Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Messina's avatar
  2. David Wallace's avatar
  3. Phil Bold's avatar
  4. Brian Garrett's avatar
  5. The Pacific's avatar
  6. Craig Duncan's avatar

    One provocative read (if you can get past the sensationalistic headline) is econ blogger Noah Smith’s substack post from last…

  7. Moussa's avatar

Australian Catholic University proposes to “disestablish” its Dianoia Institute of philosophy… (UPDATED)

…and eliminate 11 faculty lines, although these faculty can compete for just four positions that will now be located in the Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry (another research institute that is surviving this process).  (The draft plan–which I've been unable to upload–was sent to me by someone not in philosophy or even at the ACU.)  ACU's budgetary problems have been apparent for awhile, but these proposals are pretty dramatic.  In the last PGR, ACU, thanks to Dianoia, emerged as the third best philosophy program in Australasia, and tied for 32nd best in the Anglophone world.   If the plan, which must still go before the faculty senate, is approved, I would expect ACU to drop off the map.

Here's the crucial bit from the draft proposal regarding philosophy:

The Dianoia Institute for Philosophy (DIP) contains a world-class collection of researchers. However, the institute’s research program doesn’t inform the curriculum taught in the School of Philosophy and the size of the institute is difficult to sustain in the current model and economic climate. It is therefore proposed that the Dianoia Institute of Philosophy (DIP) will be disestablished.

• All professional staff positions in DIP will be disestablished.
• Professional staff will be invited to participate in the placement process in the Operations Change Plan.
• The position of the Director of the DIP [philosopher Stephen Finlay] will be reviewed and the position will have a changed reporting line.
• The positions for all other academic staff in DIP will be disestablished.

A new philosophy program within IRCI will be developed.
• 4 new philosophy positions (level and academic career path to be determined) will be created in the IRCI’s new philosophy program
• DIP’s impacted academic staff will be invited to participate in the placement process for the 4 new positions
• Research active academic staff in the School of Philosophy [which does the teaching of philosophy] will be offered affiliate membership of this new program and the IRCI

The Dianoia Institute for Philosophy appears to be the only research-oriented Institute facing total "disestablishment," so there seems to be a particular animus against philosophy in this plan.  Having induced philosophers with established positions in leading departments internationally (including Dmitri Gallow from Pittsburgh, Clayton Littlejohn from King's College, London, Gillian Russell from North Carolina/Chapel Hill, among others) to move to Melbourne to take part in a research-only philosophy institute, ACU is now showing most of them the door.  I know nothing about Australian employment or contract law, but in the U.S. this situation would surely produce lawsuits for breach of contract and maybe fraudulent inducement, depending on what incoming faculty were told.

Of course, it is still possible the university senate will reject this plan, but right now the situation appears to be grim.  Comments are open for those who have more information, or who know something about the legal ramifications of such a draconian move.

UPDATE:  A law professor in Australia writes:

It's unusual for academics in Australia to have individual employment contracts, though some of these people may have had specific clauses in a contract when they were hired.  (My impression is that it's unusual for anyone but a fairly high executive/management person to have an individual contract, but I'm not certain about that for sure.)  Most academic's employment will be governed by something called an "enterprise agreement" – basically, a collective bargaining agreement.  I'd be surprised if this wasn't so for the people here, but perhaps their position is unusual enough within the institution that that's not so.  It would be necessary to know details about both the enterprise agreement and their particular contracts to say more.  If they are governed by the enterprise agreement, then the university will likely be saying that this is a redundancy.  (This is what was done at quite a few Australian universities during Covid.)  The basic rules on redundancies are here:  https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/redundancy  There will be specific requirements on "consultations" that have to be followed in the enterprise agreement before anyone can be made redundant.  If someone is made redundant, they have to be paid a sort of severance, but how much depends on how long they have worked there.  This is likely to work against many of the philosophers at the ACU.  The exact amount of redundancy pay they'd have to be paid will likely be set by the enterprise agreement, but I'd guess it could be as low as a few months pay, at the worst. 

In any case, this is a sort of "worst case scenario" for the situation there, I think.  But, without knowing more about their enterprise agreement and any specific contractual details they may have (but which would be slightly surprising to me) this might well be what happens.  What a shame, if so. 

ANOTHER:   A philosopher at the ACU writes:

Dianoia has 15 full-time philosophers (including one signed but not commenced). The plan includes new positions in the IRCI for five (four through an application process, plus the Director [Finlay]). So the proposal is to make 10 of our 15 philosophers redundant.

Although Dianoia is the only institute being disestablished, there are also cuts to the other 5 institutes which fall mainly on the humanities. Roughly half ACU's historians are facing the axe, the entire medieval and early modern studies program, and 3 of 5 political scientists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

11 responses to “Australian Catholic University proposes to “disestablish” its Dianoia Institute of philosophy… (UPDATED)”

  1. This can only be taken as a very bad omen for the field.

  2. Fwiw, I think folks in the US (at least) should be leery about arguments with the form:

    1. This happened.

    So,

    2. Other bad things are now more likely to happen here.

    One reason to be leery about these arguments are the laws governing tenure in Australia. I am *not* an expert on such laws. But I know folks who are, at my own university: and they tell me that the relevant Australian laws are particularly weak. That weakness may explain why what just happened at ACU is possible. And the difference in those laws' strength and the strength of comparable laws in the States may give philosophers in the latter reason to not be afraid, i.e., to reject arguments with the form above.

    All of this, of course, is no succor for the folks in Australia atm.

  3. I'm not sure I would draw that inference from this disaster. ACU was one of the weaker universities in Australia–well below Sydney, Melbourne, Monash, ANU, Queensland, New South Wales, and others. It was surprising to start with that a university of this caliber would make this kind of extraordinary investment in pure philosophy research (research, not teaching). The main lesson is that faculty and students should approach with extreme caution this kind of initiative in the future when undertaken by universities not otherwise notable for their research excellence.

  4. This is a travesty. Dianoia quickly built up an extremely strong program 'from scratch' – one that aspiring PhD candidates in M&E ought to consider seriously when applying to schools (perhaps candidates in other areas ought to consider it seriously as well – but I'm not as familiar with other subfields). In some ways, I find it unsurprising that a cash-strapped university would consider cutting a program that doesn't teach undergraduates. Undergraduate tuition provides a lot of funding, and at some point administrators care about how much money each program brings in.

    For what it's worth, Dianoia is not the only program under the gun at ACU. Currently, the university has five Political Science professors – and will retain only two. Those professors don't form an an independent institute like Dianoia, but the same forces seem to be at work. (My source on this is my partner, who is a political science professor…apparently those cuts are making the rounds of the Poli Sci twitter/blogosphere). I suspect other departments face similar cuts, but don't have details on those. So, I'm not sure that this bodes poorly for philosophy more generally, or if it just speaks to a dire financial situation at ACU. Still, if the higher-ups want to be recognized as a leading university, they should bend over backwards to keep the stellar philosophy faculty they have right now.

  5. Those who want to help can email Senate@acu.edu.au to say that this move would damage ACU's reputation and hinder the university's commitment to support the common good (a core part of the university's Catholic mission).

    There is also a petition started by the relevant workers' union:

    https://act.newmode.net/action/nteu/acu-senate-dont-make-staff-pay-acus-overspending

  6. As Director of Dianoia, I'm extremely grateful for all the expressions of support we've received since news of this broke. It's been overwhelming and I haven't been able to respond to individual messages yet. We're still scrambling to coordinate our response, and will soon be putting out more information about how people might be able to help. A petition is being created. But in the meantime: an email to the Senate at Senate@acu.edu.au is an effective way of reaching the university's leading body. There is also an email address specifically for responses to the Change Plan, at change@acu.edu.au. The administrators responsible for the plan are the Vice-Chancellor Zlatko Skrbis (zlatko.skrbis@acu.edu.au), the DVC-Research Abid Khan (abid.khan@acu.edu.au), and the Acting Provost Chris Lonsdale (chris.lonsdale@acu.edu.au), so they could be cc-ed on any message. But it would also be very helpful if people posted messages here on this blog about what they think of this decision (if Brian's okay with that). The university does care about its reputation; indeed I received an invitation just yesterday to a webinar on growing ACU's international reputation.

  7. People can also sign the NTEU union's letter protesting the broader Change Plan (they explicitly invite support from outside ACU) here: https://qrco.de/beLWt2

  8. Steve Finlay asks people to comment here about what they think about this decision, so:

    This is dishonorable (I don’t know what the formal contractual situation is, but the implied expectations to new hires were crystal clear). It is also suicidal if ACU has any aspirations to be a research university: it will make it impossible for a generation for them to be competitive in hiring.

  9. I am a legal academic at another Australian university. I am just commenting to express my anger at ACU leadership and disappointment in their decision. Aside from demonstrating contumelious disregard for their employees, this is a horrible strategic decision that will badly damage ACU's reputation. My thoughts are with the people who will be affected by this decision.

    As an aside, the summary of the level of protection afforded to Australian academics that Brian has shared seems correct to me. While Australian academics have decent job protection when compared with the broader community, it falls short of what would ordinarily be considered tenure. Other Australian universities have at least threatened to use the sort of "spill and fill" technique that ACU are saying they will use. (A similar plan for the Architecture School at University of Queensland was only abandoned after several staff took "voluntary" redundancies.) Australian academics are also vulnerable to being dismissed for various forms of "misconduct" that fall considerably short of what would constitute grounds for dismissal at other international universities. One of the apparent implications of a recent High Court decision (Ridd v James Cook University (2021)) was that you can be dismissed for misconduct for failing to cooperate with a disciplinary process even in cases where the initial disciplinary action was unfounded or illegitimate.

    I think it is very important that Australian academics join the National Tertiary Education Union–for their own security, and so they can join the fight for a better level of job protection.

  10. I've been involved over the years (as a faculty senate leader) in both the creation and elimination of several academic programs. I'm a strong believer that once a program or unit comes into existence, that should *not* mean that it should always exist. However, in this case the institute is a very recent creation and appears to have been successful at its mission. Eliminating it so soon after creation feels political, and sends a terrible message to anyone designing some other innovation at the university.

  11. You’re correct. 19 History positions are under fire as well.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

Designed with WordPress