Tag: Barry Spurr

curriculum, resigned

Barry Spurr may have resigned, but the national curriculum review is tainted

barry spurr

I don’t care much that Barry Spurr has resigned from the University of Sydney. His ‘private’ views on racism are still remarkably similar to those in the national curriculum review

Early this morning, Sydney University announced that its professor of poetry, Barry Spurr, had resigned from his post. I have to admit that I couldn’t give much of a bugger.

On the one hand, I do genuinely believe that Spurr has a right to earn a living. He seems to have been widely regarded as a good and effective lecturer and professor.

On the other, can you imagine how a female student, an Asian student, a Muslim student – or, God forbid, an Aboriginal student – might feel sitting in a lecture theatre listening to him wax lyrical about the power of Judeo-Christian literature?

Clearly, Spurr’s position at the University of Sydney was tenuous.

But this story has never been about Spurr’s tenure as a professor. It has always been about the “nod, nod, wink, wink” racism of people who hold positions of great power and influence over us all. Notably, Spurr has never acknowledged wrongdoing, let alone apologised.

Thus, the “real story” has always been his role as a special consultant to the Abbott government’s review of the national school curriculum.

On that front, nothing has changed.

Despite the emergence of these repugnant emails, the federal minister for education, Christopher Pyne, remains happy with the final report into the review of the National School Curriculum. Go figure.

In case you’re wondering, here’s an example from Spurr’s report of the sort of advice for which Australian taxpayers forked out thousands of dollars:

As usual, the literature of Western civilisation at large is omitted, while the specific ‘oral narrative traditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ are singled out for mention.

And this:

The impact of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on literature in English in Australia has been minimal and is vastly outweighed by the impact of global literature in English, and especially that from Britain, on our literary culture.

Now here’s just one of Spurr’s private views, revealed in his email correspondence.

Whereas the [Australian] curriculum has the phrase ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ on virtually every one of its 300 pages, the Californian curriculum does not ONCE mention native Americans and has only a very slight representation of African-American literature (which, unlike Abo literature, actually exists and has some distinguished productions).

It’s only hard to reconcile the difference between the two views if you accept that Spurr was, as he asserts, playing a “whimsical linguistic game”. Of course, the full transcript of his emails reveals he wasn’t.

Like all accomplished racists and misogynists, Spurr knew that he had to tailor his bigotry for public consumption. Overt and ugly racism is for bogans (ironically a group for which Spurr holds a special disdain). But polished, slippery racism? That is for professors. And institutions.

Spurr’s attempts to entrench his bigoted views in the school curriculum – that will be taught to every child in every school in every state of the country, for at least a generation – should send a shiver down the spine of every Australian parent.

Ask yourself this question: do you really want people of this calibre influencing what your children will learn in school?

The review of the national school curriculum will always be tainted. It has been irrevocably polluted by the views of a man who believes rape is funny, who believes Aboriginal people are sub-human, who believes Asians and Muslims are fodder for mockery, and who believes that women do not occupy a place of equality in our society.

These are not Australian values, but unless the curriculum review is revisited as a matter of urgency, then we can only assume that they are Australian government values.

Andrew Bolt, Chris Graham, Miranda Devine

News Corp over indulges in hypocrisy when saddling up Ethics in the Journalistic Cup

People In Glass Houses Shouldn’t Work At News Corporation

By Chris Graham

Call him paranoid, but Chris Graham is starting to get the distinct impression that The Australian newspaper doesn’t much like New Matilda.

I’ve been called a lot of things in the course of my career. Andrew Bolt once referred to me as a “race warrior”, and Miranda Devine told a colleague of mine that I was “pure evil”.

Obviously, I was chuffed.

In The Weekend Australian today, Brendan O’Neill describes my colleagues at New Matilda and me as “moral crusaders”, as he leaps to the defence of Professor Spurr – the tenured Sydney University academic suspended recently over a series of racist, misogynistic emails.

I’m going to let the fact that it’s yet another white man defending yet another white man’s right to be a racist and a sexist fly through to the keeper, and focus instead on the fact that Mr O’Neill genuinely appears to have meant the barb of ‘moral crusader’ as an insult.

The fact is, I most definitely do ‘crusade’ (on a lot of issues, but in particular racism and Aboriginal rights, and increasingly refugees and climate change); and given that I like to consider myself quite ‘moral’ – although I accept many do not agree – calling me a ‘moral crusader’ is one of the nicest things that anyone at The Australian has ever said about me.

With the possible exception of this front-page accusation a month or so ago, that myself and colleague Wendy Bacon (one of the journalists, along with Max Chalmers, involved in New Matilda’s coverage about the $60,000 secret scholarship awarded to the Prime Minister’s daughter) were involved in a ‘plot’ to damage the Prime Minister.

Needless to say, ‘moral crusader’ as an insult to someone who is passionate about basic rights is about as caustic as ‘politically correct’ to someone who genuinely believes that being careful with language and concepts is important, so as not to further oppress minorities.

The ‘dirty words’ of our nation, I think, say as much about us as a society as they do about Professor Spurr and his use of terms like ‘Abos, Chinky-Poos and Muzzies’, and his apparent casual attitude towards the rape of women.

And speaking of Professor Spurr, O’Neill makes a surprising ‘concession’ in the very first paragraph of his article.

“Why is it bad to hack and expose photographs of a woman’s naked body but apparently OK to steal and make public the contents of a man’s soul?” laments O’Neill.

Wow. Seems Mr O’Neill – despite his otherwise robust defence – doesn’t think very much of Bazza. Which is puzzling, because from my reading, the official line from The Australian thus far has been that the comments by Professor Spurr were not part of his soul, rather they were, as Spurr himself continues to assert, part of a ‘whimsical linguistic game’. I suspect Brendan O’Neill – based over in London at Spiked – might not have got that News Corp memo.

The partial transcripts of the correspondence strongly suggest otherwise, but regardless, it’s surprising to me that in order to leap to the defence of a man, O’Neill and The Australian are prepared to so readily jettison something as fundamental as Barry Spurr’s soul, by suggesting that it consists of deep racism, misogyny and bigotry.

Personally, I don’t believe that for a second. Obviously, I’m not Professor Spurr’s biggest fan. But I don’t believe that the summation of a life (and in this case, apparently, a soul) can be done simply by calculating the sum total of the shittiest thing people found out about you.

Put simply, while I do believe that Professor Spurr holds deep-seated views that I, and many in Australian society, find utterly repugnant, I don’t believe that they plumb the depths of his soul. I happen to think that if souls do exist (and I’m not convinced… but anyhoo), they’re probably pretty nice, and that the nasty bits about all of us come from somewhere else. Lived experience, most likely.

But whatever the truth, I also happen to believe that the public interest, given Professor Spurr’s participation in the review of the National School Curriculum, warrants that his views – or his ‘soul’ – get a broader airing.

And that’s the other really notable thing about Brendan O’Neill’s piece. The phrase ‘public interest’ doesn’t appear once. Coming from a journalist based at the media empire in London which hacked the phones of celebrities – and that of a child who had been raped and murdered – for ‘scoops’… well, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. I’m not suggesting O’Neill defends the phone hacking scandal, but I am suggesting the awkward irony may be lost on him.

To make his point, O’Neill opines:

“… just a few weeks ago, when a hacker invaded the iCloud accounts of female celebs and rifled through their intimate snaps, there was global outrage.

“This theft of explicit private photos of actress Jennifer Lawrence and others was a sex crime, we were told.”

Well, yes, we were told that. But that’s only because it was. And there’s another irony: a Fleet Street lad from a corner of the world’s media famous for its base objectification of women appearing to intimate that it wasn’t.

The fact is, there is ‘news’ in celebrities. A case in point is this excellent article published on New Matilda today, by Dr Liz Conor. It explores the recent hubbub over plastic surgery undertaken by Renee Zellwegger, which left her apparently ‘unrecognisable’. But notably, Conor’s piece is not about the ‘tits and arse’ of Renee Zellwegger. It’s a thoughtful piece about the deeper issue of how we perceive famous women.

So there is value in exploring the public lives of celebrities, but it’s important how you explore it.

I agree, there is no value in publishing the private photos of a naked Jennifer Lawrence. It is an outrage. It may be what some sections of the public are ‘interested in’, but it is in no way ‘in the public interest’. They’re two vastly different concepts, but frequently confused by the hounds at News (and many other outlets, for that matter).

Thus, my respectful submission – both here and to the Federal Court – is that Professor Spurr’s views are in the public interest. I won’t dwell on that, because (a) my thoroughly awesome legal team is arguing that, and I don’t wish to pre-empt the judge’s findings (we’re back there on December 8); and (b) I do sincerely believe that Professor Spurr and his legal counsel are entitled to test the matter and plead their case, without it being too polluted by public discourse from the guy in the dock.

At the same time, I don’t plan to sit idly by while those at News Corporation seek to rewrite history, and in the process, hope we forget their own.

I’m specifically referring to comments like these from O’Neill: “Fast forward to last week, and some of the same people whose jaws hit the floor at the audacity of those who leaked these women’s private, unguarded pics were cheering the hacking of Spurr’s private, unguarded words.”

A News Corporation journalist seeking to point out hypocrisy. Where do I start….

There’s a simple reason why The Australian has tried so hard to link the story of Professor Spurr to ‘hacking’, notwithstanding our repeated public statements that it’s not true. It’s the same reason The Australian has so vigorously pursued Freya Newman, the whistleblower in the Frances Abbott secret scholarship saga, and a young woman of substantial courage who clearly acted ‘illegally’ – as opposed to wrongly – in the ‘public interest’.

The simple reason is, they want us to look as bad as them. They want people to make the connection to the UK phone hacking scandal. Which was, of course, perpetrated by them.

Set aside the clear ‘public interest’ differences, and let’s just look at the facts: New Matilda published information given to it by sources. News International published information from people it had paid to hack. The terms ‘gaping hole’ and ‘go and have a bit of a lie down Chris Mitchell’ leap to mind.

In News-speak, i call this the ‘If we’re all covered in shit, then we all stink the same’ theory.

But it’s ultimately a straw man strategy. The links News wants you to believe exist, do not. And nor does the history. New Matilda and the outstanding (albeit very small) team that works here would need to practice decades of breath-taking hypocrisy and gross abuse of power to look or smell anything like some sections of News Corporation (notwithstanding the fact that there are a few people in the organisation I greatly admire) .

And in case anyone has forgotten, let’s pause now, briefly, to remember some of that recent history.

The contents of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper’s diary was published. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe News Corporation broke that story? I can’t recall The Australian railing about an invasion of privacy. I do recall them invoking ‘public interest’ (a test, and a story, with which I happen to agree).

When the ‘private’ emails of climate scientists were hacked last year, and then republished out of context, I don’t recall howls of outrage from The Oz or News Limited about ‘privacy’. I do recall a certain level of gloating and ‘we told you so’.

And this is where and why The Australian continues to come unstuck. It’s history of ‘what’s good for everyone else is not good for us… unless we say so’.

It’s a thoroughly transparent, and, frankly, embarrassing way to run a national broadsheet. And if this stunning scoop from one of the great independent Australian media outlets (Crikey) about the slow death of News Corporation papers in Australia is anything to go by, then journalism parading as sex, sensationalism and vendettas doesn’t pay the bills either.

The Glass House Empire of News Corporation, it seems, is a fragile one indeed, and no amount of historical revisionism, nor name-calling, is going to change that.

Journalism might. They should probably give it a crack.

Andrew Bolt, Humour, Media, Newscorp

Barry Humphries and Barry Spurr are a comedy double act no one needs How can Barry Humphries support freedom of speech for Barry Spurr over his offensive emails when censorship is just fine for his Adelaide cabaret festival? That’s why I’ll be boycotting it

Barry Humphries

How can Barry Humphries support freedom of speech for Barry Spurr over his offensive emails when censorship is just fine for his Adelaide cabaret festival? That’s why I’ll be boycotting it

Dammit Barry! Both of you. If you’ve blocked #auspol on Twitter to save your sanity, you might have missed the uproar over Prof Barry Spurr’s heinously offensive email trails, and his subsequent suspension from Sydney university. Managing to offend Indigenous people, women, Asian Australians, African Americans, Muslims and anyone with a conscience is no mean feat, but Spurr sure gave it a go.

But he isn’t the only Barry making headlines this week. Barry Humphries, veteran of Australian comedy, has now seen fit to wade into the fray with an ill-conceived letter to the Australian referring to Spurr as the “poor professor”. He goes on to accuse those of us who prefer our educational leaders not to make rape jokes of “cultural fascism,” adding that “the new puritanism is alive, well and powerful”.

Perhaps I would have passed by this letter, dismissing it as a ranting tirade from an out-of-touch old clown, had I not been in the middle of writing an application to the Adelaide cabaret festival, that same great Australian event that has appointed Humphries as artistic director.

Aussie comedians and cabaret artists were already rankled when Humphries made a hullabaloo about banning the “F Word” in his cabaret festival programming. “I’m banning the popular expletive,” he said. “They’ll have to manage without it.”

Leaving for a moment the patronising manner in which Humphries addressed his artists, how can he support freedom of speech for Spurr, when blatant censorship is just fine for his international arts festival?

I’ve been performing comedy cabaret with my troupe Lady Sings it Better for a few years now. I was drawn to the scene’s history of vibrant political dissent, a spirit of rebellion that rumbled through the bars of Berlin and now flourishes in a thrilling neo-cabaret scene across the globe. Cabaret is no place for censorship, but it’s also no place for racism, sexism and the other charming tidbits littering Spurr’s inbox.

To see a man appointed to what is arguably the most powerful position in the Australian cabaret scene defend hate speech should be of concern to all Australian artists and audiences. The liberals of the Weimar tradition must be rolling in their graves.

Good comedy makes fun of power; it punches up, not down. Good comedy has the power to shift perceptions, to offer release in times of trouble and to shed light on unexpected ideas or viewpoints. But good comedy should not be cruel. There is nothing clever, playful or hilarious about making fun of minority groups or of yearning for a time when Australia had “no Abos, Chinky-poos, Mussies, graffiti, piercings, jeans, tattoos. BCP in all Anglican churches; Latin Mass in all Roman ones. Not a woman to be seen in a sanctuary anywhere. And no obese fatsoes. All the kiddies slim and bright eyed. Now utterly gone with the wind.” I quote Spurr here.

Well, Barry Humphries, this diversity-loving, godless fatso won’t be applying to the Adelaide cabaret festival this year, nor any year when Humphries is at its creative helm.

This is no small decision; audiences for cabaret in Australia can be small and, despite Sydney’s growing (and thrilling) independent musical theatre and cabaret scene, the opportunity to tour to the southern hemisphere’s biggest cabaret event can be huge milestone in an artist’s career. But I just can’t bring myself to send in an application.

Instead, we’ll be performing in the open-access Adelaide fringe. Open-access festivals mean increased costs for independent, emerging artists, and fierce competition in a program with hundreds of other acts. But the fringe won’t censor our work, and our success won’t be at the whim of a man who thinks racial slurs are A-OK in modern Australia.

If the powers that be down in good old Radelaide don’t respect Australian audiences enough to rein in their own nutty professor, I don’t see how any cabaret artist, Australian or international, could choose to perform. Humphries closes out his letter by urging us to “restore our reputation as a funny country before it’s too late”. I’d say the first step would be to show him the door.

Old Dog Thought

I believe Barry H read The Age under the misbelief that he was reading the News. He had a knee jerk reaction to what seemed an injustice at first glance but what has since turned out to be a closet racist’s true nature revealed and News Corps confected outrage  ho ho ho  to ” hacking” .

News Corp  calling it an invasion of privacy is  the pot calling the kettle black. They wish they had broken the story first. They did the same when it was revealed that Bill Shorten was accused of rape. They just wished they’d got to it first. Andrew Bolt sanctimoniously talked  about his ‘ethics’ and that he would never steep so low.  Had it been a group of  paedophile priests, terrorists etc one assumes the News Corp opinionators would be in full support of protecting their privacy as well..My comment on the matter