History and Australian indigenous child welfare policies

Judith Bessant

Policy Studies, 2013, vol. 34, issue 3, 310-325

Abstract: The term ‘apologist’ refers to writers defending Aboriginal child-removal policies. They argue that the policies were beneficial and intended to protect children, and that systematic mistreatment never occurred and parents supported the interventions. I locate the apologetic literature in larger accounts of child welfare. Their ethical framework is established and attention is given to question of ethical relativism with specific attention to Windschuttle. While querying the empirical value of apologist writing it is argued that they produce accounts of policy that are not morally defensible, evident in their framing of events, the omission of critical material and absence of significant scholarship.

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01442872.2013.803531 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:34:y:2013:i:3:p:310-325

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/cpos20

DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2013.803531

Access Statistics for this article

Policy Studies is currently edited by Toby James

More articles in Policy Studies from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().