Wow. An
extraordinarily effusive piece by a former female Chinese student from Sydney University appears in The Australian today defending Professor Spurr. In fact, it is so enamoured of the Professor, and so full of the same defences that the Right immediately tried on (before we read the fuller extracts of the emails) that the first thing that comes to mind is whether it was actually written within hours of the first report by one of his "abo" trashing friends.
Look. Lily, I hate to break it to you, but if a professor engaged to do a curriculum review, when said curriculum has been controversial because of the extent to which it attempts to incorporate indigenous issues, turns out to refer in private to the PM as an "abo lover", it's pretty damn clear to (I would say) 95% of Australians that he is not an appropriate person for the job. As such, New Matilda does have public interest on its side.
I was interested to note in Lily's article, though, that he is apparently supportive of, or active in, some religious group. I thought one comment in his emails indicated he might be Catholic, but it is not clear.
I would not be surprised if he turned out to be a conservative, latin loving, Catholic of the kind who turn up at Catallaxy, with their ugly lack of charity.
And by the way, doesn't The Australian ever get tired of defending jerks?
Update: on the matter of the way New Matilda got the emails, I thought it was interesting to note this from a
recent post there:
One more time, for the record. The information technology policy of
the University of Sydney – of which all staff are explicitly warned – is
that their university emails are not private. It is a public
institution.
Generally speaking, New Matilda does not comment on issues related
to sources and leaked documents. However, Ms Markson’s story – and the
allegations leveled within it - are demonstrably false, and the public
record requires correction.
The first error is a suggestion that Professor Spurr’s email account
was ‘hacked’. This is false. It did not occur. Neither New Matilda nor
the source in the story hacked Professor Spurr’s account.
The second error relates to a suggestion in Ms Markson’s article
that the source was motivated by “payback” for Professor Spurr’s
involvement in the National School Curriculum review. This is also
false.
While the source was broadly aware of Professor Spurr’s involvement
in the review, the source was unaware of the contents of Professor
Spurr’s submissions. What motivated the source to come forward was two
specific email exchanges.
One of those exchanges relates to Professor Spurr’s views about a
matter of substantial public importance. At this stage, New Matilda has
decided not to divulge the contents of this email. The comments,
however, are extreme and reinforced the view of the source that
Professor Spurr’s involvement in the National Curriculum Review was a
matter of substantial public interest.
The second email, which also reinforced this view related to
Professor Spurr’s comments in relation to the sexual assault of a woman.
The email exchange regarding the apparent sexual assault of the woman is, in my view, the worst
by far of what is in the emails. It presents an extraordinary challenge for the University as to how to respond.
Update 2: even
Andrew Bolt concedes the seriousness of the matter, although he does not discuss the sexual assault email:
But those emails are
now public, like it or not, and the racist abuse is deeply unpleasant. I
do think this badly damages Spurr’s credibility when pontificating on
how the curriculum deals with Indigenous issues, and could damage the
credibility of his teaching at university, too, depending on the
subjects taught and, indeed, the ethnic and religious background of his
students.
I actually think that, despite what a female Chinese fan may say, the matter is probably going to be resolved by enough students (especially female ones) saying that they cannot in good conscience engage with the Professor given his disclosed private commentary.
Update 3: just thought I should mention the last para in Lily's article:
He should not be made a scapegoat for an ideology of which he is not an
advocate. He is not the parody the media presents. The university should
not lose a jewel in its crown. If I, a small, sensitive, feminist,
patriotic Chinese girl, am not offended by these leaked emails, why
should anyone else be?
A laughably strange feminist if she is not bothered by the email exchange regarding a sexual assault story.
Update 4: I see an interesting
Comment is Free piece on the Professor appeared at The Guardian a few days ago, too.
Update 5: a bit of Googling indicates he is Anglican, perhaps of the Anglo-Catholic variety. He has published (quite some time ago) an entire book on "
Anglican and Catholic Reactions to Liturgical Reform". As well as a book on TS Elliott and Christianity.
Wow. Further confirms my view, expressed here before, that liturgical worriers are often the worst representatives for their faith.
Update 6:
Ben Pobjie's column on this today is right. It appears a near certainty that Barry Humphries did not know of the detail of the emails before his defence, and I suspect Lily has not gone through them so carefully either.
Update 7: Well, thank God for that - I can stop being embarrassed by having Bolt on my side, because he's been swayed by Lily's testimony (or something) and now has seemingly reversed position! Read what Bolt was saying before (update 2 above) and
what he says now:
This country is going mad. A gifted professor is publicly vilified by
people claiming to be outraged by rude words said in private.
Ahahahaha. What an inconsistent moron you've become, Andrew. I don't need to use an email to express that...
Update 8: Jonathan Holmes
agrees:
It seems to me a lay-down case of a breach of privacy justified by the public interest.
Update 9: professional hyperventilating contrarian loudmouth, Brendan O'Neill, does his stock standard double standards/moral hypocrisy shtick
in a laughably unconvincing column that starts of with criticism for those who think hacking naked photos of a celebrity is wrong, but think there is an obvious public interest element in knowing the contents of some work account emails of Spurr. The article is so full of bad argument, it's hardly worth the effort, but I'll put a minimal amount in:
a. Brendan seems to have not noticed that there is no attempted justification by anyone, anywhere, on the grounds of public interest for the breach of privacy of a celebrity's nude photos held in the celebrity's iCloud account.
b. He ignores the basic point in this post - would anyone in their right mind, knowing the contents of these emails (at least those with racial comments) beforehand, think that they could avoid the perception of bias (if not actual bias) in appointing Spurr to review a curriculum that was notable for the amount of indigenous issues raised?
I also see that, as with Lily, O'Neill mounts a vigorous de facto defence of Spurr but does not go near the "rape" email. Gee, I wonder why they won't there, and explain the "linguistic game" in that exchange?
Update 10: quite a reasonable column in
Fairfax about it all by Rick Feneley, including this paragraph:
"I think there is an irony in all this," says Catharine Lumby, a
former acting head of school at Sydney University, now professor of
media at Macquarie University. "Both Professor Spurr and Kevin Donnelly
[heading the National Curriculum Review] are on the record strongly
advocating the western literary canon on the basis it has a civilising
influence on us. That may be the case. However, I don't see the evidence
of that in Professor Spurr's emails."
That Spurr was prepared to send them to his colleagues, Lumby
says, raises questions about his judgment, an important consideration
given his role on the curriculum review.
It's a very scaly mammal, called a pangolin, and apparently rich Chinese are eating it to excess. Very unfortunate.
