The natural successors to former Australian prime minister John Howard's neo-fascist philosophy must be disappointed that they have been listened to and tolerantly dismissed as dummy spitters in the Standing Committee's majority opinion and weakly defended by five Coalition senators in the minority opinion.
This must be particularly galling for Liberal students and Make Australia Fair when the inquiry was dominated by Liberal Party senators whom they would have felt were their natural allies.
Here are a few excerpts:
1.3 Liberal Students' organisations, who appear to have been the main instigators of this inquiry, and some academics who gave evidence, observe that the prevailingideology in the social science and humanities faculties in universities is strongly, if not overwhelmingly, leftist. To the extent this may be true, why would it matter? The issue is whether this has any bearing on teaching and learning, or any effect on theintellectual development of students other than to open their minds to ideas to whichthey should be exposed.
1.7 The committee has had difficulty in dealing with argument that is highly subjective, and where the evidence provided to sustain the argument is either anecdotal or clearly exceptional. In neither their submissions nor their testimony did Student Liberals describe a state of affairs that suggested any significant magnitude of political bias on the part of academic staff. A number of instances were given, which like the case cited above, could give rise to concern, but the committee concludes that these are isolated instances. They do not represent the 'tip of an iceberg'. There is insufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion. Far more evident was a lack of knowledge that students have of grievance processes.
1.8 The committee also notes that such incidences occur at a time when interestand involvement in political activity by university students is generally very low. If a leftist orthodoxy does prevail, most students would either be unaware of it, or put it down to eccentricity on the part of their lecturers. It is perhaps the observation of this prevailing attitude which provokes such anger among the more politically active students on the right, and who see a need to confront the bias they identify.
1.33 First, it has not been demonstrated to the committee's satisfaction that what is being complained about is particularly significant. That is, it appears to concern only a very small proportion of the student population. Of the 69 submissions received, about 28 came from aggrieved university students. Even 50 times that number would have represented a tiny minority of students in humanities, social sciences and other fields of study most prone to this kind of complaint. There are nearly 530 000 full-time undergraduate students currently attending university. If the problem was as common as it is claimed there would be uproar.
1.34 Second, universities have a role in challenging young people who have not previously been exposed to ideas and opinions at odds with those they have grown up with. Part of the discomfort which has been expressed in submissions from undergraduates results from their encounters with tutors or lecturers, or even their fellow students, who may be blunt and forthright in manner as well as message. There can be no effective way of ensuring that a small proportion of undergraduates will not be distressed by some of their encounters with alternative views.
What appears to be high on the list of that which offends right-wing students is any derogatory mention of their god, John Winston Howard:
Full PDF text of December 2008 Allegations of academic bias in universities and schools report here.
The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, has previously stated that his national mandatory ISP-level filtering scheme will rely on the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) for a black list which lays the foundation of what Internet content is not acceptable to the federal government.
