Box 17, Item 1: Richard Routley? to Professor Peter Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Australian National University, 23 May 1983

Box 17, Item 1: Richard Routley? to Professor Peter Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Australian National University, 23 May 1983

Letter missing pages. Possibly written by Richard Routley (later Sylvan). Routley writes to Professor Peter Karmel, Vice-Chancellor of ANU, about his concerns of the university's involvement in the Public Affairs Conference (30-31 May), in relation to the consequences of nuclear war and Dr Denborough, the conference chair. Typescript letter, written on Australian National University (ANU) Centre for Continuing Education letter head. Marked private and confidential.

Unnumbered manuscript from collection, item number assigned by library staff.

The rightsholder for this work cannot be identified, or is identifiable but cannot be found, after a reasonable good faith search. If you believe you have a valid claim to the rights in this work, please contact us by email copyright@library.uq.edu.au

The University of Queensland's Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291, Box 17, Item 1

May 23, 1993

Richard Sylvan

For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library.

Letter, 1 leaf [962.77 KB]

Correspondences

I
I
1

/

I

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION

23 May 1983
Professor Peter Karmel,
Vice-Chancellor.
Dear Professor Karmel,
Publi .. Affairs Conference: The consequences of nuclear war.
I have to advise you that I have serious concerns about several aspects
of this conference, which takes place next Monday-Tuesday 30-31 May.
Despit the unusual amount of time that it has taken in an attempt to
establish and agree upon the programme, and an unprecedented level of
involvement_ of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor in an attempt to enlist
more senior authority to hold the programme to what is agreed, it has
not proved possible for the Centre for Continuing Education effectively
to be responsible for the programme, or indeed even to be sure what the
programme is.
I respect and personally happen to be in agreement with Dr Denborough in
his commitment to the cause of peace and prevention of nuclear war. The
large enrolment of the conference (well in excess of 300) is due to his
very considerable efforts in publicising it as well as to its intrinsic
contemporary interest and importance.
His commitment however is such as
to override all normal conventions of cooperative behaviour, and it leaves
me unable to give assurances that the conference will be ah activity proper
and appropriate to the University.
The programme as it now appears to be is the result of a succession of
compromises extracted through pressures of various kinds.
Those involved
in the Centre are by no means happy with the result, and fear that it has
now become over-crowded, as we have been nbliged to honour agreements entered
into, as I believe, illegitimately on behalf of the University.
The likely
high level of interest and energy among those taking part, and the frustration
of a crowded programme and little opportunity till late on for floor contribution,
may well make for an explosive situation.
Much of this I have accepted, as I believe has the Assistant Vice-Chancellor,
reluctantly and finding the alternatives still less attractive.
As the
programme now reads, my most serious concern is that Dr Denborough is to
chair the final session.
I believe that he is too dedicated to a point of
view, and too embedded in the whole emotional side of the subject, the planning
and the conference, to be able to take this part satisfactorily.
I am also
concerned that Dr Millar is apparently being limited in his participation to
chairing the session at which Dr Ball is to speak.
I consider that a strong
chairperson and a well balanced panel are very important for the final session
to be satisfactory from a University point of view.
The various kinds of
moral and other blackmail that have been employed may make this impossible,
but in this and some other respects the conference remains, for all the efforts
of CCE to retain balance and authoritative presentations, highly volatile.
One reason for writing is to alert you to this, as even now it may not be too
late to enhance the quality of what at any rate is certain to be a high profile
event.
The other is to anticipate and if possible avert a consequence of
any embarrassment which might be caused by the conference: a natural reaction
away from attempting any other important but controversial theme in public
affairs and extension conferences.
The cornmi ttee which was developing thi_s
conference came to be replaced by one man, and the attempt of Mr Plowman and
myself, with CCE colleagues, to fill the vacant place naturally proved less
than satisfactory.
The lesson should be not again to allow any member of
the University with a particular personal commitment of this kind to capture