In response to Clive Hamilton’s recent article in Australian IT, Kieran from Websinthe.org sent an email to Charles Sturt University suggesting there needs to be more peer review of Mr Hamilton’s media commentary. Here’s the email:
While Clive Hamilton is obviously a greatly respectable academic there really needs to be more peer review of his media commentary he gets away with too much inaccuracy [sic].
Seems fair and reasonable to me, especially when the blurb on the Australian IT article boasts Hamilton is a ‘Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University’. Clive Hamilton didn’t think so. He accused Kieran of trying to silence him. Take a look:
Dear Mr Salsone
The University has forwarded your complaint to me. I find it astonishing that someone who purports to defend freedom of expression on the internet should complain to my employer with the objective of pressuring them to silence me.
It’s called hypocrisy.
If Clive Hamilton believes a critical eye from his peers would silence him, it’s time to lift his game.
29 comments
Sean the Blogonaut says:
Feb 20, 2009
I am starting to question Clive’s credentials as an academic. Public Ethics? You would think that a having to teach ethics you would have some solid research and argument to back up you claims.
No one can be 100% rigorous all the time, thinking critically does not come naturally and each of us has a sacred cow(s) that we subconciously protect or neglect to apply critical thought to.
Clive however seems unable to take criticism, even when its to be expected and lashes out with an emotional response.
It remains to be seen whether or not he will go public with this claim. I would expect better of him but then he has been underhanded in his representation of the Filtering debate so far.
Sweet Sister Morphine says:
Feb 20, 2009
Surely to god a man who has managed to obtain a PhD from what I assume is a reputable university would be familiar with the concept and purpose of peer review.
As an academic who purports to specialise in ‘public ethics’, I would have thought that he would be eager for his peers to review his writings, in order to counter any argument they bring up with solid research, or at least coherent argument.
Granted, the target of his ‘Web Doesn’t Belong to Net Libertarians’ was the general public and not academia, and not everyone is willing to read all the way through a dry, academic paper, but there is such a thing as plain English and referencing.
While I don’t have a PhD, I have spent enough time at university to find the article in question unprofessional and unethical in the extreme.
Unfortunately, while I’m sure his behaviour will damage his reputation in the eyes of his peers, these aren’t necessarily the people who need convincing.
Syd Walker says:
Feb 20, 2009
Isn’t he peerless?
voracity says:
Feb 20, 2009
No, I side with Clive Hamilton on this one. The way Kieran used the phrase ‘peer review’ has nothing to do with the ordinary academic sense. It is NOT typical for universities to enforce peer reviews of their academics’ work, let alone of their media commentary. What’s more, Hamilton has never claimed that he speaks for CSU.
Hamilton’s pro-filter arguments are gibberish. Let’s win this battle the right way.
Mike says:
Feb 20, 2009
@voracity:
To some extent yes. However, unlike previous articles where Hamilton credited himself as simply an intellectual, this time he used his position at CSU to add authenticity to his claims, whether deliberate or not. I’ll copy and paste what David Jackmanson said in regards to this:
David Jackmanson writes (see comments section):
My first thought was that you probably shouldn’t have complained to the University, because I thought that Hamilton was advocating for Internet censorship as a private individual or representative of his think tank, The Australia Institute.
However, in his most recent article, “Web doesn’t belong to net libertarians”, he is credited as being Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University. NOT a private individual, NOT a representative of his independent think tank, but as a professor of a publically-funded university.
Hamilton can’t have it both ways. If he wants to write pro-censorship propaganda AND be credited as an employee of a public academic institution, then discussing what he says, and whether it is academically credible, with that institution is totally fair.
If Hamilton took active steps to make clear that his censorship advocacy has nothing to do with his Professorship, then you would have been out of line IMO. But he is, in effect, using his position to try to give his point of view credibility, which affects the University, and it is utterly fair for the public to ask hard questions of the University.
voracity says:
Feb 20, 2009
Even if the biographical byline somehow makes the article an official piece of academic work by Hamilton, as I said, it still wouldn’t be typical for the university to enforce peer review of it. Universities do not endorse or disendorse the work of their academics, even though they employ them. This practice is at the very heart of academic freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom).
Having said that, if people disagree with the use of the biographical byline, they should be criticising just that — they should not be going over Hamilton’s head and making suggestions to his employer.
Sean the Blogonaut says:
Feb 20, 2009
@ Voracity,
Clive claims that keiran was
A)Complaining
B)Attempting to silence him
I think something more has been said to Clive by the Univeristy, perhaps there have been other complaints against Clive.
Clive’s other responses were certainly not warranted, he seems to be a bit emotional at the moment.
Sam D says:
Feb 20, 2009
I don’t want Clive’s newspaper articles to have to pass peer-review.
But be aware, that nothing he has written about pornography has ever passed peer review, EVER! I want the discussion papers and articles that he churned out as head of the Australia Institute (some of which were used at the Sexual Integrity Forum in ’05) to pass peer review. Much of what he wrote in the Australian super-blog piece was taken from these previous works.
People assume that because he is a Professor of Public Ethics, that he is an expert in this area. But from an academic standpoint, because none of his work on porn has passed peer review he isn’t considered to be an expert in that area. I know this,as do people who play the academic game. But the general public don’t, and I think Websinthe is not alone in taking exception to this arguably deceptive behaviour.
Stuart Anderson says:
Feb 20, 2009
I would agree with other posters to this thread that Hamilton was representing CSU in that article. The fact of the matter is that Hamilton is clearly identified as working for the CSU and there is no disclaimer of any kind stating that his opinions aren’t those of CSU.
However, to remove any doubt as to their stance on the matter I have submitted the following to them via their feedback form: “Do Professor Clive Hamilton’s views expressed in Australian IT article (“Web doesn’t belong to net libertarians” February 16, 2009) accurately represent the CSU’s position on internet filtering?”. I would encourage anyone so inclined to do likewise. I will post any reply I receive here. Hopefully they will respond directly to the enquiry rather than punt it straight to Hamilton. I’m asking if he speaks for them, not him if he speaks for them – I already know his position on that, given the attribution of the article.
The idea that CSU, an institute of higher learning, could be in favour of censorship of free speech is a prospect that I find horrifying. I certainly hope that they are not in favour of such measures.
Eddie says:
Feb 20, 2009
Looks like ol’ Clivey can’t handle criticism. He needs to grow up.
Sweet Sister Morphine says:
Feb 20, 2009
I am open to persuasion on the issue of whether peer review in its strictest sense is appropriate, although there is such a thing as having somebody check over your work before submitting it for national publication and scrutiny.
I still think that the article was appallingly lacking in any kind of ethical or academic standards; that Hamilton is appallingly lacking in any ethical standards by holding himself out as an expert in ethics and using his employment at CSU to back up his opinions without applying any standards worthy of such an institution to his article (or at least a disclaimer to the effect that the article was not an academic paper and he was speaking as a private individual, not an employee of the University); and that his response was unprofessional and out of all proportion to Kieran Salsone’s complaint.
Surely an explanation of why he felt that peer review would be inappropriate in such a case, or even simply referring him to the editor of Australian IT or Hamilton himself, rather than CSU would have been a more appropriate response.
I can see the value in academic freedom, on the basis that the consensus is not always right, but surely there are such things as academic standards.
Syd Walker says:
Feb 20, 2009
A Vogon Peer Review
The Good
There was a Professor of Ethics
Who could ably pronounce on most topics
‘Till he once lost the plot
And sweet reason forgot
Then he stopped making sense to his critics
More at The Three Amigos
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/02/20/the-three-amigos/
Websinthe says:
Feb 21, 2009
@voracity
I appreciate your view and agree that going over Clive’s head in the first case was less than noble. I have since apologised for it. That is no longer an issue.
The original point, however, stands. Clive Hamilton’s articles lately have besmirched his academic sponsors’ good names. If he insists on banking on the reputation of his position, he can’t keep abusing it.
An alternative way of looking at it is this.
You can agree with Clive all you want. My original complaint wasn’t to him, it was to the organisation that gave him the credibility to write such trash and then didn’t pull him up on it.
Misleading the public is unnacceptable and if Clive was writing as an agent of CSU then it is more an issue with the uni than it is with Clive. The complaint was therefore made to the appropriate place.
In the end, I don’t think everything he writes needs to be formally peer reviewed. He does, however, need to be accountable for what he writes using the university byline.
He has failed to act on or respond to our complaints directly to him, he has brought this on himself.
I am no saint, but I am nobody. People only have ears for me when I speak the truth. Clive has an audience through sheer reputation. He can therefore mislead.
I beg forgiveness, but I am nobody.
Syd Walker says:
Feb 21, 2009
@ Voracity
You write: “It is NOT typical for universities to enforce peer reviews of their academics’ work, let alone of their media commentary. What’s more, Hamilton has never claimed that he speaks for CSU.”
In the first place, I think you idealize academic freedom. Imagine, for instance, that Clive had chosen to use his disposable academic free time to write passionate attacks on the State of Israel. Do you think the organized Zionist lobby would not be making a huge fuss – possibly demanding his sacking and at the very least insisting he makes it clear that he’s NOT speaking for the University as a whole.
Which brings me to my second question… has he ever said he’s NOT speaking for the Uni? It’s a common disclaimer, often made. Has Clive ever done that during this debate? I haven’t noticed, but may have missed it.
voracity says:
Feb 21, 2009
@Stuart: An academic doesn’t have to make a disclaimer about their opinions not being that of the university, because the university doesn’t have any opinions about the work of their academics. Universities & academics are not like businesses & employees. Even when an academic is speaking in his “expert” capacity, it has nothing to do with the university. It’s a *little* bit like a journalist and a newspaper. It’s very different in business.
@Websinthe: I’d assumed your original feedback to CSU was a little bit tongue in cheek anyway. Cheeky and funny but wrong.
However, if you really do believe that CSU should be held responsible in some way for Hamilton’s work or even his behaviour, then I have to disagree.
As I said, academics don’t have to make disclaimers because they never speak on behalf of the university. (If they *were* required to make them, there would be disclaimers on their academic papers and books as well!)
@Syd Walker: “Imagine, for instance, that Clive had chosen to use his disposable academic free time to write passionate attacks on the State of Israel.”
That’s an incredibly knotty issue. Suffice it to say that if an academic is engaged in anti-Semitism, vilification or doing anything else illegal, it would indeed become a matter for his university — and the police. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with the university.
“It’s a common disclaimer”
Actually, no. It’s not common in academia at all, only in business. It doesn’t even happen in the media (where there’s a similar but less rigorous distinction between the opinions of the news company and the opinions of the journalist).
Here’s just a few articles by academics with bylines that the university itself has no opinion about:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/our-schooling-shame-20090218-8beu.html?page=-1
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/victoria-police-has-gone-into-the-breach-one-time-too-many-20081202-6pox.html?page=-1
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/sorry-sir-rod-your-rail-tunnel-plan-is-just-loopy-20080621-2uke.html?page=-1
That last one is particularly relevant, because Paul Mees was affected by the very issue we are talking about. We don’t want the following to become commonplace:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/transport-dissident-row-damages-uni/2008/05/20/1211182764879.html?page=fullpage
Daniel says:
Feb 21, 2009
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25068568-5013038,00.html
I wonder if this was on purpose?
“Filtering doesn’t breach free speech” claims the news.com.au headline – only problem is that the actual text appears to have been “filtered”. The page is totally blank
Eddie says:
Feb 21, 2009
The page isn’t blank for me. I can see the text fine in IE and Firefox.
Syd Walker says:
Feb 21, 2009
@ Voracity
1/ Thank you for making my point about systematic Zionist bias in academia more eloquently than I could do myself. I need scarcely point out it invalidates your original claim about untramelled academic freedom…
2/ Here’s the University of Texas rules, just as an example (emphasis added). No special reason for citing Texas – it was just the first one that came up in a search (emphasis added):
Without the advance approval of the Board, no Regent, officer, or faculty or staff member shall make or issue any public statement on any
political or other subject of an obviously controversial nature which might reasonably be construed as a statement of the official position of the U. T. System or any institution or department thereof. It is not the intent of this policy statement to stifle the right of freedom of speech of anyone speaking in a personal capacity where that person makes it clear that he or she is not speaking for the U. T. System or any of the institutions.
I suspect rules vary greatly. For Clive to make it clear he speaks in a personal capacity is not too onerous, surely? (Unless he really is articulating the views of his employer?)
@ Daniel. I wrote about that mystery yesterday – see Superblog down the Whirlpool?
voracity says:
Feb 22, 2009
@Syd Walker: [[Regarding point 1]] You’ve misunderstood me. There is nothing wrong with criticising Israel’s (or Japan’s or Australia’s) actions, passionately or otherwise. The university should stay out of it, so long as no laws are broken.
And there are indeed limits on academic freedom, and those limits are called The Law. An academic can’t: 1) vilify a race; 2) defame someone; 3) break copyright laws; 4) incite people to violence; or even 5) break an NDA; etc. Are there moral concerns here? Yes, but they are different to the ones we’re discussing (they involve interference by government or commercial interests, rather than interference by university administrations).
[[Regarding point 2]] If you want to require disclaimers from academics who write in the media, I don’t have much objection. I think it’s pointless, but I don’t object. Why pointless? Because the bylines would just become the following: “Clive Hamilton is Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University. His views do not necessarily represent those of his university.” I don’t see a skerrick of confusion being fixed by that.
All the same, I think you’ve misread UT’s rules. The quote you gave says quite clearly that it applies to statements “which might reasonably be construed as a statement of the official position of the U. T. System”. Nobody reasonably construes statements by academics about non-university business as being official positions of the university. And nobody should. It would be an absolute nightmare for academics otherwise.
Another of UT’s documents, on the rights of faculty, would seem to support your claims for the need of a disclaimer:
“Clarification of Role. Faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and officers of an educational institution supported by the State of Texas. When the faculty member speaks or writes as a citizen, he or she should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but should make it plain that the faculty member is not an institutional spokesperson.”
But again, it is always plain that academics are not spokespersons for their universities when they are discussing non-university business.
IOW: If Hamilton argues that universities are poorly managed, he needs a disclaimer. But if he argues that hallucinogenic drugs ought to be legalised, he doesn’t.
Syd Walker says:
Feb 22, 2009
Voracity
It is possible to read the UT rules in that rather narrow way. But it’s possible to interpret them more boradly.
Clive’s by-line includes ‘Professor of Public Ethics’ at Charles Sturt University. When he writes about ‘ethical’ issues such as sex and sensorship, many readers may well infer he’s speaking on behalf of the Uni – or at least on behhalf of his Department.
Easy to make it clear that he speaks as an individual. But he chooses not to, as far as I’ve noticed. Perhaps he does in fact speak for Charles Surt Uni – in which case Kieren’s complaint is unarguably appropriate? Don’t you think it reasonable we find out?
Compare Mark Newton’s by-line in the Australian’s ‘spuer-blog’ (LOL) series: Mark Newton is a network engineer with a large Australian ISP, and a long standing member of the System Administrators Guild of Australia (SAGE-AU)
There. No need to brag about one’s current employer or bring them into an issue involuntarily. Mark doesn’t even name his employer. He speaks for an organziation.
Why doesn’t Clive take a similar approach? How about “Spokesperson for the Association of Highly Ethical Australian Prudes” (AHEAP) or some such thing?
On the matter of Zionist bias, we shall have to agree to disagree, I think. You keep presenting an idealized situation. The reality has been different, at least in some situations. Many academics have been hounded for taking an anti-Israel position. Jimmy Carter was prevented speaking on some US campuses becuase University Administrations were intimidated by The Lobby. But here’s not the place to discuss that issue in detail, which you correctly describe as ‘thorny’.
Syd Walker says:
Feb 22, 2009
Re-reading my previous post, it’s clear that Mark Newton in that case didn’t even claim to speak for SAGE. Modestly, he speaks only for himself. His affiliations are noted as explanatory background. He does not try to ride on their coat-tails.
People listen to Mark, with interest, because he has things to say that are worth listening to.
‘Public Ethicists’ might consider emulating this approach, if they can.
Bob Bain says:
Feb 22, 2009
There are two speeches by Clive in the nocensorshipaus channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/nocensorshipaus
——————
A seven minute teaser from the Bill Henson Art Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-INRl3uJOlM
“There is no censorship worth noting in Australia”
comments are made regarding civil libertatians..
“perversion is not subversion”
———————
Clive Hamilton on sex morality commerce and pornography (August 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IyZ4-0kRfQ
“the porns of commerce at it’s most vulgar”
.. and once again
“perversion is not subversion” (a quote)
Clive seems to believe that sex is now divorced from intimancy leading to women’s sexual liberation which is a boon to the male (“men in their raw state”) of the species who seek “penetration” while the female of the species seeks “intimacy”.
Clive utters “the mind boggles actually” at the suggestion that a female author can wear three hats.
ending with a comment from a novel…
“at no moment in their lives would they ever know love – they were free”
Bob
Bob Bain says:
Feb 22, 2009
Regarding my last entry regarding Clive’s contribution to the Bill Henson debate refer also to :-
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/defending_the_last_taboo.pdf
Defending the last taboo
A contribution to the Art Censorship: the bigger picture forum
Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, 12 June 2008
“I for one, with all of my history of progressive advocacy, am willing to
stand up and say: “Thus far, and no more.” Perversion is not subversion.”
Refer also Clive’s blog
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php
“Free Speech and Net Porn”
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/crikey_19_nov_internet_filtering.pdf
What’s so special about the internet? All but the most unthinking libertarians accept
censorship laws that limit sexual content in film, television, radio, books and magazines.
Yet the hysterical response from the internet industry and libertarian commentators to the
Government’s proposal to require ISPs to filter heavy-duty porn shows how the internet
has become fetishised.
It is not viewed as another useful mode of communication but as the source of ultimate
freedom. Home alone in front of my computer I can travel where I like and evade my
responsibilities to society.
The internet has spawned a community of devotees who operate in a cow-boy culture that
thinks itself beyond the normal reach of social control, as if they inhabit an independent
cyber-nation that applies it own laws in the form of voluntary protocols for those who
choose to accept them.
The individuals who live in cyberland often display a contempt for social rules and moral
norms that would put post-modern academics to shame. Attacking Labor’s filtering plans,
the CEO if iiNet, Michael Malone, declared: “We live in a world of multiple sets of
morality, all of them equally valid”.
=================
Bob
Bob Bain says:
Feb 22, 2009
Clive in referring repeatedly to “perversion is not subversion” is referring to a quote by Slavoj Zizek (extracts from the book available by Google search)
Here’s Zizek from “The Pervert’s Guide to the Cinema”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUwvaxpMxGw
Bob
Ilaeria says:
Feb 22, 2009
Interesting that Professor Bill Caelli’s byline on his superblog is simply “Professor Bill Caelli” and his position at QUT is mentioned as background information, whereas Clive Hamilton’s byline is “Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University”…
Also, in the context of the superblogs, where you have the managers of iiNet and Webshield clearly speaking for their companies (Anthony Pillion’s superblog expressly states that, and includes a disclaimer that he is NOT speaking on behalf of the Consultative Working Group or the federal Government), I think its reasonable to say that it *appears* that Clive Hamilton is speaking in his role as an academic and on behalf of his institution, and not as a member of the public. Therefore, you could construe his comments as being representative of the university’s position.
I’m not an academic, and I don’t know the rules and regulations and what other academics might consider reasonable, but as a general member of the public (which is who these blogs are aimed at), it appears to me that Clive Hamilton is speaking on behalf of his institution.
GW says:
Feb 22, 2009
This is an excerpt from a recent piece written by Clive Hamilton. I don’t know if anyone else noticed it.
“On Line Opinion readers are being misled by denying them this information, which would be mandatory in any newspaper opinion piece.
The editors of On Line Opinion cannot consistently appeal to one tenet of journalism (so-called balance) and ignore others (allowing the reader to know the relevant affiliations of its authors).
In short, On Line Opinion has been captured by propagandists. For some years, On Line Opinion fulfilled a very useful role in Australian political life. Sadly, it has decided to change. I for one will not be paying it any more attention.”
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580&page=1
It is worth reading in the context of this discussion. The comments section has some interesting views.
Bill says:
Feb 23, 2009
@GW
Thanks for the link however the paragraph preceeding your quote is even more telling.
All this intellectualising is achieving nothing in terms of the real issue.
While you people are telling eash other what fair, reasonable, and unbiased people you all are, Clive and co are pushing buttons and achieving results. Nobody reads or cares about your long winded comments.
If you want any chance at winning this debate you have to push the buttons and force Clive and his mates to respond to you. Keep it simple; keep it short. Remember that the average punter wants the Reader’s Digest version or shorter.
Capturing the Zeitgeist #1 « Stormcentre says:
Feb 23, 2009
[...] Whilst it can be hard to go past whirlpool forums for all things related to the internet in Australia, I have found Mike Meloni’s blog to be an excellent source of news and discussion on the Governments proposed internet filter. As an added bonus, many people who post on Mikes blog also link to their own blogs – most of which deal with internet filtering and/or other politically relevant topics. Notable posters include Kieran aka Websinthe who’s blog at the time of writing has inexplicably been emptied of content – perhaps due to blowback following a letter he wrote to Charles Sturt University regarding academic Clive Hamilton. Story here. [...]
Ilaeria says:
Feb 23, 2009
I’m wondering if Senator Conroy has silenced Australian IT, seeing as comments on HIS superblog stopped on February 19…