Sounds more like performance art than a thesis.

I've always felt there is a very thin (cracked ice thin) line between 'art' and 'political/social commentary that is bound to upset someone' art.

... As for the lecturers and their actions, I'm not quite sure what their ethics would be. A good question to ask my mum, who's been a lecturer forever.

It's quite possible that this is more of an unspoken ethical law for lecturers, that you don't say anything bad about students theses - probably more to do with keeping the funding/student sign-ups, than with anything else - if not, it's probably to do with the fact that learning is about pushing boundaries and exploring ideas.... or something just as vague.

Sticky Apple Legs
www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs

Puppets in Melbourne
www.thepromptcopy.com/pip

Before I start raving Jeff the second of your three links doesn't work, at least not for me.
What we could have here is a paradigm shift in the way certain academic subjects are taught or in the way they are examined and our two Professors may be "old school" hence their dislike of the subject matter. I have to say that I find the apparent subject matter of the Phd dissertation distasteful at the very least. Or was it an ironic post modern examination of political correctness. I suspect it is simply an academic approach to the same kind of exploitative mindless "humour" represented by "The Wedge" and "The Chaser". The reaction of the University is very similar to the way any academic is treated who refuses to follow the popular line in many subjects including the causes of global warming and for a while the issues in paleontology over whether dinosaurs were warm blooded or not. You silence the opposition either by strangling their research grants or by denying them publication in peer reviewed publications. It would seem that the University is more keen on the funding than intellectual debate. I do not buy the privacy issue either as the Phd candidate in question had placed his work in the public domain by a showing it to a group of students outside of the faculty.
I would like to see the film in order to make up my own mind about the subject matter and the treatment but it looks as though I never will.
I am also reminded of the artice in the papers and TV news this week about the two journalists fined a large sum of money for refusing to reveal sources. This also ties in with the debate a while ago about Australia's placement on the list of countries with a free press.
We are being silenced rapidly and effectively and soon even this much debate will be illegal. The labour party will not turn back the clock on this stuff as they are even more centralist and authoritarian than the Liberals. If the Universities are stifling free speech along with the government where next can we go.
We in the theatre need to stand up and be counted.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au

I am impressed that your drama teacher is that liberal in a christian school. Often educational establishments that are governed by a specific philosophy can be very uneasy about addressing topics that challenge their standpoints. You are lucky. Drama and theatre in general has always been a method for challenging the establishment and long may it remain so. In their own small ways the early Westminster farces challenged societies view of relationships and it's unwillingness to look at the real world. We are constantly evolving socially, mores change with each step forward and TV has accelerated that change. We need to take a long hard look at some of what we are doing.
Political correctness can be ridiculous. I have always loved the replacement of Manhole with Personnel Accessway.
But we must be careful. One of the good things that PC has done is to make us look at derogatory phrases. I am concerned that some comedians are (in a challenge to PC) beginning to use those phrases again. I don't include people like Steady Eddie, who better to point out the issues surrounding disability than those with disabilities.
I am concerned by the descriptions of the film in question. Obviously I have not seen it but it doesn't sound good.
I am rambling again so I'll shut up now.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au

I waited... and waited... and waited... and waited... for logon NOT to take place....

The key issues here are not "political correctness". They are whether or not the proper vetting occurred in the University's ethical clearance process. There is the issue as to whether the film was appropriate for a PhD dissertation. There is the issue of whether it was exploitative of the adult disabled persons depicted. There is the issue of the public comments of the two QUT lecturers and whether they should have made their objections publicly [if I remember rightly they addressed the issue internaly and were rebuffed]. And, there is the issue of their treatment by the university subsequently and the severity ($40,000+) of their suspension. These issues you might be in a position to comment on. Until you actually see the film at the centre of the row, you can only speculate about the issues it might or might not have raised, and whether or not it was exploitative. I find the treatment of the whistleblowers excessive.

Jim