Press release

29/3/2021

In response to media enquiries we have received regarding a recent piece which appeared in De Minimis (‘On China’ published 18/3/2021), we have prepared the following statement:

De Minimis does not, nor has it ever, taken a stance on the opinions published in our pages. It is not our role to do so. Per our Constitution, our foremost purpose is to ‘facilitate the free and open exchange of ideas relevant to the Melbourne Law School (MLS) community.’ All articles are published with that purpose in mind.

It is our job to allow the opinions and experiences of MLS to come to the fore, to be read by those who are interested. We have always taken this job seriously, and we pride ourselves on giving an unbiased platform to the diverse voices of our School. For example, last year we published a series titled International Perspectives, in collaboration with the Melbourne Law Students’ Society. This series of articles focussed on elevating the experiences of our international student peers.

We understand that some members of our community find some of the opinions expressed in our pages distasteful. Strong disagreement is sometimes inevitable. No matter the topic, we welcome students to respond to articles they disagree with, and to advance an article that champions their values. Our inbox is always open.

We look forward to continuing our work with the student body.

Max Ferguson
Editor-In-Chief

Not Satisfied

29/3/2021 05:16:35 pm

This is such a weak response.

You can't publish extreme racist views that:
- Call for all students from one nationality to be kicked out of the university
- Claim the Iraq was "was bad but had good intentions"
- Imply that China is hiding information about COVID-19 ("China won’t allow a transparent investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic")
And then hide behind the argument of "We just want a free exchange of ideas"

When De Minimis chooses to publish these views they're agreeing that they are views that are worth hearing. If you just publish anything that comes into your inbox regardless of how offensive or inaccurate then you're not a newspaper, you're an unmoderated chatroom with slightly nicer formatting.

The original article was disgraceful and so was this response.

ally ali

1/4/2021 08:02:33 pm

"China won’t allow a transparent investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic".

This is true tho, how is that racist? China sanctioned Australia because scomo asked for one

Andrew Bolt

7/4/2021 12:25:54 am

Yeah China definitely withheld "critical information" when they told the world about the virus in early Jan, locked down the country, sequenced the viral genome by February and shared it with the world including this university's researchers at the Doherty Institute. This information was so withheld that even with a 3 month head start no western nation couldn't even manage to recommend masks to its citizens let alone any tangible public health measures.

As a university educated student who is expected to have an ounce of critical thinking I wonder whether it's asking too much to question the clearly twisted media narrative political diversion tactics here. Arguing about whether that statement is "true" is arguing technicalities without context. It is irrelevant to the problem, shows that you and the author are intent on attributing blame to a group of peoples (China, CCP, Chinese people, whatever you wanna stretch it to) rather than rationally self examine.

This is apparent when the only issue you chose to address in the above comment was an irrelevant "gotcha" moment, with that that it was enough for you to ignore every other well argued and relevant point.

well said

1/4/2021 08:09:13 pm

"When De Minimis chooses to publish these views they're agreeing that they are views that are worth hearing."

well said

And?

1/4/2021 10:08:00 pm

China is hiding information, what's your point?

This is law school, not BBC or ABC News

1/4/2021 11:39:13 pm

When make any claim about a hateful crime like “genocide”, which has itself a international law standard procedure of proofs, please do have in mind what we as law students have humbly learnt from PPL, Evidence and Proof, and everything about statutory interpretation. End.

Agreed

1/4/2021 11:55:11 pm

“When De Minimis chooses to publish these views they're agreeing that they are views that are worth hearing.“

Absolutely.

not ok

1/4/2021 04:01:13 pm

In the context of hate speech, this reply by deminimis is rationale
In the context of hate speech, this reply does not address the real concern here

NOT OK

1/4/2021 04:05:30 pm

rational in the context of *free speech*

Now law but low

1/4/2021 07:49:32 pm

The original manuscript should be published in either Sky News or The Australian or any media that lean to Pauline Hanson's One Nation, but now an academic body.

Lachlan

1/4/2021 08:12:14 pm

Free speech?? How about I post an article asking to ban ALL WHITE students at all unis???

That's the point of de min?

1/4/2021 10:07:11 pm

Do it then? Send the article in, it's a valid argument.

Well Done

1/4/2021 08:45:29 pm

Well done to the De Minimis team, there is nothing to apologise for when it comes to promoting a free discourse.

Now there's an article on the ABC website about how MLS is racist

1/4/2021 09:26:03 pm

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-01/chinese-international-students-melbourne-law/100041814

Nice job guys

MLS is racist?

1/4/2021 10:17:16 pm

De min is a mirror, if the article is racist so are people at MLS. Be thankful that you know this now.

how badly did the LSAT hurt you

1/4/2021 10:29:15 pm

After doing the LSAT, a diddly wise lad such as yourself should know that this is a fallacious statement.

comment section

2/4/2021 12:07:37 pm

the article really brought out all the racist students at MLS who have been walking around incognito though

Perhaps a funding cut

1/4/2021 11:24:13 pm

Maybe De Minimis’ funding should be cut if they clearly do not understand that free speech doesn’t mean “publish everything no matter how discriminatory, hateful or just outright shit it is”. You can’t do your jobs as editors? Fine. Shut it down!

hear hear

2/4/2021 12:05:31 pm

here here

Come on, mates

1/4/2021 11:34:13 pm

With all these respects supports I have had to DM, I’m not able to find this incident acceptable. There is a fine line between free opinions and hate speech, and we have come to our own conclusions on which side this publication has leaned towards. By stating “it has been basically proven there is a genocide happening” without analysis of any further evidences while proceed straight to express hatred emotions and call for “banning Chinese students to study in UniMelb” is not causally justifiable, nor showing any sign of author’s so called “no disrespect to fellow Chinese law students”. There where multiple articles addressed different authors personal views towards China, but this one stood out for a reason. We know that.

a laugh

2/4/2021 11:49:45 am

How can the article's content and views be publishable under your Constitution but contrary to your Comment Policy, here: https://www.deminimis.com.au/comment-policy.html

You have the discretion to remove comments on account of them inciting hate or violence against others on the basis of race. Your censorship on comments is justified due to your values of 'Respect' and fostering a 'Safe Space', where 'insults, hate, hostility, comments inciting hate of particular groups of persons due to race' are not appropriate.

Assuming that the policy on publishing articles is aligned with the Comment Policy, clearly:
- De Minimis itself thinks that the article is a respectful opinion and view worth publishing and not deleting;
- De Minimis itself thinks that the article does not constitute hostility towards a particular group of persons due to race;
- De Minimis itself thinks that the persons targeted by this article will continue thinking that this is 'a safe and welcoming space for all individuals' even though the article says that they are obviously not welcome because of their nationality;
- De Minimis thinks that the views expressed in the article are legitimate, even though an institution's banning of international Chinese students is illegal pursuant to equal opportunity laws (see Jeremy Gans' Twitter for the full analysis). Yet De Minimis requires editors and writers to 'respect the rights of other members of the University community to express dissent or different political or religious views, subject to those actions or views complying with the laws of Australia and not endangering the safety of other members of the community' - again, the views expressed are contrary to section 38(1)(a) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and likely the purpose of the Act itself.

De Minimis continues to act against its policies and values; hiding behind its mysterious Constitution. Perhaps your Constitution requires a bit of a refresh given its inconsistencies with your Comment Policy - a policy that you have used again and again to delete comments you personally dislike.

2/4/2021 12:00:44 pm

I'm not saying De Minimis shouldn't have posted the article. I'm sure their Constitution is a lot more forgiving than the Comment Policy, given they rely on that justification through and through.

However, I am saying is that this move is particularly disappointing and this response, disingenuous.

There were a suite of actions that the team could have done in order to stop the article (a blatant breach of their own apparent values and community standards) from being published. Yet, for a cheap comment, view count, and the opportunity to be mentioned by the media, they have forsaken those values and standards. De Minimis' conduct is more disappointing than the writer and their poorly reasoned piece.

Past De Minimis editorial teams are better than this. And I hope that the next De Minimis team has a proper read of the paper's values and standards.

Really well put

2/4/2021 05:54:56 pm

100% agree, the article itself isn’t as concerning to me as the fact that De Minimis allowed it to be published.

All they had to do was say “we don’t agree that these views should be given a platform”, the fact that they didn’t shows that a something is deeply wrong with this year’s editorial team.

It could be that the entire team is dysfunctional, or it could be that the publishing process lets individual team members decide to publish articles without running them past any kind of editorial board. Whichever one it is, something is deeply wrong with this year’s editorial team.

Do Gooder

2/4/2021 10:36:02 pm

'Chinese' is not a race, baizuo.

3/4/2021 12:17:12 am

It's disappointing that I need to even post this comment but you've completely missed the point.

My point centred on De Minimis' alleged values, which were to be taken from their Comment Policy (now amended and quotes deleted because of my above post - another disappointing move by the team but unsurprising haha!). What one can take away from their previous policy was that they had the right to delete racist comments in order to create a safe and respectful environment/community.

Now, while the phrase 'Chinese' does not constitute a 'race' in all technicality, anti-Chinese discriminatory content does constitute 'racism'. In fact, it would constitute both xenophobia and racism.

If you'd like a refresher, below link is your starter guide to racism and xenophobia, including the differences between the two (noting that racism is broader by definition and doesn't pertain to whether the discrimination in question is against a particular race or nationality).

So - to bring you back and spoon feed it - it doesn't matter whether 'Chinese' is or is not a race. The article was the absolute antithesis of De Minimis' previous values and went against the actual purpose of their previous policy.

Now that they have deleted their policy and replaced it with a much broader set of rules (noting r 2.1 and r 2.2), it looks like they are no longer upholding principles of 'Respect', 'Safe Space' and protecting students from racially discriminatory content. Judging by the puncutation errors and inconsistent spacing of the new policy, it looks like it was recently whipped up. It's an interesting turn of events to say the least.

Xenophobia / Racism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/xenophobia-and-racism-difference

New De Minimis Comment Policy: https://www.deminimis.com.au/comment-policy.html

Good effort and xiexie, but no thank you.

Max Ferguson

4/4/2021 01:01:17 am

Please note: our Comment Moderation Policy can be found under Part 3 of the Annex to the Constitution of De Minimis. It was adopted unanimously on the 16th of February 2021.

Out of interest

4/4/2021 09:28:33 am

Where can we find a copy of the De Minimis constitution?

4/4/2021 03:57:05 pm

Thank you for clarifying this Max. Turns out you and your team had even greater foresight than expected. Bravo!

Would you mind clarifying whether your team still cares about the values of 'Respect' and maintaining a 'Safe Space' for MLS students? Or have you and your 2021 team now completely abandoned those values and standards in order to encourage unfettered debate and robust discussion about anything under the Sun, including racially charged and discriminatory content? In fact..why are you encouraging racially divisive debates on your forum in the first place? Do you think that this is productive and relevant to our community? How much longer will you hide behind the weak justification that is your 'Constitution' and facilitating 'free speech' (which, by the way, we don't really have in Australia anyway - see your own notes on public law for a refresher)?

Would you also mind clarifying why you chose to update your website's Comment Policy in April? Why was that not updated immediately after you refreshed the policy in February to broaden the scope of your power and discretion?

I would appreciate your answers. If you do remain silent, I hope you understand that you amending that policy at the 11th hour seems to suggest to the wider community that -
- You do think that the article is more than distasteful - you would categorically consider it racist and xenophobic but you don't care.
- You don't care about the wellbeing of your fellow international Chinese students who have to read about not being welcome in Australia or at MLS, directly from the mouths of their peers - all reasoned on the shakey grounds of their government's actions and farfetched assumptions on their own political beliefs.
- You don't care about the fact that the views and opinions in the article are contrary to public policy and equal opportunity laws
- You don't care about the fact that the article is irrelevant to our community even though banning international students, as a political move, does not have a leg to stand on and is entirely illegitimate.

You and your 2021 team care about the attention and controversy you drum up - the thing you value most above all else.

One last thing ..who hurt you?

@A Laugh

6/4/2021 09:23:50 am

I think the real question is who hurt you? You just wrote like four essays in a de min comments section l o l

6/4/2021 11:07:00 am

Four essay you didn't read which is unfortunate - but it's pretty obvious who hurt, not only me, but a significant portion of the student body. To sit there and have the privilege to ask that question, throwing doubt on why anyone would write these essays, shows a lot about where you come from and how many cares you give.

BAIZUO

7/4/2021 12:33:44 am

ChInEsE is NoT a rAcE
Ironically that has to be the most baizuo pasty white dude comment. No Chinese person would make that inane distinction.

6/4/2021 11:31:48 am

You're just so lucky that you're not in a position where you set foot in the law school and wonder every single second whether the person walking behind you wants you gone, hates your country/culture, assumes what your political beliefs are, and feels the need to write an essay about kicking you out.

You're so lucky you don't have to think twice about who you befriend and speak with.

You're so lucky you don't have to worry about student bodies, such as De Minimis (which is made up of your fellow students), smiling to your face but failing to stand up for you underneath that facade, when they could have easily defended you and protected you by amending their Constitution. Instead, they do everything opposite just to expose you to hateful commentary that undermines your existence in this country.

You're so lucky you can sit there and joke around about how uncomfortable other people are made to feel about going to law school and engaging with the community.

EXACTLY

6/4/2021 05:23:21 pm

What a white ass response from a white ass publication. The entertainment and publication of racist works are pretty loud and clear stances on racism. And who tf is 'championing' racist values.

100% Agreed

6/4/2021 10:10:36 pm

Whoever's commenting under "A Laugh" is writing what I'm sure the majority of the law school is thinking.

Either the article is inappropriate for publication (in which case De Min shouldn't have published it) or the article contains valid points which are worth broadcasting to the law school and the world at large. Given that it seems like the article would violate De Min's own comment policy then surely we're dealing with the first option, but De Min's position looks to be "we published it, we don't "take a position" on articles we publish, we're not taking it down, and we're not responding to any criticism, so deal with it".

Comments are closed.

Press release

Archives