Chapter 1
Inquiry overview
Basis of the inquiry
1.1
This inquiry has come as a surprise to many, including to some members
of the committee and to the academic community as a whole. Their reaction is
best summed up in an extract from a submission to the committee by Liberty Victoria:
While we are genuinely concerned about curbs to academic freedom
we are just as concerned about the terms of reference of this inquiry and the
fact that the Senate Committee is looking into a matter that has very little
merit and seems derived from the arguments put forward by US culture warriors.[1]
1.2
Implicit in the terms of reference is that the academic freedom of
students is being violated in instances where they are subject to biased
teaching and unbalanced subject content. That is an unusual context in which to
treat the issue of academic freedom, which normally refers to the right of
academics to speak and to publish without the threat of intimidation or legal
sanction. The terms of reference suggest that the threat is to be found in the
selection of course content offered in universities and schools, and possibly
in the way content is presented and assessed. The most commonly cited instances
of bias, according to submissions, arise in teaching departments or faculties
which appear to be dominated by a coterie of strongly partisan and like-minded
academics who institutionalise a prevailing ideology. Submissions from Liberal
Students declare that this is no marginal issue.
I am here today to speak about a very serious issue, and that is
the severe academic bias that is plaguing our universities. Instances of
academic bias extend far beyond ideological prejudices of particular lecturers
and tutors. They can be found everywhere. They can be found in whole subject
guides and course reading packs loaded with radical left-wing literature, often
at the expense of balanced perspectives. They can be found in assessment
processes that drive down the marks of outstanding work because of differences
of opinion between the student and the lecturer and, most alarmingly, they can
be found, as in the case of Macquarie University, in whole blog sites run by
university academics that are used as a vehicle for pushing nothing more than
misguided ideas about the state of Israel—ideas that border on anti-Semitism.[2]
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 prevailing ideology 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 the intellectual development of
students other than to open their minds to ideas to which they should be
exposed.
1.4
The committee believes that the concern of Student Liberals is probably
twofold, though this dichotomy is not formally stated in their submissions. The
first concern is that course content reflects a preoccupation with issues and
ideas which Student Liberals regard as 'peripheral', pandering to sectional and
minority interests which do not warrant such study or consideration, and being
outside the mainstream set of social or economic interests which universities
should serve. Second, it follows from this that there is resentment that all
students, most of whom are indifferent to radical alternative views, should be
expected to give attention to such matters. Taking it further, there is
resentment that more conservative or mainstream content and perspective is
either ignored or treated derisively by lecturers and tutors. They take it
personally that their world view is apparently rejected in uncompromising
terms. Some of these concerns are expressed in this testimony before the committee:
Members of the Melbourne University Liberal Club have been
blatantly lied to in tutorials and lectures. One student of a first-year
politics students, Global Politics, was told that highly protectionist
countries which intervene heavily in the economy experienced higher levels of
growth, despite contrary observed statistical evidence freely available in any
first year macroeconomics text book, if they wished to check. In the same
subject, issues of global economic deregulation are glossed over without
explanation. Many tutors seem to have no knowledge of concepts that are as
basic as comparative advantage and they are completely unable to confidently
explain the effects of trade and interaction between global economic
players. This sort of ignorance and the lies that are told to fit in with a
left-wing ideology are not what students studying at one of Australia’s top
universities should have to expect from their academics. Many students are
chiefly concerned with university as a means of gaining practical knowledge to
use in the work force. Once again, bias of these academics lets these students
down. A University of Melbourne law student who wishes to practice commercially
is given few subjects that address this presumably fairly common desire.
However, they can choose from no less than 15 purely theoretical human rights
based subjects, all taught with a similar left-leaning activist mentality.[3]
1.5
Liberal Students' organisations appear to be exasperated by what they
regard as the complacent acceptance of a prevailing leftist orthodoxy in
academic life. They have argued that while there can be no objection, to say
the least, to the expression of leftist views in all relevant fields of study,
it is objectionable that conservative views and conservative ideas and
philosophies are ignored by course writers.
...what is of greater concern is that in my time at University,
there have been many critiques of economic rationalism in my classes, yet not
once has there been anything offered that at the very least outlines the views
of Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, political philosophers that have
influenced the way government runs in this country and others, more than anyone
else in the second half of the twentieth century. How can students of political
science realistically grasp the realities of today without even understanding
the ideas presented by these two political philosophers that represent a highly
influential school of thought? [4]
1.6
This may be a fair comment. It would be useful to know the response from
the lecturer, but there is no indication in the submission that the matter was
taken up or an assessment of the course given.
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
interest and 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.
1.9
The National Tertiary Education Union referred to the attempt by
conservative campaigners to create evidence of left-wing bias through
encouraging students to report such incidences on their website. The NTEU's
submission continues:
These stories are then published and chronicled as evidence of a
systemic problem of bias that is impinging on the academic freedom of students.
Quite apart from the fact that many of the examples refer only to students
feeling ‘uncomfortable’ about the views or content being expressed in their
classes, which is in no way an indication of bias or a breach of academic
freedom, the Union does not believe that the collation of examples resulting
from filling in a web based pro-forma constitutes a reliable source of
evidence. These incident reports have already been used to direct the terms of
reference of this inquiry and as a result have misconstrued the definition of
academic freedom as well as undermining its intent.[5]
1.10
The committee accepts that it is a legitimate part of the political
process for interest groups to lobby for parliamentary inquiries. Threats to
academic freedom appear to be matters of concern to higher education interest
groups across a wide cross-section of interests. If Student Liberals have
legitimate concerns about left-wing bias in courses and those who teach them,
the committee needs to see the strength of the evidence. It sees very little in
the evidence submitted. Taking the submissions at face value the committee sees
indications of a minor degree of gauche or egotistical behaviour on the part of
some academics. In some circumstances this might be considered by some
competent university authority to constitute unsatisfactory performance. While
such behaviour, however, may be described by some students as a misuse of
academic freedom, this would assume a very narrow interpretation of the meaning
of that concept.
1.11
It will be noted in Chapter 2 of this report that the evidence presented
by Liberal Students' organisations and by a number of aggrieved students
presents a mixed bag of anecdote and assertion. While the information provided may
be true, the committee finds difficulty in interpreting its significance. Even
if many more similar stories could be told, they would not amount to much more
than a minute sample of student reaction to their experience at university. In
other words, the committee does not have sufficient information, and doubts
whether any reliable data on teaching or assessment bias could ever be
collected.
1.12
Compounding this problem is the fact that the committee does not know
the eventual outcome of the complaints that are made in the submissions. It
appears that in no case was the matter taken further. One or two make mention
of a complaint to the lecturer. None are mentioned as having been taken up
through formal grievance procedures. It is a matter of surprise to the
committee that students who are active in campus politics have not used
channels of complaint which are available to them.
Purging leftist culture in academe
1.13
Some submissions argue that the leftist teaching bias in universities
across the social sciences and humanities is so entrenched and pervasive that
institutional measures are required to restore 'balance' to what is being
taught. This follows the line advanced by Students for Academic Freedom in the
United States. Although it is not given much elaboration in submissions, the
core proposal is that applications for academic appointments should be vetted
in such a way as to ensure that schools, faculties and departments are made up
of academics who collectively represent a wide spread of ideas and
philosophies. How this could be achieved has not been made clear. It is a view
widely criticised across American universities, and in Australia. The local
view is best summed up in the submission from Universities Australia,
representing the collective views of vice-chancellors:
Universities Australia strongly defends the right of
universities to employ academic staff based on academic merit and not based on
particular cultural, political, or ideological views. Within disciplines,
universities employ academic staff based on the knowledge they possess and the
quality of their thinking, not for what they think. Similarly, Universities
Australia defends the ability and obligation of universities to teach students
how to think, not what to think, and wishes to express its confidence in
students’ powers to reach their own conclusions on matters of ideological
debate. In a free and democratic society there is no place for external
interference in the intellectual endeavours of scholars.[6]
1.14
The committee considers this matter in more detail in the final chapter.
Previous committee inquiries
1.15
The ground traversed in this inquiry was partly covered in the higher
education inquiry which resulted in the report Universities in Crisis, which
was tabled on 27 September 2001. During that inquiry the committee heard of
instances of administrative irregularities, breaches of professional ethics,
victimisation, and incidences where universities turned a blind eye to cheating
by students. It also heard about questionable practices associated with
university commercial ventures and tensions arising between managers and
academics.[7]
1.16
In regard to this current inquiry, the findings of the committee in its Universities
in Crisis report on the effects of the increase in the proportion of casual
and part-time academic staff are highly relevant. The mentoring of new and
inexperienced young tutors and lecturers is a difficult task when they are
absent from their faculties for most of a working week, and when the demands on
the time of deans and heads of departments have increased markedly. As the
committee reports elsewhere, it has a view that much of what is complained
about in submissions from students arises from a lack of experience, and, to a
minor extent, of professionalism and responsibility on the part of a small number
of academic staff.
Academic freedom perspectives
1.17
The terms of reference do not extend to the broad topic of academic
freedom, but only with a small and disputed sub-set of what it means. But the
committee gives some attention here to main principles of academic freedom to
assist general understanding of the issue. According to a study of academic
freedom conducted by the Australia Institute in 2001, academic freedom was
understood by social scientists participating in a survey to mean the right to
'teach, research and publish on contentious issues; choose their own research
colleagues; and speak on social issues without fear or favour in areas of their
expertise...balanced by the responsible and disciplined exercise of scholarly
expertise.'[8]
1.18
The prevailing justification of academic freedom is that universities
need this privilege in order to advance scientific and social progress. While
universities have a 'conserving' and protecting role in regard to knowledge and
culture, they have long been incubators of new theories and the promoters of
the orthodoxies of tomorrow. This makes them vulnerable to criticism or attack
from those who are threatened by the advent of new ideas. The submission from
the Australian Universities Quality Agency makes a strong reaffirmation of
views which have been expressed for over 100 years.
Academic freedom is a necessary pre-condition in the development
of a knowledge society and in the foundation of knowledge institutions such as
universities. Institutional autonomy should be used to create the conditions to
protect academic freedom both within the institution and to protect staff from
pressures on academic freedom from the external environment. This includes
protecting the academic freedom of staff from external government, public or
private sector interference.[9]
1.19
The last of the terms of reference for this inquiry direct the committee
to consider whether academic freedom should be codified in some kind of charter
of academic freedom. Academic freedom in Australia and most other countries is
based on convention rather than law, or on common law rather than on statute
law. The right to academic freedom as explicitly stated in some employment
contracts and implied in others, will be described in the final chapter. A
number of submissions argue in favour of some kind of statutory protection of
academic freedom. Some academics argue that the courts need to be kept well
away from the academy.
1.20
Professor Jim Jackson, who is a widely quoted scholar in this field,
notes in his submission that academic freedom is a quite limited doctrine,
hedged about with qualifications:
There is no absolute or unqualified legal right of academic
freedom in Australian universities. On the contrary, academic freedom carries
with it attendant obligations. For example an indignant cry of academic freedom
could never justify the dissemination of that which is knowingly false, poorly
researched, or the product of negligently prepared or falsified data. These
matters are as much the ‘enemy’ of academic freedom as the university, church,
corporation or state which seeks to censor or control the utterances of its
academics.[10]
1.21
Jackson's submission makes the further point that academic freedom
cannot be called on in the case of sloppy work; it must operate within the law
and within what are the relevant professional ethical rules; and that an academic
must act professionally, which would rule out the bullying or intimidation of
students and professional colleagues.[11]
1.22
Academics value their freedom of expression as highly as ever. In a
recent survey of academic opinion carried out in 2001, the Australia Institute
found that academics rated freedoms to research, to publish and to teach as
highly important. There was a high level of agreement that academic freedom was
matched by academic responsibility, with this being defined as an ethical
obligation to students, peers and the wider community. As well as applying to
individuals, academic freedom also has meaning in a collegial and in an
institutional sense. Universities are autonomous, and placing limits on their
capacity to set their own priorities for teaching or research can serve to
place overt or subtle pressure downwards on individual researchers or teachers.[12]
Academic freedom and quality assurance
1.23
A forward step taken by the Commonwealth during the term of the previous
government was the institution of quality assurance procedures. Ironically
perhaps, these measures became necessary as a consequence of the adverse
effects on quality which resulted from significant funding reductions over that
period. High quality is not necessarily equated with high expenditure, but in
these circumstances the necessity of raising additional revenue put pressure on
standards, mainly because of the need to attract fee-paying students from
abroad whose English language skills were insufficient to allow them to handle
the normal coursework. Eventually it became necessary for universities to
tighten their own procedures to maintain their international reputation.
Together they supported the establishment of the Australian Universities
Quality Assurance agency.
The Role of AUQA
1.24
An important element in the protection of academic freedom in
universities is the quality assurance process conducted by the Australian
Universities Quality Assurance agency. This independent body operates in
accordance with National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes, and
broad directives from the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). AUQA's task is to check each
institution's adherence to the National Protocols. These were agreed to in
October 2007.
1.25
A key protocol lays down that a university must have a clearly
articulated higher education purpose that includes a commitment to and support
for free intellectual inquiry in the institution’s academic endeavours. It must
deliver teaching and learning that engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry,
and it must have governance arrangements, quality assurance processes and a
staffing profile appropriate to its goals and academic purposes, and academic
staff who are highly qualified and active in scholarship that informs their
teaching, as well as research. The Australian Political Studies Association has
drawn attention in its submission to the role of AUQA in enforcing codes of
practice which protect students rights as part of quality assurance measures:
Universities’ activities are regularly audited and reported on
by the independent Australian Universities Quality Agency to ensure the highest
academic quality. The areas audited include curriculum content, mechanisms and
content of student evaluations/feedback and teaching activities. Students
participate in the audits. AUQA’s Audit Reports on every Australian university
are freely available on its web site, which ensures independent, external
oversight of the quality of universities’ research and teaching activities.[13]
1.26
In addition, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations (DEEWR), 'Audit handbook for non self-accrediting Higher Education
Providers' (March 2008), provides further protection for academic inquiry in
non-self accrediting institutions. It ensures that each institution encourages
open intellectual inquiry through its academic goals, processes and services,
which reflect the National Protocols.
1.27
The issue of university self-regulation and quality assurance was raised
in the discussion paper issued by the Review of Australia's Higher Education,
commissioned in March 2008 and chaired by Professor Denise Bradley. The paper
suggested that substantial progress had yet to be made in enforcing rigorous
quality assurance processes.
Commentators have consistently pointed to the lack of a
mechanism in Australia’s quality assurance framework to convincingly
demonstrate the quality of our degrees. Nevertheless, AUQA’s first cycle of
audits identified a number of areas where individual universities needed to do
more to manage the standards of their courses. But criticisms that the AUQA
approach to quality assurance is too focussed on process to the detriment of
standards have continued (Slattery, Moodie, Massaro, Chubb, all 2008).
In 2006, AUQA commissioned an independent review of its
activities. While the review panel found that its fitness-for-purpose model and
peer review approach had been successful, the ministerial council agreed to
revise AUQA's objectives to include an explicit reference to quality
improvement, and required that audits address the standards being achieved by
institutions.[14]
1.28
The committee notes a comment by Mr Andrew Norton a Melbourne
commentator on universities, which bears both on the issue of quality and on
this inquiry and its narrowly contentious terms of reference:
...there are legitimate questions, I think, about whether
self-accreditation leads to sufficient quality control at universities. This
has been a sub-text of Labor statements on university standards over some
years, and I would not be surprised if we saw some action on it during the Rudd
era. If this inquiry could position itself in broader discussion surrounding
quality, it could be more bipartisan than leaving it looking like a witch-hunt for
leftist academics.[15]
1.29
The committee will bear in mind the opportunities it has to monitor the
continued evolution of processes which lead to an improvement in the quality of
higher education. The committee's point in expanding on this topic here is to
emphasise that allegations of academic bias need to be dealt with by
universities according to agreed procedures which are regularly reviewed to
ensure their effectiveness.
Academic freedom in schools
1.30
There is considerable doubt as to whether the concept of academic
freedom applies in schools. The relevant issue there, so far as this inquiry is
concerned, is whether there are sufficient safeguards to protect students from
what is clearly unprofessional behaviour. Incidences of political bias in the
classroom of the kind that are described in some submissions amount to reports
on bad teaching. The school curriculum is primarily a state and territory
responsibility, although course content which relates to the curriculum is
commonly school-based, according to the rules which allow local variations, as,
for instance, in the choice of novels to be studied in English courses.
1.31
Instances were given in a number of submissions of allegedly biased
teaching. In common with examples of university bias the committee is unaware
of what processes of complaint were carried through. It appears that none were
in the cases described. It also appears that some submissions were written on
the basis of recollection of schooldays, with the benefit of hindsight. This is
a rare and very minor issue for schools, particularly compared to the huge task
that many of them have in improving literacy and mathematical skills, and in
injecting more rigour into the content base of the curriculum. The committee
deals with these matters in Chapter 4.
Conclusion
1.32
The committee makes no recommendations in regard to any of the terms of
reference to this inquiry. Its members hold a range of views and perspectives.
There is a fair degree of understanding of the case put by Liberal Students,
based perhaps on some senators having been in this position during their
undergraduate days. But there are good reasons for the committee confining
itself to an analysis of the limited evidence given, and for making the
following broad though critical observations.
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.
1.35
Third, universities are autonomous institutions. They have soundly
working grievance mechanisms established to deal with complaints from students.
According to submissions, there are many appeals about marks and complaints
about a range of matters, which indicates that students are not reluctant to
complain. Yet there is scant evidence presented to the committee of complaints
made about biased teaching. It appears that students pass up opportunities to
complain to academic staff. This has not discouraged them from describing their
difficulties in submissions to a Senate committee.
1.36
Finally, this inquiry has been mainly an intellectual exercise for the
committee. Its report is a record of impressions and assessment of an issue
which is relatively remote from policy control or interference from Canberra. Nothing
has emerged from the inquiry which invites the reconsideration of current
policy, apart from issues to do with effective monitoring of teaching quality.
This is a matter for universities, as is the issue of how to deal with tenured but
underperforming academics. The committee has no remit to address these issues
directly. Universities may note that there are some perceptions about poor
teaching but the committee has not identified any tangible systemic problem of
bias. The evidence is not there. What the committee has found are isolated disputes
which may indicate poor student-teacher relationships, or a lack of sympathy
and understanding on both sides.
1.37
In undertaking this inquiry the committee makes clear the limits of the
role of governments in relation to academic programs and the intellectual concerns
of universities. One witness before the committee advised it that its
accomplishment should be restricted to the expression of an opinion. On the
whole, the committee has taken this advice.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page