Right decision, wrong reason
Deakin University has rejected Andrew Fraser’s article, which was to be published in the Deakin Law Review. In my earlier post on this issue, I said that academic publications should be free to discuss controversial topics, but that if they abandon their academic rigour in favour of controversy and headline-grabbing, they should be held to account.
There is little doubt that academic articles are protected under the relevant legislation — as long as they are published “reasonably and in good faith”. I’m not convinced that the process in this case was in good faith. Two referees rejected Fraser’s article, so the editors went looking for two more that would be more flexible with their standards. Every time James McConvill posts about the process, someone criticises it and his post mysteriously disappears. As someone who claims to be a staunch defender of free speech, who says the university should have stood up to the critics, you’ve got to wonder what McConvill is hiding.
But the University should not have “bowed to legal threats”. Sally Walker should have cancelled the publication because of doubts about the integrity of the refereeing process. If she stood by the academic integrity of the Deakin Law Review’s editors, she should have allowed publication and fought the court case. If there is a risk of “chilling” open academic discussion, it is made much worse when the university administration will not defend its staff. The court would have heard evidence about the refereeing process, and would have made its decision based on whether it was a genuine academic publication.
Note: Drew Fraser has been busy soliciting Stormfront members for support. He is not a disinterested academic, he is a racist who advocates race riots. He uses his university title to provide a rationalisation for racist violence.
Update: Liam points out that McConvill also deletes comments from his blog. This from a man who complained that academics too often “close ourselves off” from the public.
Trackback.
“I challenge you to read the article and explain how it belongs in a law review. Even before the research and argument are considered, surely it should meet the threshold test of being in some way related to the law?”
Well Fraser wouldn’t be the first to stretch the bounds of a discipline, although many humanities and arts subjects seem to have no bounds whatsoever. That aside your question is easily answered. British constitutional/precedent law, Sharia Law or Aboriginal Tribal Law folks? Make up your mind quick!
Think of it like a discourse on ‘Unions and Society’ Rob. You can imagine how some blinkered trogs would like to narrow it down, while the enlightened ones like you well…..?