In 1990, I enrolled in a commercial law course as part of my LLB program at Macquarie University. My lecturer was Mark Cooray, a conservative academic lawyer of Sri Lankan origin. In those days, Macquarie Law School was dominated by a group of “progressive” lawyers pushing the “Critical Legal Studies” barrel.
Cooray was scathing of the “Crits”, arguing their approach to learning and teaching law put the cart before the horse. “How can undergraduate students be expected to criticise the law before gaining a proper understanding of it?”
In their approach to exposing alleged biases of supposedly left-leaning academics, the Young Libs are behaving like a bunch of leftwing “Crits”. Which probably explains why the main (if not the only) instrument used by National Young Liberal President Noel McCoy to generate his list of academic leftists was that great scholarly authority Professor Google.
To borrow Cooray’s sensible conservative logic, how can undergraduates with little exposure to a discipline or subject be expected to criticise their lecturer or tutor before gaining an understanding of the discipline or subject itself?
Just how seriously should we take the words of academic novices when determining the degree of bias (or lack thereof) of an expert in a field?
It’s true that there is a lack of diversity in university education. Most universities don’t hire undergraduate novices to teach.
So where did this Young Liberal idea come from? It seems the Young Libs are taking a leaf out of the far-Right CampusWatch project which seeks to expose Middle East Studies academics who don’t subscribe to the types of hawkish positions on the Middle East that even many Israelis find disturbing.
One can only wonder what newly elected Liberal Leader Malcolm Turnbull would make of such pseudo-conservative nonsense from the Young Liberals. Then again, these were the people whose votes proved so crucial to his preselection victory.
At our friends’ in Rome a couple of years ago, our daughter, then the Adelaide Uni student met our Roman friends’ son who was studying at the University of Rome. Both young people got shocked one night while comparing the uni programs in both countries. All of a sudden we could hear a desperate voice of our daughter: “Shit, and all we do is studying the Internet!”
Our friends’ son hardly ever uses a computer and uses his e-mail mainly for communication with friends. He is studying political science and most of his knowledge comes from numerous books, lectures and vivid discussions with academics and friends. He has 36 contact hours per week, about ten related subjects per term. At the end of each term he has to pass written and oral exams. In any written assignement he has to prove that he has the knowledge and the opinion of his own. He is free to argue with the lecturers and professors both on the campus and outside the uni.
Our daughter could not understand what is it in political science in Italy that you have to study for 5 years, full time, with dozens of oral and written exams. She had to write all her assignments on the computer and sent it via e-mail to her lecturer who was not available for most of the term. A special computer program can ‘detect’ any attempt of plagiarism. But one is NOT expected to write any personal opinion or write a critique on some lecturers’ fantasies. Our daughter was studying for 3 years, had NO exams whatsoever, and had about 4 subjects per term. She completed her studies with academic excellence award. Her only nighmare during the uni years was that somebody might suspect her of plagiarism or opinion of her own. She never made friends at the uni and never had a cup of coffee or attended a party with uni lecturers. It is unheard of in Australia to go out for a drink with uni teachers. Ivory towers. I know it. I did study in Europe and in Australia. Level? Average. And Primary school students are treated better
As one named in today’s SMH, I can only assume that the right wingers at university don’t want to be challenged or made think for themselves. My political views are public, though certainly not doctrinaire as I tend to be a critic of dogma regardless of source. I marked students down or up on the quality of their assignments not their political views, though I am sure some would prefer to assume prejudice rather than incompetence as the cause of their low markd.