Chancellor Julie Bishop insists ANU is listening when it comes to the university’s future. Photo: Jamie Kidston/ANU.
“We’re moving ahead, we are listening, we are assessing the feedback, and we’re determined to take options for a way forward that balances the balancing of our budget, takes into account what financial sustainability does look like in this sector … [and] balancing it with care and compassion for the remarkable people who are so committed to this university.”
Those were the words of ANU Chancellor Julie Bishop in the wake of Vice-Chancellor Genevieve Bell’s resignation.
So it must be asked: Why weren’t they listening before?
And why do those at the top still appear to be surprised about what matters to those below them?
Why has it taken Professor Bell’s resignation for staff and students to be heard? They’ve been screaming for more than a year about the injustices of the Renew ANU financial restructuring program – and it’s been falling on deaf ears.
It’s been 18 months of job losses, mental stresses, Senate inquiries over the behaviour of ANU’s leaders … and now they say they’re “listening”?
And who says Professor Bell’s departure from the VC role (she’s apparently going to resume her role at the head of the School of Cybernetics once her study leave is up) means that anything will change?
Multiple protest groups, politicians, and the union have pointed out that no decision ever fell solely at Professor Bell’s feet.
The Chancellor is facing accusations of bullying and harassment, while other senior executives have been accused of failing to disclose conflicts of interest and differential treatment. The Nixon Review noted the entire university had a “remarkable tolerance for poor behaviour and bullying“.
When this publication asked Ms Bishop why she felt it was appropriate for her to keep her position in light of everything that had happened under her watch and the allegations against her, she said she’d never heard of the accusations until they were aired during a Senate inquiry, plus she still had a contract until 2026.
Professor Bell also had a contract that was yet to expire.
Staff, students, politicians and the union have also been sounding the alarm about the psychosocial harms being caused and exacerbated by the Renew ANU program.
National Tertiary Education Union ANU branch president Millan Pintos-Lopez said the university wasn’t a “psychosocially safe place” to work under the proposed job cuts and restructure proposals.
“Senior Executives’ failed attempts at communication and reluctance to clarify only further harm staff within the university,” he said.
“The university has embarked on the biggest staff cuts in our recent history, and midway through, changed Employee Assistance Program providers. How in any way is that a psychosocially safe decision?”
Consultation has closed on the change management plans for the College of Arts and Social Sciences, College of Science and Medicine, the Academic Portfolio and Campus Environment Division. It’s unknown whether implementation plans will be formed.
One eagle-eyed Redditor found domain names had already been registered and ready to deploy for the new/proposed names for the School of Creative and Cultural Practice, and the School of Social Foundations and Futures, when they were still under consultation.
Interim Vice-Chancellor Professor Rebekah Brown told the town hall on Thursday (11 September) that meetings would be held with the college deans and other executives about the way forward, and that there would be a “deliberate and transparent plan that unites our community”.
“[I make a] firm commitment to communicate clearly, transparently and often with you,” she said.
Given Ms Bishop had been on campus on 2 September, apparently to give Professor Bell her marching orders, it prompts another question: why haven’t those conversations already been had?
During that time, Ms Bishop had also met with representatives from the ANU Governance Project, who had developed a report for the Senate inquiry into university governance on a better way forward.
She described the meeting as positive and said that many interesting ideas had been presented.
Why didn’t the ANU think to ask its distinguished and accomplished academics about some potential options in the first place, rather than spending $3.2 million for consultant Nous Group to come up with the drastic Renew ANU plan?
The group put out a statement in the wake of Prof Bell’s resignation, stating it was “critical” to be clear that the challenges facing ANU extended “beyond any single individual”.
It’s argued that ANU’s governance structures, as set out in the Australian National University Act 1991, concentrate powers in a way that shields the university leadership from accountability.
“Students, staff and the broader public are excluded from meaningful decision-making. This lack of accountability has contributed to crises of trust, poor institutional culture, and decisions that put financial and reputational considerations ahead of education and public responsibility,” a spokesperson said.
“We need structural change. Reforming the ANU Act to ensure that all leaders of the university are accountable to students, staff and the public is the only way to address the root causes of these problems.
“This is a moment to build a genuinely democratic and transparent university – one that lives up to its national mission.”
It’s clear this has not been handled well (in fact, it’s been a colossal embarrassment, and that’s putting it politely). It will be interesting to see if anything, truly, changes.
