From:
Thomas Fudge THE ruling on my complaint
against the Vice-Chancellor
[Roy Sharp]
offered by the Canterbury
University Council on 27 August
[2003] is both troubling
and curious. It is curious
inasmuch as it appears founded
upon some rather astonishing
assumptions. 
First, the various concerns
raised over legal matters fail
to take into account the
by-now widely known fact that
four lawyers vetted the
article
as long ago as March. Two of
these were University counsel
and all four concluded there
was no legal impediment to
publication.
Second, it is my first
exposure to the notion that
all members of the University
are responsible for the
content of University
publications. This would make
for an extraordinarily large
editorial committee.
Third, it is news to me that
the Department of History was
prepared to accept an amended
form of the article for
publication in History
Now.
As a matter of fact three of
the five members of the so-called
editorial board went on record on
14 May in opposition to my right
to publish the article
anywhere. The Head of the
Department, Peter
Hempenstall, did suggest on
10 June that I might like to
resubmit the article but admitted
in the next breath that it was
very unlikely it would be
accepted. As for encouragement in
publishing elsewhere I can
confirm that Departmental and
University officials all urged me
to consider publishing the
article
overseas.
I have published in at least nine
countries and have personal
publishing connections in at
least six of those countries but
I argued that the subject matter
of this particular article was a
New Zealand issue and therefore
ought to be published in this
country. But if legal fears
prevented its appearance in
History Now why would publication
elsewhere be feasible? Vice-Chancellor Roy Sharp
declined to intervene in the
matter after I approached him on
29 May but not for the reasons
given by the Council last week.
In his written reply to me dated
16 June Sharp made no reference
to an offer from the Department
to publish my article and indeed
could not have done so for there
never was an offer. He did not
comment upon an "explicit
acceptance that [I] was
free to publish elsewhere" for an
effort to secure that acceptance
within the History department
failed. Roy Sharp declined to
intervene on the grounds that it
was his opinion that "process"
had been breached; an assumption
neither he nor anyone else can
sustain. Nevertheless, he took
his stand on that point alone in
June. According to the Council
Sharp concluded "there was no
denial" of my right to publish.
But of course there had been. Why
does the Council not refer to
Sharp's written reply to me of 16
June instead of introducing
points never discussed
previously? The Council complains about
the premature release of my
letter of complaint to the media
and appears to assume I was
responsible for that. I
categorically deny it. It is
ironic that the reply to a
personal complaint was aired on
national television - where I
first learned of it - without any
prior indication to me that this
would be the case. A statement released in the
Press on 20 August (ostensibly
based upon comments made by an
unnamed University official)
pointed out that it was unlikely
the Council would rule against
the Vice-Chancellor. On 21 August
I made a personal offer to the
Chancellor to provide evidence to
substantiate claims made in my
complaint or give personal
testimony. That offer was
declined within two hours. Taken
together these two facts present
a case for predetermination. Roy
Sharp saw no need to prevent
the History Department from
destroying 500 copies of a
journal. The Council sees no
problem with this. Instead
they release a statement
affirming that the
Vice-Chancellor has done
nothing either by acting or
not acting which "failed to
protect, promote or enhance
academic freedom." I would like to know how
burning books (or shredding
magazines) protects, promotes and
enhances academic freedom.
Dissenters in the Middle Ages had
their books burned under firm
instructions: "Roma locuta, causa
finita est." That is, "Rome has
spoken, the matter is concluded."
The Council has spoken but that
is not the end of the matter. The
medieval church was unassailable,
the Canterbury Council is
not. Thanks to Peter Hempenstall
and Roy Sharp what would have
been nothing more than an obscure
article in a journal read by a
few hundred people mainly in New
Zealand has become an
international episode and the
fate of Joel Hayward has
come to the attention of a far
larger audience than any
reasonable person could have
envisioned. While I disagree with the
Chancellor on several matters
there is one thing on which we
agree: considerable damage has
been inflicted upon the value and
integrity of this University. Thomas A.
Fudge - Senior Lecturer
- University of
Canterbury
 
Our
dossier on the Joel Hayward
case-
Reader's
letter by Martin Lally to
The Listener
-
The
Listener article
-
Canterbury
University (NZ) Council passes
two resolutions in Sept 2003
rejecting complaints by Dr
Thomas Fudge of book burning
and loss of academic freedom
in Hayward Case |
Dr
Fudge's letter of response to
these resolutions |
letter
from Martin Lally's committee
circulating these
item
-
| 
write
to David Irving