Talk:Burgmann College

Notable Alumni

I notice that someone removed Peter Garrett, Kevin Rudd, Nick Minchin and John Dauth from the Notable Alumni section on the basis that they didn't "meet the criteria". Criteria for what? Surely, you're not suggesting that they're non-notable? There is an issue as to providing links to verify those facts - although their respective home pages record that they were educated at the ANU (with the exception of Dauth, who went to USyd and merely tutored at Burgmann), they do not specifically say Burgmann. However, anyone who was at Burgmann during the Rushbrook years has had the fact that they are all alum shoved down our throats! So, to the guy who removed this section, please offer an explanation on this page within one week or I will revert after that. Stan Hope 10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting question as to who removed the information about the leadership transition at Burgmann. This seems like a fairly important event in the college's history, and is as such worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. In my opinion this, at least, is indisputable. If there are individuals who disagree with the precise factual circumstances, or the tone of the language employed, I would encourage them to undertake a more considered editing rather than wholesale deletion of this interesting content. I would add that it is not the role of Wikipedia to serve as advertising for colleges and schools, and that this should be borne in mind by contributors.

I removed some frankly libellous content just now - to be frank, it smacks of bitterness and gossip. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The removed content is neither noteworthy, nor properly cited. Also, please sign and date your posts to these talk pages - the help feature will show you how. -TarenCapel 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

^{24 October 2006} - I noticed that you have edited this page because, in your opinion, it contains "libellous" material.

First of all, the word is defamation (the separate torts of libel and slander were abolished many years ago in the ACT). Secondly, you have failed to substantiate that claim. Therefore, if you wish to edit, please do so on a line-by-line basis and substantiate your claims with reference to the Defamation Act and relevant case law.

Secondly, it is rather difficult to provide citations for events about which no book or article has been written. But that doesn't make the events non-notable in the life of the College. The contributions you deleted were made by people who lived through the events in question contemporaneously. In the absence of a genuine case of defamation, it is useful to have the history of the events of 2005 recorded for posterity. One, the events described are simply not notable. Two, how are the events 'useful' as you put it? The description is also not NPOV. Every generation thinks their time at the college was the most important - it wasn't and isn't. I also note that some of the material would have to be fairly privileged - how did you come by it? It was a good article before you arrived with your axe to grind. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Just leave it alone on that basis. -TarenCapel 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In response -

• "It was a good article before you arrived with your axe to grind. Wikipedia is not your soapbox."

-Please don't assume that all of that material was contributed by one person. It was contributed by several people. I know the identity of some of them but there are others whose identity I don't know.

• "The description is also not NPOV."

-I agree that some parts of it are non-NPOV but I think that some are.

• For example, the following are examples of flagrant breaches of NPOV:

"The 2007 tutors in residence, some of whom have very poor academic records and unsound drinking habits..."

"Because his appointment to Burgmann is Dutton's first experience at an elite research university, some members of Council and Convocation have expressed doubts about his ability to provide academic leadership in the ANU's more competitive environment."

"In a controversial move, BRA President Tom Roth moved to restructure dramatically the roles performed by undergraduate Tutors, arguing that the "pastoral care" and academic roles should be split. It is understood this is in response to BRA's lack of confidence in the administration's ability to appoint candidates with the social skills necessary to carry out pastoral care duties."

• But the following are statements of fact and conform to NPOV (with the exceptions of material in italics):

"In August, 2005, Dr Lewis Rushbrook, the longest-serving Principal of an ANU college, was ousted when a combination of student, convocation and church representatives on the College's governing body combined to reject an extension of his tenure. The move caused ripples around other ANU colleges and marked a shift in power on the College's governing body, away from representatives of the college's sponsor churches, in favour of student and convocation (alumni) representatives.

The College's governing Council voted 18-10 against offering Dr Rushbrook a new 3-year contract. The margin of 8 votes was the same as the number of student representatives who voted at the Council meeting. It is assumed that student representatives voted as a bloc after undergraduate and postgraduate student leaders united in opposition to Dr Rushbrook's renewal and rejected an eleventh-hour plea from Council member and Rushbrook supporter, Professor Campbell MacKnight."

"In response, Dr Rushbrook gathered enough signatories to force an Extraordinary General Meeting of the College Council, to consider a motion to offer him a 3-year renewal. The Rushbrook team orchestrated a campaign to save his position, during which Ambassador John Dauth (see Notable Alumni) e-mailed all Council members in support of Rushbrook, and Rushbrook used the national college principals' mailing list to ask all Australian principals not to apply for his position. Student leaders responded with an intense lobbying effort before the crucial EGM."

They are verifiable by reference to a combination of minutes of Board and Council meetings, statutory declaration and e-mail correspondence.

• "One, the events described are simply not notable."

Burgmann College is 35 years old. Lewis Rushbrook was Principal of the College for 10 years, or almost one-third, of the College's history. He was also an original resident and his total involvement with the College, expressed in years, amounts to well over half of the College's history. His "sacking" (it was actually a refusal to renew his contract) as Principal is a notable event in the life of the College. If you were an historian, writing a book on the College's history, you would clearly be negligent in leaving out a description of this event.

If you are interested in university colleges and their governance, you would also realise that Burgmann's governance structure is very unusual. What makes it unusual is the high number of positions that current students occupy on the College's governing body. Burgmann's founders consciously chose this structure, as they wanted it to be a different, more progressive (this was 1971!) college. The events surrounding Rushbrook's departure in 2005 are an example of this mechanism working. As such, they are notable and of interest to anyone with an interest to the governance of university colleges in Australia (and perhaps further afield).

Burgmann College is a significant institution within one of Australia's elite research universities. The ousting of a Principal in controversial circumstances will prima facie be a notable event. The ousting of Ormond College's Principal after a sexual harrassment scandal was a notable event and became the subject of a book by Helen Garner, called The First Stone. I am not suggesting that the Rushbrook episode is of the magnitude of the Ormond scandal (because of the Ormond scandal's importance to feminism) but it is still notable for the reasons above and I raise the Ormond scandal in order to suggest to you that the ousting of an Australian college principal can be notable.

One author below argues that this article is "already pretty questionable in its existence". If you genuinely believe that, then you will need to establish some criteria for determining whether or not a particular university college is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article devoted to it. I assume that you are not proposing that "Trinity College, Cambridge" or "Magdalen College, Oxford" articles are "questionable in their existence". What about "Ormond College, Melbourne" or "Trinity College, Melbourne". If you think that the Burgmann article shouldn't exist, then please express your reasons.

• "I also note that some of the material would have to be fairly privileged - how did you come by it?"

-You seem unable or unwilling to understand that the material was written by a number of people who were themselves participants in the events, so yes, I and others have Board minutes, statutory declarations, records of telephone conversations, correspondence, etc. Stan Hope 11:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

---

May I ask who moved to have this page protected and what was the content that prompted this? Never Mind, I just read the rev Log, Thanks J.O.G. A pity that some want to vandalise a good and informative page. Scott Collis

---

there should be a common infobox for the ANU colleges. I've made one for Bruce Hall which we can use as a template. Khing 07:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

---

2005/2006 Leadership Discussion

Please stop reinstating this unsubstantiated, un-notable soapbox leadership discussion. Note:

1. 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
2. 1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox

[[1]] -TarenCapel 07:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this section wholesale. I will repeat my suggestion to you that if you have problems with parts of it, then please make your revisions on a line-by-line basis.

The section is not original thought; nor is it an opportunity for a soapbox. It describes historical events at Burgmann College. As the other editor argued, 'censoring history is bad form'. Nor is it unsubstantiated. It was written by people who were present and participated in the events described.

---

Can somebody with access change the link "Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn" to "Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn". Ikeshut 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Could someone please let me know who is making the changes to this page. They are a gutless wonder.

---

2007 Residential Tutor Appointment Controversy

Whilst the page is now under protection, I would strongly recommenend that the section pertaining to the 2007 tutorship appointments be completely re-edited, if not removed entirely. The article is unnecessarily POV and holds no relevant facts as to the history of Burgmann College, which is arguably what this page is intended for. Speculation and what "many students" believe about the capacities of the principal are unneccesary for a description of Burgmann College and its history, and the lack of substantiated evidence speaks volumes for the editor's personal opinions. To abuse the service of Wikipedia in a way to give voice to the "rumours" that the editor wishes to make known discredits not only Burgmann College, but the Wikipedia community in general. -- LordVader06, 28/10/06 15:11

I agree in relation to the 2007 tutorship section; it should be removed. I do not agree that ALL of the 2005/06 section is non-NPOV (see my comments above) but parts of it are in breach and should be removed. Stan Hope 11:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I echo these sentiments. The entire 2007 section (and really the 2005/06 section) is an overblown POV. I should say, I agree with a lot of it, but it is simply against everything that Wikipedia is to include rumours and evident spite, particularly in an article which - to my mind - is already pretty questionable in its existence. 150.203.236.178 05:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the 2005/2006 section is reasonable as most of it at this point refers to real events or at least reasonable speculation about a past event that is quite important in the college history. The 2007 section is silly as it is far more POV and there is no point in a Wikipedia article having dubious speculation about the future (only references to past event). In addition it drags in criticisms of people who cannot reasonably be said to have chosen a public position in which they must endure public scrutiny. --komencanto 12:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)