UTAS must be open to discussions
The university’s move to the Hobart CBD requires a far more open conversation with the public, writes John Livermore
THE proposed UTAS “community discussion group’’ is not meant to examine the suitability of its move to the Hobart CBD.
When asked in a recent ABC TV interview if the pause in the former Forestry building development application meant that the move would be off the agenda, university ViceChancellor Rufus Black replied tersely: “No chance.”
The refusal by the university to discuss its move to the CBD and the surrender of the Sandy Bay campus was given an early indication by its gagging of discussion at the AGM of the Alumni Association in November 2018.
After the vice-chancellor had outlined plans for future student intake and policy, a number of those attending, including myself, wanted to ask about the move by UTAS to the Hobart CBD.
Those at the meeting were told that there were to be no questions. After the University Council backed the CBD move in April 2019, the UTAS media section refused to comment on my criticism (Talking Point, April 2019).
A recent request I made to a university representative for a meeting of the UTAS alumni to discuss this move plus the sale/lease of the Sandy Bay campus received the reply that “extensive discussion’’ with alumni had occurred.
He put forward the “representative community panel representing diverse voices’’. This was not the alumni meeting I was specifically looking for.
I replied that I could not recall any of the meetings of the alumni referred to where the CBD move and Sandy Bay campus sale were mentioned, unless only the whole plan as determined by UTAS was mentioned. I also described the representative community panel as a mere piece of marketing stage management, which underlines the lack of transparency by UTAS on these crucial issues of concern to members of the university past and present and to the wider public community.
The defensiveness of UTAS can be shown where $7m costs of refurbishing by UTAS of the MidCity Hotel were revealed by the Ombudsman, Richard Cannock, following a claim to him by the ABC after a three-year stonewalling by
UTAS (Mercury, March 27)
In its defence, UTAS argued that the ABC’s request was not generally in the public interest, a view knocked back by the ombudsman, who held that: “There is always a need for information to be accessible to the general public.”
Adjunct Associate Professor Rick Snell categorised UTAS blocking tactics “to fight for three years, tooth and nail for as long as it has, is outrageous”.
The vice-chancellor said he was “very happy” that the information received by the ABC was in the public interest.
The way in which UTAS has curtailed the freedom of its staff to criticise it, which would include the whole relocation policies, has been highlighted by Greg Barns (“Fighting for freedom of speech,” Talking Point, Mercury, March 21).
It seems incredible that UTAS requires staff to sign nondisclosure agreements to prevent those seeking redundancies from criticising their former employer.
In addition, as from February 2021, staff have been reminded of confidentiality clauses in their employment agreements to protect against “anti-university community sentiment’’. How did these requirements get past the National Tertiary Education Union?
In his very relevant book, The University Idea and Its Enemies: Socrates to ScoMo, Professor Richard Davis notes the move away from academics once having some say through elected deans and professorial boards have lost out to universities run by vice-chancellors and administrators. He concludes: “The enemies of the university idea appear to have totally triumphed.”
Not yet, it is hoped.