Scan barcode
stefhyena's review
4.0
Both the essay itself and the correspondence was vital reading and surprisingly easy to read. I hope people won't be put off by how academic the word "essay" sounds, this is simply written an account of how the "safe schools" programme has unfolded and been supported, attacked and withdrawn from in turn, some of the reasons for that and a little bit about the various personalities involved as well as some interviews with actual queer (including trans) teenagers which significantly those wasting most words writing about the program (or their misconceptions of it) nearly always neglect to do.
The correspondence was about Anna Krien's book The Long Goodbye and there was a good range of writers who did not all say the same thing (for all that I personally could have done without the pompous and bullying tones of Matt Canavan who contradicted himself throughout his rant which was riddled with out of date or just bad "facts"). I am glad he was included (and Krien's reply to him) if only for the value of having a dissenting voice on a much debated issue. The pro-nuclear stuff I will have to learn more about, for all that I don't like the idea at all. I want to know more about current technologies in renewables, because I felt that a couple of writers were underestimating them but I need the figures to back me up (or I need to rethink).
It was very disappointing that out of nine writers featured, seven were male. There are still not enough women's voices in the public arena, being given a platform to speak on contested issues such as these. Most of the writers were high enough quality (Canavan being the exception), however it would be good if they looked for a balance of female writers of the same calibre. I guess when I look at other issues of QE I will see whether this was just a one off, or whether it is an area they need to work on.
The correspondence was about Anna Krien's book The Long Goodbye and there was a good range of writers who did not all say the same thing (for all that I personally could have done without the pompous and bullying tones of Matt Canavan who contradicted himself throughout his rant which was riddled with out of date or just bad "facts"). I am glad he was included (and Krien's reply to him) if only for the value of having a dissenting voice on a much debated issue. The pro-nuclear stuff I will have to learn more about, for all that I don't like the idea at all. I want to know more about current technologies in renewables, because I felt that a couple of writers were underestimating them but I need the figures to back me up (or I need to rethink).
It was very disappointing that out of nine writers featured, seven were male. There are still not enough women's voices in the public arena, being given a platform to speak on contested issues such as these. Most of the writers were high enough quality (Canavan being the exception), however it would be good if they looked for a balance of female writers of the same calibre. I guess when I look at other issues of QE I will see whether this was just a one off, or whether it is an area they need to work on.
gisellenguyen's review
5.0
A timely and galvanising essay from one of Australia's most essential voices. Law examines the Safe Schools controversy through the media coverage in the Australian, and clears up misconceptions about the program through meticulous research and interviews. Great mix of academic and informal writing here, with the usual Law touches providing comic relief here and there. Especially with the current debate around marriage equality, this is zeitgeist-capturing stuff that's really critical for all Australians to read – though those who need to read it most might not.
gillyreads's review
If you've been at all aware of the discussion about the Safe Schools program here in Australia, you'll know it has involved very little information about the actual program. This is the main reason I picked up Law's essay. Regardless of your view on Safe Schools, I think it's worth reading. I personally learnt a lot about an issue I had been following for a while.
There are two main aspects to the essay, the first examines what Safe Schools actually is, and how it started. The second is around the media coverage of the program, particularly by the Australian. Comprehensively researched, this essay is a compelling read. Law is clear on his position but investigates the issue in a measured and open way. I thought, he was quite generous to the opposing position, even finding points of agreement. I actually think this essay is an excellent example of good journalism.
I'm not going to go over every point, you should read the essay, but there are a couple of key things that struck me:
The essay shows that most concerns of those advocating against the program do not understand queer theory, do not understand the diversity of opinions within the lgbt+ community and do not understand what the program actually contains. This is not to say there is no criticism to be made, just that those currently being made are weirdly disconnected from the actual program.
Finally, Law spoke to numerous students, something that he points out has been missing from the national discussion. I'm a firm believer in giving children, and teenagers, a say in their own stories. That they should be afforded the respect to be part of the conversations that affect them. As Law points out, in our concern over protecting children, we seem to forget to ask them what it is they need.
There are two main aspects to the essay, the first examines what Safe Schools actually is, and how it started. The second is around the media coverage of the program, particularly by the Australian. Comprehensively researched, this essay is a compelling read. Law is clear on his position but investigates the issue in a measured and open way. I thought, he was quite generous to the opposing position, even finding points of agreement. I actually think this essay is an excellent example of good journalism.
I'm not going to go over every point, you should read the essay, but there are a couple of key things that struck me:
The essay shows that most concerns of those advocating against the program do not understand queer theory, do not understand the diversity of opinions within the lgbt+ community and do not understand what the program actually contains. This is not to say there is no criticism to be made, just that those currently being made are weirdly disconnected from the actual program.
Finally, Law spoke to numerous students, something that he points out has been missing from the national discussion. I'm a firm believer in giving children, and teenagers, a say in their own stories. That they should be afforded the respect to be part of the conversations that affect them. As Law points out, in our concern over protecting children, we seem to forget to ask them what it is they need.
More...