Letter to: Dr Jim Franklin (Course Coordinator, Music, SoCA)

From: Ian Shanahan, Lecturer in Performance & Composition, SoCA/Music

8.9.1998

[The Higher Reason is king].

Plotinus, b. AD 204.

And in that day the world will not be marvelled at ... it is in danger of becoming a burden to all men. ...
Darkness will be preferred to light, and death will be preferred to life. No one will gaze into heaven.
And the pious man will be counted as insane, and the impious man will be honoured as wise. The man
who is afraid will be considered as strong. And the good man will be punished like a criminal.
from Asklepios (Nag Hammadi Codex VI), ca.3rd century AD.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the
world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.
George Bernard Shaw: Maxims for Revolutionists.

Dear Jim,

Thank you for bringing to my attention in writing what are (I do agree) serious allegations, in order
that I may have the opportunity to respond to them in like manner. However, before addressing
points 1) to 5) from your memo of 4.9.98 as directly as possible, I wish to begin by raising some
preliminary observations that are of considerable concern to me:

1. Because your communicants are all unnamed in your memo, and because many of the allegations
themselves are quite vague in nature (e.g. lacking specific details such as dates), I am at a loss as
to how exactly I can address such allegations specifically and directly. At best, in many
instances, I can only speak in broad generalities, or apply my deductive faculties in order to
guess at the circumstances to which I am responding: I do hope you agree that this is far from
being an ideal situation in regard to fairness.

2. As such, I am personally alarmed and highly disappointed at the process that appears to be
unfolding here which is, to me, redolent of a Salem witch-hunt. Prior to your memo, Jim,
during 1998 I have received no complaints whatsoever from any student or member of staff as to
my professional conduct or fulfilment of duties: your formal communication (as Musics Course
Coordinator) of allegations and complaints is the first occasion on which they have been raised
with me.
a) Assuming (alas, perhaps wrongly) that I do serve within an institution of learning and
collegiality that promotes the civilized path, I had hoped and expected that any colleagues
or students who have had any problems with me would possess the decency, sense of
responsibility, and depth of character to broach such problems with me directly, and that if
such problems were not resolved to our mutual satisfaction, matters would only then be taken
further.
b) Under such circumstances, I would then have expected to have had discussions with my
supervisor, Julian Knowles. (As of the time of writing this letter, by the way, I have heard
absolutely nothing from Julian, and so have no idea as to whether he is even aware of the
serious allegations that have been brought against me.)

~1~
 c) In short, I really feel that I have been bushwhacked that I am the victim of a vendetta,
being subjected to persecution (for inexplicable reasons) in a system that seems to be driven
largely by indirect criticism (i.e. cowardly back-stabbing), assumed guilt, a total lack of trust,
gossip, rumour, innuendo, paranoia, and fear.

3. Therefore, I assert that a denial of natural justice is taking place here, in that:
a) Within your memo, as stated above, complainants are never actually named;
b) The exact nature and content of their allegations is often not clearly articulated therein;
c) I have been denied the right to negotiate directly with any complainants in the first instance;
d) Because of the abovementioned points, it is questionable as to whether the complaints and my
written response to them are able to be evaluated without bias. Indeed, I suspect that several
of these allegations, to which I am responding in the dark as it were, may be deliberately
vexatious.

4. I rebut initially any serious concerns about the appropriateness of [my] modes of interaction
particularly with students by appending, as hard evidence, copies of:
a) My latest Interim Performance Appraisal (23.8.98), which is satisfactory or better in all
criteria, particularly Criterion 1 (Demonstrated Competence in and Commitment to
Teaching).
b) A copy of a recent and fairly typical Student Feedback Questionnaire [SFQ] for my recent
Free Improvisation module in Performance 2, completed at the end of Week 4, Semester 2.
(The originals of all such SFQs are available for your perusal upon request.) I now quote from
this students document, below:
[I] appreciated [the] lecturers enthusiasm, passion and ability to impart knowledge. Thanks
Ian ... I really appreciated the lecturers awareness when presenting this course he obviously
has a passion for this particular area, and was able to impart this in his teaching. I also really
appreciated the sensitivity of the lecturer in ensuring, after playing and giving feedback, that it
was known the feedback wasnt personal. All attempts to make sure performers felt safe and
unattacked were taken. [This was] excellent to see, particular[ly] in a totally new area such as
this, where many people feel confronted to let go of traditional areas of form.

5. I conclude by declaring that the summary of issues contained within your memo on the
whole consists of nothing but a flimsy tissue of hearsay and innuendo lacking in
substance, honour, validity, and truth.
a) I am utterly appalled at what appears to be a recent full-scale persecutory smear campaign a
vendetta mounted against me, by parties unknown, apparently impelled by the highly
subjective impressions (or darker motivations?) of your communicants.
b) As a corollary, I am forcefully reminded that such false benighted perceptions as opposed
to true enlightened realities are what ruled Europe during its Dark Ages, a perception- and
superstition-driven period of great ignorance, during which a fearful, oppressive flat-Earth-
centred world-view reigned supreme. Similarly (and rather more recently), it is a matter of
historical record that the Nazis routinely consigned people to concentration camps where
they would almost certainly die merely on the basis of 3rd-, 4th-, or nth-hand rumours and
whisperings, vague perceptions, that these people had voiced some criticism of the Nazi
regime! And then from the 1950s, one cannot forget the inquisition of, and the cruelty
inflicted upon, thousands of innocent Americans at the hands of the McCarthyist thought-
police. I could go on and on... Is our own society ultimately returning to such barbarism?

Anyway, I shall now address in as detailed a manner as possible the five points in your memo,
as well as your concluding remarks:

~2~
Point 1)

1. I absolutely reject the disgusting accusation that some of [my] marking of students
performances and concert duties shows signs of favouritism [which] allegedly reflects itself both
in a willingness to overlook inadequate participation in duties in those students with whom [I]
have a close relationship, and to be severe with marking those with whom [I] dont.
a) Indeed, and to the contrary, I pride myself on what I believe to be my very equitable and
consistent treatment of all students, in which I am forever trying to balance justice with
compassion.
b) I therefore insist that the so-called colleague(s) who have made this despicable allegation
provide hard evidence of my alleged favouritism ... that they put up or shut up.
c) Meanwhile, here is my hard evidence to the contrary, in support of my assertion, a) above:

2. In relation to the assessment of students performances, my sole yardstick is, strictly, merit.
a) In fact, a perusal of (for example) the 1998 1st-year Concert Practice [CP] assessment sheets
all of which list the various adjudication criteria will reveal that, almost without
exception, my individual grading of each students performance correlates quite closely to
those of the other Performance staff: wide divergences of grade between us are, actually,
exceedingly rare!
b) Coincidentally, exactly the same thing can be said of a recent adjudication (4.9.98) of a 3rd-
year Radiophonic/Text Improvisation module, in which Mitchell Harts and my percentage
gradings, arrived at quite independently, were remarkably close.
c) (Just out of curiosity, Jim): In the light of the Performance staffs demonstrable CP grading
consistency, have Kim Poole and Diana Blom also been formally accused of favouritism?

3. Performance staff over the last two years have progressively fine-tuned a system of duties and
penalties in regard to CP; these are detailed in the relevant course outlines and in the appended
documents, pertaining to Performance 1 & 2 (the courses that I administrate).
a) In summary, any 1st-year students who, without reasonable excuse, do not properly or
punctually fulfil their CP duty or who do not submit the required material on time,
automatically lose 3 marks per offence (3 marks being 20% of the total of 15 marks per CP).
This is not severe, merely consistent: it is meted out regardless of my perceived
relationship with that student.
b) In general, I do insist that all university students as adults take responsibility for, and
accept the consequences of, their (in)actions.
c) For any lecturer to do and expect less than the points made in a) and b), I would regard as an
irresponsible dereliction of duty, as something which transmits ambiguous messages to the
student body as a whole, and which condones less-than-professional standards and
behaviours.
d) I might also add that the penalties are rather more severe in 2nd- and 3rd-year CPs.

4. Moreover, on the Thursday prior to the round of 1st-year CPs, I convene an hour-long meeting of
all the duty personnel, wherein:
a) their duties are carefully explained to them;
b) a hand-out is circulated {appended}, and the penalty system is outlined again;
c) in particular, the duty personnel are repeatedly cautioned that late attendance to their duty (i.e.
turning up less than 60 minutes prior to the start of the CP) will result in an immediate loss of
3 marks.
d) This is rigorously and punctiliously enforced: indeed, I keep and maintain careful records in
my files of all CP transgressions {appended}.

~3~
5. The incident alluded to in your memos point 1), Jim, requires elucidation; I surmise that the
unnamed student in question is Ms Kristy Sullivan. Assuming that this is so, and being reliant
solely upon my memory (not having ready access to my filing cabinet at present), Ms Sullivan
was, I think, assigned the duty of Stage Manager for the CP scheduled for Thursday 27.8.98 at
2.30 pm. Now because of the Tokyo InterArts concert occurring on that same day, Kim Poole
requested on the Thursday morning that I postpone the commencement of this CP until 3.00 pm.
Of course, for obvious pragmatic reasons, I agreed. Given that:
a) I never wear a watch (not wishing to be a composerly slave to its beat);
b) The Music Departments clock had stopped (I had, by the way, asked Ivanka Banach to have
it repaired as soon as possible, as I do rely on it to keep track of time);
c) Most staff and 1st-year students (compulsorily) attended the abovementioned concert, which
concluded I can only guess here, an important point around (or just before?) 2.00 pm;
d) The relative lateness of Kims request ruled out any 100% reliable mechanism of informing
students of the CPs late start, apart from communication by word-of-mouth and my manual
adjustment of the notice on the Performance noticeboard (which at that late stage probably
would not have been read by students anyway);
e) Although I went to the Performance Space straight after the concert in order to take a roll of
CP duty personnel, I could not be absolutely certain of the time;
I therefore decided, out of a sense of fairness, to give the duty personnel some leeway in regard
to their punctuality. Nevertheless, I am now almost certain that Ms Sullivan did not turn up for
her duties within the advertised 60-90 minutes before [the] concert; indeed, she was the very
last of the duty personnel to arrive despite the fact that, as the Stage Manager who oversees
other duty personnel and runs the pre-concert sound-check etc., she should have been at the
Performance Space first (as was pointed out to all four Stage Managers at the meeting of duty
personnel that I convened the week before). Yet because of my less than 100% certainty of the
time even though I was pretty sure that she was late I decided to deduct from Ms Sullivans
overall result only 1 mark instead of 3. (Although I could have opted for no penalty, I did feel
that a 1-mark penalty should accrue, because of Ms Sullivans lateness relative to the other duty
personnel, who had less exalted functions.)

6. Incidentally, I also decided out of the same sense of fairness and in particular recalling the
above leniency not to penalize Karen Irvine 3 marks for failing to provide the adjudicators
(Kim Poole and myself) with a copy of her sheet music (3 marks being the specified penalty for
this violation):
a) Although Ms Irvine was in fact the only 1st-year student in this latest round of CPs [CP 2.1]
who had failed to comply with this instruction, her remissness was, however, clearly an
oversight, a momentary mental lapse on her part (possibly due to nervousness?), since I
spotted the sheet music sticking out of her bag only moments after she began to sing without
the mnemonic aid of sheet music, by the way;
b) In short, Ms Irvine had in fact brought her sheet music to this CP, her intention obviously
being to comply with my directives;
c) Halting her performance (which was, I reiterate, delivered from memory) in order for her to
retrieve and pass the sheet music on to me, may very well have jeopardized her composure on
stage; this would definitely have secured her her 3 marks but potentially at a higher cost;
d) Moreover, such an action could well have been construed by some (petty-minded) students as
a form of favouritism the very accusation I am seeking in this letter, painstakingly, to
disprove;
e) I raise this incident here, Jim, because it is the only case of compassionate treatment I can
think of that might have provoked your anonymous communicants wrongly to contend
that I have a willingness to overlook inadequate participation in duties in those students with
whom [I] have a close relationship, and to be severe with marking those with whom [I] dont
not that I have a particularly close relationship with Ms Irvine;

~4~
 f) In any case, my treatment of Ms Sullivan and Ms Irvine in relation to the CP penalty system,
as discussed above, has (I trust you agree) at least been consistent, without bias or
favouritism.

7. As for Ms Sullivan (or whoever it is) being substantially penalised for a single spelling error in
her programme notes, this is quite ridiculous:
a) The actual penalty was in fact 1 mark hardly substantial;
b) I am fairly certain that no 1st-year student who submitted, before the deadline, either an e-
mail or a TeachText file of their programme note received a penalty of more than 1 mark in
CP 2.1;
c) These 1-mark penalties were in fact not for a single spelling error on those grounds alone,
almost all of our students would be eternally penalized! but for incorrectly formatting the
text of the programme annotation {a printout of Ms Sullivans original programme note
submission, a TeachText file, is appended};
d) NB: a template, demonstrating the correct approach in laying out the details of a programme
note, is always provided within the relevant notice;
e) On closer inspection, however, a penalty of at least 2 marks is warranted here, because the
content of Ms Sullivans annotation itself is of a very poor standard (e.g. failing to discuss the
music, and not even naming her instrument). Moreover, in addition to several
typographical(?) errors, she repeatedly mis-spells the (quite famous) French composers
name, which is, surely, contained within (and upon the cover of) the sheet music! (Im quite
confident that my esteemed colleagues in Performance and Musicology would concur with
these criticisms.)

8. Although, after a brief discussion a few days later with Kim Poole (who expressed his concern
that Ms Sullivan would thereby fail this particular CP [i.e. she would, in the end, receive less
than 7.5 marks out of 15]), it was agreed that the 2-mark penalty accrued by Ms Sullivan would
be waived;
a) Out of fairness to all of the other 1st-year students who fully and indisputably complied with
each CP instruction, and in the light of the scurrilous but baseless allegations of favouritism
on my part, I must now not appear to favour either Ms Sullivan or Ms Irvine, and so I must
reluctantly insist that they both be penalized 3 marks for all the reasons provided above.
b) So much for compassion, here defeated by a false accusation that demands absolute rigidity...

Point 2)

1. This nebulous complaint is entirely without basis in fact: I do not engage in any manner of
criticism during concerts [presumably we are talking about CPs?]. You yourself, Jim, have seen
the Performance staff at work assessing various performances: you would have noted that there
simply is not the time to comment verbally!
a) Indeed, during the CP concert itself, I am totally engaged in: observing and listening to each
performance, following the score (if any) and writing comments; between items, I continue
writing comments, I grade the performance, I prepare the next CP form, and, having
completed the paperwork, I then signal the Stage Manager to settle the audience and announce
the next act.
b) After the CP concert, I am totally preoccupied by my supervision of the bump-out of
equipment and tidying-up of the Performance Space.
c) Immediately following that, I meet with the other assessor(s) to discuss students marks.
d) I repeat: no manner of criticism, other than written remarks, is made during concerts.
e) Students consult with Performance staff at some later date, during staff consultation times, to
receive a critique of, and mark for, their CP performance.

~5~
2. The only verbal dialogue concerning a students CP performance by no means a criticism
during concerts that I can recall being involved in with a student during CP 2.1, was with
Wayne Bennett (who also had been assigned the duty of Technical Operator for one of the CP
2.1 concerts).
a) Wayne sang two items, the first of which was in my opinion a truly execrable art-music
song (I described it as maudlin drivel in my written remarks), the second being the Red Hot
Chili Peppers song Aeroplane. (My opinion of Waynes or indeed any other students
choice of repertoire has no bearing whatsoever on their final mark, by the way.)
b) Because of the radical dichotomy between these two pieces, Waynes intention appeared to
me to be one of satire. Straight after Wayne had left the stage, in order for me to ascertain his
intention so that I could elaborate there and then upon my brief written comments regarding
his repertoire choice, I asked Wayne, very briefly but carefully, whether the motivation behind
his juxtaposition of songs was one of intentional humour. He replied in the negative, stating
that his teacher had merely recommended the first song to him. No further discussion took
place at this time.
c) After one of the CP 2.1 concerts, while helping Wayne return equipment to Mitchell Harts
office, I did discuss with Wayne the wisdom or otherwise of his using the word fuck in his
printed programme note: was this merely for shock value? etc. {A printout of Wayne
Bennetts original programme note submission, an e-mail saved as a TeachText file, is
appended.}
d) Unfortunately, while discussing this point, I unexpectedly encountered another group of 1st-
year students (including Ms Sullivan). Suspecting that they had overheard me use the word
fuck (in quoting Wayne Bennetts programme note), and realizing that they would not have
been able to automatically glean the context, I apologized to them, explaining that Wayne and
I were discussing the use of this taboo word in his printed programme annotation.
e) Anyway, I reiterate: no manner of criticism, other than written remarks, was made during
concerts.

Point 3)

1. In regard to me discussing lecturers private lives with students:

a) Given that I (almost) never see colleagues on either a social or a professional basis outside of
working hours, and that I and other staff members realistically have no time during
working hours for idle chit-chat concerning private matters, I therefore have virtually no
knowledge of lecturers private lives;
b) Thus besides being unwilling I am indeed unable to discuss lecturers private lives with
students;
c) On the odd occasion when a student tries to extract such information (or, worse still, tries to
elicit any rumours about staff members) from me, I do not dignify their requests with a reply,
beyond declaring that I know nothing about colleagues personal lives, nor is it any of their
business.

2. In regard to me speaking of students in derogatory and sexist terms during drinking sessions [at
the Swamp Bar]:
a) I consciously avoid speaking of students in derogatory and sexist terms (such as stating
that a particular student is a bitch), let alone in any discourse with students;
b) This accusation is very woolly: exactly what other derogatory and sexist terms if any am
I supposed to have spoken?;
c) I really do resent the expression drinking session here, which carries with it judgemental
and puritanical overtones, and implies that my sole reason for visiting the Swamp Bar is to

~6~
 consume alcohol (which is, in any event, a legal beverage) in order to become inebriated; this
is probably libellous, and certainly untrue.

3. What precisely is meant by the manner in which [I] fraternise with students at the Swamp Bar,
whereby far from maintaining a sense of professional distance, [I] engage in terms of familiarity
which reflect poorly on students and staff alike? In regard to this general concern, allow me to
make a few observations:
a) I am perplexed as to exactly what terms of familiarity which reflect poorly on students and
staff alike I am purported to have engaged in;
b) It should be noted that I only visit the Swamp Bar strictly after working hours (i.e. no earlier
than 5.00 pm);
c) My visits to the Swamp Bar are in fact relatively infrequent no more than five or so
occasions per semester and are often at the request of music students who wish me to hear,
and provide some feedback on, their public or (semi)professional performances in bands
appearing at the Swamp Bar;
d) As supporting evidence of my relatively infrequent patronage of the Swamp Bar, I have found
that, having worked back late (quite often beyond 7.00 pm), the Swamp Bar is usually closed;
e) Student or staff activities that take place after working hours are essentially private affairs;
f) Yet as a university educator, I am highly aware of, and sensitive to, the complex legal, ethical,
moral, and political minefield of power, rights and responsibilities that arises in any
interaction between lecturers and students. Nevertheless, as a university educator
remembering that the etymology of the word educate is the Latin ex ducere: to lead out [of
ignorance] I do regard every interaction with students (whether within working hours or
not) as an opportunity to impart knowledge, to exchange ideas, to encourage, to personally
care for, and to uplift them. This will ultimately have the effect of nurturing Australian culture
and society something about which I do care a great deal. And this surely is a time-honoured
tertiary tradition! I, as an academic working professionally in a university, therefore regard the
notion of maintaining a sense of professional distance as being potentially oxymoronic: in
other words, excessive distance [from ones students] may well negate professional[ism].
As such, I would now like to present two concrete, fruitful instances of my fraternis[ing]
with students at the Swamp Bar:
i. Ian Pieterse (a talented saxophonist in 1st year) is now actively exploring the 1960s Avant-
Garde jazz repertoire and extended techniques developed by musicians such as Eric Dolphy
and Ornette Coleman, as a direct result of our discussions at the Swamp Bar; Ian has even
bought an Eric Dolphy CD that I recommended to him, entitled Out To Lunch!;
ii. At the Swamp Bar, I have continued to encourage Jake Matthews (also a talented saxophonist
in 1st year, and a member of one of my ensembles [the saxophone quartet]). Jake apparently
suffers from dyslexia, and so he undergoes major inherent difficulties in (sight)reading music,
a situation which causes him considerable distress. He is persisting in this area, under my
mentorship.
g) By the way, as further evidence to refute the accusation of favouritism in your memos
point 1), Jake was regrettably penalized 6 marks by me for failing to submit the required
CP material on time without a valid excuse. Although, for administrative expediency, I did
allow Jake to be assessed while performing with another group of students during CP 2.1
(rather than automatically relegating him to the already overcrowded no frills CP), and
despite the fact that his performance I recall was quite good, Jake has actually failed CP 2.1 as
a direct consequence of his remissness.

~7~
Point 4)

1. You state, Jim, that [f]rom a number of sources, reports have reached me concerning a
discussion one night several weeks ago concerning feminist issues. This statement is rather
vague. When and where precisely was this? In fact, I have been involved in a number of
discussions concerning feminist issues on various nights (and days), in various places and
contexts (including the air-waves and print media), and with various people. Could not these
reports refer to more than one such occasion?

2. So, there is also general concern among students about the manner in which [I] have apparently
expressed [my] viewpoint on the subject of feminism. Again, I ask the same questions as those
directly above. Furthermore:
a) I have only one manner of expressing a viewpoint, which I do adopt at all times: that is, to
impart that viewpoint informedly and forthrightly, with maximal intelligence and clarity,
always invoking my faculties of logic and reason.
b) That I actually succeed in this is, I believe, evinced by my collection of published writings, by
my programme annotations to my original compositions, by my correspondence (e.g. e-mail),
and by the sheer frequency with which I am invited to speak within the public domain (such
as in radio interviews and broadcasts, at pre-concert talks, at conferences and at other fora,
etc.).
c) If this generalized body of anonymous students has expressed concern, then perhaps it is due
to their inability to follow my discourse? This is, of course, not a valid reason for formal
complaint.
d) Or maybe they just find pure logic and reason undeterred by prevailing dogmas and
temporary intellectual fads threatening? Again, this is not a valid reason for formal
complaint.
e) Or could it be that they merely disagree with the viewpoint expressed? Yet again, this is not a
valid reason for formal complaint.
f) Or perhaps, because they disagree, they have simply chosen to be offended to adjudge my
viewpoint as being offensive? Even this, too, is not a valid reason for formal complaint
(unless, of course, it is absolutely clear that the offender has deliberately attempted to cause
the offendee distress which is something I never do). One must recall here that taking
offence is merely an emotional declaration that another party has violated ones own
arbitrarily and subjectively defined sensibilities; this is, per se, always a choice a decision
in mature, thinking, human adults (who are expected at all times to be in command of their
emotions, in order that they can choose a reason-able mode of reaction to carry on dialogue).
In addition, the point at which one claims that their sensibilities have been violated may well
be capriciously variable, being decided upon on the spur of the moment according to criteria
that are logically irrelevant to the viewpoint expressed. Moreover, an offending party does
not own (or have any control whatsoever over) anybodys emotions but their own.
g) Taking offence is, furthermore, a well-known rhetorical tactic for ending a discussion or
debate usually when the offendee is unable to refute the previous idea raised.
h) In which case, the true purpose behind taking offence and declaring that one has been
personally affronted (thence whingeing about it officially) may well be nothing more than
just an attempt to wield power, illegitimately and vexatiously, over the hapless offender.
j) So: I definitely smell a decaying rat here and respond to this general concern in dismay at
what is, I believe, an attempt at censorship and a direct threat to academic freedom.
k) Indeed (without lapsing too far into paranoia myself, one hopes), I conjecture that there could
well be a vexatious motivation here, one of retribution, perhaps because of an incisive letter I
penned that was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 9.8.98 {copy appended} ... and
which, moreover, several students referred to in informal discussions with me. I now quote
the original text of my letter, as forwarded to this newspaper:

~8~
 A young north-shore woman, despite a female magistrate finding the case proved, beats a
drink-driving charge because she was trying to escape from a group of men who had abused
and harassed her. The court declared that she was entitled to be quite fearful and
frightened (Sunday Telegraph, August 2). Yet a young western-suburbs man in similar
circumstances, who in fact had already been physically assaulted but fled further attack on his
motorbike while intoxicated, is convicted. We already suspect that youth and the working
class are treated unfairly by the law. It appears also that there is one law for women but
another for men.
... my point, of course, being simply that the young man in this sorry saga had been treated
unjustly by the judiciary, relative to the young woman a clear-cut case, if ever I saw one, of
sexist discrimination against men.

3. In regard to the allegation that upon hearing of graffiti in the womens toilets near the Swamp
Bar, [I] decided to look at this graffiti for [my]self and announced [my] intention to do so and
that I then left the table at which [I was] sitting with students and went in the general direction
of the womens toilets, returning a short time later:
a) I reject this spurious and risible allegation outright and deeply resent the innuendo that I
might be some kind of pervert;
b) I know nothing about any graffiti in any womens facilities at UWS Nepean (or anywhere
else, for that matter), having never, throughout the post-infancy period of my life, entered any
womens toilet facility;
c) The mens toilet near the Swamp Bar to which of course I am permitted access could be
said to lie in the general direction of the womens toilets; I have been known to use this
particular facility from time to time in order to urinate;
d) I agree with you, Jim, that (unless there was some kind of emergency) a male staff member
entering a female students toilet can be perceived as a form of sexual harassment. NB: all
three toilets near the Swamp Bar are actually public facilities they are not the sole preserve
of students.

4. In relation to the above farce, Jim, you write in your memo that it is reported that soon
afterward ... here, again, we have yet more imprecision, dont we: when exactly? ... a new
piece of graffiti was found in the same womens toilet, written at a height which would suggest
that it was the work of a tall person, and in a script which allegedly resembles [my] handwriting:
FEMINISM = AN INSTITUTIONALISED EXCUSE FOR IRRESPONSIBILITY: A
PHILOSOPHICAL CRUTCH FOR (FEMALE) FAILURES. This is fascinating stuff.
However, though I do happen to agree wholeheartedly with this assertion:
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I repeat my declaration made in point 3.b), above.
b) The height at which any graffiti is written suggests absolutely nothing: I point out that, at
UWS Nepean, there are numerous tall men (and quite a few tall women), who stand at least 2
metres in height; and what the heck, perhaps this piece of graffiti was written by a
hermaphroditic dwarf standing on a chair!
c) Does a graffito written on a wall 1 metre from the ground automatically suggest that it was
the work of a short person?
d) The quoted graffito is, arguably, quite an intelligent and articulate utterance. Being an
intelligent and articulate person myself, is this reasonable grounds for suspicion that I am
responsible for writing it?
e) The quoted graffito is spelt correctly (but see g) below): does this automatically divert
suspicion away from the student body and onto academic staff?
f) As regards the assertion that this new piece of graffiti ... [is written] in a script which
allegedly resembles my handwriting, it is well known that I have a wide ambitus of
handwritings, ranging from a scrawl that is illegible to anybody but me, through to an
immaculately neat and clear calligraphy (as can be found in any of my recent scores). Indeed,

~9~
 a lot of handwriting could be said to resemble mine! I strongly suggest that, in an attempt to
besmirch my reputation, somebody has tried to imitate some aspect of my handwriting. And,
moreover, are any of my accusers qualified experts in the rather inexact science of
graphology?
g) As regards the text of the quoted graffito itself: I almost never write exclusively in capital
letters; I would always spell the third word as institutionalized (because in such words, I
regard z as being phonetically more accurate than the currently fashionable s); the colon is,
to my mind, incorrect punctuation (i.e. the second idea a philosophical crutch... is by no
means clearly a logical consequence of the first idea an institutionalised excuse...) which I
would replace with a semicolon instead (reflecting the expression of two separate ideas).
h) If purely for the sake of argument I had decided to write some graffiti somewhere (not that
I have), I would write it using deliberately incorrect spelling, in a straightforward idiolect,
with an unusual handwriting, at an average height, and definitely without witnesses ...
precisely to avoid the sort of repugnant trial and pathetic accusations to which I am now being
subjected!

5. In regard to point 4. above, there is a graffito in the mens toilet at the Swamp Bar which is
almost identical to that quoted above; it, too, was not written by me. (Perhaps my accusers are
somewhat befuddled, and are actually referring to this graffito?) However, on the very same wall
in this mens toilet, there are a couple of graffiti almost certainly written by participants of the
1998 NOWSA conference, held recently at our campus.
a) By definition, such culprits would be women.
b) Many male music students have expressed their indignation to me about this graffiti, and
about the invasion of male space by women.
c) Indeed, I do believe that any woman entering a male toilet under most circumstances can be
perceived as a form of sexual harassment.
d) I therefore insist that this incident be reported to the Equal Opportunity Unit, as any form of
sexual harassment or misandrony is unacceptable in a university environment, and in
civilized society at large.
e) (My tongue is now firmly in my cheek, Jim...) It is a fact that there is yet another piece of
graffiti on the same wall in this mens toilet, written with a red texta, and signed F (as in
Franklin, with a circle around the F). Its quite mild and reasonable tone, the fact that it is
written at an average height and in a handwriting that strongly resembles yours not to
mention the circled F makes you a prime suspect, Jim. The fact that it does contain a few
spelling errors might allay suspicion for some people, but Im not convinced. (From now on,
mate, Ill be keeping my eye on you!)

6. Enough frivolity. Seriously, Jim, the originators of the set of accusations against me expressed in
point 4) of your memo are it is very reasonable to assume (given the nature of the complaint)
women, and quite probably they are women who are sympathetic to feminist ideology. Given all
of the points I have raised above, and if my surmising proves to be correct, then I have very
grave concerns regarding these females basic inability to engage in straightforward deductive
reasoning, and I have very grave concerns regarding their twisted ethical standards and lack of
rectitude in launching a formal complaint against me without hard evidence, purely on the basis
of rumour and hearsay. In short, it is totally pathetic, repugnant, and hysterical. Is this the sort
of thing that feminism has in store for men in the next millennium?

Point 5)

1. The facts are these:

a) At the beginning of Semester 2, in speaking to Kim Poole, I had generously offered to help

~ 10 ~
 him adjudicate a CP on the evening of Friday 28.8.98. This actually fell outside of my regular
working hours (which conclude at 5.00 pm), and was also supplemental to my workload as a
0.5 Lecturer (having already adjudicated 4 out of a total of 8 CPs covering all three years of
Performance subjects).
b) The motivations behind my offer were honourable, being simply: a desire to assist Kim, who I
believe to be quite seriously overworked; a desire to save SoCA money (by avoiding further
employment of casual staff); and sheer curiosity (as a woodwind specialist, I wanted to see
and hear Christine Mitchells performance on flute, in particular).
c) Kim and I had been overseeing and adjudicating CP 2.1 concerts all day long. At around 6.00
pm i.e. well outside of my normal working hours I asked Kim whether he needed a hand in
organizing the evening CP, scheduled to start at 6.30 pm. He declared that everything was fine
and my assistance would not be required, so I then told him that I was going down to the
Swamp Bar for a quiet drink in order to relax a little after a very gruelling day and, more
urgently, to eat some food (having eaten little all day). I also asked Kim to inform me when
the CP was about to commence: this is perfectly normal procedure amongst Performance
staff, as CP concerts rarely begin right on time.

2. So yes, I was indeed fetched from the bar [actually from the bistro area outside the bar], where I
had been drinking, by a staff member [Kim Poole] before the concert. A couple of observations
at this point seem necessary:
a) My after-hours presence in the Swamp Bar area from 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm in and of itself is
surely not problematic. Indeed, my main reason for being there was to consume food, other
facilities being closed by this time.
b) Alcohol is, after all, a legal substance and for the record I had, by 6.30 pm, consumed less
than one small bottle of Hahn Premium beer. Because the bar was due to close fairly soon, I
had in fact bought two bottles together. (In other words, by the time Kim had signalled me to
come to the Performance Space, I had in my possession one full bottle of beer and another,
less than half-full, bottle of beer.)
c) Again, as before, I detect a somewhat puritanical undertone in the reference to my drinking,
with its insinuation of wilful insobriety: again, as before, I resent this; and as a matter of fact,
I was unaffected by the small amount of beer I had consumed.

3. Now because of my desire not to delay the CP proceedings at all, and because (knowing that
Kim had all of his gear with him) I believed that Security had already locked up and turned on
the alarm to the downstairs area of the Music Department (so that I could not readily leave my
two beer bottles in my office), I went directly to the Performance Space carrying the two beer
bottles. (Due to my Celtic frugality, and costing $3.30 each, I simply could not bring myself to
pour them out as waste!) So it is perfectly true that when [I] came to the concert, [I] brought
[my] beer with me. From this point on, however, there is the usual story of guilt-by-perception:
a) The fact remains that nobody knew for certain what beverage the beer bottles contained. They
may well have held ice tea!
b) Conversely, would a report have been made to you, Jim, if I had brought into the Performance
Space two Coca-Cola bottles? (I very much doubt it ... even though Coca-Cola does contain
large quantities of that pernicious drug caffeine.)

4. As to the assertion that I continued to drink [beer] during the concert which [I was] supposed to
be adjudicating:
a) I emphatically was adjudicating the concert; there is no supposed about it! And, moreover,
it does not logically follow that continu[ing] to drink [some beverage] during the concert
simultaneously precludes the act of (competent) concert adjudication.
b) In fact, I only polished off the over-half-empty bottle of beer between CP items and after I
had completed my written comments not while actually examining the three students

~ 11 ~
 concerned. (The other full beer bottle I consumed later.)
c) At the time, I received absolutely no comment or censure from Kim Poole (who is the acting
coordinator of Performance, and so is I guess technically my superior), or from anybody
else present for that matter, about the offending beer bottles. Had any such comments been
made, or had I even detected raised eyebrows (particularly from students), I would naturally
have immediately removed those heinous beer bottles.
d) On the subject of my competent concert adjudication, as stated above: I was unaffected by
the small amount of beer I had consumed. As hard evidence of this, I append copies of my
CP adjudication sheets for this unusually brief concert which are, indeed, absolutely
competent and include (as I recall) some quite detailed and perspicacious remarks on, for
example, Christine Mitchells potential use of flute harmonics.
e) Therefore, Jim, I dont entirely agree with you that consuming a beverage (alcoholic or not)
necessarily reflects negatively on the seriousness with which [I] approached the adjudication
of the concert. And anyhow, I never show a disdain for the students directly or by
implication which, I do agree, would be unacceptable in an academic staff member.

5. In regard to your final comment, Jim, that [a]dditionally, as [I] well know, eating and drinking
in any form is not permitted in the Performance Space, and [my] doing so undermines the
example we need to set to students, Im afraid that this is by no means clear:
a) Whilst such a policy is entirely understandable for rooms such as the Sound Studios and the
Multimedia Lab, which contain much expensive electrical equipment that could easily be
ruined by a spillage of drink or food, the Performance Space seems to me to be on a par in this
regard with the downstairs Lecture Room, where both staff and students consume food.
b) Is there a sign posted anywhere actually forbidding the consumption of food and drink in the
Performance Space? (I do recall seeing such signs pertaining to the Sound Studios etc., but
my visual memory of the Performance Space area is rather hazy. Nevertheless, I am certain
that there is no such sign on the Performance Space doors.)
c) Moreover, on several previous occasions, there have been formal functions (such as prize-
giving nights) held in the Performance Space. Such occasions which have been attended by
academic staff, music students, guests and dignitaries have involved the consumption of
food and beverages, including several varieties of alcoholic drink. (Indeed, the staff
refrigerator still contains some leftovers from one of these functions, namely a wine-cask.)
d) [T]he example [I believe] we need to set to students in relation to eating and drinking in the
Performance Space, is one of careful consumption and of the proper disposal of rubbish and
recyclables. As somebody who (together with Kim Poole) is forever removing aluminium
cans, plastic bottles, bits of paper, food scraps, and other items of garbage from the
Performance Space, all I can say is ... we are setting good examples, but some students aint
listening!

6. This whole affair, Jim, seems to me to be a classical example of making mountains out of
molehills. Notwithstanding, I do appreciate your concerns here, and will respect your wishes
henceforth by never again bringing food or drink to any CP adjudication.

Concluding Remarks

1. I entirely agree with you, Jim, and do understand that [u]nder the terms of operation of [this]
University, discriminatory and unprofessional behaviour is unacceptable, and that [i]n a staff
member, such behaviour is a negation of our charter to nurture the development of our students,
and to present positive role models to which students can aspire. Indeed, the upholding of such
a healthy philosophy is part of my job statement, and I am always mindful of, and actually
putting into practice, these tenets:

~ 12 ~
 a) As far as positive role models go, I obviously do provide this for all of our music students
in relation to my high-level activities as a professional musician (composer and performer).
b) Moreover, I do believe that, as a forthright, intelligent, enthusiastic, intrepid yet
compassionate male educator, it is crucial that I provide mentorship, and display a fine
example of leadership, to young adult men who, I think you will agree, are generally
floundering in many ways in modern Australian society. On numerous occasions, for instance,
in discussions at venues such as the Swamp Bar, male students seem to have used me as a
listening post or sympathetic ear as it were, in pouring out their frustrations, their feelings
of loss of identity, their fears concerning unemployment, their confusion in regard to healthy
relationships and masculinities, and their anger at the obvious oppressions and injustices
perpetrated against men by contemporary society in general under the baleful influence of
feminism (of which, I might add, my current situation is a shining example). Their concerns
are not by any means to be flippantly dismissed particularly in the light of the alarming rate
of teenage male suicide in Australia these days.
c) Please understand, Jim, that I am equally sympathetic to the plight of women. Indeed, on
many occasions, I have picked up the pieces when a female student has become upset one
example being Nicole Christoph. So, there is absolutely no discrimination on my part. Indeed,
as someone who upholds, and tries to put into practice, the Christian faith with everybody, I
extol an approach that is characterized by love and compassion, that transcends laws and
petty differences. (In passing, I do believe that this philosophy is, paradoxically, becoming
increasingly difficult to enact in large, impersonal bureaucracies that are overburdened by
rules and regulations which kill the spirit and lead to a kind of rigid, stultifying paralysis.)

2. If you are correct, Jim, in sensing that at present, the morale of our student body is suffering
then I strongly contend that this is not as a result of some aspects of [my] behaviour and
attitudes except, perhaps, for my well-known expectation that students simply do what is
asked of them within the time-frame allowed (as part of my long-term goal, that they grow
intellectually, acquiring knowledge and learning to engage in active, independent, critical
thought).
a) I have encountered more than a few students over the years (but by no means a majority) who
have become quite frustrated at my refusal in the absence of a reasonable excuse to allow
them to evade their responsibilities and the consequences of their (in)actions. Indeed, I do
draw very unambiguous boundaries here: students are all clearly informed of what I expect of
them, when I expect it, and the penalties they can expect should they be remiss.
b) I am surely being a positive role model in this, by inculcating, in students who truly wish to
learn, the professional attitudes and competencies demanded by the music industry which of
course tolerates no less.
c) I also believe that one purpose of a tertiary education is to build character. In this, you may
call me somewhat old-fashioned, but character-building is a necessary process for those who
wish to become thinkers, who wish to become researchers, and ultimately who wish to
become intellectually self-sufficient. A university therefore should not just be about
competency training, or filling heads with knowledge; this is just a first step, fulfilling a
function already provided to some extent by the secondary education and TAFE systems. We,
as university educators, need to provide students with tools so that they can think for
themselves! (Now isnt that a dangerous idea: independence of thought in an image-driven
society that expects mindless conformity. It is no wonder that successive governments in this
country and the media continue to persecute the university system, because what politician,
bureaucrat, or media-mogul really wants a thinking constituency?) So, a university is, to my
mind, a milieu of ideas, of truth, and of clashing paradigms a continuum for an intellectual
journey through which each one of us tries to make sense of it all and find meaning...
d) Anyway, perhaps it is just that small minority of students who are content to wallow in their
comfort zone of lazy, unthinking mediocrity something I absolutely abhor and will not

~ 13 ~
 tolerate whose morale ... is suffering. Perhaps they are also exercising a smear campaign
against me a campaign of persecution in order that I be made to back off, and not be
allowed to try to educate them. After all, any birth, particularly one out of ignorance into
excellence and enlightenment, can be uncomfortable...
e) While we are on the subject of morale, Jim, I can honestly assure you that throughout the
whole dreary experience of writing this interminable letter of response, my morale has
suffered enormously. In addressing detailedly what is, frankly, (and do please forgive my
candour here) a stinking pile of bullshit, three days of my life have been totally wasted in
drudgery; they were, as you well know, to have been spent on the creative activity of original
composition and PhD studies.
f) Moreover, I am sure you are aware that I had endured, until the end of 1997, two years of this
kind of back-stabbing persecution-by-hearsay. By way of contrast Jim, under your excellent
leadership, the thoroughly positive experiences I have enjoyed working in SoCAs Music
Department at UWS Nepean during the first half of 1998 seemed to indicate that the previous
era of victimization was at last over. (But alas, not...)
g) I also want you to know, Jim, that I do feel for you too, in having your time wasted and life
consumed in having to deal with all of this.
h) And what of the morale of our colleagues Jim? We are all, I think you would agree:
overworked; fearful for the future of Australias university system and UWS Nepean in
particular (in the face of shrinking public and private funds); worried about the implications
of a too-cosy relationship between universities and big business; dismayed by the erosion of
academic job security; disheartened by the increasing contempt with which the concepts of
research, creativity, and intellectual freedom are held by bureaucrats and bean-counting
administrators; pessimistic about the dumbing down of this country; oppressed by excessive
regulations and administrative burdens and paperwork; and most of all discouraged by the
lassitude of, and sheer disrespect exhibited towards us by, certain students. Sometimes, I
wonder why we bother...

3. Regarding your final observation, Jim, that [t]he question here is not so much whether [I]
should or should not hold certain attitudes and [my] own opinions; rather, the concern is with
appropriateness of the mode in which [I] express [my] attitudes and opinions, especially in [my]
interactions with students, I have dealt with this exhaustively elsewhere in and throughout
this letter.

To conclude (at last!). In providing ample hard evidence, I feel quite confident that I have
thoroughly demolished the concerns voiced about my purported severe lack of professionalism ...
indicative of a discriminatory attitude on [my] part, etc. I trust that this letter and the appended
material will succeed in vindicating my name, and so will immediately lay to rest the foul web of
accusations against me, once and for all in the process serving to boost the flagging student
morale. Then, perhaps, we can all get on with our lives...

I do look forward to meeting with you in the very near future, Jim.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Shanahan,
Lecturer in Performance & Composition,
SoCA/Music
8 September, 1998.

~ 14 ~