Civic Discussion, Ideological Diversity and the Humanities Classroom

The issue of political polarisation and bias in classrooms is a time-honoured one, having been an issue as old as the profession itself. Students, parents and the community, at times understandably, have been weary of teachers being biased and partial in the way they approach contentious issues in the classroom. These concerns are particularly relevant in Humanities classrooms, which deals extensively with societal issues and debates. Recent political events, including elections and terrorist attacks and the resulting divisive discussions and rhetoric, have only further enhanced these issues and concerns. As Humanities teachers, it is crucial that we naviagate these issues with students in an even-handed, calm and thoughtful manner.

Such concerns around ideological diversity and debate in classrooms have been heightened for a number of reasons. One of these are widely-reported  protests on college and university campuses across Western countries, Australia included, in which speakers are de-platformed, shouted down or otherwise prevented from speaking freely. Ongoing research has shown that there is a lack of ideological diversity on campuses. A report from Heterodox Academy, an organisation led by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt which seeks to increase ideological diversity in academia, shows just how pervasive the problem is. Data shows from the report shows that at some colleges, there is a ratio of more than 10 faculty members identifying as liberal or left-of-centre for every conservative or right-of-centre member of faculty. Although less often mentioned, there is also a problem with ideological diversity in primary and secondary classrooms.

When teaching Humanities subjects at a Secondary level, it is important to remain impartial and not push an agenda onto students. As teachers, we are rightly mindful of diversity in terms of gender, race and so on. At times, however, the profession fails to promote ideological diversity. Too often, classrooms can resemble echo chambers, where only a narrow set of views and opinions are discussed and explored. There are a few reasons why this is the case. One of the main reasons for this, unsurprisingly, is that school classrooms generally reflect the ideological viewpoints of the community in which they are situated (Hess, 2009, p.6). By extension, teachers may, without realising, internalise the dominant viewpoints of the school community in which they are a part of.

In order to cultivate ideological diversity in the classroom, at a minimum, clear, effective and strong principles of classroom and behaviour management must be implemented. Students speaking and voicing an opinion must be able to talk uninterrupted, even when raising points which may go against the consensus thinking of the classroom or may be controversial in some way. It is also essential to model to students how to respond, in terms of what constitutes and appropriate and inappropriate response to challenging ideas. It must be made abundantly clear, for example, that personal insults or denigration are completely unacceptable and that clear consequences will occur for students who violate this basic classroom expectation.

In order to do this effectively, a significant level of introspection and critical reflection on our teaching practice, particularly our manner of communication is necessary. At times, this will require also reflecting on our own belief systems, political beliefs and so on. Research has found that teachers who are willing to explore confrontational and controversial issues with students implicitly encourage students to do likewise (Hess, p.6). In order to teach students the skill of civil discussion on complex and contentious issues and encourage diverse viewpoints on them we as teachers must model these behaviours ourselves. This means conducting ourselves in a professional manner, not only in the classroom but in other avenues where such topics may come up, such as social media. In the same way we must avoid our classrooms becoming merely ideological echo chambers, we must avoid falling into similar habits when discussing contentious issues online or in person outside the classroom.


Australia- United States relations and the Trump Administration

Australia’s foreign policy is currently in a precarious position. It is in a delicate position at the best of times, firstly having to balance many competing interests and nations in a complex South-East Asian region. There is also the issue of maintaining deep ties in trade between the United States and China, the two most powerful nations in the world who have in many ways opposite interests. The election of Donald Trump and his subsequent rhetoric on several issues, particularly on international trade and security arrangements as well as his positions on institutions such as the United Nations and NATO has caused many nations around the world to re-evaluate their relations with the United States. Australia is no exception to this speculation, despite being historically tied closely with the US. Since the election, there have been widespread calls for Australia’s government to closely re-evaluate the relationship with the United States.

These potential differences have become much more clear in recent days, in a temperamental phone conversation between Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The call, scheduled for an hour, ended after just 25 minutes. According to the Washington Post, the main point of contention between the two leaders during the call was a refugee deal brokered at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency. This deal involved 1250 refugees being taken in by America that are currently being held in Australia. Though neither Trump nor Turnbull would elaborate on the allegations, the report gives an indication that some of the norms of the Australian-US partnership may no longer be a given.

Aside from this conversation, there have been other indications that Australia is willing to part with the United States on key issues, such as international trade. Just days after inauguration, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade deal. In keeping with Trump’s promise for an ‘America First’ approach to trade, Trump appears to be reviewing all of America’s trade deals. By contrast, Turnbull is pushing hard to keep the TPP alive, willing to re-negotiate the deal even with America’s withdrawl. He has reached out to key nations such as China and Japan in order to salvage a deal, despite indications that a United States withdrawal would lead to the TPP being scrapped altogether. Reaching out to China is another move which will likely cause a clash with the Trump administration, given the administration’s trade policies toward China.

These disagreements suggest that Turnbull is heading toward a foreign policy agenda which, while still valuing the United States as a close ally, is willing to disagree and clash on issues. There is, of course, a long history of deep economic and security ties between the two nations. Despite Trump’s early actions, this is unlikely to fundamentally change. It is likely that unlike previous American administrations, the Trump administration will have to be dealt with on an issue-to-issue basis. Unlike his predecessors, Trump does not agree with every aspect of the world order as it currently stands. This is particularly true on the issue of trade and to a lesser extent to security arrangements. There will inevitably be conflicts as Australia, as with every other nation, comes to terms with the Trump administration and its approach to governance.

2016 US Election -Donald Trump as US President

Donald Trump is the new President of the United States. This statement, thought impossible by most political pundits, pollsters, journalists as well as much of the Western world, has come true. In what some commentators and political websites are describing as the biggest political upset in American history, Trump defied the odds and has become the new POTUS.

As outsiders observing the US election from afar, it can seem perplexing at first glance to see Trump elected as POTUS. Unlike traditional presidential candidates, his policy details are often lacking, sometimes even incoherent. He has been embroiled in innumerable personal controversies which seemingly would have disqualified other candidates from being in the conversation as a serious candidate for POTUS. I am among those who think that Donald Trump is not a worthy candidate for POTUS for these reasons (for what it’s worth, I think the same of Hillary Clinton). Despite this, it is important to note the context for how a candidate as deeply flawed as Donald Trump managed to become POTUS. Only by taking a serious, measured look at these circumstances can the necessary lessons be learned to ensure another candidate as inept and unqualified as Donald Trump does not get elected POTUS.

Firstly, despite a level of recovery since the financial crisis of 2008, many Americans are still in a precarious economic situation. Half of all Americans have no savings at all, and 70% of Americans have less than a thousand dollars in the bank. Whilst Americans in metropolitan centres have largely resumed living at a pre-crisis standard, this has not been the case in rural America, which Trump virtually swept in the final vote. Jobs are scarce and opportunity to advance in life is even more scarce. The rural/city divide extends to cultural issues. In rural America, people felt alienated and forgotten, lacking control over their lives. In many instances, these Trump voters had voted for Obama four and eight years ago. Despite this, having felt ignored by the current administration and the nation at large, they felt no other option but to vote for Trump, despite often having reservations about specific policy issues and his personal character.

The big question now is what exactly a Trump administration will look like. His presidential campaign was based on challenging Republican policy orthodoxy, particularly on key issues such as trade, immigration and America’s place in the world. In all these instances, Trump won the rhetorical debate first against the Republican establishment and ultimately the voters. On trade, Trump promised to put America first, including promises to rip up or renegotiate trade deals as well as taking measures to prevent jobs from leaving the country. On immigration, Trump has argued against current immigration levels and has promised to build a wall along the southern border of the United States to help deal with illegal immigration from the Mexican border. Trump has also repudiated America’s role as the world’s foremost power on international issues, particularly in relation to issues such as the Middle East and Russian involvement throughout Eastern Europe. This is in sharp contrast to the neoconservative doctrine which has been a GOP staple since the presidency of George W Bush.

Whether Trump will firstly follow through on these specific policies or policy directions and whether he can make significant reform in these areas remains to be seen. Throughout the Republican Primary and the general election, Trump has taken several different positions on a variety of issues, including cornerstone issues of his campaign such as immigration and trade. Many of his policies, including many of his proposals on tax are either unworkable or would require significant adjustment to be feasible. Other proposals which Trump has raised, particularly in relation to combating terrorism would be in violation of the United States Constitution. Examples of these include his proposals for torture and to place a blanket ban on Muslim immigration from the Middle East.  More importantly, despite the Republican Party having a majority in both the Senate and Congress, he may face significant opposition to many of his proposals. Many Republicans in both the Senate and Congress are opposed to Trump ideologically and may vote against his policies on a variety of issues.

From an Australian perspective, a Trump presidency could have significant ramifications for the Australia-United States alliance. Trade deals will likely have to be re-negotiated, quite possibly on terms less favourable for Australia. On significant geopolitical issues, such as the ongoing situation with China, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric toward China, if followed through in policy and action, would leave Australia in a particularly precarious position. Australia has major trade ties with China despite being allied closely with the United States and were America to engage in a trade war or a military conflict over the South China Sea, to name two examples, Australia would be in a severely compromised position, being obligated to side with America in these circumstances. So far, the Australian Government has been diplomatic and insisted relations with the United States will not change. It is hard to imagine, however, if Trump is serious about his positions on international relations, how a reworking of the Australian-American alliance will not occur.

Racial Discrimination Act, 18c and the free speech debate

The debate around the Racial Discrimination Act, specifically section 18c, has been a hotly debated topic in Australian politics for an extensive period of time. The issue has once again come into the spotlight in recent weeks as backbench Coalition senators have again raised the issue, citing 18c specifically as having a ‘chilling’ effect on free speech. Section 18c, among other things, declares unlawful ‘offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin’. One recent case in particular has re-energised conservative members of the Coalition in repealing Section 18c. The case in question involves a former employee at the University of Queensland Technology suing the university and students at the school. The incident in question occurred in 2013, when the employee removed students from a computer lab designated for Indigenous students. The students then took to Facebook to complain about the incident. The posts made by the students were deemed racially offensive by the employee and sought damages totalling nearly $250,000. Three years later, the case is still yet to be resolved.

Supporters of the law argue that Section 18c is a necessary component of the Racial Discrimination Act, on grounds of alleviating racial abuse and discrimination and as a way of curtailing hateful speech towards minorities. On the issue of potentially curtailing free speech, advocates for 18c cite the following provision, 18d, as a counter-argument against these concerns. 18d states that ‘18c does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith’. For supporters of the current legislation, the combination of both Section 18c and 18d of the Racial Discrimination Act strike the balance between protecting minorities against racial vilification and maintaining freedom of speech.

The desire to eliminate racial discrimination and vilification is, of course, a noble and worthy goal. No sensible person would argue otherwise. However, the current manner in which Section 18c is written, as well as cases such as the aforementioned case, can at times cause unintended consequences and potentially stifles discussion on sensitive issues. In particular, the terms ‘offend and insult’ within the wording of 18c can be stifling. Acting New South Wales Supreme Court Justice Ronald Sackville AO argues that this wording requires amendment. He cites Section 2A of the Racial Discrimination Act as being a legal safeguard against racially hateful actions. Section 18c and 18d, he argues, are vague and subjective in their wording, making establishing an objective and consistent legal standard for what is permissible and what isn’t permissible impossible. As a result, he argues, free speech is compromised, as there isn’t currently an objective standard to what could be considered as insulting or offensive.   Although the issue of amending the law is primarily favoured by right-leaning politicians and commentators, support for amendment can also be found among the Left, for this reason. Prominent progressive lawyers and commentators such as Julian Burnside, David Marr and Phillip Adams all support reform of the legislation on grounds of it stifling freedom of speech.

The issue of the Racial Discrimination Act and 18c in particular will likely not be a priority for the Coalition in the near future, with Malcolm Turnbull ruling out any amendment for the time being. The Act is a source of discontent for many backbenchers within the Government, however, and the broader debate of free speech and racially sensitive issues is one which will not go away. When the time comes that the Racial Discrimination Act is put forth for amendment, a mature, nuanced and comprehensive debate is required. A complex, sensitive piece of legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act requires careful examination of all the potential legal ramifications and precedents.

South China Sea Dispute

Historical Context

The South and East China seas have long been a source of dispute between China and surrounding nations, including Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan. Disputes on territory have been ongoing since as far back as the late nineteenth century, with a dispute over the Diaoyu and Senkakus Islands during the Sino-Japanese war of 1894. More recently, China’s claims to territory in the region rest on what China has termed the ‘Nine-Dash Line’, an area within the South China Sea marked by nine dashes (See Figure 1). These dashes were first put on a map by the Chinese in 1947. Much of the territory within the dashes is disputed among several nations.

Figure 1: Map highlighting the disputed area (Source:


The region is an important area in a geopolitcal sense, for several reasons. The area serves as an important trade route and is important both for exports and the importation of essential raw materials and fuels for the countries in this region. It is one of the major economic corridors of the world, with a myriad of nations using this area to pass through.

The UN Ruling on the dispute

Recently, the already tense situation surrounding the South China Sea became escalated further. A United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling on territorial claims between the Philippines and China ruled almost exclusively in favour of the Philippines and against China. The ruling found that China’s claims to territory in the region were unfounded under international law. As much of the maritime territory China was claiming were rocks, low tide elevations and submerged banks, not islands, China was not entitled to claim the territory surrounding these geographical features. This is an important distinction legally, as these geographical features only carry with them a right to the surrounding 12-mile radius is territory. Islands, on the other hand, entitle the claimant to the surrounding 200-mile radius of territory. The ruling therefore strongly undermines China’s claim to territory in the area. Though a favourable decision towards the Philippines was anticipated by many experts on the region, the extent to which China’s claims were dismissed by The Hague has taken many by surprise.

Australian Interests in the dispute

Australia, as a close trading partner of most of the nations involved in the dispute, as well as a close ally of the United States, which is strongly opposed to China’s increasingly assertive stance in the region, finds itself in a precarious position. This has been exacerbated by a scathing editorial in Chinese state newspaper The Global Times which harshly denounced Australia’s position on the ruling. The paper labelled Australia a ‘paper cat’ and took aim at Australia’s ‘inglorious history’, making reference to Australia’s colonial past, among other things. The paper argued that Australia, by voicing ‘delirious’ support for The Hague’s ruling, was making itself a ‘pioneer of hurting China’s interest’.

Though The Global Times has a relatively small circulation in China, the fact that this rhetoric came from a government-ran media source is cause for concern from an Australian standpoint. As the dispute escalates, Australia will at some point have to take some action and stake a definitive stance on the issue. Though Australia is not a direct player in the dispute, the region is still important from an Australian strategic perspective. As is the case for the countries geographically adjacent to the South China Sea, Australia has economic interests in the South China Sea remaining accessible and free from escalated conflict between regional interests. If tensions were to escalate further, one possible course of action for Australia could be to resume Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), similar to exercises the United States has performed in the recent past. Such an exercise would strike a balance between showing assertiveness on our part whilst also not being an excessive provocation toward China. Though China is an essential economic partner for Australia, it is unreasonable to expect Australia to neglect its own reasonable interests in the region in order to satisfy the Chinese’s demands in the South China Sea.

This dispute, along with the broader relationship between Australia and China as well as the United States in the region, is one of the key geopolitical issues of our time, despite it receiving relatively little media attention. As Australia further increases its engagement with the Asian region, issues such as these will become more and more important towards Australia’s foreign policy. A measured, yet assertive response from an Australian perspective, as outlined above, will go a long way in ensuring crucial economic partnerships are not impacted whilst Australian strategic interests are also upheld.



Turkey’s Failed Coup: An Analysis

During the early hours of the 16th July, 2016, an attempted military coup took place in Turkey. The coup attempt, which eventually failed, began with the Turkish army taking over the building of state broadcaster TRT as well as several other important government buildings in the Turkish capital city of Ankara. The army also concurrently seized control of bridges in Istanbul. With state media temporarily in the hands of the army, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan took to mobile online media to call on his supporters and the police to resist the coup. Erdogan’s supporters and the police quickly responded, mobilising against the coup. By mid-morning, the coup attempted had been effectively stopped, with hundreds of deaths and nearly 2000 people being injured in the process.

In the aftermath of the coup, President Erdogan has quickly arrested thousands of soldiers, generals, judges and government workers involved with the coup. Thousands more in government positions have lost their jobs for their involvement. There has also been speculation that Erdogan has been considering re-introducing the death penalty for those found to have been involved in the coup attempt. The speed in which the arrests and sackings have taken place have led some pundits and commentators to suggest that the coup was orchestrated or at least encouraged by Erdogan as a means of further consolidating power.

There is some merit to this view. Ever since Erdogan’s AKP (Justice and Development Party) took office in 2002, Turkey has drifted from being a relatively secular democracy to an increasingly authoritarian and Islamist state. In the last few years in particular, free speech and expression has been increasingly restricted in Turkish society, with social media access being intermittently cut off and media outlets such as The Daily Sabah being taken over by the government. The increasing slide towards Islamist authoritarianism and against secularism bears more than a passing resemblance to Iran in 1979. In that situation, Iran went through an Islamic revolution which removed a secular monarchist leadership. Though Erdogan has not removed a sitting government, by purging the secular military, one of Turkey’s few remaining independent institutions, he may take Turkey towards an entirely authoritarian, Islamist nation.

Unlike most other nations, the Turkish army is a separate entity from the government. This is an arrangement that has been in place for nearly a century, since the end of World War One. The founder of the modern Turkish Republic, Kemal Ataturk, set up the army as a means of safeguarding Turkey’s secular society as envisioned by Ataturk and was kept separate as a means of keeping the government of the day in check. Before the last attempted coup on the 16th July, Turkey had survived five previous coup attempts. As was the case in the latest attempt, the coups arose as a response to Turkey drifting from a secular state as Ataturk had envisioned into a more fundamentalist Islamic state, the type of which Erdogan has presided over during his reign as President.

The failed coup and its aftermath has widespread ramifications. Firstly, Turkey’s position as a NATO member is put into serious doubt. US Secretary of State John Kerry has warned as such, stating that Turkey needed to stay committed to ‘democratic principles’ in the wake of the attempted coup. Any future bid for Turkey to join the European Union is also far less likely in the wake of the attempted coup. The crackdown on the army, particularly its more secular elements also raises questions about Turkey’s reliability as a partner in the ongoing fight against the Islamic State. France’s foreign minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, argues that the coup raises questions about Turkey’s viability as an effective partner in the fight against ISIS. The current political instability in Turkey and the uncertainty about its security situation also complicates NATO efforts against ISIS. The use of key military bases is a primary concern. Bases such as Incirlik, which are close to the Syrian border are key to current efforts against ISIS. Another key split between Turkey and especially the United States is the Kurdish question. The Kurds and their fighting force, the Peshmerga, despite lacking equipment or the structure of a formal state, have been arguably the most important ground-based fighting force against ISIS. Despite this, Turkey views Kurdish groups such as the Peshmerga and the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) as both being terrorist organisations, in contrast to the United States, who see only the PKK as a terrorist organisation and the Peshmerga as a key ally. The latest coup attempt, Erdogan’s reaction and further slide into authoritarianism look set to only exacerbate these concerns, to the detriment of regional stability and security.

Brexit: What Happens Next?

Yesterday, the United Kingdom voted by a margin of 52% to 48% to leave the European Union (EU), ending a four-decade long membership with the EU. Immediately, global financial markets reacted negatively to the news of Britain’s decision. In the 24 hours following the result being announced, the pound lost value against every currency worldwide, including losing nearly 10% of its value against the Euro, a record loss for a single day of trade. The decision also quickly had political ramifications for both of Britain’s main political parties. Prime Minister David Cameron announced he would resign by October as a result of the decision. Meanwhile, the opposition Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn faces a no confidence motion following criticism for a lacklustre effort to campaign for the Remain vote.

Though the referendum result supported Leave, that is only the first step in a years-long process of EU withdrawl. In order for any process to begin, British parliament must first invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, formally notifying the EU of its intention of withdrawing from the European Union. Once this article is invoked, a two-year negotiation process between Britain and the EU begins. At the end of the two years, Britain leaves the EU with newly negotiated trade conditions offered to it. If Britain finds these unacceptable, it may extend the negotiating period if a majority of EU nations is willing to extend negotiations. If not, Britain could potentially leave the EU with unfavourable trade conditions. During the two years, EU regulations still apply to Britain, however Britain will have no say in European parliament.

The referendum results highlight a deeply divided UK. The Leave vote came primarily from regional areas and small towns, particularly within England and Wales. Large metropolitan areas, meanwhile, had the majority of the Remain vote. The Leave vote was the majority overall in England and Wales, while Northern Ireland and Scotland had a majority Remain vote. In addition, there was also a marked generational divide on the referendum vote. On the one hand, three-quarters of adults aged between 18 and 25 voted Remain. Conversely, a majority of voters over the age of 50 voted to Leave the EU. There is also a further divide between the level of education attained and voting preference. Analysis has shown those with a college education were more likely to vote Remain, compared to those who did not have a college education, who leaned towards Leave.

As well as leaving the European Union, Brexit may yet also result in the break-up of the United Kingdom as a whole. Immediately following the decision, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon argued that the decision to leave the EU was against the will of the Scottish people and that a new referendum on Scottish independence is necessary. Northern Ireland, which also voted in a majority for Remain, may also call for reunification with the Republic of Ireland, a EU member state. Sinn Fein, the oldest political party in Ireland, has called for a referendum on the issue along similar lines to those argued by Nicola Sturgeon of Scotland’s Scottish National Party.

These figures reflect a more widespread trend throughout Western nations. In the West, the divide between metropolitan and rural, tertiary educated and non-tertiary educated and generations has become more and more pronounced in recent years. This has manifested itself in a variety of ways, from widespread Euroskepticism and resurgent populism throughout Europe to the rise of political figures such as Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the United States. Britain’s decision to leave the European Union is the latest example of a more widespread discontent with the current state of politics and highlights the fragmentation and slow disintegration of the EU in general.

From an Australian perspective, Brexit will result in a short-term impact on global financial markets, including our own. Looking further into the future, its impact is more uncertain. In a previous piece I wrote on the topic, I highlighted how Brexit may affect our relations with Britain as well as the European Union. Now that Brexit has been realised, and more so in light of the resignation of David Cameron, the notion of a free-trade and movement zone within the Anglosphere is worth re-examining. Leave campaigners, particularly Boris Johnson, who could succeed David Cameron as the next Prime Minister, have argued for renewed ties with ‘Anglosphere’ nations such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. There is a potential for an Anglosphere free-trade zone to occur, similar to the Eurozone, especially if Britain views the leave agreement offered by the EU to be unsatisfactory.

Already in the days and hours since Brexit, there has been considerable political and economic ramifications for Britain. Though things will inevitably settle considerably within days and weeks, the longer-term future carries considerable uncertainty for Britain and the European Union. It is difficult to determine at this early stage whether the decision will be a net benefit or hindrance for Britain in the long run, though it will almost certainly not be the ruinous event for Britain that some columnists have argued it will be.