An institution which is closed to criticism
UTAS MOVE/ HOBART FIRE PLANS
I AGREE with Ian Howard about the UTAS train wreck (Talking Point, September 1). Here is a summary of my attempts to raise related concerns over the past two years.
I wrote an article for the Mercury and politely sent it to Head of Humanities who used that information to ask me to withdraw it, saying it would put off potential students.
I had a meeting with two senior executive members who avoided the subjects raised and talked about the exotic overseas holidays their huge salaries would supply.
I met the Vice-Chancellor, who unexpectedly brought in another senior executive. With apparently no interest in what I was saying, the VC looked at his laptop screen and typed through the meeting while the other person deflected my concerns.
I tried to raise similar issues with the Research Pro-Vice Chancellor and was told some research is not his concern and I need to go further down the hierarchy. I was only granted a Zoom meeting although it was well out of lockdown. Last week I requested a meeting with the research head in my former department who refused to meet me.
I was one of the first female professors at UTAS. I trained at Cambridge University and have worked at other universities interstate and overseas, but none like this.
If I can’t talk to anyone in the closed shop, how can students (some who now pay high fees), parents, frightened staff, years 11 and 12 teachers or those concerned in the community?
As to writer Clinton Garratt’s comment (Letters, September 2), I’m not sure where the students are hiding who are going to enliven the city because they are not on the Sandy Bay campus. Professor Pam Sharpe
Mount Stuart
CITY MOVE ILL-ADVISED
I entirely agree with the arguments presented by Ian Howard (Talking Point, September 1) that the University of Tasmania’s move to the city is on a course to fail. It seems that the university management and council are not meeting their prime role to promote research and education. Instead they are diverting resources into an ill-advised real estate operation, which is likely to degrade the academic performance of the university.
The one constant seen in universities of high standing – UC Stanford, UC Berkeley, Princeton, MIT, Cambridge, Oxford and Melbourne – is that they have cohesive campuses with green space. Even Imperial College London has a cohesive campus with green spaces. These spaces provide a positive experience for students and are important to allow students to mix and exchange ideas in a tranquil environment.
The reasons given to move the Sandy Bay campus to the city just don’t stack up. It seems that no one, since the inception of this mad plan by ViceChancellor Daryl Le Grew, has had the brains or foresight to see this move as a backward step for the university and stop it. I suggest the change from the cohesive green site Sandy Bay campus to a disconnected dog’s breakfast of city buildings is a taxpayer-funded folly and will be a disaster for the university. Peter Turner
Sandy Bay
ROADS TO RUIN
The Lord Mayor’s article, “Hobart needs a plan to evacuate” (Talking Point, September 2), is long on rhetoric but short on specifics, especially when it comes to road infrastructure.
Since the devastating fires of 1967, thousands of new residents have moved back into South Hobart, Strickland Ave, Huon Rd, Waterworks Rd, and Woodcutters Rd (accessing the new suburb of Tolmans Hill), all with the approval of the HCC.
Each of these areas has a single arterial exit road that would take them to the top of Macquarie St. The top end of Macquarie Street already faces long queues of congested traffic each and every day.
Imagine the chaos that would erupt in the likely event of a future bushfire sweeping across the foothills of Mount Wellington fanned by hot northerly winds. People from those areas would be trapped in long lines of stationary cars trying to escape the path of the fire as it engulfed them.
In the event of a bushfire disaster, the first priority of an evacuation plan for Hobart must be to provide alternative escape routes for residents in exposed suburbs.
R D M (Bob) Cotgrove Mount Nelson
FIRE FEAR MONGERING
The Talking Point article published on September 2 by the Hobart Lord Mayor states “Hobart needs a plan to evacuate” in the event of a bushfire disaster, a somewhat probable event backed by the findings of the recently released IPCC report.
Given that Hobart has a very large river running through its centre I find this blatant fearmongering to be rather excessive. Those living in the bushfireprone areas take on a higher risk of their choosing and are encouraged to have bushfire emergency plans in place.
It’s the council’s responsibility to undertake bushfire management and prevention in areas it owns and to engage with the respective emergency services to formulate plans for co-ordinated emergency responses.
We only need to recall last summer’s catastrophic mainland bushfires to know the potential scenarios we face every summer; however, to assume there will be a need to evacuate the entirety city of Hobart is a bit of a stretch. Monica Antel
Cambridge