Dear John,

If I may quote from the La Trobe University Code of Conduct - http://www.latrobe.edu.au/council/resources/code-of-conduct

"We must promote critical enquiry and the rational evaluation of evidence, even if turning that critical focus on some of our own actions and practices may cause some discomfort."

In cutting a humanities faculty, the University reduces its own capacity to promote critical enquiry - into the function of universities themselves in the community, the debates on public policy on websites and in the media, and through the education of the next generation of leaders.

If the faculty is running at a loss, let it run at a loss. It serves a social purpose greater than a bottom line being in the black. The Faculty of Business should subsidies the humanities - many of the scandals like AWB, Energy Watch and the HSU are influenced by the principles in the business community, which that faculty promotes and studies - we need the humanities to promote critical enquiry and combat those influences.

I think that the University has overstepped the mark in placing burdens on the ease of communication regarding critical enquiry into the size and function of the La Trobe University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

I would love to read your response.

Callum

Anthony - he's a tool. he's removing courses that teach people how to think critically and maybe work out how to overthrow their oppressors - oppressors like this low life capitalist's lapdog, dewar, witting tool of the one per cent. its disgusting, he's disgusting. its all bull sh!t ! -a.v.

- "hmmmm. Interesting and biased comments on this article to be sure."

Surely the irony is not lost on you.

- "I have a close friend who has actually taken part in previous protest activity relating to the HUSS cuts. She actually removed herself from the one of protests a few weeks ago (Monday two weeks ago IIRC) as she was concerned that the protests were going beyond the boundaries of good taste and into the realm of the abusive."

I'm sure your friend is very grateful that you've come here and spoken for her. I would like to know that what exactly was not in "good taste" and in the realm of "abusive"?
Surely, if your friend was there she would have told you and you would have been able to specify here what exactly that was.
Careful on relying on anecdotal evidence, though, friend. The footage exists and will do you no favours, just as it has done the administration no favours.

"I sympathise with those that will suffer from these cuts (I myself would have been effected, luckily(?) decided to do a straight science course as opposed to a humanities double degree), but I have no sympathy from those who do not take part in a peaceful protest and it seems that this is the case."

There hasn't been a violent protest. At least, not one that was violent on the part of the students - certainly on the part of the security, but it's pretty evident you're not interested in that.
Do you also apply this rule to the security guards as well? I just want to make sure that you're supporting peace on the campus or you're just trying to hide your opposition to the protestors in general.

"I my understanding is that this "threatening email from the VC" was in response to violent and abusive protesting from students. Quite frankly, I do not blame his position at all."

Well, how unbiased of you! Unfortunately, though, that isn't the only email.

The most recent reads:

"To All Students

The Vice-Chancellor has requested a full investigation into any reported incidents involving students or staff during the protest action at yesterday's Open Day at the Melbourne Campus.

In the interest of both students and staff, the University will continue to act to ensure that our University is a safe environment that respects differences of opinion, but which does not tolerate acts of violence or the incitement of any form of violence. The University respects the right of students to protest and will not take action against any students who have thus far engaged in peaceful protest action.

Contact: Mr David Ensor"

Obviously, this is not written by the VC, but on behalf of (as you can see from the first line).

Perhaps you should've taken that double degree in Arts and specialised in sociology, IR, philosophy or politics where you would be exposed to discourse analysis.

"Cherry picking does you no favours"

Well, that was badly timed after you only posted some of the email that was sent out, and failed to send out the others.

Here is the full email:

"This Directive addresses potential protest action relating, but not limited to, the restructure of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Students have a right to protest matters of concern to them through peaceful assembly. However, it is unacceptable for protests to threaten the success of Open Day or disrupt other University activities.

Open Day is the University’s primary opportunity to invite prospective students and their families onto our campuses and encourage them to choose La Trobe for their tertiary study. Open Day builds the University’s reputation in the community, and gives students and staff the opportunity to celebrate and promote the University’s strengths. The success of Open Day has a direct impact on the viability of individual faculties and the University as a whole, by improving enrolments in the following years.

The University will take reasonable steps to ensure public safety and good order on its campuses and on Open Day. To that end, I direct that any planned protest be notified in writing to Mr David Ensor, Vice-President (Operations) via email to ovcnotices@latrobe.edu.au at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of any protest. A specific area of the campus will be designated for any protests, ensuring that protesters are able to make their point in a meaningful way without undue risk to the safety or enjoyment of any person visiting, studying or working on the campus.

I further direct that any protest be carried out in a way that:

Avoids disruption to legitimate University activities, including those associated with the 2012 Open Day;
Does not present a risk to the safety or wellbeing of any person;
Does not threaten or intimidate any person; and
Does not present a risk to or damage any University property or facilities.

A failure by a student to comply with the requirements of this direction will be treated as General Misconduct under the University’s General Misconduct Statute 2009. Any protesters who are not students or staff of La Trobe will be dealt with as trespassers under the law.

This directive applies until 31 August 2012.

Professor John Dewar"

And while we're at it, let's post the other email John Dewar sent out to the students before the most recent (above) was sent out. One hour between these emails.

"To All Students,

It was a vibrant, colourful and successful Open Day at the Melbourne Campus yesterday, the last of our five Open Days for 2012. Many of your future fellow students took the opportunity to come and see what La Trobe has to offer, as they did at our regional campus Open Days in prior weeks.

A large number of you worked on all our Open Days during August and your involvement has been vital to their success. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your hard work highlighting the appeals of studying and life on our various campuses to future students, friends and families as well as communicating your detailed knowledge about your areas of study.

Overall, crowds were well up on last year and we could not have achieved this without your assistance. I am very appreciative of the hard work and dedication that students have shown throughout the Open Day season and I thank each and every one of you involved in its success.

John Dewar
Vice-Chancellor"

So let it be known: Open Day was a success! You added colour and vibrancy to the event! We all did! John Dewar loves that the protestors came out, showing how much they love the humanities and social sciences faculty! It was great! Best ever!
lol jks, we're coming for you.

Nick

Although William is evidentially writing from a fairly uninformed perspective, on hearsay and watching a few snippets of news, his mention of a friend who took part at one stage, but left as she felt the protest no longer communicated her point in a manner she was comfortable with, has been the consistent message i have heard from the majority of students who oppose the cuts. There is such a plethora of voices with varied opinions and perceived paths to success in opposing the extreme degree and nature of the cuts. Yet there is a small section of the student body who are intent on being heard loud and clear at the expense of so many others. For a group which espouses to be encouraging democracy on campus, the irony of acting to drown out so many people is not lost on those observing some of the self-defeating tactics broadcast on the news. At best such tactics are ill-considered, but at worst will ensure the success of those who use poor information and reasoning to inform their extreme anti-education agenda.

oh dear, well you certainly showed me!

I wish you the best of luck I suppose. Just try to be a bit nicer with people who are (by and large) still sympathetic to your cause. Believe me, after that outburst i will no longer be signing any of your future petitions. I wish there was a way I could take back the one I already signed.

Greg hit the nail on the head: The noisy few are drowning out the (largely supportive) many.

FYI: I believe my friend was concerned when the protest brigade basically went up to the VC's (Chancellors?) office and pretty much started hurling a bunch of personal abuse. Violent? Probably not. Unacceptable? Definitely. Verbal abuse is still a form of abuse and "violent" would be an appropriate adjective to describe it.

Greg,
What I was pointing out was how dubious the claim was. While there are students who were concerned about the actions on monday, and for a variety of reasons, I find it surprising that this "friend" found the protests to be in "bad taste" and in the "realm of abusive". A very peculiar choice of words and certainly not fitting.

Nevertheless, many of the concerns relate to the, as pointed out earlier, unfounded claims of violence. What needs to be pointed out again is that there hasn't been any violence. Had there been any violence there would have been arrests.
Yes, many newspapers are saying it "turned violent" but no one has cited any actual violence.
Watch the channel 7 report. Channel 10. Read it on the age. They're all saying it but no one is saying anything.
The protestors were disobedient. They made themselves known. They confronted the vice chancellor. But was a single person hurt by them? A single piece of property damaged? Where were the arrests?

To quote the man of the hour, “It looked worse on TV than it actually was,” Professor Dewar said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/la-trobe-protesters-lose-sight-of-the-original-cause-dewar/story-e6frgcjx-1226459209412

Here is another link, titled "La Trobe protests turn violent"

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=788115&vId=3486241

And yet, no violence mentioned.

The same applies to the monday occupation. Within the admin, after it was occupied, police and security stood and watched and the protestors chatted and chanted. And in the end, left peacefully. No arrests. Not a thing.

The students who are concerned about the protests are being misinformed. The word "violence" is being thrown around to skew the debate (as it has right now). The students who are concerned about the tactics of the protestors up to this point can come and speak to anyone they like. I've spoken to a number of people on this issue and walked around campus.

"For a group which espouses to be encouraging democracy on campus, the irony of acting to drown out so many people is not lost on those observing some of the self-defeating tactics broadcast on the news. At best such tactics are ill-considered, but at worst will ensure the success of those who use poor information and reasoning to inform their extreme anti-education agenda. "

Which tactics are these exactly? The news said, repeatedly, "student protests turn violent as the VC was barricaded by protestors before escaping through underground tunnels/basements to a secret location [lol]".

The incident with the VC is not violence. I don't think the VC would even say that. And as far as I am aware, he hasn't. Everyone else is saying it for him. Interesting.

"I wish you the best of luck I suppose. Just try to be a bit nicer with people who are (by and large) still sympathetic to your cause. Believe me, after that outburst i will no longer be signing any of your future petitions. I wish there was a way I could take back the one I already signed."

I'm not really sure what to say to this. You made a series of claims and I made an argument agains them, and now you're offended? I'm sorry, but this is nothing personal, but you've entered into an open dialogue with everybody and anyone can respond. You made a series of accusations and I responded.

I mean, you sided with the VC without actually evaluating what had happened. Keeping in mind many people are being threatened with expulsion, and many of us are furious about the moves by the admin about these cuts, surely you can see why this might be a problem.
It's also a little disappointing to see that you'd retract your support for the HUSS faculty because someone argued with you.

"FYI: I believe my friend was concerned when the protest brigade basically went up to the VC's (Chancellors?) office and pretty much started hurling a bunch of personal abuse. Violent? Probably not. Unacceptable? Definitely. Verbal abuse is still a form of abuse and "violent" would be an appropriate adjective to describe it."

Is this in regards to monday (where the violence claims started) or something else?

Yes it is in regards to the Monday.

She felt that the protest was getting ugly and wanted to leave before anything worse would happen.

I am glad nothing worse did happen, but surely you should be concerned that your movement is alienating the very people you are trying to support? Even if there is no actual "violence" per se, it would seem that there is sufficient vitriol that your own "team" (as it were) is abandoning you?

I "sided" with the VC in that he specifically said that protesting was OK on the open day (something that Anna had misrepresented). I also sided with him on the proviso that there was indeed some violent action taking place outside his office. You are now telling me there was none. Who am I going to believe? A biased heart-on-their-sleeve protester? A biased black-hearted VC? Or my friend who gave a pretty even-handed account about the whole thing?

I guess I don't believe anyone anymore so I no longer have any avenue to gain an informed opinion.

Carry on with your protests, just keep it above the belt and you should be fine.

NB: You should listen to your mate Greg, he presents his case eloquently and without any condescension (which is more than what I can say for your general tone).

You seem to be engaging with my response as if i insinuated or supported other's mention of 'student violence', which I have not. References to violence or any threat by students for violence by the media or the university admin have been unfortunate, misleading and antagonistic, showing little more than their immaturity.

I am referring to the methods by which some students protest, not including violence. In my opinion, and so many others I assure, some of the ‘passionate’ vocal expression, and methods such as pursuing and obstructing the exit of an antagonistic opponent, has made people feel like they do not want to associate with such a form of dissent. I’m not saying such expression is illegitimate or cause for a response from the uni admin etc, simply that it drowns out student’s ability to also have a voice in this crowded environment, and is not the most effective way for student’s and staff toa cheive their aims. In a room of 100’s of people with dozens of perspectives and desired actions, one must acknowledge the need to consider the preferences of all those present, even it if means adjusting one’s own desired action to that which will maximise the representative nature of the movement, and the likelihood of success in achieving its aims. If there was a way to increase the involvement of the student and broader community, perhaps a coordinated PR response or more considered protest actions (ie; the T-shirts and balloons on the day to engage prospective students), which would increase our change of success, would it not be worth enacting to achieve student’s goals? The current campaign at La Trobe is unfortunately far from achieving this point, and I believe it to be a responsible consideration of particular elements of the student community to calm down, consider whether others want to be heard, and then together, discuss alternative methods of engaging with the university’s interests to encourage their reconsideration of such poorly considered cuts.

I would like to iterate that even where difference of opinion has arisen on the ideal method forward, that the commitment of many students to put the time and effort to oppose the cuts is still admirable, and without their input it would not have had some of the successes it had so far. Coordinating a diverse and intangible group is always difficult, and such effort and passion for such a good cause is valuable. I believe it just needs some extra consideration for all those trying to be heard.

On the point of requesting notice, I spoke at the rally immediately prior to Open Day and announced our intention to protest to all and sundry. Also there were 'rally at open day' posters all over campus and we invited everyone. The idea that we were holding some sort of illicit action is ludicrous.

No no no Elizabeth ... when one's adversary is making a public display of their stupidity one should stand back and not interfere.

He's done himself and his reputation significant damage with this self-serving spray. Read the comments. Far more interesting than the spray itself.

That's the great thing about free speech - people are free to be really really stupid and narrow-minded.