‘Brutal’ staff cut proposed at uni
CONTINUING financial troubles and a failure to keep up with digital learning technologies has prompted the University of Otago to propose major changes in one of its departments.
The changes affect the Higher Education Development Centre (HEDC) and could mean the disestablishment of all 14 of its fulltimeequivalent staff ( FTE) roles, across all three campuses. They would be replaced with 14 FTE staff doing different roles — some of which would be new FTE roles from outside the HEDC.
A staff member, who declined to be named, said staff were shocked by the ‘‘brutal’’ proposal.
‘‘Everyone is very stressed. ‘‘Most of the centre’s staff are career academics and are facing either losing their jobs or applying for jobs that require academic training, but no academic work, and are at a significantly lower pay scale.
‘‘The announcement was not foreseen by the department.’’ In a report to the University of Otago, learning and teaching dean Prof Tim Cooper said the purpose of the proposed changes was to shift the centre away from its present profile as ‘‘predominantly an academic department, conducting research, supervising PhD students, offering qualifications, and teaching papers in higher education’’, to one that was more focused on directly supporting the needs of teaching staff in the academic divisions.
‘‘This task is particularly urgent in a context of significant change, both within our university and within the tertiary sector more generally. ‘‘The primary outcome of the proposed changes is to better match HEDC to the work required.’’
However, in the present financially challenging context, efficiencies were an important secondary consideration, he said.
‘‘HEDC cannot be immune from the expectation currently placed on all units to look to its costs and income, to reduce its staffing wherever possible, and to reflect carefully on its work priorities.’’
If the changes went ahead, he said present staff would have to apply for the new roles, but would be given first preference. There would also be ‘‘ample opportunities for redeployment’’. While the overall FTE would remain the same under the proposal, he said the changed nature of the proposed roles would significantly reduce salary costs. Prof Cooper told the Otago Daily Times yesterday, another reason for the proposed change was digital learning technologies had become more significant in tertiary education.
‘‘The tertiary learning environment has changed rapidly with the development of new digital learning technologies intensified by the Covid19 pandemic, and the rapid emergence of generative artificial intelligence.’’
In his report, he said the foremost challenge facing universities at the moment was the rapid escalation in the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).
‘‘Not only does AI threaten the integrity of our educational offerings, it will change our approach to educating students for a world increasingly shaped by AI.
‘‘Therefore, as our university moves quickly to invest in those technologies, we will need a more diverse range of support roles for teaching and learning.’’ His report said the technological developments would require a transformation in the way lecturers taught, which in turn would require a new level and type of support for teaching staff. ‘‘Over the next few years, our university will be making a significant investment in these new learning technologies.
‘‘Installing them is one thing — supporting teaching staff to use them and to weave them into effective teaching practice, is another.
‘‘That support will be essential.’’
Yesterday, Prof Cooper said he was ‘‘acutely aware’’ that receiving this proposal was very difficult for directly affected staff, and the university was supporting staff as it worked through this process.
‘‘We very much value our staff and their views on the proposal, and strongly encourage them to connect with support services if needed.’’
A Tertiary Education Union spokesman declined to comment on the situation at this stage. The proposed changes would take effect from the end of this year if they are to proceed. Feedback on the proposal closes at 5pm on May 13.
❛ HEDC cannot be immune from the expectation . . . to look to its costs and income
EXPERTS say university campuses are increasingly polarised, with academics fearful of speaking out and university leaders trying to protect staff from internet trolls.
Debates about free speech on campus, and academic freedom, erupted in August 2018 when Don Brash was initially stopped from speaking at Massey University and again then in 2021 when seven professors at the University of Auckland signed a letter about matauranga ¯ Maori ¯ in the NCEA science curriculum.
And it has all flared up at Te HerengaWaka Victoria University of Wellington in the past few weeks.
Dr Michael Johnston, a senior fellow at freemarket thinktank the New Zealand Initiative, is part of a panel about free speech on campus at Victoria University that was originally postponed due to a backlash about the lack of diversity and perceived rightwing leanings of the panel — including him.
The university said it reformatted and added a diversity of panellists to the event after listening to feedback from staff and student groups.
It will be divided into two groups, with a range of advocates and academics, held in a lecture theatre and moderated by RNZ’s Corin Dann. Dr Johnston, a former academic and associate dean of education at the university, said it was an example of how campuses were becoming increasingly polarised.
‘‘The best way out of that is a free and open sharing and contesting of ideas. That’s what the university is supposed to be a venue for and we shouldn’t want to curtail that in any way.’’
He said the university response to the matauranga ¯ Maori ¯ letter in the New Zealand Listener in 2021, and a review the University of Canterbury conducted into a paper by China academic AnneMarie Brady, were two examples in the recent past.
Concerns about free speech were not limited to Victoria.
The University of Canterbury is reviewing its policy on academic freedom, which law professor Ursula Cheer said was the subject of vigorous debate. ‘‘It’s certainly happening that universities are drawing up policies relating to academic freedom and attempting to guide it, which I don’t believe complies with the law and is of concern . . . is of great concern.
‘‘I certainly do think there is an atmosphere in universities of academics becoming more afraid to speak on certain issues.’’
Prof Cheer said the Education and Training Act enshrined academic freedom at tertiary institutions, specifically that academic staff and students could question and test received wisdom, put forward new ideas, or state uncontroversial or unpopular opinions within the law.
Victoria University vicechancellor Prof Nic Smith is consulting staff and students on a set of principles about public discourse discussions and hosting alternative views on campus. These principles include that conversations should be respectful, manapreserving and evidencebased, and that the content of conversations should align with the university’s values. Dr Johnston said the principle seeking to confine debate on campus to the university’s values could shut speech down.
But Prof Smith said that was not the intent and he was trying to protect staff who spoke out from those who attacked them, including internet trolls.
‘‘My hope is that actually we can embrace and lean into uncomfortable and challenging conversations.’’
He said most organisations supported conversations to take place in line with their values, which included respect, responsibility, fairness, integrity and empathy.
But he also stressed that conversations should be evidencebased and that not ‘‘anybody and everybody’’ could speak at the university.
Act New Zealand leader David Seymour said the Education and Training Act was not working effectively enough if a free speech debate was put off due to the presence of rightwing voices. He said the Act would be changed within the next two years to require universities to adopt a free speech policy if they wanted to receive government funding.
He expected universities to adopt a similar model to the University of Chicago.
‘‘It should be very clear that people are able to express views, that others may not like, but claims of emotional harm and emotional safety are not sufficient reasons to prevent somebody from speaking.’’
Prof Smith said he did not want the government’s policy to have a chilling effect on academics or students who had nuanced views, or who changed their mind.
‘‘At universities it’s really important that we can support our academics, that we can support experts, that we can support the middle ground who can bring context, nuance and evidence to these discussions to be participants.
‘‘And we don’t just end up with the polarised extremes shouting at each other from what they each are asserting is the high moral ground.’’
But Dr Johnston said controversial — even dangerous — ideas must be confronted.
‘‘You put up your hand at question time and get stuck in. We need to have a more robust culture for the exchange and discussion of ideas.
‘‘I think that’s what’s new — that now that seems to be a controversial idea in itself.’’