Talk:Michael Spence (legal scholar)

COI warning

I've added a COI warning to this article given the large amount of promotion material added. Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

POV issues

I have removed a large section of the article that had serious POV issues and overstated what was set out in the sources. Material can be added back if it is factual and backed up by the sources. Deus et lex (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so since some corrections have been made, may I encourage discussion of what else needs addressing specifically. Articles have been written about student misconduct at Spence's campus and others, but I'm unclear on to what extent this relates to Spence specifically. Has he done more than simply defended his university, which would be expected for his position? Is he being specifically criticised of having failed to act by one or several reliable source(s)? Samsara 14:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Samsara. The reason I removed the material on the colleges is for a few reasons:

• one, the colleges are not actually run by the university (they are run by various church bodies, etc., or at least people appointed by them), even though they are on the same campus as the university and are somewhat affiliated their staff are not university staff and the university doesn't have any control over them (see source below);
• two, the controversy over the colleges is not specifically relevant to Spence himself (other than him defending the university, which is part of his job as you say) - and so more clearly belongs on the university page or the college page (where I would agree the material is much more clearly relevant);
• three, if you read the sources, the proposed material that I removed omitted things like Spence's keeness to change the college culture, including criminalisation of hazing rituals, but that he had no control over the colleges and couldn't tell them what to do, and Freedom of Information reports revealing that Spence had in fact criticised the university for its failure to handle sexual harassment allegations.

Again, if there's something backed up by sources and it is specifically relevant to him (as opposed to just the university), it can of course be included. Deus et lex (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of material about campus assaults

Let's take a look at the material that keeps being added in (this is for the benefit of the IP users who keep editing this page - I am happy to remove this quote later to avoid BLP issues):

An important chapter of Spence's history at the University of Sydney involved his response, which many found wanting, to recurring issues of sexual misconduct on campus. Under Spence's tenure, reports found one in four women residing at the university's colleges had been sexually harassed. The problem was diagnosed as a result of a toxic, elite, masculine culture, which included initiation rituals such as hazing. Controversially, Spence's response stopped short of seizing control of the university's colleges, and instead offered a voluntary review process. In one press interview, Spence appeared to defend the colleges, to which he sent one of his daughters, claiming they were "remarkable communities that take pastoral care very seriously," and that the occurrence of sexual assault was "only a very small part of the story."

If you look, sentence by sentence, at the above paragraph and compare to the sources, you can see a number of real issues with including this material:

• first sentence: "which many found wanting" in the first sentence isn't backed up by any of the sources; no one is quoted as criticising his response (and several of the sources make it clear he unequivocally condemns the assaults). "Misconduct on campus" is misleading and NPOV because it implies it is occurring university-wide, whereas the sources make it clear the problem was with the colleges outside of the university's governance system, not the university itself;
• second sentence: "under Spence's tenure" is also NPOV because it suggests he was responsible for the culture of the colleges and what went on. The source I cited above, and sources 4 and 5 here, show that the university didn't control the colleges and it would require a takeover (which would require legislative amendment from the Government, not Spence) for that to happen. The remainder of the sentence about the report findings is true, but it doesn't concern Spence and is not relevant to his article;
• third sentence: this is all true, but also does not concern Spence and is not relevant to his article;
• fourth sentence: neither of the sources cited support this claim. Spence was interviewed in this article in response to a claim by a television executive that the university wanted to take over the college; Spence denies this and says he supports the colleges' independence from the university and would ask the government to respect that if they conducted a review of college governance arrangements. The word "Controversially" suggests there was some disquiet about Spence's decision but the articles don't say this. The claim about the "voluntary review" is nowhere to be found in either article;
• fifth sentence: the claim about his daughter is not in the source at all, it says he has five children and would hesitate about sending them to the University of Sydney at that time had he read about the assaults - because they damaged the university and the reputation of the colleges. The quote about "remarkable communities" is sourced, but it's a very selective quote because it omits that he goes on to say that he wants the behaviour eradicated and it is entirely unacceptable. Again though, I don't see how this is relevant to Spence's article (he's quoted in his capacity as the vice-chancellor about the university's response, which is not unusual).

This doesn't deal with the omissions I have raised earlier. This addition has serious POV issues (in addition to being unclear about exactly how it relates to Spence himself as opposed to the university) and should really not be added. I would have no problem with a sentence or two saying that during his tenure as V-C he had a report commissioned into college assaults, but there's really not much that can be said beyond that if you take it out of what has currently been added. Deus et lex (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive and highly partial edits from Deux et Lex

A user, Deus et lex, with an interest in Anglican church history is disruptively editing the page of his fellow anglican churchman Michael Spence to delete statistics of sexual assault rates on the campus he presided over. He is also deleting, in bulk, entire sections on staff underpayments and other issues of importance. 2405:6E00:1125:1F00:5C79:4150:82C9:FDBC (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

2405:6E00:1125:1F00:5C79:4150:82C9:FDBC, I have nothing to do with the subject of this article, so there is no need for the conspiracy theories. Please go and read WP:POV and WP:BLP if you want to edit this page, the material that is being added violates both of these policies and can be removed if it does. Material must be supported by reliable sources and must reflect what the sources actually say, not what you want them to say. The material about the college assaults is relevant to the university page, but it is not relevant or notable here, and it is written in a way that paints him in an entirely negative way that isn't supported by the sources at all. For example, the enquiry into the colleges started under Spence and he condemned the assaults (and the sources say that), but the article doesn't mention that whatsoever. The staff underpayment material doesn't talk about Spence other than him explaining what the underpayments were for, again it's more relevant to the university page than here. You can't just write an article and add whatever material you like, it must abide by Wikipedia policies. Deus et lex (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and the favourable editing and removal of any mention of controversy seems rather too good timing that just as the subject of the article is taking a new high-profile post. I also notice that Deus et Lex has deleted everything on his user page, perhaps to hide the fact that he too appears to be an Australian Anglican?188.28.96.201 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Cut out the conspiracy theories, I have nothing to do with the subject, and I've been editing this page for months. Deus et lex (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's be fair here. Deus et lex simply initialised their user page with a blank one. Samsara 13:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Alleged "salary controversy"

This section was added back in today. I went through it sentence by sentence (again) to check the sourcing in each case (check the edit summaries for more information). A small amount was moved above to the part added by Samsara (the only relevant parts that are sourced were a 60% increase between 2011 and 2016, and concerns by the union reported on in 2018). The remainder is not backed up by sources (particularly the interview with the Education Minister where he doesn't even talk about him, despite a question posed by the host) and has been removed. Deus et lex (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assaults on campus section

I reverted an edit that added a section on "Spence's response to sexual assaults on campus". The wording in particular seems to violate WP:NPOV. The sources don't support that it is "An important chapter of Spence's history", that many found his response "wanting", that his statement that he would not seize control of the colleges was "controversial", the "appeared to defend" is the editor's characterization, and the quote is cherry-picked. (The full quote is "I have five children. If I was reading these newspaper reports, I would have serious concerns about sending my children to the University of Sydney at the moment. It concerns me particularly because I know that these are also remarkable communities that take pastoral care very seriously, with high-achieving students and that this is only a very small part of the story." I suggest that interested editors review the sources provided in the edit I reverted and discuss what, if any of it, should be included in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies — I just saw this had been discussed a few months ago, earlier on this talk page. I'll leave this here anyway, as an explanation for why I didn't accept the pending edit and instead reverted it. Schazjmd (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you - the edits above were in fact only discussed earlier this week (the talk page is a bit out of order) but stem from an ongoing issue to clean this up. The claim (by the IP) I have been edit warring is not true - there are a number of IP users determined to put badly sourced material on this page. Samsara has done some good work improving the article where sources did say what they said and were relevant, but most of the additions being put forward is disruptive editing that violates NPOV and BLP. Appreciate your work reverting the edits. Deus et lex (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)