Peter Rathjen is a well known biochemist and molecular biologist, and, most recently, was a Vice-Chancellor and president of the University of Adelaide in Australia. Earlier this month, however, he was forced to step down when he became the subject of a misconduct investigation by South Australia's Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC.)
ICAC investigations are normally top secret, with serious penalties for journalists or individuals who divulge confidential information. Although the inquiry has been widely reported in the Australian press, as far as I know only The Australian has provided a reason for it: That Rathjen had engaged in "a personal relationship with a staff member." (Depending on where you access this article, it may be behind a paywall.)
(Just 24 hours earlier, the university's Chancellor, Kevin Scarce, resigned his position. While the reasons are still unclear, there are no allegations of misconduct being reported as of yet.)
Although I have talked to sources at the university, I cannot claim to know more than that at the moment, as information concerning the matter has been closely guarded. I do, however, know something about Rathjen's long history of alleged misconduct, which includes chronic and widely known sexual harassment at the University of Adelaide during his earlier tenure there as a professor and department chair; a misconduct case at a major Australian university which found him guilty of sexual assault against a student; and, while Vice-Chancellor at the University of Tasmania, his alleged protection of the notorious pedophile Nicolaas Bester, who re-offended while a PhD student at UTAS.
Rathjen first came on my radar last year when I was reporting on the case of Alan Cooper, formerly chief of Adelaide's ancient DNA center, who has since been fired for misconduct. A number of women who had been at the university during Rathjen's earlier tenure there (1990-2006) approached me, concerned that Rathjen would be making the final decision about Cooper's fate. At that time, I was told by multiple sources, Rathjen had developed a well known reputation as a sexual harasser. The sources included individuals who had directly experienced this behavior.
The Alan Cooper case revealed that misconduct, including bullying and sexual harassment, had been tolerated at the University of Adelaide for many years. Thus, while complaints against Cooper were made to the university administration beginning in 2006, the first full year that he was in charge of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD), administrators ignored them until last year, when survivors of the abuse finally began to go public. Media coverage in the Australian press, along with major scientific journals such as Science and Nature, made it impossible for Adelaide officials to continue covering up for Cooper, despite the major prestige that ACAD had brought to the university.
(Cooper is currently appealing his firing, and a hearing on the matter is expected around July. University staff have been interviewing and re-interviewing many of the original complainants to get their case ready.)
Bullying and nepotism in the School of Education, abuse of staff at the Adelaide Dental School.
Soon after I began reporting on Alan Cooper, sources within the university began to approach me with allegations of misconduct in other schools and departments. The first such case concerned the head of the School of Education, Faye McCallum. Again, multiple sources testified to an atmosphere of bullying and harassment in the school; in August 2018, the National Tertiary Education Union NTEU), which represents employees in Australian higher education, was forced to write to Jennie Shaw, executive dean in the faculty of arts, because no action against the numerous complaints of bullying, overwork, abuse, and questionable staff appointments had been taken despite numerous complaints. Unfortunately, on May 15, Shaw announced that McCallum had been given a two-year extension of her appointment as head of the School of Education. That fight goes on.
Meanwhile, very similar complaints have arisen in the world-class Adelaide Dental School, which over the last few years has seen its autonomy eroded by the edicts of university administrators. Earlier this year, NTEU conducted a confidential survey which included questions about health and safety, bullying, and confidence in senior school and faculty management. About 80% of staff gave negative responses, according to an April 6, 2020 letter from Cheryl Baldwin--division industrial organizer for the NTEU's South Australia division--to Benjamin Kile, executive dean of Adelaide's Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. I have considerable documentation of the alleged abuses and will be reporting on them in more detail soon.
Peter Rathjen: Sexual assault, protecting a pedophile, ---?
As I mentioned above, during Rathjen's tenure at a major Australian university, he was found guilty of sexual assault against a student. As this is a very sensitive matter, kept strictly secret, I am not identifying the university in question to protect sources. I hope to be able to say more soon, but there is no doubt about the truth of the matter. Australian academic culture, like the academic culture of most countries, is rife with retaliation and threats of retaliation. The level of fear about speaking out is quite high, especially as Australian science is still largely ruled by an old boys' club in which women (and many men) are the subject of constant intimidation.
This brings us to the case of Nicolaas Bester, one of Australia's most notorious pedophiles. Bester was convicted of grooming and sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl, Grace Tame, while a teacher at St. Michael's Collegiate School in Hobart, Tasmania. In 2011, Bester was sentenced to two years and ten months in jail for his crimes. But due to archaic Tasmanian laws (also enforced in Australia's Northern Territory) that purport to protect victims but actually mask the identity of abusers, Tame had to wait nine years before she could speak out about what happened to her. With the help of journalist and anti-sexual assault advocate Nina Funnell, Tame scored a historic win in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, winning the right to identify herself and name her abuser.
(Funnell wrote a number of articles about the Bester case, including one in which Bester claimed to have been the real victim.)
Bester later entered a graduate program in chemistry at the University of Tasmania (UTAS.). And in 2016, while a PhD student there, Bester was sentenced again to four months in jail for remarks he made on social media about his abuse of Grace Tame, including calling his abuse of her "awesome" and "enviable." A judge ruled that this behavior amounted to the production of child exploitation material online, which seems a reasonable decision at the very least.
Enter Peter Rathjen again. After Bester served his new jail sentence, he returned to the University of Tasmania campus, where Rathjen was Vice-Chancellor, to continue his PhD work, unimpeded by any action from the university administration. That failure to protect students led, in spring of 2017, to a petition campaign calling upon the university to ban him. The campaign was led by the UTAS Women's Collective, and ultimately gathered more than 1600 signatures. "Myself and many others are incredibly disappointed with the University of Tasmania for not removing Nicolaas Bester from campus," said Heidi La Paglia, a member of the collective who started the petition.
The university refused to take any action. According to my sources, Rathjen was instrumental in the decision to allow Bester to finish his graduate work. But both he and Bester had their supporters. Chief among them was the well known Australian barrister Greg Barns, an advocate for prison reform and staunch defender of Julian Assange. In a Twitter exchange with me after he saw my social media posts on Rathjen and the Bester case--in which he accused me of engaging in a "sleazy trial by media campaign"--Barns praised the former UTAS Vice-Chancellor, saying that "Rathjen behaved impeccably and in accordance with the rule of law and fairness."
To sum up simply: It appears that Peter Rathjen has been involved in sexual misconduct, both as an abuser and an enabler, for most of his career. There may be some irony in the fact that his career will probably end in Adelaide, where his reputation as a serial sexual predator first began.
There will be more to say about this soon, and I will post updates here.
Update July 20, 2020: Rathjen resigns.
Peter Rathjen has resigned, supposedly due to "ill health," while still under investigation for serious misconduct. I won't comment on his health issues, other than to say that his abuse of women, over his entire career, caused ill mental health to many.
Here is Chancellor Catherine Branson's announcement to the university community. Some readers of this blog might have comments on how well Mike Brooks, who has been serving as acting Vice-Chancellor in Rathjen's absence, has upheld the university's purported principles of fair treatment of students and staff over his years as an administrator at the university.
Resignation of Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen AO Dear Colleagues I am writing to inform you that the University’s Council has accepted the resignation of Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen AO, due to ill health. The University extends its appreciation for the contribution Professor Rathjen has made since taking up the role in 2018. Professor Mike Brooks has been Acting Vice-Chancellor since Professor Rathjen was granted leave of absence in early May 2020, and I am grateful to Professor Brooks for the seamless continuity of leadership he is providing to our University community. The University will make an announcement about the search for a new Vice-Chancellor in due course. In the meantime, our focus will remain on the continued delivery of high-quality teaching, learning and research, supporting the State’s social and economic needs, and responding to the challenges faced by our community from the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic. Kind regards Cathy -- The Hon. Catherine Branson AC QC Chancellor Office of the Chancellor and Council Secretariat The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005 Ph: +61 8313 5668 Fax: +61 8313 4407 Email: chancellor@adelaide.edu.au
ICAC investigations are normally top secret, with serious penalties for journalists or individuals who divulge confidential information. Although the inquiry has been widely reported in the Australian press, as far as I know only The Australian has provided a reason for it: That Rathjen had engaged in "a personal relationship with a staff member." (Depending on where you access this article, it may be behind a paywall.)
(Just 24 hours earlier, the university's Chancellor, Kevin Scarce, resigned his position. While the reasons are still unclear, there are no allegations of misconduct being reported as of yet.)
Although I have talked to sources at the university, I cannot claim to know more than that at the moment, as information concerning the matter has been closely guarded. I do, however, know something about Rathjen's long history of alleged misconduct, which includes chronic and widely known sexual harassment at the University of Adelaide during his earlier tenure there as a professor and department chair; a misconduct case at a major Australian university which found him guilty of sexual assault against a student; and, while Vice-Chancellor at the University of Tasmania, his alleged protection of the notorious pedophile Nicolaas Bester, who re-offended while a PhD student at UTAS.
Rathjen first came on my radar last year when I was reporting on the case of Alan Cooper, formerly chief of Adelaide's ancient DNA center, who has since been fired for misconduct. A number of women who had been at the university during Rathjen's earlier tenure there (1990-2006) approached me, concerned that Rathjen would be making the final decision about Cooper's fate. At that time, I was told by multiple sources, Rathjen had developed a well known reputation as a sexual harasser. The sources included individuals who had directly experienced this behavior.
The Alan Cooper case revealed that misconduct, including bullying and sexual harassment, had been tolerated at the University of Adelaide for many years. Thus, while complaints against Cooper were made to the university administration beginning in 2006, the first full year that he was in charge of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD), administrators ignored them until last year, when survivors of the abuse finally began to go public. Media coverage in the Australian press, along with major scientific journals such as Science and Nature, made it impossible for Adelaide officials to continue covering up for Cooper, despite the major prestige that ACAD had brought to the university.
(Cooper is currently appealing his firing, and a hearing on the matter is expected around July. University staff have been interviewing and re-interviewing many of the original complainants to get their case ready.)
Faye McCallum |
Bullying and nepotism in the School of Education, abuse of staff at the Adelaide Dental School.
Soon after I began reporting on Alan Cooper, sources within the university began to approach me with allegations of misconduct in other schools and departments. The first such case concerned the head of the School of Education, Faye McCallum. Again, multiple sources testified to an atmosphere of bullying and harassment in the school; in August 2018, the National Tertiary Education Union NTEU), which represents employees in Australian higher education, was forced to write to Jennie Shaw, executive dean in the faculty of arts, because no action against the numerous complaints of bullying, overwork, abuse, and questionable staff appointments had been taken despite numerous complaints. Unfortunately, on May 15, Shaw announced that McCallum had been given a two-year extension of her appointment as head of the School of Education. That fight goes on.
Meanwhile, very similar complaints have arisen in the world-class Adelaide Dental School, which over the last few years has seen its autonomy eroded by the edicts of university administrators. Earlier this year, NTEU conducted a confidential survey which included questions about health and safety, bullying, and confidence in senior school and faculty management. About 80% of staff gave negative responses, according to an April 6, 2020 letter from Cheryl Baldwin--division industrial organizer for the NTEU's South Australia division--to Benjamin Kile, executive dean of Adelaide's Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. I have considerable documentation of the alleged abuses and will be reporting on them in more detail soon.
Grace Tame |
Peter Rathjen: Sexual assault, protecting a pedophile, ---?
As I mentioned above, during Rathjen's tenure at a major Australian university, he was found guilty of sexual assault against a student. As this is a very sensitive matter, kept strictly secret, I am not identifying the university in question to protect sources. I hope to be able to say more soon, but there is no doubt about the truth of the matter. Australian academic culture, like the academic culture of most countries, is rife with retaliation and threats of retaliation. The level of fear about speaking out is quite high, especially as Australian science is still largely ruled by an old boys' club in which women (and many men) are the subject of constant intimidation.
This brings us to the case of Nicolaas Bester, one of Australia's most notorious pedophiles. Bester was convicted of grooming and sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl, Grace Tame, while a teacher at St. Michael's Collegiate School in Hobart, Tasmania. In 2011, Bester was sentenced to two years and ten months in jail for his crimes. But due to archaic Tasmanian laws (also enforced in Australia's Northern Territory) that purport to protect victims but actually mask the identity of abusers, Tame had to wait nine years before she could speak out about what happened to her. With the help of journalist and anti-sexual assault advocate Nina Funnell, Tame scored a historic win in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, winning the right to identify herself and name her abuser.
(Funnell wrote a number of articles about the Bester case, including one in which Bester claimed to have been the real victim.)
Bester later entered a graduate program in chemistry at the University of Tasmania (UTAS.). And in 2016, while a PhD student there, Bester was sentenced again to four months in jail for remarks he made on social media about his abuse of Grace Tame, including calling his abuse of her "awesome" and "enviable." A judge ruled that this behavior amounted to the production of child exploitation material online, which seems a reasonable decision at the very least.
Enter Peter Rathjen again. After Bester served his new jail sentence, he returned to the University of Tasmania campus, where Rathjen was Vice-Chancellor, to continue his PhD work, unimpeded by any action from the university administration. That failure to protect students led, in spring of 2017, to a petition campaign calling upon the university to ban him. The campaign was led by the UTAS Women's Collective, and ultimately gathered more than 1600 signatures. "Myself and many others are incredibly disappointed with the University of Tasmania for not removing Nicolaas Bester from campus," said Heidi La Paglia, a member of the collective who started the petition.
The university refused to take any action. According to my sources, Rathjen was instrumental in the decision to allow Bester to finish his graduate work. But both he and Bester had their supporters. Chief among them was the well known Australian barrister Greg Barns, an advocate for prison reform and staunch defender of Julian Assange. In a Twitter exchange with me after he saw my social media posts on Rathjen and the Bester case--in which he accused me of engaging in a "sleazy trial by media campaign"--Barns praised the former UTAS Vice-Chancellor, saying that "Rathjen behaved impeccably and in accordance with the rule of law and fairness."
To sum up simply: It appears that Peter Rathjen has been involved in sexual misconduct, both as an abuser and an enabler, for most of his career. There may be some irony in the fact that his career will probably end in Adelaide, where his reputation as a serial sexual predator first began.
There will be more to say about this soon, and I will post updates here.
Update July 20, 2020: Rathjen resigns.
Peter Rathjen has resigned, supposedly due to "ill health," while still under investigation for serious misconduct. I won't comment on his health issues, other than to say that his abuse of women, over his entire career, caused ill mental health to many.
Here is Chancellor Catherine Branson's announcement to the university community. Some readers of this blog might have comments on how well Mike Brooks, who has been serving as acting Vice-Chancellor in Rathjen's absence, has upheld the university's purported principles of fair treatment of students and staff over his years as an administrator at the university.
Resignation of Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen AO Dear Colleagues I am writing to inform you that the University’s Council has accepted the resignation of Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen AO, due to ill health. The University extends its appreciation for the contribution Professor Rathjen has made since taking up the role in 2018. Professor Mike Brooks has been Acting Vice-Chancellor since Professor Rathjen was granted leave of absence in early May 2020, and I am grateful to Professor Brooks for the seamless continuity of leadership he is providing to our University community. The University will make an announcement about the search for a new Vice-Chancellor in due course. In the meantime, our focus will remain on the continued delivery of high-quality teaching, learning and research, supporting the State’s social and economic needs, and responding to the challenges faced by our community from the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic. Kind regards Cathy -- The Hon. Catherine Branson AC QC Chancellor Office of the Chancellor and Council Secretariat The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005 Ph: +61 8313 5668 Fax: +61 8313 4407 Email: chancellor@adelaide.edu.au
234 Comments
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/12/29/journal-retracts-paper-by-controversial-australian-journalist/
The JBC retracted the paper, but UoA administrators have different standards.
These are also worth reading.
https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/about+us/reviews+and+consultation/independent+commissioner+against+corruptions+report/independent+commissioner+against+corruptions+%28icac%29+report
https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/136380/Letter-Premier-Attachments-Health-Governance.pdf
https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/136381/Initial-Gov-Response-ICAC-report-SA-Health-Governance.pdf
Some people were caught by surprise by ICAC integrity survey and investigation on the Vice Chancellor this year.
Nareen Young - "Victims of sexual harassment don’t get the support they deserve. I’m looking at you, HR industry" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/05/victims-of-sexual-harassment-dont-get-the-support-they-deserve-im-looking-at-you-hr-industry?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05071-7
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07532-5
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jan/07/third-cambridge-university-staff-experienced-bullying
https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/wellcome-trust-makes-reporting-harassment-mandatory-36375
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ukri-chair-promises-radical-approach-tackling-harassment
https://www.sciencemag.org/features/2020/01/academic-bullying-desperate-data-and-solutions
https://www.badapplebullies.com/australianunistories.htm
In response to this, it's entirely possible that Adelaide Uni would have to sue itself...
I found out during Rathjen's time at UTas that my Program Director (teaching), was actually imprisoned, banned, and ruled "unsuitable to teach" for peadophilia in Queensland soon after I left the campus in the 000's because I thought the course was bad (I also had other documentary evidence & audit reports to add. The type of thing thats pretty common probably at an obscure uni like UTas), but anyway I asked Rathjen to refund my HECS and he said no, anyway seems relevant.....
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/careers/suspended-university-of-queensland-student-activist-could-face-contempt-action/news-story/9e9722966a59df1a0cbd898ef762751c
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/the-australian-uni-student-china-wanted-to-silence-whose-simple-protest-sparked-a-living-hell/news-story/4fcea3b66535bed6d6e08a320cd246ae
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/queensland-police-investigating-top-chinese-diplomat-after-complaint-from-aussie-uni-student/news-story/d9bd9f8838076ab36156346403cc04f3
From the Courier Mail "UQ execs referred to watchdog over corruption claims: The University of Queensland’s two highest-ranking executives have been referred for investigation over claims of corruption and failure to disclose foreign influence by lawyers representing embattled student activist Drew Pavlou..."
https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Feducation%2Funiversity-of-queensland-executives-referred-to-ccc-over-corruption-claims%2Fnews-story%2F25c1f9440abf628492ea0a9d68903952&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium
https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1265449719523938304
https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1266120537518100481
https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1277230431033794560
http://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2018/12/sexual-abusers-i-have-known.html
The University of Adelaide was founded on 6 November 1874 with the support of Walter Watson Hughes and Thomas Elder. One wonders what they would think of the way it is run today.
How top heavy can you get? Layers of DVC'c and PVC's of all kinds, looking like cabinet ministers. Faculties isolated through the Provost, which was Brooks under Rathjen. Bet none of this will change when the Covid Cuts start!
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/education/tertiary/amid-icac-probe-peter-rathjen-resigns-as-vicechancellor-of-the-university-of-adelaide/news-story/32603999bbd8e89149a67deae7e6b413
Professor Peter Rathjen has resigned as vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide, citing ill health.
His resignation was announced by chancellor Catherine Branson QC on Monday “The university extends its appreciation for the contribution Professor Rathjen has made since taking up the role in 2018,” she said.
The recent issues with Peter Rathjen and Sam Gue really only reflect the fact that it is only in recent times that women have felt safe raising these issues. People who knew Sam Gue as a student are surprised that things did not end badly for him back in the mid-1980s. Since then, as he has moved into more senior positions, there have been lots of examples of female postgraduate students who have been treated very badly and withdrawn for the clinical training program that he has run. When others have offered to support them to pursue some sort of justice, they have insisted on the matter not being pursued out of fear for their reputations and careers. Added to this, the prevailing culture in clinical training programs has commonly been very inappropriate.
In recent times the broader issues in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences have resulted in the development of a “toxic culture”. This seemed to have coincided with the appointment of Alastair Burt as Executive Dean and Natalia Hubczenko as Executive Director.
The circulating stories of the difficulties that the Deans/Heads of the Schools had working with these senior faculty people are hard to believe. Early on in his tenure Alastair Burt, with no real consultation, centralised all of the administrative support for the Schools with the loss of most of the corporate knowledge and all of the day to day operational support for staff and students. Who knows what was going on within the Schools, but in fairly quick succession the Faculty lost the majority of its it’s Heads of School/Deans. Professor Braunack-Mayer (Public Health) and Professor Kitson (Nursing) were both very highly regarded academics who left to take senior positions in other Universities.
The situation around the Dean of Dentistry (Professor Richards) is a bit more mysterious. The public statements about the termination of his contract indicated that he had chosen to return to his teaching, research and clinical practice, which he appears to have successfully done. The private stories are that he was very highly regarded by both staff, students and the wider dental profession and had refused to resign despite unrelenting and unreasonable pressure from Alastair Burt and so his contract was terminated without any real reason every being offered. Publicly at least that seemed to be end of the matter, but it is rumoured that Professor Richards did attempt to raise issues about Alastair Burt’s behaviour though a formal Code of Conduct complaint. Nobody seems to know what happened to that complaint, but there is a story circulating that somebody did overhear a private discussion between university HR staff in which one person, referring to this case, seemed pleased with the fact that the University had recently successfully “defended” its 40th consecutive code of conduct complaint. That alone is evidence of the sort of culture that pervades the organisation.
Since then Alastair Burt and Natalia Hubczenko have departed and a new Executive Dean (Ben Kile) has been appointed, but whether or not things will improve is yet to be seen. The recent departure of the Dean of Medicine (Professor Symons) under mysterious circumstances is perhaps an indication that things are not getting better.
The middle management is bloated at Adelaide Uni with the people playing politics and power brokers with ambitions to rise to the top, and those eager to please. The bloating is so bad that universities are not providing education and spending money on educating students, teaching staff are forced to deliver courses and told to teach massive classes with no resources but Rathjen et. al. team expect staff to pass students.
It only got worse under the culture set up by Peter Rathjen and the club of people that played the game to get promoted under him in Faculties.
Universities should not need to pay CEO salaries to positions of prestige and positions of service, in doing so you attract all the wrong people.
People like Rathjen have been allowed to create the so called "clubs" where strategic alliances is the way to the top.
"Professor Michael Brooks has been appointed in various roles of Pro Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost over 10 years – this makes you wonder what he knew about the rotten culture and if he is somehow responsible for it".
"Burt was protected by higher authorities (Deputy Vice Chancellors, Provost, Interim Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor) so Professor Michael Brooks has a lot of explaining to do! Eventually, Burt’s bad behavior caused so many problems to the Vice Chancellor that the university decided not to renew his contract..."
After all, Mike Brooks was managing Alastair Burt and other Executive Deans. When Burt used some underhanded deal with the past Dentistry School Manager, Lesley Steele, to terminate Lindsay Richards' contract as the dentistry dean, Mike Brooks just authorized it. No questions asked. This coup brought in Richard Logan and look at the state of the dentistry school now. Talk about bullying and cover ups for sexual harassment.
When things go seriously wrong under a leader, they are ultimately responsible for those actions. If you ask who should be responsible for cover ups of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault at universities for years, they should be deans, executive deans, deputy deans, provost, vice chancellors, human resources and other managers responsible for cover-ups.
In over 10 years, Mike Brooks did not know about any of those problems? If he knew, did he do his best to tackle them? You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work that out.
Under Burt, the world famous Colgate Australian Clinical Dental Research Centre (CACDRC) was closed. This was a crown in the jewel for the dentistry school but its director, Emeritus Professor Mark Barold, stood up for the school and criticized the Executive Dean (Justin Beilby) and the Vice Chancellor (Warren Bebbington) for incompetence and mismanagement. The higher authorities did not like this and forced the well-performing research center to shut down. Mark is still a world renown academic (Member of the Order of Australia; IADR Distinguished Scientist for Research in Periodontal Disease 2015; & Editor of the Australian Dental Journal).
The dentistry school is still riding on the world class status created by researchers like Mark Bartold and other prominent scientists who have now retired or left. There are very few in the dentistry school who can even do any research. Check in 5 years - the facade will have completely collapsed. Check if Richard Logan will go down in history as the school's worst ever dean protected by Ben Kile.
Comment on July 21, 2020 at 3:57 PM - *Jewel in the crown (not the other way around)
Another prominent figure, Emeritus Professor Grant Clement Townsend (16th June, 1950 – 25th May 2019), Member of the Order of Australia (AM) & Recepient of the 2016 IADR Distinguished Scientist Award in Craniofacial Biology Research, was treated very poorly by Alistair Burt, Richard Logan and other managers. Grant's view was that the current dean was an incompetent manager who would say nothing or very little at meetings. When Logan was asked why he would not try to stand up for the dentistry school, he said he wanted to be dean one day. Speaking up would have hurt his chances of becoming the dean. Fast forward few years and he becomes a puppet dean who is willing to bully people below him and please people above him.
Why do we get people like this? Why, when they have left a trail of destruction in one place, do they somehow pop up in another - with the same or better position - as if their past ineptitude, bullying and/or misconduct never existed?
In Australia, there are two main reasons which have been slowly descending on the University sector for the last 30 years: (i) The corporatisation of education. (ii) The kowtowing by senior management to the Federal Government. VCs used to believe in and act for their own staff as their primary concern. Staff were considered assets - people to be managed and encouraged. There is barely a VC now fitting this profile. All - or almost all - are first and foremost government lackeys. As a result, we've now had nearly a decade of staff being viewed, first and foremost, as liabilities.
With the change in VC profiles, has come the gradual, inevitable change in almost every position of the senior management teams. It has now reached down to Faculty Deans, and is becoming firmly entrenched even at Head of School level. As someone pointed about above - these people manage exclusively up to the people above them. Their care, concern, and consideration for, and their encouragement of, the people below them - the people to whom, in reality, they should be providing management - is dwindling towards extinction, and in many cases is not even thought about.
Let's hope getting rid of Rathjen sparks revival of, and support for, the good things in Australian tertiary education. At the moment he represents a sick (and sickening) beast in a badly ailing herd.
Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd), Chancellor
Professor Ian Young AO, immediate past Vice-Chancellor of ANU
Professor John Williams, Chair, Academic Board
The Hon Catherine Branson QC, Chair, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee
Ms Christine Locher, Chair, People and Culture Committee
Mr David Hill, Member, University Council
Announcing the new Vice-Chancellor
It is with great pleasure that I can inform you that our next Vice-Chancellor and President will be Professor Peter Rathjen.
Today’s meeting of the University Council accepted the recommendation of the selection panel, following consideration of an excellent and diverse field of individuals who had applied for the position.
In our deliberation, we were very mindful of the considered input from many alumni at the forum I held in early March, to hear your perspective as to what you saw we needed to look for in our next Vice-Chancellor.
Professor Rathjen has an extensive track record in forging meaningful external relationships, an exceptional grasp on the public policy landscape for higher education and demonstrated track record in transformative leadership.
For Professor Rathjen, this is somewhat of a homecoming, having studied at the University of Adelaide, as well as carrying out his first research and leadership roles here.
Professor Rathjen is an internationally recognised genetics and stem cell researcher who graduated from the University of Adelaide, before being awarded a Rhodes Scholarship.
He is currently Vice-Chancellor at the University of Tasmania, having been in that role for six years. Prior to that, he was Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) at the University of Melbourne.
He worked at the University of Adelaide from 1990, including in leadership roles as Head of the Department of Biochemistry from 1996, Foundation Head of the School of Molecular BioSciences from 2000 and Foundation Executive Dean of a new Faculty of Sciences from 2003.
In his time in Tasmania, Professor Rathjen is recognised for having established strong outward links with the State Government, industry, community and alumni.
He has led an ambitious building program, and has developed and recruited a cohesive executive leadership team.
Peter has expressed great excitement about the opportunity to strengthen the University of Adelaide’s place as a world class university for the next generations of students.
The panel couldn’t imagine a person better placed to lead us at this challenging time for the tertiary sector. Professor Rathjen will build on the University’s extraordinary success and trusted brand, by developing a strategy of continual growth.
Professor Rathjen will take up the role in early 2018.
In the meantime, I want to thank Prof Mike Brooks, for continuing in the role as Interim Vice-Chancellor.
There is much to be done over the coming six months to ensure the University remains in a competitive position.
Regards,
Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd)
Chancellor
Office of the Chancellor and Council Secretariat
Division of the Vice-Chancellor and President
https://clubtroppo.com.au/2020/05/30/how-can-the-university-of-queensland-recover-from-the-drew-pavlou-affair/
Rathjen' Officer of the Order (AO) of Australia should be revoked too. What about Chancellors affiliated with their wrogdoing, and all their partners of crime down to the level of school management? Clean up the rot inside out.
Well thats enough for now but more to follow - his personal life - well only if anyone is interested in that?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Peter Rathjen: Serial sexual predator, pedophile p...":
This is the way Rathjen worked - a sort of pervasive, almost-silent but oppressive bullying, making for extreme discomfort.
Why do we get people like this? Why, when they have left a trail of destruction in one place, do they somehow pop up in another - with the same or better position - as if their past ineptitude, bullying and/or misconduct never existed?
In Australia, there are two main reasons which have been slowly descending on the University sector for the last 30 years: (i) The corporatisation of education. (ii) The kowtowing by senior management to the Federal Government. VCs used to believe in and act for their own staff as their primary concern. Staff were considered assets - people to be managed and encouraged. There is barely a VC now fitting this profile. All - or almost all - are first and foremost government lackeys. As a result, we've now had nearly a decade of staff being viewed, first and foremost, as liabilities.
With the change in VC profiles, has come the gradual, inevitable change in almost every position of the senior management teams. It has now reached down to Faculty Deans, and is becoming firmly entrenched even at Head of School level. As someone pointed about above - these people manage exclusively up to the people above them. Their care, concern, and consideration for, and their encouragement of, the people below them - the
Alan Cooper's case was a rare event where the bully was fired. The university was forced to do so because Nature carried out an independent investigation, and both Nature and Science published it. Michael Balter was the journalist who broke the news and nothing would have happened without his intervention. https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1164309307170705408
1. Systematic bullying of many many dentistry staff
2. Political coup of previous dean who tried to stand up for the school
3. Unsuccessful attempt to close down Bachelor of Oral Health program - did a lot of collateral damage to a whole lot of people & misled the whole school in doing this ("BOH staff were not qualified enough to teach in BDS (Dental Surgery) program" - just check other dental schools)
4. Failing to protect pediatric postgraduate students from bullying and harassment over years - What and when did he really know?? What are the lies and cover ups?
Abuses are still happening under Ben Kile's watch. Kile says Richard has his complete support. The sage continues.
Professor Mike Brooks
Interim Vice-Chancellor and President
The University of Adelaide
South Australia 5005
26th August 2017 (with comments added 13th September)
Dear Mike
As you know, I recently transitioned to an Emeritus role after 50 years in the School, as an undergraduate student, postgraduate student and, from 1977, a member of the academic staff. I feel privileged to have been part of The University of Adelaide and have enjoyed my life as a dental academic immensely, apart from the last few years.
The outstanding reputation of the Adelaide Dental School has been based on the quality of its staff and, up until the late 1990s, the fact that it was a separate Faculty of Dentistry that largely had control over its own destiny. Of course, there have always been budgetary issues to cope with but the combined vision of an outstanding group of academics and the opportunity to make decisions following robust, collegial and informed debate at departmental and Faculty meetings led to a highly innovative BDS curriculum and an outstanding research environment that have been internationally and nationally acclaimed.
Unfortunately, given the current structure within the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences (in which Dentistry is one of several schools), combined with the personality traits and style of management of the present Executive Dean, the Dental School has lost virtually all control over its own destiny. The Dean of the School is expected to ‘toe the Faculty line’ and essentially act as a ‘rubber stamp’ for often uninformed decisions made at the Faculty level. Staff from our School and from other schools in the Faculty expressed their concerns about the management of our Faculty in the most recent Your Voice survey. I would ask that you review these responses as, if any academic had received such damning evaluations from students about their teaching, I think they would have given up. However, as far as I can see, nothing has been done to address the concerns raised.
I’ve listed below some of the decisions made by Senior Management over the past few years that have severely affected the School’s reputation and the quality of its teaching and research. The damage that is occurring to the School is not acknowledged by the Executive Dean but, rather, shrouded by positive spin and propaganda. It is true that our current world ranking amongst dental schools and our ERA ranking for research are high, but these measures are based on past efforts and I am sure they will not be maintained in the future unless the School is given back some control over its own destiny. Morale within the School is very low and many staff are not prepared to speak out for fear of retaliation.
Six issues that have severely affected the School in recent times are: [THE DETAILS ARE NOT INCLUDED HERE BECAUSE OF SPACE LIMIT]
The School’s budget
The Tender
The PSR
The closure of the Colgate Centre and loss of its Director
The sacking of our Dean
The lack of succession planning
Many staff in the Dental School have spoken with me and said that are too scared to speak out in any forum in the University about what is happening to our School. The School is also losing its cohesion internally.
Questions for the VC:
Does the University want a world-class dental school? Is it prepared to support it?
How can we influence Faculty decisions within the current management structure and given the personality of the Executive Dean?
How can we gain some control over our own destiny? – the vision and actions of our staff enabled us to became a great Dental School but we are now sliding into mediocrity.
Is there any likelihood that more autonomy, especially for budgetary issues, staffing, and teaching and research initiatives, might be given to Schools in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, rather than the present micro-management from the ED?
Yours sincerely
Emeritus Professor Grant Townsend
Grant's notes of meeting with the VC on Monday 18th September, 10.30 -11.00am:
I handed the VC a copy of the letter I had sent previously, along with the added comments in red type.
I thanked the VC for seeing me and said that I had a sense of despair at what was happening to the School and the lack of any meaningful discussion within the School and in the Faculty about the issues I had raised.
I summarised the main points made in the letter and the VC took detailed notes.
I emphasised the lack of any control over our destiny and the present management structure (both within the School and in the Faculty). I pointed out that there were no regular meetings of staff in the School to discuss issues and no explanatory emails etc. from the Dean or the ED.
The VC stated that it was his belief that the heads of Schools were the most important people in the University and they had a pivotal role in explaining at a discipline level what was going on clearly and transparently to staff and in providing leadership and support to staff. I said this was not happening and that the ED saw the Dean as a member of his team and expected him to do what he says. He said he would follow this up and he would also reiterate his beliefs at the upcoming School meeting.
We agreed that the University will never make Dentistry a separate Faculty but the School must have some control over its own destiny, e.g., budget, staff, curriculum
On the issue of succession planning, the VC said that there were currently 4 professorial positions up for filling, including the Dean’s position. I said I was unaware of this and I thought most of the School would also be unaware. I pleaded that the School be involved in these appointments and that the appointment of the Dean was critical – it needs to be a person who places the University’s and the School’s good ahead of their own and is prepared to stand up to the ED.
The VC had spoken prior to our meeting to the DVC (Research) who had told him that research in the School was propped up by a small number of staff and that many staff did not meet the research criteria for academics. I said that this was a superficial analysis that failed to take account of teaching and administrative workload pressures on staff. The performance of the School needs to be viewed overall (ie, teaching and research) and some staff will contribute more in one area than another. The VC agreed with this point of view.
The VC noted that the outcome of the partnership agreement with SA Health was always likely to benefit them more than us (given the overall environment at the time) and I gave him some examples of where the outcomes have been less than satisfactory. He noted these.
I re-emphasised the micro-management of the School by the ED and he noted this.
He thanked me for my honesty and said that he would definitely follow up on the issues raised in the meeting and in my letter.
I re-iterated that the School would slide into mediocrity unless something was done soon.
"Peter Rathgen was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania from 2011 to 2017.
We always thought it was sick that a UTAS Vice Chancellor would move an entire university campus a few kilometers South just to 'reinvigorate' the 'quiet' regional town of Launceston Tasmania.
What has reinvigorating a town got to do with higher education? Why are people who appear incapable of rational thought even running a university?
We knew of corruption at UTAS during Rathgen's tenure and we heard he was being investigated by South Australia's ICAC after moving to Adelaide University.
Today he resigned declaring 'ill health'. How convenient?"
So thank you Mr Balter for your piece on Rathjen. As Inside Tasmanian, reports Rathjen together with the City General Manager of Launceston and the Mayor, to make up a pack of dodgy claims (a scam) to get funding from governments to move a whole uni campus barely 3 kilometres from its perfectly fine location to a much smaller area in a low-lying subtidal zone where the tidal river is subject to sea level rise. Massive $300m scam! Then Rathjen the Rat wasted no time and rushed off to get the ViceChancellor job in Adelaide with much higher pay. Apart from the few sycophants and hanger-onners that he had conned, no one in Tasmania was surprised at the news of Rathjen's behaviour at Adelaide Uni. There should have been, or should still be an ICAC type inquiry into the university in Tasmania.
Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd), Chancellor
Professor Ian Young AO, immediate past Vice-Chancellor of ANU
Professor John Williams, Chair, Academic Board
The Hon Catherine Branson QC, Chair, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee
Ms Christine Locher, Chair, People and Culture Committee
Mr David Hill, Member, University Council
ICAC Resources for Public Officers
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/legalandrisk/integrity-and-accountability/icac-resources-for-public-officers?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Staff%20News%20-%2027%20July%202020&utm_content=Staff%20News%20-%2027%20July%202020+CID_176e10abdc597a5b5e57b041fc45f162&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor%20MC&utm_term=ICAC%20webpage
"The University has developed a new ICAC webpage to support you to confidently manage your obligations as a Public Officer under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012. The page explains your mandatory reporting obligations, provides links to online training offered by ICAC and other relevant information including FAQs."
"If you become aware of conduct that should be reported under an internal University policy or procedure - for example, research misconduct, academic integrity issues, non-compliance with a law, workplace conflict, bullying or harassment, a workplace health and safety issue, or a data breach – you must also consider whether the nature of the conduct is something that should be reported to OPI."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/ann-vanstone-announced-as-new-commissioner-against-corruption/12495202
The private school influence running the University - look to Education.
Appointments from private schools. Bentley, ex Catholic Schools, a former colleague of the Head. A problematic time at Uni SA but appointed in place of the current position holder disliked by Head. White appointed level D direct from St Peters. Thrice denied appointment previously and denied salaried appointments to the University of Melbourne. Never held academic appointments, publications for the Research Excellence Submission 2 publications (less than demanded from others), unable to be on the higher degree supervision register as principal supervisor, no grants from the premier funding bodies. Appointment queried, reply White ‘showed promise’. Strange essential appointment criteria. More qualified not interviewed, denied promotion. White misleads as to his salary to increase the university one. White’s colleague, Barbieri, appointed without any advertisement. His fame -inveterate blogging against exams and advocate for ephemeral approaches to teaching and outraging the Singaporean Education Ministry. No qualifications relevant to the school – his doctorate in Italian drama. His Distinguished Apple Educator status a perverse reason for appointment as others had same and could be utilised for the role that was created for Barbieri. Barbieri mandated all students purchase Apple Ipads. When student representatives complained, they were ignored. Why must purchase a computer and an expensive and niche brand used in expensive private schools of Adelaide. Bentley and Barbieri changed the school experience placements in the education degree to focus on private schools. The country placement important for country schools abandoned. Teaching requirements changed so that one cohort had 20 days of teaching and another cohort 80. Students not informed of these changes.
All these appointments further enhanced without any advertisement. Bentley made Director of School Partnerships, White Deputy Head of School, Barbieri Director of E Learning. These posts carry increased status, reduced teaching load and likelihood of further promotion. The lack of White’s research outputs commensurate with D status came up at School and Research Committee Meetings met the response that there were no relevant journals he could publish in. There followed a campaign to change the rules to benefit him. Others not so fortunate were punished by not publishing in the Faculty’s Ranked Journals. Other internal appointments made without any advertisement went to McCallum’s favourites. Notable the appointment of Westphalen to Deputy Head of Teaching and Learning. Her fame- avoiding teaching and undermining colleagues. Previously, relieved of all leadership roles.
The School Advisory Board is private school focused. One member the former Head of St Peters College and friend of White and Barbieri. The Dean of Arts child and the Faculty Manager’s go to St Peters College. The former Principal of St Peters College is close friends with the Head of the School. Highly opinionated, retired, operated in the most privileged and rarefied education circle.
The Arts Dean noted the university would not be responding to Balter’s Blog. A ‘culture check’ of the School sanctioned by an useless NTEU failed to achieve anything. When 2 female staffers met with the head of school to discuss bullying she responded that such was from one staff member who had left. Dean of Arts met with staff and defended the appointment of White saying he had good Google Scholar Citations. These are not what count for the research assessment exercise. Now White to amass publications places his name on publications authored by higher degree students. Shaw, reappointed McCallum as Head and gave her sabbatical leave. This occurred after White and Bentley nominated McCallum for low status educational awards and Telstar Business Woman of the Year and lobbied for her. With respect to study leave other more deserving members of staff were denied this.
Mention is made above to the mandating of Apple Ipads under Barbieri in the School of Education. What needs noting is that Barbieri’s St Peters College was once a pc computer school. Only Art and CAD led the push to Apple. The Head of IT left the school after being undermined. Is it the case that the then Headmaster (now on the Education School Board?) led the push for Apple and did/does his brother work for Apple or an Apple Supplier? And what is Barbieri’s relationship with Compnow. https://www.compnow.com.au/case_study/where-pedagogy-meets-technology-at-st-peters-college-adelaide/
Years ago, the then William Hall Head of CAULT at Adelaide wrote a classic book University Teaching. He noted that in university teaching there was often not one way but a variety of alternatives. Seems this sage advice has been forgotten as now in the School of Education, aided and abetted by the bullies in Learning Enhancement and Engagement, there is one way only. Ipads and the play way and certainly nothing as rigorous as examinations. The Dean of Arts having forbidden any exams in a recent Faculty Board Meeting. Let us hope medicine, dentistry and engineering still examine students or else we will all end up paying the price in pain, death and destruction.
In particular I refer to his time in Tasmania where his intimidation of staff and detrimental influence on morale was only part of the insidious trail of negativity he left in his wake. What is it about VC’s? They are an untouchable, ego-driven, unethical (despite so-called qualifications), de-humanising bunch who have long forgotten that the institutions they rule are meant to be about education rather than driving a push for income and assets.
The “misbehaviour” that caused Rathjen’s “illness” and forced his early retirement in SA was in fact a carbon copy of his behaviour within UTAS however, the big difference in Tasmania is that no-one here was either aware of it (highly unlikely amongst board members etc when staff knew of it), and no-one, not one person of moral fibre did anything about it. One has to ask “Who is guilty of the biggest sin?” The current VC, one Rufus Black, acted as an innocent on ABC radio when asked if there was any connection of Rathjen’s behaviour back to Tasmania. His comment was that there was none and all he knew was what was in the media. That response leaves one to ponder where the truth lies and whether the required due diligence was done.
For mine, the major aspect of Rathjen’s deplorable time in Tasmania, as mentioned in a previous post, is the dirty deal done in cahoots with the complicit GM of Launceston City Council at that time, Robert Dobryzinsky, and that is the plan to unnecessarily relocate the University Campus from Newnham to a flood zone in Inveresk. I see Rathjen’s actions in this scheme as being more damaging than his on-campus activities because the move will have a detrimental effect on the whole community for years to come. Meanwhile, the Launceston Councillors, always bereft of any intelligent, transparent or truly altruistic behaviour, continue to be conned by the idea.
Let it be said LOUD AND CLEAR, all brands of politics, both in Tasmania and Federally (even the Greens, who you would think might be a bit interested, only demonstrated that they have about as much relevance as the now defunct Democrats), have failed miserably to do any due diligence on either the motivation of the main Players (Rathjen and Dobryzinski), the need or viability of the project and the terrible waste of funds which now, given the massive debt we have accrued due to the Covid 19 shutdown, is even more obscene. Also it has to be said that the current VC Rufus Black, no doubt in his guise as a self-confessed “Thought Leader”, has chosen to run with the whole dubious scheme despite his “expertise” in the field of ethics. One can only presume that the cold, business focus of universities prevents them from letting an easy land-grab go. And complicit in this was the stupid Council that made it easy by handing over millions of dollars of free land, without community consultation and without the potential for the collection of rates.
Instead of leaving behind the footprints of fine achievement, ethical decision making, unquestionable integrity and a better educational experience, it would appear that VC’s are willing to trade this off for financial gain thereby leaving a muddied bog which future communities will have to clean up.
Thanks for that!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-17/sa-govt-refused-icac-more-funds-to-investigate-corruption/11612472
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/icac-funding-unlawful-and-puts-independence-at-risk-legal-advice-20200513-p54sk7.html
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/smallest-icac-in-history-corruption-watchdog-warns-of-job-cuts-without-more-funding-20191205-p53h4g.html
https://www.jamieparker.org/icac_petition
https://www.themandarin.com.au/133460-funding-model-for-nsw-corruption-watchdog-unlawful-says-barrister-leading-cruise-ship-probe/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/21/icac-head-says-funding-cuts-will-have-immediate-and-serious-effect
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/25/nsw-accused-of-starving-icac-and-integrity-watchdogs-of-funding
https://psa.asn.au/icac-warns-of-devastating-funding-issues-australian-associated-press-09-12-19/
Even if ICAC cannot investigate the complaints now, they could come and bite people in future. Witnessed lots of those examples in life. Who would have thought Weinstein would fall?
Rivertown Film (@RivertownFilm) wrote:
Science writer and long time Rivertown Film member Michael Balter @mbalter followed Hollywood's "MeToo" lead and focused on science and academia. Now he's been sued for $18 million. Here's his story, and a way to help: Freedom of the Press Defense Fund Kurin v. Balter organized by Michael Balter
I have been sued for defamation for $18 million for my #MeToo reporti… Michael Balter needs your support for Freedom of the Press Defense Fund Kurin v. Balter
PROTECT FREEDOM OF PRESS. DONATE AT:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/freedom-of-the-press-defense-fund-kurin-v-balter?utm_source=customer&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link-tip
$5,866 has been raised of $20,000 goal
https://www.fiveaa.com.au/david-and-will-2/a-very-interesting-name-has-been-linked-to-the-search-for-a-new-head-of-adelaide-uni/
Hoj is notably pro-China:
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/the-australian-uni-student-china-wanted-to-silence-whose-simple-protest-sparked-a-living-hell/news-story/4fcea3b66535bed6d6e08a320cd246ae
A year ago Hoj announced he would be stepping down from UQ in mid-2020. Just in time to slot into the vacancy recently voided by Rathjen.
Within a couple of days of the Adelaide Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor stepping down recently there were renewed calls for a merger between Adelaide and UniSA. Former Senator Chris Schacht was particularly vocal about this. Schacht is a registered political lobbiest and according to Wikipedia is chair of The Australia China Development Company, whatever that is (their website is not currently working: http://tacdc.com.au/).
So, Hoj has links to UniSA (perfect person to broker a merger between Adelaide and UniSA), and links to China. People with strong links to China have spoken up in favour of a merger.
If this isn't a bunch of coincidences, it must have involved quite some stage-managing over a considerable period of time. Wonder who could have stiffed Rathjen? Someone who has wanted a merger for a very long time and was thwarted?
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/07/60-minutes-destroys-uqs-reputation/
"In case you missed it, make sure that you watch 60 Minutes’ explosive report on Chinese corruption at the University of Queensland (UQ) and its persecution of 21 year-old pro-Hong Kong student, Drew Pavlou."
https://clubtroppo.com.au/2020/05/30/how-can-the-university-of-queensland-recover-from-the-drew-pavlou-affair/
"The management of the University of Queensland, and in particular Peter Hoj and Peter Varghese, stand condemned today by the international media, by both Labor and Liberal politicians, by both left-wing and right-wing Australians, by its own students, and by the powerful pro-American lobby. That management unleashed a shit-storm on itself today by its decision (via a kangaroo court) to suspend Drew Pavlou for 2 years and thus oust him as student representative on the UQ Senate, as well as make it impossible for him to finish his studies."
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/maverick-mp-bob-katter-wants-inquiry-into-australias-universities/news-story/4aded9ed77c7766da3dc111130f1d74f
"Maverick Queensland MP Bob Katter has vowed to go after Australia’s universities, saying they are beholden to the Chinese Government. "
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/uq-defends-free-speech-record-warns-china-shift-could-hurt-economy-20200717-p55d2r.html
"University of Queensland vice-chancellor Peter Høj has written to students defending the university's commitment to free speech, while warning a "shift" in perception around its links to China "could have significant implications" for Australia's economy."
"Professor Høj will retire soon, to be replaced by the chairwoman of Universities Australia, Curtin University vice-chancellor Professor Deborah Terry."
When we hoped the rot could end with Rathjen.............................
Readers will know well that over the past twelve months the University of Queensland (UQ) has been plunged into local and international infamy by its corrupt relationship with the local Confucius Institute and Chinese Consulate. Most pointedly, the universities’ reputation has been destroyed by its treatment of Hong Kong protestors (and one formerly obscure student named Drew Pavlou). A scandal that has reverberated worldwide, with condemnation ranging from the Australian Parliament and Supreme Court to the cover of the Wall Street Journal and just about everywhere in between.
The key (mis)manager of this debacle is UQ vice-chancellor, Peter Hoj, who should long ago have been brought to account for bringing the university into global disrepute, ironically the very charge brought unfairly against Drew Pavlou, who’s only crime was to arrange a full 13-person strong protest in support of HK freedom.
But, today, The Australian reveals that instead, Professor Hoj is the frontrunner to head the University of Adelaide (UA) as it reels from a collapse in overseas enrolments and its own corruption inquiry.
We are quite lost for words.
More at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/07/uq-reputational-wrecker-peter-hoj-headed-to-uni-of-adelaide/
On July 22, 2020 at 7:36 PM, Anonymous said...
"Well thats enough for now but more to follow - his personal life - well only if anyone is interested in that?"
Yes - certainly interested, where it bears on issues related to inappropriate work-place behaviour like bullying, manipulating, lying, inappropriate interactions with staff and students, chauvinism, etc.
"Well thats enough for now but more to follow - his personal life - well only if anyone is interested in that?"
We are very interested in everything you know. You may as well
tell us, while the internet is still a free and open platform to share information.
http://www.adelaideresearch.com.au/
Why does a 'personal loans' company feature only pictures of medical staff and equipment?
What do you find if you google its phone number?
Is this a real business?
Why doesn't Mike Brooks' staff profile on the uni website contain a link to the Adelaide Research website anymore?
> It's important to note the puppet strings that were pulled tightly by Natalia Hubzcenko and
> Alex Sabharwal during this time. The Faculty culture was crippled when they were employed.
> Middle Management bullies at their finest
Lets not forget Tony Cambareri...
Minister to Charles Sturt U: let the sun shine on the books
Excerpts from this website below.
https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/minister-to-charles-sturt-u-let-the-sun-shine-on-the-books/
A federal minister is cross with Charles Sturt U's $80m deficit. ... saying the statement (made by the university yesterday) is “silent on key points.”
“Now is the time for the university to open up the books and to shine some light on its finances, management and operations. Sunlight is the best form of disinfectant.“
... for CSU, it needs to “audit in full.”
“Only then will students, staff and the communities which CSU serves have a clear picture about its sustainability and how the university will navigate the future which is vital in maintaining community confidence and government trust,” he warned.
This is dictatorship, isn't it? Adelaide management has turned into dictators? They can get rid of tenured staff without too much difficulty these days.
The School’s budget – the lack of progress in developing a budget model that is more transparent and based on real costs rather than the present opaque formulaic approach applied in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. Despite growing our revenue and reducing our operating costs, the School has been required to return more and more to the Faculty.
1. The graph and data below show the increasing revenue and reduced operating costs in the School but the ever-increasing cut of the School’s income being taken by the Faculty (gross margin).
Income - [The graph cannot be pasted on this blog]
o Fee income has grown steadily since 2014
o Block grants have declined slightly as RIBG retained by Faculty for 2017 –
o Other will fall from 2018 as Colgate income $1.2M) and CPD income ($500k) will terminate
o Overall revenue has grown at about $1.2M (5%) per year
Expenditure
o Significant reduction in salaries (especially 2015-16) due to delayed replacement of staff and limits on casual teaching
o Almost no non-salary expenditure to support research, invest in infrastructure etc
o Almost $6M reduction in expenditure and investment 2015-17
• Final result is a $7M per year increase in the return to the Faculty in 2017 compared with 2014 and a total of almost $15M more returned over that period compared with 2014 expectations. This is reflected in an increase in the gross margin from 32% in 2013 to 54% in 2017
2. Decisions emanating from the Faculty to increase the student:tutor ratios in the clinic for 1st and 2nd years (from 6:1 to 9:1) and in the simulation clinic (from 8:1 to 12:1) are reducing the opportunity for providing feedback to students and reducing the quality of the learning environment.
CONCLUSION: THE UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT IS GREEDY AND HAS MISMANGED FINANCES (UNDER THE CARE OF MIKE BROOKS). THIS MUST COME TO AN END. JUST LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WASTE ON CHANNEL 7 ADVERTISEMENTS!!
I understand your point, I'm not suggesting that only people who have behaved inappropriately are concerned about needing
protection. I raised the question because in an ideal and fair work place, people who have not done anything wrong, would have little to fear and be open to questions and transparent about their record. I found it strange that their were many comments about people being protected by superiors rather then defending their actions through clear explanations and support from colleagues and students.
I agree with you, unfortunately it is easy for institutions to cut people, if they do not like them speaking out about impropriety. When the university's primary concern is protecting its reputation - and the leader's position - over adressing individual's concerns about mismanagement and injustice or protecting victims, who have experienced harrassment and bullying at work, it becomes a more authoritarian, less democratic, less diverse and less transparent place. This in turn breeds a culture of silence and fear, that benefits those at the very top but lowers morale and increases resentment for the majority.
As you mentioned, this leads to many good people leaving, ending their careers or moving to other universities because they are forced out or are unable to tolerate a work environment, where they cannot express themselves freely or receive adequate support. This effects women and other minority staff in particulars, as they often experience more challenges during their career's.
As an institution becomes more authoritarian and power is concentrated at the top, you will notice a shift in the types of individuals who gain leadership positions. To survive in the job, they learn not to "rock the boat" and put their personal integrity, values aside, only saying and doing things that please their superiors. These individuals receive the status and salaries they crave but lose their autonomy and decision making power, as they only remain in their postion through servitude to superiors and tightly controlling subordinates.
Fear and silencing tactics only work when people have something to lose. If there are mass job cuts, many will have nothing to lose. I imagine there will be many smart people with plenty of time on their hands, willing to research and expose the truth about those who treated them unjustly.
As I mentioned before, I realise no system is ideal but I raised the question, why do people need protection - from accusations and criticism - if the system is fair and working well?
Someone may need protection, if they are subject to false accusations motivated by personal or professional rivalry. However if somone, who treats others fairly, has good ethics, values and character, works in an environment with colleagues who have the share the same attributes, they would not be concerned about needing protection.
There are many senior academics and managers who have integrity and are pure - no doubt about that. But those in big boys' club lack integrity and have lost touch with reality. They are the ones who protect bullies under them. Hasn't someone made a comment about Mike Brooks protecting Alan Cooper and did nothing about all the bullying complaints for years. Hasn't someone also made a comment that Mike Brooks was the supervisor of some of the previous Executive Dean who has destroyed the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences? Brooks well knew about those problems - bullying and harassment - but just let them happen under his watch. Many people continue to suffer from the trauma and some will carry it forever.
See how Mike Brook's inaction turned out with Cooper? The university has made a settlement with him. That is the amount that could have helped support some staff's job. And Brooks continues to enjoy his privileges. No consequence for him or others in the big boys' club. Someone please tell me if the institution is not protecting them??
The Anonymous from August 13, 2020 at 6:21 AM correctly writes that many capable staff have left the godforsaken place for better jobs. Some were pushed towards resigning or taking early retirement package. This is incompetent management operating at its worst, and it is hiring more incompetent managers to run the place down. This needs to change. Those managers need to go, following footsteps of Rathjen and Scarce. Staff should no longer have to be led by incompetent people who lack integrity.
Someone should open this investigation. The public deserves to know how the university mismanaged their bequest and what did they do to recover the funds.
How did this committee end up appointing Rathjen as the VC? Can they be trusted again?
Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd), Previous Chancellor
Professor Ian Young AO, ANU
Professor John Williams, Chair, Academic Board
The Hon Catherine Branson QC, Chair, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee
Ms Christine Locher, Chair, People and Culture Committee
Mr David Hill, Member, University Council
He was recruited in 2005, even though irregularities on a research grant he submitted to the Natural Environment Research Council while at Uni of Oxford were indicated in the admittedly obscure journals Nature and Science. His boss from Oxford is now on the record as saying Cooper forged his signature and lied.
There's a lack of due diligence and then there's the calculated recruitment of shady characters who managers figure are made of the right stuff. Are there others?
It's a real pity the case settled through mediation instead of going to a hearing in the Fair Work Commission. This way university top brass get to have their cake and eat it too. Get rid of the source of public embarrassment (Cooper) while not having all the gory details aired in public - and there are many more gory details than have been published on Michael Balter's blog.
Cooper was dismissed for serious personal misconduct (bullying/harassment/sexual harassment). What he was NOT sacked for, and what the university lawyers did NOT include as grounds for his dismissal, says a lot about the priorities of people higher up the chain of command. Basically nothing that would need to be investigated under the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. A guide which Mike Brooks helped develop and fully understands. I'm aware of allegations of breaches that would fit under definitions 2.1 i, ii, v, vi, and viii of the guide. And I'm only one person.
One way or another the university is sitting on a lot of liabilities, and I hope UniSA and the SA Government realize what they are taking on if the two unis do merge.
Regarding mergers, it would be financial suicide for UniSA at present. What? Merge with a debt-ridden institution under ICAC investigation, a council that appoints a Chancellor from within to protect secrecy and is courting potential foreign influence by considering Hoj for VC, and still with the ICAC corruption survey report due this month? More to come from that I bet.
Mergers are best when both institutions are stable in all aspects.
I note UoA has just withdrawn support for The Conversation.
Peter Rathjen's appointment - how did the committee fail so terribly?
Mike Brooks' roles in - managing Alan Cooper's complaints and departure/financial settlement; role in handling bullying complaints that hardly ever favored the complainants
Faye McCallum (Head of School of Education) - nepotism implicated in staff appointments; allegations of bullying; handling of bullying complaints by Jenny Shaw
Justin Beilby (previous Executive Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences) - mismanagement of bequest funds on research (under Mike Brooks' appointment as Deputy Vice Chancellor & Vice President (Research); lack of transparency with schools' budgets
Alastair Burt (previous Executive Dean, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences) - handling of Professional Staff Review; bullying complaints; circumstances under which many competent deans left or were removed and incompetent deans (bullies) were appointed; circumstances under which Colgate Center was closed; circumstances under which schools had to suffer endless budget squeeze; lack of transparency with schools' budgets
Richard Logan (Dean and Head of School of Dentistry School) - bullying by him and his school manager; malpractice with (unsuccessful) attempt to close the BOH Program; failure to prevent bullying and harassment by Gue (documents/ emails from 2019 and earlier), lack of transparency with schools' budget; incompetence with staff appointments (which has seen 2 bullies already being fired by the university)
Ben Kile (Executive Dean of Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences) - what he knew about bullying and harassment in dentistry and what he has done about it; lack of transparency with schools' budgets
There are probably many more cases like these!
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/legalandrisk/freedom-of-information
Many people have had no meaningful representation for years and soon will be out of work, the frustration is going to boil over and they will have no other option.
The Adelaide Dental School Staff Forum, was a rare chance for all members of staff to share their ideas and concerns with the senior staff and receive reassurance regarding the future of the dentistry school.
Instead, it turned into a support rally for Richard Logan, where Ben Kile had to chest-thump for him. Logan is not 'invincible', he is a weak leader, not only because he is a lapdog to the Executive Dean but because his incompetent decisions have degraded conditions, standards and the reputation of the Dental School.
Ben Kile will learn that no one is 'invincible', especially when he realises, he is himself, only a spear-carrier for Mike Brooks.
The problem is nothing, zero, zilch has been done about the outcomes. Expect nothing done, again, about universities.
I do wonder how staff can feel as though they are respected in the UA workplace when there are significant leadership issues such as those outlined in the comments above...
When leaders are hired with known track records of having no respect for women. Hmm...
Thanks for posting your comment.
"Interesting the article about the new University Chancellor in the Advertiser (SA Weekend) on Sat 14 August. It is excellent to read of her understanding of issues related to gender."
Could you or anyone, post a copy, on this blog, of the article from The Advertiser (SA), subheading "...and why everyone has the right to feel respected in the workplace", Sat 14th August?
It would also be nice, if anyone could copy and post, to the blog, The Advertiser article with the heading:
"Uni hierarchies can allow harassment, warns new Adelaide Uni Chancellor Cathy Branson, QC"
4 days ago, The Adevertiser (SA) (15th August?).
I am curious to know what she means by "allowing harassment" and who is she warning?
As a high-ranking member of the uni's hierarchy, does she take some responsibility for the many cases of harrassment reported at UofA? Does she have any agency in preventing future harrassment?
Would she like an improved university culture, with zero tolerance for any kind of harrassment, as most Australians do? If so, how is she working towards this goal?
If uni hierarchies can still allow and tolerate harrassment, it might be time to change how university council members are appointed and disciplined.
The formation of a new, independent body to oversee the University Council and guide policy decisions, may prevent future incidents of harrassment.
"Culture of respect
Universities must recognise the potential for abuse of power made possible by their hierarchical nature, the new Adelaide University chancellor has warned.
Cathy Branson, QC, a former Federal Court judge, said allegations of sexual harassment against former High Court judge Dyson Heydon were also a warning for universities.
“I think we have to accept that hierarchical places are places where very poor conduct can be tolerated, that you wouldn’t expect to be tolerated,” she told SAWeekendmagazine.
“The protection we place around really senior people in hierarchies – the judiciary and the legal profession … universities have their strong hierarchies as well – we’ve got to be alert to the danger that comes from that.” Adelaide University was not exempt.
“There are almost certainly pockets of this university where the culture is not what we want,” she said, adding that such attitudes could stop talented people working there.
Ms Branson called for a “renewed and refreshed” culture of respect at the university, because “no one harasses a person that they truly respect”. She was appointed to head the university council in July after the resignations of senior leaders, vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen and previous chancellor and ex-governor, Rear-Admiral Kevin Scarce.
Professor Rathjen announced last month he was quitting because of ill health; Mr Scarce left without explanation in May.
On the Heydon allegations, Ms Branson said she was appalled that some of the most talented young women in the legal profession had left it because of the alleged behaviour. The case showed that “we need to think more deeply” about the problem.
“Sexual harassment, particularly sexual harassment of young women in their workplace, is a complex problem deeply rooted in societal attitudes towards women,” she said.
Ms Branson last month said robust, respectful debate was welcome but “freedom of speech is not just about being able to say nasty things about other people”.
She said people did their best work when they felt welcomed and respected – a view founded on her experience as a trailblazing woman and human rights’ advocate.
Her first priority was the uni’s projected $250m shortfall over two years from the effects of COVID-19. PAGE 40: EDITORIAL"
ROY ECCLESTON
Don't hold your breath thinking things are going to change. Well unless there is some major revolution.
They will if they are allowed to! Ms Branson, as a member of the hiring committee, hired a VC who had a known long history, of sexual harassment and bullying.” So I find her quotes and story in the Advertiser very disheartening - I’d like to ask her, point blank, Chancellor Branson, if you believe this, then why did you, as a committee member on Rathjen’s hiring committee, allow him to be hired?
If you feel women deserve better, then why would you knowingly agree to hiring him? You supported employment of a known sexual harasser! So have you changed overnight? Change comes through an apology and an acknowledgement of bad decision-making. Hiring a woman Chancellor does not address the problem if the woman has contributed towards the problem through poor decision-making. Rathjen should not have been hired at UofA with his well-known history. Enough is enough!
Brooks cites she "decided to take voluntary separation in order to contribute to the university's savings target". Really? What a load of ...... and very convenient. Could she be the "inappropriate relationship" referred to by ICAC?
Cooper was never disciplined for misconduct. When Nature started the investigation and published the report, Adelaide had to terminate his contract. The uni breached HR regulations, and was forced to payout Cooper. If Mike Brooks had done his job properly, the uni would not have lost money on Cooper. And is Brooks telling the truth about Inga Davis' departure? If she is really the "inappropriate conduct" reported by ICAC, why not tell the truth?
It seems Adelaide has no shortage of pathological liars in senior management.
The problem with stories like this is they don't actually dig into the heart of the issue. Did he break any rules here or was his travel in line with university policy at the time? My guess is that he didn't break any rules, and the individual or committee responsible for setting travel guidelines for uni staff should be held equally accountable.
I bet those rules have been changed since the new UTas VC came into position though...
Regarding the black Lexus car, I drive a late model one and I got mine for a good price, as they lose resale value quickly.
That was probably me, you or someone noticed. I only did it as a practical joke, I know it was immature but I was doing it in the spirit of good fun -- it's how I get my kicks. I will stop, if it is bothering you or any other blog commenters.
Then again, I also drive a white van, so be on the look out for them.
The Basil Hetzel Institute has two Science Directors, Joy Rathjen and Mike Roberts and is headed by the Director of Research, Guy Maddern.
"In August 2019 Associate Professor Joy Rathjen was appointed as Scientific Director in a position supported by The Hospital Research Foundation (THRF)."
The THRF is an NGO that receives funds for donatioms and lotteries.
Mike Roberts, is Professor Pharmaceutical Science at the UniSA and Professor of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics at UQ. He has had a 40 year research career and 25 years experience as as a tenured professor. He also holds master's degrees in business administration and science.
He has produced over 200 peer reviewed papers and is currently supervising 10 research students.
Guy Maddern, is a Professor of Surgery, at UA and has published over 400 peer reviewed papers and received $20 million in grant funding.
Joy Rathjen has a Bachelor's Degree in Science, from UA and a PhD in Science, from Oxford.
It appears that, she is currently an employee of U.Tas and has received two research grants during her30 year, career, including a $10,000 grant for studying embryonic stem cells and $671,464, for a study about fisheries management, ending in 2018.
She is currently supervising one research student and has previously supervised one other, during her career.
When that DVC-A left, we were ecstatic but felt sorry for the Vics. When someone raised problems in our school in a public forum, she said we should be run by TAFE and not by university. Always thought that person brought bad energy to the university. There must be lot more that they did..............
Adelaide's track record says the council will take that person back as VC in future. Something is grossly wrong with the council.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-26/vice-chancellor-peter-rathjen-mistreated-women-icac-finds/12597974
Yes, any appointments that Joy Rathjen has that may have been influenced by her husband Peter should be investigated. Her Scientific Director appointment at the Basil Hetzel Institute is an interesting one. It is part-time and sponsored internally by the The [Queen Elizabeth] Hospital Research Foundation (THRF). The job is about mentoring research students and their supervisors.
On the Institute's website is the following: "TQEH Director of Research, Professor Guy Maddern, says, “Joy brings a strong background in laboratory based research, is enthusiastic about gaining greater input from the universities in support of students and is keen to provide support to both supervisors and students working within the BHI. This position is supported by THRF and we are very grateful to them for their commitment to The Institute.”"
Joy Rathjen has an average research track record, a passing interest only in translational research, and has no special experience or qualifications in mentoring research students or supervisors. Perhaps she *was* the 'best candidate' for the job, perhaps neither QEH or BHI looked too hard...
...Perhaps she was given favoured treatment hanging off the coat-tails of her twice-VC husband...likely in my view.
No mention that I can find that she got the job in a competitive fashion, so perhaps the use of the word 'candidate' above is over-stating things.
https://solsticemedia.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/r/6BCADC18C18E19492540EF23F30FEDED/C5B6748A26C3FD91F351F20C80B74D5E
LatestffromICACreRathgen
Peter Rathjen was my biochemist lecturer at the Uni of Adelaide back in the day. I remember him being young, vibrant and slated for great things in the future. He was a favourite when lecturing and students loved him. I didn't know much about him or interact with him outside lectures but I thought he was a good teacher who made biochem seem interesting etc. The last time I saw him was in Sydney in April 2019, at the function where he's accused of misconduct. It was an Adelaide uni function which I attended, I talked to him at length and did not find him inappropriate. However I thought he might have had too many glasses of wine and seemed nervous. We reminisced about biochem and old times, ironically about someone who has been rumoured to have been acting inappropriately (one of my friends had encounters with another professor at Adelaide Uni and that professor had once yelled at Rathjen in front of our class etc).
I never heard about him again until the resignation and recent chancellor's email. I am horrified and shocked. I remember the staff at the event in Sydney and they were all female. They looked after him and had to make sure he got back to his hotel etc. Some were young. I don't know how else to react at the moment.
https://7news.com.au/news/education/uni-officer-groped-and-kissed-female-staff-c-1267866
The Commissioner found Rathjen guilty of serious misconduct. An inquiry into his behaviour and lies in Tasmania should be held. He has much to answer for during his time as the Vice chancellor at the University of Tasmania, 2011-2017. Lies, misuse of UTas (taxpayer) funds on travel and other matters.
https://icac.sa.gov.au/public-statement/26Aug2020
Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd), Previous Chancellor
Professor Ian Young AO, ANU
Professor John Williams, Chair, Academic Board
The Hon Catherine Branson QC, Chair, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee
Ms Christine Locher, Chair, People and Culture Committee
Mr David Hill, Member, University Council
The current chancellor, who was the Deputy Chancellor earlier in the year, did some not so nice things according to the ICAC report. She was also in the hiring committee as the Chair of the Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee. How did she become Deputy Chancellor from there? Definitely looks bad on the current chancellor - comes up as a power hungry person.
The ICAC report states:
In the meantime the Convenors’ Committee formed what Ms Branson (Deputy Chancellor) said was the Rump, which she chaired and consisted only of four members.
The Rump decided that the Chancellor should be advised there would be a risk that if he did not resign a motion would be put to Council for him to be stood down during the investigation.
The Deputy Chancellor requested that the Chancellor meet with her at her home on 26 April 2020.
At that meeting the Chancellor was advised that for the good of the University and for his own good he ought to consider resigning. Otherwise a recommendation would be made to the
Council that he be stood down.
The Deputy Chancellor also advised him that she wished to become Chancellor.
The Chancellor was given a fait accompli. If he did not resign he would be stood down. That
would have been extraordinarily embarrassing for him.
On 27 April 2020 the Chancellor resigned. On 30 April 2020 the Deputy Chancellor met with
the Vice-Chancellor and told him that I was investigating his conduct and that a resolution
would be taken to Council to stand him down. He took leave.
I do not think that the Chancellor should have been put in the position in which he was put.
I do not think my investigation could have embarrassed him or the University such that he
needed to resign. However, he elected to put the University’s interests above his own by
resigning.
On 4 May 2020, without further explanation it was announced that the Chancellor had
resigned and on 5 May 2020 it was announced that the Vice-Chancellor had taken an
indefinite period of leave.
***"Re the Brooks and Adelaide Research connection, the website used to be for Adelaide research and innovation but it looks like the domain expired and it's now linked to a personal loans company so that's why it was removed. Nothing fishy there. https://web.archive.org/web/20180520161129/http://www.adelaideresearch.com.au/about/ari-overview/"***
Thanks for the link. Actually this doesn't explain the weirdness it away, if anything it only makes it worse. The Adelaide Research (bogus personal loans business) website in its current form was operational during 2019, but no captures are available on Wayback Machine for 2019/2020 here: https://web.archive.org/web/changes/http://www.adelaideresearch.com.au
In addition, the Deputy Director of Adelaide Research and Innovation is/was a Jane Rathjen. Not suggesting any impropriety on her part assuming she's related - but I think it is also too early to declare a total absence of fish from this situation. Particularly as another Rathjen (Joy) is connected to the Basil Hetzel Institute (for medical research), and the Adelaide Research loans website looks dedicated to providing loans only to people dressed as medics. Has any money been inappropriately channeled into BHI or the QEH?
It concerns me that the whole report is not public. Can we not request that it is made public via the Freedom of Information Act? Consider this statement in Lander's 12-page report- bottom of page 3:
"It may be because of the brevity of this statement compared with the report, that the seriousness of the conduct will not be understood."
https://au.gofundme.com/f/freedom-of-the-press-defense-fund-kurin-v-balter
Michael has been sued for $10 million for reporting the truth against an UCSB academic's serious misconduct - retaliating against students who reported sexual assault from her husband.
So far, $7,987 has been raised of $20,000 goal. Please support Michael and help to keep integrity in academia.
The Hon Catherine Branson AC QC - Chancellor (Chair)
Mr David Hill - Deputy Chancellor
Professor Mike Brooks FTSE FACS - Interim Vice-Chancellor & President
Ms Kathryn Presser - Chair, Finance and Infrastructure Committee
Ms Christine Locher - Chair, People and Culture Committee
Vacant - Chair, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee
Professor John Williams - Chair, Academic Board
Jane Rathjen is Peter Rathjen's sister. I doubt there is anything fishy here in terms of her position at ARI...but in these tumultuous times, who can be sure?
Unfortunately, this kind of behaviour is all too common in science. It's happened to myself with a different professor from a well known institute, where after some drinks with the group he insisted I kiss him before he would let me leave the area. I did because I was young at the time and couldn't think of a way out without making a scene and damaging my career. Many of us don't say anything because we feel we should have known better, given a person's reputation. Also, as shown in the PJ case, oftentimes reports are not taken seriously unless they are made official, even though it is common knowledge that incidents are occurring and reoccurring.