In his speech on the deficiencies of the national curriculum, Education Minister Alan Tudge draws attention to the value of the heritage of Western civilisation as something of which students should have an understanding and appreciation if they are to be good citizens in our liberal democracy.

He is, like many of us, alarmed by the hostility shown in the document to the intellectual and cultural traditions that underpin both our way of life and our fundamental political and social institutions. Hostility, it must be said, is not the same thing as criticism. A critical approach is part of the civilisation that Australia has inherited, primarily from the West.

But then, so too is moderation, the ideal of the golden mean, the desire to avoid extremes. In fact, ideals of moderation, civility and politeness are embedded in our civilisational inheritance. Without them, England in the early 18th century could never have developed both freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Excess is to moderation what ­licence is to liberty; a mode of behaviour that threatens to undermine a civilised social order

The founder of the Liberal Party, Robert Menzies, appreciated the role that education plays in creating a civilised community. Menzies inhabited a world in which extreme politics in the shape of Nazism and communism threatened the norms of decency and civilised behaviour. He also understood that democracy and freedom were threatened by both excessive materialism and an education system that did not provide sufficient rigour and discipline.

Here is a quote from Menzies in 1937: “Without minds that were informed, toughened by exercise, broadened by inquiry, and fearless in pursuit of the truth they could never hope to have spirits untrammelled by blinding ignorance or distorting prejudice. Freedom would never be gained without discipline, which was based on an intelligent understanding of the fact that order and unity were essential if the liberty of the individual was to be reconciled with the rights of other individuals.”

The problem is not new. The Fukuyama moment, when the final victory of liberal democracy was proclaimed, is long past. The contemporary world faces threats of authoritarianism and despotism that may yet match those that so perturbed Menzies in the 1930s.

In many ways, Tudge seems to be channelling Menzies in his twin insistence on both academic rigour and the preservation of Western values as the bulwark of defence against the perils con­temporary Australia will be facing.

In the 1930s, the West faced ­opponents both inside and out. Many members of the intellectual class embraced communism or fascism, or even Nazism, as they turned their backs on the civilising values of Western civilisation as expressed in their democratic institutions.

Today, many intellectuals embrace doctrines and ways of thought that are hostile to both the values of the West and those of ­liberal democracy. They seek to undermine the foundations of our way of life.

Menzies understood that education was the key to preserving civilised values as the foundation of both citizenship and democracy.

Tudge also recognises such to be the case.

A good and proper education should provide a student with both the necessary skills to approach the world and an appreciation of the cultural traditions that underpin their way of life.

The two must go together ­because without the capacity for rigorous thought it is not possible to enjoy the intellectual inheritance that Western civilisation has provided for us. Untrained minds are far more likely to accept dubious modes of thought than those that have been trained to approach ideas in a genuinely critical and rigorous fashion. This is why we need high standards in the teaching of mathematics.

Menzies was a great, perhaps the greatest, defender of liberal education in Australia’s history. He understood the value of such an education. A dispassionate examination of one’s heritage helps to develop attitudes of moderation and civility such as Menzies embodied in public life.

The same is true today, as Tudge recognises. There is something unnatural about spurning the traditions that are the foundation of ones political, social and cultural life. To have a proper respect for them, while still being aware of their shortcomings, is the attitude of a human being who has a balanced approach to the world.

One would hope that a major goal of education is to produce adults who are capable of moderation and who have their intellectual capacities developed. Such individuals will come to appreciate just how important their heritage is in ensuring a civilised way of life, especially when that heritage is presented to them with respect and not as an object of hatred.

The real problem with the curriculum is that it seems to have been developed by people who lack moderation and balance and are driven by hatreds and ideological fantasies. They are the modern equivalent of the fascists and communists of the 1930s.

Just as Robert Menzies saw education – especially liberal education – as a primary defence against such people, so too Tudge is completely correct to call out their intellectual descendants of the 21st century.

We need an education system that provides both intellectual rigour and respect for our traditions. It is the foundation of a civilised social order.

Professor Greg Melleuish is a professor in the school of humanities and social inquiry at the University of Wollongong

This article was first published in The Australian on 22 October 2021.