[University
of Canterbury, New Zealand, Council's decision to
reject complaint of Dr Thomas Fudge over two
matters alleging "book burning"]
STATEMENT
FROM DR MANN THE two resolutions below
were passed unanimously at today's meeting of the
University Council: 
Resolution 1
THE learned journal "History Now" is a
collective enterprise of the members of the
Department of History at the University of
Canterbury. The Editor decided to publish an
article by Dr
[Thomas] Fudge entitled "The Fate of
Joel Hayward in New Zealand Hands: From Holocaust
Historian to Holocaust?" The journal was printed
and ready for distribution before the Editorial
Board or any other members of the Department became
aware of the inclusion of the article. Because of concerns felt by members of the
Department about what they saw as possible
defamation issues, misrepresentation of the views
or actions of some members of the Department, the
misuse of what they understood to be confidential
Departmental information and the departure from a
departmental understanding relating to the Joel
Hayward thesis, a meeting of the Department was
called. At this meeting it was decided that the
article was unacceptable for publication in a
journal which is a collective enterprise of the
Department and for which, in consequence, all
members of the Department and the University are
responsible for its academic content. Dr Fudge was advised the Department would accept
the article for publication in an amended form in
its journal and that he was also free to publish
his views, with the assistance of the Department if
he wanted it, outside the "house journal". Dr Fudge
did not respond to the offer and the decision was
made by the Department not to publish the proposed
issue of the journal and in consequence to destroy
the printed copies of the journal. Dr Fudge complained to the Vice-Chancellor,
Professor [Roy] Sharp. Professor
Sharp heard representations from the key persons
involved. He was expressly mindful of the need to
maintain Dr Fudge's right to academic freedom, but
in a manner, which respected the rights of the
other members of the Department and of the
Department itself. Professor Sharp considered the
position from all perspectives and, in particular
gave weight to 
its offer to Dr Fudge to publish the article in
an amended form in its "house journal";
its explicit acceptance that Dr Fudge was free
to publish elsewhere;
the Department's offer to assist him in that
process,
Professor Sharp concluded that in the
circumstances the Department was entitled to
decline to publish Dr Fudge's views in a collective
Departmental Journal. He also concluded that there
was no denial of Dr Fudge's right to publish his
views elsewhere and therefore declined to
intervene. Dr Fudge disputed the Vice Chancellor's
conclusion and moved to air his views more widely,
including referring to them in his lectures. The
Vice-Chancellor then wrote to Dr Fudge as
follows: "The events of the past few weeks in
the Department of History have caused
considerable concern within the University and
in the wider community. The commitment of this
University and mine as its Vice-Chancellor to
academic freedom should not be doubted. That
commitment is one of the defining
characteristics of universities and I will
always fight to preserve it. I fully defend your
right to freedom of speech, subject to this
being exercised within the law and ethically
defensible. I consider formal lectures and
classes in the courses HIST 130 and HIST 365 to
be inappropriate University fora for the defence
of your personal position with regard to the
actions taken with History Now and the
expression of your opinions of staff on the
Editorial Board. Without in any way determining
matters, which may become the subject of a
formal investigation, I direct you not to use
such lectures and classes for those purposes." The Vice-Chancellor affirmed the position that
the lecture room is not the place to air the
lecturer's private dispute with his colleagues or
the University. His instruction was confined to
particular lectures and classes and related to
specified and limited actions. It was not of
general application and left Dr Fudge free to
express himself without restriction, both within
the University and outside it. The Council, having
considered the matter and after receiving advice
from the Vice-Chancellor Employment Committee, is
of the clear opinion and so resolves, that the
circumstances do not reveal:
Any action by the Vice-Chancellor which failed
to protect, promote or enhance academic freedom;
Any failure to act or other omission by the
Vice-Chancellor which failed to protect, promote
or enhance academic freedom;
Any action by the Vice-Chancellor with regard to
the content of lectures delivered by Dr Fudge
which impinged on his freedom of expression or
fail to protect, promote or enhance academic
freedom;
Any other action by the Vice-Chancellor which
could warrant investigation by the Council; That the Council confirms its continuing full
confidence in the Vice-Chancellor.
Resolution 2 The University Council considers the premature
release of the letter of complaint lodged with the
Council to the media as most improper. The process
whereby the Council might first consider the
matters raised by Dr Fudge was completely
abrogated, and resulted in mischievous media
publicity. The Council deplores this incident, and
expresses its regrets to the Vice Chancellor for
any distress caused to him by this unfortunate
breach, which was not of the Council's making.  
Our dossier on the Joel
Hayward case-
Response by Dr
Thomas Fudge tol the above document
-
Reader's
letter by Martin Lally to The
Listener
-
The
Listener article, smears Hayward and
"deniers"
-
Canterbury
University (NZ) Council passes two resolutions
in Sept 2003 rejecting complaints by Dr Thomas
Fudge of book burning and loss of academic
freedom in Hayward Case | Dr
Fudge's letter of response to these
resolutions | letter
from Martin Lally's committee circulating these
items
| 
write
to David Irving