Pardon my scepticism regarding the anti-DEI mob and those opposed to Acknowledgement of Country, but every day I see proof that it really is just racism and misogynism dressed up in pseudo-scientific bullshit. It’s not the left being intellectually dishonest in relation to that; it’s self-opinionated “commentators” trying to hide prejudice behind “pc gone made common sense”. It’s those trying to fool everyone into thinking opposing DEI is about “merit” and claiming Acknowledgment of Country is “divisive”, when it’s blatantly obvious that neither is true. Although they’re careful to hide their real intentions, sooner or later, the guard drops and all is revealed, sometimes casually and often in the most unexpected ways. It’s been happening a lot lately, but I didn’t need to see it now to have always had valid suspicions.

Many years ago, in the early 2000s, I was doing a postgraduate course online. It was run by an Australian university, but open to international students. Although now quite common, at the time, it was one of the first of its kind and I was glad to be part of such an initiative. As an Australian, I very much enjoyed the interaction with fellow postgrads from all over the world, partly facilitated through our virtual course discussion board, which, with online courses then just starting as a “thing”, helped provide the more social and extra-curricula interaction usually associated with on-campus life.

As sometimes happens with these things, a small clique of people, mostly international participants, began to dominate the discussion board. This particular set began to frequently use it to criticise the course, from its general administration to management of units within it. That’s not necessarily, in itself, an issue, although I felt that any material issues with the course would have been better raised through appropriate channels. It became irritating when a few started saying how much ‘better’ the colleges in their country were etc. etc. at which point, I was tempted to ask why they chose to do this course and not one in their home country. I refrained from commenting on those aspects and enjoyed admission to this “elite” set. However, I became concerned at attitudes displayed toward other international students, sometimes people of particular nationalities, in ways that reflected certain unsavoury aspects of their country’s politics. The shunning of people from Mexico and similar countries, for example, was glaringly noticeable. My thought was that if people were studying at an Australian university, they should conform with Australian culture and leave theirs at home. For context, after some time believing that racism was a thing on the way to being defeated, I was teaching secondary school in a location where racism was prevalent, not among the students, but a few staff colleagues! Thus, my sensitivity to it at that time was quite heightened and I was acutely feeling the pain of my many First Nations friends and students. However, the attitudes on the online course discussion board being more tacit than overt, I didn’t make note of it until one day, the discussion strayed from course material into a lengthy tribute to the enjoyment of wine. That is not something I was or am offended by, but within that discussion, someone repeated a line from a 1970s Monty Python sketch, which states that a particular “Australian” wine “had the bouquet of an Aborigine’s armpit.”

I didn’t know if there were any Australian First Nations people in the course, if they weren’t put off before they certainly could be then, but whether there were or not, I was dumb-founded that anyone would post such a comment. That these people also seemed not to know that the Chancellor of the university was a former Prime Minister of Australia, one of whose achievements was recognition of Australian Native Rights, to me, reflected ignorance of a university they were privileged to be able to study at.

For me, that comment, such insensitivity so casually made, was the tipping point and I “exploded” on the discussion board, stating my objection to it. I said that people needed to be more sensitive in their online comments. (Such is the character of my “explosions”.)

When it was noted that it was ‘just a Monty Python quote’, I said that didn’t excuse repetition of it, and that it didn’t make it any less offensive.

A couple made the “freedom of speech” speech and I replied with the ‘freedom of speech is not freedom to hurt’ speech. They noted the social role of non-course related discussions; I recognised the social value of discussion boards for online courses, but doubted comments such as that could be deemed “sociable” or would assist in that cause.

To my relief, several of the participants in the course of the same nationality as they, people of greater substance and “white”, I might add, agreed with me and stated that they also had been concerned about some aspects of the discussion board for some time. Some of them and others said it was partly why they had been avoiding it. So much for the “social” function of online discussion boards, if a small clique merely drives everyone else, including the genuinely more “sociable” people, away from them.

There, the discussion of that topic on the course platform ended, with recognition of the need for some kind of “netiquette”, although a few of those involved moved to an external platform, with comments to the effect that ‘at least they’d be able to speak freely there’. ????

Importantly, when I reacted that day, it wasn’t because of “radical lefty intellectualism” or “champagne socialism”. It was sheer, personal heartbreak at how it would hurt my friends, many of them intelligent and educated, and my students, wide-eyed and innocent children, all trying to have a go, but having the door slammed in their faces by this kind of garbage, garbage they have to put up with every day, along with all the other stereotypes and insults they’re locked into. That, is not “suicidal empathy”. It’s being a decent human being. I don’t for a moment think my friends want to slit my throat as compensation for past wrongs when they ask for mere acknowledgment of their existence, something it took a referendum to only partially achieve in 1967 and a High Court case to do as late as the 1990s.

The Monty Python sketch referred to was from a while ago, in the early 1970s, and, personally, I believed the Monty Python gang would be embarrassed by it today, much, I would say, to the relief of their devotees. No sensible person would repeat it today, only those with no friends who would be affected by it or those who have no knowledge of the topic or those with malicious intention or those who have no soul.

I’m glad to still do Acknowledgement of Country, a relatively minor gesture, but one that means everything to people who, despite the pretences of ignoramuses, still face major obstacles and prejudices, as the toxic “No” campaign surrounding the “Voice” referendum showed.