The debate around the Ramsay Centre’s proposed degrees in Western civilisation continues to divide, with academics at the University of Sydney now considering a boycott over its proposed introduction.
But despite hysteria across the political spectrum, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the Ramsay Centre’s curriculum itself. A brief look at an indicative curriculum posted on the centre’s website in June puts the debate in perspective.
As currently indicated, none of the ideas offered by the curriculum seem rare or controversial. Instead, the curriculum is simply, “a list of things you can study at most universities in Australia”, according to Monash University lecturer Ben Eltham. Aristotle, Marx, Nietzsche and Mill, all of whom feature, are commonly read throughout academia.
A student at the University of Sydney, where the Ramsay debate is in full flow, could, for example, encounter many of these ideas in any number of history, philosophy, European studies, international relations or sociology courses. Some might even be familiar with texts like Pride and Prejudice and Heart of Darkness from their high school English classes.
The Ramsay Centre has, however, appeared to address concerns that its program would be viewed as Western propaganda. The proposed curriculum provides some — albeit limited — scope for non-Western authors. Comparative literature introduces Chinua Achebe, Confucius and the Indigenous Song Cycle of the Moon Bone. Even Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, the original “cultural Marxists”, get a brief look in.
Nevertheless, there are obvious gaps, reflecting the intellectual history of the west itself — of the over 100 or so writers, thinkers and artists that students would study, fewer than 10 are women.
The curriculum also appears dated, with a preference for the antiquated over the modern. Ancient Greece and Rome get a rather thorough workout — first semester of first year would be spent on the likes of Homer, Plato and Thucydides. The 20th century, the intellectual outpouring borne of two world wars and the dramatic upheavals of modernity get comparatively little exploration. Western ideas, if the curriculum is anything to go by, ended with Foucault in the 1970s.
The centre, which is chaired by John Howard, counts Tony Abbott and Joe De Bruyn (head of the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association) among its board members. For its proponents, the course is an opportunity to provide a “transformative” reinvestment in the humanities.
Yet academics have raised concerns about the centre’s potential threat to intellectual freedom, and questioned whether, against a backdrop of “glaring curricular disparities” between the West and the rest, such a degree is needed in the first place.
Yes, it is a curated list of mostly western writing, but interestingly does not really consider science and mathematics as a part of the ‘Western’ intellectual tradition. I know there is little attention to this huge omission in the academic debate about the degree program, but there should be. Without serious attention to the development of scientific method and scientific thought, many of the weaknesses of the current regime (whether academic, political or cultural) cannot be addressed. If reading Plato is good for us, then not reading Galileo or Newton might be bad for us. If learning to read carefully and conduct respectful significant discourse about those ideas is good, then a failure read early scientific papers and perform experiments that demonstrate the scientific method might be bad.
Worth some thought in the fraught atmosphere of the Ramsey bequest debate.
Good point Djbekka. Would add a dimension sadly lacking in public discourse.
My thought exactly. It always seemed to be some sort of Liberal Arts course, but you could at least have topics like “History of Science” or “Philosophy of Science”.
The curriculum does appear rather dated , especially when you consider the challenges we are facing and will face for a long time to come. Relevance is not the whole story but it should count for something. The main problem with the Ramsey Centre is that it’s being controlled by the two most anti-intellectual narrow-minded politicians in Australian history. It’s difficult to see this getting off the ground with these two deadheads weighing it down.
Abbot wants course pro west (whatever that means?). He actually insisted the Western civilisation course be”for it”. Which makes little literal sense, but presumably loaded with propergander.
That the university dropped the idea was good sense, but that the idea was ever seriously considered was amazeballs?
I would like to know how Mr Ramsay made such a fortune during his life, which has enabled him to leave this massive $ 3.2 Billion donation. Was it all made though the provision of health services and hospitals? If so, we need to question how it is possible to make so much money out of health service in a country which has universal health care.
I’m sure he made a lot out of investments, property etc too, once these blokes make their initial forune a lot of the extra ends up coming out of how they invest it, and Ramsay had some international arms too, but private hospitals was the core of it.
“how it is possible to make so much money out of health service in a country which has universal health care” ? Because someone provides that health care and they get paid, even if it’s by Medicare (the government) not by you the individual.
At this early stage it would be surprising if the curriculum advanced were to be other than relatively anodyne and reassuring to “left elitist ” critics. My concern is with any concept that allows a creeping colonisation of a respectable academic institution by a centre dedicated to producing a cadre of graduates conditioned to the ideology intrinsic to the founder’s bequest.
Sydney University’s mooted acceptance of the Ramsay Centre’s western civilisation degree will be embedded in controversy.
So far as I am aware, no Australian commentator has drawn attention to an obvious parallel with a form of institutionalisation within United States’ academia. In a superb study of an aspect of US history since the 1960s, Prof Nancy MacLean traced the history of the policy development for neo-liberalism through a marriage between a select academic elite and corporate capital: (Democracy in Chains: the deep history of the radical right’s stealth plan for America: 2017 Scribe publications). MacLean explores the ways in which money and minds came together at Virginia Tech for the purpose of developing policies and cadres of graduates to counter the New Deal and Great Society thinking and programs.
Caveat emptor principles must guide assessment of the Ramsey Centre’s Western civilisation degree proposals and money. Toxic effects of lending academic institutional respectability to an ideological agenda and recruitment scheme are manifest from MacLean’s study. Of course, the money on offer will be snapped up by one or more tertiary level institutions scrambling for funds. Let the snapping up of the money on offer be by a university making a smaller sacrifice of its institutional respectability than that demanded of Sydney University.