Sleazy private lives should not affect our judgment of professionals

26 November 2014

Last month a set of private emails from Sydney University professor Barry Spurr went public and created controversy because they were racist and sexist, and therefore highly offensive in the public domain. It was reminiscent of the episode two years ago when the media and courts trawled through the private text messages of parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper.

A former student of Spurr – ‘Kristen’ – posted a comment online in which she expressed deep offence at the emails. But she insisted that view was not at all relevant to any assessment of Spurr as a professional.

In her experience, Spurr was an outstanding teacher. Kristen recalled that her personal dealings with him at the time were 'coldly civil', which is all she required of him in his role as her teacher.

But the editor of New Matilda, which published the emails, suggested the persistent turn of mind behind the emails may have affected the professor’s impartiality as an English curriculum panel advisor of the Federal Government. If that is the case, he insisted, it is a ‘no brainer’ that the public has a right to know.

Public appointees are routinely required to declare private interests that may conflict with their public duty. Those interests are usually taken to be financial, because people have been known to offer personal financial inducements as a means to expedite favourable public policy outcomes by those in a position to influence outcomes.

New Matilda did not reveal its source but it appears editor Chris Graham received the emails from a person who believed there was an issue of conflict. The professor, understandably, questioned whether his private correspondence should ever have been made public. A court will shortly decide on that question.

Kristen saw a side of Professor Spurr that spoke to his professional standing in her eyes, and it was all good.

With respect to Slipper, the nation was given a good opportunity to see how he performed professionally. The consensus among those who observe parliamentary proceedings was that his style may have been idiosyncratic, but his even-handedness, good judgement, and competence in the Speaker’s chair, were all beyond question. Whatever else might be said about him, in that role Slipper was a consummate professional.

Yet unrelated and unresolved private utterances have destroyed Slipper’s career, and reportedly wrecked his marriage and his health. These included abuse of Cabcharge entitlements and a more serious sexual harassment allegation made by his former employee James Ashby.

The

AUSTRALIA

Sleazy private lives should not affect our judgment of professionals

Subscriber login