The trouble with political opinions that academics don't like

I was surprised by a situation a few years ago, where a colleague made a complaint about something I had written in the press.

ACADEMIC freedom is something most university scholars feel very strongly about, as well they should. Which is why I was surprised to be faced with a situation a few years ago where a complaint was made about something I had written in the popular press.

 It came from a senior colleague: they disagreed with what I had written, took the view that it brought the university (a previous employer) into disrepute, and requested that I be reprimanded for doing the university's reputation damage.

There was nothing racially or sexually offensive in the piece. Nothing defamatory or critical of the university I worked at. And the topic I had written on fell within my area of expertise: politics and government.

I had written an opinion piece for this newspaper shortly after the 2007 federal election, saying the newly elected prime minister, Kevin Rudd, no longer deserved the benefit of the doubt from voters because he had proven himself to be "loose with the truth". I was referring in particular to Rudd's relationship with former West Australia premier Brian Burke, on the back of a series of previous examples, albeit minor, of Rudd being caught out.

Writing about the daily political contest is fraught with danger, given the passions it can evoke from people with strong partisan views. It's one of the dilemmas when teaching politics at university: to stick to the facts and not be drawn into offering a polemical view. This, however, was an opinion piece in a newspaper.

The complaint against me was that the article I had written -- about a well-regarded new prime minister according to the complainant -- wasn't warranted. Never mind that the opening line of the piece was: "Kevin Rudd was swept to power on the back of public dissatisfaction with politicians misrepresenting the truth and avoiding taking responsibility for their actions". In the rough and tumble of politics I could hardly be accused of singling Rudd out for attention with an opening like that.

Fortunately for me -- and the concepts of academic freedom and free speech -- wiser heads within senior management at the university considered the complaint vexatious.

But the saga got me thinking. How could a senior, well-credentialled scholar consider my critique of Rudd so offensive, yet during the Howard years -- a time when scholars called John Howard everything from a war criminal to a fascist -- not feel obliged to jump to Howard's defence?

This comparison is especially significant given that less than a year before the complaint I had published a biography on John Howard, co-authored with Wayne Errington, now of Adelaide University. While we certainly didn't descend into calling Howard a war criminal or a fascist, we made more than a few pointed barbs.

I do not recall any complaints at the time.

Universities are constantly accused of left-wing bias by sections of the right-wing commentariat, and examples such as the one above don't do anything to liberate the sector from these criticisms. In reality such bias is the exception not the rule when scholars teach and research.

The more important issue is that complaints, like the one I faced, violate a central pillar of academic freedom, which is the right of scholars to research and write about issues that may be inconvenient to politicians or authorities.

That's the inconvenient truth of the matter.

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia.