Demonstrations of political correctness are valued higher than legal principle

Macquarie University, at Macquarie Park, Sydney. Picture: Justin Lloyd.

As a student at Macquarie University’s law faculty, I have witnessed the overt politicisation of parts of my degree for some years and stayed silent. I have witnessed and personally experienced situations in which students are effectively forced to learn topics relating to Indigenous peoples, where they did not voluntarily choose to, or worse, to express opinions they do not truly believe. This has made me concerned about not only the quality of my studies, but also my right to freedom of speech and the willingness of our public institutions to honour that right.

After reading reports in The Australian on Monday about the Macquarie Law School, I have chosen to write this piece under an assumed name for fear of losing my reputation within the faculty or even seeing my grades suffer. That is the state of free speech at Macquarie University today.

I pursued a law degree because of my interest in rational debate and open discussion. Instead, I feel restricted and forced to speak against my conscience. It’s important to note there are numerous units students can elect to take, both within and outside the law faculty, that focus on Indigenous studies; there is no shortage of opportunities for students interested in enrolling in Indigenous studies units tailored to that important area of study. For this, Macquarie University should be commended.

But problems begin to arise when students are presented with no choice but to study Indigenous issues in contexts that have little to no bearing on the issue. In other words, we are not getting what we signed up for.

That is not to say the inclusion of Indigenous topics in law units is always irrelevant; subjects such as constitutional law and property law must cover areas such as the 1967 referendum and native title. But the inclusion of major assessments that cover Indigenous issues into units such as remedies or commercial law feels awkward and forced, with the obvious intention of pushing a political agenda.

This is especially the case when you consider new and more pertinent issues arise each year, in more fundamental fields, which would be much worthier of covering in assessments. For example, a major assessment for my remedies unit this semester involves comparing the strength of different legal remedies in relation to the Stolen Generation. The connection between the unit content and the Stolen Generation is not necessarily far-fetched. But there have been interesting decisions in the High Court in the past year regarding pure economic loss in negligence and psychiatric harm under employment contracts which are much closer to the heart of the topic. Instead, it’s clear that demonstrations of political correctness are valued higher than remaining up to date with legal principle.

This problem is made far worse by the fact students are forced to express opinions contrary to what they believe to satisfying marking criteria. For example, law honours students have been required to give an oral thesis presentation that included an Acknowledgement of Country as an assessable component. Refusing to complete this component resulted in a significant loss of marks, even if the content of one’s thesis presentation has no conceivable connection to Indigenous affairs.

Thankfully, Macquarie University has since abandoned this requirement for honours. However, a similar component remains in the Age and the Law unit at the undergraduate level. Law students are inherently vulnerable in this circumstance because their future careers are highly dependent on their success in assessments; they’re unlikely to express an opinion that effectively risks reduction in marks or even failure.

Macquarie University is exploiting this vulnerability. At best, students deliberately choose topics or express opinions favourable to Indigenous peoples, despite having no genuine interest. At worst, students are coerced into being dishonest out of fear. This is an affront to the values of honesty and integrity we were taught in legal ethics in our first semester. It’s also deeply offensive as it suggests the only value in studying Indigenous issues is the brownie points one might receive from a marker. My sense is most students do not necessarily have strong views either way regarding Indigenous affairs. Rather, they are simply indifferent; they pay for law school to learn the law and succeed as professionals. They submit to pleasing their academic superiors simply because it is safer.

Nevertheless, anecdotes from a significant number of my friends throughout the faculty have indicated a combination of frustration, resentment and apathy. But they remain silent out of fear of causing offence or, worse, losing their reputation within the profession. This is not a safe and productive environment for learning and ­rational discussion.

The legal profession is in high demand of skilled, educated and experienced practitioners with a nuanced and technical understanding of the law. People with strong political views can be found on any street corner. High-level lawyers cannot. The purpose of a law degree, or any form of higher education, is not to be re-educated on political issues. Rather, its purpose is to teach us to understand the law and, should it be relevant, how it applies in respect of Indigenous peoples.

It is an abuse of power for lecturers and conveners to exploit the vulnerable position of students to push their own political ideas.

* This article has been written under an assumed name because of fear of reprisal.