Israel Folau: censorship is a measure of intolerance, one step from book burning

Two university cases, that of professors Peter Ridd of James Cook University and Regina Ganter of Griffith University, and the situation of rugby player Israel Folau are of great interest to those who wish to uphold progress.

I think of Ridd. He is not the only one with his views but would appear to have very few scientists as supporters. Let him have his say — it does no harm if it is wrong and, unlikely that it be, only good if he is right.

Folau is in a different class. He expresses views found in his holy book. He has many like-minded folk, but they are not famous rugby players.

If we believe in religious freedom, he certainly has the right to repeat what his holy book argues. His Old Testament words are also found in the Jewish religion and do not differ much from the Muslim religion. Do we ban all religious folk from playing sport?

I am not of the same mind as either of these two. In the case of Ridd, I am concerned with climate change and chair a specialist climate change section of the professional body for environmental practitioners, the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand.

And, with regard to Folau, I do not share his religious beliefs any more than I share those of others who do not treat all humans as equal.

While I was composing this short essay, I was also reading a recent book by Raewyn Connell, The Good University, published by Monash University Publishing. Raewyn is what is commonly called a leftie. She promotes herself as “a long-term participant in the labour and peace movements”.

I was taken by her opinion on what university students need to experience.

She writes that “real learning in university should be disturbing, because it challenges existing ideas — and that will often be unpleasant”. I guess this means no trigger warnings and no shouting down of speakers with opinions one disapproves of.

This brings me to Ganter’s case. Contrary to what some have suggested, she was not removed from her class by her university. She was more than willing to allow one of her juniors to teach the remainder of the subject.

My concern with her case is that a student believed he had the right to censor a lecturer; that is, to remove her from her class.

Equally troubling is that this student, in demanding that indigenous culture should not be taught by a non-indigenous person, is denying empathy. Without empathy, we are no longer human.

SOURCE