...continued

Two senior staff members vs a postgrad student/sessional teacher is hardly a fair contest, and is actually tantamount to bullying. Posting an article in a national newspaper makes it more so: essentially grandstanding at the student's expense.

Both Gary and John should have the courage to mount their strident defense of 'quality culture' against other senior academics and their completed worsk (such as this students' supervisors), not at a student and potential colleague at the earliest point in their emerging professional life.

2. QUT had an onus to respond, to defend the student (who, it seems, had followed all relevant university procedures).

But the penalty arrived at is far too severe -- six month suspensions are certainly disproportionate to the (mis)conduct involved.

The issue here is not about 'free speech'. It is a minor skirmish in the culture wars, an episode that should have been able to take place -- robustly, intellectually, discursively -- in a wholly academic context.

I make these observations as an academic and lecturer myself (associated with a major Australian university).

lordmelchie, Noonan offered M&H his writing on the project, which was also all the ethics committee and disciplinary tribunal saw. But the dispute is about process and outcomes more than intentions- what happened when the project was put into action? The furore started when footage was shown, M&H's actions were in response to viewing it, and it was never likely that they and other detractors could be sweettalked with a reiteration of good intentions. Whether M&H overreacted can only be judged next to the footage. Their objections to the topic and title flow backwards from seeing the footage, and dissatisfaction with Noonan's defence at confirmation. They raised concerns internally, but the investigator didn't see the footage, changed one word of the title, and declared the matter closed. M&H went public, renewing the criticism of contemporary developments in academia, and citing the project as an example of what the system can now produce. Heavyhanded and dodgy? Maybe, it depends on how bad the footage is. That the disciplinary tribunal could not see the point in viewing it seems a strange preoccupation with surfaces over depths, which resembles a variant of postructuralism which would likely be a disaster were it to inform academic management.

Because so much depended from the beginning on the footage, it seems odd that it became unavailable even when only internal exposure was necessary, as if the idea was that the fracas would fizzle without it. More surface management that inspires no great confidence in how the project is going. If the footage would defend the project, it was a mistake not to show it. If the fracas was meant to fizzle in the vacuum, it was a mistake to suspend M&H, making their suspension an issue in itself. QUT management has done Noonan no favours, nor has he done himself many. This could only have been internally resolved by discussion in relation to the footage, and now statements of good character and intent won't do much to disperse the suspicions that have arisen. As Noonan's supporters keep saying, the footage is at the heart of the matter.

I am concerned that people with progressive ideas and a commitment to human rights have embraced a conservative and oppressive notion of people with disabilities as a result of what has become a civil liberties and academic integrity issue. Many people, including myself, can see that the equivalent of a $40,000 fine is grossly excessive and indicates a nasty element amongst the power games at QUT. However many, not me, have uncritically adopted, supported and defended the views about disability expressed by John and Gary as part of supporting them in their struggle with QUT. They have not been able to distinguish between progressive attempts to dismantle stereotypes of people with disability and vindictive and cruel management at QUT. The two have been melded into one demonised enemy which is has hindered the public discussion of disability issues and human rights.

This link is to my critique of Gary and John's article

Laughing at “THE DISABLED” - power, perception and prejudice.
http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/laughing-at-the-disabled-power-perception-and-prejudice/

John Tracey

me again,
on the matter of Noonan keeping his work secret.

I do not know Noonan and I have no idea what is in his video, but I have been impressed by the few select words he has used to explain what he is doing.

However, If I was Noonan I would not let an inch of footage out yet. On the youtube video "Disability community speaks out against QUT" he is threatened with investigations from the anti discrimination commission and the Qld. Adult Guardian.

If this happened to me there is no way in the world I would allow anything into the public, including the final product, without being first passed by lawyers to check for vulnerability.


There are serious academic freedom issues to consider here, where someone is subjected to hostile and official investigation.

Noonan has apparently allready said that there are scenes that he will not use and he has also changed the name of his project because of this controversy.

The judge dealing with the industrial issues has said that, amongst other things, what is to be examined by the court is what a university ought or ought not be able to teach and study.
Judicial control of education and research? Where is academic freedom then?

Noonan should be allowed to make mistakes so that we can all discuss them - a basic educational methodology that has now been replaced by which hunts based on innuendo and projection.

The reason this has occured is because QUT smashed the discussion heavily as soon as it raised its head in John and Gary's criticism of the project.

QUT had a brilliant opportunity to be a national and international leader in forging new attitudes and services for people with disability - All it had to do was manage this controversy as a healthy public debate.

Instead they have acted with an arrogant, Bjelkesque determination to punish infidels.

Drop the charges against MacLennan and Hookham and stop the hysterical distraction from the very important issues of identity, justice and innovation in disability fields.

Michael Noonan's film "Unlikely Travellers" was launched in Brisbane on the weekend.

Here is a review of it that I wrote.
http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/unlikely-travellers-movie-review/

Noonan has now released the footage presented at his confirmation hearing to the Courier Mail. Here are my comments on the footage.

"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/