But I find Lynch's letter confusing. If others criticise his choices, is that "a political attack on freedom of expression" or an exercise of their freedom of expression? Do members of his staff have freedom of association, even if that means breaching his boycott to work with an Israeli?
And suppose the academic board of the university were to review the merit of having a research centre that subordinates truth-seeking to political rhetoric: would that be an attack on his freedom, or an exercise of their freedom, or just a logical consequence of the free choices he makes?
James McDonald, Annandale, NSW
JAKE Lynch accuses opposition frontbenchers of "a political attack on (his) freedom of expression". Yet he has no qualms about the most egregious attacks on political freedom: banning from his centre an Israeli academic, thereby engaging in political censorship, and supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, specifically designed to damage Jewish businesses for what he considers to be inadequacies in Israeli government policy.
And not content with mounting attacks on political and economic freedoms, he justifies them on racial grounds. In democracies, freedom of political discourse must always be defended; racism and censorship should always be denounced. But in Lynch's world, it appears the opposite is true.
Christopher Pyne, Opposition spokesman for education
George Brandis, Opposition spokesman for attorney-general
JAKE Lynch shows it does not take brains to be called an academic these days. It takes skill at politically correct postulations and a belief in being as sycophantic as possible to those one is crawling up to.
In his letter he accuses the opposition of attacking freedom of expression but apparently has forgotten this is exactly what he is trying to enforce on people from Israel.
Maybe he is fishing for a job with the Greens. I have no idea how pointing someone out as an enemy encourages peace, but I am no academic.
Graham Gordon Thomas, Kadina, SA
YOUR editorial ("Ugliness lurks in the cloisters", 11/12) says what has long needed to be said by those who retain the notion of a university being a bastion of scholarship with the freedom to express and exchange ideas, especially those that challenge prevailing orthodoxy.
Your suggestion that Sydney University should act must be heeded before a virus of intolerance spreads to further damage its reputation.
John Kidd, Auchenflower, Qld
YOUR editorial is as ridiculous and misleading as your reporting. If my and the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement had anything to do with the
nationality of Dan Avnon, how come we have hosted recent talks by professors Ilan Pappe and Jeff Halper -- two prominent Israelis who appeared in a personal capacity?
You end by raising the red herring of a putative ban on Muslim scholars -- repeating, by implication, your imputation of anti-Jewish racism. If that was our motivation, how come we awarded last year's Sydney Peace Prize to Noam Chomsky, a prominent Jewish intellectual? How come we organised a well-attended talk a couple of years ago by Michael Lerner?
The boycott is of institutional links with Israeli universities. Your attempts to cloud that issue arise from an intention to intimidate those of us who take action in protest against Israeli policy, where governments refuse to do so.
Jake Lynch, director, Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Sydney University
No comments:
Post a Comment