Intellectual freedom sold out debating the Climb.
Dear Marc,
Thank you for your Letter to the Editor contribution for The Australian Geologist (TAG).
As you know we have published a number of items from you recently (TAG189, advertisement for "A Guide To Climbing Ayers Rock") and March #186 (two-page spread and advertisement for Climb for Science 2018).
At the time of publishing we included these items as we saw them as contributions from a member. However, since then we have seen a large amount of media coverage generated by you on this topic, including as a platform for the Australian Conservative Party. On this basis, we will not be publishing your Letter to the Editor in TAG, due to its political nature.
We trust that while our response may not be the favourable one you had hoped for, that you will appreciate that we have published your contributions previously.
Rejection of my letter "due to its political nature" seemed most unfair so I wrote to the GSA governing council to seek more information as to why my letter was rejected. The response from the Council included this comment:
My final word to the society president:
I have my own means of rebutting misinformation and ignorance about accessing one of our geological treasures, so will not trouble you further. It is sad GSA has not taken an official stand against Myth and Superstition that will likely see access to other geological wonders curtailed in Australia. Sort of makes a mockery of GSA's commitment to promote geoscience.
"did nothing to stop awe and wonder being destroyed" ... Perhaps something to add to GSA's logo.
In light of the current debate about freedom of speech and free intellectual inquiry in our universities that recently saw a Queensland university professor unlawfully sacked for raising inconvenient facts that purportedly offended his colleagues, it is important that the public are aware that other learned societies are similarly affected and have apparently become confused about their role. I make the information here available to the public on this basis with a view that we may see more openness and support for intellectual discussion on controversial issues in the future. The double standards raised above are startling and have wider implications for the way we develop and share our ideas. Without further ado, and with a few minor modifications, here's that political letter GSA left on the cutting room floor...
Dear Editor,
Marc Hendrickx
A Geologist
9 May 2019 Now also on Quadrant online https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/05/politically-correct-geology/
I have been a member of the Geological Society of Australia, since the mid-1990s. While there has been no official statement from the society about the ban on climbing Ayers Rock the society newsletter (TAG - short for The Australian Geologist) did publish an essay supporting the climb by me in the March 2018 issue. This generated some debate in the following issue from a few who think that the rock should not be scaled, fair enough. In the December 2018 issue of TAG, there was an advertisement for my Book "A guide to climbing Ayers Rock". This is how the ad appeared, on page 45 near the last page.
TAG December 2018, page 45
The ad triggered a response from University of Adelaide lecturer Dr Kathryn Amos. Dr Amos was gobsmacked by the appearance of the advert in the newsletter and her letter appeared in the March 2019 issue of The Australian Geologist (TAG)...
TAG March 2019, page 9.
While I welcome the debate, it was clear that Dr Amos is unaware of the rich history of Anangu and non-Anangu sharing the Climb. It's no wonder ignorance about the climb is widespread given the decades of propaganda from Parks Australia and the Park Board that does not mention all the facts about Anangu and non-Anangu climbing Ayers Rock. My research published in "A guide to climbing Ayers Rock" fills this gap and provides visitors with the information they need to make an informed decision about the Climb. The intention of the ad was to alert GSA members to the book and perhaps help spread this little known knowledge. More troubling than Amos' ignorance about the history of the Climb were the aspersions she cast on the scientific integrity and ethics of those supportive of the Climb, and her rejection of free intellectual inquiry.
Many people who have climbed are aware of the stark contradictions of the Anangu Religion that since 1991 has denied the indigenous culture of climbing despite clear evidence to the contrary. In fact, evidence indicates past elders climbed and supported visitors climbing, additionally Parks Australia's own data indicate the safety risks about the Climb have been exaggerated and despite Park's Claims, the Climb remains a popular activity with tourists: on those days the gates are open from sunrise to sunset on average 44% elect to climb. With this in mind, the proposed ban that robs visitors of the enjoyment of the natural world makes absolutely no sense. Amos' call to censor opinions she sees being disrespectful of Aboriginal peoples goes against the very fundamentals of scientific inquiry and intellectual freedom supposedly upheld by the GSA and the university that employs her. How are Anangu to embrace a modern understanding of the world when people are worried they might be offended if their world view is challenged? Are we to leave them permanently in a cultural prison insulated from the rest of humanity like they were in their 10000-year isolation imposed by rising sea levels at the start of the Holocene? Our own western civilisation has myth and legend at its core and our fables form the backbone of our morality and our culture. At various points in our history shining the light of reason on those stories has resulted in persecution and death for those brave enough to raise their voices and punch holes in flawed ideologies. However, thanks to our intellectual progress most of us no longer take those myths and legends literally, however they remain an important part of who we are. Anangu culture will progress similarly if they are exposed to new ideas. If Amos' regressive prescription was followed our wonderful civilisation would never have emerged and we would still be hiding in caves fearing the darkness of ignorance and superstition. Freedom of intellectual inquiry is at the heart of the university and learned societies.
With this in mind, I wrote a letter to TAG in reply to Amos to highlight some of the missing facts about the Climb not previously published in the newsletter and challenge her disparaging remarks on my scientific integrity and ethics. This week, with the publication deadline for the next issue due, I received the following correspondence from the editor...
Many people who have climbed are aware of the stark contradictions of the Anangu Religion that since 1991 has denied the indigenous culture of climbing despite clear evidence to the contrary. In fact, evidence indicates past elders climbed and supported visitors climbing, additionally Parks Australia's own data indicate the safety risks about the Climb have been exaggerated and despite Park's Claims, the Climb remains a popular activity with tourists: on those days the gates are open from sunrise to sunset on average 44% elect to climb. With this in mind, the proposed ban that robs visitors of the enjoyment of the natural world makes absolutely no sense. Amos' call to censor opinions she sees being disrespectful of Aboriginal peoples goes against the very fundamentals of scientific inquiry and intellectual freedom supposedly upheld by the GSA and the university that employs her. How are Anangu to embrace a modern understanding of the world when people are worried they might be offended if their world view is challenged? Are we to leave them permanently in a cultural prison insulated from the rest of humanity like they were in their 10000-year isolation imposed by rising sea levels at the start of the Holocene? Our own western civilisation has myth and legend at its core and our fables form the backbone of our morality and our culture. At various points in our history shining the light of reason on those stories has resulted in persecution and death for those brave enough to raise their voices and punch holes in flawed ideologies. However, thanks to our intellectual progress most of us no longer take those myths and legends literally, however they remain an important part of who we are. Anangu culture will progress similarly if they are exposed to new ideas. If Amos' regressive prescription was followed our wonderful civilisation would never have emerged and we would still be hiding in caves fearing the darkness of ignorance and superstition. Freedom of intellectual inquiry is at the heart of the university and learned societies.
With this in mind, I wrote a letter to TAG in reply to Amos to highlight some of the missing facts about the Climb not previously published in the newsletter and challenge her disparaging remarks on my scientific integrity and ethics. This week, with the publication deadline for the next issue due, I received the following correspondence from the editor...
Dear Marc,
Thank you for your Letter to the Editor contribution for The Australian Geologist (TAG).
As you know we have published a number of items from you recently (TAG189, advertisement for "A Guide To Climbing Ayers Rock") and March #186 (two-page spread and advertisement for Climb for Science 2018).
At the time of publishing we included these items as we saw them as contributions from a member. However, since then we have seen a large amount of media coverage generated by you on this topic, including as a platform for the Australian Conservative Party. On this basis, we will not be publishing your Letter to the Editor in TAG, due to its political nature.
We trust that while our response may not be the favourable one you had hoped for, that you will appreciate that we have published your contributions previously.
I am not a member of the Australian Conservative Party and I had made no mention of politics in my letter, merely focusing on the facts about the climb so members
could have an informed debate, along with comments taking Amos to task for her opinions on scientific integrity and ethics and her call to censor alternative viewpoints. Given the aspersions cast upon my scientific
credibility, I was somewhat taken aback that I would not be provided with the
opportunity to reply to Dr Amos through the newsletter. Such debates have long been a feature of past TAG issues and make the newsletter much less dull. It seemed to me that the debate about the
Climb has always been about politics and the good news that the Australian Conservative Party
support the Climb has been offset by the Greens and the ALP backing the irrational
ban, a political position supported by Dr Amos. As an aside I would have thought the GSA and other scientific organisations would have welcomed the positive stand for geo-tourism and freedom to access public spaces taken by the Australian Conservative Party.
Rejection of my letter "due to its political nature" seemed most unfair so I wrote to the GSA governing council to seek more information as to why my letter was rejected. The response from the Council included this comment:
Finally, your statement that your letter was rejected on "political grounds" is indeed part (but only part) of the reason we choose not to publish it. Whether you like it or not, your viewpoint has been taken up by a political party and is now touted as their policy. We owe it to our widely diverse membership not to become the voice piece of any party.
Council's final word...
We, as a council, have discussed your correspondence previously and consider that we have provided a fair amount of coverage for your position and an alternative viewpoint. We believe further correspondence serves no purpose other than to lead to personal attacks - there is no value in continuing the discourse. I request that you do not contact the office on this matter again.
The letter by Amos that coincidentally supports the position of The Greens and the Australia Labor Party gets published and the one that coincidentally supports the policy of the Australian Conservative Party is not, yet astonishingly GSA says it does not want to become the voice piece of any political party. The letter attacking the integrity and ethics of those supporting the climb and would end free scientific inquiry gets published and the one providing the facts and making a case for free intellectual inquiry is left on the cutting room floor. Good grief, it does not get any more surreal than this!
My final word to the society president:
I have my own means of rebutting misinformation and ignorance about accessing one of our geological treasures, so will not trouble you further. It is sad GSA has not taken an official stand against Myth and Superstition that will likely see access to other geological wonders curtailed in Australia. Sort of makes a mockery of GSA's commitment to promote geoscience.
"did nothing to stop awe and wonder being destroyed" ... Perhaps something to add to GSA's logo.
In light of the current debate about freedom of speech and free intellectual inquiry in our universities that recently saw a Queensland university professor unlawfully sacked for raising inconvenient facts that purportedly offended his colleagues, it is important that the public are aware that other learned societies are similarly affected and have apparently become confused about their role. I make the information here available to the public on this basis with a view that we may see more openness and support for intellectual discussion on controversial issues in the future. The double standards raised above are startling and have wider implications for the way we develop and share our ideas. Without further ado, and with a few minor modifications, here's that political letter GSA left on the cutting room floor...
Kathryn Amos' letter (Tag 190) regarding the ad for my book
"A Guide to Climbing Ayers Rock" (p45 Tag189 – see above) exemplifies
some of the nonsensical postmodernist influences at play in universities at
present. Her reaction is based on emotion and ignorance of the rich Anangu and non-Anangu
traditions of climbing outlined and celebrated in my book. This tradition has been hidden from the
public since the first “We never Climb”
signs were erected at the base of the Climb in 1991. Here are a few facts for
others similarly “gobsmacked” or for
those feeling guilty for daring to simply enjoy the natural world by climbing
Ayers Rock. Many more facts that bust the myths about the climb promulgated by
the Board and Parks Australia are outlined in the book.
1. The name. As outlined by the NT Place Names Committee the
practice of dual naming features recognises their rich shared Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal history. According to the committee for Uluru-Ayers Rock "both names are equally as important
and can be used either together or individually"
2. The first climbers of Ayers Rock were Pre-Anangu peoples
who arrived in central Australia about 30000 years ago. No one knows what they
called their Rock.
3. The Anangu culture includes the dingo in its creation
mythology and hence it emerged in central Australia after about 4000 years ago;
after the arrival and spread of the Dingo in Australia.
4. One of the first climbing guides was Anangu man TigerTjalkalyirri. Tiger played a pivotal role in the land rights claim that
resulted in the hand back of Ayers Rock, he died just prior to the handover in
early 1985. The National Library has recordings of Tiger singing in
Pitjantjatjara; telling legends of Uluru and Kata Tjuta; bush tucker; tribal
lifestyle and history. He was also a great entertainer, he danced for tourists
in the campground and encouraged them to climb his Rock. There should be a statue
in his honour erected at the base of the climb.
Scene from Lou Borgelt's 1946 film of his visit to Ayers Rock and the Olga, restored by Lutheran Archives. Left to right on the summit: Mitjenkeri, Mick, Lou Borgelt, and Tiger Tjalkalyirri.
5. Paddy Uluru was recognised by locals and officials as the
Principal Owner of Uluru until his death in 1979 when ownership passed to a
wider group. He never expressed any concerns about visitors climbing his rock.
In an interview with Alice Springs News, Paddy stated the physical act of
climbing was of no cultural interest.
6. In a 1975 ABC TV interview Paddy's brother Toby
Naninga stated that aside from the Men's Initiation cave (Warayuki) and
adjacent Ngaltawata Pole tourists could go anywhere else. The daughters of
senior Anangu men climbed the Rock with long term resident David Hewitt in1969, blowing apart the modern myth that the summit is for men only.
7. Derek Roff the longest serving Head Ranger indicated that
during his tenure between 1968 and 1985 the issue of climbing never arose with
Traditional Owners. It was also never suggested by them that the use of the
climb by tourists was offensive or inappropriate.
8. Paddy Uluru and other senior Anangu men and women
climbed the rock to pass on important stories about summit legends. These were
recounted to anthropologist Charles Mountford and published in his book
"Ayers Rock: its people, their beliefs and their art." As Anangu
relied on an oral tradition, knowledge of the summit legends indicate they have
been climbing to the summit for thousands of years, thereby busting the myth
that "Anangu never climb". Sadly the “we never Climb” doctrine of the
current Board suggests knowledge of summit stories may have been lost.
10. The first time visitors were informed that climbing was
not appropriate was in the 1991 management plan where visitors were told Anangu
never climb.
I appreciate that some academics now inhabit institutions
where intellectual inquiry is hamstrung by pandering to some group or other. No
wonder some are gobsmacked when informed opinions are voiced that challenge
their own views. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. Freedom of inquiry allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth. This is how we have advanced as a civilisation. Free intellectual inquiry remains integral to
the sciences and integral to the proper functioning of our society. How some
can forget this and lecture others about scientific integrity and ethics is
beyond me.
It is long overdue that facts about the Climb were aired so
a proper discussion can be held. In the meantime, we have seen moves to ban
access to other summits with outstanding geological heritage including StMary's Peak in the Flinders Ranges and Mt Warning in northern NSW. Sadly in all
these cases as with the Ayers Rock climb, Australia’s august scientific bodies have
not raised their official voices against these travesties lest they risk offending some group
or other. Geoscientists and their professional societies have an obligation to
educate the public about the geology of the world around them and look after
our collective geological heritage so others may learn from it. Science and
knowledge does not grow by being worried about causing offence, it grows by free
and open inquiry, by challenging ingrained belief systems and testing new ideas
against observations and facts. Causing offence is one of the hazards of being
a good scientist, and if you are not offending someone you are probably not doing
your job properly.
Marc Hendrickx
A Geologist
9 May 2019 Now also on Quadrant online https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/05/politically-correct-geology/
Comments
Post a Comment