Australians are known for their colourful language; indeed, it’s been called part of our national identity. But why, generally, are we considered a nation that loves swear words and where does this come from?

To discuss these issues, Campus Review is talking to the Australian National Dictionary's chief editor, Dr Amanda Laugesen. Her new book, Rooted, an Australian History of Bad Language is out now and charts the history of swearing in Australia.

Laugesen contends colonial Australia provided fertile ground for a whole host of swear words to be created to describe the harsh environments in which convicts found themselves, even though they were generally frowned upon by upper society.

By the end of the 19th century, however, a shift in the attitudes and types of swear words used reflected not only Australia’s involvement in war, but the country’s love of the bush ranger and the bullock driver, working long and hard hours. It was at that time, “that bad language became more justifiable”.

During the second-wave feminist movement swear words were seen as ways of “defying authority” and reclaiming such words for their own needs.

Finally, while people swear for a variety of reasons – emotion, anger, emphasis and abuse – they can be equally used to foster friendships and become part of a group. For instance, the generally frowned-upon ‘c-word’ now features in compounds such as ‘Mad-c’ as more of term of affection than abuse among friends. This is what Laugesen calls “a process of amelioration”, subverting the power of the word through combining it with other words or modifiers.

Ronell, a Professor of German and Comparative Literature who has taught with Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Žižek and Judith Butler, was defended in a letter to NYU's President and Provost, allegedly affirmed by 51 academics from a plethora of institutions.

"We write as long-term colleagues of Professor Avital Ronell who has been under investigation by the Title IX offices at New York University," the letter begins.

"Although we have no access to the confidential dossier, we have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell and accumulated collectively years of experience to support our view of her capacity as teacher and a scholar, but also as someone who has served as Chair of both the Departments of German and Comparative Literature at New York University.

"We have all seen her relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her.

"We wish to communicate first in the clearest terms our profound an enduring admiration for Professor Ronell whose mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable over many years.

"We deplore the damage that this legal proceeding causes her, and seek to register in clear terms our objection to any judgment against her.

"We hold that the allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence, but rather support the view that malicious intention has animated and sustained this legal nightmare."

The letter, which goes on to refer to Ronell's "grace", "wit" and "brilliance", was allegedly drafted by Butler – a renowned feminist scholar who currently holds a professorship at the University of California, Berkeley.

Butler has said the version of the letter that is circulating online is incorrect, particularly in regards to the list of signatories.

Meanwhile, Slovenian public philosopher Slavoj Žižek, in addition to allegedly signing the letter, wrote his own defence of Ronell, published in The Philosophical Salon.

"...Reactions to the letter focused on the question: how can we, the signatories, support her when we concede that we don’t know the details of the accusation against her?," he wrote.

"So why did I sign the letter? For a very simple reason: I DO know the details of the accusations against her, and I find them utterly ridiculous.

"...What makes me really sad is that the procedure against Avital is effectively targeting a certain psychological type, a certain mode of behaviour and speech for which there is less and less place in our academia. Sometimes this type is mercifully tolerated as an eccentricity, but it always stands in the shadow of threat."

Yet several other academics have expressed outrage over the letter, claiming the same support wouldn't be afforded to a male scholar in Ronell's position.

"Imagine that such a letter had been sent on behalf of Peter Ludlow, Colin McGinn, John Searle, Thomas Pogge or anyone other than a feminist literary theorist: there would be howls of protest and indignation at such a public assault on a complainant in a Title IX case," Brian Leiter, director of the Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago wrote on his blog.

Leiter, who linked to a copy of the (in Butler's view, false) letter in the blog post, also included links to other academics' dismay at the letter of support for Ronell.

NYU has declined to comment on the matter, even to clarify whether it falls under Title IX. It has simply stated it is under review.

Passed in 1972, Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational institutions that receive federal funding. It was initially used to ensure women could participate equally in sports, however, more recently it has been applied to sexual assault and harassment cases.

The law gained much media attention in 2011, when then-President Obama issued a letter to American universities outlining how they should change the burden on proof in such cases from 'clear and convincing evidence' (75 per cent) to 'a preponderance of evidence' (just over 50 per cent).

Known as the "Dear Colleague" letter, its edicts are increasingly under fire for supposedly being used without due process in relation to university sexual harassment and assault cases, and resultantly, prejudicing those who are accused of these deeds. Indeed, last year, US Education Secretary Betsy DeVos implemented interim measures, rolling back Obama's policy in this respect.

My title is Dr Fern Riddell, not Ms or Miss Riddell. I have it because I am an expert, and my life and career consist of being that expert in as many different ways as possible. I worked hard to earned my authority, and I will not give it up to anyone.

— Dr Fern Riddell (@FernRiddell) June 13, 2018

The expert in Victorian-era sex, culture and suffrage – who's also a media personality – added the hashtag #ImmodestWomen, with the aim of other female PhD holders joining her movement.

Indeed, many did. Naturally, detractors followed. There were the usual, biting responses, like this one from a molecular life science student:

Wow can you imagine being this arrogant. You're human and remain so. You have no authority save for what your profession allows you to have. The minimum of being a Dr is being an expert in one subfield, the rest is your choice. you're not better for being a Dr as you imply.

— Robin van Schendel (@RKAvanSchendel) June 13, 2018

Others simply disparaged the use of the prefix for men or women. "My eye-rolling reaction is the same as when @vincecable affects to style himself Dr. As it was when I had an RE teacher who called himself Dr," @JahProle tweeted.

"Why should anyone (male or female) need to add Dr to their twitter handle/image? We all know the answer," Colin Richards, a university professor retorted.

These online 'gender wars' may seem trivial, but many would argue that they're grounded in harsh realities. UTS researcher Deb Verhoeven, for instance, has found that research grants are conferred in sexist ways.

And, given Twitter is the most popular social media platform for academics, and is indispensable for many, whether a researcher is known as a Dr, Mr or Ms potentially makes a difference.

Women across Australia have welcomed back the return of Bluestocking Week with special functions, dances and other activities. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) and the National Union of Students (NUS) were behind the push to re-establish the week.

NTEU national president Jeannie Rea told a crowd at the State Library of Victoria that the week had previously been held on campuses for about 20 years but stopped after the Howard government’s anti-student organisation legislation killed off most student activities.

“This was a real loss, because Bluestocking Week drew attention to what women had won and were still fighting for in higher education,” Rea said. “It was not just about access and numbers of women at universities, but also about what was being taught and researched, and by whom.”

Rea said that much had changed for women in higher education since 1882 when the first Australian women – Bella Guerin and Lydia Harris – were allowed to enrol at the University of Melbourne. “Today, 130 years later, women undergraduates are outnumbering the men. By 2010, women comprised 60 per cent of undergraduates and 58 per cent of postgraduates.

“There are now more women graduates, with 41 per cent of women 25-29 holding a bachelor degree compared to 30 per cent of men,” she said. “However, the feminisation of education does not represent a victory for feminism and for women. Men are still able to find work more readily, with or without a degree. They are paid more and promoted over just as able women colleagues.”

The week often assisted other campaigns such as those against sexual violence, or supporting reproductive rights.