Academics should teach, not force their politics on students

Academics should teach, not force their politics on students

I commend Damien S* for his bravery in exposing the activist doctrines being forced on law students at Macquarie University (“Forcing a political agenda is no way to run a law school”, 20/3). I would also like to question Holly Doel-Mackaway’s own privilege, while she demeans and humiliates students with a highly contentious “privilege walk” and high marks for an “exceptionally thoughtful and meaningful delivery of an acknowledgment of country” (“Ideology 101: students forced into privilege walk”, 20/3) That the threat of differing opinions is in the hands of the marker denies freedom of expression and encourages dishonesty. Hardly the place for inquiring minds.

Lynda Morrison, Bicton, WA

Congratulations, Damien S*, on writing that article about Macquarie University, but how sad it is that he had to use a pseudonym for fear of reprisal.

Jennifer Davis, Molong, NSW

If the lecturers and teachers at Macquarie University want its students to be prepared to practise law in real-world situations, including working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organisations, then I suggest they send those students out on country to see the lived situation, not to enforce some academic construct to make the university feel good. I learned more in four days at a remote community just as a regular citizen than I could have ever learned from a textbook, a film, a lecture or anything else.

Ruth Franklin, St Ives, NSW

The report on Thursday by Janet Albrechtsen and Joanna Panagopoulos should be enough for the council of the Macquarie University to be replaced. For many Australians, past and present, going to university has been to expand their knowledge and improve their opportunity to improve their working skills, follow a learning path that expands their ability to get involved in the areas such as medicine, law, engineering, and in many cases just make a better life for themselves and their families now and into the future. What one of the law course students expressed about what the convener Doel-Mackaway had presented as being required in their course should never have been allowed. There is no possible reason for this sort of requirement to be part of any course or subject to be included in any university examination. This was never and shouldn’t ever form part of a degree whatever the course structure.

John Houghton, The Gap, Qld

Blank cheques

As is usual come election time, the government and the opposition open up the taxpayers’ cheque book and begin writing out blank cheques. All we are hearing at the moment is what the two major parties are going to be giving to us and what they are going to do for us irrespective of the fact that in the case of the Albanese government, it has had three years in power to do the things it is promising. Instead Albanese spent his first year on the referendum, which was always doomed to fail. I have not heard one word about how either major party is going to tackle our horrendous debt. Show me how you are going to reduce debt and I will vote for you.

Peter Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic

Putin’s play

It’s evident Vladimir Putin’s piecemeal 30-day offering to Donald Trump to leave Ukrainian energy facilities alone will buy him time to rid Kursk of Ukrainian forces. He is unlikely to agree to a broader ceasefire until this mission is secured. It would deny President Zelensky the bargaining chip of a land swap, and embolden Putin’s position that all captured Ukrainian territory be ceded to Russia. It’s clear that in negotiating with Putin, Trump has more than met his match. The latter has a formidable record of clinching deals in the winner-take-all commercial world, but the former has a long history of dealing in real-world blood and guts. He will not go quietly when in his heart he believes that Ukraine is just an extension of Russian territory.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

Activist justice

As Ramesh Thakur suggests, the issue of judicial overreach is somewhat “complicated and nuanced”; a solution may yet be available (Letters, 20/3). Given the increasingly activist tendencies of final courts in many democracies, this is a debate we must have. We might prepare by divesting ourselves of an exaggerated reverence for High Court decisions. They are presently accorded all the respect believers give to revealed religious truth, yet they are merely the majority opinion of a panel of lawyers, each of whom has been appointed by the government of the day.

We should consider a single referendum to provide that contentious High Court decisions may be reviewed by a joint sitting of parliament and, if a defined “super majority” of dissent is achieved, set aside. If the democratic decencies are to be preserved, parliament must be supreme in the land.

Terry Birchley, Bundaberg, Qld