I have had this in draft for a while, so I am posting a bit late in the game and it’s been covered already by many other bloggers, but I just want to add my discontent to the whole Bagaric affair. This prof of law at Deakin has a journal article (ironically at USFCA in SF) and an opinion piece in The Age which basically abandons the principles of liberal democracy by calling for the acceptance of torture in some “ticking bomb” situations. I reject Bagaric’s carefully constructed hypotheticals totally on the slippery slope principle in the application of such a policy in real life.
Quiggin links to this wonderful piece that shows just how corrupt the sets of practices surrounding torture can get. Quiggin also notes there are few who would actually defend Bagaric’s position on the right, their refusal to condemn is equally interesting. But I would have to say this issue really can’t be divided into the simplistic left/right stuff as the true liberals on the right and progressives on the left won’t have a bar of it.
There may even be a case for Bagaric’s removal from his position as head of school of Deakin law (retaining his job, just not the extra title). Is it appropriate for a law school to have as it’s symbolic head a person who does not advocate the basic principles of liberal democracy? He should be allowed to make his case from a professorship, or apply for a position in a political science department… but should someone be able to lend the weight of their title as HoS to publish such beliefs? Already there was a letter in the op-ed pages of The Age from one of Bagaric’s colleges who was (rightfully) trying to distance Bagaric from the sentiments of the rest of the department. It’s a difficult question, because you always have to be wary of academic censorship, so I think Bagaric should certainly retain his job, and should not be silenced, but perhaps such a special title and position isn’t appropriate. Would a racist be allowed to exist as the head of school of a Cultural Studies department, or a creationist as the head of a biology department in a secular university? Sure, let them speak, but the head of the department should represent prevailing views of the department (or else how are they supposed to represent it? or lead it’s research agenda for that matter?). In the end it’s up to Deakin Uni and his colleges as to whether he still has their confidence, and while I know it’s not black and white he certainly doesn’t have mine.
This also forms part of a block of attacks being made on the presumption of innocence we are told more and more that: torture is ok at home, that ASIO can detain people without lawyers, that we should have mandatory detention of those seeking asylum (from regimes we are fighting for being evil no less), and while we’re at it - lock up children too, the Indonesian court system is fine and we shouldn’t criticise it, that US torture somehow isn’t that bad because such policies make us safer.
