The Ramsay Centre and ‘Western Civilisation’ - An Attempt at Historical Perspective - A Reaction to Martin Davies’ Paper

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man

Critiques Martin Davies’ attempt to defend the Ramsay Centre’s efforts to fund “Western Civilisation” courses at Australian universities. The response argues that Davies misrepresents elements of the ANU decision and relies on media coverage rather than the substance of university autonomy and academic freedom. It notes missing discussion of academic freedom, questions assumptions about motives, and contextualizes controversy within broader debates on philanthropy and academic governance.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time18 min

AccessFree to download

The Ramsay Centre and ‘Western Civilisation’

Reaction to Martin Davies’ Paper

Autonomy, academic freedom, and media framing

Philanthropy and university funding debates

Practical issues and academic merits

Conceptual history of “Western Civilisation”

A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W The Ramsay Centre and‘Western Civilisation’ An attempt at historical perspective A reaction to Martin Davies’ paper (this issue) Andrew G. Bonnell University of Queensland Martin Davies’paper seeks to vindicate the efforts of the Ramsay Centre to fund courses in ‘Western Civilisation’at selected Australian universities. He begins by lamenting the rejection of vast amounts of philanthropic money for the humanities, and all too quickly dismisses the stated grounds for the Australian National University’s decision to decline a deal with the Ramsay Centre: ‘The issue of academic autonomy has been raised as a reason, but this is, at best, ostensible’, Davies writes. He then goes on to defend the concept of courses in Western civilisation more generally. Davies’ account of the ANU’s decision not to enter into an arrangement with the Ramsay Centre is flawed.(It should also be clarified that the ANU was not being offered $3 billion, as Davies’text might suggest – this sum refers to the total wealth of the Ramsay Foundation, not the amount the Ramsay program at ANU would have cost.) Davies relies heavily on the coverage in the Murdoch press, which used the incident as an opportunity to hyperventilate for some weeks in a familiar ‘culture wars’mode, but conspicuously failed to engage with the issues of university autonomy and academic freedom. Sadly, the term‘academic freedom’ is altogether absent from Davies’ essay, although the ‘Ramsay Centre’s very explicit unwillingness to commit to the principle of academic freedom’ was central to the decision by the ANU’s leadership to withdraw from talks with Ramsay (Evans, 2018). Davies’argument relies not only on the proposition that the ANU’s Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor were being disingenuous in their public statements on university autonomy and academic freedom, but also on the argument that Tony Abbott, former Prime Minister and Ramsay Board member, did not mean what he wrote in his now-notorious April 2018 Quadrant article, which frankly argued that the Centre’s program should take a specific, explicitly right-wing, ideological position (‘not merely about Western civilisation but in favour of it’), and should remain under the control of the Ramsay Board to ensure that its purposes were not subverted by academics (Evans 2018; Evans & Schmidt, 2018;Abbott 2018) . A reader visiting from another planet might conclude from Davies’paper that the ANU had been capricious and perverse in refusing a munificent philanthropic donation for the humanities. This overlooks the fact that a number of quite serious people at the ANU had felt an obligation to explore the proposal and its potential benefits in good faith and had invested significant effort in the process over a number of months before the unacceptable nature of the Ramsay Board’s position became clear. It also overlooks the fact that a number of Australian universities have welcomed philanthropic donations in the humanities, including in areas that could be classified as falling under the category of ‘Western civilisation’; for example, the Hansen chair and lectureships in History at vol. 61, no. 2, 2019 The Ramsay Centre and ‘Western Civilisation’Andrew G. Bonnell 65 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W the University of Melbourne, and a named chair in classicsin my own School at the University of Queensland.These endowments have not been controversial, but they have not come with the kinds of strings that trailed behind the Ramsay centre proposals. There is a wider debate to be had about ‘philanthropy’: it should supplement,not replace,more sustainable public funding.Taxation of the wealthy should not be voluntary (and suggestions that a private health entrepreneur like the late Paul Ramsay was able to extract billions of dollars from the pockets of the sick, infirm, and dying is a sad commentary on Australia’s public health policies, wh

FAQs

What is the main purpose of this paper’s reaction to Martin Davies?

It challenges Davies’ interpretation of the ANU’s decision and evaluates whether Davies’ reasoning engages seriously with university autonomy and academic freedom.

What key issue does the reaction say Davies overlooks?

The reaction states that “academic freedom” is absent from Davies’ essay, even though it was central to the ANU leadership’s decision to withdraw from talks with Ramsay.

How does the reaction frame the broader debate around “philanthropy”?

It argues philanthropy should supplement, not replace, public funding, notes concerns about voluntary taxation, and contends that Australian universities currently have a bias toward receiving philanthropic donations rather than rejecting them lightly.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man