Scholarly behaviour

A couple of weeks back, The Guardian published a hagiographic article about Blair's legacy by his biographer Anthony Sheldon. I noticed this letter published by someone describing himself as a Visiting Lecturer in Politics at Goldsmiths College:

If Anthony Seldon's article were submitted on one of my courses, it would merit at best a third, probably a fail.

Was this because the article was badly written or poorly argued? No, it was because the lecturer disagreed with it:

Had Blair gone in 2001, there would have been a legacy to be proud of: devolution, the minimum wage, the Human Rights Act, peace in Northern Ireland (more or less) and a huge injection of much-needed cash into health and education.

But since 2003, Blair has not only got the UK centrally involved in one of the most disastrous wars in its history, with no end to the misery and slaughter in sight, but has also destroyed Labour's links with the socialist international, preferring instead to cosy up to the European far right: José Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi (both now defeated). What a legacy for a Labour leader!

An admittal that lecturers fail students for disagreeing with their politics.

(Goldsmiths Politics department, incidentally, is run by the former Director of Policy of the Liberal Democrats and includes a former Greenwich Lib Dem councillor...)

Previous: The Goldsmiths Islamic chaplain