Has Deakin been suckered by a violent racist movement?
James McConvill clearly can’t hack the blogosphere. After being criticised by various stalwarts of the Australian blog scene, notably fellow academics Mark Bahnisch and Andrew Norton, he has pruned back his blog significantly. However, several of his “disappeared” posts are still available if you know where to look.
- Courting Bright Sparks Rather than “Bullies”
- Professor Bagaric- A Great Leader and Intellectual (a few posts down)
At first it was not clear why McConvill decided to pull the first of these, on the type of judge who should be appointed to fill the vacancy that will be created when Justice McHugh retires from the High Court. However, its conclusion that the Government should “appoint a shining star of similar capacity to Kirby” only serves to emphasise how farcical is the second:
Within the next 10 years the complete composition of the current High Court of Australia will have retired. To replace them, as I have suggested in an op-ed published in The Canberra Times last week, we need real leaders with great minds and proven capability. Professor Bagaric should be placed on the waiting list. If the High Court could be transformed in a similar way as Professor Bagaric has done with Deakin Law School, we could enjoy two great legal institutions in this country.
Mirko Bagaric made a name for himself by advocating torture in a law review article. As Mark Bahnisch pointed out,
by publishing in a student edited law review, and a fairly obscure one at that, [Bagaric] avoided the sort of scrutiny through peer review that is fundamental to the testing of academic arguments.
It seems that the Great Leader and Intellectual’s approach rubbed off on his staff at the Deakin Law School, which leads me to the other McConvill posts that vanished from his blog:
- On Bullshit and Australian Academics
- The Ugly State of Australian Law Reviews
- After a Real Legal Academic? Turn To The Op-Ed Page
These three were presumably removed out of embarrassment following the Deakin Law Review’s decision to publish an article by racist academic Drew Fraser. When I saw the headline announcing that Fraser’s views would be published, I knew it would be by Deakin, because Bagaric is head of the law school and McConvill edits the law review. With that publicity-seeking pair running the show, it was almost inevitable that they would seek out Fraser — a man who not only has links to a neonazi organisation but also calls for race riots because “one could be forgiven for thinking that one is in Hong Kong when entering the library or other public spaces on campus.”
Unlike the University of San Francisco Law Review, which gave Bagaric’s torture bit a run, Deakin’s journal is peer reviewed. The idea of peer review is to provide a safeguard as to quality, by giving established academics with experience in the relevant field an opportunity to evaluate the article before publication. However, the process seems to have fallen over in this case:
Journal policy was to act on advice from “double blind” academic review — neither author nor reviewer should know each other’s identity.
But Professor Fraser’s authorship was clear to two potential reviewers who “rejected it in terms of not wanting to consider it”, Mr McConvill said.
Two other reviewers — a legal academic and a sociologist with expertise in the White Australia policy — advised publication.
The suggestion seems to be that the first reviewers couldn’t do the job because they could identify Fraser’s authorship, but I think you’d struggle to find someone who couldn’t. Naturally, they can’t tell us who finally approved the article, but I’d say neither are strangers to controversial polemics dressed up as academic work. My guess is that the legal academic is on the law review’s editorial board, and the sociologist features in Fraser’s article as a “tender minded” chap whose defence of White Australia was not strong enough.
Of course, if Fraser has been given an easy ride due to Deakin’s headline-grabbing approach, that will be very clear when it is published in October. I have very little doubt that Fraser’s article will be demolished, and McConvill will be embarrassed for allowing it to be published in the first place.
It is tempting to think, as Sinclair Davidson does, that we should wait until the article is published, “give the guy a fair trial, then hang him.” The problem is that by then it is too late. Racists have already used Fraser’s status to bolster their (and his) repugnant beliefs, including the need for racist violence. However, he has not yet published anything on the topic. When they can point to an academic article that vindicates their claims — in a peer reviewed law journal, no less — any criticism in subsequent volumes will be irrelevant. Fraser and his neonazi mates will have what they were after, and will use it to legitimise their toxic beliefs.
It is because of this that I am in two minds about the threatened lawsuit. On one hand, I agree with Charles Richardson that freedom of thought is fundamental to a university, and that such cases can have a significant chilling effect. The argument is all the stronger when we are talking about a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that does not publish lightly.
However, if the review process has been diluted in the name of controversy, then the scales tip towards prosecution for racial vilification. As I argued above, pseudo-academic writings form the platform on which violent racism is based. Drew Fraser has links to the Patriotic Youth League, a neonazi organisation that has been accused of waging a race-hate campaign against African students. Fraser has also suggested that race riots might be necessary as some kind of racist “propaganda by deed”. In these circumstances, it may be appropriate to question whether the usual academic privilege ought to apply.
If the Deakin Law Review has allowed itself to be used to further a violent racist agenda, then it should be held to account.
Update: Alas, Google’s cache is quickly losing those blog posts.
Good one, Rob.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least, having observed first hand what happened at a University where an academic came out with crazy stuff (of a significantly different order to this, it’s worth mentioning, and more attention-seeking than offensive), if the Deakin V-C suddenly announces an investigation into the refereeing process, and the article is pulled.
Deakin, just like Macquarie, have a legitimate interest in protecting their corporate reputation when this sort of vile stuff is spouted under their auspices.
McConvill could always claim to be an academic martyr or something then, I guess. Might be an op/ed in it for him. Or maybe not.
Thanks, Rob, that’s an excellent summation of what’s important about all this.
Just went over to Cattalaxy for the full quote. You can hear the fingernails of the last century digging in. Looks like “non-English speaking foreigners” is the new code.
On the issue of free speech, if not the fire in the theatre, this is the academic equivalent of signing off on the company reports.
So what you are saying is that Academic privelige should only apply to those who agree with you?
McConvillgate!
Roberto, you are Batman.
No, that’s not what I’m saying, Yobbo. I said academic privilege should not apply to pseudo-academic writings that find their way into an academic journal because the normal refereeing processes have been circumvented.
The latest development in the Fraser free speech issue is a tricky one.
As far as his teaching activities went, I think that Macquarie had every reason to act against Fraser – a service worker, be they bank-teller or lecturer, simply can’t treat a certain grouping within one’s customer base with open contempt (which was presumably Fraser’s attitude to any African students he may have had).
With scholarly *writing* however, such considerations are more moot. On balance, I am more persuaded by Rob’s “imprimatur to racism” argument than by Charles Richardson “chilling effect” view. Only a few days ago, I probably would have thought differently. What’s changed in the meantime is the detention and deportation of activist Scott Parkin. Now, *that’s* chillin’ – to zero Kelvin.
Fraser ’s publication in the Deakin Law Review is mainly a symbolic issue – he has plenty of other fora for his views, should he choose to use them (as opposed to relentlessly seek cheap publicity/martyrdom opportunities). In contrast, Scott Parkin’s free speech (speech, not writing) has been directly and appallingly choked, despite its content being anything but inflammatory (here, “inflammatory” as in giving license/succour to mobs to target innocent minorities, a la Drew Fraser).
In summary, self-appointed free speech defenders have a burning bushfire that they should be currently attending to. And it ain’t Fraser.
Disclosure: Paul Watson teaches in the School of Law at Deakin University.
Sinclair Davidson’s comment quoted isn’t tempting at all - that is the way it should be unless of course you believe the “end justifies the means”.
I suppose the question is whether, if you know someone is about to do something foolish, you should try to intervene now or wait until they go through with it before saying, “I told you so.” I think the academic integrity of the Deakin Law Review is more important than a few newspaper headlines.
So thats a yes then, Robert?
I’m puzzled by Paul Watson’s comment.
I don’t see how the deportation of a violent political activist can be linked to an article in the Deakin Law Review.
Yes to what, Nic? What on earth are you on about?
To Vee’s question.
Vee didn’t ask a question, Nic.
I thought you intended to make a living through your use of the English language? Thank goodness for Centrelink, eh?
“unless of course you believe the “end justifies the meansâ€?. ” is an implied question, regardless of the lack of question mark.
Nic: In this case the ends (refusing to give a racist movement a seemingly academic pretext for their repugnant beliefs) and the means (maintaining proper refereeing standards for all contributors to the review) are both worth pursuing.
Ok.
The V-C of Deakin has taken legal advice and directed that the article not be published. Commentary here.
Interesting enough over at Amren they posted the following:
“American Renaissance has been informed that Australia’s racial vilification laws do not apply to statements in academic journals and that Prof. Fraser will attempt to sue Deakin University for breach of contract”.
As usual they cut and paste legislation from the HREOC website which include the exceptions to the law, but neglect to cut and paste how those exceptions can or cannot be made.
One of the more amusing posts from an Amren person named Ethnocentrist was as follows:
“Dear Professor Walker,
Regarding your decision not to publish Professor Fraser’s article in the Law Review. A perfect example of where policy and ideology trump facts and truth. Thank you for helping to usher in another “Dark Ages”, professor. You should feel quite proud of your accomplishment. Hiding behind threats of suit by a Sudanese lawyer (which is founded solely out of ethnic, self preservational, tribal interests) and previous legislated, unfounded “Acts” is cowardly; as you must be well aware though gladly embrace. The world IS watching you and you have failed to meet the standards of what a chancellor should be. Galileo was also muzzled and vilified in his day for speaking “heresy”. People will forever remember Galileo, however no one remembers the oppressors. Good day, professor”
I was wondering whether anyone can shed any further light on Fraser’s plans to sue, such as whether he will have a case or not. Perhaps Paul Watson can shed some light on this one and also discrimination legislation.
To Rob- thank you for your summary!
Simon, his chance of success would depend on whether a contract existed and what its terms were. Someone with a better understanding of standard practice in this field might be able to shed some light on that.
Of course, it is not possible to contract for something that is illegal. Deakin might therefore argue that the article’s (arguable) breach of the racial vilification laws was enough to make the contract void. It would certainly be an interesting case — though I imagine Fraser will use it as a racist soapbox and to play martyr for his friends at the American Rennaissance (I heard he intends to do a racist speaking tour of the US).
Thanks Rob- yes I’ve been posting comments on AMREN for sometime, just to get a feel for the sort of people such as Fraser. I have little doubt Fraser would be welcome by AMREN with open arms, as a speaker, writer or otherwise.
Hopefully someone can shed some light on the contract thing further though.
“I was wondering whether anyone can shed any further light on Fraser’s plans to sue, such as whether he will have a case or not. Perhaps Paul Watson can shed some light on this one and also discrimination legislation.�
Simon,
As far as the anti-vilification legislation goes, the Australian’s publication of (an edited version of) Fraser’s “White Australia� article may yet provide an interesting test case on the limits of the “genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest� exception (to what would otherwise be racial vilification).
However, I think that such an action, at least by the forces prompting the pulling of the article from the Deakin LR, is unlikely. In turn, this does raise issues of apparent inconsistency, aka selective prosecution, but these run long and deep within the media law area. For example, a few years ago, the editors of a university student newspaper “Rabelais� faced criminal charges (including possible jail) for publishing an article called “The Art of Shoplifting�. Their prosecution wasn’t totally malicious – the article seemed to have instructed in crime, which was all the offence required (there was no “genuine academic/public interest� exception to be argued) – but it was certainly highly selective: the article (had) run/ran in other media outlets, including mainstream, high-circulation ones, all without any charges resulting.
Regarding Fraser’s mooted breach of contract argument, here, he is plainly tilting at windmills/symbolism. Since law journal contributors don’t get paid, there is unlikely to be a contract in the first place, but even if Fraser successfully argued estoppel (which gives damages for a person’s detrimental reliance, even in the absence of a contract), the damages would be token, at most. Otherwise, Fraser would have to show how his earning power went backwards because of Deakin’s pulling his article – and I don’t see how he could do this, given that he is (i) 60-something http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/09/20/racism-and-censorship/#comment-33278 and (ii) (more to the point) he had already self-sabotaged his one-time presumed academic credibility, quite without Deakin’s help.