The Australian recently ran a series of articles describing how some Macquarie University students within the law faculty felt pressured to give the answers their markers wanted, especially for assessments relating to Aboriginal Australians.

Since those articles were published, Macquarie University’s vice-chancellor, S. Bruce Dowton, ordered a review of its law school practices. It was gratifying to learn recently that Macquarie University has agreed to abandon its practice of assessing students on an Acknowledgement of Country.

I hope other universities follow Macquarie University’s lead. However, I have my concerns. While a practice may be overturned or discontinued, the ideology driving it survives and typically pops up elsewhere. For example, consider the case for the Indigenous Voice to parliament referendum. Despite its defeat, we continue to hear talk about treaties and implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart. In fact, the ideology driving the Indigenous Voice is not new; it was one that has been around for as long as I can remember.

The ideology I refer to is the pervasive belief that Aboriginal Australians are vastly different from other Australians and any problems they face are primarily the result of colonisation and racism. This ideology is typically driven by those motivated by self-interest and never by those seeking to genuinely help Aboriginal Australians. I believe this same ideology is what drives some universities to overemphasise Aboriginal content in some of their courses.

But aren’t such ideologies easily recognisable and easily dismissed? Sometimes. However, because they can be attached to good or well-intentioned programs and practices, this makes them harder to challenge, unless of course one is prepared to be called insensitive or racist.

As an example of a well-intentioned practice, consider that most universities typically have lists of intended attributes which reflect desirable characteristics of their graduates. Many of those lists include an understanding of Aboriginal people, their culture and knowledge. This is good. University graduates should have an appreciation of Aboriginal Australia, so long as what they learn is factual, balanced, and not driven by ideology.

This practice of producing graduates who have an appreciation of Aboriginal Australia is consistent with advice given by Universities Australia, who have stated in their 2023 Indigenous Status Report that, ‘Recognising the value Indigenous peoples and knowledge bring to the university and embedding Indigenous value systems and knowledge into university structures.’ Embedding Indigenous value systems? Phrases like these suggest a shift from education to ideology, raising concerns about whether universities are prioritising cultural politics over quality education.

If these ideas were just to remain in a report, that might be okay, but ideologies are not easily contained; they seek to be expressed and spread like cancer. Sadly, there is no shortage of people wanting to promote this cancer.

Consider that the Australian newspaper recently reported that the University of Sydney has started recruiting for a ‘Senior Education Design Officer’ who would be responsible for ‘executing transformative curriculum projects aimed at embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge, perspectives, texts, and media within curricular projects’. Quoting further from the same article: ‘The role would provide support “across a number of initiatives aimed at Indigenising and Decolonising Curricula”.’

If you haven’t reached for your bucket yet, stay with me; there is more. Most recently, Janet Albrechtsen reported that the University of Melbourne law school has a job going that would require the successful applicant to engage in ‘championing curric-ulum development and decoloni-sation efforts’.

What would this look like in practice? Would the text Dark Emu, whose conclusions have been thoroughly criticised by leading experts such as anthropologist Peter Sutton, become compulsory reading?

Universities have many ways of ensuring that all their students gain some understanding and appreciation of Aboriginal Australia. For example, they can make Aboriginal content available on their web pages, hold open lectures on Aboriginal issues with guest speakers for all students to attend if they choose, have library exhibitions, and engage in Naidoc celebrations, all without turning education into indoctrination.

If managed appropriately, these examples can demonstrate a university’s commitment to Aboriginal Australia without compromising students’ learning experiences. This should suffice, but clearly some university administrators believe otherwise.

Universities are meant to be places where adults can prepare for their chosen careers and become critical and independent thinkers. So why do they risk becoming centres for indoctrination?

I believe that most Australians, when they think about the inequality of too many Aboriginal Australians, feel a strong urge to help, but are unsure how. University staff are no exception. However, when they design their courses to mandate respect for Aboriginal people and talk about the ongoing legacy of colonisation, they can console themselves with the thought that they have contributed to closing the gap. They can believe they have produced graduates who possess a good knowledge of Aboriginal Australia and will use this knowledge to make a real difference. The universities look good, individuals feel good, and everyone’s a winner, except maybe Aboriginal Australians. This is effectively a master-class in Virtue Signalling 101.

Beyond student dissatisfaction with pushing an excessive pro-Aboriginal agenda and the very real possibility that this agenda does not in fact help any Aboriginal people, there is another problem.

Non-Aboriginal Australians generally have an enormous amount of goodwill towards Aboriginal Australians, presumably because they see them simply as fellow Australians. But when the average Australian hears that the gap is not closing, vast amounts of money are invested in programs with little to show, and then they hear about the stories discussed in this article, their frustration grows. Although this shouldn’t result in a loss of goodwill towards Aboriginal Australians, there is always the potential to do so.

If universities want to produce graduates who can contribute to improving the lives of Aboriginal Australians, the answer isn’t ideological instruction. It’s creating a space for genuine inquiry, critical thinking and open debate.