James Cook’s actions are premised on the belief that the University is greater than just the individuals within it and unlike Thatcherites Society does exist and it’s patterns of behaviour are there to deliver an outcome beneficial to everyone in the excercise and methodology of in this case Marine Science. Ridd demands a bigger space and the breakdown of the rules of discourse declaring in doing so that there is no such thing as a university as Thatcher did when she said there is no such thing as Society only individuals and the power they can enforce. He refuses to see James Cook as a Collective and bring down it’s traditions like a card house. Here we have a conservative fighting for academic anarchy and being supported by the Murdochians of the media. However James Cook isn’t soapbox corner nor does it feel the need to be reduced to it. So they are assisting Ridd in his right to remove himself and find a soapbox to from which to continue his opinions (ODT)
I hate to say it because we know what this is really about. The cause of Ridd has been championed by those parts of the media and certain institutes – well, the Institute of Public Affairs – that have done all they humanly can to stop serious action in this country against climate change.
They have no interest in fair-minded coverage of the weight of scientific evidence, now overwhelming, that human action is causing global warming, and that urgent action is required globally to limit its dangerous impacts. Their interest is ideological, with an endearing lack of self-awareness in their charge that the “warmists” are the ideologues. They leap on the 3% or so of scientists who argue their colleagues have got it all wrong, and would risk everything on those odds.
So, it is not that these Ridd champions – Andrew Bolt, Terry McCrann, the Australian, which now reports as fact that Ridd is a “marine science whistle blower”– have any inherent concern about academic freedom.