Peter McGregor - free at last

this just in from Peter McGregor,
the charges have been dropped, about time.

Hi all,
Just letting you know what has happened with my court
case.
----
Senior Constable Stuart Cosgrove wrote to me: Frid 23
Nov
> > Mr. McGREGOR, I wish to advise you that the charge
of
Enter Inclosed lands not prescribed premises without
lawful excuse brought against you in relation to an
incident that occurred at the University of NSW on 5th
July 2007 and is which is scheduled for hearing at
Waverley Local Court 6th Dec 2007, is to be withdrawn
as per request by the University of NSW.
Regards, Stuart Cosgrove, Senior Constable, Maroubra
Police Station
------------
When I then spoke to Constable Cosgrove, he said that
UNSW had only contacted the police about dropping the
charges in the last week or two. (The ‘details on the
offence/s’ are:
Unlawful entry on inclosed land….
“did without lawful excuse enter into the inclosed
lands of UNSW situate at Anzac Parade Kingsford
without the consent of Matthew JOSS (UNSW Head of
Security) and Dr Andrew LYNCH (Event Co-Coordinator)
the person apparently in charge of the said inclosed
lands.")

Many of you will remember the way George Williams and
UNSW previously refused to contact the police to
request the charges be withdrawn.(See below - (1))
Hear is what they are saying now:
”14 Nov 2007 Mr Stephen Langford,25 Comber
St,Paddington,2021
Dear Stephen,
Thanks you for your card about the charges against
Peter McGregor. I'm not sure where you have got your
information from, but we have not actually laid any
charges against Peter. Those charges were laid by the
police in regard to events that occurred outside of
our conference. In fact, we have contacted the police
now on a number of occasions indicating our own desire
that the charges not proceed. However, the police have
made it clear that it is their decision as to whether
to proceed because the charges have been laid by them
and not us.
I would not like to see the charges proceed, & if you
support that aim the approprite people to write to are
the authorities.
Yours sincerely, George Williams "
--------
Do any of you have any ideas above why the police have
belatedly dropped the charges, and/or what the
machinations have been at UNSW? For instance, Tharunka
interviewed me & George Williams, but the student
paper hasn’t even mentioned the court case…
It seems that we may have struck a blow for free
speech, and exposed George Williams & the Gilbert &
Sullivan Law School in the process.
So many thanks for your support, you don’t need to
come to Waverly Court on Thurs 6th Dec., and I will
keep you posted.

Love & rage, Peter
-----
(1) Victoria Finlay [mailto:V.Finlay@unsw.edu.au]
_Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2007 9:53 AM_To: Lo
Schiavo, Fabian_Subject: regarding Peter Macgregor

_Dear Mr LoSchiavo, __Further to my recent email
response to you on behallf of the Vice-Chancellor
regarding the arrest of Mr Peter McGregor, I would
like to add the following comments. __Mr McGregor made
a protest against the Attorney-General in the morning
session of the ‘Symposium on Law & Liberty in the War
on Terror’ on 5 July 2007. Mr McGregor was removed
from the venue by Police officers providing Mr
Ruddock’s security. They did not charge him in
relation to his protest and left the campus with the
Attorney-General. The police prosecution relates to
subsequent dealings with police and Mr McGregor
elsewhere on campus. _ _The Centre of Public Law made
the decision to deny Mr McGregor further access to the
event after he had been removed. This was after
attempting to negotiate terms on which Mr McGregor
could reasonably continue to attend the Symposium.
Essentially, Mr McGregor was not prepared to
guarantee that other speakers would not also be
disrupted. _ _The conception of the Symposium was…...

Yours sincerely, __Victoria Finlay_Executive Officer
to the Vice-Chancellor_

QUT saga, last laugh for John and Garry

Ethical Martini is back after a short break that included a fun and busy trip to the USA and Canada.
While I was away the QUT saga involving my friends Garry Maclennan and John Hookham came to an end. It seems that QUT was forced to back down on every claim against the pair. John sent this message through today, which sums it up.

Dear Friends,
The saga of "Laughing at the Disabled" has now come to close (at least as far as Gary and I are concerned). As you probably all recall, we brought an action against QUT in the Federal Court. The university settled this out of court. Under this settlement we were to be re-instated, our records restored and the misconduct findings declared null and void. We were also paid $100,000 each in damages. After we accepted this offer to settle, QUT signaled its interest in settling all matters with us and we agreed to continue our negotiations. While we were considering the final offer, Garry and I decided to visit QUT to collect some personal belongings.

Unfortunately there were some ugly incidents when we attempted to re-enter the workplace. As a consequence, we decided it would not be in our best interests to return to work at QUT under any circumstances. We accepted the QUT offer which included our resignations but because of the confidentiality provisions, I am unable to discuss the terms of that settlement.

But, I have attached herewith a photograph of Gary and I with our lawyer, Stephen Kerin leaving the Federal Court building after finalising the settlement. This picture captures our joy on the brink of settlement.

I would like to conclude by once again thanking all of you for your support throughout this very difficult and very important dispute. I hope our actions have done much to further the cause of freedom of speech and academic freedom in Australia.

Amandla!

John Hookham

NMHRC to investigate QUT-Noonan claims

Well, interesting.
In my previous post on the QUT shenanigans, there's mention of the National Health and Medical Research Council - the peak body for research ethics in Australia, possibly investigating claims that QUT PhD student Michael Noonan may have breached protocols in relation to his research project "Laughing at the Disabled".

I emailed the acting Director of Progam Assurance, Dr Gordon McGurk (see below)

Dear Gordon, I am writing as a concerned academic.

I would like to know if the NHMRC is investigating claims of unethical research practices made against QUT PhdD student Michael Noonan in relation to his thesis "Laughing at the disabled".

I understand that Mr Noonan may well have violated well-established ethical guidelines for dealing with Indigenous people in some aspects of the video work he is compiling towards his thesis. There is an allegation against him that he has possibly misrepresented May Lulu Dunne and obtained a consent form/release form from her under false pretenses, or worse.

Drs Hookham and MacLennan are facing serious misconduct charges for raising some of these issues and from my understanding of their case, they have been badly treated by QUT for blowing the whistle on what they saw as poor supervision of Mr Noonan's thesis and the ethical issues surrounding his work with both disabled persons and Indigenous Australians.

As a supervisor of postgraduate students I am familiar with ethics considerations in relation to thesis work and other research projects in Australia and elsewhere. I also know that in most cases they are stringently enforced. I can only wonder at what the breakdown was at QUT in relation to Mr Noonan's thesis.

Are you in touch with QUT over this matter and do you intend to conduct any inquiries of your own, or to cause the NHMRC to investigate this matter further?

Thanks
Martin

About an hour later I received a response:

Dear Martin

Following yesterday's revelations regarding the alleged lack of consent or ethical approval before filming Ms Dunne, I am making this issue a matter of urgency. I have put together a brief for the Chief Executive to alert him and the executive to what may have happened.

The NHMRC had planned to investigate other alleged breaches following the conclusion of the legal action between QUT and Drs Hookham and MacLennan. However, this most recent information may precipitate some action sooner than planned.

Yours sincerely

Gordon McGurk

QUT sacks academics - update

I have just received this message from John Hookham regarding the ongoing disciplinary action against him and Garry MacLennan at QUT in Brisbane. You can find my previous posts on this case here.

Dear Colleagues,

Some months ago, I sent out a letter informing you about a PhD project entitled Laughing at the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts and Offends. This was a project being carried out by Michael Noonan who is a PhD student at our university, Queensland University of Technology (QUT).

My colleague, Dr Gary MacLennan and I strongly objected to this project on the grounds that it set out to demean people with cognitive disabilities. We felt that the central thrust of the project was to mock and ridicule people with intellectual impairment. Furthermore, we questioned the fact that the university had given this project ethical clearance. We pointed out that the correct protocols for Ethical Research involving Humans had not been properly followed. We brought this to the attention of the university, (QUT) by writing to the Dean and by submitting a Formal Complaint to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Prof Arun Sharma.

All our objections were ignored. As a consequence we wrote an article in the Higher Education Supplement of the national newspaper, The Australian. In the article we were critical of the project, the supervisory team and the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) that approved the project.

As a result of writing this article, Dr MacLennan and I were charged by the university for Misconduct and had to face a Misconduct Investigation Committee. The Chair of this committee and the two academics on the committee were chosen by the Vice-Chancellor, Prof Peter Coaldrake. We had no say whatsoever about who should be on the committee.

In my opinion, the Hearing that we faced was nothing other than a kangaroo court or Star Chamber. It seemed clear to us, from the outset, that we would be found guilty and that the verdict was pre-determined. During the process, we were not allowed to screen the film to show what we had objected to and the committee refused to view the material. This despite that fact that it was our response to the material that had prompted us to write the article. The committee also refused to examine the ethical clearance process.

In my opinion, during the Hearing, witnesses for my defense were threatened and intimidated. At the end of the Hearing, my representative, Dr Lisa Bridle, was frightened that the university might take some action against her for supporting me and immediately burst into tears.

The next day Dr MacLennan collapsed and had a nervous breakdown. He was treated by a medical physician.

The committee subsequently found us guilty of all the charges brought against us. There is no appeal process and the Vice-Chancellor decides on the penalty. There are no checks and balances in the system to limit his power. Prof Coaldrake decided to suspend us without pay for six months. He also informed us that he would be bringing a second series of charges against us.

Fortunately we were able to get legal counsel and we are currently in the process of contesting the manner in which our investigation was conducted. But we still have further charges hanging over our heads.

In the Hearing one of the charges against us was that we had misrepresented Michael Noonan's work. There was a scene in the film involving an interaction between one of the disabled men (James who is autistic) and an Aboriginal woman. This took place in a country barroom. James was told by Noonan to enter the bar and ask if there were any young women in the town as he was looking for a girlfriend. In the scene we saw, the Aboriginal woman was inebriated and embraced James.

Noonan claimed that we misrepresented him as he never intended to screen that scene in public again. But now he has put this scene up on the web and said he is very proud of it. An Aboriginal friend of ours has gone to Boulia and made contact with May, the woman in the scene. Her name is May Lulu Dunne and she is a tribal woman from the Northern territory. She is horrified and feels shame that such images of her have been put up on the web. She emphatically denies giving permission for the filmmaking and her partner supports her version of the affair. It must be said however that Noonan claims to have a release form though no one has sighted it.

QUT has a policy of reconciliation with indigenous Australians. It has also signed onto the ethical protocols for research involving indigenous Australians.

Ted Watson who is acting for May Dunne has made an official complaint to the NHMRC, which is the body charged with seeing that university research involving humans is ethical.

I and he are convinced that QUT has acted in violation of the protocols for research involving indigenous Australians. These are as follows

National Statement for Research Involving Humans

Research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

Six core values

· Reciprocity

· Respect

· Equality

· Responsibility

· Survival and Protection

· Spirit and integrity

The Clauses

The researcher should ensure that the research methods are respectful.

There should be evidence of support for the research project from relevant Aboriginal and Torrres Strait Islander communities and the research methodology should engage with their social and cultural practices.

The researcher should seek to identify any potential negative consequences of the proposed research, to design process to monitor them and to advise steps for minimizing them.

The research methods and processes should provide opportunities to develop trust and a sense of equal research partnerships.

The benefits… should include… research outcomes that advance the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

The described benefits from research should have been discussed with and agreed to by the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander research stakeholders.

The Statement makes it quite clear that researchers need to obtain permission from not only the participants but also the Aboriginal community. Aboriginal academics and elders have fought hard for these protocols to ensure that their people are not exploited. QUT is bound by these protocols but is clearly in violation of them here. Prof Rod Wissler has appeared on national television as a spokesman for QUT claiming that the scene with May is fine and does not breach research ethical protocols.

It is quite clear that Michael Noonan has ignored these research protocols. So not only are the disabled being laughed at in Michael Noonan's research, he has also included a comical portrayal of an Aboriginal woman, who has done nothing to merit such ridicule and mockery.

Once again I ask you as concerned academics or citizens to make clear that such practices violate our ethical code and are unacceptable. Those concerned should write to Gordon.McGurk@health.gov.au of the National Health & Medical Research Council and ask him to investigate this matter immediately.

Please also write your concerns to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough at Mal.Bough.MP@aph.gov.au and the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin at j.macklin.mp@aph.go.au

Thank you once again for your support.

John Hookham

This message was also sent from Ted Watson

Dear Friends,

My Name is Ted Watson. I am an Aboriginal man. I have been granted power of attorney to act on behalf of May Lulu Dunne who was filmed by Michael Noonan in the Australian Hotel in Boulia Easter 2006 as part of his PhD Project. The project was called Laughing at the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains.

In Easter 2006 Noonan took two intellectually impaired men to Boulia to find girls and to ask about the Min Min Lights. He sent them into the pub and there they met May Dunne. She is a tribal woman from the Northern Territory and is a decent caring grandmother of 52 years of age. She had too much to drink when Noonan filmed her but this is an exception for her. On Noonan's film she comes across as the stereotypical drunken indigenous woman that white people love to portray. In May's own words she tells us

"At no time was I asked permission to be filmed or sign any paper…I was hurt and shamed to see my actions shown on the internet in [the] Courier Mail newspaper website at our local library by Mr Ted Watson on Friday 14//07. I watched ABC and SBS hoping I would not be see[n] by everybody especially my people and family in a drunken way. I am upset now and want my pictures taken of the website…"

Noonan and QUT have broken all of the protocols for doing research involving indigenous Australians. We the Aboriginal people of Australia fought hard for these protocols. They are

National Statement for Research Involving Humans

Research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

Six core values

· Reciprocity

· Respect

· Equality

· Responsibility

· Survival and Protection

· Spirit and integrity

Clauses in the Protocol
The researcher should ensure that the research methods are respectful.

There should be evidence of support for the research project from relevant Aboriginal and Torrres Strait Islander communities and the research methodology should engage with their social and cultural practices.

The researcher should seek to identify any potential negative consequences of the proposed research, to design process to monitor them and to advise steps for minimizing them.

The research methods and processes should provide opportunities to develop trust and a sense of equal research partnerships.

The benefits… should include… research outcomes that advance the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

The described benefits from research should have been discussed with and agreed to by the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander research stakeholders.

I repeat that Michael Noonan has clearly broken all these protocols. Yet QUT set up an internal review following a complaint about his research and they found him not guilty. The academics who did this have betrayed my people and they have also shamed their own university.

May has also asked me to say that she thinks it is nasty to make fun of and rubbish people like Darren and James who do not understand what is going on. May herself is the guardian and carer of an intellectually disabled man. The Aboriginal people of Boulia were horrified when Noonan and Spectrum Organization put Daren and James into the rodeo ring and made them act being a bull and a matador so people would laugh at them. May and her family could not understand why people were being so cruel to James and Darren. But then we Aborigines have never understood why white Australians can be so cruel to other whites.

There is now an interview with me up on YouTube. The link below will get you there.

Please pass on the link to all interested parties especially indigenous groups all round the world.



We Aborigines are having a very hard time now, what with our rights being trampled on and our land being taken off us. We need help and support from everyone.

We need an apology from QUT to May Dunne, compensation for her suffering and the removal of Noonan's footage of her from the Courier Mail website.

Yours in the struggle

Edward James Watson

This is now an international issue that hopefully will seriously embarrass QUT and vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake. Here's an interview with UCLA Professor of Philosophy Calvin Normore. He describes the suspension of Garry and John as a serious threat to academic freedom.

Solidarity with Peter McGregor

I reproduce here a news piece written by my friend Antonio about another friend Peter.
Civil liberties in Australia are under threat and the right to protest is very limited indeed.

This story will be published on Saturday in City Hub. As Dr. Maria Angel (UWS) said: "Peter may not do things the way that each one of us might choose to, but what has happened to him is a breach of civil liberty and the principle of free speech."

A group of UWS academics have written to Hilmer, Dr. Williams and Dr. Lynch requesting to drop the charges against Peter McGregor - a former UWS academic.

Too much law and liberty
By Antonio Castillo
Arresting academics for speaking out is usually associated
with dictatorships and governments unable to deal with
dissent.
When former academic Peter McGregor was arrested and charged
last July while attending the Gilbert & Tobin Symposium on
“Law & Liberty in the War on Terror” at the University of New
South Wales, the irony of the situation was quickly replaced
by outrage.
A group of academics from the University of Western Sydney
where Mr McGregor was a well-respected lecturer wrote: “To
prosecute Mr Macgregor for exercising the rights the Gilbert
& Tobin Centre and its staff have been on public record
supporting and advocating would seem to be contradictory and
hypocritical. We believe that Universities need to be places
where robust debate and differences of opinion can be
expressed without fear of reprisal.”
The arrest of the former academic followed his attempt after
the symposium proceedings to peacefully protest against the
presence of Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock, the keynote
speaker. He was removed by police from the event and informed
that his permit to attend the event had been revoked by the
organisers. He was then charged.
“When I registered to attend the Gilbert & Tobin Symposium on
“Law & Liberty in the War on Terror” I was appalled to see
that Attorney-General Philip Ruddock was a 'keynote'
speaker,” Mr McGregor said. “And that there were two other
speakers from the Attorney-General's Department and one from
the Australian Defence Association but no speakers from the
anti-war movement, or even the Council for Civil Liberties.”
In a letter to the event organisers Dr George Williams and Dr
Andrew Lynch, University of Western Sydney Law School
Associate Professor Michael Head requested the charge be
dropped. “I call on you to immediately contact the police and
request that the charge be dropped. It would be entirely
hypocritical of you not to do so, while at the same time
writing publicly in defence of the civil liberties of Mohamed
Haneef. McGregor, a retired academic, was wrongly evicted
from the symposium for seeking to make a peaceful and
legitimate protest against the presence of the Attorney-
General,” he said.
Associate Professor Head said many participants had objected
to the false report given to the symposium that McGregor had
“rushed at” Mr Ruddock. “McGregor, who is a well-known
political figure, simply rose to address the audience before
he was frog-marched out by police. Unless you intervene with
the police, you will be involved in using similar methods of
slander and smear as those being used in the attempt to
convict Dr Haneef,” he said.
Mr McGgregor – a member of NSW Council for Civil Liberties –
has pleaded not guilty and the trial will begin on Wednesday
September 5 at Waverley Court.

Addendum: this is going to make some recent visitors Ethical Martini salivate, for others it's a sad indictment of the current poor state of democracy.

What's happening at QUT?

Student blogs at QUT that have been commenting on the suspension of Garry MacLennan and John Hookham have been deleted by the administration.
So the defence of free speech means denying free speech. Phil Castles again puts his head up in this clip. How long before he too is facing disciplinary action?



There's also an update (16 June) from the Courier-Mail newspaper in Brisbane, home of QUT.

The story has also raced around the world, here's a link to The Gimp Parade blogged by Kay Olson of Minnesota, who describes herself as an overeducated, underemployed feminist with a disability.

QUT Acting Vice Chancellor defends actions in suspending academics

This is a response from Professor David Gardiner, acting V-C at QUT, posted at ABC Online. I've reposted it here in an effort to be "fair and balanced" about this debate.

First Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2007 . 2:38pm -->Last Update: Saturday, June 16, 2007. 2:38pm (AEST)
OPINION
Facts missing
By Professor David Gardiner
There are some important facts missing from the current debate about a research project being undertaken by a PhD student in the Creative Industries Faculty at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT).
The research project is in its early stages. A further two years of work will be undertaken on this project before it is completed.
As is usual practice in doctoral research, the student made an initial presentation to his confirmation panel about his project.
The seminar was presented under the working title, "Laughing at the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains", which was subsequently formalised as "Laughing with the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains". This latter title was the title of the project approved by the QUT Ethics Committee in October/November 2006.
Either title can be construed as provocative. Unfortunately, current concerns have focused on an interpretation of this title and not on the content or aim of the project.
Below is an extract of the student's summary of the research work:
"Increasingly comedy writers and program makers are drawing on strategies which confront and shock an audience so that the humour arises from a mixture of audacious surprise, embarrassment and even outrage. Such humour drives the films such as Borat and TV series like The Chasers War on Everything, The Office and Extras.
"In our laughter we often laugh with those affected but at times a line is crossed and we can find ourselves laughing at the characters, their predicaments and the crass impacts they are having on others.
"This study is about that line, how it shifts and the difficulties that program makers have in negotiating it. It is an investigation of the principles of contemporary comedy on film and the way program makers balance confrontation with empathy, giving offence with the warm laughter of recognition, and entertainment with irony which exposes human complexity.
"My study does this by employing two remarkable men with disabilities and aims to create, through laughter, insight into their unique contribution to Australian society and the values we hold.
"The project was developed in consultation with the disability group, the Spectrum organisation, the parents and advocates of the two men, and the men themselves. It has also been overseen by an external disability consultant."
Disciplinary action
Following the presentation and subsequent actions, a student and staff made formal allegations that two QUT academics had breached the university's code of conduct.
The university convened a three-person committee comprising an external party and two senior academics to investigate the misconduct allegations.
The committee found that a breach of the code of conduct was proven in relation to each of the allegations made. The disciplinary action taken by the vice-chancellor is within the range of disciplinary measures available under the code for such breaches.
Research project ethics
Projects that involve humans require ethical clearance in accordance with the guidelines published by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
In response to complaints about the project, QUT instigated a review of the ethics approval process by the University's Human Research Ethics Committee, which applied the NHMRC guidelines.
QUT convened an audit committee to determine if, in the initiation, structure or conduct of the research to date, any breaches of the ethics code have occurred.
The five-person committee included an independent member who was part of the Commission of Inquiry into the actions of Dr Jayant Patel.
The committee also comprised three senior QUT academics who were in no way connected with the student or the research, including two members with expertise in psychology and in human services.
The panel found "no evidence of harm, discomfort, ridicule or exploitation to the participants, (names withheld), as indicated by the letter of complaint".
The panel noted "the positive enthusiasm of the participants involved, their treatment with dignity and sensitivity, and the warm way in which they were welcomed into the particular community where filming had occurred".
The panel found "no major grounds for objection in either the manner of application, review and approval; or in the conduct of the project to date".
Further, as part of this investigation, QUT asked an independent psychologist specialising in the disability field to comment on the cognitive abilities of the two disabled men.
On the basis of her opinion (derived from interactions with the two men), and the range of other evidence available, QUT is of the view that the men understand the project, are willing participants and are deriving benefit from their involvement.
It is also important to note that the individuals who are the key participants in the PhD study provided written consent to be involved in the project and had previously both appeared in a four-part documentary series called Unlikely Travellers which the PhD student directed and produced in 2005/2006.
The fact that the two individuals have wished to participate in the study and that informed consent has been obtained from them and their parents/guardians does not appear to have been widely publicised in any of the discussions regarding this issue.
QUT's role
In its approach to the research and the subsequent allegations made by a number of parties, QUT has conducted itself in accordance with the rules and regulations that govern such matters.
It has done so in an impartial way and using appropriately qualified and unbiased people. Where allegations have been proven action has been taken in accordance with documented measures.
QUT is at pains to ensure that the rights of all students, staff and other people involved, are protected. QUT does not support the exploitation of any person or party. This is evidenced by the way in which the university has gone about its investigations and hearings.
Universities are places where research can be conducted that may be sensitive or controversial. Any such research needs to be balanced with legal obligations and ethical considerations, while providing scope for academic freedom and the democratic principles of freedom of speech.
Achieving this balance requires all parties to conduct themselves in a responsible, respectful and scholarly manner.
Based on the ethics committee findings, QUT believes the research project has been publicly misrepresented, to the detriment of the university.
QUT takes its role seriously and remains firmly committed to the principles of ethical research and freedom of speech.
- Professor David Gardiner, acting Vice-Chancellor, Queensland University of Technology

Another QUT academic speaks out

This commentary was posted at ABC Online by Phil Castle, a colleague of Hookham and MacLennan. I've reposted it because several comments on my blog so far have criticised the stand I've taken in support of two people who I respect immensely. OK, so I'm in Auckland and not close to the action, but Phil Castle is right there. The comments on Phil's original post are also worth checking out from the link above.

OPINION
Fear at QUT
By Philip Castle
Recently, I asked a Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Creative Industries colleague about the "Laughing at the Disabled …" debate. He said: "I can't say anything." I said: "Why?" "The MOPP doesn't allow me," he said. MOPP is the Manual for Policy and Procedures at QUT.
I said: "I don't recall ever relinquishing my rights to free speech when I began working at QUT." He said he couldn't comment, but the facts hadn't properly come out. I asked what facts? He was clearly reluctant to talk. The one he mentioned; he was wrong.
On June 8 two QUT senior TV and film academics Drs Gary Maclennan and John Hookham were found guilty of misconduct and given six months immediate suspension without pay.
Dr Maclennan has been at QUT (previously QIT) for 32 years. They criticised a PhD candidate's footage about two disabled men at his confirmation in March and then wrote a joint article in The Australian on April 11.
They also criticised the supervising academics and the ethical clearance process for not engaging the disability community first. Dr Maclennan has since unreservedly apologised to the PhD candidate.
My colleague said QUT and the PhD student had not told their side of the story. I said the student has had many opportunities. I had even given his telephone number (from on-line) to journalists, with his knowledge and he still declined.
The PhD candidate won't show his section of the film now either (I have asked) which he showed at his March confirmation and at two successive first year lectures to over 100 students in early May.
This was where the two men with mental impairment portrayed in the film were also present, unbeknown to the audience, until afterwards. He again showed the footage of an Aboriginal woman in an alleged amorous drunken state; three weeks after the critical article in The Australian.
International QUT Norwegian student Atle Nielsen was at the Foundations of Film and TV lecture in N Block on May 2. He said: "I didn't and couldn't laugh at the scenes and was very sorry for the two young men when they came down at the end. It wasn't right. I work with handicapped persons in Norway and it's wrong."
QUT has unwittingly created a climate of fear where academics feel they either can't or won't be able to express a view. Obviously two who did, whether rightly or wrongly, have now paid a hefty price.
The punishment is not proportionate to the alleged offences and almost unprecedented in Australian universities. The penalty is about a $50,000 fine and an almost enforced resignation. It gave the story "legs'" as journalists say. An unpleasant legal stoush is almost guaranteed.
If as Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Coaldrake says, it is not about freedom of speech, but misconduct towards a student and colleagues, then certainly that message hasn't reached my fearful colleague.
It is about free speech as The Australian's article obviously upset QUT. A senior QUT academic said to me early in the debate, "…and they have done it twice" ie they have written twice to the newspaper and by implication now they have to pay.
QUT is a great university of which I'm generally proud. Its successful PR slogan is "QUT: The University for the real world." I can't judge if the "Laughing at the disabled …" clips are reasonable because I'm not privileged to view them.
The ethical processes used appear superficial. I know QUT could solve part of the damage if it engaged the disability community experts to assess the project.
If QUT doesn't act soon, it will become internationally known as "QUT: the university which laughs at the disabled." How very sad for such a fine university.
- Philip Castle is a journalism lecturer at QUT, former print journalist and former head of The Australian Federal Police PR

Freedom of Speech disabled at QUT

This is a very serious issue of academic freedom of expression. My friends Garry MacLennan and John Hookham are facing disciplinary charges at Queensland University of Technology for objecting to a PhD approval that raises serious ethical issues about treatment of people with disabilities.

This YouTube doco explains part of the story



Here is the original piece that they published criticising the university and the PhD approval process. It seems, as my mate Phil Castles points out in the YouTube piece, that Garry and John are being disciplined for going public with their concerns.

Philistines of relativism at the gates
John Hookham, Gary MacLennan
MATP
1678 words
11 April 2007
The Australian
1 - All-round Country
33
English
Copyright 2007 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Universities should provide access to the best art and literature, write John Hookham and Gary MacLennan

A TIME comes when you have to say: "Enough!", when you can no longer put up with the misanthropic and amoral trash produced under the rubric of postmodernist, post-structuralist thought. The last straw, the defining moment, came for us when we attended a recent PhD confirmation at the Queensland University of Technology, where we teach.

Candidate Michael Noonan's thesis title was Laughing at the Disabled: Creating comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains. The thesis abstract explained that "Laughing at the Disabled is an exploration of authorship and exploitation in disability comedy, the culmination of which will be the creation and production [for sale] of a six-part comedy series featuring two intellectually disabled personalities.

"The show, entitled [Craig and William]: Downunder Mystery Tour, will be aimed squarely at the mainstream masses; its aim to confront, offend and entertain." [Editor's note: the subjects' names have been changed to protect their privacy.] Noonan went on to affirm that his thesis was guided by post-structuralist theory, which in our view entails moral relativism. He then showed video clips in which he had set up scenarios placing the intellectually disabled subjects in situations they did not devise and in which they could appear only as inept. Thus, the disabled Craig and William were sent to a pub out west to ask the locals about the mystery of the min-min lights.

In the tradition of reality television, the locals were not informed that Craig and William were disabled. But the candidate assured us some did "get it", it being the joke that these two men could not possibly understand the content of the interviews they were conducting. This, the candidate seemed to think, was incredibly funny.

Presumably he also thought it was amusing to give them an oversized and comically shaped pencil that made it difficult for them to write down answers to the questions they were meant to ask. The young men were also instructed to ask the locals about whether there were any girls in the town as they were looking for romance. This produced a scene wherein a drunk Aboriginal woman amorously mauled William.

Capping off this reality show format, the candidate asked Craig and William on camera what they would do if a girl fancied both of them. When William, a sufferer of Asperger's syndrome, twitched and was unable to answer, the university audience broke into laughter. Then Craig replied: "We would share her." This, it seems, was also funny for the university audience. They had clearly "got it".

It's worth noting that William's condition may make it difficult for him to understand the subtexts of social interaction. AS sufferers struggle to read facial expressions and body language and are often unable to predict what to expect of others or what others may expect of them. This leads to social awkwardness and inappropriate behaviour.

Hilarious, huh?

Much was made at the seminar of the potential for all humour to offend and of the ancient nature of the tradition of mocking the disabled. But the purpose of humour is not just cruelty. The butt of a joke usually has some undeserved claim to dignity and the funny incident takes him or her down a peg.

Humour undermines the rich and powerful, and it can be politically subversive. But we don't think it's funny to mock and ridicule two intellectually disabled boys. We think we, and the university, have a duty of care to those who are less fortunate than us.

At the seminar we were told there was a thin line between laughing at and laughing with. There is no such thin line. There is an absolute difference that anyone who has been laughed at knows.

We must admit with great reluctance that at the seminar we were alone in our criticism of the project. For us, it was a moment of great shame and a burning testimony to the power of post-structuralist thought to corrupt.

It is not our intention here to demolish the work of Noonan, an aspiring young academic and filmmaker. After all, ultimate responsibility for this research rests with the candidate's supervisory team, which included associate professor Alan McKee, the faculty ethics committee, which apparently gave his project total approval, and the expert panel, which confirmed his candidacy.

To understand how we have got into this dreadful situation, one need go no further than reading the series of interviews with some of the great figures of popular culture published in the journal Americana. These interviews are remarkable in that they all follow a similar narrative: the young professors who burn with a passion for popular culture take up a position at a university where they come up against the dragon of high culture. They risk life and career to slay the dragon by publishing articles on popular cultural phenomena such as TV soap operas. This, then, is the story of the heroic age of cultural studies, when teachers of cultural studies forced the academy and the schools to broaden their horizons.

As academics who have published articles on The Simpsons and Deadwood, we warm to these tales of derring-do. However, it is vital that one recognise that the heroic age of cultural studies is long past. The dragon of high-culture elitism has been well and truly slain.

What holds centre stage is not a critique of how popular culture provides -- in the words of scholar George Lipsitz -- the "links that connect the nation, the citizen subject, sexuality, desire and consumption". What we have instead is the reality that cultural studies is in the grip of a powerful movement that we call the radical philistine push. It is this same movement that has seen the collapse of English studies and the consequent production of graduates who have only the scantiest acquaintance with our literary heritage.

It is also undermining the moral fabric of the university.

Let us be clear: we are not blaming students. In our line of fire are the academics who have led the assault against notions of aesthetic and moral quality in cultural studies. This has taken the form of a direct attack on those who do not celebrate every offering that comes out of the maw of corporate culture. We are all supposed to wave our rear ends and become cheerleaders for rubbish such as Big Brother and Wife Swap. Lest the reader think we exaggerate, let us turn to the views of McKee, the enfant terrible of the post-structuralist radical philistines within the creative industries faculty at QUT.

In the university newspaper, Inside QUT, he was reported as saying: "Teaching school students that Shakespeare is more worthy than reality television is actively evil" (italics added) and in his "ideal world programs such as Big Brother would be at the centre of thecurriculum".

In a similar vein, John Hartley, Federation fellow and the founding dean of the faculty, has claimed there are similarities between Big Brother and Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that both explore issues of marriageability. Of course there are similarities; almost all stories deal with the quest to find a mate. But, in any comparison between Shakespeare and Big Brother, what counts are the differences, not the similarities. In Shakespeare we can point to, at the very least, the complex and sophisticated way in which the text is shaped, formed and structured. Every aspect has been deliberately crafted so that no feature is superfluous.

But by elevating Big Brother to the level of Shakespeare, the radical philistines have taken the high culture v low culture distinction and inverted it. Low culture is the tops and anyone who so much as refers to high culture becomes the enemy and is subjected to the politics of abuse and exclusion. This is what has led us to Craig and William: Downunder Mystery Tour.

And now, when we say that in civilised society it is repugnant to mock the disabled, most academics in our field appear to disagree with us. When we say it is morally wrong to laugh at the afflicted, our colleagues seem indifferent to the truth of this statement. Presumably for them it is just our "narrative".

They can take this position because in the postmodern world there are no theories, no knowledge and no truth; there are only narratives, fictional stories, all told with bias.

Yet we and almost everyone outside of the cultural studies ghetto reject this moral and epistemological relativism. If we are to take meaningful political action, if we are to act morally, if we are to teach our students how to live, how to act in an ethical fashion and how to make progressive and powerful art, then we need to be able to determine what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false.

Is there an alternative to the moral relativism, the schlock aesthetics and the dumbing down of the postmodernists? Yes, but to transcend the position staked out by the new philistines would require a commitment to aesthetic and moral education.

The aesthetic component would once again undertake the task of cultivating and improving aesthetic taste and judgment. That means providing access to the best that has been written, painted, said and filmed.

This aspect of the curriculum would necessarily be anti-relativist.

There are dangers and difficulties here, but the present situation is one where educational institutions are beset with wilful ignorance and culturally the ruling slogan appears to be "the grosser the better". This is nothing less than an offence to the human spirit.

John Hookham is a filmmaker whose work has been screened at festivals such as Cannes. Gary MacLennan's expertise includes documentary theory and practice. Both are senior lecturers in the creative industries faculty of the Queensland University of Technology.

Below I've inserted the coverage of this story. I think it is important that we support John and Garry and condemn QUT's heavy handed approach, which seems designed to cover the administration's embarrassment.

Uproar at student's disabled comedy
Dorothy Illing, Higher education writer
MATP
418 words
11 April 2007
The Australian
1 - All-round Country
3
English
Copyright 2007 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved

A PhD student's TV comedy about disabled people has sparked outrage from senior academics and prompted an investigation.

Michael Noonan's thesis, "Laughing at the disabled: Creating comedy that confronts, offends and entertains", has been attacked for its reality TV-style depiction of two intellectually disabled men interviewing locals in a country pub.

Gary MacLennan and John Hookham, of Queensland University of Technology's film and television school, believe that work such as Mr Noonan's is being validated under the rubric of postmodernist or poststructuralist thought, where "you abandon any idea of individual worth".

"For us, this is symptomatic of a wider intellectual and moral problem," Dr MacLennan said.

Mr Noonan, who is one year into a three-year PhD and has the support of his supervisor, Geoff Portmann, said he was surprised the academics had taken offence.

"I love these guys and would never exploit them," Mr Noonan said of the two characters in the planned television series, which will form part of his thesis. "It looks like they were in a vulnerable situation when they were not."

The project is backed by Spectrum, a not-for-profit group that helps disabled people in mainstream society.

Spectrum chief executive John Hart said Mr Noonan's work would change the way people viewed those with disabilities: "Michael is a wonderful human being; he is going to break down so many barriers."

Mr Noonan recently sold another series to ABC television, Unlikely Travellers, also backed by Spectrum. It is expected to screen later this year.

Dr MacLennan said that Unlikely Travellers, a documentary about six disabled people, was warm and beautiful, but the characters in Mr Noonan's latest project were portrayed as objects of ridicule.

The issue erupted late last month when Mr Noonan showed 10 to 20 minutes of footage at a confirmation seminar, a standard process in which a panel of academics assesses a PhD student's work 12 months into the degree to see whether she or he can continue.

Assistant dean in QUT's faculty of creative industries Brad Haseman said the project was cleared by the university ethics committee in September, but that a special ethics reference group would be established to monitor the work.

Professor Haseman said Mr Noonan had been told he could proceed on the condition he changed the title, which was "offensive" and "regrettable".

Higher Education -- Page 33

Here's a bit more, to bring you up to date with what's happening.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
MATP
1067 words
25 April 2007
The Australian
1 - All-round Country
36
English
Copyright 2007 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Disabled project a crisis

IN attempting to defend the Laughing at the Disabled project ("Funny business", HES April 18), Brad Haseman tells us what we already know: namely that the PhD project went through all the appropriate channels at the Queensland University of Technology. That's what bothers us. If this went through all the right channels, then those channels must be hopelessly flawed.

Haseman makes no comment about the nature or content of the project. His only defence is that we must trust the experts. But it takes no expertise at all to know that one should not laugh at the disabled. It is a matter of basic decency.

Haseman assures us that the project was reviewed properly by the ethics committee. Our information is that the project received expedited approval.

If this is so, we call on the committee members to justify what they have done.

We challenge Haseman to make the project footage that was shown at the confirmation seminar available to mainstream disability groups. Let them judge this project.

Haseman has accused us of abuse of PhD candidate Michael Noonan. This is a most serious charge. It is one we reject absolutely. If anyone has been abused in this sorry affair, it is the two intellectually disabled young people unfortunate enough to have become entangled in the project.

But let us try to help Haseman understand what he and his experts have approved. Let him take the (belatedly changed and sanitised) title from the candidate's thesis, Laughing at the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains. Let him substitute the word Aborigines for Disabled. Let him try to speak this sentence into a mirror: Laughing at Aborigines: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains. Do we need to say more?

But Haseman seems more interested in chastising the whistleblowers. Our offence is that we have defended the disabled. We have defended the true ideals of our university. These include academic freedom and a pastoral relationship with the wider community. For this reason we call on the university managers to intervene and to jettison the Laughing at the Disabled project. We urge them to recognise that this is a crisis. We remind them that, in the words of Allan Bloom, "a crisis in the university, the home of reason, is perhaps the profoundest crisis [we may] face".

John Hookham

Gary MacLennan

Creative industries faculty

Queensland University of Technology

This next piece explains how and why the university has moved to discipline Garry and John. They are now facing suspension without pay and charges of academic misconduct. I'm bloody angry about this. It is a serious attack on the rights of academics to engage in public debate about important issues in the intellectual domain.

Critics of PhD face discipline
Bernard Lane
MATP
590 words
9 May 2007
The Australian
1 - All-round Country
43
English
Copyright 2007 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved

TWO academics who went public with their opposition to a PhD project called Laughing at the Disabled face disciplinary action from their university.

John Hookham and Gary MacLennan, senior lecturers at the Queensland University of Technology, wrote an article in the HES last month saying the PhD project showed the amoral influence of postmodernism within their creative industries faculty.

QUT stood by the project, complaints against the two critics emerged from the faculty, and they face misconduct charges and possible suspension without pay.

Kevin Cocks, a Brisbane-based disability activist and another critic of the project, said that once again it was the whistleblowers who were pursued.

It is understood that the charges arise from an alleged lack of respect in their criticism of the PhD student, Michael Noonan, and his supervisors.

"This is not about speaking up -- it's about events that allegedly occurred and how they occurred," vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake told the HES yesterday. "The university supports the right to academic freedom on the basis that it comes with responsibility, particularly when students are concerned."

Mr Noonan said his project, which includes a reality television-style depiction of two young intellectually disabled men interviewing locals in a country pub, had the full approval of the men's parents and guardians.

"I've talked to their parents and guardians [since the controversy erupted] and they still support it," Mr Noonan said. "It's frustrating when things are taken out of context. I don't think [Dr Hookham and Dr MacLennan] have got beyond the title."

The title was changed after the HES coverage appeared.

John Hart, chief executive of the disability group Spectrum, reaffirmed his support for Noonan's work, which would empower the disabled and give them "a voice through comedy".

But Mr Cocks, director of Queensland Advocacy Ltd and a QUT distinguished alumnus, said a letter from Professor Coaldrake had not eased his concerns about the ethical pitfalls of the project.

"If anyone had said laughing at Aborigines or laughing at women those groups would be rightly angered," he said.

"[The project] is sending a message to the community that it's OK to treat people with disabilities as objects of ridicule."

He said he would pursue the issue by seeking a meeting with Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Commission, the Public Advocate and the Adult Guardian. Professor Coaldrake had ignored his request to meet.

"We don't want to escalate this issue, we'd like to talk to [Professor Coaldrake] to see if this can be resolved," Mr Cocks said.

Dr MacLennan has told students by email of the disciplinary action against him, saying "this crisis has taken a terrible toll on my health".

About 40 students, mostly from the creative industries faculty, met yesterday to work out a campaign in favour of Dr Hookham's and Dr MacLennan's right to speak out, according to student Daniel Cabrera.

"We're taking some footage and making a documentary about this as well," he said. He said not all students at the meeting agreed with the thrust of the Hookham-MacLennan article.

In a QUT online forum one student posted: "I am not an activist. I know nothing about petitions, marches or fighting `the man'. What I do know is that what QUT has done is wrong.

"Their actions have filled me with indignation and compelled me to act. We cannot be silent and let them administer undeserved punishment."