Discussion about this post

User's avatar
MissLadyK's avatar

Enjoyed reading your piece. I’m not an academic person se. I’m surprised I actually read your entire article. I find academicians arrogant and tedious. “Get to the point already. Good grief”. Like James Joyce 6 page description of someone opening the door and walking half way into a room, good grief! I despised the closed mindedness of my college professors and the control they had of the students and what they were allowed to learn. When my own children went to college, I saw how they learned truth during their research but would have to write their report in political terms their teacher would approve. I spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to find a school that taught a classical education with some ethics thrown in when my children were young. Impossible. Today, because of the backlash to the dumbing down indoctrination more of these types of schools are popping up. I love learning but I certainly didn’t learn this in a state run institution or university. I had to leave that environment to pursue at my pace what I had hoped I would finally find in college. Ugh! My children who were bright, creative and full of life had to crawl into a square to achieve good grades. What a horrendous waste of potential greatness. These professors can get away with ramming their ideologue down the throats of their student screaming 1st Amendment rights while denying that right to their students are beyond disgusting. I know there are wonderful teachers and professors, many taking early retirement, tired of walking the thin line of political correctness. The more no one can really understand what academicians are saying and consider them brilliant anyway are the very academicians promoted for their brilliant ability to say nothing intelligent. I love how people can sit through a lecture in awe of their “brilliant” professor and walk away not having much more understanding than when they went in. Hooray another successful academician. I liked your analogy. Another attempt, however basic and non threatening as we can get, to break through the thick concrete academic bubble.

Expand full comment
[insert here] delenda est's avatar

You are an astonishingly kind person. I agree with the overall sentiment, I have trouble seeing how anyone could not (but I cede to the evidence to the contrary).

I find it difficult to see how Tim Anderson was a close enough case to have essentially an even split of Federal Court judges, and it is sometimes a shame when these things are decided largely on narrow procedural grounds as to who has the onus of proof. I cannot see how, were I unfortunate enough to have been his student, I could ever have trusted him to even teach me anything not completely tainted by his bigotry, let alone to mark me fairly. On the more narrow legal issues Perram J puts it (of course) nicely:

"

However, thought experiments of this kind needed to be brought down to the realities of this litigation. Having waded into the briar patch which is the situation in Palestine it was Dr Anderson who juxtaposed the Nazi swastika with the flag of the State of Israel. Accepting as I do that it may in an appropriate case be consistent with the standards referred to in cl 317 to use a Nazi swastika in the work of a university academic, it was for Dr Anderson to engage in the forensic gymnastics of explaining how his at least incendiary conduct could be characterised as being consistent with the highest ethical, professional and legal standards referred to in cl 317. This he did not do.

"

Lee J put it more bluntly if less eloquently:

"

For my part, the posting of this image, which is self-evidently offensive (and obviously disturbing to a section of the University community) could not amount to an exercise of intellectual freedom which was both “responsible” (cl 315) and in accordance with the “highest ... standards” (cl 317) – a fortiori where Dr Anderson conceded the offensive image was not even important nor “central to the meaning of the graphic” and was so peripheral to whatever point he was seeking to make that Dr Anderson “forgot” about the image.

"

OTOH this quote from strikes me as eminently regrettable:

"

In terms of what the plurality of the Full Court has stated at [267] and [269], whilst I consider that the Third Comments would be offensive to many people, in the context in which the Israeli flag superimposed with the swastika was used, I do not consider that its use involved “harassment, vilification or intimidation”. In this assessment, it is necessary to consider the matter in the context which existed at the time of publication and not by reference to later events, including the escalation in the dispute between Dr Anderson and the University. The University did not establish any breach of any standard which might have engaged cl 317 of the 2018 Agreement.

"

WTF? Apparently, having drunk _all_ the kool-aid, his Honour accepted that the graphic was prepared for the academic purpose of discussing statistics about deaths in the conflict. I mean, I could give my post discussing judicial cupidity a background of men in robes and wigs being hung, but that would be so far from meeting any possible standard of the type mentioned in s317 as to be beyond risible.

Expand full comment
30 more comments...

No posts