Underfunded and increasingly corporatised, Australian universities are evermore concerned with money over education. Indeed, the title of vice-chancellor might easily be renamed “chief fundraiser”. Hosting the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation thus represents a sizeable cash splash, and it’s no wonder that universities have been quick to pounce, even after the Australian National University (ANU) rejected the centre over concerns of academic autonomy.
Yet no university has genuinely secured a deal with the centre. While the University of Wollongong and the centre have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU), the process has been marred by secrecy, widespread criticism, and the resignation of visiting fellow Sarah Keenan in protest against it.
Further, the decision to fast-track approval may eventuate in legal action following the National Tertiary Education Union’s (NTEU) decision to take the uni to court in a bid to thwart the deal. So if the Ramsay Centre is willing to give millions to cash-strapped universities across the country, why is it floundering?
Ramsay is suffering a legitimacy crisis on two fronts — within universities and within the empire itself. On campuses, staff and students have put universities on the back foot. At the University of Sydney, 15 departments within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (where the degree would be hosted) have come out against the degree. In contrast, only 26 people (11 of them anonymous, and including academics from overseas) have signed on to the “Scholars for Western Civ” in support of Ramsay.
The university has made (superficial) concessions seeking to rename the centre’s degree to “Western Tradition”, as well as paying lip service to concerns of academic autonomy, outlined in the MoU to the centre back in October. However, even this might be too much for the centre as, seven months on, all has been quiet on the Western front, and students and staff are cautiously optimistic.
At the University of Queensland (UQ) students and staff have also been successful. The UQ student union, the NTEU and the Humanities Board of Studies have rejected the course.
UQ’s student union also organised the first general meeting of students since 1971, which attracted almost 500 students — a remarkable feat in the context of voluntary student unionism. Reportedly only eight students voted “yes” to the university accepting a deal with the Ramsay Centre. The meeting was seen as a resounding achievement.
Meanwhile, internal divisions have characterised Ramsay, first publicly realised after board member Tony Abbott’s comment that the centre was “not about Western civilisation, but indeed in favour of it”. The centre was quick to distance itself from Abbott’s comments, seeking to frame him as a renegade, rather than a representative.
For all the political critiques of Abbott, he is consistently forthright. His comments seem to encapsulate the underpinnings of the Ramsay program — unconcerned with academic rigour and critical thinking, instead presenting a narrow, propagandistic understanding of Western civilisation.
Abbott’s comments seemingly caused the centre to pause and reflect, as they appointed more educators, attempting to distance themselves from the right of the culture wars with which it has become associated.
However, a minor board change couldn’t alter the foundations. The 2019 Ramsay “distinguished speakers” program includes Rod Dreher, who has argued that “everything [the Christchurch shooter] identifies as qualities of a disintegrating Western civilisation is true” and Rachel Fulton Brown, who runs a fan blog dedicated to Milo Yiannopoulos — a man who has solicited the advice of neo-Nazis and endorsed paedophilia.
Additionally, Ramsay has received chilling support from the Australian alt-right, including The Unshackled, a media platform known for interviewing a smorgasbord of the local far-right (Cottrell, Erikson, Anning) and The Dingoes, a far-right group linked to the neo-Nazi infiltration of the Young Nationals last year.
This is largely unsurprising given the alt-right’s own binary construction of “the West and the rest” and Western supremacy being foundational to the movement. Moreover, the right — from mainstream conservatives to the far right — share a scepticism of universities; running a privately funded Western civilisation course through universities would represent, in part, a hostile takeover of the public education system.
A few days ago, tensions between the Ramsay Foundation (which funds the centre) and the centre reportedly reached a boiling point with a potential split in the works following concerns over the culture war, and whether spending hundreds of millions on a small number of students is a good use of Paul Ramsay’s money, especially considering the centre never even featured in his will.
Ultimately, even if money prevails over student and staff democracy, it cannot buy legitimacy. Students interested in the humanities with 95+ ATARs would surely rather undertake arts or law degrees that offer them a critical education, superior employment opportunities and a degree not tainted by controversy and the support of the alt-right.
Disclosure: In 2018, Lara Sonnenschein was the education officer at the USyd Students’ Representative Council and co-founded Keep Ramsay Out of USyd, the student wing of the anti-Ramsay campaign on campus.
A story with a photo of a former PM with an exasperated, if not frustrated, look on his dial; it would be unthinkable that Crikey resorts to emotional politics when presenting objective stories!
The funding of universities is a major issue but so is the “corporate” manner in which have to operate. Initially aided by a Labor government they came to be compromised by a Labor government about 15 years hence. All universities are obliged to bang on about the quality of their teaching whereas, 40 odd years ago, the criteria was the quality of the research. Now, it is only too apparent that the wars are ideological. Perhaps they were always ideological but now are more identity-conscious.
As to the UQ student meeting it is by no means clear as to the criteria that the students adopted in respect of their decision to vote aye or nay. Ditto for elsewhere. A news paper article, referring to UQ, declared ‘a “proud” Torres Strait Islander student , who did not wish to be named, described the Ramsay Centre course as “abhorrent”‘. The obvious questions to ponder include :
i Why has the world “proud” been included in the quotation?
ii Why did the student not wish to be named and does his anonymity nullify his opinion?
iii How does (using what criteria) the student justify the adjective “abhorrent”?
I, for one, have yet to sight a syllabus; even in outline. I wonder if any syllabus has been produced as any meeting and I wonder if any student could describe the entire (proposed) course.
In typical Crikey (disingenuous) fashion, only ONE side of the matter has been presented. According to the article, the proposed degree course has been endorsed by those who have endorsed the actions of hothead in Christchurch to neo anything. Thus, we are to infer, given the impartiality of the writer, that the entire course is a naked exposition of totalitarianism combined with some mixture of the politics of Abbott.
As to the remark : “Ultimately, even if money prevails over student and staff democracy, it cannot buy legitimacy” this gem is to be added to the list of impartial statements. The legitimacy, one might anticipate, resides on the veracity of the content and (so far as I know) thee is nothing to repress critical analysis or investigation of civilisations from circa 800 BCE.
Let’s reflect on EH Carr and his “What is History” (for a line or two). History, Carr asserts, that history is a “social process” and because no individual is free of social contamination the “conclusion” is that we cannot impose our understanding of the world of the past. Such being the case we just have another toke or a beer (or, for some, both).
Such is a TYPICAL Post Modern claim complete with all of cultural relativism and the contempt for empiricism that can be marshalled. The assertion implies that (1) NOTHING can be known (with any degree of certainty and (2) worse, the “opinion” of one person (Pauline Hanson) is as good as that of any other person (ScoMo or Daryn Hinch)
Some (indeed many) of the insights of Carr are valuable but equally many are extreme and
unquantifiable by any metric and thus deserve to be discarded. In many places of “What is History”
Bertie Russell (and A.J. Ayer for another) would have Carr for breakfast.
The point about history, I submit, is “balance”. By way of illustration I recall (indeed I was there – but not as a student) during the Berkeley (named after Bishop Berkeley) Free Speech Movement. I was, coincidentally, visiting Berkeley about a year ago and I am able to state that damn all of the FSM (that existed 40 years ago) exists today. Universities are on the threshold of becoming bigoted monasteries. It is hardly surprising that Roger Scruton quips that universities be disbanded. They serve no purpose now. Thank god that major research is undertaken in Research Parks and the like.
I think the Ramsay Centre needs to re-brand. I suggest instead of Western Civilisation or Tradition (rather dry titles that won’t get the punters in the door), they rename it Alt-White: a dystopian wet dream. That way it will happily sit in the humanities school, along with science fiction and fantasy units, and students can do a post-modernist critique of its tiny ‘grand’ narrative.
I thought I would let my submission “stand” for some number of hours prior to responding to your post Harry.
If the “solution” is to re-brand, Harry, then academic scholarship is finished. However, your suggestion is instructive, nevertheless, because – as I responded to a number of articles yesterday – the “perceived” scholastic “conclusion” has to be politically acceptable IRRESPECTIVE of the evidence that the research has revealed. The community is (now) free only inasmuch as a Medieval Schoolman was free – ironically.
The knee-jerkers within academic institutions, and elsewhere, are intent on changing things with which they do not agree. They are not deterred by the reality that the past has already occurfed and that history (or the past) is fixed because, with their arrogance, such aspects (of history) can be changed too – with appropriate political and PC influence. The destruction of statutes and various visual references to the past is a case in point.
At this point I could invoke Orwell but I’m sure you have the drift.
Minority Report also springs to mind Kyle. For my part I think all the trappings of the past like memorials and statues should be left in place. Primary texts and artifacts are a boon to historians. That they become read in another way is always open then, especially as other voices, long silenced, can now be heard. We could have a long discussion about the past being fixed and unchangeable, however History is always in the present and our engagement with it tempered by our current understandings and access to archives (sometimes long shut away from view). I prefer a hermeneutic approach that includes self-reflexivity (given we are always products of our particular social environment, including place and time). That way I can renew my acquaintance with Herodotus for example and reflect on his praise for the Persians to discover how much of their intellectual influence has been airbrushed from Western Civilization accounts (along with the pantheon of Arab scholars who rarely rate a mention, let alone Indian and Chinese influences). His flights of fancy ‘diversions’ tell us a great deal about his view of the world in which he lived. None of that can be fixed as ‘facts’ unchangeable, especially when read against Thucydides. This is not a relativist position but rather a refection on how history has always been practiced. Carr, the consummate Marxist historian, was much caught up in the historical materialist position, a position firmly set by the influence the writings of Darwin had on Marx. Carr was reacting to what he saw as traditional empiricist history. Again, Enlightenment ideas on progress predominated. It was Faulkner I think who said the past is not past: indeed is hasn’t even passed.
Of course, whatever happens with the whole Ramsay business does not disguise the reality that the BA and humanities are dying in Australia. In 10 years time the BA may well be limited to a small number of elite universities. It may well be the best strategy for Ramsay not to associate itself with what is obviously a degree that is on the wane. They have the money; they need to re-think their strategy and it may be best if that strategy had nothing to do with an area in our public universities that is rapidly losing its appeal to students.
I understand that Wombat Gully TAFE will be offering a cert 3 in Western Civilisation is the bestest Civilisation .
Good to see that the author is readying for her career in politics – “almost 500 students — a remarkable feat in the context of voluntary student unionism. Reportedly only eight students voted “yes” to the university accepting a deal with the Ramsay Centre. The meeting was seen as a resounding achievement.“.
By whom? Non platformers?
By everyone surely? The 500 students were the ones who bothered to show up. There’s no compulsory voting involved here you know. The rest were not interested. First past the post and all that, as in the USA, the UK etc. Following a hallowed tradition. Please do tell us what is your problem with that.
Whether invoked byThatcher, Nixon or Mr Shouty McSmug the soi disant silent majority is usually an extremely noisy minority.
Or, in the case of Stalin or Drumpf, noisome – I commend the movie VICE for consideration of how scum rises to the top of the cesspool.
My submission has been embargoed since 4pm on Friday. I’m not a fan of Scruton but perhaps he (and Peterson) are right.
The motivations of those who “bothered to show up” cannot be quantified but, appealing to what gets published in this country (and I include the subject article) I’m inclined to suggest the ‘knee-jerkers’. My post examines this point.
Readers might recall a TV show called Little Britain. A character of the show was a homosexual who
professed to be (1) the only bent individual in the village and (2) was the only one who received
abuse. The quantity of abuse that he received was deemed proportional to his intrinsic virtue. In
other words, from circa 21st century, valour is now dead or becoming subservient to “feelings” and,
for that matter, evidence. There is a association here to Nietzsche but let’s not digress.
Wow. Way to suck the humour out of comedy…
Kyle? Komedy? In the Sheldon sense, perhaps.
Kyle says no
With any luck, RH, my original post will be visible tomorrow. You are NOT to spare me. On the evidence (presumably available tomorrow) try spearing me.
What great sin have you committed Kyle, that your comment is visiting Crikey limbo?
Presumably, for critiquing the girl’s article but not in any way that could be considered (in the least) disrespectful.
Perhaps it was my intemperate mention of E.H. Carr “What is History” and the ensuing critique.
I think I will quote Helen Lewis here when she ‘interviewed’ Peterson – you know that guy who apparently gets locked out of mainstream media. Peterson was talking of the archetypal human hierarchy from a lobsters point of view. Lewis replied “Lobsters don’t get depressed. I think you’re anthropomorphising to a ridiculous degree. These are creatures that urinate out of their faces.”
That is the issue Harry. Of course the word “depressed” isn’t in the least anthropomorphic and I’ll warrant that the interviewer is utterly clueless
as to the nervous systems of Crustaceans and utterly unable to comment on the attendant bio-chem of such a nervous system whereas Peterson is an
authority on the matter.
As an aside, the nervous system of Crustaceans (phylum Arthropoda) is remarkably similar to that of (phylum) Chordates. Such is Peterson’s point.
You shall learn to your cost, Harry, that a number of the subscribers to Crikey are eminently more qualified to write or comment on the published articles than anyone of the staff and this article is no exception (as I have gone to some trouble to convey with my submission; when it sees the light of day).
In my experience, comments that mention a certain historical German regime get flagged by some kind of auto-moderator and the mods almost never bother to approve such comments later (or if they do, it’s after nobody is still reading the article). There’s probably other triggers for the auto-mod but that’s the one I know.
This actually to Arky whohas been deprived of a REPLY option but his comment was re your problem with the ModBot.
I asked the machine tenders for the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and it was a pretty lame list – mostly words which the ‘authors’ here regularly use.
One assumes that it is now longer and I am tempted to construct a sentence using all of them in a totally non judgemental and completely caring, sharing & sensitive way. It t would probably cause the ModBot to explode and, given the state of what passes for our meeja today, we can’t afford the resultant casualties in the Crikey bunker.
Given that it is now 15:05 it is unlikely that the article will be released today and perhaps not tomorrow or ever. There is a correspondent whose email I have and on a previous occasion he connected to post an article under his name (on my behalf” To his surprise the article completely disappeared from view after clicking ‘post comment’
The article was not in the least inflammatory or disrespectful; indeed, not for decades have I written any such piece. Crikey, does practice censorship to defend its own ideology; not often but it does occur.
As to my being able to log on tomorrow [end of subscription] such is a moot point hence this note (of explanation) now.
Once, again, I have enjoyed a few exchanges but too few to continue paying and devoting the time. I’m FAR from impressed with the “new” talent – which I’d rate no higher than average yr 11 students.
Thanks for that Kyle. You have reminded me again why I should steer clear of poking a stick into that angry ants nest that is the Peterson world view. Too much obfuscation and straw men for me. I prefer to go back to the primary texts of the people he skims. I hope to read your article when and if it arrives. Critique is always valuable…and gets discussions like this going! Lets hope the humanities stay alive in universities.
Peterson’s very great fault is his inclination to oversimplify Economic Thought from cica David Ricardo. Similarly for remarks as to Structuralism and post-structuralism. As to the Post Modern he is on firmer ground but not by any great margin.
However, as to the nano-bio stuff and the implications for political policy he is on the money. Humans are NOT going to lose their aggression by sitting in a circle, holding hands, and offering warm fizzies to whoever is on either side of them. Socialisation might assist but it will not effect the elimination of aggression and especially under conditions of extreme deprivation.
Like all carnivores we are “natural born killers”. The extinction of fauna at the hands of humans refers. Prior to the Neolithic (indeed beyond but less so), If one didn’t kill one didn’t eat.
We’re also rather particular as to territory and there are circa 10,000 years (at least) to support that point. It could not, by induction, have been different 100,000 years ago (at the inception of language as we know it)!
I agree with the human aggression aspects Kyle. At least since the Enlightenment the West has believed in progress (especially in terms of rationality and science), and since evolutionary theory added to the mix an inbuilt teleology has it that we are reaching the pinnacle of human achievement (unlike those so named ‘hunter-gatherer’ types who grunted, apparently). Scant resources, in particular fresh water, will soon see our true natures emerge. I wonder how long we would last if the electricity was turned off? At this moment. We can make no claims of superiority, notwithstanding our latest technologies. Derrida has some useful things to say about the inception of language (and he is part of the Western cannon or tradition).
Humans have never been carnivores – our dentition & viscera refer.
Apart from the Inuit (in winter), the current generation in the West – with China onrushing – has the highest rate of meat consumption in our brief (250-500,000yrs, tops) existence.
The ‘gather-hunter’ societies, from prehistory until last week, have always relied far more of the food garnered by the women & children than that occasionally brought in by the soi disant Mighty Hunter.
Of old, males spent most of their time in that traditional male occupation of talking B/S & pissing contests.
So unlike today.
> Humans have never been carnivores – our dentition & viscera refer.
AR, such is not an informed comment and is reminiscent of the vegi brigade. Take a look at Leaky, Diamond, Cooke, Dawkins and (if one must) Harari. ALL refer to stone tools and the scrapping of meat from bones of Homo habilis onward; Homo sapiens specifically!
Then there is the undoubted practice of cannibalism; more for religious purposes; i.e. to ensure that the vanquished would not create any drama (for the victors) in an after-life.
Then, as I have remarked, about three weeks ago, the rituals and organised cave layout of Homo neanderthal refer to their domestic (and culinary) practices . If you prefer the designation ‘omnivore’ for sapiens then I don’t mind.
“Apart from the Inuit (in winter), the current generation in the West – with China onrushing – has the highest rate of meat consumption in our brief (250-500,000yrs, tops) existence.”
I’m not sure as to what you might mean by “our” If you mean Homo (as a genus) then ok. If you mean sapiens then NO. The interval of sapiens is circa 200,000 years ago to the present. As to the consumption of meat one need look no further than to the letters of the settlers to NZ and Oz in the 19th century. Meat was a weekly (if not daily) product whereas in the UK the “average” family would be fortunate to have meat once per month (and, ironically, on a Sunday).
I pointed out to another correspondent meat has much higher protein than
any vegetable and thus was (and is) attractive
“The ‘gather-hunter’ societies, from prehistory until last week, have always relied far more of the food garnered by the women & children than that occasionally brought in by the soi disant Mighty Hunter.”
Once again a “common” lay assertion but the assertion is difficult to quantify. How does one distinguish between an animal dying at a location and the establishment of a human camp some millennia prior or hence.
Then, on account of the attractiveness of a given location, camp sites were constructed on top of one another over millennia. The same is true for towns post the Neolithic.
Both Leakys make just this point- among other paleontologists. What is
detectable is an upward trend in protein (correlated by stature and bone quality) from circa 40,000 years WHEN the major old fauna began to
disappear in (ALL) regions of the world occupied by humans.
“Of old, males spent most of their time in that traditional male occupation of talking B/S & pissing contests ..”
I take you to infer that parliaments, of any hue, were inevitable.
I’ll have more to say to Harry (re The Enlightenment etc.) when my article appears.
Kyle, as someone keen on the value of terminological exactitude, you would be be aware of the meaning of carnivore – an animal that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue.
This has never included humans as our dentition, digestive processes & gut length demonstrate, not to mention our closest (very close indeed for some of the shamblers to be avoided on many a street) relatives in the animal world.
You admit that omnivore is the appropriate term though the worshippers at the shrine of Tarzan – Leaky, Diamond et al – are unlikely to be comfortable acknowledging that their beloved, imaginary forebears made do with scavenging the remnants of the real carnivores.
That they, and modern apologists make a mixed grill banquet out of scratches on foraged bones just shows the desperation, bordering on mania – rather like their politics & economic views, funny about that predilection of neolibs for “commerce red in tooth & claw”) – to pretend otherwise else their entire raison d’etre, not to mention careers collapses.
For you to take a Gulliverian leap through Time to Victorian Kiwi diarists is unworthy & irrelevant, you might as well invoke the Beefeaters in red brocade at the Tower or those Gilray cartoons of John Bull .
AR, re your comment of 18June at 12:43. It is only too clear that with the advent of fire roughly half a million years ago to fire being commonplace at 300,000 years ago (prior to sapiens!) it is clear that (1) a greater range of food was consumed with (2) increased protein; i.e. meat in particular.
If we wish to split hair over digestive tracts and metabolism of food we’re going to lose the point of the subject. In such manner my “For you to take a Gulliverian leap through Time to Victorian Kiwi diarists is”, is – in point of fact – pertinent because there exists a clear trend and preference in this regard. As an aside, the same was true for Australia – which had the highest standard of living in the world during the 1890s; a mini depression in the late 90s (and hence a partial explanation for the rate of volunteers for the Boar War) notwithstanding.
The point is, AR, that sapiens are accustomed killers and the trait might be off set but not suppressed by socialisation. The large fauna, having survived copious ice ages, did NOT disappear for no reason.
What is interesting is that we have had institutionalised (c.f. non institutionalised but no less effective) religion to direct lifestyles etc. from the Neolithic.
I can create a temporary email if you are inclined to continue the discussion.