After more than a week and reading the strong post from Tonkonson at UWA Anthropology to Arch-l, I have decided that the University of Western Australia's Vice Chancellor's Office is not going to provide a substantive responses to the claims raised in Parliament about the University. You will note in what I did receive that the VC staffer was determined to tell me that I was referring to the Anthropology Department rather than the Archaeology Department. I have no idea why that is but it certainly makes me wonder about the credibility of what she says. Further, you will note that their memo raises alarming thoughts about the level of respect for MP's over in Australia, and suggests further that there are rather different definitions around as to what constitutes substantiation!
Hugh Jarvis, (who as a Canadian happens to understand Parliamentary traditions QUITE well, thank you)
-------------- message from me to VC at UWA ---------------
As you can see, I do indeed petition the University for their input before I post commentary to the Net. Before this latest update (#5, not #4 as I may have mistakenly labelled it!), I wrote to the VC's Office at UWA as follows:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:07:49 -0500 (EST)
To: Vice-Chancellor Gale [vc@acs.uwa.edu.au]
Subject: For your Information and Comment - Rindos Situation at UWA
Update
Dear Professor Gale:
I have written to you in the past. I am now preparing another public posting on your University's treatment of the problems in the archaeology department.
The message I will be sending out to the world archaeology and anthropology Internet lists will contain a series of quotations from a speech given in the West Australian Parliament by Hon. M. Nevill which has recently come into my possession. I will assume you are familiar with this speech.
As you are well aware, the international community has been very concerned with the treatment of students and staff at the UWA, and the statements by faculty and students that were recently made public by Mr Nevill would seem to more than justify that concern.
In the interests of fair play I would like to offer you the opportunity of responding to the exceedingly serious matters discussed in the West Australian Parliament regarding your handling of the problems in archaeology.
Could you please provide your comments and I will append them to the extracts from the speech, or, should you wish to comment at greater length, I will send them off as a separate message.
Hugh Jarvis
----------- I received this reply --------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 17:26:18 +0800
From: Christine Lewis [cjlewis@admin3.acs.uwa.edu.au]
To: hjarvis@acsu.Buffalo.EDU
Subject: Response to your letter to the Vice-Chancellor of UWA
Dear Mr Jarvis
I am disappointed that you appear to have been misled about the issues you raise in your email of 20 February. There are no problems in the University's Anthropology department, through which the discipline of archaeology is taught, and which has a fine record of teaching and research. Nor is the University aware of widespread concern about 'treatment of students and staff at the UWA'.
I am at a loss to understand your mistaken impression.
With regard to your planned public posting, it is important for you to note that the unsubstantiated claims made by Mr Nevill in the Western Australian parliament were made in a speech in the dying hours of the pre-Christmas 1995 Parliamentary session, under parliamentary privilege. This is a prerogative of elected members of parliament, allowing them to make unsubstantiated claims and allegations, without fear of libel action. It has an obvious important function in a democratic society, but is potentially open to abuse. In quoting Mr Nevill you would be repeating material which is protected by parliamentary privilege.
The University of Western Australia has provided a press statement to elements of the local media who have also quoted from the speech Mr Nevill made, under parliamentary privilege.
I append the University's press statement.
[This will be posted separately in another message. HJ]
Ms Christine Lewis
Vice-Chancellor's Office
The University of Western Australia
Nedlands WA 6907
Tel: (09) 380 2806 Fax: (09) 380 1013
email: cjlewis@admin3.acs.uwa.edu.au
After a reminder to Ms. Lewis by me that I was indeed referring to the Archaeology Department and *not* the Anthropology Department, and could someone please address the issues raised, I received this second note:
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:30:54 +080
From: Christine Lewis [cjlewis@admin3.acs.uwa.edu.au]
To: "Hugh W. Jarvis" [hjarvis@acsu.Buffalo.EDU]
Subject: Re: Response to your letter to the Vice-Chancellor of UWA
Dear Mr Jarvis
Thank you for your reply.
As stated in the Vice-Chancellor's response, in the first paragraph, Archaeology activities are undertaken in this University's Anthropology Department. There is no Archaeology Department at the University of Western Australia.
Regards Ms Christine Lewis
Vice-Chancellor's Office
The Univrsity of Western Australia
Nedlands WA 6907
Tel: (09) 380 2806 Fax: (09) 380 1013
email: cjlewis@admin3.acs.uwa.edu.au
After receiving this second diversion, I immediately wrote directly to the Vice Chancellor, requesting direct comment from someone better versed in the affair. I also raised the following:
"Second, I am distressed to have to raise another point with you, one which gives me far greater concern than your (by now expected) evasion of the facts of this case.
As a Canadian, I am quite familiar with the Parliamentary Tradition. In the response sent to me by your University, and therefore endorsed by you, exceedingly strong allegations are made about a speech given in your Parliament:
] With regard to your planned public posting, it is important for
you
] to note that the unsubstantiated claims made by Mr Nevill in the
Western
] Australian parliament were made in a speech in the dying hours of
the
] pre-Christmas 1995 Parliamentary session, under parliamentary
] privilege. This is a prerogative of elected members of
parliament,
] allowing them to make unsubstantiated claims and allegations,
without
] fear of libel action. It has an obvious important function in a
] democratic society, but is potentially open to abuse. In quoting
Mr
] Nevill you would be repeating material which is protected by
] parliamentary privilege.
I simply cannot believe that you would claim that a Member of your Parliament would actually misuse the privilege of Parliament to make "unsubstantiated claims and allegations" and then go so far as to say that these statements would otherwise constitute "libel," by which you could only mean that what he said was UNTRUE!
At least in Canada, an MP who makes false statements in Parliament is considered to have committeed a serious offence against the Crown and action can be taken to expell such a Member.
Do you believe that the Western Australian Parliament should be advised to take this kind of action against the Hon Mr Nevill, MLC??
And if not, why do you seek to leave the clear impression that his speech, filled as it was with direct quotations from complaints originally sent personally to you, was other than fully truthful??
I await your reply with growing concern.
Yours sincerely,
Hugh Jarvis"
To this message I have received no reply.