Comments on the UWA/Archaeology Affair by the VC's Office

Hugh W. Jarvis (hjarvis@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:46:02 -0500

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.