensation for publishing in Fraser Law Review are *separate* from arguments about *Macquarie* university wanting to discipline him for using his title in a letter to the papers picking on Sudanese refugees. Using *different arguments to address different issues* is part of Logic 101 (as opposed to wheeling out the same Jack Strocchi monomania for every issue under the sun ‘nyah nyah to the wets’) it isn’t ‘changing tack’.
Administered by the university you dope. That’s what this argument was about, remember?
Over to you, gentlemen, gut the clownfish
Jason Soon Says: October 12th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
The reason why I am continually harping on this subject is because of the hypocrisy of the Wets who nominally support freedom but effectively ignore it. I happen to enjoy poking fun at Jason Soon’s intellectual contortions and ideological contradictions. Thankfully this malicious pleasure is not yet illegal.
I want to do them slowly. There’s gotta be a bit of sport in this for all of us. Paul Keating to some clownfish
Jason Soon does not like repeating himself because this would expose his intellectual flip-flopping and ideological backsliding on this issue. He originally argued that Fraser was, or should have been, banned from publishing because his article was published after improper peer-review. Through the magic of hyperlinking we can expose his slippery initial position:
Jason Soon says: October 5th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
This improper peer review and racial vilification arguments were denied by the editor and rejected by the uni and legal academics. As Simon Rice (big shot lawyer) averred:
So Jason Soon had to abandon that line of offence. (Interesting to note that Jason Soon implicitly conceded my point that commercial considerations were critical in banning Fraser. Except that Jason Soon thinks it is ok to silence academic freedom in the pursuit of profit.
“For what should it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?” Matthew 16:26
Now Jason Soon concocts yet another excuse for banning Fraser from the academy. Apparently if an academic, like Fraser, has published a poor quality, offensive article outside his “specific competency” then he should get gagged. That principle is ludicrous because it would result in the banning of about 65% of all academics who have got a run on the op-ed pages, including Jason Soon by the look of things. Is this Jason Soon’s idea of a “whiggish perspective”?
I commend Jason Soon for his generous and freedom-loving hyperlinking gesture on that occasion. But he sidesteps the basic issue. This argument has never been the freedom to publish to the general public from open media. It has been about academic freedom, a privilege not a right to be sure.
But a privilege that Fraser did not abuse any more than hordes of other humanities academics such as po-mos, commies, libbers et al who have darkened acres of wood pulp in defence of the unspeakable. Jason Soon has been consistently silent on this multitude of sinners. Perhaps he thinks he can practice selective absolution?
Only what Fraser said was politically incorrect and threatened commercial interests. So down came the guillotine.
No, see above about what the argument was about. So I can sleep soundly safe in the knowledge that political commisars like Yerbury and commercial managerialists like Schwarz are kindling the torch of liberty. Thanks for the reassurance and ringing defence of liberty!
As I said from the beginning, the Cultural Wets and Economic Dries are happy to be in cahoots to sell freedom down the river.
Esau said “Oh, I had sold my birthright for a mess of potage…Thus Esau despised his birthright.” Genesis 25: 32-34
Jack – Like other classical liberals, Jason and I think that there is a base of freedoms that everyone should have from the state, but which we can contract away, such as by taking on employment. This will often control where you must be at certain times in the day, who else you can work for, sometimes what you can say in public, and how you describe yourself in public. If you want the freedoms back, resign.
‘Academic freedom’ is a university institution, one aimed at furthering the university’s intellectual mission. Some of the same arguments used in favour of general freedom of speech apply for academic freedom, but they are not the same institution, because the university is trying to achieve intellectual quality in a way that general freedom of speech is not. As I have said, it is up to the university to set the rules on this, given the competing considerations. But giving full freedom in areas of expertise and restricting use of the university title when the academic wants to speak in areas where he/she lacks expertise seems to be a reasonable balance. As you suggest, humanities academics sometimes talk rubbish within their fields of expertise, but the alternative is monitoring and approval processes that are likely to be a real obstacle to genuine intellectual inquiry and contribution to public discussion.
Freakin’ oath, Jack. Are you capable of linear thinking at all? Let me repeat
The issue over whether or not
1) there was some impropriety by Deakin university in overruling McConvill’s decision to publish Fraser
is a separate one from that of
2) Macquarie university’s treatment of Fraser
In this case I thought we were talking about Macquarie not Deakin so how the hell does my improper peer review process argument which was directed at (1) , not (2) come into it?? The actions that Macquarie took against Fraser occured well before he submitted his article to Deakin.
Well, FMD Gnocchi. Maybe it had to do with the fact that my time is limited and Fraser actually made great pains to bring himself to public attention? And that unlike you, I’m not so long in the tooth and short on neurons and wasn’t even born while you were sitting at the feet of Knopfelmacher?
Andrew Norton Says: October 13th, 2005 at 7:21 am
Finally a “classical liberal” actually addresses the core freedom of expression issue. Instead of flip-flopping and back-sliding like a certain other meddlesome crypto-commissar (no names no pack drill).
That sounds fair and reasonable. Unfortunately it is not what the Racial Vilification Act stipulates. The Act explicity exempts governments or courts from constraining the freedom of academics who are “reasonably and in good faith” engaged in “controversial comment”. Fraser’s article is clearly covered by this, as Rice pointed out:
The uni knew this and but backed down because George Newhouse, an over-lawyering ethnic lobbyist, threatened Deakin with a racial vilification action if the law review went ahead with publication.
Moreover, the ban itself was pre-emptory and prejudical. This was the first test of the legislation and the so-called “defenders of freedom” chose to pike the test! As Rice says:
But precious few academics stood up for his legal right to the privilege of freedom of expression on campus. So instead this ban sends a signal to chill freedom of expression, or face a lifetime bogged down in vexatious legal challenges.
If that open slather for academics principle is valid then why was Fraser banned from publishing again? It seems an exception was made for him on some grounds or other. (Hint: Cultural Wet political correctness and Economic Dry commercial considerations.)
I reckon that more than half of humanities academics who publish for general consumption are talking outside their special field of expertise. And that a fair ratio of such academics who have, from time to time, “written the unreadable in defence of the unspeakable” eg commies, po-mos etc.
Yet no one has suggested that such folk be banned from publication, nor have they. As Andrew Norton, appearing to agree with me, says this would require “monitoring and approval processes that are likely to be a real obstacle to genuine intellectual inquiry”. ie Big Brother, or the Company Town which is what alot of campuses are becoming and which Jason Soon seems happy with.
Face it: Fraser was banned because no one wants to make waves, rock the boat or upset the gravy train. My father risked his neck time and again for freedom. But it appears that many here are not willing to experience even a moments discomfort in order to defend ancient and venerable privileges.
Fraser’s professional career was ruined because of his political values. He was forced out of his academic job and banned from academic publishing. This was a violation of academic freedom beceause Fraser is an academic.
Dave Ricardo can argue this one better than I can, but FWIW, his career was ruined because he made a fool of himself. He did publish in the Australian (and Jason linked to him on his blog, so how is he a denier of freedom of speech). Fraser was then universally canned because he was writing outside his field of expertise (something we bloggers are allowed to do but which we don’t pay academics to do), and using discredited pop sociology to prop up weak arguments. This is free speech, and it’s how it is meant to work. As Hal9000 says, Bigots, holocaust deniers, history whitewashers, climate change sceptics and the like should be able to spout their stuff without let or hindrance, and have the manifest weaknesses of their cases equally exposed to debate. Well, that is exactly what happened. Fraser got published in a major newspaper, most people said he was a dickhead, and his supporters cried foul based on some notion that free speech means you won’t be criticised.
The Deakin Law Reviw publishes regularly on matters of public policy. Check out this issue. Immigrant selection and settlement policy – the topic of Frasers rant – are matters of public policy.
That’s not the same as saying it’s Fraser’s area of expertise (there is a bit of sneaky goal post shifting here, Jack, hoping we wouldn’t notice.) Also, having expertise in immigration law is not the same thing as having expertise in the relative IQs of different categories of immigrants, is it?
As others have pointed out elsewhere, publishing in Deakin law review enables the Patriotic Yoof League and others to claim that “peer reviewed journals� have “supported� their views and that ups the ante on peoples’ ability to publish there.
Jason Soon continues his slide into intellectual confusion and ideological contradiction.
I have proved that he changed tack in defending Deakin Uni’s flimsy rationale for banning Fraser’s academic freedom. And I will now prove that he falsely denied he changed tack.
Jason Soon says: October 13th, 2005 at 8:27 am
Jason Soon can duck and weave all he likes but my magical hyperlinking skills just caught him dead to rights. Here is the full version of his larvatusprodeo October 5th, 2005 at 6:41 pm comment an edited version of which he artfully pasted onto this site, just just a couple of comments back:
The Deaking Uni emhasis was added by me, just to rub it in. After reading this can Jason Soon look the internet in the eye and tell us that, in this case, he “thought we were talking about Macquarie not Deakin“?
Jason Soon will find that it is easier to remember the truth than a farrago of balderdash contrived on the run.
And what was all that about “linear thinking” again?
PS It is sad to see Jason Soon betray the noble spirit of the Whigs just to please an unholy coalition of bottom-lining managers and ethnic-lobbying lawyers. It wont be long before the proprietorialization of freedom drives academics to the level of hired help bonded to a the owners of the Company Town:
Both Jason and Jack are correct.
Jack points to a double standard in dealing with academics who breech the taboo about race.
Jason acknowledges that there is a double standard but suggests that this double standard is a necessary feature of the imperfect world in which we live.
There are two ways to align these positions.
1. Compel university administrations to impose a single standard on all public comment by its academics, whether they use their university title or not. That single standard may range between open slather to outright ban on any public utterance, punishable by instant dismissal. This latter is the regime imposed upon intelligence operatives. Open slather would be restricted only by the civil and criminal law. However, in Victoria at least, the Nanny State is intruding itself with religious vilification legislation that is an open invitation for a spate of barratry. Howard’s anti-terrorism laws also threaten to impinge upon free speech.
2. Allow university administrations autonomy in deciding how their institutions negotiate the reefs and shoals of political, religious, ethnic, racial, sexual taboos.
This task is particularly difficult for Australian University administrations. One of the problems of the Australian academy is its dependence on the State. Universities are funded by the State; student entry is regulated by the State; the State has established universities as the portal through which potential immigrants may make good their claim for permanent residency. Public policy and academic freedom are often in a conflictual relationship with each other.
Apologists for the Australian academy are kidding themselves if they think that the Australian academy has the same relationship with Australian society and the State as, say, Columbia University has with American society and the US Administration.
We cannot expect Australian universities to act disinterestedly in navigating the above-mentioned reefs and shoals until they cut their ties with government and relinquish their roles as agents of public policy.
This issue over Fraser at Macquarie (I’m not talking about Deakin) is merely a symptom of a much deeper malaise in Australian intellectual life: universities and their employees are agents of public policy. This role undermines their function as measurers and critics of public policy.
Jack
How can I make it simpler for you?
My reference to ‘In this case’ refers to the current thread which is about Macquarie
1) This whole thread on John Quiggin’s blog is about academic freedom at Macquarie
2) You accused me on this thread of ‘changing tack’ by arguing for cutting some slack for university administrators at Macquarie because I had previously used arguments about peer review
3) I then noted that the peer review arguments were about the treatment of his article by Deakin and the university administrator arguments were about his treatment by Macquarie. Therefore there was no ‘changing of tack’ . Your linking to my arguments at Larvartus Prodeo supports my case. We were talking about Deakin there, we are talking about Macquarie here.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
Helen Says: October 13th, 2005 at 10:11 am
That hasn’t stopped humanities intellectuals in the past from mouthing off about everything under the sun, has it? How many academic careers would remain unruined if the were cashiered everytime they “made a fool of themselves” on intellectual matters, not to mention ideological ones?
Helen must be kidding. I have shown that a fair proportion of humanities academics have no “field of expertise”, even in their own profession. This is common knowledge, as both Abelson and Catley have observed.
So everytime time some silly egg-head puts pixel to drive for general consumption it is likely he is straying off his academic reservation. Do we ban all of them too?
Well its good to see that Helen is splitting hairs with the best of the academics now. But she is splitting them a little fine here, I think. The topic of Fraser’s article was “Rethinking the White Australia Policy”. Now this sounds like a matter relating to “immigration law” – Fraser’s field of expertise – doesn’t it?
Fraser is not a pyschometrist so a purist would have frowned on him bringing up the subject of ethnicity and IQ. Is it too much to ask people to consider whether what he said is either relevant or true to intellectual discourse on this topic?
Well these (unnamed unlinked to) others are blowing smoke. All unis, and journals, are free to publish disclaimers about the academics who publish under their auspices. Fraser’s views* are his own and only his own.
[*Which I disagree with as I am opposed to multiculturalism not multiracialism.]
I have spent alot of time researching and answering peoples comments and criticism for two reasons. One is that I wanted to expose the general standard of intellectual debate on this issue as abysmal, Pr Q and Andrew Norton’s contributions partly excepted. And even their arguments have been well below their normal high standard.
Comments have been unlinked, quotes unsourced and goal posts relentlessly shifted in order to justify preconceived positions. And these ideological positions have been, in the main, taken in bad faith.
Most commenters here style themselves as “small ‘l’ liberals”, Whigs, progressives, civil libertarians, (or Wets as I call them). Yet when a soft test of their liberal principles came along they, almost to a man, jumped the ship in order to appease the powers that be.
The Fraser case has been a test of liberal principle. And most of the liberals have failed that test.
Jason Soon Says: October 13th, 2005 at 10:54 am
I can see where the confusion has occurred and I acknowledge my part in crossing threads. I withdraw my accusation that Jason Soon has changed tack and covered his tracks.
Jason Soon Says: October 12th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
But I think that Jason Soon is still being disingenuous about the bigger issue of academic freedom, which is after all in the title of this blog. This broader issue covers both the Deakin and Macquarie cases because academic freedom is indivisible. Academics on both sides of ideological divide and in both places should feel free to engage in robust debate.
Jason Soon defends the universities repressive actions in both cases. Perhaps he is right to support Macquarie Unis heavy-handed actions towards Fraser, forcing him into retirement for writing an offensive letter to the paper. I dont think so, but I am old-fashioned and thick-skinned.
I think Jason Soon, in artificially compartmentalizing these two incidents, is acting like a small minded petty bureaucrat This makes it easier to restrict the grand scope of the kind of academic freedom that seems to bother so many people.
I have show, by quotation chapter and verse, that all of Jason Soon’s attempt to rationalise Deakin Uni’s censorship of Fraser’s academic output have been bogus or contrived. At various times and in various blogs Jason Soon has leaned on, or used, the following rationales to defend Deakin’s banning of Fraser’s academic publication:
– it was racist or breached the Racial Vilification Act (see Rice above).
– it was not properly peer-reviewed (see Deakin’s acknowledgement).
– it failed to meet some unspecified standard of professional quality (see intellectual rubbish put out by ideological egg-heads).
– he was talking outside his field of expertise (see his immigration law credentials).
All these arguments are either false, bogus or double-standardised.
Plus Jason Soon has wheeled out some other rather shabby arguments that relied on the sanctity of contract and commecial considerations to allow unis to overrule academic freedom. But we have seen that unis managers relentlessly pursuing the bottom line can corrupt political and professional standards.
Will Jason Soon now concede that his arguments justifying Deakin’s banning of Fraser’s journal article were wrong in fact and unworthy in principle? Can he provide yet another rationale that for once is in accord with facts not in dispute between the parties and does not violate liberal principle? Or will he stick to his guns whilst taking the liberal ship down with him?
Correction. Jason Soon opposes the use of the Racial Vilification Act to curtail academic free speech. So I was wrong to accuse him of relying on that legislation to curb Fraser’s publications. Sorry Jase.
Jason Soon Says: October 12th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
I realise this thread seems determined to rehash the Fraser matter rather than the more clearcut attack on academic freedom of speech represented by the Abelson case. I’m somewhat disturbed, however, by the implications of the Jason Soon/Andrew Norton line that academics should be barred from ‘using’ their academic titles if speaking ‘outside’ their narrow specialties. The arguments in favour of this line rely on some notion that academic titles etc. may confer some cachet or status on comments that do not derive from the commenter’s area of research. This is a dangerous track. In analysing how such a partial ban on comment might work in practice, we ought always to be guided by the Great Helmsman John Howard in the nitpicking abuse of language for evil ends. For starters, surely the Soon/Norton line could be used against Abelson. Is Abelson an educationalist? What right has he to make public comments about educational standards?
Second, I fail to see what cachet the Frasers of this world illegitimately acquire by alleged extracurricular abuse of their academic laurels. What would the title ‘Professor of Economics’ add to an argument supporting so-called creation ‘science’, or ‘Reader in Chemistry’ contribute to an article arguing the economic benefits of slavery?
I suspect the Soon/Norton line may be self-regarding, as in ‘when I say something ex cathedra, I expect to be taken seriously’. Come on, academics regularly spout rubbish within their fields of supposed expertise. Some have built lucrative careers on it, particularly where the rubbish fits in with the agendas of the rich and powerful. It’s the quality of the argument and the supporting evidence that ought to be the only issue.
Last, academics publishing or commenting on anything do not speak officially on behalf of their employing institution. Back in the days when academic freedom, like public service, was a generally understood concept, there used regularly to be highly charged exchanges in letters to the editor columns between vice-chancellors (who do speak on behalf of their institutions) and academics about all sorts of issues. A tradition worth keeping alive.
Hal9000. go back to what I said. I wasn’t arguing about legitimacy or lack thereof. Whether Fraser’s arguments are legitimate regardless of his qualifications are up to people to judge. My argument was only that insofar as an arguable case can be made that an academic’s argument could have an adverse impact upon his or her affilitate institution because of people’s views of the affilitate institution being influenced by the academic’s pronouncements, then there may be a range of responses taken by the institution that may be proportionate depending on the circumstances of the case, including but not restricted solely to cutting one’s links with the academic. Now a reasonable case can also be made that there were better ways for Macquarie to deal with Fraser and that its actions were if anything counterproductive in further highlighting and excerbating the damage to its reputation. But my point is that the opposite case can also be made – it is a tough call and merely invoking absolutist notions of academic freedom doesn’t dissolve the difficulties. My argument in now way depends on the notion that when the academic does speak within his or her specialty their word is sacred writ – it goes to PR, not presumption. That is something you have read into my argument yourself. You may argue that PR is a vulgar factor for universities to take into account – but they do, and increasingly will continue to do so, and not just for financial reasons.
The argument here would again not be about bona fide credentials. It would simply be that smart organisations would find ways to accomodate constructive criticism because it is in their long term interests to do so, whereas stupid organisations would rather bury their heads in the sand.
Abelson’s article on declining standards was based on a survey of economics heads of department and had been published in a refereed journal, so it would not have been caught by the rules I suggest.
The reality is that academics get taken seriously by the media in a way that other people do not because of their assumed expertise, so they should not usually use their title when talking about something else.
Abelson is an educator of economics students of several decades standing. He taches them and marks their exams. He is perfectly qualified to comment on declining standards.
“What would the title ‘Professor of Economics’ add to an argument supporting so-called creation ‘science’, or ‘Reader in Chemistry’ contribute to an article arguing the economic benefits of slavery?”
Nothing, but Fraser’s letter included a rant about the alleged criminal tendencies of African immigrants. Fraser has no expertise in criminal law, or criminology, but a naive reader might assume that an associate Professor of Law would have this expertise.
Jason, Andrew, Dave – fair enough points. Hush my mouth lest I be thought to defend the egregious Fraser. I caution you all, though: limits on freedom of speech have a habit of coming back to bite those who propose and support them. Decades in the public sector have taught me that whatever the motivation for the policy restricting behaviour – industrial democracy, merit selection, gender equity, ethical conduct etc – it will be used by the forces of darkness as a tyre lever to beat up members of out groups or as a means of execution. Be careful what you wish for.
Freedom of speech should be a fundamental right (not because its the moral thing to do, but freedom of ideas is important to market economics). Censoring someone because they have controversial ideas is wrong, but censoring someone because they are an idiot is another thing altogether.