Freedom of Expression Australian Style

Claire Light
September 25, 2005

A law perfesser, Andrew Fraser, who had been banned from teaching at one university for making racist remarks, wrote an article called "Rethinking the White Australia Policy," which was set to be published in an academic law journal. The White Australia Policy was a law or series of laws akin to the US's Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which excluded all Chinese from entering the US and was eventually expanded to include immigrants from any country in Asia. The Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943 and immigration quotas restricting Asian immigration effectively removed in the US in 1965. The White Australia Policy began similarly in the 1800's with the exclusion of Chinese laborers and was expanded to include "Asiatics" or "coloureds". The Policy was dismantled between 1949 and 1973.

"Rethinking the White Australia Policy" supported white supremacist ideas and policies and claimed that blacks were dumber (yawn, again) and Asians were gonna take over (something about "--peril", was it?) The University defended the publication by reminding folks that the journal is an academic one, and all articles are "peer reviewed", i.e. vetted by reputable academics in the same field, the idea being that any article that isn't up to academic standards will be kept from publication.

Here is the article himself, if ya wanna read it. So There. It's actually quite readable, kinda like the less syphilitic passages of Mein Kampf.

Ennyhoo,a Sudanese Australian group threatened to sue the Deakin University (where the journal is published) if they went ahead with publication. After some back-and-forthing and a lot of editorials, the University caved to pressure and ordered the journal not to publish the bad, bad article. Fraser accused the University and everyone else of censorship.

Additional background information: Australia, and certain states within the country in particular, have recently proposed laws permitting draconian measures against Muslims suspected of terrorism. This is accompanied by some incidents of racist speech from certain politicians and a revival of ideas about bringing back racial restrictions to immigration among right wing politicians. Fraser seems to be the ever-necessary academic wing of a white supremacist movement that appears to be stronger in Australia than the one/s we have in the US. Critics have also challenged Australian ivory tower self-criticism, claiming that students may be expelled for calling an academic "racist" or a "bigot". In addition, in his article Fraser calls upon some suspect racial "science" that he doesn't discuss at all or cite adequately, and that isn't his field anyway: he's a law professor writing for a law journal (and reviewed by fellow law professors), not a biologist or anthropologist.

So, given all that, here's my question: Where do we draw the line between social pressure and censorship?

It's hard to imagine something like this happening in the United States -- not because we don't have our kooks, quacks and klansmen, but because American Universities have set up their barricades of social pressure so effectively, that it would be difficult for one o' dem to get the stupid paper anywhere near an academic journal. But let's suppose for a moment that it did happen, that some white supremacist got past a dissertation committee, the tenure process, the peer review, and was about to publish an article so unrepentantly, openly racist. Imagine this is happening in America right now, especially given what was revealed about race by the Katrina disaster. How much would you want to silence this guy? Would you want to argue him down or just shut him up? How much and what kind of social pressure is acceptable at this point? When does ethical social pressure fall off into censorship?

Let me remind you guys, the Sudanese Australian group hadn't threatened the University with boycott, a student/teacher strike, picketing, letters to the editor and the administration, various protests and public humiliation and all other ethically unquestionable methods of social pressure ... no they had threatened the University with legal action, i.e. using the mechanism of the state to force the journal to silence this professor. Personally, I've always drawn the line of "censorship" between actions of social pressure and actions of state enforcement. When the state steps in to silence someone by law -- that's censorship, plain and simple. And when someone threatens to use the mechanism of the state to enforce silence, well, that's censorship, too. Anything short of that, that's still legal and ethical, is fair game to me.

This man's ideas are stupid and repugnant, and they should be repugnant to anyone who wishes to participate in the multicultural reality that is the US, or the one that is Australia. I understand that the political landscape in Australia is highly volatile right now (this is not to say that ours isn't.) However, how strong is a consensus on that multicultural reality that can't stand to be questioned? Fraser clearly intended to create controversy and discussion. But will that discussion result in a reinstitution of the White Australia Policy? Hardly. Will that discussion weaken public consensus on immigration policy? Maybe. Will that discussion align the public behind racist "anti-terrorist" legislation? Quite possibly. But if there is a groundswell of support for ideas like Fraser's, isn't it better to have them discussed and repudiated publicly, rather than supressed and allowed to fester and grow? Doesn't censorship tacitly support the ideas it attempts to suppress?

Is legal action against what is essentially free expression censorship? Should repugnant ideas expressed in a volatile atmosphere be censored?

And one more thing: if Fraser's article had simply been published in its obscure little academic journal without all the fanfare and lawsuits and been quietly, academically put down, do you suppose it would get even one hit on google news instead of 39?

Contributor: 

Comments

Comments

Jose wrote on Wed, 09/28/2005 - 7:34am
There's a lot of different questions here, beyond the one (or two) you ask at the end.First, the barriers around academic freedom in the U.S. are being moved around all the time. You probably know about efforts in Florida and, I think, Pennsylvania, to give students (i.e., willing proxies for activist groups) the right to censure teachers who contradict said student's beliefs: e.g., the flat tax is effective, evolution is controversial, out-of-wedlock births lead to poverty.I would guess the only difference -- and I know next to nothing about Australia's legal system -- between down under and up top is that America has a really sophisticated legal system, filled with very, very many smart lawyers who are very good at preventing abuses of same. I just read a few days ago how it's basically the justice system (I think it was at TalkingPointsMemo.com) and the justice system alone that can take down the DeLay-Rove-Norquist machine.Anyway, to answer your explicit question: bad ideas are like landmines. You don't solve that problem by marking off certain territory as "off-limits" or by covering them up with more dirt. You take care of them by identifying, exposing and neutralizing them.Australia really does have to worry about a "yellow peril" -- only that's the wrong color! It's red. As in the Chinese government. And while race baiting, stereotypes, racial quotas etc. are a scandal and a threat to the Australian state (a liberal democracy), they're only the more obvious and obviously objectionable expressions of a far more complex dynamic: concerns over the demographic, economic and political changes in store for every nation in that region.It's worth pointing out that Australia is much younger than even the U.S.A. They only adopted their national anthem, "Advance Australia Fair" (a pun? I don't think so) in 1984! The genocidal/apartheid practices that put Australian on the map (vis a vis the aborigines) are not necessarily connected to similar-sounding ideas today, given that this young state is now facing -- as the whole world is -- a very big geopolitical shift: China as a superpower. It's one thing for U.S. citizens to think about China ascendant in the abstract. It's very different if you're within shooting range of the People's Liberation Army -- an army that, as we know, has repeatedly, recently and viciously attacked the Chinese people.I note all this not to condone or rationalize often irrational hatreds and prejudices but to explain that there is a great need to air and address these "ideas" right now, seeing as how the broader context of Australian national identity and political discourse is hungry for any discussion of its future in light of the aforementioned shift.Liberals need to be one step ahead of fascists and, in this case, that means anticipating the worst of what's to come. Getting at the core of a nation's anxieties is key if the objective is to prevent fascists from exploiting same anxieties to evil ends. Simply waving away such anxieties as irrational or illiberal is very dangerous.
claire wrote on Wed, 09/28/2005 - 11:39am
Jose, thanks for the much-needed perspective!
First, the barriers around academic freedom in the U.S. are being moved around all the time. ... I would guess the only difference -- and I know next to nothing about Australia's legal system -- between down under and up top is that America has a really sophisticated legal system, filled with very, very many smart lawyers who are very good at preventing abuses of same.
I had a couple of paragraphs on this subject but the blog entry was already too long ;) I was thinking specifically of the Larry Summers/women are bad at science snafu. It's not that American academics aren't embarrassingly regressive. But did you see how incredibly quickly he was smacked down by his own colleagues? Within about a week the poor guy was so thoroughly mouth-scrubbed by academy, academic press, press, and blogs, that all he could do thereafter was blow soap bubbles and repeat "I'm sorry ..." Da law courts didn't even come into it.That's what I mean when I say the American academy is effective at controlling such utterings. The idea of censoring Summers never needed to come up, because he was so thoroughly and effectively censured.
Australia really does have to worry about a "yellow peril" -- only that's the wrong color! It's red. As in the Chinese government. And while race baiting, stereotypes, racial quotas etc. are a scandal and a threat to the Australian state (a liberal democracy), they're only the more obvious and obviously objectionable expressions of a far more complex dynamic: concerns over the demographic, economic and political changes in store for every nation in that region.
I think you really hit the nail on the thumb there. All stereotypes have a basis in reality, even if they're very distorted. (Hey, East Asians have been known to eat dogs!) And all racial conflict is based on very real and legitimate concerns. Historical legal and lynching measures against Chinese in America always happened during recessions when jobs were scarce. Chinese labor was falsely identified as the problem. It's not like we aren't still doing the same thing with regard to undocumented immigration from south of the border.Bringing out this perspective, acknowledging the real sources of concern and seperating them from vicious and harmful stereotypes is only possible in an atmosphere of free speech where articles like Fraser's are protected as the free expression of legitimate opinion that they are. (and just because Fraser's wrong doesn't mean his opinion isn't legitimate.)Plus, I love your minefield analogy. It's perfect. Just as a fun counterpoint:I got this story on boingboing.net. Minefields left over from the Falklands war which have been fenced off have become the perfect breeding ground for penguins, who are too light to trip the mines and who are protected by the mines from the incursions of curious humans.I think this might work to extend your analogy into academia, which is like the minefield, where students and profs are the penguins and politicians are the marauding human tourists. By fencing off the area for the breeding of thought experiments, the academy can let its denizens roam free, secure in the knowledge that most of the most dangerous ideas will remain within the ivory tower, too obscure or arcane to affect the world outside very much. It's only when politicians wander in, trying to find "scientific" justifications for questionable policies that the mines explode.
Diana wrote on Tue, 10/11/2005 - 6:25am
Misconceptions about Down Under? I came across this site while researching a quite unrelated topic, but when I saw this article I was intrigued at once. Upon reading it, I was certainly surprised to find that I am quite connected to this issue. I am of Asian heritage. I was born in Australia, and live here. Funnily enough, my mother (after other degrees) is in her final year of completing a law degree. One of her lecturers last year, was in fact, Andrew Fraser of Maquarie University. News of Fraser's public racist remarks and proposed publication was abundant for a day or two here in Sydney. I would like to point out a few things.1) Drew Fraser is of Canadian origin. He is a migrant to Australia. Who knows what racial prejudices he brought with him from his home country? Do not be fooled into thinking racism against Asians is higher in Australia rather than America or your neighbour, Canada, because of the comments of one man. 2) Jose commented:"I would guess the only difference -- and I know next to nothing about Australia's legal system -- between down under and up top is that America has a really sophisticated legal system, filled with very, very many smart lawyers who are very good at preventing abuses of same." Our legal system is based on the Common Law system derived from British law, that was passed on to its colonies (surprise, this means you also)...Australia and America share the same roots in the Common Law system, but whereas the US diverged after the war, Australia diverged after its peaceful transition into a sovereign nation (1901). So these days, although the US and Australian systems differ,neither is more sophisticated than the other. 3) Drew was stood down by the university. There was debate in newspapers and editorials. Though many leading academics felt that while they did not agree with Fraser's racist remarks, they believed in his right as an academic to voice an opinion. The White Australia Policy does come under his sphere of the law.4) In my own opinion, having experienced racial prejudice and being more familiar with the issue than perhaps, people living outside of Australia...though I found Drew's opinions base, and of course, offensive. I also found them laughable. And recognise his right to freedom of speech. His ability to teach a class fairly may be called into question when he makes public remarks such as these...and his reputation as a scholar may also come into question. But his right to say it? Well, isn't that what you Americans are so proud of in your Bill of Rights.I know, at least, it is something that we wish to uphold in Australia. To sum up, yes, Australia does have its fair share of racial tension...between the indigenous people and the invading europeans, and between migrants from every country. Though we are one of the most multicultural societies in the world...we have our conflicts. Our political system is stable (and I say that even though I dislike my prime minister for kissing your president's gun toting asse). Now that I have that off my chest. G'day from downunder...I hope I don't have to read anymore smug jibes at other countries on this American website. And when's that war on terrorism gonna be over already?