South Australian academics believe their universities are breeding grounds for corruption, where overworked staff strive to survive in organisations that “bend the rules”, follow the dollar and value reputation over integrity.
A scathing??from South Australia’s Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) has warned that the state’s three universities are vulnerable to improper conduct – particularly bullying, harassment, nepotism and inaccurate marking – because their “intimidated” staff are neither aware of their obligations to report it nor willing to do so.
ICAC said just one in four of the more than 3,100 academics and professional staff?that it had surveyed believed their employers had adequate protections for whistleblowers. Most were not confident that reporting corruption or inappropriate conduct would generate any action.
University employees were generally less aware than other public sector workers about their obligations to report suspected corruption, misconduct or maladministration. They were also relatively unwilling to do so – particularly “older and more well-established staff”.
The report highlights a “disconnect” between staff and the 87 senior managers who responded to the survey. While leaders tended to have a “more positive view”, some staff described management as “exploitative and immune to criticism”.
Leaders were seen as intolerant of dissent and uninterested in the problems of staff, who worried about declining standards, inappropriate enrolments and pressure to pass students.
The report cites claims that management’s “excessive and damaging” focus on fees and revenue was undermining integrity, encouraging poor behaviour and “contributing to a work culture where people were unwilling to speak up”.
In a foreword to the report, commissioner Ann Vanstone says institutions’ integrity is “framed” by the attitudes and experiences of their staff. “Organisations that struggle to listen to their employees, call out impropriety or take effective action against improper conduct are at a heightened risk of corruption,” she writes.
“I hope the insights and observations offered in this report will stimulate each university to review its operations, policies, procedures and reporting cultures.”
The survey was conducted in March, two months before the ICAC revealed that it was investigating allegations of improper conduct by then University of Adelaide vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen – who had taken indefinite leave two days earlier, following the abrupt departure of chancellor Kevin Scarce – and the university’s handling of the allegations. In August, ICAC announced findings of serious sexual misconduct against Professor Rathjen.
In an email to staff, interim vice-chancellor Mike Brooks vowed that the university would follow the commissioner’s advice. “I am determined that the university will become a safer and more respectful place to work and study,” the email says. “The survey findings provide us with a further opportunity to identify improvements to our culture, behaviours and processes.”
The survey found that universities’ policies and procedures were not the problem. “The challenge appears to be in ensuring that policies are disseminated, understood and complied with.”
Willingness to report misconduct declines with tenure, the study found. Permanent staff were almost twice as likely as those on fixed-term contracts to express reluctance to report internally. People who had been with their university less than a year were 16 per cent more likely to blow the whistle on misbehaviour than staff with six to 10 years’ standing.
Permanent employees and those aged over 54 were almost twice as inclined to believe their organisations discouraged reporting as fixed-term and early career staff.
