 |
| Peter Rathjen, former VC and president, U Adelaide |
Such is the fate of Australian scientist Peter Rathjen, immediate past Vice-Chancellor and president of the University of Adelaide. Today in Australia, Bruce Lander, an Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, released a statement about his investigation of Rathjen, who has a long history of sexual misconduct.
The statement, a brief summary of a much longer report that is being kept secret, outlines Rathjen's latest abuses, which included the sexual harassment (including unwanted sexual touching) of two women employed by the University of Adelaide. Lander found that their allegations of harassment (or perhaps more properly, assault) after a university function in April 2019 were true. Lander also found that Rathjen lied both to him and the university's Chancellor about a number of matters related to his past misconduct.
I was gratified to see (pp. 5-6 and 8 of Lander's statement) that the inquiry included questions about prior misconduct that I had previously published on this blog. My first mention of allegations against Rathjen were very brief, part of a much longer report in July 2019 on bullying and sexual harassment by the former director of the University of Adelaide's ancient DNA lab, Alan Cooper. More recently, I expanded on those allegations, in a blog post last May. When confronted with these allegations, Rathjen lied about them several times, as Lander reports.
The report also confirms one of the most serious allegations against Rathjen, that he sexually assaulted a student while science dean at the University of Melbourne. I had originally withheld the name of the university involved at the request of a colleague of the victim of that attack, but since it is now public--and widely reported in the Australian media--there is no longer any point in doing so. This also raises serious questions about whether multiple institutions in Australia "passed the harasser" despite their knowledge of Rathjen's misconduct, thus allowing him to undeservedly climb to the summits of academia.
Indeed, there are already signs of damage control across Australian universities. Here, for example, is a message sent by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania on the heels of the ICAC report. Note that Vice-Chancellor Rufus Black states that an investigation at UTAS found no evidence that Rathjen had committed sexual harassment or sexual assault while there. He didn't need to, however. As I reported, while Vice-Chancellor at UTAS, Rathjen protected a convicted pedophile from being kicked off campus even after he had re-offended, and despite a campaign led by #MeToo activist Nina Funnell and others to get the university to do the right thing.
From:
Professor Rufus Black <listserv@UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject:
Peter Rathjen ICAC report released | We stand ready to support our community
Date:
26 August 2020 at 9:33:56 am GMT+2
Reply-To:
<vice.chancellor@UTAS.EDU.AU>
|
|||
|
|||
|
Black's letter is typical, and will be typical going forward, of attempts by university administrators to jump clear of the Rathjen scandal and claim that they either did nor know or took action as soon as they did know. And they will point to the fact that Rathjen (and thus perhaps his victims) finally got justice as proof that the system works. Actually, it does not work very often, as the failure of the University of Melbourne to alert the academic community about Rathjen's crimes indicates.
At the University of Adelaide, for example, officials continue to look the other way despite clear abuses in the School of Education and the dental school, situations on which I have also reported (see the long, long list of comments on this blog post for details about the dental school and allegations of bullying, mismanagement, and abuse.)
I'd like to end on a personal note, one which I find amusing, as serious as it is. As readers of this blog know, I have been sued for defamation by University of California, Santa Barbara archaeologist Danielle Kurin, whose misconduct I have reported on extensively. As part of the "evidence" that I falsely accuse academics of being sexual predators and the like, Kurin includes a number of examples. One of them, mentioned in section 44 of her Amended Complaint, is none other than that of Peter Rathjen.
Update August 27: Elise Worthington and Conor Duffy of Australia's ABC have more today on the University of Melbourne investigation, which Rathjen lied about when asked, according to the ICAC statement. Serious sexual misconduct is a euphemism here for sexual assault.
Update August 28: Adelaide bully and enabler express their concerns about the ICAC report and Rathjen.
As usually happens when an institution suddenly faces a public scandal, its leaders have issued statements to the rank and file expressing their concerns and assuring everyone that they are there to listen. The first of these comes from Faye McCallum, head of the School of Education, whose own history of bullying I reported on earlier; the second from Mike Brooks, who has been appointed interim Vice-Chancellor and President to replace Rathjen, and who earlier (as Deputy VC for Research) was a key enabler of Alan Cooper, ancient DNA director at Adelaide fired for bullying students and postdocs.
Note that McCallum says everything is going to calm down and advises staff not to talk to the media. Only when staff started talking to the media did anything start to change.
Dear Colleagues
Earlier this week the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) issued a public statement and findings following his inquiry into allegations of improper conduct by the University’s former Vice-Chancellor, Peter Rathjen. Professor Rathjen was found guilty of serious misconduct under the ICAC Act.
ICAC made no findings of maladministration or misconduct about any person other than the former Vice-Chancellor.
Findings about the former Vice-Chancellor are deeply shocking. I acknowledge the distress caused to the victims impacted by the behaviour of the former Vice-Chancellor.
This news will have been profoundly disturbing to staff and students as well as members of our wider community.
As our Chancellor, Ms Catherine Branson AC QC, has repeatedly stated, the former Vice-Chancellor’s conduct is unacceptable. It is grossly at odds with the values, conduct and behaviour expected of any staff member. The University is fortunate to have had the benefit of the Chancellor’s exemplary leadership over the period of the ICAC inquiry.
All of the recommendations made by ICAC to improve or clarify our policies and procedures have been accepted in full.
I strongly encourage any staff or students who have experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment to come forward and report it tocomplaints@adelaide.edu.
Along with the senior leadership, I am personally committed to fostering a culture and environment in which staff and students can thrive and feel safe, valued and welcome. All members of our community deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and collegiality.
Kind regards
Mike
Professor Mike Brooks FTSE FACS
Interim Vice-Chancellor and President
The University of Adelaide | Adelaide SA 5005
Update August 30: There has been a huge amount of media coverage in Australia about Rathjen's final downfall, which I have not been posting here because I assume that readers in Australia at least are seeing much of it (and a frustrating amount of it is behind firewalls, meaning I can't read a lot of it myself.) But I did want to link to this very good piece in The Guardian by Tory Shepherd. Tory was one of the first journalists to begin reporting on the rot inside the University of Adelaide (aside from me, of course) back when I was reporting on the many abuses of former ancient DNA director Alan Cooper. She also was very good about crediting the work of the reporter who broke the Cooper story, something that both Science and Nature refused to do in their own coverage of the firing of one of ancient DNA's leading pioneers.
As I have said many times, the most important reason to credit the previous work of other journalists is not professional courtesy--although journalistic ethics actually requires it--but to put readers in the picture about how particular stories came about. In the Cooper case, for example, it was important for readers to know that former members of his lab had approached a reporter and told their stories, and that only then had the university begun its own investigation. By not mentioning this, Science, Nature, and any other publication that failed to cite the previous reporting gave readers the false impression that the University of Adelaide had simply begun the investigation because it was concerned about protecting its staff--rather than the truth, which is that Adelaide was concerned about protecting its reputation.
In the case of Peter Rathjen, fortunately, the ICAC statement specifically referred to my previous reporting (pp. 5-6) and the role it played in the investigation, which makes it (more) difficult for media accounts to ignore it.
In Tory Shepherd's case, as I say above, she was always good about not only professional courtesy but also providing that essential context for readers. In her Guardian piece, Tory points out that Rathjen's reputation for sleaziness was long known:
"But to many in South Australia’s academic world, the finding was hardly surprising.
Rumours about Peter Rathjen’s conduct have been swirling for years. After his appointment in 2018, he became a well-known mover and shaker in Adelaide, a deal-maker. He was media savvy, often described as charming. In private, he was often described to Guardian Australia as sleazy."
and:
"The incident has prompted obvious disgust at Rathjen’s behaviour but also questions about the university’s handling of the complaints, about its culture and about its payout to Rathjen.
“The number of people expressing a total lack of surprise at this finding is absolutely damning,” prominent University of New South Wales academic Darren Saunders tweeted.
“The number of people in power who ignored the ‘rumours’, particularly those who were still in Adelaide when he returned … or those he knew in other places and didn’t say or do anything … if people who have the power and authority to make change don’t, who will?” former University of Adelaide postdoctoral fellow Hannah Brown replied."
The fall of Rathjen is a promising sign that a combination of action by fed up colleagues on the inside of the corrupt system, monitored and reported by journalists, can begin to lead to changes. There are a LOT of other well known sexual predators and bullies out there still, and I would to think that their days are numbered--along with those of the hierarchical, inhumane system that put them there and still allows them to thrive.
Update August 31, 2020: Protests at University of Adelaide.
From The Advertiser:
Update August 31, 2020: Protests at University of Adelaide.
From The Advertiser:
TERTIARY
Adelaide Uni students protest, demand review
into Peter Rathjen’s time at Adelaide Uni after
ICAC finding
Chris Russell, The Advertiser
August 31, 2020 5:10pm
Subscriber only
The culture at Adelaide University that allowed former vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen to run the institution – even while under investigation for misconduct – must change, student leaders said on Monday.
Calling for a review into Prof Rathjen’s tenure, about 100 students and staff attended a protest on the university campus on Monday.
“We need to make sure decisions have not been influenced by the vice-chancellor’s inability to understand sexual consent,” student union board member Arabella Wauchope said.
The protest was called following the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bruce Lander finding Prof Rathjen committed “serious misconduct” by groping two women staff members during a work trip to Sydney in April 2019.
Prof Rathjen also lied about his behaviour.
Stella Salvemini, president of the Women’s Collective, which organised
the protest, said students were upset they were kept in the dark about the investigation for so long.
“We hope the new Chancellor, Catherine Branson, will involve student
representatives in what the university does going forward,” she said.
“We have faith in her because of her background as a former head of the Australian Human Rights Commission. “We expect her to do a good job in cleaning up the culture.”
SRC women’s officer Rebecca Etienne said students had been angry and distressed by the ICAC report.
Ms Branson has pledged to adopt all recommendations made by Mr Lander to improve governance and policies aimed at eliminating sexual harassment but has not demanded Prof Rathjen repay his settlement payout.
However, Sharna Bremner, from a group called End Rape On Campus, said the university had previously promised to follow a very similar set of recommendations made in 2017 by the Human Rights Commission.
The university had self-reported it met those earlier pledges.
The Women’s Collective will present a petition to the university administration.
Pictured (image not available): University of Adelaide Women's Collective
president Stella Salvemini with fellow student leaders
Rebecca Etienne and Arabella Wauchope.
And from the Adelaide Women's Collective (with apologies for the poor quality image:)
And from the Adelaide Women's Collective (with apologies for the poor quality image:)
Update September 3, 2010: A letter from the University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor
It took some time, but the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Duncan Maskell, finally got around to making a statement about the Peter Rathjen affair--although with extreme delicacy. Peter Rathjen is a "former senior leader from this University," and what was clearly referred to as serious sexual misconduct in the Lander statement is now "an incident that occurred." Here is the statement, comment afterwards:
A statement far more to the point was made earlier by the president of the University of Melbourne Student Union and others:
Statement on sexual harassment conducted by Professor Peter Rathjen — 28 August 2020
Hannah Buchan, UMSU President
Aria Sunga and Naomi Smith, Officer Bearers UMSU Women’s Department
CW: Sexual Assault and Harassment
.
The UMSU Womenʻs Department is disgusted to hear of the sexual harassment committed by Peter Rathjen, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. We condemn the University of Melbourne’s complicity in allowing a perpetrator of sexual harm to continue work in the University sector.
Yesterday, the South Australian Independent Commision Against Corruption (ICAC) announced that it found that Professor Peter Rathjen, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, had committed serious misconduct by sexually harassing two colleagues in 2019. An ABC investigation has found that a former employer of the Rahtjen, the University of Melbourne, was aware of previous cases where Rathjen had harassed people and yet they failed to inform the University of Adelaide.
Professor Rathjen was employed at the University of Melbourne from 2006 to 2011. And it was during this time that a former student alleged he committed serious sexual misconduct while he was the Dean of Science between 2006 to 2008.
The student reported this case to the University of Melbourne in May of 2018 and the University upheld the misconduct complaint. Despite upholding the misconduct complaint the University failed to refer the new findings to the University of Adelaide – where Professor Rathjen was Vice-Chancellor. Their failure to refer to these findings enabled Rathjen to continue to offend at another University campus.
This is not the first case that has been in the media this year where the University reveals its negligence and complicitness in its responses to cases of sexual assault and harassment. It is time the University or Melbourne owned up and took responsibility for sexual assault and a harassment that occurs within the University community. The University again is showing its true colours where it upholds perpetrators in power rather than survivors. We are deeply concerned with the clearly consistent amateur approach that the University takes with responding to sexual assault and harassment. The University must do better.
UMSU also unequivocally stands with survivors – we hear you, we believe you, and we support you.
We call on the University to:
- To adequately respond to the allegations that they failed to inform the University of Adelaide of the misconduct findings against Rathjen.
- To release appropriately anonymised data on the outcomes of their sexual harassment misconduct cases.
- To appoint external investigators, with appropriate sexual assault and harassment sensitivity training, for all sexual assault and harassment misconduct cases.
- To increase funding and resources to the Safer Community program and ensure all itʻs processes are independent from the University.
In the coming days we will be penning an open letter to the Vice-Chancellor Duncan Maksell, asking him to respond to our demands, and also creating a petition to collect student signatures in support of this letter. We will not rest until the University takes responsibility for their complicity and makes substantial institutional changes.
Find the ABC article here: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/12601766?__twitter_impression=true
If this has brought up any issues or concerns for you, we encourage you to contact the following services:
Centre Against Sexual Assault House http://www.casahouse.com.au/
Phone 24 Hour hotline: 03 9635 3610
1800 Respect:
https://www.1800respect.org.au/
Phone: 1800 737 732, Interpreter: 13 14 50
UMSU Sexual Harm and Response Coordinator; Dr. Patrick Tidmarsh: patrick.tidmarsh@union.unimelb.edu.au
Unimelb Safer Communities: https://safercommunity.unimelb.edu.au/
Phone: 9035 8675
I will let a current professor from the University of Melbourne, who asked not to be identified, comment on the Maskell letter:
"These are fine sentiments. However, those who protected Rathjen in the interests of protecting their institutional reputations are now scrambling to dissociate themselves from him. You can read here that Duncan Maskell joined the university in January 2019. He quotes himself from that time, where he states that he has zero tolerance for sexual harassment. That was well before Rathjen was found 'guilty' of sexual assault. Despite Maskell’s strong words, no public announcement was made, and the universities of Adelaide and Tasmania were not informed. Maskell himself 'passed the harasser'. This on the pretext of protecting the victim. Of course, there was no necessity to name the victim or even the details of the sexual assault. Conveniently, this meant there were no consequences for Rathjen, as he was a former employee and not subject to sanction, and no reputational damage to the University of Melbourne from it becoming known that senior academics there sexually assault postgraduate students."
![](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-truth-at-last-or-at-least-some-of.html&media=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTTYlLfJJPciFfe5iknlB2hbK8jYC5SDgoJTGaFKZBvgKVDAjUHzXjHFifYPzrixQgmQPW0Udsk6Y3OMLjmJd4rCxY352IA9Nwt2DlSscScArhuGqGpsiLozqx1A2xzK2I0_u_HOjwQlfn/s320/Rathjen.jpg&description=The truth at last, or at least some of it, about Peter Rathjen, the U of Adelaide, the U of Melbourne, the U of Tasmania, etc. [Updated Sept 3, 2020: University of Melbourne "leader" finally speaks]){kind=link}
808 Comments
"I have a niggling worry about the next stages. While it's fantastic the Landers git out his statement this week, he is replaced with Ann Vanstone next week. Vanstone and Branson are both Adelaide law alumni and served at the same time within the SA legal system for many years up to very senior levels. They must know each other very well. How much impartiality can we expect over Branson's complicitness when the final report is released? The Integrity Survey?"
Then, Amanda Vanstone gets appointed to the Adelaide University Council.
Anyone wonder why the ICAC integrity survey was released in December (before Christmas/ New Year break)?
The Hocking scandal led to the then TasTAFE to resign. Full report at:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-02/tastafe-audit-transparency-questioned-by-education-union/9005612
"The audit was ordered after an Integrity Commission report in May pointed to "serious misconduct" within the organisation, leading the then-CEO Stephen Conway to resign."
As Balter said, it is rotten to the core.
That's why Adelaide will probably appoint Chairman Hoj as the new VC. He has shown he's "with the program", based on how he happily presided over curtailment of free speech in favour of an oppressive foreign power - and received money from the Chinese Communist Party ($200k I believe). Don't believe his distancing lies about the treatment of Pavlou and academics at UQ. We are in for much worse than business as usual.
Adelaide has become a laughing stock to the Easter and Western states. Smaller than the rest, it suffers from small town mentality.
Some online paper wrote, "Small towns these days are run from greed and corruption and nepotism".
This is a good piece:
Anti-nepotism policies just make common sense
https://eu.northjersey.com/story/opinion/editorials/2018/04/11/editorial-anti-nepotism-policies-just-make-common-sense/504785002/
Margie Semler, the former mayor of Passaic, was as valiant a defender of good government as we have seen in North Jersey. In a letter to the Herald News in July 2015, just two weeks before she died, Semler, long retired, was as busy as ever about speaking out, writing that “the leadership of this city is more interested in power, nepotism, and financial gain than in the welfare of the city itself.”
... nepotism in a small town is no different from practices that go on inside the doors of corporate America. That may be, but corporate America is not charged with upholding the public good; people elected and appointed to taxpayer-supported services are...
Other pieces
Nepotism, or just a small town? Borough administrator’s hiring of son and cousin raises questions
https://www.nj.com/hudson/2020/09/nepotism-or-just-a-small-town-borough-administrators-hiring-of-son-and-cousin-raises-questions.html
Nepotism is just par for the course in rural areas
https://allongeorgia.com/georgia-opinions/column-nepotism-is-just-par-for-the-course-in-rural-areas/
Adelaide uni is run like a corporate. It is not a property of incompetent Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, deputy VCs, Executive deans or deans. It belongs to the public.
Interesting.
And while we're on the subject of Hoj, UQ, lawyers, China etc, do all the Group of 8 universities use Minter Elisson or just Adelaide and UQ? Not necessarily anything wrong with that but it could definitely add to the herd mentality, and aid in the cross-institutional alignment of CCP interests for personal gain by senior staff.
Somewhere above somebody mentioned 'secret' CCP members of Adelaide Uni's council. What's the story there? Adelaide staff weren't included in that lengthy piece in The Australian a few months back, detailing academics from a number of unis across the country who receive considerable sums of money from the Chinese state at the same time as being employed full time by Australian unis. Nobody at Adelaide receiving money from China govt, or just good at keeping it out of the media?
Soon to be 17 when Hoj gets appointed.
https://twitter.com/alexjoske/status/1351396416082505729?s=20
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/NationalSecurityRisks/Submissions
Adelaide managers will still say there is no problem. Or oops ... the cat got out of the bag this time.
Unsurprising that our expensive executive are more concerned about their own jobs than what is best for the institutions they represent.
Name it after a great South Australian!
Ruby Hammond University
Then again, that would require some inspirational thinking on the part of the senior managements. They would talk about the importance of retaining the "brand". Well, what do the current brands stand for in the public's an world's eyes? Bullying, harassment, sexual misconduct, insidious HR practices, nepotism, lies and deceipt. Both unis have happily sacrificed and thrown out world-recognized brands already. Dentistry, education, etc at our august institution, and Uni of SA has done the same a few years back scrapping iconic institutes and people.
Other suggestions:
Poor Trump University
University of the Destitute
University of Bullying and Harassment
Administrators are hoping that dentistry and education staff on the other camp will develop herd immunity to bullying and harassment. The easiest option for the administrators.
When will this University WAKE UP to the disgraceful mismanagement of his school and its staff.
1. Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd), Previous Chancellor - gone
2. Professor Ian Young AO, ANU - ?no longer relevant
3. Professor John Williams, Chair, Academic Board - in the Council; Executive Dean of the Faculty of the Professions and Chair of Academic Board
4. The Hon Catherine Branson QC, Chair, Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee - Chancellor
5. Ms Christine Locher, Chair, People and Culture Committee - in the Council
6. Mr David Hill, Member, University Council - Deputy Chancellor (& in the council)
Four of them are still in the council. How do you know they will not hire another Rathjen?
Hope Grace Tame will advocate for this problem in dentistry.
Adelaide is definitely in the top 1% of universities for bullying, harassment, nepotism and mismanagement. Wait... bullying of staff, not students. After the ICAC reports have released, what has the university done? Still "planning" and not do anything. May be get all staff to attend some courses and all will be fine in the end. How can they do anything meaningful when the senior university leaders are the ones letting these things happen for a long time? They see no problem but ICAC survey is saying otherwise. They are confused, they cannot understand.
The comment about dentistry staff leaving - the faculty must be happy that they are gonna save some money. The school management must be happy that one of the trouble-makers, who would have voted for no-confidence in the senior school and faculty leadership, is gone. Whoever is leaving is in the majority who experienced or witnessed bullying, no??? The school can get rid of all of those 80% staff and hire new ones. It will take some years before they have a breakdown and then let them go and hire new ones and the cycle continues.
Dentists have a high suicide rate. They should do mental health screening of dental staff.
When experienced staff are ready to leave, pack their belongings in a box without their knowledge. Why even bother sending staff email thanking them for their contribution? Out of sight, out of mind. You still have your superior's support to run the school down.
Is it big enough for another expensive motor?
I am delighted to announce that the University’s Council has approved the appointment of Professor Peter Hoj AC FTSE FNAI (US) as the new Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Adelaide.
We will soon announce publicly that Professor Hoj will commence next Monday, 8 February, and that he has been appointed for a five-year term.
One of Australia’s most outstanding and highly respected leaders in higher education, Professor Hoj brings to our University more than 20 years’ senior leadership experience in higher education and research – most recently as Vice-Chancellor at the University of Queensland. He has also been Vice-Chancellor of the University of South Australia (2007-2012), CEO of the Australian Research Council (ARC) (2004-2007), and Managing Director and CEO of the Australian Wine Research Institute Pty Ltd (1997-2004).
This will be a return to the University of Adelaide for Peter, who was Foundation Professor of Viticultural Science, then Professor of Oenology between 1995 and 2004.
This is an outstanding outcome for our University. Peter is an inspiring, inclusive and collaborative leader. He has an exceptional track record, driving success at a national and international level, building university rankings and research output, with his focus on a high-quality, student-centred approach to the teaching and learning experience, and employer satisfaction with graduates.
He also possesses a strong social justice agenda, championing issues of sustainability and equity, support for students from low SES backgrounds and for Indigenous students.
The combination of Peter’s leadership capabilities, commercial acumen, and local knowledge and relationships make him an excellent choice to lead us into the future. As our University emerges from the impact of COVID-19, his leadership will ensure we maintain our standing as one of the world’s leading institutions of learning and innovation.
I thank Mike Brooks for his strong leadership of the University during challenging times. He has been critical to helping the University navigate its way to a better future. Mike put his plans to retire from his role at the University on hold so that our institution could emerge from the difficulties of 2020 on a stronger footing, and he did so with the commitment that he would stay in the role until new leadership could be found. Now that Professor Hoj has been appointed, Mike will be retiring from his role at the University on Friday 12 February.
I very much look forward to working with Professor Hoj, and I trust you will all join me in welcoming him to the University.
From: Chancellor
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2021 10:15 AM
To: allstaff_titlehol_vis_pgrs@list.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: [Alluniversity] Appointment of New Vice-Chancellor
xxxxx [see anonymous' comments above]
Cathy
The Hon. Catherine Branson AC QC
Chancellor
--
The Hon.Catherine Branson AC QC
Chancellor
Office of the Chancellor and Council Secretariat
The University of Adelaide
Ph: +61 8313 5668
Fax: +61 8313 4407
Email: chancellor@adelaide.edu.au
Monopoly in the Council with a majority from the chancellor and her team (previous comments). Now the disgraced VC from UQ will join the ranks.
They did forensic testing on the new applicants - bullshit. They did not watch 60 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyLO9-riykU
Do not ever think free speech and fairness will happen in Adelaide.
Everyone knew not to trust the chancellor and the council.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/07/uq-panics-as-60-minutes-closes-in-on-its-chinese-corruption/
https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/needed-a-circuit-breaker-at-uni-queensland/
https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/needed-a-circuit-breaker-at-uni-queensland/
Needed, a fresh start: This is a problem the VCs statement alone will not solve – it will take time and a great deal of effort. In the first instance perhaps Professor Høj’s departure at the end of the month will be a circuit-breaker.
His resignation has nothing to do with this matter – in May 2019 he announced his decision to leave in a year. And Chancellor Peter Varghese says Professor Høj had no role in the misconduct process against Mr Pavlou. But the VC is now associated with everything related to the university’s connections with China.
https://twitter.com/sharnatweets/status/1356541855513497603
Consultation - like the way they are used to consulting staff once they have made their decisions. Consultation to show outsiders that they are fair. Consultation to hide the dictatorial motive underneath. Consultation to get someone who will not clean themselves (rotten to the core).
Read these tweets from Sharna, too.
https://twitter.com/sharnatweets/status/1356792909631119360
She promises: “As Chancellor, I’m confident we will become a better institution from this experience. I firmly believe that our values and culture must be led from the very top. I am committed to ensuring this happens.”
8:06 PM · Feb 2, 2021
I note the rumours about the UQ VC being considered. I note that I’ve had enough engagement with him regarding instances of sexual violence, sexual harassment, relationship violence & stalking within the UQ community to have grave concerns about him being appointed.
8:08 PM · Feb 2, 2021
I note that I'm especially concerned about him being appointed if
@uniofadelaide actually wants to address sexual assault & harassment. I note that federal complaints have resulted because of his lack of leadership on the issue.
8:09 PM · Feb 2, 2021
26 August 2020, 9:55pm: my email to the @uniofadelaide Chancellor is read for the first time. It will be read a further 23 times between August 26th and September 28th.
Nobody bothers to respond to me.
8:10 PM · Feb 2, 2021
Sept 2020: the @uniofadelaide Chancellor tells a staff forum that reports of sexual harassment are “astonishingly low” & claims there have been “five in total over the last number of years”, but that the university needs to “establish a cultural change”
8:10 PM · Feb 2, 2021
8 Oct 2020: an FOI by @abcnews shows that there have actually been more than 50 reports of sexual assault or harassment made to @uniofadelaide since 2018 - far more than the five the Chancellor claimed there had been.
8:11 PM · Feb 2, 2021
A @UniofAdelaide spokesperson tells @benjnielsen that the uni has "#zerotolerance for sexual harassment & assault" & that it is "determined to reduce its incidence and support those affected"
8:12 PM · Feb 2, 2021·
2 Feb 2020: after its claims of #zerotolerance & promises to ensure cultural change that comes from “the very top”, @uniofadelaide announces its new VC.
8:14 PM · Feb 2, 2021
They can’t say they didn’t know. And they can’t claim to take sexual assault or harassment #veryseriously or say that they have #zerotolerance. Because nobody bothered to follow up with me about how reports were handled at UQ under Hoj.
8:14 PM · Feb 2, 2021
Because nobody from @UniofAdelaide bothered to respond to my email they didn’t get to hear the sort of experiences student survivors and I had when we tried to get him to take action against perpetrators of sexual harassment and assault.
8:15 PM · Feb 2, 2021
They didn’t get to hear about how, in my opinion, under his leadership UQ was the worst university in Australia for responding to sexual assault and harassment. They didn’t get to hear about how, under his leadership, a repeat offender was hired by his uni instead of disciplined.
8:15 PM · Feb 2, 2021
They didn’t get to hear the details of the multiple complaints we’d had to file against UQ with the federal regulator because, under his leadership (or total lack thereof), students were not safe on campus and complaints were grossly mishandled.
8:15 PM · Feb 2, 2021
They didn't get to hear about the hundreds & hundreds of unpaid work I'd done trying to help the students that he was supposed to have a duty of care for. They didn't get to hear about the deliberate indifference, the compounded & vicarious trauma, the harm caused.
8:16 PM · Feb 2, 2021
They can’t say they didn’t know. They knew. They just chose not to listen.
8:17 PM · Feb 2, 2021
And this is all on top of how Hoj & UQ treated @DrewPavlou. Laughably, one of the things that UQ claimed Drew was guilty of was "prejudicing their reputation" because he posted on social media that the uni took his criticism of Hoj more seriously than it took sexual assault.
8:25 PM · Feb 2, 2021
There is no such thing as #zerotolerance or #veryseriously. It's just complete indifference or total coverups. There is no #RespectNowAlways. There's been no change, no accountability. Nobody is even fucking listening, they're just pretending they are for the photo ops.
8:38 PM · Feb 2, 2021
And as a fitting addendum to this thread, Hoj has told the @theTiser's @ChrisRussellBiz that "in recognition there are too few women in leadership in most sectors, he will refuse to sit on all male panels.
Fuck me.
1:01 PM · Feb 3, 2021
**SCREAMS INTO THE VOID** WOMEN WON'T BE ON PANELS IF THEY DROP OUT OF THEIR DEGREES BECAUSE YOU FLAT OUT REFUSED TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO KEEP THEM SAFE ON YOUR CAMPUS & INSTEAD ALLOWED YOUR INSTITUTION TO HIRE THE STUDENT WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THEM.
1:03 PM · Feb 3, 2021·
A very bad decision by the chancellor and the council.
As Sharna says, "Fuck me".
She was a retired judge and human rights commissioner.
From: Yvonne Nieuwenhoven
Sent: Monday, 1 February 2021 10:54 AM
To: allstaff.dental@list.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: [Allstaff.dental] ADC visit - email to staff
Dear colleagues
I write to inform you all that on 9th and 10th February the Australian Dental Council (ADC) will be visiting the Adelaide Dental School to conduct a targeted review of the BOH, BDS and DClinDent programs.
The targeted review is being undertaken to assess whether the programs continue to meet the Accreditation Standards, particularly the following three Accreditation Standards:
• Standard 1 – Public Safety
• Standard 2 – Academic Governance and Quality Assurance
• Standard 3 – Program of Study.
The focus of the sessions will include: academic program content; course structure; assessment; student competence; resourcing; clinical processes; student experience; clinic and placement administration; student supervision; year level issues relating to didactic content / clinical experience; program development, monitoring and improvement; patient management; quality and safety processes in clinic management; University policies, procedures and processes as they relate to the abovementioned three Accreditation Standards; and strategic issues / future directions.
Staff, students and external stakeholders will be invited to meet with the ADC’s Site Evaluation Team (SET), in accordance with its 2-day schedule.
The University encourages your participation in the targeted review if requested by the SET. Yvonne Nieuwenhoven will be coordinating the logistics.
If you have any queries regarding the above please do not hesitate to see me.
Regards
Richard
--
RICHARD LOGAN
Dean and Head of School
Professor, Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Adelaide Dental School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005
T: +61 8 8313 3066| E: richard.logan@adelaide.edu.au
https://researchers.adelaide.edu.au/profile/richard.logan
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-12-21/student-australia-china-xi-jinping-uighurs-muslims?fbclid=IwAR2xXOtQL6yE9NGq5jCW-vMpODuF91DdMWsSREKn40x9151csPWbraR7Pd8
Khuong Nguyen February 8 (2021)
Tomorrow is Peter Høj's first day, press F in the comments
Khuong Nguyen February 4 at 8.57 PM (2021)
I like it when the pro Peter Høj trash exposes itself
(edit: changed Taiwan flag to Taiwan independence flag)
Joshua Sheldon
can anyone explain who Peter Hoj is to me? I am so out of the loop
Aidan Marshall
Joshua Sheldon he bad
Khuong Nguyen
Joshua Sheldon
Last year we had a vice chancellor (Peter Rathjen) who was fired after an ICAC investigation found him to have sexually harassed two women. Since then, the university has had to go look for a new vice chancellor.
Enter in, Peter Høj. During his tenure in the University of Queensland, he was infamous for censoring the student Drew Pavlou by expelling him from the university. Drew's only "crime," was to speak up against the Chinese government backed Confucius Institute on campus. As such, alot of students are angry at Peter Høj and rightly so.
Joshua Sheldon
Khuong Nguyen oh yeah fuck him
Khuong Nguyen
Joshua Sheldon Yeah, he's a disgusting joke of a vice chancellor honestly
Oli Fulcher
Joshua Sheldon not to mention he brought international disapproval to UQ, most notably from Wall St publications and the Aus Govt
Lenard Sciancalepore
Should there be a second protest against Høj on Monday?
Vote here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/107281302622867/permalink/5336633246354287/
Paul Sigar
February 3 at 3.20 PM (2021)
This may be of interest to most if not all of you. Hoping they’d drop some really juicy content justifying his appointment.
[A letter with Adelaide Uni logo]
3 February 2021
Mr Paul Sigar
Dear Mr Sigar
I refer to your application under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (The FOI ACt) seeking "all documents, correspondences, written transcripts, electronic records of information (including but not limited to meeting minutes of Council) and all relevant decisions made that were put in writing regarding the University's latest selection criteria on the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor; the appointment of Peter Hoj as Vice-Chancellor; and the decision to appoint Peter Hoj as Vice-Chancellor."
Your application was received on 3 February 2021 and is currently processed in accordance with the FOI Act. Although the FOI Act allows a maximum of 30 days to respond, I will reply sooner than 5 March if possible.
I also acknowledge that you seek a waiver of the application fee as you are a current student and I confirm that the University will waive the fee based on the information you provided in your application.
If at any time you require information or are dissatisfied with the way your application is being handled, please contact our office on (08) 8313 5804 or email foi@adelaide.edu.au.
Yours sincerely
Aj Francotirador
February 3 at 3.59 OM (2021)
Appointing the shameful Mr Hojjo after the disgraceful Rathjuo goes to show that if you’re a Privileged male... you’ll be appointed to positions of power and wealth no matter how bad of a reputation you have. I am shocked that a University of supposedly ‘high standards’ has gone to further ruin it’s reputation after yet another mistake, or are they mistakes in the first place?
We are yet to even look past Rathjen’s sexual misconduct and here we are having to deal with another disgrace 🙂
Kimmel Chang
So university of adelaide gets a famous local grown CCP chill for vice chancellor? Well, uni's reputation is offically down to the toilet now.
Oli Fulcher
Kimmel Chang more so to do with the absolute shambles he left UQ in, with condemnation from now only Wall St publications but the actual Aus Govt
Drew Pavlou
February 4 at 9.52 AM
Peter Høj moved 2000 km away to the other side of the country, and Muslim, Uyghur, Tibetan, HKer, Chinese & Australian students organized their own resistance rally within 24 hours. No one will ever forget what side he chose when China started building concentration camps
[Shows a photo of protest against Peter Hoj on North Terrace]
Drew Pavlou
February 3 at 9.15 AM
Peter Høj is already suppressing free speech on campus just as he did at UQ. The University of Adelaide has threatened to gut the student union’s funding if the protest against Høj’s appointment goes ahead. So the cowardly student union have reversed their support for the rally.
Drew Pavlou
February 3 at 5:11 PM
Attention Student Union hacks who support Peter Høj: the Drew - Bob Katter convoy is coming to Adelaide whether you like it or not, so you can either stand with us and all the Uyghurs suffering under the CCP, or you can send me a good photo for The Australian to use in the article they will inevitably write about all the people who sold out due to lack of spine
Another comment: The two Peters argue over who is the more corrupt Peter
Khuong Nguyen
February 4 at 7:33 PM
I find it highly ironic that the guy supporting Peter Høj and his censorship of Drew Pavlou ended up being banned from Facebook. Guessing what comes around goes back around hey?
[Disclaimer: I never reported him to Facebook]
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/uq-defends-free-speech-record-warns-china-shift-could-hurt-economy-20200717-p55d2r.html?fbclid=IwAR0tRkojHku-75vx0pJOFSsLoIEtgnkMXDpPhQHowKSpWbEOUdE_c0dfEDM#:~:text=Outgoing%20University%20of%20Queensland%20vice,every%20day%2C"%20he%20writes
UQ defends free speech record, warns China 'shift' could hurt economy
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13538322.2020.1820126
Isn't it curious that fraud by academics in Queensland gets publicly investigated and reported on but in SA things are much quieter. The ICAC survey indicates issues at Adelaide with false information on grants and manipulation of h indexes, but is there a single case of this that has been deadly with in a transparent way in SA? The Qld Crime and Corruption Commission must be truly independent. South Australia should be so lucky. Royal Commission worthy.
Pelosi had every reason to get angry for shameful Republicans. Same with those who are protecting bullies and harassers in universities.
195 signatures so far!
https://overland.org.au/2020/09/where-have-all-the-surpluses-gone/
Explains a lot.
https://onditmagazine.medium.com/editorial-peter-høj-brings-shame-on-the-university-of-adelaide-34be200b1d7e
Editorial: Peter Høj brings shame on the University of Adelaide
Words by On Dit Editors
PART 1
The newly appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, Peter Høj, in a rare show of near unanimous consensus, is being opposed by nearly all student representatives and seemingly the vast majority of the student body.
After all the scandal and disappointment brought on by the previous Vice-Chancellor, it’s hard to imagine what the University Council were thinking when they chose an embattled, disgraced Vice-Chancellor named Peter to replace an embattled, disgraced Vice-Chancellor also named Peter.
On Dit condemns the decision to install Mr Høj as Vice-Chancellor. His failure as University of Queensland VC to stand up for student activist, Drew Pavlou, when he was assaulted at a Hong Kong-independence rally, should have been enough to remove him from consideration. Death threats domestically and abroad followed for Pavlou. Instead of receiving the university’s support, he was suspended for two years only weeks after the incident.
We’re not saying the timing is suss, but — okay, that’s exactly what we’re saying.
Sadly enough, the problems don’t stop there when it comes to Mr Høj: his partnership-building with some of the worst arms manufacturers; support for the Western chauvinist Ramsay Centre; allowing the Chinese Government’s soft power-arm, the Confucius Institute, to co-fund four courses during his tenure at University of Queensland and potentially influence the design of many more.
Keep in mind the last one happened while he was on the Institute’s governing council, the Hanban. All this while the Chinese government was alleged to be placing approximately 1 million Uyghurs in “re-education camps”, where they have been subjected to torture and many other human rights abuses. By the time Drew Pavlou became a household name, the extent of this persecution was well-documented.
But where was Høj to support him? Why did he not publicly condemn UQ Professor, Xu Jie, when he characterized the threats on Pavlou’s life as “patriotic behaviour”? Why did he refuse to sign up the university’s Confucius Institute to the government’s Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme? Could it have something to do with the $200 000 bonus he received partially for boosting Chinese enrolments?
These are questions with no answers — yet. What we know for certain is that as VC, Høj could have used his influence and power to defend Pavlou, and to defend the university’s place as a haven of free speech and values of social justice. Which he didn’t.
According to a credible source, there were four shortlisted candidates for the role of Vice-Chancellor. They received tours around university grounds as recently as one week before Høj was announced, suggesting this was not a one-horse race.
On Dit has filed a Freedom of Information request to see the documents that will disclose the University Council’s reasoning for this appointment. We will make the findings publicly available as soon as we receive them.
Specifically for our University, with the ex-VC’s disgusting history of sexual assault and complicity among those still near the top, one would think the University Council would put a strong record against sexual assault as a top priority. Instead we got someone whose tenure at the University of Queensland has been described by the founder and director of End Rape on Campus, Sharna Bremner, as “the worst university in Australia for responding to sexual assault and harassment”.
Words by On Dit Editors
PART 2
Sharna Bremner
@sharnatweets Feb 5, 2021
A student that I told you about in a meeting in April 2018 dropped out of her degree at UQ because Hoj refused to discipline the student who raped her. UQ hired him as a tutor instead & he went on to sexually assault at least one other student.
One of the harshest allegations from Bremner is that he hired a repeat offender instead of disciplining them, who went on to assault at least one other student afterwards.
Pictured below are numerous emails from Bremner to UoA Chancellor, Catherine Branson, expressing her concerns about Høj’s bungling of complaints. Though the emails were all seen, Bremner received no response from the Chancellor.
They say never to let a good crisis go to waste, and students are expected to forgive Høj because he plans to bring UoA out of it’s COVID slump. Speaking to InDaily, he has flagged his intent to “explore the pros and cons of a merger” between UoA and UniSA if international student enrolment rates don’t return to pre-COVID levels.
With everyone from Socialist Alternative to the Adelaide University Liberal Club opposed to this move and his appointment, it seems that the only thing the University Council cares for is a crony capitalist profit motive. Values like country, culture, safety and freedom can step aside, as long as we rake in some dollar.
We acknowledge Høj’s talent as a scientist and researcher. But he has failed the the most important test of a public servant by prioritizing his career over his duty to protect human rights and freedom of speech — values which were stepped on and sullied while he led the University of Queensland.
The best Peter Høj can now hope for is a Withdraw No Fail.
Let’s finally demand a Vice-Chancellor that this university deserves. Alternatively, it is probably also a time to discuss whether we even need one at all.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-20/brittany-higgins-rape-allegations-basic-questions-accountability/13173128
The Australian Parliament has the best Human Resources protocol that failed miserably in practice. At least two ministers knew about it and failed to do anything.
This shows senior staff and Human Resources are incompetent bunch of people at the highest level. They have failed in legal and moral duties.
May be HR is not concerned because there is no formal complain in the system.
This is exactly how Adelaide Human Resources works. There is elephant in the room but there is no formal complaint.
ABC quoted the Chancellor, Catherine Branson, QC (retired judge and past Human Rights Commissioner), "The number of complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment arising at this university is astonishingly low … I think it's five in total over the last number of years," she said.
The data obtained by the ABC "shows a total of 52 reports were made in just over two years until September 2020."
The chancellor mislead the public; she is outwith reality as senior members of the Council that is just good at lip service. The chancellor was criticized by the past ICAC, Mr Lander, for making dealings with the notorious VC Rathjen to get rid of Kevin Scarce. She was in the committee that hired Rathjen and surely had a major role in hiring Hoj. Do not think they will improve the university culture. The ICAC data of self-reported bullying (62%) by staff gets ignored as anecdotal. The university still says there is no problem.
Shameful events that will remain as a dark part of the university's history.
Trust no one at the university senior management. What will the Chancellor and HR do?
When the university receives a bullying complaint, it will do everything to quash it and protect its own reputation. Forget about what the lip service from the Chancellor and future Chancellors. Unless everything changes - the Chancellor, the vice-chancellor, the senior HR managers and other senior managers (Exec Deans and Deans who have managed to foster by lying and bulling others), there will be no change.
If any staff is suffering from bullying, the best options are either to keep quiet or move on. Those who have tried to do the right thing have been failed miserably by the university (regardless of how the university tries to provide the lip service).
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/linda-reynolds-doesn-t-deserve-criticism-her-response-to-higgins-rape-claim-was-textbook-20210221-p574dd.html
As you know, the comments section of this blog has become a forum for discussing not only what goes on in Adelaide but issues more broadly applicable to Australian academia. There are now 485 comments and more every day. I am pleased and proud to provide this space.
One of the reasons I was able to investigate Alan Cooper and Peter Rathjen is that I am in the USA and thus not easily subject to Australia’s draconian defamation laws. This is not a zero risk situation, but I am in a better position than most in Australia to report these abuses. Again, I am happy to do this, as it involves questions of fighting abuse and fighting for justice.
A while back, I asked folks here to help me with my legal expenses in the Kurin v. Balter defamation suit, which involves issues very similar to those were are concerned with here. To put it bluntly, the response was negligible: I think about $200 in all.
I don’t want to shame anyone into contributing, but could you please help a reporter who has tried to help you? The plaintiff in this case is using increasingly aggressive tactics to try to force me to delete all my reporting and shut up the survivors of her long history of abuse and enabling abuse.
Here is the GoFundMe site. Please give generously. It’s not just for me, it’s for survivors everywhere who want to be able to tell their stories free of retaliation and intimidation. Thank you.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/freedom-of-the-press-defense-fund-kurin-v-balter
Would it be possible to politely ask how much people from Adelaide has donated so far? I think some believe the Gofund is about $2,500 away from achieving its goal ($14,500 plus $3,000 grant). If Kurin's lawyers are requiring high maintenance from the Gofund, please let everyone know. Surely, people will make donations if that was the case.
Anyway, Adelaideans, please kindly donate to Michael's Gofund. It is for the right cause.
I have not kept track of where the donations come from, and in some cases I don't actually know, but colleagues from Adelaide did make some very generous donations in the fund's early days. Since then there have not been very many, and I don't think there were any responses to my latest appeal in this space (with apologies to anyone I may have overlooked.
In fact, recently Kurin has been very aggressively issuing subpoenas for information from our witnesses, which has resulted in unexpected expenses from the legal defense fund of more than $7000 (my attorneys don't want me to say too much publicly.)
So actually the goal should be changed to $30,000 if everything is going to be covered (court reporters for upcoming depositions will be the biggest expense.)
If everyone were able to make even the smallest donation it would be a big help. Meanwhile I am thinking about new fundraising approaches.
Many thanks, Michael
------
Odoriko
10 HOURS AGO
I am a senior academic working at Sydney Uni. I should probably make an effort to explain how things are more complex than what everyone is saying here.
First of all, there is indeed a strong move to hire very well paid 'professional' managers from the private sector to run parts of the university, for instance the Exams Office. These people often lack the knowledge of the operational aspects (they don't understand our products) and end up doing a very poor, inefficient work, and at the end offloading too much of it to the academics.
However, much damage to the quality of teaching is done by academics themselves taking management positions. It is often, but not always, people with a background in Education running the Teaching and Learning office coming up with 'one size fits all' rules. Those might help some underperforming parts of the University, but invariably hinder the best performing ones.
It is not only them. In a truly Orwellian way, TEQSA imposed a general dumbing down of university study in Australia so now students need to take far less contact ours and subjects relevant to their degree that it was 30 years ago. Add to that the Melbourne Model, MOOCs, OLEs, multidisciplinary units, etc. and you up with a lot of fluff and little substance. I struggle to explain my 95+ ATAR students why the first year at uni is so trivial compared to the rigours of Year 12 at James Ruse or Sydney Grammar. We are still able to channel those into Honours and get them to learn something, but we are into increasing pressure to switch to a dumbed down so-called 'Advanced' Degrees.
Successive reforms pushing for MOOCs, OLEs and so on, have consistently avoided to address the challenges posed from having a vast majority of students international students with very poor understanding of English for whom those sort of units are very ill fitting. We are also force to include essays as assessment tasks. Once we calculate the final marks, we are nudged, or simply forced to adjust rather than fail 50% of the cohort.
-----------------------------
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) has put some "undertakings" for disgraced Gue (registration number DEN0001411301).
Go to https://www.ahpra.gov.au and search for Gue under Dental Practitioner. These are some of Gue's undertakings.
1. I will not supervise the practice of any other dentist.
For the purposes of this condition, 'dentist' is defined as any individual appearing on the
National Register as a dental practitioner and any individual completing undergraduate or
postgraduate study in the discipline of dentistry, whether or not that individual is employed by
the Practitioner.
2. I will not act as an academic supervisor.
For the purposes of this condition, 'academic supervisor' is defined as any role where the
Practitioner is responsible in whole or in part for assessing a student's academic progress
towards academic goals in the discipline of any health-related study.
Then how does Gue's disgraceful act not link to Ben Kile?
Under Kile's watch, the world class dental school is losing accreditation of a postgraduate dental program and more is yet to come. Good staff have left in droves. The school still has international ranking of "Top 30" in the world based on old data. Ben Kile recently announced this and is still trying to cover up. There is no hiding now that the Australian Dental Council is taking action. Meanwhile, keep repeating the slogan that this is one of the top dental schools in the world. Yes, it WAS and you have dismantled it. SHAMEFUL.
Scroll down to this report: Australian Dental Council report of an evaluation of University of Adelaide Doctor of Clinical Dentistry Programs in Endodontics Oral Pathology, Orthodontics, Paediatric Dentistry and Prosthodontics February 2021
Key findings:
The ADC has determined The University of Adelaide’s Doctor of Clinical Dentistry in Paediatric Dentistry program is refused accreditation.
The University of Adelaide’s submission for all five Doctor of Clinical Dentistry specialisations lacked sufficient detail and supporting evidence, making it difficult for the SET to validate claims made within the submission documentation. This is an issue across the five specialisations reviewed but was particularly acute for the Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Paediatric Dentistry programs....
The clinical or pathological exposure for the Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology program appears to be fully reliant on the relationship forged by the Head of School with Clinpath and there appears to be no other options in place should access to Clinpath cease to be possible. No formal agreement appears to be in place, which is a risk to continuity of access to the facilities students require to achieve the required learning outcomes and expected competencies. A condition has been imposed on the program to address this. The SET also has concerns about the involvement of a range of examiners, both internal and external to the program and the moderation procedures in place to ensure consistent and appropriate assessment of the program. Based on the evidence presented, only one staff member is currently responsible for supervising and assessing students throughout the program. Further support for this program is required if it is to remain viable into the future.
The ADC has determined that the following programs offered by The University of Adelaide are re-accredited until 31 December 2025:
• Doctor of Clinical Dentistry in Endodontics
• Doctor of Clinical Dentistry in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
• Doctor of Clinical Dentistry in Orthodontics
• Doctor of Clinical Dentistry in Prosthodontics
Subject to the following conditions:
1. In order to fully meet Standard 1 – Public Safety, Standard 3 – Program of Study and Standard 5 – Assessment, the provider is required to:
(a) review the mapping of program learning outcomes against the DBA entry-level competencies across the Doctor of Clinical Dentistry in Endodontics, Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Orthodontics and Prosthodontics programs and provide clear evidence that each program addresses all competencies. In doing so, the provider is requested to demonstrate how the
learning outcomes are assessed both clinically and academically to ensure that the entry-level competencies are being met.
(b) demonstrate how students are assessed to ensure patient safety is a priority in the provision of clinical care to the level expected of a specialist dentist in each discipline.
A report is to be submitted to the ADC by 10 September 2021 advising of how these matters have been addressed and of any changes made to these programs.
2. In order to fully meet Standard 2 – Academic Governance and Quality Assurance and Standard 4 – The student experience, the provider is required to review the governance structures of the DClinDent programs. In undertaking the review, the School is to ensure
that:
(a) student evaluations and peer review are incorporated as a part of quality assurance processes, and
(b) student representation and external input relevant to each specialisation are included into quality assurance processes.
A report is to be submitted to the ADC by 23 July 2021 advising of changes made to ensure programs remain contemporary and providing evidence that student evaluation and peer input is incorporated into quality improvement processes.
3. In order to fully meet Standard 4 –The student experience, the provider is requested to provide by 23 July 2021 a course guide that clearly details the DClinDent program for each of the Endodontics, Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Orthodontics and Prosthodontics
specialisations. The provider is requested to provide evidence of how information is provided to students to inform them of:
(a) program structure, including delivery of didactic and clinical components and learning outcomes
(b) progression requirements
(c) assessment requirements, including marking rubrics and due dates for assessment.
4. In order to fully meet Standard 4 – The student experience, the provider is requested to provide by 23 July 2021 evidence of how a student can raise a grievance related to a staff member’s behaviour or conduct and how the provider handles complaints of this nature.
5. In order to fully meet Standard 3 – Program of Study, evidence is to be provided by 23 July 2021 of the formalisation and systematic approach to the interactions with other dental and health professionals to provide interdisciplinary treatment and care. In providing this information the provider is requested to include evidence of the implementation of interdisciplinary seminars attended by students across all specialisations.
6. In order to fully meet Standard 3 – Program of Study, the provider is requested to provide evidence that a coherent and detailed research program is in place to enable students to achieve the stated learning outcomes. Evidence is to be provided to the ADC
by 23 July 2021 of the program that is in place.
7. In order to fully meet Standard 3 – Program of study, the provider is required to submit by 23 July 2021 details of how the diagnosis, treatment and management of orofacial pain has been comprehensively incorporated into the curriculum of the program.
For the Doctor of Clinical Dentistry program in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology:
8. In order to fully meet Standard 3 – Program of Study, the provider is requested to provide evidence that the staffing profile is sufficient to deliver the Doctor of Clinical Dentistry in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. The report should include clear details of the level of engagement of each staff member, teaching and clinical supervision commitments and is to be submitted to the ADC by 23 July 2021.
9. In order to fully meet Standard 3 – Program of Study, the provider is requested to provide evidence by 30 April 2021 that placement locations for the program have appropriate accreditation for the delivery of pathology service to provide reassurance
that the equipment and facilities are of an appropriate standard to support students to achieve the required learning outcomes.
10. In order to fully meet Standard 3 – Program of Study, evidence is to be provided by 23 July 2021 of the opportunities for students to gain clinical exposure to and experience in the handling or preparation of tissue samples to meet the required competencies of
the specialty.
11. In order to fully meet Standard 5 – Assessment the provider is required to provide by 10 September 2021 a comprehensive list of internal and external examiners of the program and details of the moderation procedures in place to ensure consistent and appropriate assessment of students.
The ADC has finally caught up with Logan's "work smart" style at the expense of quality. The dean has no clue how to run a dental school. If the university management does not learn from this, god help them. An incompetent dean supervised by incompetent Executive Dean, Ben Kile. Does Ben Kile still have full confidence in Logan? Kile has no clue how a clinical program should be run, so he has no other choice than to fully trust whoever is in charge of clinical programs. How did he get the job of the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences? Upper management has no clue either.
They should be doing a news section on senior managers cheating and living in a network of web of lies. Look at Rathjen - a big liar caught by ICAC and the Chancellor was heavily criticized by the ICAC report for doing a deal with Rathjen to remove the previous chancellor. Human Resources lives in a web of lies - oh there is no problem. Lying is accepted as the norm and most staff know they are protected by their superiors for lying or deceiving, as long as they meet their targets of saving money for the university.
the professionals in these areas actually passed an exam and did not just have feel good moments....
And I tried hard to be polite in this post - my feelings run much deeper and more profane ...
http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Dd00a6525-95a3-4d6c-b780-9135553fc8fa%26subId%3D700059&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjL5-KL6v7vAhX9yjgGHVW0DXMQFjADegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3FAC27HRAouhYseMmHYqUG
Recently the University proposed “agile” or “activity based working” conditions for HDR students. Under this model HDR students would not have a specific desk to work from and would instead have to locate and set up their workspace on campus each day. Essentially, HDR students would return to the days of undergrad, where we would have to compete for precious workspaces and computers.
It is rumoured that this model was already tried on the Faculty of the Professions immediately following the 2020/21 University close-down period. Staff were instructed to clean out their desks prior to 17 Dec shutdown date or have their belongings disposed of. Verbally, staff reported that there was to be no personal effects on the desks, and that staff were “encouraged” not to sit in the same desk for more than 2 days.
Workers in the Faculty of the Professions engaged in silent protest around these changes. The University did not actively pursue those who were rebelling, but have now turned their eyes on HDR students as their next guinea pigs for the “frAgile” workspaces. A survey was sent out to HDR students on the 8th of April, however many students have reported that they were completely unaware of the proposal and the survey. The survey closes on the 27th of April right after the university closure, which seems dubious at best.
....
These changes won’t just impact HDR students but their supervisors as well. Should HDR students be forced to stay home, it will reduce the opportunities for academic supervisors to have vital casual contact with their students. A simple “how are you?”, can’t even happen without a scheduled zoom meeting. Academic workload would increase as online meetings multiply because students cannot just drop in for a few quick questions.
The University Infrastructure Branch are framing this proposal as a potential financial saving strategy, with the ability to accommodate future growth. Does the University think staff and HDR student wellbeing is not worthy of expenditure? We as the Union must keep up the fight against this attack on our working conditions. We did that in professions, let’s not allow this to happen to HDR students.
----------------------------------
I'll be honest, this university has become a complete dumpster fire all around. A degree would be worth less than a high school diploma
-----------------------------------
Can we expect more brand massaging after the VCs retreat with uni leaders or real change? Bullying and racist behaviour is still evident in the places mentioned in the posts above. The same old players harrassing staff and students. Enrol the overseas students and then after taking their money harrass them senseless till they withdraw. Some of the players mentioned above are nothing short of psychotic. In the outside world they would be sacked. Well they would not have been hired in the first place. Faculties take fright when a staff member suddenly dies as happened recently and think a day on wellness makes it all ok. What planet do these so called leaders and managers live on?
Ben..... get your head out of the sand.
https://www.theage.com.au/education/confused-and-confusing-maths-experts-say-curriculum-is-faddish-and-shallow-20210602-p57xj3.html
What type of world class dental school is it where Ben Kile and Richard Logan duo refuse to resurrect the troubled paediatric program and let other mediocre postgraduate programs slide downhill? The dean does not know if the undergraduate dental program will exist in 5 years.
So they hate the dental school and could not care less if it closed down, and then brag on about its international ranking.... What for? The ranking will good in their KPI... Fair dinkum.
When the international ranking will take a dive in a year or two, will the duo be still there to take the responsibility? You cannot always ride on the past reputation for too long.
These aren't the Chinese appointments in Chem Eng you're referring to?
Chairman Hoj at work.
https://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace/this-sbs-journalist-was-allegedly-bullied-harassed-then-sacked-now-she-s-fighting-back-20210618-p5826t.html
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/icac-response/
This has trigger twitter discussions. According to a respected advocate for better academia, the university's newly formed Integrity Unit, which is independent of the Human Resources, is a bit like Title IX offices in American universities. But far too often they collude with the HR and senior managers, and are not independent of the university. These offices have failed miserably in the US - look at what is happening with Kurin at the UCSB.
Do not think the Integrity Unit will be independent of the Adelaide managers.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/the-old-school-tie-has-lost-potency-but-a-private-education-still-opens-doors-20210706-p587az.html
https://www.theage.com.au/national/it-s-a-case-of-the-jabs-and-jab-nots-but-don-t-blame-joey-s-boys-20210707-p587ii.html
I bet it will sure pay to be private, Anglo, whiter than White, ipad infected and non coloured over in the School of Education . Also explains the putting into all sorts of 'essential' so called 'leadership roles' of certain of Faye's Faves so they are well protected.
If the Uni really wanted to save money it could close Learning Engagement and Enhancement and at the same time improve its academic credibility by getting rid of interfers and meddlers that populate such units.
Grassroot level staff will be the real losers.
2 Nobel Prize winners, Top 100 in Medicine Dentistry .....
How much money did they waste on this? How much are they spending on other television channels?
Oh I thought they did not have money to pay staff
They wonder why federal ministers of education intervene in the grant award process and why unis were not given job support in the pandemic.
And look at what unis turn out. Matt Canavan has a honours degree from UQ in the dismal science of economics, Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar. And one could go on and on.Much to be said it seems for ignorance.
Is the VC getting a big bonus for making a $10 million profit or what?
Says a lot about the council and the bosses
https://www.theage.com.au/business/entrepreneurship/degrees-not-required-but-working-class-targets-miss-the-mark-20210910-p58qll.html
This is how it works in many other schools, not just the Education. Can you trust any inquiry or the complaint handling process? If you believe in making ICAC complaint they will most likely be handed over to the university chancellor or vice-chancellor. Whenever the university has to investigate itself, it goes in not wanting to find anything wrong. Beware of "independent" external consultants who specialize in producing reports in favour of the university management for disability claims, injury claims, sexual harassment claims, bullying claims.
These strike a cord with the 580+ comments here.
"Anonymous said…
Very similar to today’s news about the FBI’s mishandling of Larry Nassar’s case, the spotlight on these cases justly shifts from the despicable individuals to the equally despicable institutions that put them there and then failed to act and protect the innocent.
Shame on UCSB. Shame on IFR. Their silence and coverups allowed this to continue for years. At least the FBI director publicly apologized to Nassar’s survivors.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1036968966/gymnasts-nassar-fbi-senate-hearing-simone-biles-aly-raisman-wray
September 15, 2021 at 6:37 PM
Anonymous said…
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/sports/olympics/fbi-hearing-larry-nassar-biles-maroney.html
Simone Biles: “To be clear, I blame Larry Nassar, but I also blame an entire system that enabled and perpetrated his abuse,”
Senator Patrick Leahy: “A whole lot of people should be in prison,”
September 15, 2021 at 10:05 PM "
https://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-warning-to-students-in-archaeology.html
At least they are better than in Adelaide. They literally do nothing in Adelaide. Gue harassed so many over nearly a decade and the higher university management (VC's team) did nothing. The external consultant who specializes in producing favourable reports for the university (and gets paid big bucks) helped to gaslight those who complained. Finally the investigation at the Women's and Children's Hospital got rid of him. Gue's supervisor at the university, Logan, did nothing about until the end and his boss, Kile, says he is doing a great job. Watch out, the senior management in VC's circle believes both of them are doing a great job and they will be the ones to be promoted?
Has the chancellor done anything other than lip service to improve human rights record in the university? Oh, forgot, there is no problem.
This is what the ABC says.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-24/sa-icac-bill-passing-fuels-debate/100489280
The bill, which was swiftly passed in Parliament last night, will reduce the powers of the state's ICAC, Ann Vanstone, so she can only investigate allegations of corruption and not misconduct or maladministration.
On Thursday, Ms Vanstone described the proceedings as "extraordinary", saying the jurisdiction to investigate corruption had been "decimated".
On Friday, Mr Lander also expressed strong opinions about the changes, saying he was as "horrified" about the legislation as Ms Vanstone was.
"I'm as horrified as she is by what the Parliament has done by passing this act," he told ABC Radio Adelaide.
"It's also designed to protect corrupt police officers — and it has that effect.
"It will also incidentally, because of the major changes that have been made, protect senior public officers who also are corrupt."
Sign a petition to protect jobs in Adelaide.
https://www.nteu.org.au/adelaide/stop_job_cuts
Virginie Masson writes
We are urgently contacting you about the proposed Organisational Sustainability Program (OSP).
Under this plan, Vice Chancellor Peter Høj and Senior Management propose to cut up to 130 FTE professional staff positions and an unknown number of academic staff.
They also plan to attempt a complex faculty merger, reducing us from five faculties to three.
Meanwhile staff workloads and stress levels are at an all-time high and trust in University leadership is at an all-time low.
Staff and students at the University will once again be severely impacted by these highly questionable management decisions.
If we are to maintain and build on our world-class research and teaching, then academic and professional staff require secure working conditions. We also need stability and trust in our leadership to work in the best interests of the University.
Under our Enterprise Agreement, redundancies can only be considered where work no longer exists. Under this plan, remaining staff will end up with unsustainable workloads.
As university staff and NTEU members we know that honest, evidence-based and democratic decision-making will guarantee a future for our University. There are many alternatives that could be pursued before forced redundancies.
We ask you to sign our petition that calls on the University of Adelaide to drop this proposal and commit to quality, accessible learning, teaching and research supported by fair, safe and secure working conditions.
• Stop the job cuts and mergers.
• Cut executive salaries.
• Challenge the false economy of reliance on external consultants.
• Stop out-sourcing our core business to external providers.
You can see the true colors of the chancellor, vice chancellor, deputy and executive deans, most deans, and not to forget about the council that is letting all this unfold.
After the Human Resources Director came into power some 15 years ago, the system has become impenetrable for the victims of bullying and sexual harassment and a safe haven for the prepetrators. Rathjen just ran out of his fortune.
Considering all the bullying, sexual harassment and gaslighting of victims, you can say with confidence that almost everyone in the senior leadership seems like Rathjen's clone.
Adelaide University = Rathjen University.
If the case goes to the federal court, the University's ironclad legal team and external consultants will jump in to protect the university's reputation. Oh, the university never does anything wrong or immoral.
Unless the union can up its defence team, what is the point of fighting for the right? Everyone should just give up. At least, save yourself from pain, trauma and humiliation of reliving the losing battle.
Even if 60-80% of staff say the move is bad, the university senior leadership cannot care less. Before you stand for what is right, ask yourself if you have an ironclad legal team first.
Logan tried to force people who lacked clinical experience to supervise patient care. So this does not breach the national law? There are national laws - look at the AHPRA website. In a twist of fate, Logan is a key figure in AHPRA and you can disregard the national law as long as you are in the big boy's club.
Kile says Logan is doing a great job and the senior management is brushing everything under the carpet.
Who is Kile's supervisor? Some Deputy VC or Pro VC? The VC is next step up and then the Chancellor. Is it even a surprise?
Today the Deputy NSW Premier resigned. Politicians have a higher level of ethics than uni administrators. Sinking to a all time low with lip-service.