I was invited to submit a very short (2,000 word) piece on a topic of my choosing related to a journal’s special edition. My experience and expertise were noted as supporting this invitation.
I submitted my piece which has since been rejected based on reviewer feedback.
I vehemently disagree with the feedback - I could write a lot more about it - but I am not interested in jumping through or over spurious hurdles. I believe them to be so anyway. You might agree with the reviewers!
Anyway, you can read my full submission, warts and all, here: race as a constitutional value.
In the interest of full disclosure and transparency, I have also included the reviewer feedback and my response to the journal. Both are pasted below.
Reviewer feedback:
Peer Review Feedback
General Feedback
In ‘Racism as a foundational, enduring value of Australian constitutionalism’, the author presents the argument that both the formal text of the Australian Constitution and the socio-political order it enables are fundamentally racist. It is an important and timely topic, though the scope may be ambitious for a 2000 word paper.
As it stands, the article attempts to cover many aspects of the issue – historical and founding exclusions of First Nations from the Constitution and colonial dispossession more broadly; debates about formal versus substantive equality and, in the First Nations context, first order and second order rights; manifestations of racist attitudes as elements of the No campaign in the referendum; and finally calls for constitutional reform. This is a lot of ground to cover in a short space, and as a result each theme only received a brief overview. As a result, the peer reviewers note that the originality of the article is unclear. The literature is already well-served by works explaining the historical and current racist impacts of the Constitution, many of which are cited in this article.
Suggested Course of Action
The peer reviewer suggests either:
a) Fleshing the article out into an extended piece; or
b) Narrowing the focus into one subtopic.
Specific Feedback
Defining constitutional ‘value’
● The peer reviewers suggest that the concept of ‘value’ needs further definition and explanation.
● The reviewers note that there are appropriate works footnoted – Dixon (Dixon also has an edited book on constitutional values which may be relevant); Arcioni and Stone; and Lino – but there would be a benefit to fully engaging with the idea of what makes a constitutional value.
● The reviewers suggest that it may also be useful to offer a less controversial constitutional value as a comparator (e.g., the rule of law) to highlight how constitutional values do not need to be explicitly mentioned in the constitutional text to have an enduring effect on law and society.
Clarification of the author’s position on colonialisation and reform
● One area that could be further clarified is the discussion around page 2 on the history of colonialism and dispossession.
● The peer reviewers suggest that the author clarify whether the Constitution can ever be rehabilitated to not be racist, or whether the mere fact of its existence as an entrenchment of colonial power means that it is unavoidably racist. The reviewers note that the final sentence of the article ‘constitutional reform…remains paramount’ suggests the former, but the position could be made clearer.
● Equally, it might be important to engage with the argument that the Constitution is so deeply flawed as a colonial document that it will always be racist, even if it is just to rebut that position – see e.g. much of Sarah Maddison’s works, Lidia Thorpe’s critique during the Voice referendum etc. Potentially see also Tony Birch, ‘On Recognition’ (2017) 227 Overland 43 and Celeste Liddle, ‘Sovereignty and the Constitutional Recognition Debate’ (2015) 81 Australian Options 7.
The Voice Referendum
● The reviewers note that the discussion of the Voice referendum and its aftermath seems to be the area where there is the greatest scope for a novel contribution to the literature.
● There has already been some work unpacking the referendum, but it could be used well to strengthen the author’s argument.
○ See e.g., Jacob Deem and Susan Bird, ‘Beyond ‘Ignorance and Apathy’: Public Perceptions of the Australian Constitution during a Referendum’ (2024) 43(1) University of Tasmania Law Review and Nicholas Biddle, Matthew Gray, Ian McAllister and Matt Qvortrup, ‘Detailed analysis of the 2023 Voice to Parliament Referendum and related social and political attitudes’, (ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, 28 November 2023).
○ Both of these studies utilised surveys of the Australian public confirming that a focus on ‘first order rights’ and beliefs that the Voice would divide Australia loomed large, not only in political elite rhetoric but also in the minds of everyday Australians. Deem and Bird’s study also highlights that 11% of No voters expressed explicitly hostile views of First Nations peoples which supports some of the author’s arguments.
● The reviewers note that the ‘where to next’ question looms large in this space, and it is one that is probably the most important now. The 2023 result has stifled momentum for reform, but the legitimate reasons for pursuing the Voice remain, so how should policymakers frame their next steps?
Originality
● The peer reviewers note that as it stands, the article draws together many established works on this topic.
● The peer reviewers encourage the author to further develop their unique perspective and contribution to the debate, commenting that ‘the author clearly has something worthwhile to say, and the academic community would benefit from hearing it.
Tone and structure
● The peer reviewers note that the tone of the article may lean too informal.
● They suggest that the author avoid contractions throughout and add a more explicit structure outlining how the central thesis will be supported. This would give the author an opportunity to clearly highlight their unique contribution to the article.
My response:
Thank you [NAME REDACTED]
Given the word limit I was presented with (2000 words) I believe I presented a well-argued piece that is original.
I don’t agree with the feedback given especially some of the other authors that are listed - especially Sarah Maddison or Lidia Thorpe - as providing original contributions or further clarity on the points raised about a racist constitution or needing to develop values further.
I’m not sure how given the word limit the other feedback could be addressed or the supposed informal nature of the article changed. I believe the fact that the reviewers state "The reviewers suggest that it may also be useful to offer a less controversial constitutional value as a comparator" is issue enough with the feedback where my argument is being dismissed to fit within the realms of accepted doctrine. Race and racism is a fact that is made out in my piece without the need to ground the work in other areas such as Madison or Thorpe or have nothing substantive to add or without having to detail the terms of what a constitutional value is by building yet again on established scholars that refuse to engage seriously with racism in the constitutional structure.
I disagree with the reviewers that it isn't clear on whether change is possible. That is my main point and that the structure is limited and change is paramount. Again I was given a 2000 word limit.
I further disagree on originality and the need to engage with the referendum work completed. While I use examples from the referendum this is not a piece about why and how the referendum failed. As to tone and length - it was a 2000 word limit and I disagree it isn't appropriate.
If the journal isn't happy to proceed and insists on this feedback as the reason for doing so then I'll leave it at that and withdraw.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Eddie