Macquarie University has asked a professor to retire early after he made some politically incorrect comments about immigration. Public law professor Andrew Fraser outraged administrators at the Sydney school when he spoke out against non-white immigration, arguing that black immigration heightens crime and a range of social problems; he also believes that the numbers of Asian immigrants coming into Australia threaten to turn the country into a "third world colony." Macquarie president Di Yerbury says that while the university is not firing Fraser, he and his views are not welcome there. "What he said is abhorrent to most of us at the university and has caused a great deal of distress and concern to the communities concerned. ... It's very much against our policy, we're a multi-cultural university that rejects racism and discrimination." University administrators have approached Fraser about buying out his contract; he has told the press that he sees this as an attempt to buy his silence, a statement that does more, I suspect, to mark Fraser as a provocateur given to exaggeration than to characterize facts--Macquarie may abhor Fraser's views so much that it is willing to pay him to get him off its campus, and that willingness may run counter to the ideals of free inquiry universities should ideally uphold, but there is no gag order in sight.

Macquarie's press release plausibly denies that the university is trying to buy Fraser's silence: "Clearly he is seeking channels for his views to be circulated, and we do not expect that to change. That is his prerogative. ... However, we do not want his views to be identified with the policies and views of Macquarie University and the University community." That statement seems unexceptional enough, though it seems to me that instead of trying to press Fraser to choose early retirement, the university would do better to organize a panel discussion or conference or some such on precisely the issues Fraser raises. Open his views to debate--let the issues he raises be aired freely, contested, challenged, defended, complicated, and so on. Macquarie may be embarrassed by Fraser, but he is presenting the university with one of those rare "teaching moments," and the university so far has failed miserably to accept the challenge he poses to let the marketplace of ideas do its work.

The news reports I've found on Fraser's situation are all cursory and ultimately unenlightening, and I don't know beans about the Australian academic system. Readers who are familiar with how questions of academic freedom, free speech, and tenure operate on Australian campuses in general, and at Macquarie in particular, are more than welcome to comment.

UPDATE 8/2/05: A thoughtful piece in the Sydney Morning Herald argues that the real issue with Fraser is not his opinion, but his effort to tie his opinion to his position at Macquarie by signing his inflammatory letter to the Paramatta Sun, "Andrew Fraser, Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Macquarie University." Written by a conservative columnist, the piece compares Fraser to Ward Churchill, and notes how profoundly not useful the concept of academic freedom is in sorting out situations such as Fraser's:

These days universities receive funding from the Government and private sources. Academics, who are paid by universities, should be expected to behave professionally and act in accordance with their contracts of employment. Just like everyone else.

Macquarie University's enterprise agreements with staff confirm that academics "have the right to express their views publicly on any matter of public interest as private citizens". However, when an issue is not "related directly to the academic or other specialist subject area of a staff member's appointment", then "they should not include the name of the university or the title of her or his university appointment". That's fair enough.

[...]

In recent interviews, lawyer Terry O'Gorman and academic Robert Manne have defended Fraser's right to "free speech" while distancing themselves from his opinions. Similar support has been given in the US to leftist academic Ward Churchill, who has maintained the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, were "little Eichmanns" and, presumably, deserved to be murdered. Fraser told Sally Loane on ABC Radio yesterday that he used to be a "firebrand left-winger". What Fraser and Churchill have in common is that they are ideologues who have discredited their places of employment.

The concept that the existence of modern democracies depends on the unfettered right of academics to free speech is a myth. It is also a myth to suggest that universities were ever a sanctuary for pure intellectual freedom. For years a fashionable leftism has prevailed in many areas of the social sciences, which has affected academic appointments and student grades. The philosopher Herbert Marcuse was a one-time campus hero. In his 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse says there should be "intolerance against movements from the right, and toleration of movements from the left". Not much academic freedom there.

Academic freedom has often been invoked to protect the incompetent and the unsuitable. If the likes of Fraser and Churchill act outside their terms of employment, their universities should have every right to respond like any other employer.

Fraser's claim that he has become a bulwark between freedom and what he has termed "dictatorship in Australia" is self-indulgent humbug. Fraser retains the right to say what he wants. But he does not have the right to work as he pleases - courtesy of the taxpayer.

I have a take on this here.

Apparently, an attractive sum is being offered to accelerate the professor's retirement by a year or so. This shows a dreadful weakness in the prodiversity position, that the most intelligent and educated do not believe that free disputation on the subject of mass antimerit immigration will redound to the advancement of their side. Fraser has also raised the issue of whether recruitment of foreign students, presumably on net public subsidy, is not a betrayal. If those most familiar with the arguments on these issues feel that it is best not to allow them to be raised in the academic environment ,this does not indicate confidence in the prodiversity position.

I am going to take a contrarian point of view here, but please, dont condemn me, I'm only trying to stimulate discussion. I think there needs to be serious discussion about this topic.

Was (is) there any truth at all to the statements and beliefs that Adndrew Fraser expressed? We can all condemn his speech, but when we do not explore the rational behind them we are condemning ourselves to ignorance. For whatever reasons, there is a lack of academic parity between races. There is an imbalance between incarceration rates. The failure to even be able to explore real causes means we are unable to create real solutions.

What I have seen in these posts and their responses is that we cannot even discuss these issues. For me, that is truly sad.

This is obviously attempted censorship. The University has no right whatsoever to object to the political opinions of a professor; he could be a Nazi or Stalinist, and it still wouldn't.

There should be no University "position" on anything, simply individuals at the University with their own individual opinions, none of which should receive official favor.

If a minority is allowed to use their sensitivities as a means of suppressing political speech, we will indeed have censorship across the board. The Africans are threatening violence over the professor's continuation there, he has been withdrawn from teaching on account of threats, and has refused the hush money from the school. This is another case where the left picks its issues, in the tried and true new left style inspired by Castro, so as to describe all disagreement as proceeding simply from racial feeling. Anticipating escalation of rhetoric from the left, must not one ask whether socialism is not mass murder as a social ideal? If not, won't they just give facile equations of predictable type, such as: free speech= tolerance of racism= racism=nazism=mass murder? The school in question may need testimony from Cambodian refugees as to the consequences of egalitarian and socialist ideas applied radically, and with speed.

Freedom of speech in the world I want to live in is paramount.

Most students live in a bubble, fed PC propaganda from pre-school to uni.

Then as they gain a little confidence they start the whole process again - trying their best to spread the crap they've been taught.

Learning to think independently even though the education system teaches you the opposite is what makes a true student.

You will then know what Andrew Fraser is saying.

WAKE UP NEO!!

Stereotypical views are often manifested outwardly in one form or the other.

How does negative stereotypical views of racism of especially academics such as Prof Andrew Fraser manifest itself in the classroom situation?

Should Professor Fraser's professional conduct with African and Asian students be investigated??