Organisational narratives are foundational to inform the actions and directions of an organisatio... more Organisational narratives are foundational to inform the actions and directions of an organisation. Modern organisations often place great weight and invest significant time crafting their narratives that are communicated through mission statements, strategic plans, policies, directives and self-promotion. Sometimes these narratives align with the lived reality of the workers and those who deal with the organisation, but at other times there is a significant gap, or even chasm, between the portrayed ideal and the reality. This paper situates such narratives, and the lived experiences within critical organisational theory and a neoliberal framework. Utilising auto-ethnographic accounts of four academics within a higher education context, it highlights this gap and the need to voice concerns about this misalignment. The paper raises awareness of both organisations and workers to the importance of being true to narratives and ensuring they are an accurate representation of what happens. It offers ideas for resisting the disjunction between narrative and reality and a way of challenging neoliberalism within higher education.
International Art in Early Childhood Research Journal, 2019
Engagement in media arts and digital technology can contribute to the development of young childr... more Engagement in media arts and digital technology can contribute to the development of young children’s working theories, stories and understandings of their world. Children in many Australian families experience frequent and stressful transitions as parents work away in roles in mining, transport and military occupations. Research has shown a lack of resources for young children, their parents, educators and family workers to support these children, especially for those in defence force families. We use Sims’ (2011) rights-based framework, adapted from Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs, as a framework to identify how these experiences impact on children. In particular we argue this lifestyle undermines children’s rights “to love, affection, care, attention, closeness to another person” and their rights “to feel valued and worthy, to be valued by others, to be accepted, appreciated and have status” (Sims, 2011, p. 123) from the parent who is away. Previous research has revealed parents and educators of young children feel unsupported due to the lack of age and culturally appropriate early childhood resources to assist their children. Defence families being ‘absent’ in early childhood (EC) storybooks, apps and eBooks makes it difficult for the children and families to normalise their experiences, connect with characters in an emotionally safe way, thereby building capacity for emotional resilience and belonging within the community. This paper focuses on how the media arts were used to transform an eStorybook from research data into a digital app. The project aimed to improve children’s skills in the media arts, enhancing their understandings of cultural and family narratives within their cultural group and providing much needed age and culturally appropriate resources.
This paper holds to account the ideas legitimising staff management practices currently experienc... more This paper holds to account the ideas legitimising staff management practices currently experienced in my workplace, a university, as bullying. Making these practices visible, and locating them in theories allows movement beyond current understandings of reality and points "to new ways of thinking and action about freedom, civic courage, social responsibility, and justice" [1]. Whilst this is titled a story of frustration I aim at a position of hope using auto-ethnography to reflect on my experiences as a volunteer case worker for the staff union (National Tertiary Education Union-NTEU). I have supported staff complaining of bullying in the workplace and have struggled to achieve fair and equitable outcomes. I have witnessed hard working, valued colleagues becoming disenchanted, disengaged, and resigning. Accepting this without attempting to drive change is unacceptable, thus this study was born. I locate this work in literature related to workplace bullying and the Australian higher education context. I explore my reflections, examining how these link to, and extend understandings of theory. Finally I explain why I think workplace bullying needs redefinition in order for us to enliven democracy as a way of life for those of us working in the university context. paper available at http://www.sciaeon.org/sociology-insights/articles-in-press
In this paper I argue that early childhood professionals have a key role in providing learning op... more In this paper I argue that early childhood professionals have a key role in providing learning opportunities that aim to prevent children placing their feet on the beginning of the slippery slope of racism. At the bottom of this slippery slope of racism, as we have seen in recent world events, are acts of extremist terrorism. This responsibility is increasingly important given that in many countries political rhetoric is leaning further towards far right extremism accompanied by forms of nationalism where those who are different (for example Muslims and refugee groups) are being portrayed as threatening standards of living of citizens in their host countries. As professionals we have a responsibility to identify early (often, on the surface, benign) acts, reflect on the value position underpinning such acts, and provide opportunities for children to learn to value and respect the differences they see every day in the people around them. In this paper I provide suggestions as to the kinds of behaviours (and the value positions underpinning them) that we see in young children and the ways we might address these.
Over 30 years ago, Freire warned of the dangers of neoliberalism and
Chomsky today sees this as t... more Over 30 years ago, Freire warned of the dangers of neoliberalism and Chomsky today sees this as the greatest threat to democracy. Education is particularly targeted by the neoliberal state because potentially, as educators, we can teach children to think critically, and as adults, critical thinkers are positioned as problems, not resources. Neoliberalism has a devastating impact on the early childhood sector with its focus on standardisation, push-down curriculum and its positioning of children as investments for future economic productivity. Conversely, the growing push for professionalisation of early childhood creates demands for discretionary decision-making that is in tension with the top-down compliance requirements of neoliberalism. In this paper, I present the ways in which neoliberalism impacts the early childhood sector, and call for early childhood professionals to engage in active resistance. Active resistance can take different forms and I discuss some of these. As educators, we have an obligation to both think and act critically and fight for a world where democracy flourishes and where all children have equal opportunities to participate, to shine and to be happy; thus, I argue we have a responsibility to resist the key impacts of neoliberalism.
This article presents a typology of different approaches to social crime prevention adopted by Au... more This article presents a typology of different approaches to social crime prevention adopted by Australian Indigenous youth night patrols. Research that informed this typology occurred in a specific context, but generic observations about youth crime prevention policy are transferable to community youth crime prevention in other settings. The typology identifies several key points of difference between various service delivery models, in particular, different perceptions of relationships between crime prevention; community safety; community development; community self-determination; child protection; and youth development and welfare. Discussion teases out how political discourse frames concepts such as community governance, self-determination, paternalism, and funding accountability. The discussion illustrates how politicised decision-making has meant that policy makers responded selectively to programme evaluations, in ways that did not always maximise benefit. The typology is intended to be useful to youth crime prevention practitioners, evaluators and policy makers.
The world around us is changing faster than ever and there is probably only one thing about which... more The world around us is changing faster than ever and there is probably only one thing about which we can be absolutely sure: the things we do today to survive economically are not going to be the things we should continue to do for ever. Our national economy, once reliant on farming, mining and manufacturing, is changing and in the future is likely to be more and more reliant on information and ideas. A recent paper released by the government (Keeping it Clever Policy Statement 2016) suggests that in 20 years time around 40% of the jobs we do today will no longer exist. As a nation we will need innovative thinking to prepare us for this changing world but unfortunately, Australia only ranks 17 th in a recent international comparison of innovation (behind countries such as New Zealand, Iceland, USA and UK). It is in this context the government are calling on universities to lead in developing new ideas and new technology. Universities are expected to lead the nation in innovation and entrepreneurship. Investing in universities to support that innovation and entrepreneurship is identified as important. Unfortunately, such investment is underpinned by neoliberal ideology which shapes both the vision and the policy. We see this in the requirement that government is proposing to only fund research if that research has clear financial and commercial implications. This is not a new idea. In 2014 Science Minister Ian Macfarlane and Chief Scientist Ian Chubb talked about the importance of applied university research; that is research that can be seen to have commercial benefits. At the time there was concern that narrowing research to that which can be seen to have immediate commercial benefits may reduce innovation and that concern has not been addressed. Using these parameters the research into the properties of vacuum tubes would probably never have been funded yet it was this research that contributed to the development of x-ray technology. A second platform of the policy statement is a requirement that universities should produce job-ready graduates. Unfortunately for many university courses, content is regulated by external accrediting agencies and these vary in their ability to predict future employer and societal needs. For many, course content remains heavily focused on what skills and knowledge are required to do the job as it exists today. Courses subject to accreditation are often unable to attain the flexibility necessary to develop new content, to speculate about new knowledge and skills that might be useful as jobs (and society) evolve and to encourage students to wonder for the sake of wondering. Universities are struggling with the tension between neoliberal requirements and the application of these requirements in a world where rhetoric requires them to do one thing but reality insists they do another. How can Australia improve its position in international comparisons of innovation when researchers are not able to explore and wonder? How can graduates be job ready for future decades when their courses can only be accredited if they meet today's content requirements?
What is the role of digitised media / IT in creating compliant neoliberal citizens? Today our wor... more What is the role of digitised media / IT in creating compliant neoliberal citizens? Today our world is a 24/7 world where the focus is on speed and sensationalism. Many are concerned that we are becoming less able to manage face-to-face personal relationships (instead one's social skills are measured by the number of 'friends' we connect with on a social media site). Learning to identify the boundary between fact and fiction, between news and sensationalism, is a skill increasingly at risk. The fast pace of information flow forces the brain to process information quickly, come up with an answer or action and move on to the next item. This plays beautifully into the neoliberal agenda which emphasises self interest and consumerism. One's status comes from one's possession of the most recent technology and one's knowledge of the most recent events in celebrity culture. Not possessing a television, internet connection and mobile device positions children as disadvantaged, with little or no access to peer social groups. Next time you go into a café or restaurant, watch how many patrons pull out their mobile device at some point and use it. How many times do we see people taking photos of where they are at any one time and posting those on social media rather than simply enjoying the moment where they are and with whom they are spending time. Neoliberalism encourages a private gaze: the world is about me and my experiences in it, and not about how my experiences relate to those of others. This is particularly relevant for young people who face a future of uncertain employment, poor wages, and straitened circumstances that may last a lifetime. When facing these challenges there is little emotional energy left to engage in social justice issues or political debate. In universities and educational institutions young academics face similar dilemmas. In the UK, for example, last year an advisor to David Cameron argued that academics speaking out were a risk to their employing university and should be punished. In a climate that clearly identifies the risks of speaking out, young academics are hamstrung and unable to question the hierarchy, the system nor contribute in any meaningful way to change. Once people stop speaking out then they are (unconsciously or not) supporting the current system and, at the same time, transmitting the values and practices of that system to their students. Universities and other educational institutions offer space where it might be possible for those who wish to speak out, to debate the issues, and to critically analyse neoliberalism, to locate themselves. Unfortunately, universities themselves are facing significant challenges to their autonomy, and these challenges make it harder and harder for people sharing challenges to find a space to do so. Giroux argues we live in a time where " the apostles of neoliberal capitalism militarize and commodify the entire society, consider youth as nothing more than a source of profit, define education as training, undermine the welfare state in favour of a warfare state, and define democracy as synonymous with the language of capital. "
On budget night the government released an options paper outlining their thinking in relation to ... more On budget night the government released an options paper outlining their thinking in relation to higher education reforms: Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education. Along with this paper there is a commitment to consult with stakeholders to create a final reform package by the end of this year which would be actioned by 1 January 2018. It is important to understand the various elements in this proposed reform and look at the underlying ideology driving the suggestions, and to think about how these potential changes could impact on Armidale. I have written before about the neoliberal positioning of education as a private good: this means that the most value gained from higher education is thought to belong to the individuals who are supposed to get better employment, earn higher wages and generally be better off because of their improved educational level. Given this belief, it is no surprise that the government continues to push for students to pay a greater proportion of their higher education costs. The options paper continues to propose that the proportion of government funding supporting each student place in higher education is reduced (the figure of 20% on average is proposed) and that means that universities have to find alternative sources of income to cover this funding gap. It will be a rare situation where that gap in funding is NOT covered by increases in student fees. There is a proposal that certain courses will receive differential funding so universities can identify certain courses where they will be allowed to charge students more than the current cap on student contributions. Again, it will be a rare situation where universities do not argue for their most popular courses to be classified in this manner in order to maximise their income. Recent clarification by Minister Birmingham indicates that the 20% flagship proposal applies not just to courses but to 20% of all undergraduate students. Where students have to pay fees there also needs to be some kind of loan system that provides the money and an agreement around how this loan is repaid. Increasing student fees of course mean increasing levels of debt for students. Part of the options paper is consideration of the ways in which government can ensure that loads are repaid, and repaid as quickly as possible. This is of course in contrast to the position taken by graduates who, at the time when they are newly employed, perhaps gaining assets such as a house and car, and simultaneously dealing with the expenses in beginning and supporting a family, would prefer to defer loan payments. The options paper proposes that student debt is recovered from those who have left the workforce (retirees for example) through income tests at a household level (ie both partners – and perhaps parents-would be responsible for the student debt of one of them) and from deceased estates (will we end up with the American system where children are made responsible for the student debt incurred by their parents?). The annual income level at which repayment is required is proposed to reduce. Undertaking more radical reform, perhaps along the lines of countries such as Germany, Finland and Sweden where student fees are minimal or nonexistent, appears not to be on the agenda at all. What does this mean for Armidale? Many government sources argue that students are not particularly sensitive to the fees charged by universities; students still flock to courses that will leave them with significant student debt. However, alongside tuition fees students incur living costs and it is here that Armidale will be impacted when students are struggling to meet living expenses and have no discretionary spending power. Issues of funding also prompt universities to contract their teaching periods (moving from semesters into shorter and shorter trimesters for example) with a consequence decrease in the time students are in town or in college. All of these changes are interlinked. We have to remember, at the very basis of all of this, what is good for students is good for the town. We want a town where students are an integral part of the community, where they participate in community activities and contribute their own, unique perspectives. That dream is increasingly jeopardised as students face heavier workloads in shorter trimesters, and leave town to return home for longer periods of time across the year, or chose to study online simply because they cannot meet the costs of study plus the costs of living away from home.
Struggle for our freedom of expression
Pre-published version. Published in the Armidale Express E... more Struggle for our freedom of expression Pre-published version. Published in the Armidale Express Extra, 20 July 2016, p7 The Australian Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011 require that universities promote and protect free intellectual inquiry and expression in learning, teaching and research activities. The idea of academic freedom has for generations been the cornerstone of university life. Student activism saw students joining the largest ever demonstration in human history when, on 15 February 2003, they joined in the anti-war protestors protesting against the war in Iraq, and later ran their own Books not Bombs protest on March 5. One of the greatest living academic activists is Noam Chomsky who wrote his anti-war essay The Responsibility of Intellectuals in 1967as part of his outspoken protest against US involvement in the war in Vietnam, and consequently won a place on President Nixon’s list of public enemies. Intellectual freedom, or more generally freedom of expression is recognised as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is recognised in international human rights law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Article 19 states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". However it is important to note that the along with these rights comes "special duties and responsibilities" which may mean that the right needs to be exercised based on “respect of the rights or reputation of others" or “the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". This means that human rights law identifies intellectual freedom as not limitless; that the exercise of freedom of expression needs to take into account the wellbeing of other people, public order, public wellbeing and national security. Here is where the influence of neoliberalism is currently being played out. Increasingly we are seeing that criticism of organisations is being considered as inappropriate because this criticism impacts on, presumably, public order, health or morals. The most recent case in point is that of Ros Ward, Co-ordinator of the Safe Schools Project at La Trobe University. In June of this year Roz made a comment on social media about the ‘racist Australian flag’. Management at La Trobe considered this comment an attack on the good name of the University and suspended her (Roz was re-instated 2.5 days later after a storm of protest). This suspension was the culmination of months of media and political attention focusing on Roz’s work. The Safe Schools Project aims to address bullying, homophobia and transphobia in schools, an initiative that has been strongly criticised by the some Coalition MPs who claimed it raised sexual issues inappropriate to discuss with young children and teenagers. Was this sustained political pressure behind the decision to suspect Roz for her social media comment? No-one is admitting this of course. However the actions of the university highlight a growing problem: the neoliberal agenda focuses on turning universities into corporate businesses which brings along with it an obsession with ‘brand’. The consequences of this for freedom of expression are now evident. In responding to the Roz Ward story, Dr Long, the Victorian Secretary of the NTEU, said: “the obsession with brand means that universities like La Trobe are trashing what should be the basis of their reputations – intellectual freedom.” If our academics and students cannot express dissent, what is the future for our country? And how will Armidale change if academics and students are increasingly muzzled?
There is clear evidence that average earnings have either declined or remained the same for many ... more There is clear evidence that average earnings have either declined or remained the same for many workers in countries around the world. We also know that the world is seeing an increase in economic inequity: in other words the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is an outcome of neoliberalism and it is recognised by the World Economic Forum as a major risk to world stability. Whilst CEOs and their like are receiving astronomical sums of money many more people live in poverty. In 2012 the money added to the wealth of the richest 100 people in the world would have ended world poverty four times over. In Australia the 7 richest individuals have more wealth than the 1.73 million lowest income families. Australia's wealthiest 10% have 45% of the total wealth whereas the poorest 40% of Australians hold only 5% of Australian wealth. Wage increases do not apply equally across all income brackets: the wealthiest 10% of Australian income earners experienced a 72% wage increase in the years 1985 – 2010, whereas the lowest income earners only increased their wages by 14% in that time. The impact of this inequity is substantial. As economic inequity increases in a society so does inequity in health (physical and mental), wellbeing and achievements. In Australia Indigenous males are expected to have a shorter life expectancy than non-Indigenous males of, on average, 10.6 years. Those living on lower incomes are more likely to be unhealthy, and are less able to afford healthy food so health problems are exacerbated. Children from disadvantaged families already show lower levels of achievement than their advantaged peers when they enter the schooling system, and this gap in achievement widens as they progress, ensuring that further education and employment options are more limited. There is now evidence that the kinds of living environments (social and physical) experienced by children who are disadvantaged impact on their genome through epigenetic processes and are thus transferred to their own children and even their grandchildren. So what does this mean for education? Education is one of the most important opportunities where the cycle of inequity can be attacked. Appropriate and very substantial supports CAN make a difference. Unfortunately, the education system itself is also the victim of neoliberalism. The standardisation and accountability requirements under which educators now operate make it almost impossible to implement appropriate programmes to intervene in the cycle of disadvantage. We may be offering education to all our children. Unfortunately an increasing number of these children are not able to benefit. Nor are our educators offered the learning they need to understand and address issues of inequity. In a world where standardisation is reified, the gap between the haves and the have nots will continue to grow and increasing inequity negates any hope of social justice. What kind of world are we building?
In my last column I talked about academic freedom and how neoliberalism is impacting on the abili... more In my last column I talked about academic freedom and how neoliberalism is impacting on the ability of academics to speak out. I'd like to continue this discussion a little further this week because there are more subtle influences at play that are severely curtailing the right to academic freedom. In reality, academics today have less freedom to express their ideas than was possible nearly a century ago. Academic freedom is the foundation of democracy as it provides the right for academics to speak out; to speak the truth as they best understand it in pursuit of knowledge and understanding in their discipline area. Protection of the right for academics to propose even extreme and outrageous ideas is an essential antidote to hegemonic power. Academics have a responsibility to be as accurate as they can when speaking out but are also expected to present balanced arguments (including contrary positions) and demonstrate respect for the right of other academics to speak out. In exercising academic freedom academics need to be clear they are speaking on their own behalf, not on the behalf of their employer. Academic freedom is a different right than the right to free speech held by all citizens. Free speech is the right to speak the truth about the world in general (it is not limited to one's specific discipline expertise) and it may be limited by one's job role. For example a marketing manager in a company cannot publically criticise the company's marketing strategy whereas an academic, using academic freedom rights, may publically express concern over the quality of teaching in the course in which s/he teaches. Academic freedom rights are actually stronger than free speech rights. Despite this, academic freedom rights have been gradually eroded over the past decades. We see this firstly in external determination of curriculum. In the past what was taught to students was determined by academics themselves and this was considered entirely appropriate as they were the experts in their area. Increasingly, external accreditation agencies are specifying content in courses. In conversation with a colleague recently, I was told that she was in significant trouble at her university because she was including material in her courses that required students to critique current ideologies. Given this was not part of the externally required curriculum she was facing a misconduct investigation. Universities are no longer places where extreme or outrageous ideas can be pursued, rather they are places where standard understandings are inculcated into students' thinking in order for them to promulgate these ideas after graduation. We also see erosion in academic freedom with increasing casualisation of the academic workforce. Across the country nearly 50% of the academic workforce is casualised or on fixed term contracts. Such staff risk their jobs should they speak ideas that contradict or challenge the system. When you are vulnerable and need your employers' approval to have your contract renewed, your ability to critique said employer is nonexistent. In the past academics employed in tenured positions received letters of appointment that made it clear that their position was theirs until retirement, unless they were guilty of exceptional moral turpitude or the employer was experiencing exceptional financial circumstances. Today employment contracts do not offer this level of security, even for ongoing staff. Recent rounds of redundancies at UNE demonstrate that justifications needed to justify redundancy are no longer as rigorous despite UNE possessing good redundancy clauses in the academic enterprise agreement. We need to fight for academic freedom: it is the foundation of our democracy and if we let it slip we are putting our nation's future at risk. Without the freedom to critique we are simply drones unthinkingly following an agenda that is imposed upon us.
With the federal election likely to be announced for July 2 it is important to look at the implic... more With the federal election likely to be announced for July 2 it is important to look at the implications for higher education, particularly given that UNE is the largest employer in Armidale. The health of the town is thus to some extent dependent on the health of the university. Whilst there are often divisions between 'town and gown,' now is the time to think about how we are inter-dependant. Let's explore the background. In 2014 and 2015 the federal government proposed funding cuts of around $1.9 billion dollars to the higher education sector, coupled with a proposal to deregulate the higher education market to enable universities to recover these funds by charging students higher fees (I talked about deregulation in my last column). This resulted in the " No $100k degrees " campaign which opposed both the cuts and deregulation. The legislation to put these in place was voted down for a second time in March 2015 through the support of Independent senators Nick Xenophon, Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus, Ricky Muir from the Motoring Enthusiasts Party, and Palmer United Party senator Dio Wang. In contrast, Family First senator Bob Day, Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, and independent senator John Madigan voted in favour of the bill. After Pyne stood down from his position as Minister for Education and Training and Abbott stood down from his position as Prime Minister, things went silent for a while in higher education politics. However, in April 2016 the Federal Education Minister, Minister Simon Birmingham, confirmed that the coalition Government is still committed the previous proposals, couching them in terms of reforms rather than as funding cuts. The aim of these reforms is to shift more of the cost of higher education to students themselves and reduce the level of state funding. However, the 2016/7 budget announced that fee deregulation has been postponed, at least for this year, so that universities, despite being chronically underfunded, will not this year experience the significant cuts that had been proposed. Changes to the repayment threshold for student loans are still on the table as are interest rates for student debt and the special funding allocated to enable students who are disadvantaged access higher education will be halved by 2019-2020. The government higher education agenda and reforms have already led to cuts in funding for TAFE, with a resultant loss of courses, less face to face teaching time and an increase in TAFE fees. Our own TAFE New England is one of those identified as potentially at risk in the government's plan to sell off up to 27 TAFE sites across NSW. Courses could potentially be transferred to other sites or studied online using web and video conferencing. Clearly should such a move eventuate there are major implications for the town. I wrote in my last column about the Americanisation of higher education. Last year we showed the film Ivory Tower in Armidale (see http://www.nteu.org.au/ivorytower/). This film explains how universities in America, forced to follow a business model in order to survive, have increased fees. This has led to a massive increase in student debt to the point where many cannot afford a university education, and the value of a university education is being questioned, particularly as student debt, if not paid in a student's lifetime, is passed on to surviving family members. Unfortunately, Australia is following the same pathway. Student debt in Australia is predicted to reach 46.3% of our public debt by 2025 – 26. Tuition fees for higher education in Australia are amongst the highest in the OECD, and whilst the government does provide a subsidy to help students pay these fees, this subsidy is not as generous as it is in New Zealand and it is unnecessary in countries such as Germany, Finland and Sweden where students are charged minimal or no tuition fees at all. We all have to think seriously about the kind of higher education we want as we move into the period of election campaigning. There are issues around the purpose of education (do we want graduates who are taught how to operate in an acceptable manner within each profession/industry or do we want graduates who have been taught to question, to think for themselves?) and there are issues about the way education is offered in our town (what are the risks we will see less students living in our area in order to gain a higher education
Whilst around 30% of Australians live in regional areas, these areas contribute 40% of Australia'... more Whilst around 30% of Australians live in regional areas, these areas contribute 40% of Australia's total economic output. The 6 regional universities making up the RUN Network (Central Queensland, Federation, and Southern Cross Universities, and the Universities of Sunshine Coast, Southern Queensland and New England) provide more than 14,000 full-time equivalent jobs, and contribute over $2.1 billion in gross domestic product. These universities teach about 110,000 students which amounts to about 9% of all Australian public university students and a greater proportion of regional and Indigenous students than any of the other Australian universities. For many years RUN universities have argued that students who are taught in the regions tend to stay in the regions. A recent study supported this as it was found that 60-80% of RUN graduates were employed in regional Australia. This is important because not only do the regions benefit from the skills and knowledge contributed by RUN graduates, there is evidence that for every 1000 university graduates employed in an area, 120 new jobs are created for employees without a university qualification. Many of the students attending RUN universities are the first members of their family to attend university. Certainly there is a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds attending (and graduating from) RUN universities indicating the important contribution RUN universities make towards social inclusion and educational equality. Why is the information about RUN universities important? Because we need to think carefully about the contribution UNE and New England TAFE make to the Armidale community as we move towards the elections. For Australia to grow and prosper, we need to see an understanding of, and commitment to, RUN universities and to our local TAFEs. Without that commitment we are heading towards an American model of higher education where ability to gain a degree depends more on the financial status of your family than it does on your own ability; where lack of finance ensures a lifetime of disadvantage that is transmitted to the next generation with no hope of being able to improve. What impacts on UNE and on TAFE impacts on our community. Proposed funding cuts to the higher education sector will not only impact on employment opportunities at the university, they will also impact on the ability of UNE employees and their families to spend money in local shops, to retain local tradies to do work on their properties, and on their ability to join the housing market at all. It will impact on their ability to participate in community events, their time available to train their child's sports team, and their ability to support their child's school. Increased fees for students will limit the number of students who can afford to leave home and come to Armidale to study; on the number of students seeking accommodation in town and spending money in town. Many students, particularly regional students, will not be able to access higher education, and those who can, are more likely to remain at home and study online, further reducing the number of students in town. Armidale is an education city but if we decrease our regional students' ability to participate in higher education we may well become a has-been city. Higher education is a crucial part of a healthy nation, and a key factor in addressing social disadvantage and inequality. We need to fight for higher education as it is inextricably linked to our city's wellbeing.
I find it really interesting that in the same month that The Australian published an article abou... more I find it really interesting that in the same month that The Australian published an article about the Human Rights Law Centre's claim that democracy in Australia faces a " corrosive decline, " I came across an interview with Professor Noam Chomsky (which took place on 31 January this year) where Chomsky argues that these kinds of actions are the consequence of a generation of neoliberal policies aimed at undermining democracy. For those who do not know him, Chomsky is often called the father of modern linguistics, but more importantly in this context, he is a famous political commentator who has the kudos of having earned a place on President Nixon's list of Enemies. In Australia the Human Rights Law Centre report argues that a range of federal and state laws are aimed at limiting community advocacy, restricting peaceful protest, limiting press freedom and attacking whistleblowers. Chomsky argues that the underpinning rationale that leads to these kinds of actions arises from the neoliberal agenda which aims to mould citizens to accept, and not question, the views and policies of the elite. The elite are those whose power and wealth drive the political system (and we see this so clearly at the moment as America experiences the run-up to the presidential elections). In many countries around the world we see the gap between those who are advantaged and those who are not increasing dramatically. The growing discontent of those who are disadvantaged is focused by propaganda onto groups other than the elite themselves. Donald Trump's campaign strategy of focusing discontent onto migrants is an example of this kind of process (in our sane moments would we really think it is a good idea to build a " great wall " between the US and Mexico, and even if we did think it a good idea, how would this act to block unauthorised migration to the US via Mexico?). Chomsky argues that this focusing of discontent onto groups OTHER than the advantaged, who are actually the ones responsible for maintaining and increasing the growing inequity, is a deliberate strategy. He says: " The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people ". Unfortunately such strategies are working. We see Trump moving from strength to strength as Americans, educated under a neoliberal agenda where they have been taught to accept their roles as compliant citizens, are happy to accept the propaganda delivered to them. Citizens who have learned to become consumers, obsessed with owning and using the latest technology, sitting in isolation in their own homes and connecting through social media don't understand what is going on around them and are easily gulled into accepting the messages coming to them from their twitter and other social media feeds. Ideally the role of education should be enlightenment. In Chomsky's words, education should " encourage creative exploration, independence of thought, willingness to cross frontiers, challenge accepted beliefs ". However, rather than this we have another form of education which is closer to indoctrination, where " from childhood young people have to be placed into a framework where they will follow orders that are quite explicit. " In order to achieve this " schools and universities had to increase measures toward more control; imposing more debt to capture students into conformity ". Over the past generations we have sown the wind: we are now reaping the whirlwind.
I've just been reading a great book (thanks Ros for the recommendation) by Alvesson and Spicer ca... more I've just been reading a great book (thanks Ros for the recommendation) by Alvesson and Spicer called The Stupidity Paradox: the power and pitfalls of functional stupidity at work. The authors argue that even though we have a focus on knowledge organisations, and there is a lot of talk about the knowledge economy (Turnbull talks about the Knowledge Nation, and seeks the best minds to respond intelligently and creatively to the digital revolution) the reality is that most organisations, even those who classify themselves as knowledge intensive, have very few people who act with intelligence. For example, even in organisations such as universities, the majority of staff spend most of their time following rules, doing what they are told and what is popular at the time; work that focuses on " discipline, order, mindless enthusiasm, conformity and a willingness to be seduced by the most ludicrous ideas " (Dillon, 2016). Staff who ask questions, or critique what goes on are often pulled into line by their colleagues and managers. How often have you heard something along the lines of: " for goodness sake keep quiet and let's just get this over with. Don't make it more difficult for the rest of us. " In reality staff who ask questions are seen as troublemakers and it does not take an intelligent person long to realise that asking questions is going to limit promotion opportunities and may lead (certainly for contract or casual staff) to limiting their future employment chances. In reality, what puts people on the promotion path is a portrayal of certainty and confidence in fulfilling the expected role: the unquestioning neoliberal citizen in action. The authors give the example of Nokia, once one of the leading mobile phone companies in the world. Management of Nokia recognised the threat inherent in the release of the first iphone and devoted a year to developing a mobile platform senior management believed would compete. Nearly all of middle management identified very early that the platform was flawed, but were seduced into not questioning this investment because of the strong requirement for compliance and positive thinking coming from senior management. As we all know, the consequences for Nokia were extremely severe and the company was ultimately taken over by Microsoft. Leaders themselves are influenced by this culture of stupidity. In universities, for example, the majority of leaders are actually managers, tasked with implementing and monitoring policy to ensure compliance. Most university management positions consist mostly of administrative work. Many universities now consist of more administrative staff than staff involved in teaching and/or research and Dillon suggests that this means " the purpose of higher education is not so much education and research as the administration of the same. " The consequences for students' learning is, as could be expected, a decline in emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving, and an increase in ability to reproduce the accepted doctrine. One study in the US showed that after 4 years of study, 36% of 2,300 undergraduate students across 29 colleges demonstrated no improvement in their ability to think or analyse problems. So how do we discourage stupidity and conformity at work? The authors suggest for every discussion someone is appointed to take on the role of devil's advocate: questioning assumptions and making sure that decisions are justified. They suggest before implementing a project staff reflect on all that could possibly go wrong and prepare how to prevent these things from happening. Finally they suggest the need to identify and eliminate meaningless and empty ideas: ideas that are corporate-speak but do not actually achieve anything.
In my last few columns I have moved away from directly talking about neoliberalism and concentrat... more In my last few columns I have moved away from directly talking about neoliberalism and concentrated instead on the higher education policies arising from a neoliberal perspective, particularly pertinent as we have a forthcoming election. However, today I want to move back to a closer analysis of neoliberalism and its impact on the lives of young students. At its most fundamental neoliberalism focuses on the importance of individual choice, minimising the role of the state and maximising the role of the market. For young people this focus has made the transition into adulthood much more difficult. Access to higher education for young people today is heavily dependent on their family's finances, and the alternative, getting a job after completing secondary school is difficult because of rising unemployment rates. Unemployment and underemployment mean that it is difficult for many to find jobs that pay well enough to enable them to leave home and live independently, particularly when their access to benefits to fill their income gap is limited by family income. These factors have resulted in increasing the length of the youth phase of life and delaying the transition to adulthood (the assumption here is that adulthood is attained when a person is financially independent), and in a time of decreasing funding going to higher education, that means decreasing the number of regional students who cannot afford to leave home to come and live in Armidale and study at university or TAFE. At the same time young people have been reared in a society that emphasises individual choice and individual responsibility for the consequences of their choices. This can be overwhelming as young people face choices where they do not understand all the options, nor understand all the consequences (Is it better to do a uni or a TAFE qualification? Should I have a gap year? Do I follow the things in which I am interested or do I focus on training for a particular job even if I don't really like it very much? Do I leave home and try and support myself or do I stay home even though the education opportunities are more limited?) Making your own choice and accepting the consequences is a key factor of neoliberal thinking. However for many young people, this type of thinking prevents them from understanding that there are limitations on their lives and consequences they face that are neither of their making nor acceptable. Take a young man who chooses nursing as a career. He is likely to face discrimination and hear negative comments about his sexuality and himself as a person on a daily basis because of his gender atypical career choice. A neoliberal education prompts our young man to accept this as a normal consequence of his choice (one young man said of his nursing career: " It's unmanly. That's what I hear all the time, that's just how it is. ") This point of view prevents young people from standing up and identifying this kind of behaviour as unacceptable and there is plenty of research that tells us that if we do not speak out or stand up against a wrong then that wrong becomes a right. Neoliberalism is creating a world where systemic wrongs are perceived as the natural consequences of an individual's choice and therefore they do not have to be addressed by anyone except the individual concerned. This is not a path that will lead us to a world where everyone can succeed to build the kind of life s/he wants. As an education city Armidale has a vested interest in ensuring all our young people can flourish. Neoliberalism puts that hope at risk.
Organisational narratives are foundational to inform the actions and directions of an organisatio... more Organisational narratives are foundational to inform the actions and directions of an organisation. Modern organisations often place great weight and invest significant time crafting their narratives that are communicated through mission statements, strategic plans, policies, directives and self-promotion. Sometimes these narratives align with the lived reality of the workers and those who deal with the organisation, but at other times there is a significant gap, or even chasm, between the portrayed ideal and the reality. This paper situates such narratives, and the lived experiences within critical organisational theory and a neoliberal framework. Utilising auto-ethnographic accounts of four academics within a higher education context, it highlights this gap and the need to voice concerns about this misalignment. The paper raises awareness of both organisations and workers to the importance of being true to narratives and ensuring they are an accurate representation of what happens. It offers ideas for resisting the disjunction between narrative and reality and a way of challenging neoliberalism within higher education.
International Art in Early Childhood Research Journal, 2019
Engagement in media arts and digital technology can contribute to the development of young childr... more Engagement in media arts and digital technology can contribute to the development of young children’s working theories, stories and understandings of their world. Children in many Australian families experience frequent and stressful transitions as parents work away in roles in mining, transport and military occupations. Research has shown a lack of resources for young children, their parents, educators and family workers to support these children, especially for those in defence force families. We use Sims’ (2011) rights-based framework, adapted from Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs, as a framework to identify how these experiences impact on children. In particular we argue this lifestyle undermines children’s rights “to love, affection, care, attention, closeness to another person” and their rights “to feel valued and worthy, to be valued by others, to be accepted, appreciated and have status” (Sims, 2011, p. 123) from the parent who is away. Previous research has revealed parents and educators of young children feel unsupported due to the lack of age and culturally appropriate early childhood resources to assist their children. Defence families being ‘absent’ in early childhood (EC) storybooks, apps and eBooks makes it difficult for the children and families to normalise their experiences, connect with characters in an emotionally safe way, thereby building capacity for emotional resilience and belonging within the community. This paper focuses on how the media arts were used to transform an eStorybook from research data into a digital app. The project aimed to improve children’s skills in the media arts, enhancing their understandings of cultural and family narratives within their cultural group and providing much needed age and culturally appropriate resources.
This paper holds to account the ideas legitimising staff management practices currently experienc... more This paper holds to account the ideas legitimising staff management practices currently experienced in my workplace, a university, as bullying. Making these practices visible, and locating them in theories allows movement beyond current understandings of reality and points "to new ways of thinking and action about freedom, civic courage, social responsibility, and justice" [1]. Whilst this is titled a story of frustration I aim at a position of hope using auto-ethnography to reflect on my experiences as a volunteer case worker for the staff union (National Tertiary Education Union-NTEU). I have supported staff complaining of bullying in the workplace and have struggled to achieve fair and equitable outcomes. I have witnessed hard working, valued colleagues becoming disenchanted, disengaged, and resigning. Accepting this without attempting to drive change is unacceptable, thus this study was born. I locate this work in literature related to workplace bullying and the Australian higher education context. I explore my reflections, examining how these link to, and extend understandings of theory. Finally I explain why I think workplace bullying needs redefinition in order for us to enliven democracy as a way of life for those of us working in the university context. paper available at http://www.sciaeon.org/sociology-insights/articles-in-press
In this paper I argue that early childhood professionals have a key role in providing learning op... more In this paper I argue that early childhood professionals have a key role in providing learning opportunities that aim to prevent children placing their feet on the beginning of the slippery slope of racism. At the bottom of this slippery slope of racism, as we have seen in recent world events, are acts of extremist terrorism. This responsibility is increasingly important given that in many countries political rhetoric is leaning further towards far right extremism accompanied by forms of nationalism where those who are different (for example Muslims and refugee groups) are being portrayed as threatening standards of living of citizens in their host countries. As professionals we have a responsibility to identify early (often, on the surface, benign) acts, reflect on the value position underpinning such acts, and provide opportunities for children to learn to value and respect the differences they see every day in the people around them. In this paper I provide suggestions as to the kinds of behaviours (and the value positions underpinning them) that we see in young children and the ways we might address these.
Over 30 years ago, Freire warned of the dangers of neoliberalism and
Chomsky today sees this as t... more Over 30 years ago, Freire warned of the dangers of neoliberalism and Chomsky today sees this as the greatest threat to democracy. Education is particularly targeted by the neoliberal state because potentially, as educators, we can teach children to think critically, and as adults, critical thinkers are positioned as problems, not resources. Neoliberalism has a devastating impact on the early childhood sector with its focus on standardisation, push-down curriculum and its positioning of children as investments for future economic productivity. Conversely, the growing push for professionalisation of early childhood creates demands for discretionary decision-making that is in tension with the top-down compliance requirements of neoliberalism. In this paper, I present the ways in which neoliberalism impacts the early childhood sector, and call for early childhood professionals to engage in active resistance. Active resistance can take different forms and I discuss some of these. As educators, we have an obligation to both think and act critically and fight for a world where democracy flourishes and where all children have equal opportunities to participate, to shine and to be happy; thus, I argue we have a responsibility to resist the key impacts of neoliberalism.
This article presents a typology of different approaches to social crime prevention adopted by Au... more This article presents a typology of different approaches to social crime prevention adopted by Australian Indigenous youth night patrols. Research that informed this typology occurred in a specific context, but generic observations about youth crime prevention policy are transferable to community youth crime prevention in other settings. The typology identifies several key points of difference between various service delivery models, in particular, different perceptions of relationships between crime prevention; community safety; community development; community self-determination; child protection; and youth development and welfare. Discussion teases out how political discourse frames concepts such as community governance, self-determination, paternalism, and funding accountability. The discussion illustrates how politicised decision-making has meant that policy makers responded selectively to programme evaluations, in ways that did not always maximise benefit. The typology is intended to be useful to youth crime prevention practitioners, evaluators and policy makers.
The world around us is changing faster than ever and there is probably only one thing about which... more The world around us is changing faster than ever and there is probably only one thing about which we can be absolutely sure: the things we do today to survive economically are not going to be the things we should continue to do for ever. Our national economy, once reliant on farming, mining and manufacturing, is changing and in the future is likely to be more and more reliant on information and ideas. A recent paper released by the government (Keeping it Clever Policy Statement 2016) suggests that in 20 years time around 40% of the jobs we do today will no longer exist. As a nation we will need innovative thinking to prepare us for this changing world but unfortunately, Australia only ranks 17 th in a recent international comparison of innovation (behind countries such as New Zealand, Iceland, USA and UK). It is in this context the government are calling on universities to lead in developing new ideas and new technology. Universities are expected to lead the nation in innovation and entrepreneurship. Investing in universities to support that innovation and entrepreneurship is identified as important. Unfortunately, such investment is underpinned by neoliberal ideology which shapes both the vision and the policy. We see this in the requirement that government is proposing to only fund research if that research has clear financial and commercial implications. This is not a new idea. In 2014 Science Minister Ian Macfarlane and Chief Scientist Ian Chubb talked about the importance of applied university research; that is research that can be seen to have commercial benefits. At the time there was concern that narrowing research to that which can be seen to have immediate commercial benefits may reduce innovation and that concern has not been addressed. Using these parameters the research into the properties of vacuum tubes would probably never have been funded yet it was this research that contributed to the development of x-ray technology. A second platform of the policy statement is a requirement that universities should produce job-ready graduates. Unfortunately for many university courses, content is regulated by external accrediting agencies and these vary in their ability to predict future employer and societal needs. For many, course content remains heavily focused on what skills and knowledge are required to do the job as it exists today. Courses subject to accreditation are often unable to attain the flexibility necessary to develop new content, to speculate about new knowledge and skills that might be useful as jobs (and society) evolve and to encourage students to wonder for the sake of wondering. Universities are struggling with the tension between neoliberal requirements and the application of these requirements in a world where rhetoric requires them to do one thing but reality insists they do another. How can Australia improve its position in international comparisons of innovation when researchers are not able to explore and wonder? How can graduates be job ready for future decades when their courses can only be accredited if they meet today's content requirements?
What is the role of digitised media / IT in creating compliant neoliberal citizens? Today our wor... more What is the role of digitised media / IT in creating compliant neoliberal citizens? Today our world is a 24/7 world where the focus is on speed and sensationalism. Many are concerned that we are becoming less able to manage face-to-face personal relationships (instead one's social skills are measured by the number of 'friends' we connect with on a social media site). Learning to identify the boundary between fact and fiction, between news and sensationalism, is a skill increasingly at risk. The fast pace of information flow forces the brain to process information quickly, come up with an answer or action and move on to the next item. This plays beautifully into the neoliberal agenda which emphasises self interest and consumerism. One's status comes from one's possession of the most recent technology and one's knowledge of the most recent events in celebrity culture. Not possessing a television, internet connection and mobile device positions children as disadvantaged, with little or no access to peer social groups. Next time you go into a café or restaurant, watch how many patrons pull out their mobile device at some point and use it. How many times do we see people taking photos of where they are at any one time and posting those on social media rather than simply enjoying the moment where they are and with whom they are spending time. Neoliberalism encourages a private gaze: the world is about me and my experiences in it, and not about how my experiences relate to those of others. This is particularly relevant for young people who face a future of uncertain employment, poor wages, and straitened circumstances that may last a lifetime. When facing these challenges there is little emotional energy left to engage in social justice issues or political debate. In universities and educational institutions young academics face similar dilemmas. In the UK, for example, last year an advisor to David Cameron argued that academics speaking out were a risk to their employing university and should be punished. In a climate that clearly identifies the risks of speaking out, young academics are hamstrung and unable to question the hierarchy, the system nor contribute in any meaningful way to change. Once people stop speaking out then they are (unconsciously or not) supporting the current system and, at the same time, transmitting the values and practices of that system to their students. Universities and other educational institutions offer space where it might be possible for those who wish to speak out, to debate the issues, and to critically analyse neoliberalism, to locate themselves. Unfortunately, universities themselves are facing significant challenges to their autonomy, and these challenges make it harder and harder for people sharing challenges to find a space to do so. Giroux argues we live in a time where " the apostles of neoliberal capitalism militarize and commodify the entire society, consider youth as nothing more than a source of profit, define education as training, undermine the welfare state in favour of a warfare state, and define democracy as synonymous with the language of capital. "
On budget night the government released an options paper outlining their thinking in relation to ... more On budget night the government released an options paper outlining their thinking in relation to higher education reforms: Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education. Along with this paper there is a commitment to consult with stakeholders to create a final reform package by the end of this year which would be actioned by 1 January 2018. It is important to understand the various elements in this proposed reform and look at the underlying ideology driving the suggestions, and to think about how these potential changes could impact on Armidale. I have written before about the neoliberal positioning of education as a private good: this means that the most value gained from higher education is thought to belong to the individuals who are supposed to get better employment, earn higher wages and generally be better off because of their improved educational level. Given this belief, it is no surprise that the government continues to push for students to pay a greater proportion of their higher education costs. The options paper continues to propose that the proportion of government funding supporting each student place in higher education is reduced (the figure of 20% on average is proposed) and that means that universities have to find alternative sources of income to cover this funding gap. It will be a rare situation where that gap in funding is NOT covered by increases in student fees. There is a proposal that certain courses will receive differential funding so universities can identify certain courses where they will be allowed to charge students more than the current cap on student contributions. Again, it will be a rare situation where universities do not argue for their most popular courses to be classified in this manner in order to maximise their income. Recent clarification by Minister Birmingham indicates that the 20% flagship proposal applies not just to courses but to 20% of all undergraduate students. Where students have to pay fees there also needs to be some kind of loan system that provides the money and an agreement around how this loan is repaid. Increasing student fees of course mean increasing levels of debt for students. Part of the options paper is consideration of the ways in which government can ensure that loads are repaid, and repaid as quickly as possible. This is of course in contrast to the position taken by graduates who, at the time when they are newly employed, perhaps gaining assets such as a house and car, and simultaneously dealing with the expenses in beginning and supporting a family, would prefer to defer loan payments. The options paper proposes that student debt is recovered from those who have left the workforce (retirees for example) through income tests at a household level (ie both partners – and perhaps parents-would be responsible for the student debt of one of them) and from deceased estates (will we end up with the American system where children are made responsible for the student debt incurred by their parents?). The annual income level at which repayment is required is proposed to reduce. Undertaking more radical reform, perhaps along the lines of countries such as Germany, Finland and Sweden where student fees are minimal or nonexistent, appears not to be on the agenda at all. What does this mean for Armidale? Many government sources argue that students are not particularly sensitive to the fees charged by universities; students still flock to courses that will leave them with significant student debt. However, alongside tuition fees students incur living costs and it is here that Armidale will be impacted when students are struggling to meet living expenses and have no discretionary spending power. Issues of funding also prompt universities to contract their teaching periods (moving from semesters into shorter and shorter trimesters for example) with a consequence decrease in the time students are in town or in college. All of these changes are interlinked. We have to remember, at the very basis of all of this, what is good for students is good for the town. We want a town where students are an integral part of the community, where they participate in community activities and contribute their own, unique perspectives. That dream is increasingly jeopardised as students face heavier workloads in shorter trimesters, and leave town to return home for longer periods of time across the year, or chose to study online simply because they cannot meet the costs of study plus the costs of living away from home.
Struggle for our freedom of expression
Pre-published version. Published in the Armidale Express E... more Struggle for our freedom of expression Pre-published version. Published in the Armidale Express Extra, 20 July 2016, p7 The Australian Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011 require that universities promote and protect free intellectual inquiry and expression in learning, teaching and research activities. The idea of academic freedom has for generations been the cornerstone of university life. Student activism saw students joining the largest ever demonstration in human history when, on 15 February 2003, they joined in the anti-war protestors protesting against the war in Iraq, and later ran their own Books not Bombs protest on March 5. One of the greatest living academic activists is Noam Chomsky who wrote his anti-war essay The Responsibility of Intellectuals in 1967as part of his outspoken protest against US involvement in the war in Vietnam, and consequently won a place on President Nixon’s list of public enemies. Intellectual freedom, or more generally freedom of expression is recognised as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is recognised in international human rights law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Article 19 states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". However it is important to note that the along with these rights comes "special duties and responsibilities" which may mean that the right needs to be exercised based on “respect of the rights or reputation of others" or “the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". This means that human rights law identifies intellectual freedom as not limitless; that the exercise of freedom of expression needs to take into account the wellbeing of other people, public order, public wellbeing and national security. Here is where the influence of neoliberalism is currently being played out. Increasingly we are seeing that criticism of organisations is being considered as inappropriate because this criticism impacts on, presumably, public order, health or morals. The most recent case in point is that of Ros Ward, Co-ordinator of the Safe Schools Project at La Trobe University. In June of this year Roz made a comment on social media about the ‘racist Australian flag’. Management at La Trobe considered this comment an attack on the good name of the University and suspended her (Roz was re-instated 2.5 days later after a storm of protest). This suspension was the culmination of months of media and political attention focusing on Roz’s work. The Safe Schools Project aims to address bullying, homophobia and transphobia in schools, an initiative that has been strongly criticised by the some Coalition MPs who claimed it raised sexual issues inappropriate to discuss with young children and teenagers. Was this sustained political pressure behind the decision to suspect Roz for her social media comment? No-one is admitting this of course. However the actions of the university highlight a growing problem: the neoliberal agenda focuses on turning universities into corporate businesses which brings along with it an obsession with ‘brand’. The consequences of this for freedom of expression are now evident. In responding to the Roz Ward story, Dr Long, the Victorian Secretary of the NTEU, said: “the obsession with brand means that universities like La Trobe are trashing what should be the basis of their reputations – intellectual freedom.” If our academics and students cannot express dissent, what is the future for our country? And how will Armidale change if academics and students are increasingly muzzled?
There is clear evidence that average earnings have either declined or remained the same for many ... more There is clear evidence that average earnings have either declined or remained the same for many workers in countries around the world. We also know that the world is seeing an increase in economic inequity: in other words the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is an outcome of neoliberalism and it is recognised by the World Economic Forum as a major risk to world stability. Whilst CEOs and their like are receiving astronomical sums of money many more people live in poverty. In 2012 the money added to the wealth of the richest 100 people in the world would have ended world poverty four times over. In Australia the 7 richest individuals have more wealth than the 1.73 million lowest income families. Australia's wealthiest 10% have 45% of the total wealth whereas the poorest 40% of Australians hold only 5% of Australian wealth. Wage increases do not apply equally across all income brackets: the wealthiest 10% of Australian income earners experienced a 72% wage increase in the years 1985 – 2010, whereas the lowest income earners only increased their wages by 14% in that time. The impact of this inequity is substantial. As economic inequity increases in a society so does inequity in health (physical and mental), wellbeing and achievements. In Australia Indigenous males are expected to have a shorter life expectancy than non-Indigenous males of, on average, 10.6 years. Those living on lower incomes are more likely to be unhealthy, and are less able to afford healthy food so health problems are exacerbated. Children from disadvantaged families already show lower levels of achievement than their advantaged peers when they enter the schooling system, and this gap in achievement widens as they progress, ensuring that further education and employment options are more limited. There is now evidence that the kinds of living environments (social and physical) experienced by children who are disadvantaged impact on their genome through epigenetic processes and are thus transferred to their own children and even their grandchildren. So what does this mean for education? Education is one of the most important opportunities where the cycle of inequity can be attacked. Appropriate and very substantial supports CAN make a difference. Unfortunately, the education system itself is also the victim of neoliberalism. The standardisation and accountability requirements under which educators now operate make it almost impossible to implement appropriate programmes to intervene in the cycle of disadvantage. We may be offering education to all our children. Unfortunately an increasing number of these children are not able to benefit. Nor are our educators offered the learning they need to understand and address issues of inequity. In a world where standardisation is reified, the gap between the haves and the have nots will continue to grow and increasing inequity negates any hope of social justice. What kind of world are we building?
In my last column I talked about academic freedom and how neoliberalism is impacting on the abili... more In my last column I talked about academic freedom and how neoliberalism is impacting on the ability of academics to speak out. I'd like to continue this discussion a little further this week because there are more subtle influences at play that are severely curtailing the right to academic freedom. In reality, academics today have less freedom to express their ideas than was possible nearly a century ago. Academic freedom is the foundation of democracy as it provides the right for academics to speak out; to speak the truth as they best understand it in pursuit of knowledge and understanding in their discipline area. Protection of the right for academics to propose even extreme and outrageous ideas is an essential antidote to hegemonic power. Academics have a responsibility to be as accurate as they can when speaking out but are also expected to present balanced arguments (including contrary positions) and demonstrate respect for the right of other academics to speak out. In exercising academic freedom academics need to be clear they are speaking on their own behalf, not on the behalf of their employer. Academic freedom is a different right than the right to free speech held by all citizens. Free speech is the right to speak the truth about the world in general (it is not limited to one's specific discipline expertise) and it may be limited by one's job role. For example a marketing manager in a company cannot publically criticise the company's marketing strategy whereas an academic, using academic freedom rights, may publically express concern over the quality of teaching in the course in which s/he teaches. Academic freedom rights are actually stronger than free speech rights. Despite this, academic freedom rights have been gradually eroded over the past decades. We see this firstly in external determination of curriculum. In the past what was taught to students was determined by academics themselves and this was considered entirely appropriate as they were the experts in their area. Increasingly, external accreditation agencies are specifying content in courses. In conversation with a colleague recently, I was told that she was in significant trouble at her university because she was including material in her courses that required students to critique current ideologies. Given this was not part of the externally required curriculum she was facing a misconduct investigation. Universities are no longer places where extreme or outrageous ideas can be pursued, rather they are places where standard understandings are inculcated into students' thinking in order for them to promulgate these ideas after graduation. We also see erosion in academic freedom with increasing casualisation of the academic workforce. Across the country nearly 50% of the academic workforce is casualised or on fixed term contracts. Such staff risk their jobs should they speak ideas that contradict or challenge the system. When you are vulnerable and need your employers' approval to have your contract renewed, your ability to critique said employer is nonexistent. In the past academics employed in tenured positions received letters of appointment that made it clear that their position was theirs until retirement, unless they were guilty of exceptional moral turpitude or the employer was experiencing exceptional financial circumstances. Today employment contracts do not offer this level of security, even for ongoing staff. Recent rounds of redundancies at UNE demonstrate that justifications needed to justify redundancy are no longer as rigorous despite UNE possessing good redundancy clauses in the academic enterprise agreement. We need to fight for academic freedom: it is the foundation of our democracy and if we let it slip we are putting our nation's future at risk. Without the freedom to critique we are simply drones unthinkingly following an agenda that is imposed upon us.
With the federal election likely to be announced for July 2 it is important to look at the implic... more With the federal election likely to be announced for July 2 it is important to look at the implications for higher education, particularly given that UNE is the largest employer in Armidale. The health of the town is thus to some extent dependent on the health of the university. Whilst there are often divisions between 'town and gown,' now is the time to think about how we are inter-dependant. Let's explore the background. In 2014 and 2015 the federal government proposed funding cuts of around $1.9 billion dollars to the higher education sector, coupled with a proposal to deregulate the higher education market to enable universities to recover these funds by charging students higher fees (I talked about deregulation in my last column). This resulted in the " No $100k degrees " campaign which opposed both the cuts and deregulation. The legislation to put these in place was voted down for a second time in March 2015 through the support of Independent senators Nick Xenophon, Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus, Ricky Muir from the Motoring Enthusiasts Party, and Palmer United Party senator Dio Wang. In contrast, Family First senator Bob Day, Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, and independent senator John Madigan voted in favour of the bill. After Pyne stood down from his position as Minister for Education and Training and Abbott stood down from his position as Prime Minister, things went silent for a while in higher education politics. However, in April 2016 the Federal Education Minister, Minister Simon Birmingham, confirmed that the coalition Government is still committed the previous proposals, couching them in terms of reforms rather than as funding cuts. The aim of these reforms is to shift more of the cost of higher education to students themselves and reduce the level of state funding. However, the 2016/7 budget announced that fee deregulation has been postponed, at least for this year, so that universities, despite being chronically underfunded, will not this year experience the significant cuts that had been proposed. Changes to the repayment threshold for student loans are still on the table as are interest rates for student debt and the special funding allocated to enable students who are disadvantaged access higher education will be halved by 2019-2020. The government higher education agenda and reforms have already led to cuts in funding for TAFE, with a resultant loss of courses, less face to face teaching time and an increase in TAFE fees. Our own TAFE New England is one of those identified as potentially at risk in the government's plan to sell off up to 27 TAFE sites across NSW. Courses could potentially be transferred to other sites or studied online using web and video conferencing. Clearly should such a move eventuate there are major implications for the town. I wrote in my last column about the Americanisation of higher education. Last year we showed the film Ivory Tower in Armidale (see http://www.nteu.org.au/ivorytower/). This film explains how universities in America, forced to follow a business model in order to survive, have increased fees. This has led to a massive increase in student debt to the point where many cannot afford a university education, and the value of a university education is being questioned, particularly as student debt, if not paid in a student's lifetime, is passed on to surviving family members. Unfortunately, Australia is following the same pathway. Student debt in Australia is predicted to reach 46.3% of our public debt by 2025 – 26. Tuition fees for higher education in Australia are amongst the highest in the OECD, and whilst the government does provide a subsidy to help students pay these fees, this subsidy is not as generous as it is in New Zealand and it is unnecessary in countries such as Germany, Finland and Sweden where students are charged minimal or no tuition fees at all. We all have to think seriously about the kind of higher education we want as we move into the period of election campaigning. There are issues around the purpose of education (do we want graduates who are taught how to operate in an acceptable manner within each profession/industry or do we want graduates who have been taught to question, to think for themselves?) and there are issues about the way education is offered in our town (what are the risks we will see less students living in our area in order to gain a higher education
Whilst around 30% of Australians live in regional areas, these areas contribute 40% of Australia'... more Whilst around 30% of Australians live in regional areas, these areas contribute 40% of Australia's total economic output. The 6 regional universities making up the RUN Network (Central Queensland, Federation, and Southern Cross Universities, and the Universities of Sunshine Coast, Southern Queensland and New England) provide more than 14,000 full-time equivalent jobs, and contribute over $2.1 billion in gross domestic product. These universities teach about 110,000 students which amounts to about 9% of all Australian public university students and a greater proportion of regional and Indigenous students than any of the other Australian universities. For many years RUN universities have argued that students who are taught in the regions tend to stay in the regions. A recent study supported this as it was found that 60-80% of RUN graduates were employed in regional Australia. This is important because not only do the regions benefit from the skills and knowledge contributed by RUN graduates, there is evidence that for every 1000 university graduates employed in an area, 120 new jobs are created for employees without a university qualification. Many of the students attending RUN universities are the first members of their family to attend university. Certainly there is a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds attending (and graduating from) RUN universities indicating the important contribution RUN universities make towards social inclusion and educational equality. Why is the information about RUN universities important? Because we need to think carefully about the contribution UNE and New England TAFE make to the Armidale community as we move towards the elections. For Australia to grow and prosper, we need to see an understanding of, and commitment to, RUN universities and to our local TAFEs. Without that commitment we are heading towards an American model of higher education where ability to gain a degree depends more on the financial status of your family than it does on your own ability; where lack of finance ensures a lifetime of disadvantage that is transmitted to the next generation with no hope of being able to improve. What impacts on UNE and on TAFE impacts on our community. Proposed funding cuts to the higher education sector will not only impact on employment opportunities at the university, they will also impact on the ability of UNE employees and their families to spend money in local shops, to retain local tradies to do work on their properties, and on their ability to join the housing market at all. It will impact on their ability to participate in community events, their time available to train their child's sports team, and their ability to support their child's school. Increased fees for students will limit the number of students who can afford to leave home and come to Armidale to study; on the number of students seeking accommodation in town and spending money in town. Many students, particularly regional students, will not be able to access higher education, and those who can, are more likely to remain at home and study online, further reducing the number of students in town. Armidale is an education city but if we decrease our regional students' ability to participate in higher education we may well become a has-been city. Higher education is a crucial part of a healthy nation, and a key factor in addressing social disadvantage and inequality. We need to fight for higher education as it is inextricably linked to our city's wellbeing.
I find it really interesting that in the same month that The Australian published an article abou... more I find it really interesting that in the same month that The Australian published an article about the Human Rights Law Centre's claim that democracy in Australia faces a " corrosive decline, " I came across an interview with Professor Noam Chomsky (which took place on 31 January this year) where Chomsky argues that these kinds of actions are the consequence of a generation of neoliberal policies aimed at undermining democracy. For those who do not know him, Chomsky is often called the father of modern linguistics, but more importantly in this context, he is a famous political commentator who has the kudos of having earned a place on President Nixon's list of Enemies. In Australia the Human Rights Law Centre report argues that a range of federal and state laws are aimed at limiting community advocacy, restricting peaceful protest, limiting press freedom and attacking whistleblowers. Chomsky argues that the underpinning rationale that leads to these kinds of actions arises from the neoliberal agenda which aims to mould citizens to accept, and not question, the views and policies of the elite. The elite are those whose power and wealth drive the political system (and we see this so clearly at the moment as America experiences the run-up to the presidential elections). In many countries around the world we see the gap between those who are advantaged and those who are not increasing dramatically. The growing discontent of those who are disadvantaged is focused by propaganda onto groups other than the elite themselves. Donald Trump's campaign strategy of focusing discontent onto migrants is an example of this kind of process (in our sane moments would we really think it is a good idea to build a " great wall " between the US and Mexico, and even if we did think it a good idea, how would this act to block unauthorised migration to the US via Mexico?). Chomsky argues that this focusing of discontent onto groups OTHER than the advantaged, who are actually the ones responsible for maintaining and increasing the growing inequity, is a deliberate strategy. He says: " The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people ". Unfortunately such strategies are working. We see Trump moving from strength to strength as Americans, educated under a neoliberal agenda where they have been taught to accept their roles as compliant citizens, are happy to accept the propaganda delivered to them. Citizens who have learned to become consumers, obsessed with owning and using the latest technology, sitting in isolation in their own homes and connecting through social media don't understand what is going on around them and are easily gulled into accepting the messages coming to them from their twitter and other social media feeds. Ideally the role of education should be enlightenment. In Chomsky's words, education should " encourage creative exploration, independence of thought, willingness to cross frontiers, challenge accepted beliefs ". However, rather than this we have another form of education which is closer to indoctrination, where " from childhood young people have to be placed into a framework where they will follow orders that are quite explicit. " In order to achieve this " schools and universities had to increase measures toward more control; imposing more debt to capture students into conformity ". Over the past generations we have sown the wind: we are now reaping the whirlwind.
I've just been reading a great book (thanks Ros for the recommendation) by Alvesson and Spicer ca... more I've just been reading a great book (thanks Ros for the recommendation) by Alvesson and Spicer called The Stupidity Paradox: the power and pitfalls of functional stupidity at work. The authors argue that even though we have a focus on knowledge organisations, and there is a lot of talk about the knowledge economy (Turnbull talks about the Knowledge Nation, and seeks the best minds to respond intelligently and creatively to the digital revolution) the reality is that most organisations, even those who classify themselves as knowledge intensive, have very few people who act with intelligence. For example, even in organisations such as universities, the majority of staff spend most of their time following rules, doing what they are told and what is popular at the time; work that focuses on " discipline, order, mindless enthusiasm, conformity and a willingness to be seduced by the most ludicrous ideas " (Dillon, 2016). Staff who ask questions, or critique what goes on are often pulled into line by their colleagues and managers. How often have you heard something along the lines of: " for goodness sake keep quiet and let's just get this over with. Don't make it more difficult for the rest of us. " In reality staff who ask questions are seen as troublemakers and it does not take an intelligent person long to realise that asking questions is going to limit promotion opportunities and may lead (certainly for contract or casual staff) to limiting their future employment chances. In reality, what puts people on the promotion path is a portrayal of certainty and confidence in fulfilling the expected role: the unquestioning neoliberal citizen in action. The authors give the example of Nokia, once one of the leading mobile phone companies in the world. Management of Nokia recognised the threat inherent in the release of the first iphone and devoted a year to developing a mobile platform senior management believed would compete. Nearly all of middle management identified very early that the platform was flawed, but were seduced into not questioning this investment because of the strong requirement for compliance and positive thinking coming from senior management. As we all know, the consequences for Nokia were extremely severe and the company was ultimately taken over by Microsoft. Leaders themselves are influenced by this culture of stupidity. In universities, for example, the majority of leaders are actually managers, tasked with implementing and monitoring policy to ensure compliance. Most university management positions consist mostly of administrative work. Many universities now consist of more administrative staff than staff involved in teaching and/or research and Dillon suggests that this means " the purpose of higher education is not so much education and research as the administration of the same. " The consequences for students' learning is, as could be expected, a decline in emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving, and an increase in ability to reproduce the accepted doctrine. One study in the US showed that after 4 years of study, 36% of 2,300 undergraduate students across 29 colleges demonstrated no improvement in their ability to think or analyse problems. So how do we discourage stupidity and conformity at work? The authors suggest for every discussion someone is appointed to take on the role of devil's advocate: questioning assumptions and making sure that decisions are justified. They suggest before implementing a project staff reflect on all that could possibly go wrong and prepare how to prevent these things from happening. Finally they suggest the need to identify and eliminate meaningless and empty ideas: ideas that are corporate-speak but do not actually achieve anything.
In my last few columns I have moved away from directly talking about neoliberalism and concentrat... more In my last few columns I have moved away from directly talking about neoliberalism and concentrated instead on the higher education policies arising from a neoliberal perspective, particularly pertinent as we have a forthcoming election. However, today I want to move back to a closer analysis of neoliberalism and its impact on the lives of young students. At its most fundamental neoliberalism focuses on the importance of individual choice, minimising the role of the state and maximising the role of the market. For young people this focus has made the transition into adulthood much more difficult. Access to higher education for young people today is heavily dependent on their family's finances, and the alternative, getting a job after completing secondary school is difficult because of rising unemployment rates. Unemployment and underemployment mean that it is difficult for many to find jobs that pay well enough to enable them to leave home and live independently, particularly when their access to benefits to fill their income gap is limited by family income. These factors have resulted in increasing the length of the youth phase of life and delaying the transition to adulthood (the assumption here is that adulthood is attained when a person is financially independent), and in a time of decreasing funding going to higher education, that means decreasing the number of regional students who cannot afford to leave home to come and live in Armidale and study at university or TAFE. At the same time young people have been reared in a society that emphasises individual choice and individual responsibility for the consequences of their choices. This can be overwhelming as young people face choices where they do not understand all the options, nor understand all the consequences (Is it better to do a uni or a TAFE qualification? Should I have a gap year? Do I follow the things in which I am interested or do I focus on training for a particular job even if I don't really like it very much? Do I leave home and try and support myself or do I stay home even though the education opportunities are more limited?) Making your own choice and accepting the consequences is a key factor of neoliberal thinking. However for many young people, this type of thinking prevents them from understanding that there are limitations on their lives and consequences they face that are neither of their making nor acceptable. Take a young man who chooses nursing as a career. He is likely to face discrimination and hear negative comments about his sexuality and himself as a person on a daily basis because of his gender atypical career choice. A neoliberal education prompts our young man to accept this as a normal consequence of his choice (one young man said of his nursing career: " It's unmanly. That's what I hear all the time, that's just how it is. ") This point of view prevents young people from standing up and identifying this kind of behaviour as unacceptable and there is plenty of research that tells us that if we do not speak out or stand up against a wrong then that wrong becomes a right. Neoliberalism is creating a world where systemic wrongs are perceived as the natural consequences of an individual's choice and therefore they do not have to be addressed by anyone except the individual concerned. This is not a path that will lead us to a world where everyone can succeed to build the kind of life s/he wants. As an education city Armidale has a vested interest in ensuring all our young people can flourish. Neoliberalism puts that hope at risk.
Uploads
Papers by Margaret Sims
paper available at http://www.sciaeon.org/sociology-insights/articles-in-press
Chomsky today sees this as the greatest threat to democracy. Education is particularly targeted by the neoliberal state because potentially, as educators, we can teach children to think critically, and as adults, critical thinkers are positioned as problems, not resources. Neoliberalism has a devastating impact on the early childhood sector with its focus on standardisation, push-down curriculum and its positioning of children as investments for future economic productivity. Conversely,
the growing push for professionalisation of early childhood creates demands for discretionary decision-making that is in tension with the top-down compliance requirements of neoliberalism. In this paper, I present the ways in which neoliberalism impacts the early childhood sector, and call for early childhood professionals to engage in active resistance. Active resistance can take different forms and I discuss
some of these. As educators, we have an obligation to both think and act critically and fight for a world where democracy flourishes and where all children have equal opportunities to participate, to shine and to be happy; thus, I argue we have a responsibility to resist the key impacts of neoliberalism.
Pre-published version. Published in the Armidale Express Extra, 20 July 2016, p7
The Australian Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011 require that universities promote and protect free intellectual inquiry and expression in learning, teaching and research activities. The idea of academic freedom has for generations been the cornerstone of university life. Student activism saw students joining the largest ever demonstration in human history when, on 15 February 2003, they joined in the anti-war protestors protesting against the war in Iraq, and later ran their own Books not Bombs protest on March 5. One of the greatest living academic activists is Noam Chomsky who wrote his anti-war essay The Responsibility of Intellectuals in 1967as part of his outspoken protest against US involvement in the war in Vietnam, and consequently won a place on President Nixon’s list of public enemies.
Intellectual freedom, or more generally freedom of expression is recognised as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is recognised in international human rights law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Article 19 states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". However it is important to note that the along with these rights comes "special duties and responsibilities" which may mean that the right needs to be exercised based on “respect of the rights or reputation of others" or “the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
This means that human rights law identifies intellectual freedom as not limitless; that the exercise of freedom of expression needs to take into account the wellbeing of other people, public order, public wellbeing and national security. Here is where the influence of neoliberalism is currently being played out. Increasingly we are seeing that criticism of organisations is being considered as inappropriate because this criticism impacts on, presumably, public order, health or morals.
The most recent case in point is that of Ros Ward, Co-ordinator of the Safe Schools Project at La Trobe University. In June of this year Roz made a comment on social media about the ‘racist Australian flag’. Management at La Trobe considered this comment an attack on the good name of the University and suspended her (Roz was re-instated 2.5 days later after a storm of protest). This suspension was the culmination of months of media and political attention focusing on Roz’s work. The Safe Schools Project aims to address bullying, homophobia and transphobia in schools, an initiative that has been strongly criticised by the some Coalition MPs who claimed it raised sexual issues inappropriate to discuss with young children and teenagers. Was this sustained political pressure behind the decision to suspect Roz for her social media comment? No-one is admitting this of course.
However the actions of the university highlight a growing problem: the neoliberal agenda focuses on turning universities into corporate businesses which brings along with it an obsession with ‘brand’. The consequences of this for freedom of expression are now evident. In responding to the Roz Ward story, Dr Long, the Victorian Secretary of the NTEU, said: “the obsession with brand means that universities like La Trobe are trashing what should be the basis of their reputations – intellectual freedom.” If our academics and students cannot express dissent, what is the future for our country? And how will Armidale change if academics and students are increasingly muzzled?
paper available at http://www.sciaeon.org/sociology-insights/articles-in-press
Chomsky today sees this as the greatest threat to democracy. Education is particularly targeted by the neoliberal state because potentially, as educators, we can teach children to think critically, and as adults, critical thinkers are positioned as problems, not resources. Neoliberalism has a devastating impact on the early childhood sector with its focus on standardisation, push-down curriculum and its positioning of children as investments for future economic productivity. Conversely,
the growing push for professionalisation of early childhood creates demands for discretionary decision-making that is in tension with the top-down compliance requirements of neoliberalism. In this paper, I present the ways in which neoliberalism impacts the early childhood sector, and call for early childhood professionals to engage in active resistance. Active resistance can take different forms and I discuss
some of these. As educators, we have an obligation to both think and act critically and fight for a world where democracy flourishes and where all children have equal opportunities to participate, to shine and to be happy; thus, I argue we have a responsibility to resist the key impacts of neoliberalism.
Pre-published version. Published in the Armidale Express Extra, 20 July 2016, p7
The Australian Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011 require that universities promote and protect free intellectual inquiry and expression in learning, teaching and research activities. The idea of academic freedom has for generations been the cornerstone of university life. Student activism saw students joining the largest ever demonstration in human history when, on 15 February 2003, they joined in the anti-war protestors protesting against the war in Iraq, and later ran their own Books not Bombs protest on March 5. One of the greatest living academic activists is Noam Chomsky who wrote his anti-war essay The Responsibility of Intellectuals in 1967as part of his outspoken protest against US involvement in the war in Vietnam, and consequently won a place on President Nixon’s list of public enemies.
Intellectual freedom, or more generally freedom of expression is recognised as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is recognised in international human rights law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Article 19 states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". However it is important to note that the along with these rights comes "special duties and responsibilities" which may mean that the right needs to be exercised based on “respect of the rights or reputation of others" or “the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
This means that human rights law identifies intellectual freedom as not limitless; that the exercise of freedom of expression needs to take into account the wellbeing of other people, public order, public wellbeing and national security. Here is where the influence of neoliberalism is currently being played out. Increasingly we are seeing that criticism of organisations is being considered as inappropriate because this criticism impacts on, presumably, public order, health or morals.
The most recent case in point is that of Ros Ward, Co-ordinator of the Safe Schools Project at La Trobe University. In June of this year Roz made a comment on social media about the ‘racist Australian flag’. Management at La Trobe considered this comment an attack on the good name of the University and suspended her (Roz was re-instated 2.5 days later after a storm of protest). This suspension was the culmination of months of media and political attention focusing on Roz’s work. The Safe Schools Project aims to address bullying, homophobia and transphobia in schools, an initiative that has been strongly criticised by the some Coalition MPs who claimed it raised sexual issues inappropriate to discuss with young children and teenagers. Was this sustained political pressure behind the decision to suspect Roz for her social media comment? No-one is admitting this of course.
However the actions of the university highlight a growing problem: the neoliberal agenda focuses on turning universities into corporate businesses which brings along with it an obsession with ‘brand’. The consequences of this for freedom of expression are now evident. In responding to the Roz Ward story, Dr Long, the Victorian Secretary of the NTEU, said: “the obsession with brand means that universities like La Trobe are trashing what should be the basis of their reputations – intellectual freedom.” If our academics and students cannot express dissent, what is the future for our country? And how will Armidale change if academics and students are increasingly muzzled?