Cactus Kate posted an interesting piece on Auckland Uni law lecturer, Jane Kelsey.
Acknowledging Kelsey’s undoubted intelligence and ability, …
why should taxpayers pay to have their children indoctrinated, intimidated or browbeaten by the likes of Jane Kelsey?”.
Kate then replied in a comment.
Because it is excellent training for the “real world” that’s why. If these highly educated and privileged students can’t stand up and have an opinion and deal with Kelsey in a mature adult fashion, then how are they ever going to make it in a cut throat aggressive professional like law?
Will they run to Mummy and Daddy and say their boss or the opposing counsel is picking on them?
If you are studying law and can’t handle Kelsey then you don’t deserve to be there.
Here is my reply to Kate.
While it is true Kate, that the ability to argue your case is essential in law and Jane Kelsey may help you improve that ability, that is not my main point. I concede the value of people like Kelsey to play a “devil’s advocate” role, however that is not the first role of a teacher, especially at a junior level.
When one studies Geography one does not pay good money to be told the earth is flat. Chemistry lecturers should not be telling you that with the right incantations you can lead into gold.
The hard sciences strive for objective truth. I see no reason why law, economics, political science, sociology, history, psychology etc lecturers, should not strive for the same standard and be held accountable if they cannot deliver it.
Currently lecturers can get away with “junk science” in all those fields. For example some economics lecturers still teach Keynesianism as though it were true, rather than the bullshit it is.
I believe lecturers have an obligation to teach demonstrable facts and principles rather than falsehoods such as Marxism, Keynesianism, Skinnerism etc.
If I pay money for education, I want truth, or at least the best possible approximation.
Students, especially junior students, like any apprentice, should first be taught the basics of their trade. You don’t teach a young mechanic, the Marxist theory of motor vehicle production and its relevance to the law of “surplus value“
You teach how to set a spark plug correctly and how to drain a sump.
Sorry Kate, but I wouldn’t pay to send my 18 year old to listen to Jane Kelsey’s theories on Te Tiriti, Critical Theory and the legal implications of globalisation.
I’d want my son or daughter to learn classical legal principles and their application in creating a free and stable liberal society.
But unfortunately, NZ universities are taxpayer funded entities that the taxpayer has little control over. Unfortunately they are riddled with Marxist academics, many of whom have tenure. Even more unfortunately, some of these warped little tenured tyrants, abuse their powers to attempt to indoctrinate the weak and penalise more independent thinkers.
Would many of the Socialist Sociologists, leftie law lecturers, Keynesian “economists” or Marxist historians survive in the “real world“?
Kate, if you ran a private university, depending on fee paying students and endowments to survive, would you hire Jane Kelsey to teach junior students? Who would you hire to teach economics? Rodney Hide or Tim Hazeldine?