|
|
|
Tribute to Diana Temple
|
Diana Temple’s support for women extended well beyond her colleagues and students in the Science faculties. Never a noisy protester at the barricades, Diana was a quiet worker, often in the background, speaking up for women, supporting worthy candidates for positions and promotion, and advocating improvements in the conditions for those already employed.
Her task was not always easy. Not until 1984 were universities scheduled under
the New South Wales anti-discrimination Act (1977) so there were no effective
procedures established at the University of Sydney, such as an EEO office, for
implementing improvements in the status of women or for dealing with complaints
by women of discriminatory behaviour. But at least a significant blow had been
struck by Peter Wilenski at the 1980 March meeting of Senate when he raised the
issue of possible discriminatory behaviour against women employees, as there had
been in other institutions. In response, Senate requested Vice-Chancellor Sir
Bruce Williams to report on the employment status of women in the university.
I heard about this request at the 1980 March meeting of the Academic Board and
asked the Vice-Chancellor whether he would enlist the co-operation of university
women already working on women’s issues in various fields to help him in his
task. Clearly rather astonished at my effrontery, he approached me on my way
back to my department and asked me why I had asked my question. I replied that a
number of women scholars were writing and publishing in the field of women’s
studies, including gender discrimination, and would be willing to discuss their
ideas with him, and that some women within the University did feel discriminated
against. With respect to the latter he replied that, surely, if that were so
they would have come to see him. My reply to this was that the majority of women
employees were in junior positions and, as he was the most powerful person on
campus, they probably would not feel easy approaching him. But I added that some
of us were not afraid of him and would be happy to help him in his work. More
effrontery, I suppose, but he asked me to write him a submission on the topic.
This I did in April 1980 after consulting various colleagues, including Diana,
whose comments were most helpful.
Subsequently, after some of us discussed the Vice-Chancellor’s project, a number
of women met in April, May and June and, with SAUT (Sydney Association of
University Teachers) support, decided to form an association to improve the
status of women on campus. At a meeting on 1 July 1980 the Association of Women
Employees of the University of Sydney (AWEUS) was formed and it welcomed women
from all positions, both academic and general, within the university. Diana was
an early member and supporter of the programme. We promptly informed the
Vice-Chancellor of our actions in a letter that same day and he asked to meet
those who signed it. At this meeting with him he offered us a copy of his draft
Report on the status of women on campus and suggested we respond to this and
give him our recommendations for policies that could be implemented to improve
women’s status.
Having elected a co-ordinating committee to begin dealing with writing our
response to him, we decided to inform all women on campus of the establishment
of AWEUS. We asked them to comment on the Vice-Chancellor’s preliminary report,
to give us, in confidence, any instance of discrimination they may have
experienced, together with suggestions for positive policies for improving their
status. To implement our project we needed a list of the names and addresses of
all women employees on campus. Not expecting any objection to our having this,
we asked the Vice-Chancellor for it. But shortly after our request, rumours
circulated among administration staff that there were ‘legal complications’
concerning privacy so we never got that list. Undaunted, we composed our own
and, regrettably, some of our helpers were subjected to harassing questions from
male colleagues as to how the final list was compiled and who was involved in
typing and collating it!
On 2 September 1980 at a general meeting of AWEUS we reported that submissions
had come in from campus women and we agreed to begin organising the data to be
submitted to the Vice-Chancellor. At subsequent meetings of AWEUS in September
and October we discussed our response further and then forwarded our completed
Report to the Vice-Chancellor on 27 October 1980. Unlike the Vice-Chancellor’s,
our Report was not a bare statistical exercise. Instead, we organized our
findings into thematic form under five main headings: Comments on the
Vice-Chancellor’s Preliminary Report; Major Areas of Direct Discrimination;
Experiential Material; Indirect Discrimination; Recommendations.
Altogether we made thirteen recommendations including better child-care on
campus; the need for the University to lobby for changes in the State
Superannuation Scheme to benefit women; an increase in women’s representation on
university committees; for proper procedures for dealing with direct and
indirect discrimination; for an ombudswoman to deal with matters of
discrimination – to name a few. We forwarded our Report to the Vice-Chancellor
in October 1980.
When the Vice-Chancellor presented his full Report to Senate in May 1981 our
AWEUS Report was attached in full and his recommendations incorporated those we
had suggested. Senate at its June meeting 1981 adopted the Vice-Chancellor’s
Report and its program of improvements for women. This decision was the
front-page item in The University of Sydney News of 9 June 1981, accompanied by
a photo of some AWEUS members who had contributed to the Association’s
submission. Diana Temple was one of them.
During these heady days Diana’s support, advice and encouragement were extremely
valuable. As a senior academic she knew the system and understood how best to
navigate through it. Moreover, her style and reputation were such that she was
eminently acceptable to those in power: she did not frighten the authorities,
nor did she ruffle their feathers. Her advocacy for women generally was strong
and consistent and many benefited from it.
Marie de Lepervanche
Marie de Lepervanche first
graduated from the University of Sydney in 1951 with a prize for Field Geology
but, as she was told by the then professor that no-one would appoint ‘a slip of
a girl’ like her to a field job, she changed course, became a librarian, went
overseas and ran The Institute for Psycho-Analysis Library in London from 1953
to 1957. When she returned to Australia she worked at ‘Nation’ magazine, married
George Munster in 1960, and returned to the University of Sydney to study
Anthropology in 1962. Thereafter, housewifery, pregnancy, study and part-time
tutoring kept her busy till she finished an MA qualifying course in 1966. In
1968 she was appointed to a Senior Tutorship and eventually began field work
among Punjabi immigrants in northern NSW. This work was the basis of her Ph.D,
awarded in 1979.
After travelling a rocky road of opposition to the Vietnam War and to
discrimination against women in academia, she was finally appointed to a
Lectureship in 1980, the year she helped establish AWEUS. She retired as an
Associate Professor in Anthropology in 1993. Her publications include essays and
books on Papua New Guinea social structure: Indian immigration to Australia:
racism, class, ethnic and gender discrimination.
|
|
