Comments Off on The History of Superman’s Red Undies
Since his debut in Action Comics #1 by Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster in 1938, Superman has come to be known as the archetypal ‘ideal’ superhero. The first real superhero, his simple outfit of blue spandex, red cape and underwear reflected circus strongmen attire of the 1930s to convey an individual of incredible power. Following his success came the creation of the entire superhero genre in comic books, and the eventual formation of a merchandising juggernaut and the summer blockbusters we see in cinemas today.
Superman has undergone a range of changes to his tradition, whether it be temporarily dating Wonder Woman or gaining weird electric superpowers. Nevertheless, his famous red Speedos remained largely unchanged for 70 years. That was until 2011, when DC Comics (yeah, it’s weird how they expand it into “Detective Comics Comics”) decided to reboot their shared superhero comic universe. Among other changes, they included a brasher interpretation of Superman who no longer wore his red underwear – a move that received mixed reception from fans.
Maybe this change symbolises how Superman no longer reflects the ‘Golden Age’ America where he was created. As the US has slowly lost its place as the ‘world leader’ to China, and as it takes on a more ambiguous image through the war on terror, writers have struggled to ensure the Man of Steel remains relevant to their current readers. Removing the underpants was surely one way to make a character who can shoot laser beams from his eyes seem more realistic. This has formed the crux of Superman’s characterisation within the DC Extended Universe, where his status as an alien is explored in greater detail and his human aspects are downplayed. Unfortunately, this was criticized as being untrue to the superhero everyone grew up with.
Although many other members of the DC Trinity debuted wearing underwear, their removal in the modern age worked to grow the essence of their character. Once Batman moved away from a campy style to instead reflect real-world grit, it became obvious that the inclusion of underwear would fail to strike terror in the hearts of Gotham’s devious criminals. Similarly, Wonder Woman’s change from bikini to Amazonian battle armour was a much-needed move to realistically show she comes from a culture of warriors.
The character of Superman is a complex one. His best stories are often ones where his human characteristics shine rather than superpowers, such as when he convinces a suicidal teen not to jump off a roof in All-Star Superman. Yet, audiences buy action media expecting heroes to combat supervillains and save the day. It’s certainly difficult to satisfy two different types of audiences while making positive character development for this cultural icon.
On April 18th, Superman’s comic Action Comics will become the first comic book in existence to reach its 1000th issue. As a result, Superman will once again be donning the red trunks he hasn’t worn for the last seven years (there’ll be an in-story reason for it). However, is this an appeal to nostalgia in the same way Trump has been peddling his ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign to Americans? Surely not, as Superman has always been a symbol for humans of the DC universe to strive towards. I’d argue the red underwear remains as important an element to Superman’s wardrobe just as his ‘S’ symbol does.
Last Valentine’s Day, the student-led journal Demos held an evening gathering to celebrate the launch of the journal’s first printed edition. For those unfamiliar with Demos, it’s a relatively young but fast-growing student media outlet that is importantly different to Woroni and ANU Observer. Modelled partly around real academic and creative journals, and with frequent editorial and written contributions from academics themselves, the quality and rigor of articles is unparalleled in student publications.
The night’s event was focused on the topic of student activism, a recurrent theme in the journal, and one its inaugural print edition focused on exclusively. Pre-event setup involved the hanging of an enormous banner representing a timeline of student activism at ANU from 1960 to the present day, charting a dizzying range of student protests, rallies, and publicity stunts. Some events were sobering historical reminders, like the Vietnam war protests. Others served to remind us of how elusive victory has been on some fronts, such as Invasion Day protests going back to the 70’s. Yet others provided some levity, such as the August 16th entry wherein “Bill Shorten was heckled”.
In addition to an art installation – which I sadly wasn’t able to check out – the event included a range of inspiring speeches from current and former staff and students. For a moment, the past, present and future of student activism coalesced into a single space, as people from across eras shared their experiences. Memorable was Judy Turner, a former student activist at ANU, human rights advocate, and fundraiser.
Turner spoke of student activism with a great sense of humour, recounting how in her day – the psychedelic 70’s – student activists smoked pot “almost as a point of principle”. She described her movement as one fuelled by brown rice and tuna, a miasma of dope, and riddled with STDs! “What did we want?” she asked of their protests, “pretty much everything!”. And with the patience of the Baby Boomer generation, the answer to “When do we want it?” was always a resounding “Now!” Turner closed with the wry reflection that the answer to “What do we want” for her generation is now more likely to be “A new hip!”
Not speaking at the event, but present to support it, was Mia Sandgren, an ANU tutor in sustainability, a Demos editor, and a contributor to the latest edition. Sandgren’s article ‘Redefining Normality with Acts of Everyday Activism’ is recommended reading. In it, she argues that students make ideal ‘everyday activists’ with small and ordinary acts like riding a bike to campus. Such actions help normalize more sustainable ways of living. I single her article out because the underlying message is an important one: criticism and destruction is easy, doing and creating are the harder tasks by far – and yet, some tasks are small in their commitment required, and large in their collective impact. There’s cause for hope and optimism in realizing such simple truths.
Another memorable speaker was Katerina Teaiwa, an ANU academic and activist. Raised in Fiji, Teaiwa has worked and studied around the world at Santa Clara in Silicon Valley, in Hawaii, and more recently here at ANU. Teaiwa’s experience of activism within these different regional contexts was especially illuminating. Her view on writing for the Santa Clara media echoes my own beliefs – in it she saw an opportunity to share knowledge, and to reveal a part of her world and her experiences that people had no idea about. This very article appears for the same reasons – for a moment that evening I was part of something, and I want to do what I can to share it.
Equally interesting was her recollection of a protest she attended here, at ANU. A colleague questioned this, asking if she thought her participation as a staff member was appropriate. That moment struck Teaiwa because it reflected an unfamiliar dynamic. In Hawaii, she recalled, the idea of students and staff coming together as activists was a common one – indeed, it was a collaboration seen as necessary for greater success.
Here in Australia, however, we don’t embrace this sense of staff-student collaboration anywhere near as much. That’s a point of sadness, to be sure, but also represents a clear opportunity. What gains might student activism at ANU make if we collaborated more closely with our tutors, our lecturers, and other academics? As a joint project uniting staff and students, Demos itself is a great example of the fruits of such collaboration. Elsewhere on campus we can see similar benefits. The involvement of staff like John Minns and McComas Taylor in the Refugee Action Committee gives that student outfit considerable wisdom, expertise and organisational acumen.
Although the event had so many important take-home messages, and the journal itself even more valuable lessons, perhaps this is the best point to finish on. If you’re involved in a student organisation, whether as member or executive, you might consider the role you can help play bringing students and staff together. If you are a staff member, you might also consider what value you could bring to student’s lives and campaigns on campus. The benefits of “imagining ourselves as one community” – as Teaiwa put it – are profound, and there’s much work we at ANU can do in this space.
Copies of both Demos journal’s first print edition, and the ANU’s Activism Timeline are available at the Brian Kenyon Student Space (BKSS).
By now we can only hope that Barnaby Joyce has slipped off into what passes here for ancient political history: a couple of weeks ago.
Despite having a reputation which some might say is more tarnished than your grandparent’s silver, that hasn’t been used since their wedding day in 1956, Joyce didn’t rule out a return to the front bench or the leadership.
And of course he wouldn’t. Politics is a strange place. Anything could happen, even when it probably won’t.
Speaking after a game of political football (no, really – the politicians do actually get together to play touch football at Parliament House), Joyce told the conveniently assembled televisual journalists: “I don’t expect to return, but I will always do the very best job I possibly can in any role given to me.”
Would he be like Tony Abbott? The man whose famous statement after losing the prime ministership that there would be “no wrecking, no undermining, no sniping” was clearly meant to be taken sarcastically. No, he said. “I will be Barnaby,” he said.
Conservatives in Australia are often accused of wanting to return to the 1950s. As prime minister, Paul Keating got stuck into John Howard across the despatch box: “[Howard said the 1950s were] a very, very good period, a golden age. That was the period when gross domestic product per head was half what it is now; when commodities occupied 85 percent of our exports; when …” You get the idea.
Joyce, though, is probably wishing Australia had stayed firmly planted in Howard’s golden age. Chances are, he’d still be deputy prime minister.
Ream after ream has been dedicated to whether The Daily Telegraph should have splashed their front page with a photo of Vikki Campion, Joyce’s former media advisor and the woman with whom he is now expecting a child.
The answer is clearly no.
Should Barnaby Joyce’s affair have been exposed earlier? “Oh, I don’t know anything about that, Sir,” the schoolboys all lining up to participate in the cathartic act of denial would say. I’d heard about it though, and you have to wonder if the political columnist at Woroni is aware, who else might be…
Hypocrisy is a quick way to wreck your own political fortunes in Australia. Joyce, the country conservative sticking up for family values while leaving his wife of two decades and his four daughters for his younger media advisors, had clearly trodden the path. We cringed as we looked on.
However, in the old days of parliamentary Canberra (as much steeped in mythology as misogyny), this would never have got out. It was all hush hush, for those blokes parked out in that Parliament sheep paddock, a town of only 6,000 fellow Canberrans nearby.
Now, a media advisor can find themselves in hot water for sending out a meme that showed a picture of Joyce and Abbott sitting next to each other in Parliament with the caption, “When you get in trouble in class and get sat next to the weird kid no one likes.”
With more witnesses, participants and technological intervention comes more a sophisticated rumour mill and greater scrutiny. The standards the voting public demand may or may not be any higher than they ever were, but it’s much clearer now when they aren’t being met.
You can see why Barnaby, from his back bench vantage, might be irritated with the modern world. The new Nationals leader and deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack, is probably quite happy with the arrangement: more opportunities to claim travel allowances to his wife’s property in Kingston.
Once upon a time, Malcolm Turnbull was incredibly popular. Now, in his diminished state, he’s left make sure the government doesn’t look like a total disaster. “Yeah, but he’s better than Tony Abbott,” is, in many cases, the foundation of his political support.
With a trip to the US planned while Joyce was scheduled to take personal leave, Turnbull left the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, in charge. He was fourth in line.
And with Turnbull out of the country, the man who is touted as the next Liberal prime minister, Peter Dutton, took to some pontification at the National Press Club.
“In my view, there is a place for the pledge in a broader rejuvenated civics effort with school-aged children, regardless of their background,” he said, noting that new citizens already pledge allegiance to Australian laws, liberties, rights and the nation itself.
A textbook example in how to make a headline. “Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton calls for US-style pledge of allegiance for Australian school children,” said The West Australian. Well not quite, but close enough.
And then acting prime minister Cormann backed it. “I think it’s quite important for all Australians to be aware and conscious of our history, our culture and values,” he said. Never mind we constantly struggle to have any productive conversation about that history, culture or values.
Australians, on the whole, don’t like to make a song and dance about their national pride (if they have any), so this sort of stuff will often sound a bit naff. But for Dutton, a person for whom the leadership speculation must have gone to his head, it’s a clear signal of the sort of Australia he’d lead. And the kind of campaign he’d run. And that he’s prepared to do it.
His approach to immigration is hard line and cruel, Australians will be patriotic – or else, and he’ll be tough and will revel in the opportunity to demonstrate it.
Which is exactly the kind of political leadership that the world is overloaded with. Toughness in spades, thoughtfulness in limited quantities.
When’s Turnbull’s downfall? Does Bill Shorten actually play any part in it? Will Peter Dutton be PM?
But for now, teetering on the edge, Turnbull holds on. Still the best option in the eyes of his party – and never mind the voters who haven’t had a chance to have a say yet.
No wonder Turnbull looks pleased to be putting his thumb up next to Donald Trump’s, which he did when he visited Washington last week. He’s still in the game, even if it has us cringing culturally on the world stage.
Jasper Lindell is Woroni’s political columnist and a former news editor
In picking Ged Kearney, Bill Shorten exposes how far removed from Australia the ALP has become.
The recently former member for Batman, David Feeney, casts a long shadow through the world of factional politics. When I attended the National Conference of the National Union of Students last December, his name often came up as he seemed to take a personal interest in the Union. Hardly surprising, considering he was one of the creators of the Student Unity Faction in 1991.
Feeney is the very definition of a party man – a factional operative who has been bouncing around party and union positions for his entire adult life. Here was a man, like Sam Dastyari, James Patterson, and countless other senators, notable for winning elections in party rooms, rather than in anything even vaguely resembling the general population. Given his history, it was hardly surprising that Feeney was one of the key players in the Gillard coup of 2010 even though he hadn’t even made it halfway through his first term as senator.
I am often told there are two different kinds of Labor Members at University: those who care about student politics and those who do not. I disagree. There are those that care about public service and join the Labor party as their vehicle for either pragmatic or ideological reasons and those that love the party and the game of politics rather than the business of government. Feeney landed squarely in the latter.
There is a growing consensus in the Labor Party that metropolitan Australia is lost and that Labor should focus on the suburban belt that girdles it. When Labor members, both in and out of parliament, are pressed on their falling primary vote share in former strongholds, their explanation is nearly always that Greens voters ‘are not Labor people’ (in the words of Bob Carr).
Carr is correct to a certain extent. The backbone of the Greens’ growing primary vote is an electoral bloc that both major parties pretend doesn’t exist – the surging numbers of tertiary educated professionals that now make up Australia’s the second largest portion of the male workforce after the construction industry. While they vote for the Greens today, most of them recall Hawke and Keating fondly. Socially Left, but economically centrist and globalist, they are the political orphans that turned to the Greens as the best representative of the issues they cared about – the environment, refugees and university funding. They are by no means party loyalists, however, and could swing towards any of the major parties (or a competitive minor one) with the correct electoral campaign and candidate.
The bigger problem is that ‘Labor People’ are an endangered species. The Industries and occupations that once supported them have shrunk or stagnated outside healthcare. Unions now exist at the fringe, rather than the centre, of Australian workplace relations – only 10% of the private sector is unionised.
Labor’s problem with metropolitan Australia, then, is not that such seats are unwinnable. Rather, it is that they keep putting up a series of party appartniks, professional political operatives who swing through the revolving door of union organising, lobbying and party/staffer positions, to contest those seats. This is hardly a problem isolated to Batman, but one that Victorian Labor appears to struggle with generally.
Another Green-tinged Labor seat, Melbourne Ports, is a perfect example. Labor might want to blame the increasing marginality of that seat on demographic shifts and on the decreasing portion of ‘Labor People’. However, it is madness to suggest that Michael Danby holding the seat has no impact on Labor’s falling vote share. Danby, another Labor Right political operative who came up through the infamously conservative Shop, Distributors and Allied Employees (SDA) union is an increasingly poor fit for an electorate now defined by Melbourne’s progressive inner south of Southbank, Albert Park, Middle Park and St Kilda.
It is diversify or die time, if Labor ever wants to hold another majority government. Australia is different than it was in 1983 and different than it was in 2007 – and Rudd was far from the traditional Labor mould. The definition of ‘Labor people’ needs to expand if there is to be another Labor government.
Faced with changing demographics and increasing dissatisfaction with party political operatives and trade unionists, Bill Shorten picks… Ged Kearney. Who might be quite accurately dubbed ‘Australia’s top trade unionist’.
This is not to say that Ged Kearney is a bad candidate. Unions might not be the force they once were, but they are still the voice of a good deal of the population and deserve representation in parliament. Kearney would, too, give a voice to one of Australia’s fastest growing sectors, and one traditionally marginalised within Union representation in Parliament, Australia’s nurses. As ACTU President, she has been a vocal advocate of domestic violence leave and other areas of workers rights that most of progressive Batman is sympathetic to. There are far less qualified currently sitting parliamentarians, and she is certainly a stronger candidate than Feeney.
But Ged Kearney is a walking, talking embodiment of the Australia that was. Daughter of a Richmond publican, a professional trade unionist of some two decades and a registered nurse before that, Ged Kearney would have been a perfect fit for the Melbourne that she grew up in. That Australia still exists; however it is not in Northcote anymore, and it may not be in Batman. She is cut from the exact same cloth as the failed Labor Northcote candidate, Clare Burns, who was also a union organiser from the healthcare sector.
Labor had other options. Jamila Rizvi, former ANUSA President, mamamia editor, journalist, and author, considered a run at Northcote before deferring in favour of Burns. If anyone had a shot at wooing back Melbourne’s metropolitan professionals and socially conscious voters, it would be her. Fielding her would have sent a clear message that Labor intended to contest the red-green swing voters that carried the Greens to a number one primary spot in 2016 by matching Green candidate Alex Bhathal strength for strength.
Instead, Shorten chose Kearney. And with it a statement that win or lose, live or die, Labor would hold to the polity and values that had defined it for more than a century, even as the country shifts and that polity shrinks.
Diversify or die. I worry that Labor has opted for the latter.
Comments Off on Students Respond to the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook
Anything But ‘Innovative and Agile’
Kelvin Peh
Member of ANU Labor Students Club
Does anyone remember the ‘Innovation Agenda’? Turnbull’s signature policy launched right after he became PM, with promises of an ‘innovative and agile Australia’? Well, with the latest cuts to higher education revealed in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), Turnbull has shown us that he is continually willing to abandon the values we once thought he stood for.
Taking the scalpel to students is by no means an innovative policy, and yet the government persists with a $2.1 billion cut in the name of budget repair. With Senate approval, this MYEFO would enact two new policies. Firstly, the HECS repayment threshold would be lowered from $55,000 to $45,000. To put that into context, it’s almost as much you would earn a year working full time at McDonald’s. Secondly, it would put in place a lifetime student loan cap of $104,000 (or $150,000 for medical, veterinary and dental courses), which will make it harder for later year students to switch degrees. In addition, and without the need for senate approval, it enacts a two-year funding freeze for universities. This will likely result in universities having to cut the number of students they admit. These cuts present a real threat to Australia’s future.
Cuts to education are simply a false economy. Every budget saving made from education now will result in the loss of future income tax revenue, not to mention the wealth that comes from an educated and inventive population. According to the chair of Universities Australia, Margret Gardner, we could end up with a skills shortage in areas that are most expensive to teach. These include nursing, science and engineering – but demand for these skills is forecast to only increase into the future. The government is also putting the international reputation of the Australian university sector – a sector that generates over $20 billion a year and brings with it international students who contribute further to the Australian economy. Furthermore, these cuts will disproportionately hurt lower SES students. Locking gifted individuals out from fulfilling their potential due to circumstance is not only unfair, but it’s also a poor investment decision by the government. Education is one of the best investments a country can make in its population. To cut it is absurd.
While the government targets students, its policies also include a $50 billion corporate tax cut that flies in the face of budget repair and has been denounced by economists as a race to the bottom. This is in a context in which the Australian Tax Office recently reported that 36 per cent of large companies operating in Australia are paying no tax whatsoever. Prioritising these tax cuts over education funding shows that the Turnbull government is not only unwilling, but unable, to be innovative and agile.
Who Will Fight for Students?
By Lachlan McGregor
Labor Party Member and current Secretary of ANU Labor Left
As Malcolm Turnbull’s government risks imploding as a result of the Parliamentary citizenship debacle, the prospect of an early election looms. The outcome of this election will dictate the future of tertiary education and the hopes of many secondary school students looking to obtain a degree. It is vital that students are aware of how this government plans to fund universities and reform education.
This year, the coalition’s ruthless economic management manifested in a war on university students. With the recent MYEFO announcement of a planned $2.1 billion cut in funding, Australia could not be further from the Whitlam-era of free education.
The government’s plan to freeze funding to universities for two years, before capping it at the growth rate of the working age population, ends demand-based funding, and with it any skerrick of equality left in tertiary education. Demand-based funding is by no means perfect, but it has provided access to higher education for students who would otherwise be priced out of receiving a degree.
Under this new funding scheme, many students from low-income families will either struggle financially at university or be left without the option of ever pursuing higher education. Whilst Simon Birmingham has endorsed the changes as ‘sustainable,’ these cuts will effectively eliminate the possibility of getting a degree for many young people.
To make matters worse, the HECS repayment threshold will be lowered from $52,000 to $45,000. Consequently, graduates will begin repaying their HECS debt earlier whilst earning an income only slightly above minimum wage. This will hit low-income graduates hard and help to entrench a system where only the elite have the means to afford and gain a degree. These attacks further disadvantage working-class families and systemically deny them post-school qualifications.
On top of all this, Gonski 2.0’s watered-down ‘needs-based’ funding has diverted much- needed funds away from public schools and towards some of the nation’s wealthiest private schools. Although Gonski 2.0 does not directly target universities, its impact has the potential to deny poorer students access to higher education.
With Di Natale’s neo-liberal Greens offering their support to pass the Gonski bill in the senate, Labor has emerged as the only party committed to equitably funding public education and supporting access to universities for low-income families.
At the next election, students who are tired of a government that does not put them, their education or equality first, can take a stand. The Coalition has shown that their priority is to benefit big business and those who already have so much, rather than creating a society that is fair, just and compassionate.
If students want to see real change and equality returned to tertiary education, they can no longer place their faith in this out-of-touch government, which has so voraciously capitalised universities and destroyed the concept of a right to education.
Less Is More
Ashish Nagesh
Member of the ANU Liberal Club
Overall, the MYEFO reveals the Coalition government has done an excellent job in keeping the debt ceiling low. Net debt is projected to plateau at 19.2 per cent of GDP in 2018-2019, a $11.9-billion-dollar reduction from what was estimated in the May Budget. This MYEFO has positive implications, as the government has taken essential steps toward tackling the ever-pervasive ‘debt bomb’. Its changes to education, including changes to the HECS system and increased incentives for better university performance, through an updated funding system, will benefit the quality and accountability of Australia’s higher education sector. Critics of these changes, who would rely on increased taxes to maintain the education system, would see the introduction of short-sighted policies with negative long-term consequences.
There are changes to HECS-HELP, but these are only small changes in the scheme of things and will importantly save the Government an estimated $2.8 billion over four years. From 1 July 2018, the revised repayment threshold scheme will be implemented so that when a student earns a minimum threshold of $45,000, they will be required to repay the debt at a rate of only one per cent. This is down from the previous minimum threshold of $55,000. This reduction will keep universities accountable for graduate job prospects as well as easing the burden on the taxpayer. Taxpayer funding to universities has increased at twice the rate of the economy since 2009 and so they will have to now pull their weight to repair the budget. These important changes should not be a source of concern for students.
The changes are bad news for students planning on remaining at university forever, however. A lifetime limit on student loans has been implemented with the maximum to be $104,000 for most students and $150,000 for students studying medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses. This is a prudent policy given student debt is continuing to grow and one-quarter of student loans are not expecting to be repaid.
ANU will directly benefit from these policies, meanwhile, as $69.2m has been allocated through 2018-2019 to enhance the current National Computational Infrastructure and supercomputer program headquartered at the ANU. The NCI provides critical access to researchers across many disciplines and is key to the ANU producing world-class research.
ANU will also be held more accountable and transparent, in having to publish both undergraduate and postgraduate students’ course marks. This transparency will be required of universities in order to receive CGS funding. A high standard of world-class education will be encouraged across the university sector as the Government will cap the amount of funding it pays to universities for Bachelors courses through its Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS). In 2018-2019, the cap will be set equal to the funding provided from 2017 and, in 2020, the amount of funding allocated will be linked to university performance requirements. Not only will these force universities to improve performance, but they will also boost graduate employment outcomes and support retention of students.
The Coalition Government has taken steps to address educational disadvantage. It recognises that regional students from disadvantaged backgrounds struggle to access university, and has committed $15m to provide eight regional study hubs around the country for those who wish to study in their local region. Further, the Quality Schools package will deliver an additional $25.3b in recurrent needs-based funding, particularly for disadvantaged schools, over the next ten years.
These higher education cuts are not severe enough to have any real long term impact on any aspect of university. As Liberal Education Minister Simon Birmingham has said, ‘if the government funded the university sector at the rates it did in 1989, with no HELP loans to students, they would receive $4,300 less than they currently do per student place.’
Overall, the MYEFO delivers a fiscally responsible outlook for education, easing the burden on the taxpayer to fund education as well as giving universities the incentive to increase their competitiveness. Each taxpayer is paying $474 towards interest on our national debt. So for the student organisations that lobby for free education such as the National Union of Students (NUS), I ask, where do you plan to get the money from? If we really care about our future generations, we instead need to acknowledge the reality we are living in.
Students and Universities Are Under Attack
William Palmer
Executive of ANU Greens on Campus
This year’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook does not signal a change of tack for the Coalition Government. Young people, and specifically students, are targeted front and centre.
The Government’s proposed Funding Freeze for Commonwealth Supported places will, in practice, freeze the size of the domestic university student population. It would be naïve to think that universities will respond to the funding moratorium by cutting major costs in administration, such as the ludicrous salaries that most Vice-Chancellors are on, or by making sweeping efficiency improvements in order to allow more domestic students into university. Instead, it will simply become tougher for Australians to be admitted into higher education.
Additionally, if domestic student placements become a frozen market until 2020, university administrators will sharply pivot to the suddenly far more profitable, and growing, international student market. Given the Government’s Immigration policy, and the often deeply xenophobic rhetoric stemming from elements of the Coalition, it seems rather ironic that the government would so actively pursue policies that will make Australian Universities less focused on domestic students.
Lowering the HECS repayment threshold is also a shameless attack on young people. It puts even more strain on the already financially-pressured youth of today while offering no compensation to make the financial positions of low-income HECS debt holders better off.
These cuts will give fewer Australians access to higher education, and university leavers will be paying off HECS from more precarious financial situations. With a Government that will happily spend $122m on an unnecessary and damaging postal survey, continue to support Negative Gearing, and whose Treasurer, Scott Morrison, aspires to cut the corporate tax rate despite hundreds of companies paying $0 in taxes, the targets of these cuts seem less than accidental. Hundreds of gratuitous expenses have been prioritised over students.
This is clearly not ‘living within our means’ – it is an attack on universities, plain and simple. It is also an attempt for the Coalition Government to target Higher Education without walking the maelstrom that is the Senate, which has proved almost impossible to goad into selling out universities. The HECS changes, luckily, do require Senate approval – but the rest of the package does not.
Whilst they are not unprecedented, the gall of career politicians on inflated taxpayer-funded salaries, many of whom received a free university education, to attack students in the name of ‘belt-tightening’ should be condemned by all who believe in Australia’s future.
An educated populace is what will make Australia stronger, smarter, and wealthier going into an uncertain future. The education changes outlined by the MYEFO threaten that future, and are short-sighted political theatre and ideological signalling by a government whose policy seems committed to worsening both the financial and academic prospects of young people.
The Greens oppose the Government’s Higher Education Reforms in the highest degree and will do everything in our power to stop them – from in the Pop-Up to on Parliament Hill.
Comments Off on Should Milo Yiannopoulos be allowed to speak on campus?
Universities are seen to be places that foster intellectual diversity. However, when views exist on the fringe of this thought, fiery debates around free speech on campuses ensue.
The ANU has been no exception to this. Earlier in 2017, former US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was invited to speak at two events on campus. His presence caused controversy around ANU students with some arguing that people with his views should not be allowed to speak on campus.
With the recent national tour of Milo Yiannopoulos, it begs the question, would he be welcome at the ANU?
The controversy around Yiannopoulos is not that he is right-wing, but that his views consistently go beyond what mainstream conservatism deems to be acceptable. In his Australian visit, Andrew Bolt criticised Yiannopoulos for his views. Earlier this year, right-wing news organisation Breitbart News forced him to resign and Simon and Schuster cancelled his book deal. The curtailing of these outlets’ associations with Yiannopoulos demonstrates the contempt often held towards his views, even within mainstream conservative political movements.
Following Yiannopoulos’ meteoric rise in 2016, American students have had to ask themselves whether they should allow him to speak on campus. Yiannopoulos’ visit to UC Berkeley in 2017 sparked mass protests that caused $100,000 worth of damage. Due to the protests outside his Melbourne shows, the Victorian Police has billed Yiannopoulos $50,000 to cover the cost of police presence at the event.
The primary functions of universities, according to Yiannopoulos, are ‘places of learning, places to be challenged, places of conflict,’ which he said at a Sydney press conference, ‘has been given up in favour of becoming homes from home, therapy sessions.’
Student leaders from the ANU have offered a range of responses to the hypothetical of Milo speaking at the ANU, which shed light on wider debates about the representation of conservative, but less extreme, views on campus.
Incoming ANUSA Women’s Officer Laura Perkov told of the dangers that may arise if Yiannopoulos came to the ANU. ‘people are trying to humanise and legitimise Yiannopoulos and his supporters, insinuating that he is the voice of the “forgotten” people. The “forgotten” people, who have not only held power in our white supremacist, patriarchal world in the past, but continue to do so today,’ she explained. ‘Nothing he says is particularly original or interesting – the bigotry he espouses is the same as the vile comments of other right wing ‘commentators’ such as Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh.’
Eben Liefer, former president of the ANU Labor Left and current president of the Men’s Network, spoke of spikes in anti-semitism and queerphobic attacks. Liefer said that Yiannopoulos ‘should not be invited or allowed to speak on campus’. ‘Giving platform for reactionary groups who slander any who oppose them as mentally unstable and then hide under a faux science is not something we should ever seek to legitimise,’ he said.
Men’s Network founder Sebastian Rossi and Young Liberal Thea Winter both feel differently, believing that universities should welcome people like Yiannopoulos. ‘If we were to institutionalise a process that did disproportionately discriminate against one side of politics, which is clearly in this situation right wing speakers for their “provocative” thoughts, that would almost qualify as forcible oppression of political opposition,’ Winter said. ‘If an opinion is uncomfortable for you, or even abhorrent, it should not be pushed to the shadows, but should be examined in full. That way, it’s shortfalls, weaknesses and nature can be universally recognised.’
‘University is founded on the idea of intellectual freedom, to challenge ideas and consider every angle of approach,’ Rossi said. He also noted that Yiannopoulos is gay, and married to a black man. ‘I can’t imagine anything less alt-right,’ he said. However, Perkov said that Yiannopoulos’ identity doesn’t absolve him of his ‘anti-Semitic, racist, and homophobic comments’.
ANUSA Queer* Officer Matthew Mottola described Milo as ‘literal trash’ and ‘a seriously problematic, incendiary far-right commentator.’ ‘He has hurt and damaged our queer* community, and indeed, other communities too,’ he said. For that reason, Mottola said that Milo shouldn’t be allowed on campus.
Rossi and Winter both agreed that speakers who incite violence should be banned from speaking at universities. And according to Winter, Yiannopoulos hasn’t reached that standard. ‘Words do not equate to violence unless they are a call to action,’ she said. For Liefer, the line is crossed when speakers persecute or violently oppress individuals based on their identity. Yiannopoulos, Liefer said, ‘actively breaches’ that standard.
At his press conference, Yiannopoulos argued the censorship of right-wing figures are a manifestation of the marginalisation and oppression of conservative voices at universities. ‘Let’s look at the what the typical criteria would be for marginalisation,’ he said. ‘Does it mean, for instance, that you can’t express yourself freely without fear of social censure or professional disaster or losing your relationship?’
Winter agreed, citing her personal experience of being harassed for her right-wing views. ‘Have I experienced negativity for openly being right-wing? Yes, 100 per cent. It’s ranged from snarky comments to people downright calling me stupid and selfish,’ she told us. ‘The nastiest thing I ever faced was at college last year, where I was being openly mocked and bullied, including threats of violence, after being open about my happiness for the Trump win.’ Winter said she was told that ‘support [of President Trump] was equivalent to violence,’ which she stated was ‘not encouraging’. Rossi told us that the ANU is the most left-wing university in Australia and therefore: ‘anyone with a differing opinion or a right-wing persuasion, are shouted down and frowned upon’.
Perkov described Yiannopoulos as a ‘pathetic attention seeker,’ whose narrative of marginalisation ‘is not at all founded in reality.’ ‘Conservative ideas are not marginalised, they are just outnumbered in contexts such as progressive university campuses. People are free to express their opinions and perspectives, but that doesn’t mean you are free from criticism,’ Perkov said. Labor Left member Eben Liefer said that conservatives aren’t ‘marginalised in the same way that minority groups face marginalisation.’ He added that he didn’t even think Yiannopoulos was ‘conservative’, but ‘reactionary’. Reactionaries, Liefer said, deserve more scrutiny.
Yiannopoulos also spoke passionately about the importance of intellectual diversity at universities. ‘I would like all public funding to be withdrawn from colleges that do not ensure political, ideological diversity among their faculty and a 50-50 split conservative-liberal among the speakers that colleges invites,’ he said. Liefer said that Yiannopoulos-style conservatives are so rare at university because their ideals ‘are deemed wrong in the free marketplace of ideas.’ He stressed the importance of intellectual diversity, but didn’t think a higher representation of Yiannopoulos’ brand of conservatism was possible. Winter said that intellectual diversity can’t be ‘artificially manufactured.’ Instead, what she ‘would like to see is an environment where conservatives, however many they are, are comfortable being conservative on campus’.
Comments Off on Taking action for SDGs: lessons from my six week exchange
For my last summer break at uni, I was committed to make it count by spending it on something meaningful for myself. I had planned to do an internship of some sort to build my resume. Things took a sharp turn when I sat down and did a personal SWOT analysis – I realised I had little to no clue of who I was, who I wanted to be and where I wanted to go in life.
I asked myself whether I needed that internship or whether I needed to place myself in an uncomfortable position outside Australia. Having lived in the same country for most of my life, I had a simple yet straightforward plan for myself. Finish uni, get a grad job in Australia, work a nine to five, retire and die. I thought to myself, is that all there is to life? Am I content with just living life, checking off to-dos lists that someone else wrote for teens with no directions to follow? Those thoughts didn’t sit well with me. I wanted to make the most of the life I was blessed with. The only problem was, I didn’t know where to begin.
All I knew was that I needed to get out of my comfort zone, to get lost to find myself (as cheesy as that sounds). Thus began my journey to go on an overseas exchange through AIESEC, focusing on youth leadership through the exchange.
How I took action to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)
AIESEC’s Global Volunteer Projects are all SDG aligned. I wanted to take practical steps towards SDGs rather than just advocate or raise awareness. This was one of the key factors, which motivated me to take on a Global Volunteer program. The project I applied for was designed to contribute towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 4.7:
‘By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.’
The project was to ‘Educate Slovakia,’ it aimed to improve ‘intercultural understanding and global mindset of Slovak youth to support their development in leadership skills.’
3 Lessons from my teaching project
To seek to understand before judging someone in according to my values
I use to think that there are universal truths or values that everyone abides by. I lived my first two to three weeks trying to align people to what I thought was ‘common sense’ for everyone. Needless to say, it was exhausting for the people around me and myself. Since then, I’ve taken steps to learn to let that go. I’ve felt more liberated day by day as I accepted the differences in thoughts and peoples’ way of life.
Let go of certainty to learn: to live with the change and uncertainty in this world
I love planning my day and vacations. It eliminates most of the uncertainties that could ever throw me off-guard. At the same time, my over preparation for the ‘adventures’ I wanted to have defeated the original goals I set for my exchange. I was visiting places that I spent hours researching and reading about. I followed routes I had saved on the google maps, downloaded for offline access. I dined at restaurants and cafes I searched up on three different food review apps.
I found myself chasing time. I had my eyes almost glued to my phone to make sure that we were staying on schedule: in the right place at the right time. I only spent around 20 per cent of my time enjoying the things I planned. I realised that my obsession with finding certainty was eating away at the rare opportunity to immerse myself in these amazing European cultures. Ultimately, I decided to spend the last two weekends enjoying myself in Budapest and Bratislava, only allowing myself to list three things to accomplish for the day. It was definitely worth the change!
Cross-cultural understanding comes from a place of curiosity.
I went on exchange thinking that I was going to educate Slovak youth. Instead, these students have inspired me to do more with the privilege I have. Although the knowledge they had of Australia didn’t extend beyond ‘kangaroos’ and ‘koalas’, they were inquisitive enough to ask many questions about our flag that bears the union jack, the stolen generation and why I went to Slovakia.
All these questions showed the relentless curiosity they had about the world and other people. It made me think about all the times I had taken knowledge for granted, to accept ‘facts’ the way they are. I realised that I had numbed my curious mind in response to the large flow of information that I shove into my brain every single day. Hands down, this was the most confronting lesson for me on my exchange.
‘Without action, the best intentions in the world are nothing more than that: intentions.’
– Jordan Belfort.
My six weeks in Slovakia were the perfect opportunity for me to take action, develop myself and make a difference in this world. I would like to thank everyone who made this experience possible!
Maggie Chen is currently president of AIESEC, which is a global youth-led organisation striving to achieve peace and fulfilment of humankind’s potential. Find out more about AIESEC and the exchange programs via anu@aiesecaustralia.org
SOCRATIC QUESTIONING IN WORLD POLITICS
Richard is a second-year student studying Finance and International Relations. He is an international student with a very broad experience with NGOs and academics. His articles will analyse global affairs from a political and economic point of view. He uses the Socratic way of questioning to provide a philosophical perspective in perceiving contemporary global affairs.
1 October was one of the bloodiest days in American history. More than 50 innocent people were killed, and more than 500 were wounded during the ‘Life Is Beautiful’ music festival; to some people, life might not be that beautiful after all.
‘Thirty people will be shot dead in America today. On average. It could be more. If it’s less, then more will die tomorrow. Or the next day.’
Gun-related homicide has always been a controversial topic in American politics. Despite the significance and impact of these incidents, US politicians cannot reach a consensus on the preventive method. While left-liberals have been trying to push for stricter legislation on gun control, right conservatives have always bid against this. Conservatives suggest that tougher laws are not going to change criminals’ behaviours. Instead, they advocate prevention through improving education on guns and other hazardous weapons. As controversial as gun reform seems to us outsiders, it is significant to consider if there is a correlation between gun control and gun-related homicides. In other words, would the establishment of a tougher law prevent gun violence? To answer this question, it is important to recognise the fact that the law on gun control varies from country to country, and so do corresponding gun-related homicide rates.
In 2016, the US Supreme Court ruled that ‘ ‘bans on civilian ownership of handguns are unconstitutional’. Under the Second Amendment, the ownership of guns is a fundamental human right. The underlying presumption is that the ownership of firearms can protect citizens and guarantee the constitutional right of self-defence. For this reason, any action against this doctrine (often cited by the right-wing), is unconstitutional. This argument is the most significant hindrance preventing the establishment of a tougher gun bill. Beyond the debate of left and right, it is important to cautiously consider if the assumption that having more guns will make us safer is valid.
According to domestic institutions including Harvard University, the US gun homicide is 25 times higher than other developed countries over the past 30 years. In comparison with other developed, high-income states such as Japan and Germany, this rate is rather astonishing. Japan has one of the most stringent and intolerant laws on the gun ownership. Many argue that Japan’s intolerance on gun ownership contribute to the low rate of gun crimes. The legal ownership of guns in Japan was less than 300,000 in 2011, and accordingly, the reported gun deaths were only six in 2014. Does this mean that tougher laws on gun control will correlate to a lower rate of gun violence?
In the past, there have been several cases of mass shootings in Australia. Around 1996, a shooting spree resulted in 35 deaths. The then prime minister John Howard, after rigorous consideration, proposed a new package of gun reform – including enforcing the licencing system as well as requiring people to have ‘genuine reason’ for possessing firearms. The implementation of this policy has economically lost country millions of dollars, yet there have been no mass shootings for over 20 years (only 13). Purely based on Japan and Australia’s experiences with guns, it is premature to conclude that tougher law is equivalent to the low crime rate.
On the contrary, Germany has one of the highest weapon ownership rates in the world but has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in Europe. The death rate is 0.05 per 1000 people in Germany whereas the number is 3.34 in the US. Germany’s experience can easily challenge the established conclusion – that the tough gun control is equal to the low gun crime.
As a result, it is not difficult to conclude that there is no noticeable causal relation between the strictness of gun control and the number of gun homicides.
Considering the complexity of the American social-economic context, banning guns might not be the best measure to stop gun homicides. Particularly with the presence of the Second Amendment, it is not only economically challenging to restrict guns; it is also politically infeasible considering the environment of the US Senate. Notwithstanding, from a political point of view, it is a kind gesture for the US government to show the public their determination to end the gun violence.
Comments Off on There’s Something in Coffee Cups: Focusing on Culture to Improve Sustainability Policy
I recently attended an interesting guest lecture that led me to re-think how we prioritise sustainability policies. The person speaking was a public servant in the field of waste management. He shared his work experience and, with that, his views on the policy process. He spoke very frankly to an audience that was mostly students, and his eloquence attracted our interest.
At one point, the discourse around single-use coffee cups came up. The guest lecturer was of the opinion that there are more pressing or more impactful challenges in the ACT, which have to do with energy and transport, than a vessel that holds caffeine. He suggested that there are fundamental policy areas and sustainable infrastructure projects that have more scope for meaningful change. We must approach the design and development of our cities in an entirely different way if we want to engage in a more sustainable way of life. I had not thought about the real merit of focusing on this compared to smaller projects – like those targeting coffee cup usage – and I found his argument to prioritise other sustainability challenges convincing.
That was until I was cycling through Civic the other day. Despite being somewhat rushed because I was running late, I couldn’t help but notice the people on the street who were chatting, taking breaks or on the move. In their hand: take-away coffee cups. There is something about the feeling of holding a coffee cup while on your way to the next important thing that represents a busy and interesting lifestyle.
Is this an image that we can happily sustain? I could not help but question whether tackling the use of disposable cups is a priority when we use them are so regularly and so visibly. Yes, politics is about making choices that regularly involves balancing conflicting values. Pollution affects our environment in different ways, and there is a range of policy options that can tackle this problem. But, when has the emphasis on individual responsibility has gone too far?
It can be difficult to decide, in measurable terms, which approach avenue would deliver greater results. A campaign to discourage the use of disposable coffee cups might not be as impactful as a policy that emphasises individual usage of renewables – this, of course, being the argument put forward by the public servant at the guest lecture. However, when it comes to instilling patterns in sociocultural practices, discouraging the use of coffee cups might be more impactful in the long term. It engages with sustainability in a different way than a renewable energy investment program would. By encouraging people to contextualise our habits in terms of their environmental impact, we can change the way we think about sustainability in our everyday lives.
Australia is well known for its coffee culture, and the take-away coffee represents an important practice in our daily lives. It is a symbol for the intersection between the social and the professional, and how this informs our perspectives. Thus, promoting education to make this practice more sustainable is paramount. It can contribute to thinking differently about our actions and our impact on the environment. Sustainability ultimately comes down to the relationship that we have with our surroundings and coffee cups can make us more conscious of this.
For instance, legislation seeking to reduce plastic bag usage has spread across countries in the European Union and has incited people to think about reusing bags. Policy action strengthened the effect of community initiatives that were already in existence. In the Netherlands, small and large businesses have responded to the legislation creatively by meeting consumer needs in ways that are less detrimental to the environment. Shortly before the implementation date of the Dutch legislation, a local bakery handed out reusable bags that customers can fold into a small pouch with the image of a bread bun. For the bakery, the legislation created an opportunity to influence the connection with its patrons.
These examples certainly make a good case for the government to investigate policy options concerning the use of disposable coffee cups. Like plastic bags, people purchasing disposable cups could, for example, incur a small extra charge to encourage investment in their own reusable coffee cups.
One might say that it is a waste of time or distracting to focus on take-away coffee cups as a policy issue. But that does depend on what we consider a problem to be and on how success is measured. We should not underestimate the power of promoting cultural shifts in our everyday practices, and their importance as a springboard for encouraging wider shifts in attitudes toward sustainability.
Comments Off on The Truth About the Chinese Students and Scholars Association
Almost exactly a year ago we were followed and intimidated by members of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association at its annual Chinese National Day gala. While we had tickets, they surrounded us and tried to kick us out under the direction of CSSA executives, including Vice President Jack Wang.
We attracted the CSSA’s ire that night for two reasons. While living in China, one of us tweeted about the Chinese democracy movement and was subsequently tortured and jailed, and now studies at the ANU as a refugee. The other investigated the CSSA’s connections to the Chinese government and its oppressive ideology.
But you wouldn’t know that from Woroni’s recent interview with Wang, who claims ignorance of the CSSA’s connections to the Chinese communist state and its role in intelligence gathering.
We hope to set the record straight.
The CSSA currently calls itself ‘The only Chinese student organisation in Canberra officially approved by the Chinese government.’ Last year a Woroni investigation revealed that CSSA executives from across the country are flown to Canberra each year for meetings with embassy officials. It found that two years ago the ANU pharmacy inspired the CSSA’s rage for stocking copies of the Epoch Times, the only Chinese newspaper in Canberra that dares publish content critical of the Chinese government. CSSA President Tao Pinru intimidated staff at the pharmacy until he was allowed to throw out all copies of the newspaper.
Perhaps this is what Jack Wang meant when he said, ‘We do have freedom of speech, but not in the Australian way’.
This year the embassy used the CSSA to drown out protestors when Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canberra. Ahead of the event, embassy officials arrived at the ANU to train hundreds of CSSA members. Students at these training sessions were divided into ‘security squads’ and told: ‘Male comrades must protect female comrades.’ They were instructed to watch out for the ‘five poisons’ – meaning activists for Tibetan independence, Xinjiang independence, Taiwanese independence, the human rights of Falun Gong practitioners and democracy.
When the president of the Tibetan government-in-exile spoke at the ANU in August, a dozen CSSA members including Jack Wang and President Guo Xiaohang came to observe the event. Half the seats at the event had been booked out under fake names, including ‘Chinese family’, and were left empty in an apparent attempt to prevent people from attending.
An ABC–Fairfax Media joint investigation of Chinese influence in Australia included University of Canberra CSSA President Lupin Lu admitting that she would inform the embassy if dissident Chinese students were organising a human rights protest. It also revealed that the parents of Tony Chang, a Chinese student in Australia, were questioned after he became involved in pro-democracy and Tibetan independence groups.
Here at the ANU, Forbes quoted a lecturer expressing concern that some of her Chinese students fear speaking up in class ‘because they fear their compatriots will report on them’.
Whatever the extent of such surveillance at the ANU, Chinese students fear it, and many are reluctant to associate with dissident students.
In fact, in this area, we agree with Wang, who said that the CSSA has ‘More interesting things to do than spy on Australian students.’ CSSAs are indeed uninterested in spying on Australian students, preferring to devote their efforts to informing on Chinese students. In 2014 this was confirmed to Fairfax Media by Chinese intelligence officials.
The CSSA is not, as claimed by Wang, just a ‘brotherhood or sisterhood’, but a government-supervised institution that is hostile to freedom. It is part of a global network of Chinese student associations supervised and used by the Chinese government. In one case, a former Canadian CSSA leader had his permanent residency application rejected because he acted as a Chinese spy, providing the embassy with intelligence on pro-democracy students.
While Chinese student groups have a legitimate role on our campus, groups like the CSSA that stand for China’s government more than its people have none. We disrespect Chinese students by treating the CSSA as their legitimate representative. The Chinese student community is more diverse than the CSSA acknowledges, and it does not always stand for the best interests of Chinese students.
The issues faced by Chinese students are great — the language barrier, isolation from the rest of the university, and cultural differences. Yet the CSSA’s hostile mentality and the insular attitude that comes with it leads Chinese students to live in their own bubble at the ANU, one in which they find themselves with almost no non-Chinese friends and having little interaction with Australian culture and ideas.
The CSSA’s actions speak far louder than its words.
Alex Joske is an ANU student and a China researcher at Charles Sturt University. Alex is also a former News Editor and News Correspondent at Woroni. Wu Lebao is an ANU student and Chinese political refugee.
The previous Woroni article which mentions Tao Pinru can be found here.