Martin Davies' paper seeks to vindicate the efforts of the Ramsay Centre to fund courses in 'Western Civilisation' at selected Australian universities. He begins by lamenting the rejection of vast amounts of philanthropic money for the humanities, and all too quickly dismisses the stated grounds for the Australian National University's decision to decline a deal with the Ramsay Centre: 'The issue of academic autonomy has been raised as a reason, but this is, at best, ostensible', Davies writes. He then goes on to defend the concept of courses in Western civilisation more generally. This article will briefly address a number of relevant points in reaction to Martin Davie's paper: (1) the concept 'Western Civilisation' has its own, comparatively recent, history, and needs to be viewed in its own historical context; (2) the term 'civilisation' has relatively little utility as a unit of scholarly analysis; (3) proponents of an academic program on (or for) 'Western Civilisation' are operating with a reified and artificially unified concept that breaks up under closer examination; and (4) that some of the advocacy for a 'Western Civilisation' program betrays an animus against the modern, secular, public university. [For "Three Cheers for the Ramsay Centre," by Martin Davies, see EJ1228236.]