Some time ago, I wrote a piece at Online Opinion on the views of a Deakin Uni Law academic, James McConvill, on public intellectuals. I expressed some scepticism that his contributions to public debate, and the arguments of his senior colleague Mirko Bagaric in favour of legalised torture (both of which I’ve written about extensively at LP), were in fact legitimate exercises in disseminating the fruits of academic research. Rather, they seemed to me to be pitching outrageous and controversial views in the interests of establishing a niche in the (lucrative) op/ed market.
I’ve been keeping track of discussion at Catallaxy on Macquarie Law academic Andrew Fraser’s alignment with Neo-nazi groups, and his views on race (which would not seem to fall within the professional competence of a public lawyer):
An associate professor in the Department of Public Law, Andrew Fraser, claims that African migration increases crime, says HSC results point to a rising ruling class of Asians and wants Australia to withdraw from refugee conventions to avoid becoming “a colony of the Third World”.
Associate Professor Fraser, originally from Canada, believes cognitive and athletic abilities, testosterone and “impulse control” vary according to race, and “civilisations” should look after their own.
Much of this discussion has revolved around issues of free speech and academic freedom.
It’s no massive surprise to see Mr McConvill joining the lists at Online Opinion in favour of Professor Fraser. This, fresh from justifying insider trading, something Ken Parish blogged on.
McConvill’s article includes this statement:
The condemnation of Fraser’s comments by Macquarie simply because they are not politically correct is a serious problem. Did the doyens at Macquarie University actually take the time to consider whether Fraser might be right? Did they test samples of sub-Saharan African testosterone, carry out IQ tests, or consult experts in the United States on that country’s history, before issuing the July 21 press release, or before deciding to buy out Fraser’s contact?
And -
Is a university actually in a position to say that Australia will not experience an Asian managerial-professional ruling class, and what are the implications of this?
This issue goes beyond academic freedom and freedom of speech to the issue of the responsibility of making such obviously inflammatory and ludicrous statements (phrased in the true defamation lawyer’s form of rhetorical questions). The question then becomes - what are McConvill’s motives for trading on his presumed public standing as a legal academic to enter every passing controversy from the most extreme angle? If his motive is purely to seek fame and fortune from op/ed columns, and he doesn’t believe in the serially ludicrous positions he adopts, then he deserves condemnation. If his views are genuine, then they deserve condemnation.
Academic independence should be almost limitless—within each academic’s sphere of specialty. When Fraser becomes a social or physical scientist of race and racism, and not just a law academic, then people might start to take him more seriously. When he starts using evidence to back up his claims he’ll start gaining respect.
Until then he’s just using the title and prestige provided him by a major university to push a barrow. It’s a shame Macquarie can’t just sack him.
I don’t get it. Why are the statements ludicrous? If you have a system in which Asian students can buy their way into uni courses and then get bonus points in applying for immigration, then isn’t it possible that you will end up with a professional class with a disproportionate number of Asians? Isn’t it possible that sub-Saharan Africans have lower IQ and, historically, a higher propensity to crime when living in Western countries? There does seem to be fairly convincing evidence in regards to both points. I understand that you don’t like the political implications of the information, but that doesn’t mean the information itself is ludicrous.
Hi Mark, I replied to your post in Catallaxy’s thread.
Mark R, I suggest you read Ken Parish’s post.
Without reference to the comments themselves, it’s difficult to say what constitutes a ludicrous statement - the thing is, is a statement ludicrous or absurd because it is truly nonsensical, or is it that way because it doesn’t fall within our (usual) modes of thinking ?
These notions are particularly present in the physical sciences - eg, the theory of continental drift was derided by geologists for many decades! I’m thinking that you have to be careful in the social sciences in what you think is nonsensical as they are more “fuzzy” than the physical sciences.
I for one welcome our new Asian ruling class!
Goodness. Sub-Saharan African people just happen to have a lower IQ, eh, which drives them to crime? There’s something a tad rotten in that there view, and it leaves a nasty taste in my virtual mouth just virtually saying those words.
Mark R, two points.
First, I agree with Rob - I suggest you read Ken Parish’s post where he addresses the issues Fraser raises. I find myself in complete agreement with Ken, which is why I linked to his post, and why I didn’t spell out the obvious lack of scientific support for Fraser’s “arguments”.
Secondly, you ask:
I suppose so, but what does “disproportionate” mean in this context? In a liberal society where merit is rewarded (and isn’t that supposed to be what ours is?), then surely the ethnic background of professionals is irrelevant.
The key to Fraser’s question is in the part that McConvill significantly doesn’t quote:
As another link in the post points to, Fraser has acted as a legal adviser for a neo-Nazi group. His views, it could reasonably be inferred, are not scholarly ruminations but inflammatory political statements, justified by pseudo-scientific twaddle.
He’s also indicated his support for the said group - so he’s not just a lawyer with a case. If he was advising and supporting a group supporting Jihad, then I doubt that the response to his views would be so understanding. QED.
As to Luis’ points:
There’s a difference between Tim Lambert commenting on climate change and Andrew Fraser commenting on immigration. Lambert doesn’t make his comments from a pulpit where he dons his academic gown and claims authority by virtue of his status as a UNSW academic. Lambert also researches the issues, and is prepared to defend his views against others’ arguments in a spirit of truth.
I think academic bloggers would also normally be upfront about which part of what they write is opinion and which part is a report of scientific fact or hypothesis.
Andrew Norton has long argued that we shouldn’t accord any particular authority to statements on politics by (for instance) Professors of French Literature or Civil Engineering, and he’s right. Their opinions are either just that, or are worth the value of their arguments.
Secondly, I am completely unaware of any humanities academics that support “all type of totalitarian regimes”. This is just the usual furphy about the allegedly left wing dominated academy, and has its genesis in McCarthyist concerns about academics supporting communism in the context of the Cold War. Please point me to any actually existing Australian academics who support “all type of totalitarian regimes” and I’ll add my voice of condemnation to Luis’.
As to the IQ debate, it’s fairly clear where I stand on this one, and the fact that such statements are taken even remotely seriously is another instance of the phenomenon which concerns me about such arguments.
On crime figures, as Ken pointed out, the research shows that recent immigrants to Australia, on the whole (and check Ken’s post) have lower levels of crime than those born in Australia. In any case, there’s no warrant in the criminological literature for some sort of essentialist argument that people from a particular racial background have a tendency to commit crime, which is Fraser’s argument. The arguments about the causes of crime are complex, and they’ve not been addressed in this debate.
I taught criminology for four years, btw, and am pretty much across the literature on this.
Sachmo, consider the logic in McConvill’s second question for a while.
Let him say what he likes. Just shoot the silly bastard down in flames. His argument is pissweak, and lacking in all evidence. He ought to be too embarassed to publish this attention grabbing, baseless piffle. But since he’s too daft to keep his head down - let him ruin whats left of his reputation and career. WHo cares.
This doesnt bother me a bit. As long as he’s not concerned by looking a fool when informed people who actually know something of the area tear him a new one.
Shake your chains to earth like dew!
(did it work?)
Hmmm. Lord Byron a bit dark and small. Oh well.
Nice rebuttal Mark.
And I’d just like to say that this Andrew Frazer is repulsed by the views of that Andrew Fraser.
Mine’s working too!
Sach, to clarify my point - when I say “McConvill’s second question” I mean the second quote I’ve highlighted from him in my post.
McConvill’s article begins with a (hearsay) report that Macquarie is trying to buy out the rest of Fraser’s contract and concludes:
“at Macquarie University, they are also in the business of creating martyrs.”
Some martyr. they’re not proposing to dismiss him summarily, or drum him out of the academy with a ceremonial ripping of his gown and de-tasselling of his mortarboard; they’re (allegedly) thinking of slinging him a bucket of readies so long as he hits the bricks.
As for the substance of McConvill’s argument pro-Fraser: has McConvill himself done the tests he suggests? has Fraser? McConvill demonstrates his own ignorance when he talks of testing “samples of sub-Saharan African testosterone” as if testosterone were subject to the same sort of regional variation you find in commodity crops like coffee and cocoa.
Is McConvill defending free speech and academic independence against the continuing encroachments of political correctness? Nah; he’s indulging in a reflexive, knee-jerk piece of opportunistic self-promotion.
The one thing that worries me is that if universities start making a habit of buying out the employment contracts of academics who are given to promoting stupid theories about subjects outside their principle area of expertise we could see a lot more of this sort of stuff happening in future as bored academic hacks with dreams of op-ed prominence look to flee the halls of academe with a nice nest egg to tide them over periods of outrageously stupid opinion block.
I guess if you believe in Evolution and progress, then it’s a fairly logical corollary that some are not as evolved or progressed. Evolutionists can fall back on environmental factors as an explanation for this of course, but the nature of the London bombers really put the cat among the pigeons with that theory.
It helps sometimes to have a rare surname, Andrew! Having said that, I know one academic who has a very prominent person bearing the same name who doesn’t discourage people from thinking that she’s actually the person who’s published several celebrated books (as opposed to 2 conference papers).
And what Gummo said.
Observa, that’s one of the silliest things you’ve ever said. Out of a population of how many million Muslims in Britian, the actions of less than 20 individuals PROVE that some are less evolved than others?
You need to go back to high school and study basic biology.
observa, at least you don’t claim any particular scientific warrant for your views so we can treat your arguments as they deserve to be assessed.
And, as any high school biology student can tell you, that the differences between human populations are so statistically slight, and so difficult to untangle from cultural/environmental factors, that it’s ridiculous to talk about evolution in that way.
Black people and white people aren’t separate species, so your comments about evolution reveal your profound ignorance of the science behind the theory.
Firstly some of you may be interested that Andrew Fraser will be on the next program of Counterpoint on ABC National.
But also the Geoffrey Blaney experience of the 80’s (and Blaney was pretty mild compared to this bloke) is to just let it go. Banning him and ostracising him will only make him a martyr and attract all the loopies a la ‘One Nation’. We don’t need to go through that again. Just let him speak and the whole thing will blow over.
Agree with Guido. Its like borderline personality disorder - if you ignore their attention-seeking tantrums they’ll stop annoying you and move onto someone else.
Blainey of course continued his term as Dean of Arts at Melbourne after his statements. However, trots picketing and disrupting his lectures was not a good thing.
I don’t agree with Macquarie’s actions.
Incidentally, there’s a response to McConvill by a UWS academic at Online Opinion.
Mark, I don’t find it racist to publish a careful study that shows differences in test score across racial groups (this seems to be an implication in some comments). But the bar is pretty high here, so you’d want to have a lot of evidence going in, and to be fairly confident that the results said more about racial differences than about race-specific tests. So far as I can tell, Fraser has neither, so I’m on your side on the fundamental point. If you don’t have good evidence, opening your mouth and saying the first thing that comes out isn’t a particularly good use of the MacU podium.
As to crime, what the AIC (via Ken Parish) found is that for most crimes (you imply all) rates of offending are lower among immigrants than native-born Aussies. But this isn’t true of rape or homicide (see http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/ethnicity-crime/ethnic-ch4.pdf). Of course, one probably wants to control for income and employment here, and it doesn’t look to me like the AIC study does this.
I should clarify that my comments were not a defence of McConvill’s scribings, but moreso just a general attitude to keep in mind.
Actually looking at “McConvill‚Äôs second question”, it doesn’t look like an intellectual question, but moreso alarmist rhetoric, in addition to containing some very strange “logic”. Hmm
Andrew, neither do I, and nor am I suggesting (as a couple of the Catallaxy commenters implied about opponents of Fraser) that legitimate lines of scientific or social scientific enquiry ought not to be pursued.
Though I am one who would minimise any causal weight given to biological factors and IQ.
But as you say, Fraser is very far from conducting careful enquiries.
As to the AIC study, there’s been further work done on this - published in the Australia & NZ Journal of Criminology and Current Affairs in Criminal Justice which does take into account socio-economic status, and finds that this affects the results. However, being academic journals, they don’t publish free online. The best work on all this has been done by Scott Poynting at UWS. Unfortunately, I have a lecture to write today - which I’d better start on - so I lack the time to track down the actual studies. I’m sure Scott would respond to any email enquiries - I have no doubt he’d have the figures at his fingertips.
Andrew, what is meant by “racial groups” in this research? In my limited understanding of biology, I thought that it wasn’t possible to tell someone’s “race” from their DNA. Is “cultural group” (whatever that means!) a better descriptor?
Sach, yes.
Observa makes the classic and widely promulgated error of thinking that evolution is about progress and complexity, when its about change to best adapt to circumstance whatever that may be. For the majority of life it means remaining as specialized types of bacteria, who are highly evolved to do what they do.
Mark,
I have pointed out before in catallaxy that it was clearly a mistake to use university affiliation to give weight and respectability to the claims. Fraser seems to be willing to defend his claims, but clearly he has not the, how to put it, intelligence to make it properly. That does not mean that he is not “prepared to defend his views against others‚Äô arguments in a spirit of truth”.
Acting as a legal adviser for a neo-Nazi group does not convert you in a neo-Nazi (although he may be one, I have no idea), in the same way that providing legal advise to a murderer does not convert you into one. That comment is more character assassination than real argument.
As you probably realise, I do not share at all Fraser’s views, but I still think that if a University is willing to pull the plug from Fraser it should do the same with other academics with poorly substantiated and contentious views.
By the way, I did not mean in my previous post that there were academics that supported ALL totalitarian views, but that there were examples of academics who support (or have supported) at least who one kind of totalitarian regime (for example Fidel Castro’s left wing dictatorship). There are cases of academics that support (or have supported) other totalitarian right wing regimes (for example Augusto Pinochet’s).
As I see it, in a democratic society people should have the opportunity to express all sorts of ideas (even idiotic or ‘dangerous’ ones). As such, the ideas can be discussed, condemned or supported. In this particular case I choose to condemn them, but probably I would have chosen not to fire (or to provide early retirement) to Fraser.
Luis, continuing coverage of this affair seems to have pretty satisfactorily established that Fraser is not an impartial legal advisor but an active sympathiser. That’s now on his own admission, I understand.
And I’m still waiting to hear who these Castro-supporting humanities academics are.
Also, Luis, my quote was a direct one from your comment at Catallaxy. Happy to accept that’s not what you meant to say.
Well I’m glad you cleared that up for the layman here Kate. There is of course the alternative theory that our London friends were created in God’s image, in which case we may need to choose our God carefully, or else he’s got a warped sense of humour. No, it seems Evolution carries the day and as you say the differences between human populations are imperceptibly slight. What it really comes down to is culture and environment. Can I take it then, you’re all for creating(perhaps evolving or progressing rapidly might be more apt) the right cultural environment in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to iron out any slight statistical discrepancies?
A bit late for that, observa. As I’ve argued recently, the Middle East could have done with a dose of freedom and democracy 40 or 50 years ago instead of American neo-Imperialism.
Kate’s welcome to answer if she likes, but I think this line of comment has the potential to go way offtopic.
Tim Lambert and John Quiggin commenting on global warming are completely different - for one thing they can actually hold their own. Someone like Quiggin is a genuine polymath. Fraser has, by highlighting his Professorial position, staked his reputation on claims that he does not have the capability to defend. Well, tough luck. Nor are JQ and TL outside their area of expertise as their contributions to the debate have mostly been in issues of data interpretation and methodology, issues that they are well placed to comment on given their qualifications.
I choose not to take this thread to that particular place, as Mark suggests, as we have already done it to death.
Err, or perhaps Steve’s whack em with antiseptic and penicillin approach?
Agreed we don’t need to go there, but all Fraser is really doing is pointing to the Mexican Standoff that the London bombers have brought us all. He’s saying oil and water don’t mix, so we need to be more culturally discriminating in who we allow to come ‘here’. The converse is we need to be very circumspect about going ‘over there’. Some common ground for the Dreamtime Separatists and Western Imperialists it seems.
In case you haven’t been following the news, the masterminds of the London bombings were high IQ Indian and Arab engineers, observa
And what would they have had in common Jason?
Well obviously they wouldn’t have both been poorly evolved, as you seemed to argue earlier, observa.
Re: your comments on ‘here’ and ‘there’? The Australian tourism and education industries will thank you for such sophisticated arguments.
your rallying Fraser to your side doesn’t make much sense observa. not exactly sure why you want to anyway. but Fraser was scapegoating Sudanese refugees as low IQ and therefore prone to crime. not exactly pertinent to your arguments.
fraser wasn’t making cultural arguments which would at least be a step up in terms of some soundness and respectability. he was advocating *judging* individuals according to the statistical averages of their fuzzy ethnicities. not using these averages as a proxy for research or application in other areas (e.g. ethnic differences in responsiveness to treatment to some medicines), not exploring the usefulness of these proxies but conflating the positive with the normative and fetishising the categories employed in the former.
“Well obviously they wouldn‚Äôt have both been poorly evolved, as you seemed to argue earlier, observa.”
This culturally conservative Anglophile is hardly leading the charge of liberal progressive evolutionists here Jason. I am more comfy with (apparently homophobic) Catholics, happy clappers and axis of evil Bushie types, who aren’t in favour of homosexuals getting ‘hitched’, than those progressive types that are. We probably find the comrades in the other camp with the unhappy strappers who want them ‘hitched’, somewhat strange bedfellows. As for educating unhappy strappers to blow us up, some of us might question the cost/benefit outcome of doing that, apart from the costs we incur in our tourist industries.(Pyramids, Buck Palace or Kuta anyone?)
Fraser might need to refine his arguments a bit more to really channel where the smoko room are coming from- No more bloody muslims and then we’ll look hard at the cultural characteristics of the potential immigrants that are left. As Fraser points out, that wouldn’t augur well for tribal Africans on all of the empirical evidence. Best to stay where they are with their Mugabes, free of our cultural imperialism. How could the Dreamtime Separatists argue with their logic? After all, haven’t they been drumming home that message for years? Something about having morally superior cakes and eating them, as I recall.
observa - further to the right than Andrew Fraser. Just saying…
Has observa been eating some cakes baked with funny stuff?
Sachmo, I have no idea but I didn’t get a word of that. And I read it twice.
observa is like this all the time, sachmo. you should’ve seen his short story about bestiality in the suburbs which was his main contribution to the gay marriage debate. born in a different set of circumstances he could’ve been a Booker prize contender.
you should think about taking up creative writing, observa. with a little practice you could be Australia’s very own michel houellebecq
There’s some sort of stream of consciousness happening in observer’s writing - but what sort of consciousness it is I don’t know!
Ryan Adams’ bass player is called Catherine Popper.
To me this is not about supressing politically incorrect views — Fraser did not come up with any kind of research or evidence which would support his view, and the questions McConvill asks of MU’s “doyens” could fairly apply to Fraser. Witness his performance on ACA, although knowing them they may have edited out his scholarly, well researched remarks on IQ, criminology, statistics, history and biology. I await his appearance on Counterpoint (or in the comments threads of the many blogs discussing him) for these things. If the Uni wanted to chastise a humanaties prof for writing inflamatory and discriminatory letters to the editor using the weight of the institution as credibility, I would back that too.
On the question of getting rid of him, I go back and forth.
Just put aside your elitist left/right paradigm blinkers for a moment and I’ll spell it out for you from the smoko room’s point of view.
We middle class wankers live in nice leafy middle class suburbs, which we share amicably with similar middle class wankers from all sorts of cultures(or travel OS regularly to enjoy latter). Because we largely run the show (Biz, Gov, Educ, etc)we have this superior notion that we know what’s best for everyone and how best to achieve the good society. (Welcome to the 2 main streams of ‘noblesse oblige’ here, which has the same underlying humanitarian ethos.)
observa type- Protestant work ethic, self reliance and conservative family values are the best medicine for all. Honesty, integrity, fidelity. A man’s word is his bond. Take everyone as you find them, until you work out they’re no good, cheating, lying, lazy sons of bitches then reject. Nevertheless some innocents can fall into the clutches of these types and need some serious intervention from us gung ho types, with the capacity to help. Hence support for Iraq and Afghanistan, regime change and Marshall Plan, because after all Ozzies, Iraqis, Germans and Japanese people aren’t that different. Also fits prioritisation of problems approach and teaching people to fish rather than handing out free fish, which often seems to be philched by reject types. Can’t solve the problems of the world by stuffing them all into Western Sydney before Xmas, without serious consequences. Not the world’s keeper anyway.
LP type-Everyone’s lovely like me and if they’re not it’s because they haven’t had the opportunity to go to university, are a victim of circumstances beyond their control, or simply because of harsh oppression or rejection by observa types. If the world could share our centrelink payments system our world would be a better place, so everyone who wants to come here should be welcomed with open arms. Come and bring your diverse cultures with you and we can all enjoy your cultural enclaves, food and point of view, because they’re all equally valid and we’ll all be better off sharing and caring together. If we can’t understand each other’s speech, that’s OK we can play music or paint together. We need to tax our rich more to send more aid overseas, then they’ll be happy like us. We should never send armies overseas to meet such diverse, interesting people and kill them. We’re the world’s keeper.
So where do the smoko room crowd stand with this sanctimonious middle class wankery now? Well of course they don’t live, work and play in some monocultural vacuum themselves, they do share some of these sentiments and are open to persuasion. However we do know the majority are not in favour of taking in boat arrivals(or more immigrants generally) and they are not in favour of sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Muslim terrorism has killed off the LP humanitarian open arms view for them, particularly now that they’ve seen what home grown muslims are capable of in Britain. The observa humanitarian approach in Iraq and Afghanistan is looking decidedly dodgy too, if the insurgency prevails. OTOH what if the end result is a peaceable, theocratic democracy under Sharia Law, hanging poofters and stoning loose women? Doesn’t all this confirm their overall stance? Why the hell are we taking refugees/immigrants from these monkey countries when we can’t even fix their monkey countries ourselves they ask? Don’t bring the monkeys here and leave their monkey countries alone you dopey middle class twits! You must admit, they’ve got a point from where they sit at present, but then perhaps they shouldn’t fart in polite company.
what is this “smoko room” ? and what are you saying, observa?
What all that had to do with whether or not Fraser should keep his job is utterly beyond me.
This is an unusual level of incoherence even for you, Observa. Here’s the thing. At one point, you seem to be calling people ‘monkeys’. This is extraordinarily racist and degrading language.
So, why don’t you stay on-topic if you’re going to post here again, and keep the degrading language to a minimum, okay?
Sachmo, I work with working class people(the smoko room crowd), which some disdainfully refer to as the plasma screen mob. They don’t exactly express themselves in politically correct ways, but they almost always get it correct politically at election times, given the limited choices they face. They don’t see the need to engage the political process in some high falutin, esoteric language of their betters, but can look up from their mortgages, kids sport, cricket, footy, etc as required, to intuit the crux of an argument at the appropriate times. They have excellent built in bullshit detectors and can spot a carpet-bagger a mile away. Naturally, this can be most disconcerting to carpet-bagging bullshit artists. The observa sometimes bundles up their thoughts and channels them here. This Fraser bloke is probably echoing some of their thoughts at present. That answer your question?
Apologies for my recalcitrance here Kate. Change that to Keatingesque banana republics and banana eaters.
Yes, what Kate said, observa. Please at least try to avoid derogatory epithets and to stay vaguely on topic.
Sach, the shorter observa:
I’m a salt of the earth small business type in close touch with the great battler majority and youse are all chards-swilling elitists.
“This issue goes beyond academic freedom and freedom of speech to the issue of the responsibility of making such obviously inflammatory and ludicrous statements”
Inflammatory and ludicrous because he
“wants Australia to withdraw from refugee conventions to avoid becoming “a colony of the Third World”.”
That will be a judgement for all to make and that’s why I have pointed out how some are beginning to think and their reasons for doing so. (IMO he is discussing a small subset of a much larger social question at present)
“The question then becomes - what are McConvill‚Äôs motives for trading on his presumed public standing as a legal academic to enter every passing controversy from the most extreme angle? If his motive is purely to seek fame and fortune from op/ed columns, and he doesn‚Äôt believe in the serially ludicrous positions he adopts, then he deserves condemnation. If his views are genuine, then they deserve condemnation. ”
Perhaps the same motives and conclusions could be ascribed to the Robert Stary QCs of this world too? OTOH maybe it’s appropriate to have a countervailing balancing act here.
“I‚Äôm a salt of the earth small business type in close touch with the great battler majority and youse are all chards-swilling elitists.”
Well actually the observa is quite long Satch, no doubt from all that pulling and pushing between two cultures. Perhaps he is eternally damned to wander in a schizophrenic twilight zone between middle and working class cultures, like some miserable half caste of yore. The secret of survival is probably not to take himself too seriously.
I’m with Jason, observa - you have quite a nice literary style sometimes.
“If you have a system in which Asian students can buy their way into uni courses and then get bonus points in applying for immigration, then isn‚Äôt it possible that you will end up with a professional class with a disproportionate number of Asians?” No, because once you get out of Uni, a bought degree doesn’t make you any smarter and in a society that still in some way awards merit, you sink. Sorry, that rejoinder is a bit behind, but I couldn’t resist.
Nice to have you back, o. The rest of you should stop being so snooty about stream of conciousness rants - I’ve read a lot worse from others. And to scan thru his whole piece and pick out the word “monkey”, then try to hang him out of context for it is intellectually dishonest and not worthy of you, Kate - I won’t even touch how bizarre it seems to castigate someone in a comments thread like this one for wandering slightly off topic. Bloody hell, next you’ll be correcting typos.
observa is reporting on some views that exist and are very common - disturbing, distressing, whatever, but common. I hear it every day (even sometimes - gasp - in a my own smoko room). And so it needs to be raised, discussed, on the table. I’m not in touch with any majority - but there’s a world out there, folks, and it’s full of people with half baked opinions who vote. Better get used to it
I just want to draw attention to the comments by Amanda (16856) and Jason S (comment 16739) as I think they get to the heart of the issue.
If you can’t support your views with a reasonable and sound argument then that is the problem. It is not about if you are qualified to comment. I believe that lay-persons (including professors outside their fields), if sufficiently versed in various fields, should not be dismissed by their lack of qualitifications. They should be dismissed on the basis of the validity of their arguments.
Which, given Fraser’s public arguments, why his should be dismissed.
what Irant said.
At least the smoko room has now been explained!
In 2001 I worked at the Macquarie uni library, and after Sep. 11th I heard some really disturbing things from my co-workers who otherwise were really lovely people - not disturbing in that they reflected psychological disturbance - but rather beliefs that didn’t correspond to information. I’ll always remember, one of my co-workers said “don’t muslims just want to take over the world?”
Tony, I found his comments disturbing and I had no idea what he was going about. Why can’t I point out that I find something Observa says distasteful? Are you to be the arbiter or what I find a racist commentary, even if phrased within a “what my mates in the smoko room reckon” soliliquoy?
Is this intellecutually dishonest? It would be more dishonest to let the whole thing pass without raising what I thought was a valid objection to Observa’s use of language.
You’re right, I shouldn’t castigate anyone for being off-topic. I apologise for that.
However, I will not retract my comment that calling people ‘monkeys’ is racist language. If that bothers you, fine. I didn’t call for Observa’s comment to be deleted and I didn’t call him names, in fact, I just wanted him to try and keep his comments on a more reasonable level. If you think I’m picking stuff out… well, whatever. Of course I did. But I picked out the bit I found offensive.
Mark,
You wrote: “I don‚Äôt agree with Macquarie‚Äôs actions”.
(comment 16701 (July 28th, 2005 at 11:45 am)).
It seems to me, then, that you and James McConvill agree on the main issue at stake here.
Hence, I find the very point of your initial post rather perplexing — all the more so because I disagree with both you and McConvill; i.e. IMO, Macquarie had/has ample reason for immediately terminating Fraser‚Äôs services as an employee. Free speech is hardly the issue; rather, it is (i) basic competence at doing one‚Äôs job (for an academic, this means following the precepts of science, not prejudice), and (ii) meeting legitimate customer expectations (here the rule is admittedly mainly confined to front-line service roles, whether they be bank teller or university lecturer. An African student in Fraser‚Äôs class, told that they‚Äôre dumb‚Äôn‚Äôcriminal would have understandable customer-service issues — although, like other commenters, I‚Äôm not sure that the same actually goes for Asian (”overclass”) students.)
McConvill’s main argument against Macquarie taking immediate action is that a bit more due process should be followed first. I’m not sure what yours is though, Mark. Are you suggesting, say, that a forthright Holocaust-denier a la David Irving should be impossible, or almost so, to dislodge, providing, of course, that they have stitched up their Australian academic employment before such predilections become known? And if your answer depends on distinguishing pissed-off/discouraged-potential African students as a wearable cost, but not so for Jewish students (because of the latter’s greater numbers, and so economic importance to Australian universities), this seems a slippery slope indeed.
More generally, in the several online swipes that you have taken against McConvill to date, you seem strangely lacking empathy or curiosity about the micro-politics and demographics of his position:
“As a young academic, I have been frustrated by the resistance to fresh and challenging ideas in my discipline of law. There is a clear and positioned elite who dare not to depart from their conservative views”.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Ideas-need-an-airing-in-halls-of-learning/2005/06/14/1118645806269.html
As a young academic myself, I share this frustration. Surely you *you* (also a young academic) do too, Mark?
In any case, I’m asking this rhetorically, as an introduction to my three (and a bit) categories of GenX academics and intellectuals (the latter are usually non-salaried, unless they are of the Right). The three are *all* frustrated, but otherwise have almost nothing in common:
- the Janet Albrechtsen
Standard line: the 1960s (i.e. baby boomers of the Left) are to blame for everything wrong in 2005. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16058850%255E32522,00.html By the end of the GenX lifetime, all trace of them will be removed. Social values will be returned back to 1959, and if this involves returning labour’s position (vis a vis capital) back to 1829, what’s so bad about that?
- the “Paul Watson”
Standard line: the 1960s did not happen — yet. Whatever baby boomers thought they were doing in their younger years, sustained social progress has not been the result (in fact, I‚Äôd happily now settle for the social values *and* labour standards of 1959, but it seems a bit late for that). It‚Äôs time that boomers recognised their colosssal f*ck-up on this account. Left, Right, whatever once makes no difference now. It‚Äôs back to the drawing board, and here, boomers (Left, Right, whatever) have *nothing* to contribute, other than their cash.
- the James McConvill
Standard line: the 1960s (i.e. baby boomers) are a roadblock to be pragmatically gotten around. If “they” — with the exception of far-Right, one-trick screamers like Albrechtsen — control the serious side of the OpEd pages, then just go sensationalist and lite. If in doubt, remind yourself with this: an OpEd is an OpEd is an OpEd. Whatever it takes, do it. Above all else — do NOT become bitter and twisted like Paul Watson. Sure, you‚Äôll get your critics sniping about your corner-cutting, but in the end, you‚Äôll make it — while Paul Watson won‚Äôt.
And the “bit”? Oh, that would be the “Mark Bahnisch” — “*What* frustration, *what* baby boomer problem; for me, the 1960s are rolling on and on just fine, thank you”. So where‚Äôs *your* byline in the hardcopy OpEd pages, Mark?
DISCLOSURE: Paul Watson teaches in the (infamous, according to Mark Bahnisch) law school at Deakin University. In case it is not clear, he has many and serious disagreements with the views of James McConvill (and Janet Albrechtsen, FWIW).
Huh. And I thought this was the smoko room.
Kate,
The very big social question being asked in smoko rooms, uni staff rooms, offices, homes, etc, etc in Aust and elsewhere is discussed here
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16058850%255E32522,00.html
Now you were offended by my use of the slur of ‘monkeys’. Now that term is used as a term of denigration and has Darwinian Evolution undertones. ie a human or humans are backward, not evolved, primitive, closer to primates or what we believe is the origin of our species. It is a derogatory term and the smoko room would use it to describe these people as monkeys from a monkey country here http://gayorbit.net/index.php?p=2459 Personally I would have no objection whatsoever to their derision or language here, albeit that it is clearly a gross oversimplification to tar all Iranians with that same brush. However, many of them may rightly deserve that tarring, under the circumstances. The same could be said about the Mugabes of this world, ’swinging from the trees’. Some evil bastards deserve ad hominem abuse, if not a good swinging.
In middle class academic argument and discourse, such ad hominem abuse is rightly frowned upon. Racist ones are a big no no, which I find somewhat bemusing, because of its class based double standards. There is undertones of soft left racism with much of its anti-US sentiment, which is matched by their opponents. What sort of slurs and aspersions have been cast here against Bush Republicans, etc. Bushitler, fascists, rednecks, hillbillies,plasma screen mob with the opposite moonbats, looney left, communards, etc. Not exactly PC in the lofty towers of academe are they? Somehow Steve Bracks has the wisdom to sit in judgement over all this and decide what’s polite vilification and what’s not. Victorians covering up their unpleasant piano stool legs. As far as I’m concerned if the boot fits wear it and if it doesn’t laugh it off, although there is a strong case for public correctness or what we always understood as plain good manners.
Let me clarify Australian working class values for those who sit in judgement of them from afar. At some broad macro level, they can be apparently be quite racist at first glance. Poms, septic tanks, wogs, boongs, curry munchers, slopes, etc are all terms I’ve heard used by a variety of nationalities. They are often used in a broad macro sense, but rarely, if ever applied to the individual. There are ‘wogs’ of course, but George the Greek isn’t one of them, nor is Les(Lotsica) the Hungarian, etc. Wogs, etc are some amorphous bunch ‘over there’, not in our smoko room here. Same with all the nationalities in the factories and workplaces I come into contact with. If you are a decent bloke/sheila, it doesn’t matter where you come from, what accent you have, or what unusual tucker you eat, you are accepted. Cross the line like one muslim bloke did in a mates factory and you’ll incur the wrath of this multicultural group. He ran about cheering and yelling after Sept 11 until a whole factory turned on him in no uncertain terms and threatened to punch his lights out. No multicultural niceties for him there and he shutup real quick. The message- Don’t bring your old country crap in here fellah. Working class Australians have a strong sense of what’s right and wrong and don’t need to be lectured by middle class twits on the niceties of polite society.
P.S.
Perhaps the strongest argument of all in favour of Macquarie taking decisive action against Fraser is his own words/tactics of self-defence. Did he come out fighting with facts and figures? Nup. Instead, he dropped this clunker:
“This is a message to young academics that they are at serious risk if they are not committed to the politically correct official orthodoxy.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16064139-1242,00.html?name=nation
Fraser evidently hasn‚Äôt a clue about the world of GenX academics in 2005. The “risk” of losing one‚Äôs job is indeed acute, but this is invariably due to the apolitical, invisible hand of downsizing and short-term, casual contracts.
If Fraser *had* been a GenX academic, it is highly probable that he would have just been quietly gotten rid of — so resulting in no media story, but probably a good degree of private satisfaction for the proto-Nazi (or whatever) sacked Xer. S/he would think that, since the odds were against them getting the same gig next year, even had they put in their absolute all *and* refrained from any form of politicking (which is statistically the case), they had not only gone out with a bang — bonus! — but had got paid out til the end of semester, thus being entitled to effective “holiday” pay, of the sort that no other academic in their situation ever gets (going on the dole between contracts — while quite legal and proper — means going on to Work for the Dole).
Finally, since no one has mentioned James McConvill’s OpEd of today, I can’t resist mentioning it: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16081282%255E7583,00.html
It‚Äôs a cracker — James should be writing for Letterman, or its Australian equivalent. But hold on, isn‚Äôt/wasn‚Äôt that the Steve Vizard “Tonight” show? Oh yeah, that‚Äôs right, James *is* writing for Steve:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15995282%255E7583,00.html
The jokes are everywhere, then — but no one seems to be “getting” (= laughing at) them. Perhaps this is why no-jokes-required (or welcome) “laughter clubs” have sprung up everywhere: in a joke-saturated world, laughter can only be triggered by the truly unfunny.
Working class Australians have a strong sense of what’s right and wrong and don’t need to be lectured by middle class twits on the niceties of polite society.
Good one, observa. And a lot of sense in what went before it. Leave it to the ordinary people to work out. They have a lot more sense than those who parade - in their own minds, at least - as their ’superiors’.
As a non-middle class wanker (but wanker nonetheless), I would like to point out that there are working class people who are more than capable of socialising with practicing Muslims, as illustrated at the northern suburbs cricket club that I used to play for. Two guys from Pakistan played for the club over a couple of years. Afzaal the fast bolwer came from a poor family and who attended the nearest mosque. The flairy middle-order batsmen (can’t recall his name) came from a much wealthier background and was essentially secular. This was a club full of the biggest pissheads and bongpullers you’ve ever seen but the club accepted these guys. Now, perhaps things would be different if this happened now, but these Pakistani guys were beyond our usual cultural experience and we learnt to get along with them.
Bigotry is expressed by all sorts of people in Australia, including class or social bigotry, as I have directly experienced while studying at uni. Like racism, it is expressed at an imaginary group, unfortunately for those expressing it, their targets are often standing right next to them.
As for the notion that everyone on the Internet is middle-class, that idea is at least five years out of date. For young people, probably even more out of date. Same goes for the idea that everyone who can put a sentence together must be the product of a private school education. Even my parents on the Yorke Peninsula are on the bloody net and my dad wants to make him a page to show off all of his woodworking.
As for the ‘monkeys’ comment, anyone who uses that term in regular conversation needs pulling up. I don’t see why people should put up with that shit, just the same as I didn’t appreciate being informed that my family and friends were all thick, lazy and racist.
Rob, Observa thinks it’s okay that “ordinary people” uses terms like “monkey” to describe the supposedly unevolved state of various ethnic/racial groups. Do you think there is “a lot of sense” in that?
Robert, I think there’s a lot of sense in this bit:
If you are a decent bloke/sheila, it doesn’t matter where you come from, what accent you have, or what unusual tucker you eat, you are accepted.
Unless, Rob, you’re Sudanese, Iranian, or one of the new Asian ruling class.
Kate, I didn’t see any ‘unlesses’ of that kind in observa’s comment.
(The RWDBs stir, cast their tails about, and rattle their scales, quickening to dreadful life. Too long dormant in the maze of dreams….)
Paul, thanks, you raise some good points. Just having come from a day as a Gen X young academic in the teaching machine, I’m too tired to respond in depth, but I promise I will. I’m also enjoying my post-work Merlot and winding down. My short answer is - I have every sympathy with the point McConvill makes about young academics, but I have reason to believe that what he is doing with his exceptionally prolific op/edding has nothing to do with his research - as I argued in my Online Opinion article.
And I’ll be coming soon to an MSM op/ed byline near you - but based on my area of scholarly expertise.
There are other issues you raise cogently, but as I say, I’ll revisit them when I’m less tired.
As to observa’s language. I’d actually be surprised if his “lunch room” uses these terms. I’ve never heard anyone use them in that context, and contrary to what observa no doubt thinks about my lefty elitism, I have friends who are blue collar workers and find myself quite at home in the odd public bar or two. It’s just observa’s shtick - we’re all elitists, he gives voice to the “silent majority” of battlers.
If you actually look at the history - and indeed the present lived reality - of a lot of unionised blue collar workers - there’s a huge amount of left radicalism out there. Some of the most challenging and radical political positions I’ve had the honour to discuss have been with merchant seamen, builders’ labourers, tilers, and wharfies.
Observa represents the classic petit bourgeois small business perspective - imagining himself as the salt of the earth while patting himself on the back at the same time that he’s not a wage slave. Well, whatever. It’s more than possible that observa’s lunch room agree with him because he’s - well - the boss. When I was a jejeune 17 year old clerk, the tone of the conversation in the lunch room - yeah, we had a literal lunch room, would change quite radically when the boss walked in. “Yes, Col”. “Well put, Col”.
The last thing we ever wanted was for our bosses to join us at the pub after work. Talking to friends who work in offices or on building sites, that experience from 20 years ago is reproduced today.
And, I will shortly be amending the comments policy to prohibit the use of derogatory terms stigmatising entire groups of people.
Before you start ranting about PC police, let me tell you a story. A mate of mine’s dad was the Labor Member for Oxley who lost his seat to Pauline in 96. A not exactly celebratory bbq took place in suburban Ipswich at Les’ place the following weekend. One of the local branch members - an apprentice mechanic (yes, Virginia, there are workers in the Labor party as well as teachers, lawyers and academics) was having a chat to the former member and saying - “Keating let us down with all this political correctness”. Les replied - “mate, it’s just politeness”. Which I think bears thinking about before you make sweeping statements about entire groups of people.
I wish I had a transcript of what Les said, in a convivial atmosphere over a few Crownies, because it was a beautiful argument in favour of the basic values of resp