iii) that in an article appearing in the Higher Education supplement of 'The Australian" newspaper on Wednesday 11 April 2007.which was co-authored by you, you attacked Noonan and his thesis, in a way that misrepresented Noonan's work presented to the candidature confirmation hearing. Your article represented that Noonan's work included a scene that would be used in a "six-part comedy series" and said of the scene
"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."
That reference is alleged to be misleading and an unfair treatment of Noonan's work because it was made quite clear on a number of occasions by Noonan during his candidature presentation that the relevant scene would not be included in the final television production
(iv) That in the article that appeared in 'the Australian' you attacked, by inference if not directly, Noonan's work as "misanthropic and amoral trash produced under the rubric of post-structuralist thought".
2. That in relation to the persons directly involved in the supervision of Noonan's PhD work (supervisors) you.
(i) stated or inferred [sic -- JD] that the Supervisors were responsible for producing "misanthropic and amoral trash".
(ii) Personally attacked Alan McKee whom you describe as the "enfant terrible of the post-structuralist radical philistines within the creative industries faculty".
(iii) Inferred [sic -- JD] that the Supervisors lacked moral judgement, appropriate ethical standards and sensitivity to the disabled community.
**********************
It seems that the panel at QUT which is to hear the charges against Gary and John have decided not to watch the footage shown by the PhD student at his confirmation. As you can imagine, this is central to the case. The whole thing begins from that videotape. It has also not been made available to their advocate. Without that tape, it is hard to show the panel how two intellectually impaired men are being abused in the PhD project.
Gary writes: "Given that the panel which is to hear our case has refused to look at the video shown at the PhD Confirmation on March 20th it does not look like we are being given any kind of natural justice. The tape is essential to our defence and it is also constitutes material evidence, we believe, of the abuse of men with impaired capacity.
In this case we are asking all who are concerned for the rights of the disabled to write to the Adult Guardian to ask her to intervene. She is contactable at adult.guardian at justice.qld.gov.au . We are also asking people to write to Julie Bishop requesting that she set up an independent inquiry. She is reachable at julie.bishop at dest.gov.au.
QUT will only yield to considerable external pressure."
I believe Gary's hearing is set for May 28th, but the petition to Julie Bishop (Federal Minister for Education) will be forwarded to her tomorrow afternoon (Australian time).
**************************
John Hookham wrote to the QUT authorities:
"In what follows I draw your attention again to what, in my opinion, is unethical research being undertaken at QUT. It involves two young intellectually disabled young men known to us as Darren and James. As this research is continuing and the young men are still being exposed to mockery and ridicule I ask you to investigate this matter with a view to intervening to prevent the young men from further mistreatment .
In your email, you request clarification as to whether I am making a formal complaint on my own or jointly with Dr Gary MacLennan. I can confirm that Dr MacLennan and I wish jointly to make a formal complaint under the Code of Conduct for Research. We assert that QUT's Human Research Ethics Committee
( HREC) erred in granting ethical clearance to the project entitled "Laughing at the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains". I will get to the specific details of the complaint in a moment.
First let me say that since Dr MacLennan and I put the spotlight on this project, the ground has shifted and the rhetoric around the project seems to be changing. So, apparently the title of the project has now been changed from "Laughing AT the Disabled" to "Laughing WITH the Disabled". The PhD candidate, Michael Noonan, is now claiming that he wished to use the project to "empower" people of disability whereas in the Confirmation Seminar, the word "empower" was never used and he clearly articulated, on many occasions, his desire to "exploit" and "offend". Mr Noonan is also claiming that a scene that he screened at the Confirmation Seminar was never meant for further public viewing and he now assures us it will not appear in the final product. Moreover although the title of the thesis has been changed there is no indication that the basic thrust of the project has changed. Thus we note that the new title still contains the words "confront" and "offend".
What I would like to clarify at the outset then, is that what Dr MacLennan and I are concerned with is the project that was confirmed on 20th March. That is the project that was entitled "Laughing at the Disabled" and was confirmed with that title. Our formal complaint concerns the video material that was screened on that day. Our concerns are also with the intentions articulated by the candidate on that day. We are NOT here concerned with any subsequent allegedly sanitized version of the project.
Since receiving your email, I have consulted with Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini who is responsible for the Disability portfolio in the Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC). Dr Tonti-Filippini's personal opinion as regards the "Laughing at the Disabled" project is that it "ought not to have been approved by an HREC (Human Research Ethics Committee) as it appears to be demeaning of persons with cognitive disability and causes them discomfort or distress and thus harms them. It would also appear that the participants lacked the capacity to understand the project and hence lacked the capacity to consent to it. The project would thus appear not to meet a fundamental criterion of voluntary participation in research."
******************************
Comradely, James Daly