And yesterday, RMIT dropped ANOTHER intervention order case against a current student. Social Sciences student Luke McMahon was dragged into court by RMIT because he had dared to question, online, the restructuring of his course. At the last minute, RMIT dropped the case against him. Both the Fine Art program and the Social Sciences program are overseen by RMIT's Pro Vice Chancellor, Professor Colin Fudge.
@HonestDiscussioner: Steve got sacked for criticizing the administration. And when that didn't stop him asking questions about proposed restructure to the Fine Art program, they then launched a more personal attack on him and his art work, which they hoped he would be unable to defend in court. They are ruthless and autocratic and they want to stop freedom of expression and freedom to have a dissenting voice at all costs.
@thecorrectwing So you are telling me he got canned for criticizing the administration?
Listen, you CAN'T be ambiguous here. As ProfMTH has at the end of his videos, Veritas vos Liberatas ( think that's how it is spelled), which means "The Truth Shall Set You Free". You need to list the comments he made that are in question, because to the causal viewer, the ambiguity could be interpreted as "spin", you don't want that. You want to appear as the one giving full disclosure.
you&profmth are right, i did think about this as i was making it, but i didnt think i was being ambiguous because all my information is available at the 'save art from rmit' website, including steves comments and the discussion boards. some have been taken down unfortunately, but there is alot of comments, too many for me to show in full on youtube. every comment on the 'save art' page that steve made is an example of why they layed the charges against him
plus this has been covered by several news websites (such as crikey.com) so i didnt think that it needed more evidence, but ofcourse im willing to take your perspective over mine, you being a viewer after all
@thecorrectwing Take the ones that are the most innocent that they are accusing of being "defaming". If you have enough that are obviously innocent, or at least within the bounds of fair criticism and cannot be misconstrued as a personal attack, then you can make your case that they are only interested in silencing fair criticism, as they'll latch onto anything. THOSE comments are the ones you want to post, it doesn't have to be all of them. Take the worst (or best) examples you can find.
@HonestDiscussioner thanks thats really good, ill do that. i will be making more videos focusing on the various facets of the events, including the case, in more detail, and yes, ill include specific examples of the comments there. thanks again for your tips, very appriciated.
im still inexperienced with putting together videos so i had concerns like 'too much for ppl to read/ too much information at once/ video goes too long/ etc...' that were dictating my process
@HonestDiscussioner: Yes, he got sacked for criticizing the administration. And when that didn't stop him asking questions about proposed restructure to the Fine Art program, they then launched a more personal attack on him and his art work. They are ruthless and they want to stop freedom of expression and freedom to have a dissenting voice.
I think you need to give a little more detail. The extent of Steve's alleged crime was "supporting students' rights", I highly doubt he got in trouble for simply stating "I think students should have a say in their education", so what was the underlying context of the initial drama?
@HonestDiscussioner The official reason was that steve had brought RMIT's reputation into disrepute by asking questions which were seen to be critical of Grierson's management.
How apalling that a university, which should champion freedom of speech and even dissent, should take this action! And for the head of an art school to feel frightened by art work is laughable! When universities demand the suppression of information and creativity, that is the sure sign they are on the way out. Are you sure that RMIT isn't in Stalinist Russia?
And yesterday, RMIT dropped ANOTHER intervention order case against a current student. Social Sciences student Luke McMahon was dragged into court by RMIT because he had dared to question, online, the restructuring of his course. At the last minute, RMIT dropped the case against him. Both the Fine Art program and the Social Sciences program are overseen by RMIT's Pro Vice Chancellor, Professor Colin Fudge.
HeathenLoveGod 10 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner: Steve got sacked for criticizing the administration. And when that didn't stop him asking questions about proposed restructure to the Fine Art program, they then launched a more personal attack on him and his art work, which they hoped he would be unable to defend in court. They are ruthless and autocratic and they want to stop freedom of expression and freedom to have a dissenting voice at all costs.
HeathenLoveGod 10 months ago
@thecorrectwing So you are telling me he got canned for criticizing the administration?
Listen, you CAN'T be ambiguous here. As ProfMTH has at the end of his videos, Veritas vos Liberatas ( think that's how it is spelled), which means "The Truth Shall Set You Free". You need to list the comments he made that are in question, because to the causal viewer, the ambiguity could be interpreted as "spin", you don't want that. You want to appear as the one giving full disclosure.
HonestDiscussioner 10 months ago
you&profmth are right, i did think about this as i was making it, but i didnt think i was being ambiguous because all my information is available at the 'save art from rmit' website, including steves comments and the discussion boards. some have been taken down unfortunately, but there is alot of comments, too many for me to show in full on youtube. every comment on the 'save art' page that steve made is an example of why they layed the charges against him
thecorrectwing 10 months ago
plus this has been covered by several news websites (such as crikey.com) so i didnt think that it needed more evidence, but ofcourse im willing to take your perspective over mine, you being a viewer after all
thecorrectwing 10 months ago
@thecorrectwing Take the ones that are the most innocent that they are accusing of being "defaming". If you have enough that are obviously innocent, or at least within the bounds of fair criticism and cannot be misconstrued as a personal attack, then you can make your case that they are only interested in silencing fair criticism, as they'll latch onto anything. THOSE comments are the ones you want to post, it doesn't have to be all of them. Take the worst (or best) examples you can find.
HonestDiscussioner 10 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner thanks thats really good, ill do that. i will be making more videos focusing on the various facets of the events, including the case, in more detail, and yes, ill include specific examples of the comments there. thanks again for your tips, very appriciated.
im still inexperienced with putting together videos so i had concerns like 'too much for ppl to read/ too much information at once/ video goes too long/ etc...' that were dictating my process
thecorrectwing 10 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner: Yes, he got sacked for criticizing the administration. And when that didn't stop him asking questions about proposed restructure to the Fine Art program, they then launched a more personal attack on him and his art work. They are ruthless and they want to stop freedom of expression and freedom to have a dissenting voice.
HeathenLoveGod 10 months ago
I think you need to give a little more detail. The extent of Steve's alleged crime was "supporting students' rights", I highly doubt he got in trouble for simply stating "I think students should have a say in their education", so what was the underlying context of the initial drama?
HonestDiscussioner 10 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner did you manage to see the newspaper link i put in the description? there might be some more answers there
thecorrectwing 10 months ago
thanks for the question, this is helping me gauge how clearly the story is being presented :)
thecorrectwing 10 months ago
@HonestDiscussioner The official reason was that steve had brought RMIT's reputation into disrepute by asking questions which were seen to be critical of Grierson's management.
thecorrectwing 10 months ago
How apalling that a university, which should champion freedom of speech and even dissent, should take this action! And for the head of an art school to feel frightened by art work is laughable! When universities demand the suppression of information and creativity, that is the sure sign they are on the way out. Are you sure that RMIT isn't in Stalinist Russia?
HeathenLoveGod 10 months ago