Entry: Campus speech down under

I have a take on this here.

Posted by John Bruce at July 26, 2005 8:15 PM

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.

Posted by John S Bolton at July 27, 2005 4:20 PM

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.

Posted by Cyberike at July 27, 2005 8:43 PM

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.

Posted by S.M. Stirling at July 28, 2005 7:21 PM

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 The Africans are threatening violence over the professor's continuation there, he has been withdrawn from teaching on account of threats, and has refused the hush money from the school.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.

Posted by John S Bolton at July 29, 2005 5:25 PM

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!!

Posted by Dave at August 1, 2005 7:25 AM

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??

Posted by S.Fernandez at August 1, 2005 8:26 PM