The account of this period normally given is that the parties could not agree on the terms of engagement- H&M wanted to review the footage (such as anyone can now do), and Noonan wanted them to read his candidature document. As I don’t see how even a long theoretical blurb can make a film better than it is, I side with H&M on that one. Noonan has justified withholding the footage, which was never secret, on the grounds that he didn’t want to spoil the film for viewers and that he didn’t have to show it to anyone anyhow. I don’t think this constitutes much of a commitment to engaging with the inevitable criticism of a project that was and is self-consciously controversial. If he wants to finesse a paradigm shift in representation that will inevitably roll across some very sensitive toes, then defending this by insisting he has the best will in the world and has read up on his theory is not going to progress things very far.

This sequence of events was covered some months ago, but seems to have largely dropped out of the recent account. The recent account makes it seem that H&M’s attempts at engagement stopped abruptly after that email, though MacLennan’s response to the charges (item ii) suggests it was still ongoing substantially later. Consider also the disconnect between the recent account of the title change, as a friendly enough and normal thing, to the spleen he expressed about it at Indymedia Ireland in his June 18 posting.

Anyway, I think the article is more an item in Noonan’s focus on reputation defense and critic nobbling. So maybe his personal experience is the most important aspect of the drama, perhaps he is the one who has been humiliated. But H&M are the ones who were suspended, for starters, and near all of these difficult times Noonan has had to endure are because of that. Making his personal suffering the justification for the suspensions is rather reversing things. It also trivialises the affair and disappears the political into the personal, just as Coaldrake’s statement disappeared the political into the technocratic. Regardless of who does or doesn’t like it, H&M could not be punished directly for the Philistines article. Instead a long list of trivia was cited and punishment meted out that way. That they could be suspended for writing such a hostile article is probably not surprising to anyone, but what is worrying is that, in a university that claims it allows such criticism and has no rule to directly punish it, much much smaller things can be cited to deal with those upon whom attention settles.

He’s shown no interest in the dispute beyond defending his reputation and punishing critics.

Hardly fair. See this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22363115-25192,00.html

H&M cannot also not be (officially) punished for the Oz HES article, as it was not against the rules for them to publish it. However, given the thoroughgoing triviality of the charges against them, it’s hard to believe that they weren’t punished by any means at hand for the article. And if Noonan really is so hurt by all this, it’s worth noting that his fame and the criticism it brought him was caused by the suspensions- H&M got near no sympathy for the article. Unlike their previous needling of CI, which did get some sympathetic response, Philistines set most bloggers’ teeth on edge because it singled Noonan out. Philistines didn’t put H&M on the front page of the C-M, Noonan, MacKee and Coaldrake did that, and if that put a valuable progressive project or a vulnerable youngish PhD candidate or the autonomy of two men who have a disability under threat, then N, M&C have only themselves to look to.

John, you have complained that the debate has not been well informed, and who would argue? But whose choice was this? H&M didn’t even get a second viewing of the material until it went up on the C-M website. This has been a manufactured state of affairs leading up to the BIFF screening and subsequent release of the footage, which has in turn manufactured a platform for the candidate, who considers his treatment a human rights issue, to now play victim with a halfway smile. If he is as thin skinned as he has represented himself, then he might not be the best person to undertake a production which is bound to be controversial and establishes offense as an aim. It could have been hoped that he would get sound advice from his seniors on the project, something other than ’stomp the opposition’.

You said, John, that you thought the debate about disability raised by the film project should happen, was important, and should be informed. It’s a pity you couldn’t find a better running partner than Noonan, who has done everything conceivable to prevent this. He’s shown no interest in the dispute beyond defending his reputation and punishing critics. As it was his project, it was up to him to take responsibility for it and making sure that he engaged with such critics as were bound to emerge. Instead he was deeply complicit in the odious and more than faintly spurious disciplinary proceeding. That proceeding and the suspensions then became the issue, and the film bound to it. On the face of it, that was a disservice to the film, but as we now see, PR can fix near anything.

Judicial control of academic research is a very dangerous outcome of a free speech campaign.

David, why do you think the project is “at least dicey” Did you look at the footage to reach this conclusion? (if not, check out my link above)

Or do you just believe there must be some mud sticking because so much mud was thrown?

So he officially got disciplined for:

“You directed personal abuse at Noonan by stating to him in a raised voice words to the following effect: ‘I have a handicapped child and I pray to God that my child never comes into contact with someone like you’.�

Oh wah wah wah. Why do so many middle class people run off to committees when people say this kind of stuff? Sticks and stones. Say something back to him!

I am not fully informed about the PhD project or the criticism. But I do think it’s at least dicey. Why did he deliberately call it “laughing AT the disabled”? He was obviously trying to stoke passion and controversy. I can’t see how he can complain when that’s what he got.

BTW I don’t see what’s especially interesting about MacLennan being a Marxist and being defended Murdoch press.

here is my take on the footage (including link to the CM site)
“Laughing at the “disabled”, Michael Noonan exposes his naughty bits”
http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/laughing-at-the-%e2%80%9cdisabled%e2%80%9d-michael-noonan-exposes-his-naughty-bits/

http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/unlikely-travellers-movie-review/

Thanks very much for posting the link.

This is my critique of Gary and John’s artiicle.
http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/laughing-at-the-disabled-power-perception-and-prejudice/

I stress that allthough I strongly disagree with their article, I believe it is essential that there is a public discussion on these issues rather than sweeping them under the carpet. Gary and John have made an important contribution to this public discussion.

It was good to see Prof Cunningham emerge from the shadows of the conflict that is wracking QUT at present. However his attempt to place into context the controversy surrounding the suspension of Drs Hookham and MacLennan is deeply flawed. To begin with he perpetuates the mistake made in American films about the Vietnam War. These films generally insist that the war was something that happened to America. Just so Cunningham insists that the Laughing at the Disabled controversy is something that is happening to QUT rather than something that QUT is doing to Hookham and MacLennan and the disability community.

Thus we are told that QUT is ‘under the pump’. Cunningham doesn’t even consider why this should be so. The recent demonstration outside the Administrative block of QUT was supported by members of the disability community. What other Australian university has ever faced a protest from the disabled?

Why were the disabled community protesting the suspension of Hookham and MacLennan? Cunningham will not even consider why. For he steadfastly refuses to engage with the detail and the context of this controversy.

[…]

However Cunningham does not tell us why QUT supported a project for profit which Hookham and MacLennan believed had at its core the ridiculing and mockery of the disabled. […]

There is total silence from the good professor on these issues. Yet he hastens to tell us that Hookham and MacLennan were found guilty by a ‘duly constituted review’. The general public may not be aware that this review was set up by the Vice Chancellor. He handpicked the Chair and the staff members. The VC also decided the penalty and there is no right of appeal. […] Certainly in this instance it has led to a verdict which has been described by a distinguished academic Prof Henningham in his resignation letter from QUT as being punitive in the extreme. Now Hookham and MacLennan’s legal team has learnt that the ‘duly constituted review’ of which Cunningham boasts has lost the vital record of its proceedings.

The truth is, if one could evoke such an old fashioned concept, that Hookham and MacLennan have been victims of ‘workplace mobbing’. This is the tried and true method of getting rid of one’s staff when they ostensibly have tenure. Interested readers should go to arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/mobbing where they will find details of the latest research on the topic. It is already clear that the case of QUT versus Hookham and MacLennan is destined to become a classic in the literature of how institutions trample on the rights of their employees.

[…]

It is true that as Cunningham points out they wrote another article in 2005 also critical of the manner in which the Creative Industries was being run. Does this mean that they are repeat offenders and should thus be punished severely? Is it a case of two strikes and you’re out at QUT? Cunningham assures us that he realizes that universities live and die by their reputation. He is correct and he should be very worried about QUT. One has only to go to youtube and watch what is being said about this controversy to realize that the university is destroying its own reputation. Of especial interest are the clips entitled ‘International students speak out against QUT’.

Cunningham concludes his article with the good news about research students etc at QUT and claims to be doing something right. He makes no mention of the ongoing budget crisis in the Creative Industries Faculty. He does not tell us of the lecturers who cannot go to overseas conferences because the university can only advance $2000 towards their expenses. He makes no mention of the recent review which told the faculty that it could only survive another two years in its current state. Nor does he remind us of how QUT which was once the Number One teaching institution in Australia has now slumped to 36th out of 37 universities in Australia.

[…]

Brian Laver, Director
Institute For Social Ecology
Ahimsa House, West End
.
Brian Laver is a long time campaigner for human rights. From the 1960s onwards he has promoted the right to free speech. He has lectured at Griffith University and the University of Queensland, and has frequently given guest lectures at QUT, a practice which he will not now repeat.

But our undergraduate student demand remains high because we offer a responsible balance between critical intelligence and preparation for professional practice.

However, from a couple of sources who’ve seen the QTAC (Qld Tertiary Admissions Centre) first preferences for 2007 degrees across Qld tertiary institutions, it’s reported that first preferences for the Creative Industries Faculty’s general degree (the Bachelor of Creative Industries - Interdisciplinary) dropped in 2007 by as much as 25%, although the majors and BFA degrees seem to be holding their own.

It would be interesting to hear if this is, indeed, the case, because if it is, then how much spin has Cunningham inlcuded in the rest of his article?

Cunningham, like everyone one else involved directly or indirectly in this controversy — from QUT’s Vice Chancellor, Peter Coaldrake, down to the two suspended academics — continue to put spin on their public and not-so-public statements.

The more statements, claims, counter-claims, press releases, etc I read and view about QUT, the Creative Industries, Hookham and MacLennan, and the rest of it, the more frustrated and annoyed I’ve become with the whole darn thing. Perhaps many people have already tuned out to it all, moved on to ‘the next big thing’.

Taking arts into digital era
Stuart Cunningham
June 22, 2007

QUEENSLAND University of Technology has been under the pump on more than one front in recent weeks.

Far from pure and simple

Readers of The Courier-Mail and viewers and listeners to local TV and radio could be excused for being concerned, not only over QUT’s regard for academic freedom and the humanities but also confused about how these matters are connected.

There has been much commentary on these matters – both locally and nationally – from supporters of the suspended academics, Dr John Hookham and Dr Gary MacLennan, and supporters of the continuation of School of Humanities and Human Services. Nothing less than the reputation of the institution is at stake.

Such institutions live and die on their reputations; these issues require serious consideration.
Hookham and MacLennan wrote a substantial article in The Australian newspaper recently accusing a doctoral student of a deeply offensive and unethical stance towards the disabled and argued that this was symptomatic of the cultural and ethical relativism engendered by postmodernism in the Creative Industries Faculty of which they are part.

The actual words they used to describe the student’s work were “misanthropic and amoral trash produced under the rubric of post-structuralist thought”.

About the same time, QUT proposed to close Humanities and Human Services, with Vice-Chancellor Peter Coaldrake saying the humanities would continue at QUT in the shape of creative industries. Some of the debate has also focused on whether QUT’s creative industries is part of the humanities at all.

Is this managerial fiat riding roughshod over academic freedom while dispensing with pure humanities in favour of a postmodernist house of cards? It is time now to set the record straight.

The suspension of Hookham and MacLennan followed a unanimous finding by a properly constituted review that they had engaged in academic misconduct through abusive behaviour towards a student and his supervisors.

QUT’s code of conduct states “academic staff members have the right to express unpopular or controversial views, but this does not mean they have the right to vilify, defame or intimidate”.

This was not the first time that Hookham and MacLennan had written a thoroughgoing put-down of the Creative Industries Faculty and all its works. In 2005, they published a long article in the national press saying that its governing philosophy was rotten to the core, its educational practices were suspect, its students were turned off, and even its precinct was a wasteland.

No matter how harsh staff or the university had thought this attack, it was treated as defensible as an exercise in academic freedom of speech.

What differentiated this latest attack was that it contained virulent criticism of a student for whom the university has a duty of care. This was not a case of academic freedom denied. It is a proven case of academic bullying and intimidation.

The proposal to close Humanities and Human Services has been portrayed as a worrying part of a trend toward further “marketisation” of higher education.

The pure humanities must be part and parcel of any higher education system. The values of independence of mind, critical thought and curiosity about the world, and the disciplines that teach them, must not be eroded by managerial fiat or postmodern relativism.

But there still must be a market for such “non-market” disciplines in any given university. That is to say, there must be sufficient students of sufficiently high entry score to justify offering such courses. This has not been the case at QUT for some time.

Universities must increasingly “choose their poison”. They must concentrate on their strengths and seek to complement each other in an overall higher education system. The old days of a small number of elite institutions offering all disciplines have long gone.

QUT’s philosophy is to embed pure disciplinary inputs into professional applications. The success of this approach in the Creative Industries Faculty is seen by the surge in demand when we first opened the faculty to new students in 2002 and it has remained high since.

Not everyone likes the Creative Industries project. Clearly, this includes Hookham and MacLennan, who appear uncomfortable with our desire to renew the arts for a contemporary digital age, and those who see it as a poor substitute for the pure humanities.

But our undergraduate student demand remains high because we offer a responsible balance between critical intelligence and preparation for professional practice. Our research student numbers have skyrocketed since the faculty started. Our research in applied humanities is nationally and internationally of the first order.

We must be doing something right.

Professor Stuart Cunningham is director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation at QUT

My point was also about it’s isolation in the program because of funding cuts, making it less useful and of less potential interest to most students. The shtick about not being useful was more in the line of self-deprecation. You are right, though, that particular subject has served me very well indeed.

Douglas:
Nobody in their right mind would want a return to the bad old days of pampered bludgers loafing around universities wasting funds. However, going to the other extreme, as is happening at QUT and elsewhere, is just as bad.

The corporate world needs people with the skills gained in courses at faculties of Arts or Humanities or Classics as much as those gained in other faculties …. that need is not obvious to the inexperienced but it is real; it can be translated into profits and losses. One of the reasons Australian firms are so easy to screw is that although they may have brilliant MBAs and engineers on board, they rarely “waste their money” employing, for instance, Ancient History graduates to help them with Competitive Information despite the close match of skills needed in both fields …. nor will you find Classical Chinese Literature graduates on too many Australian business delegations to Korea, Malaysia, Japan or China.

As for costs: one remarkable Institute/”Faculty” I saw in a major trading country consisted of 1 x Professor, 1 x Librarian/Researcher/Factotum, 6 x postgrad Students in 2 x Rooms - that’s all! It was a solid core that just toddled along doing fine work until there was a sudden need for rapid, massive expansion ….. no panic …. just get more rooms, more material ….. and the Postgrad Students become lecturers …. easy. You can’t emulate them if you have already destroyed your supposedly inefficient faculty or department or whatever and have to start from scratch ….again And we are in the Clever?? Country?? Yeah, right. L-O-L

The figures cited by the QUT Vice-Chancellor were wrong, and the claim that the School was making a loss was also wrong - it incorporated the overheads of the campus directorate and the School’s net financial position this year is actually positive. It’s an ideological agenda

Glad you have such a confident assessment of the situation to pronounce it an ‘ideological agenda’! That’s a fairly big call to make, I’d have to say, and one that I would not level lightly myself.

Hearing you say that, I’m not confident you have the facts. Did you also get OP cut-offs, attrition and research performance figures to look at before you made that judgment? Obviously you are a supporter of the disciplines under threat and that is totally fine - everyone is an advocate in this system and in some ways that’s what makes universities good places to be. I think we’d all agree with that. But you might also argue that it is an ‘ideological agenda’ to continue courses which are, on standard measures, fundamentally un-viable. I don’t have a problem with that agenda, only it needs to be acknowledged as an agenda and the moral high ground isn’t so clear. After all, the biggest problem is that there is insufficient cash in the system and hard decisions need to be made or the whole lot starts to fall over (Newcastle anyone?). I do think, however, that there is a shift in demand whether you like it or not, but that’s a much bigger and more complex discussion.

As for people losing jobs, i am sympathetic… but…. having said that.. i think that the ‘job for life’ days are long gone in the university sector and this is a prospect that everyone needs to accept. I don’t have a problem with it myself. If i lost my job, I’d just look for one elsewhere and am confident that I could make myself useful in one way or another (either within or outside the university sector). Because my life doesn’t depend on a job for life, I am more relaxed about such things… We don’t want to live up to the stereotype of being people who are fundamentally unemployable in any other context. That’s a pretty disempowering image of ourselves to uphold. I am not frightened by this new world and am happy to move forward into it. I think stasis of the old world would bore me, quite frankly.