Ridd decision abandons the point of universities

Today in The Australian

A missed opportunity at best, an inconsistent and questionable judg­ment at worst, the decision of the full Federal Court in the dispute between Peter Ridd and James Cook University deserves to be reviewed by the High Court.

About Henry Ergas

Henry Ergas AO is a columnist for The Australian. From 2009 to 2015 he was Senior Economic Adviser to Deloitte Australia and from 2009 to 2017 was Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong’s SMART Infrastructure Facility. He joined SMART and Deloitte after working as a consultant economist at NECG, CRA International and Concept Economics. Prior to that, he was an economist at the OECD in Paris from the late 1970s until the early 1990s. At the OECD, he headed the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Structural Adjustment (1984-1987), which concentrated on improving the efficiency of government policies in a wide range of areas, and was subsequently Counsellor for Structural Policy in the Economics Department. He has taught at a range of universities, undertaken a number of government inquiries and served as a Lay Member of the New Zealand High Court. In 2016, he was made an Officer in the Order of Australia.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Ridd decision abandons the point of universities

  1. NuThink says:

    When “science” is decided by legalese and other non scientific methods then “science” becomes fake science.

    As I posted yesterday the way to have resolved the issue was to get all competing sides together in a debate, competing ideas are presented and picked on by the others in order to find the truth. That it went along the legal path to me means that the purpose of a university to seek the truth was lost – and became a game of politics and vested interests. The appointment in about 1997 of a politician (Neville Wrann) as the head of the CSIRO was also a terrible mistake which compromised the function of a scientific organisation. It does not mean that a politician cannot understand science but he came from a legal and political background and that could heavily influence his thinking. I met NW when he visited a company I was working for at the time and I was disappointed that a non scientific person was appointed as head of the CSIRO. Too many persons that I have worked with who have science degrees also do not understand the scientific method.
    Remember too that the science was meant to have been settled a few years ago – again when legalese politicians were leading us.

    BTW, this definition of a scientist does not include a degree. So you can be a scientist without a uni qualification.

    Learn to pronounce
    a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
    “a research scientist”

    Just as an aside – watched a docco on the 10 mistakes which lead to the sinking of the Titanic – and they mentioned that the 1911 winter had been especially warm and that there were 400 large icebergs floating around which was more than the usual 160. So global warming was around even then!

  2. mareeS says:

    Universities are pointless now, dominated by failed humanities. I opted out of my unproductive undergraduate degree course in 1970s and went for a working Cadetship, best decision of my life besides marrying the spouse.

    Our kids made a similar decision after Yr12 to apprenticeships and traineeships, sailing along despite the virus.

  3. John A says:

    NuThink #3529927, posted on July 31, 2020, at 10:15 am

    As I posted yesterday the way to have resolved the issue was to get all competing sides together in a debate, competing ideas are presented and picked on by the others in order to find the truth.

    Rumpole of the Bailey: “The law is at best an exceedingly blunt instrument for determining the truth of a matter.”
    That dictum may apply to a lot of adversarial scenarios.

  4. Iampeter says:

    Ridd decision abandons the point of universities

    Don’t really see anything in the article that explains the heading of the article. But as usual the entire issue is being discussed with no definition of any of the fundamental concepts.
    It would also be funny to read coverage of this issue from the same people if the JCU was a “Christian University” and they were being sued by a homosexual atheist that they fired. Something tells me these same people would all be on the JCU’s side and no one would be worried about “academic freedom” …

  5. Rex Anger says:

    Voetsek troll.

    You’ve tried as many times in as many threads as there have been posted in the Cat in the last fortnighf, IamTooFoolForSchool.

    Nobody agrees with your unquestioning support for SJW jackbootery. Nobody agrees with your ‘muh freedumbz’ false libertarian schtick. And nobody is even willing to suffer the appaling tortures of logic, definitions and even rhetoric you’ve employed in your failed attempts to demonstrate to us we are all wrong.

    We. Are. Not. Supporting. Peter. Ridd. Because. He. Deserves. More. Privileges. Than. You. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Identity. Politics.

    Now go away and sulk, IamSoThickABottleOfDoubleClottedCreamToldMeIWasDumbAndThat’sSayingSomething.

  6. 2dogs says:

    Peter Ridd for TEQSA commissioner!

Comments are closed.