AQ: Australian Quarterly

The Politicisation of Open Debate: The Hypocrisy of the Robert Menzies Institute

Universities have been, and should always be, a place to exercise free speech and engage in open debate. In an age of filter bubbles and narrowcasting of information, our society is becoming less and less acquainted with the disconcerting feeling of open discussion with someone you fundamentally disagree with. Thrashing out differences is how the common good is determined, how cultural norms are solidified, and how compromise is achieved.

For a variety of reasons, these difficult discussions have become harder to resolve. Our tech and media landscapes make it harder to determine trustworthy information, while at the same time making it easier to selectively pick the facts you prefer. As a result, our forums for effective debate have been

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from AQ: Australian Quarterly

AQ: Australian Quarterly4 min read
References
1. https://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/libraryviewer?ResourceID=10 2. https://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/libraryviewer?ResourceID=100 1. Nichols, D. E. (2016). ‘Psychedelics’, Pharmacological Reviews, 68:264–355, p.268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1124/p
AQ: Australian Quarterly10 min readAddiction
Vaping in Australia
Associate Professor Michelle Jongenelis is a Principal Research Fellow at The University of Melbourne’s School of Psychological Sciences and Deputy Director of the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change. She has expertise in health promotion, interven
AQ: Australian Quarterly9 min read
Not Quite Out of the Cold: Resurgence, Retreat, and Resurfacing of Psychedelic Research
The word, ‘psychedelics’, was coined by Humphrey Osmond in 1957, “connoting that they have a mind-manifesting capability, revealing useful or beneficial properties of the mind”.2 The 1950s and 1960 were a time of enormous scientific interest in psych

Related