Sydney University Arts for "discredited leftist/postmodern thinking" (1 Viewer)

[Research]

" the arts faculty of Sydney University seems intent on closing them to all but discredited leftist/postmodernist thinking."

and so on.

Has that rant in the SMH been mentioned yet.



http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/29/1106850161870.html

Is it true?

 

[berghousemaa]

Sounds like some rednecks are not happy at usyd arts and can't understand postmodernism....ie too stupid to understand that there may be a differing and valid view than their own.

Miranda Devine is far from being a redneck. She is one of the most courageous journalists going around. She is one of very few journalists who stand up to the leftists who many times do not put proper thought into their stances. ie refugees and animal rights groups.
As for being stupid, if you read her articles you would see that she is one of the most insightful journalists going around.

 

[frenchie]

"Meanwhile, a disgruntled arts insider has provided me with the faculty's list of required "graduate attributes" and offered translations."

Omfg Miranda Devine what the hell does this mean?

Am I mistaken or do these secretly guarded attributes, that she needed an "insider" to expose, appear in nearly every UoS outline and the handbook?

I hope this loon wasn't educated through the media and communications degree in our wonderful Faculty.

After doing some units in other faculties I found that an "ideological agenda" is not restricted to the lefty arts people, but exists everywhere. The right wing capitalists in the business faculty do just as good job of preaching the wonders of free market capitalism (frank stilwell excluded) , which many people take issue with.

The point is - opinions are like bumholes. we all have one. When academic staff offer opinion to you, listen, reflect and make up your own mind.

 

[berghousemaa]

The insider only provided her with the "translations". You answered your question in your own post.

 

[frenchie]

"disgruntled arts insider" implies that some whistleblower is blowing the lid on a vast consipiracy. All I'm saying is this blueprint for world domination isn't that secretive.

 

[berghousemaa]

"disgruntled arts insider" implies that some whistleblower is blowing the lid on a vast consipiracy. All I'm saying is this blueprint for world domination isn't that secretive.

Fair enough explanation.
At the same time all i'm saying is not to so hastily dismiss Devine as a "loon". I have not yet started USYD as an arts student so I lack the intimate knowledge and I am therefore unable to agree or disagree with her.
However Devine's previous articles have earnt her my respect and I definately value her opinions.

 

[super katie]

I see nothing wrong with wanting people to be pro-multiculturalism, as far as I can see, tha Arts faculty wants to broaden the minds and horizons of their graduates. What the hell is wrong with that?

 

[berghousemaa]

The problem is forcing pro-multiculturism onto people. That would be limiting people's minds.

 

[frenchie]

And what would limiting the discussion on multi-culturalism do?

Miranda Divine's insightful world view is really nothing more than hollow ciriticism of the left, simply because she doesn't like us. Fair enough, she is entitled to her opinoins.

Okay if you read all her articles...how would Madame Divine approach the issue of multi-culturalism in the context of learning at university? Maybe you're confusing an open discussion of an issue like Multiculturalism, with a blatant pro-multiculturalism agenda.

Oh well. Look forward to your reply :uhhuh:

 

[illodous]

If you don't like it, do the course at another Uni.

You can complain about it all you want - but in end, knowledge is knowledge. I see nothing wrong with opening your mind to another perspective as Katie mentioned, and I don't feel that anybody is obliged to a single viewpoint. We should challenge our paradigms, not stubbonly stick to a narrow perspective.

The Arts course is diverse - I am quite happy that they have integrated postmodern thinking into it.

 

[Phanatical]

Miranda Devine is, in my opinion, one of the best opinion columnists around.

Challenging our paradigms is one thing, but the philosophy of being accepting and tolerant of all sorts of other forms of belief, such as homosexuality, feminism, polygamy, necrophilia etc., is not one that I personally believe the University should be supporting. In our society, we should be able to say "This is wrong", but thanks to "poltical correctness", we can't say that Anything is wrong. The University is encouraging us to accept and even agree with other points of view to what we may consider right, and that in turn breeds societal decay.

 

[absolution*]

Miranda Devine is an ugly, sexually and cultually deprived manky slag.

Challenging ways of thinking is the only way people are able to open their minds to the greater world around them. There are different philosophies around, why not explore them? If you go to university with a pre-conceived notion to block yourself off from anything that seems 'foreign', what will you learn? Will you be challenged? Not at all. It suits the non-thinkers, but it will never satisfy the true intellects.

I sincerly doubt societal decay is caused by university students. Thats just stupid. If youre looking for reasons for social decay look at the capitalist, conservative, empirical nature of Western politics.

 

[berghousemaa]

And what would limiting the discussion on multi-culturalism do?

Miranda Divine's insightful world view is really nothing more than hollow ciriticism of the left, simply because she doesn't like us. Fair enough, she is entitled to her opinoins.

Okay if you read all her articles...how would Madame Divine approach the issue of multi-culturalism in the context of learning at university? Maybe you're confusing an open discussion of an issue like Multiculturalism, with a blatant pro-multiculturalism agenda.

Oh well. Look forward to your reply :uhhuh:

Limiting the discussion on multi-culturism would surely be an unfortunate act, but I think the article refers to the opinion that multi-culturism is being dictated as the only acceptable social option. I have a problem with this as most people should. Whether or not this is the case I don't know. So that answers your question at the end.

As for Miranda Devine's attacks against the left as being hollow becasue she doesn't like you. I'll admit I'm very conservative but I find Devine actually quite moderate.
Here are her three main stances in the previous year that I find actually quite moderate and sensible.
1. Feminism. Devine was highly critical of a famous feminist, I believe by the name of Wolf or Wolfe how after something like 25-30 years was demanding action against a professor who was in his 80's for unwanted advances, nothing more. Devine said that such outrageous claims only made the ongoing feminist movement seem too radical and thus alienated. She is thus trying to help the left.

2. Animal Rights Groups. Almost the exact same situation as above. She argues that PETA's campaign against Australian farmers is due to companies previous meek capitulations to their excessive damands. Specifiacly Devine focuses on the issues of mulesing (spelling) on sheep. Devine's stance is honourable as being one of the few journalists to stand up to these modern eco-terrorists who severley hurt human beings so they can protect animals with highly questionable methods.

3. Refugees. Devine uses the example of the Baktahri (spelling) to explain the current unfortunate situation. Devine is all for supporting refugees. People like the Baktahri's come to Australia deliberately with no papers in the hope that they can be deemed as refugees rather than their real status as immigrants. It is because of these people that detention camps have to be set up. If it were not for these liars then the real refugees would be able to experience a relatively painless process. With a mother who works for the federal gopvt I can confirm that these people are in actual fact far worse that the media have been allowed to portray them.

I think therefore Devine is a fairly moderate journalist. Her courage and frequent attacks aginst the left however make her seem far more conservative than she actually is.

 

[absolution*]

1. Feminism. Devine was highly critical of a famous feminist, I believe by the name of Wolf or Wolfe

I believe you are referring to Virginia Woolf

 

[Research]

I think the rise of PC calls for a new generation of scholars who are able to cope with and overcome the jingoistic excesses of PC conformism; that is to say, be able to argue coherently or rationally (not in hysterical outrage) against it, and to be able to do so in hostile territory (e.g., in a tutorial group of tertiary newbies where a rabid unthinking PC orthodoxy is the working discourse provided by the tutorial great leader).

PC provides a discourse which many of the students are ready to accede to and accept for they wish only for a quiet time without ideological conflict from deviants who would think and express themselves differently as if vaingloriously wishing to research ideas freed from shackles of established PC 'normalcy' which pretends to accept so much. Of course there are in my opinion limits to academic discourse. For example, Holocaust denying, religious reification of 'Satan', flying saucer cults, and so forth. How much space should be provided for such arguments in the academy is one that is itself in dispute. Some intellectual standards must prevail surely.

 

[Generator]

I cannot see how political correctness stifles academic debate... As you just said, rational and coherent arguments both for and against the prevailing paradigm are always welcome (within reason (yet another contested phrase), as you stressed towards the end of your post).

Edit: Besides, someone from the 'right' may be criticised for their stance within an Arts unit, yet at the same time someone from the 'left' may be criticised for their beliefs within a standard economics unit... As frenchie said, it isn't as though you will ever find a unit that is free of an ideological agenda, though the more capable lecturers tend to present a variety of views in addition to their own (and they also tend to welcome debate if a point is open to interpretation and academic conflict).

 

[Research]

In my opinion PC by it very definition (what is political 'correct') is a debate-killer due to cloying dogmatic inbuilt heavy duty (albiet quaint) moralising.

 

[Xayma]

Miranda Devine is, in my opinion, one of the best opinion columnists around.

Challenging our paradigms is one thing, but the philosophy of being accepting and tolerant of all sorts of other forms of belief, such as homosexuality, feminism, polygamy, necrophilia etc., is not one that I personally believe the University should be supporting.

If Universities didn't teach acceptence and tolerance, as a Chinese person, you would still be seen as an unmoral opium addict.

 

[Phanatical]

Society, and the entire basis of which it survives, is based on the ability to distinguish right from wrong. That's where laws come in. It's illegal to commit murder. It's legal to walk in a public area. Institutions like the Faculty of Arts at USYD challenge the notion that we can call something right or wrong - in the case of the Gender Studies unit, it's because even the very notion of logic is based on the oppression of women.

If we cannot say that something is right, or is wrong, then who is to say that in a hundred years time, if the world believes that murder is ethical and justified, it shouldn't become legal? If the minority of people who believe that murder (or late late late late term abortion 40 years after birth) is Not right challenge the prevailing societal belief that murder is fine, should their opinion be stifled?

 

[berghousemaa]

Society, and the entire basis of which it survives, is based on the ability to distinguish right from wrong. That's where laws come in. It's illegal to commit murder. It's legal to walk in a public area. Institutions like the Faculty of Arts at USYD challenge the notion that we can call something right or wrong - in the case of the Gender Studies unit, it's because even the very notion of logic is based on the oppression of women.

If we cannot say that something is right, or is wrong, then who is to say that in a hundred years time, if the world believes that murder is ethical and justified, it shouldn't become legal? If the minority of people who believe that murder (or late late late late term abortion 40 years after birth) is Not right challenge the prevailing societal belief that murder is fine, should their opinion be stifled?

I'm just about as conservative as you get, but some of your ideas put forth are just ridiculous. Thorughout history only two things have ever consistently been viewed as evil, theft and murder. Everything else is up for interpretation. Who are you to say that homosexuality is a blanket evil. The society you live in has dictated that to you, but many other societies have deemed it to be wholly acceptable. Just because our modern society is technologically advanced in no way means thta its principles are in any way better that any other.

Also I think you'll find political correctness means we now more than ever make blanket judgements concerning the justness of issues. PC has made any hint of racism bad for instance. The blanket judgements of PCers is very similiar to your judgements on feminism and momosexuality.