Culture Review Report
School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences (SPESES)
6 February 2022
INTRODUCTION The overall objective of the Review was to understand whether there are conduct or culture
issues present in the School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences (SPESES),
which could be categorised as racism, discrimination or bullying according to the definitions in
the Ethical Behaviour Policy (EBP).
4
The University of Otago’s Ethical Behaviour Policy sets out behavioural expectations for all
members of its community and makes clear that there is no tolerance for racism, discrimination
or bullying.
Relatedly, the Māori Strategic Framework (MSF) sets out the University’s expectations of Māori
advancement in carefully articulated goals and strategies.
While the EBP sets out ‘what not to do’ and the MSF’s focus is on ‘what we should do’, the
Review
Terms of Reference (Appendix 1) notes that “... taken together they are two of the
guiding documents that support the University’s expectations regarding conduct and culture.”
The Review was not an investigation into the conduct of any individual member of staff but an
assessment of conduct and culture; to determine whether there are significant issues that could
be affecting the safety and wellbeing of staff and students within SPESES.
Following consultation between the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (PVC) Sciences and the Director of
Māori Development, and in dialogue with the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Darryn Russell was
approached and commissioned to lead the independent Review. Ms Claire Porima provided
support to this process.
FINDINGS
Allegations of systemic racism, discrimination and bullying within the School are upheld.
This finding is based on evidence of racism, discrimination and bullying being entrenched in a
culture described as “toxic”. This culture supports pejorative norms i.e. bullying, academic
jealousy, undermining of leadership and its decisions. This has led to mamae (hurt) affecting the
safety and well-being of under-represented communities, particularly Māori. The communication
is guised as “robust discussion” or “constructive analysis”.
Māori issues and Māori ethnicity were a primary focus of the conversations and feedback that
give rise to the allegations of racism. I also found examples of discrimination and bullying on the
basis of gender, other ethnicity, physical ability, and age. These were brought up in almost all
submissions.
4 SPESES Culture Review Terms of Reference, November 2021.
1
Similarly, communication in the School is a significant issue. It is challenging, both “in how
information is delivered and in how the communication is received”. Communication was
described as confrontational and aggressive, for example, people shouting, people walking out of
meetings and people smashing clenched fists on to tables during meetings. Poor communication
was a recurrent issue in descriptions of the culture of SPESES as “toxic”.
There has been an inherent failure of leadership over a long period of time to address these
behaviours or establish parameters and measures for behavioural expectations that are in line
with the Ethical Behaviour Policy. Communication and leadership failure in aspects of culture
change were outlined by several staff and went back as far as two decades.
If this was not extreme enough, institutional structures of support - in particular Human
Resources - have repeatedly failed to address allegations of racism, discrimination and bullying
in SPESES. Staff who have brought forward such issues over a long period of time have been
failed through inaction. This is a critical factor when considered alongside the aforementioned
points.
These factors give rise to the finding that systemic racism, discrimination, and bullying are
inherent and normalised in the culture of the School. This has had a detrimental effect on the
health, safety and wellbeing of staff and students in SPESES.
Consistent across all interviews was exploring options for addressing the temporary withdrawal
of Te Koronga from the School. Since the initial allegations and in the course of conducting this
Review, advice was received that Te Koronga is unwilling and not prepared to entertain any form
of return to the School.
articulated categorically this
view.
went on to note “… that for Te Koronga, a return would
signify complicity with a culture of systemic racism.”
This is contradictory to the desire for reintegration expressed by almost every participant outside
Te Koronga. I note that those who fail to understand or who have not experienced systemic
racism would be challenged to comprehend the nature and extent of these issues.
I strongly recommend the Sponsor and the institution to act urgently on this Report and to lead
the way forward to address the findings of this Review. This Review could be a catalyst for
change to issues that are gaining intensity, focus and challenge across the sector.
5
It is important to note that not everyone is an active contributor to this determination. There are
some who take individual action and who genuinely wish to be al ies of their Māori col eagues,
working together towards a bicultural Aotearoa. The power imbalance within the School means
that there are members of staff - academic, and non-academic - who are unfortunately caught up
in an environment that harbours racism, discrimination and bullying and who feel they are
separated from the solutions. Many are hopeful that these issues can be resolved while
acknowledging that their own apathy may have contributed to being complicit in these
behaviours.
5 Parata/Gardiner Report, University of Waikato. 2020
2
BACKGROUND
On 6 August 2021, the Māori research group Te Koronga, as well as members of the new
National Centre of Research Excellence Coastal People: Southern Skies (CPSS), left the School
of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences (SPESES) in a protest against “systemic
racism.” The PVC Sciences was notified of this as a “temporary physical, potentially final exit
strategy” from SPESES
6. Staff and students physically packed their offices and worked from
home and around campus while alternative accommodation could be found. Temporary
accommodation was found on Campus with a view to reintegrate CPSS and Te Koronga back
into SPESES later, in a safe manner.
The PVC Sciences and the Acting Vice-Chancellor individually acknowledged this action.
Te Koronga: Indigenous Science Research Theme was formally recognised as a University of
Otago Research theme in 2016 and was located in the SPESES. Research themes are an
interdisciplinary grouping of university scholars engaged in related research activities in areas of
developing or potential research topics. Themes are not cost centres and members of a research
theme are line managed within the academic department in which they hold their substantive
position.
The staff and students involved in Te Koronga are unofficially represented by
who wrote in an email to the University Chancellor et
al on 11 August:
“What we have done is taken a peaceful stand to maintain our own mana and that of the
communities we represent through physically removing ourselves from an environment to
seek a workplace that is safe and inclusive and free from racism, discrimination, and
bullying.”
The physical withdrawal of those who contribute to the Te Koronga research theme and to CPSS
from SPESES, described their decision as a “silent, dignified protest against systemic racism”.
Some SPESES staff, however, on learning of the withdrawal described the action as a ‘surprise’
or being in “shock” at the “sudden” action. Others were not surprised at all and saw it as a result
of cumulative experiences and examples of ‘isms’ toward Te Koronga and personally toward staff
associated with the Research Theme - racism being key among them.
The action to physically withdraw from the School was conveyed to and supported by the PVC in
view of the severity of the accusations.
On 12 August, the Acting Vice-Chancellor responded by email and said:
“I want to assure you that the University is taking these claims seriously … I want to
reassure you that we will be undertaking a separate review of the School of Physical
Education, and Exercise Sciences. This will be done with an independent and suitably
qualified advisor to ensure these alleged issues are discovered, confronted and used as
a catalyst for change – both within (SPSES) and the wider University as necessary.”
6
email, dated 11 August 2021
3
RESPONSE
The extended timeframe before commencement of a Review proper was to respect the desire by
all parties for a meaningful and robust process to be put in place, to identify and agree on the
appointment of a Reviewer, and to establish a Terms of Reference for the Review.
The nature of the claims and reason for this Review impact the staff and students of the School
and the Division, and ultimately the whole institution.
The Terms of Reference describe the Ethical Behaviour Policy and Māori Strategic Framework,
when read together, as the University's expectation regarding conduct and culture.
Following a Terms of Reference being drafted by the PVC Sciences as a response to the
allegations, staff were notified of the intention to bring in an independent person to review the
events. Staff were invited to contribute to this process through individual or collective interviews
(in person or via Zoom) and/or written submissions.
Prior to the week of verbal submissions, the Reviewer and Review Adviser met with the PVC
Sciences and Dean of SPESES for a briefing on the Review background and Terms of
Reference.
Interviews took place from Monday 17 January through until Friday 21 January 2022.
All those who contributed to this process, were guaranteed anonymity. Given the importance of
capturing participant input and feedback, the provenance of content included in this report is not
attributable to any individual staff. The Reviewer acknowledges the full and frank nature of the
feedback provided during the in-person interviews.
Eighteen individual and group interviews were held during the week involving 33 staff, students,
and community representatives; eight written submissions were received some representing a
collective position and others from individuals. Several participants provided both a written
response and an oral submission.
ALLEGATION CONTEXT
Allegations such as those made, the actions taken, and the decision to investigate rarely
eventuate outside any historical or contextual drivers. There is much published on the
renaissance of Māori rights and Te Tiriti o Waitang
i7 and it is not the intention of the Reviewer to
cover extensively this material, rather ensure these important references are noted for the report.
I have considered as well as heard references to the following in the course of this review.
Treaty settlements arising from Crown acknowledgement of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi
and the recognition of the impact of colonisation influence public sentiment and public policy. The
rebalancing of rights and obligations of the Crown has seen an increased expectation of the
Crown on Māori outcomes in education notably in the tertiary sector and its institutions.
7 Bal ara, A. (1998)., Durie, E. (1991)., Durie, M. H. (19980., Joseph, R. (2012), Kawharu, I. H. (1989)., King, M. (2003)., Moon, P. (1994).,
Orange, C. (1987)., Palmer, M. S. R. (2007 & 2008)., Salmond, A. (1997)., Walker, R. (1986)., Ward, A. (1999), Wheen, N. R. and J. Hayward
(2012)
4
Such responsiveness is seen in Māori participation and achievement in the tertiary sector
8,
Māori knowledge recognition and inclusion in curricula, and in research funding models i.e.
Vision Mātauranga requirements, across the tertiary sector.
9
Black Lives Matter and other global movements have highlighted racism and discrimination and
provided frameworks on how to become anti-racist. Terms such as structural bias, unconscious
bias and equity are now referenced in public policy changes. These expectations and
responsibilities are, however, secondary to the rights embedded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. For
Māori, these policy drivers are linked to and must be read in conjunction with Te Tiriti, and in
addition to the rights of Te Tiriti.
The University of Otago was established in 1869. Te Tiriti o Waitangi responsibilities and
obligations of the University were not formalised until after the settlement of Ngāi Tahu with the
Crown in 1998. These included a Memorandum of Understanding with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu,
a Ngāi Tahu appointment to the University Council, the establishment of the Treaty of Waitangi
Committee, and the first senior appointment in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor to lead this
relationship. These responses were a direct implementation of recommendations from the 1998
Professor Ranginui Walker Report
10 - one hundred and twenty-nine years after the establishment
of the University.
The School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences was established in 1948 and
describes itself as “…the foremost institution for the study of physical education, sport and
exercise sciences in New Zealand with an enviable international reputation for the high quality of
our staff and facilities”
11.
Within the School, Te Koronga began as a research theme, supported by the University, located
within SPESES, initially with no space, staff, or students. It signalled an area where there are
research strengths in the University that might incubate interdisciplinary research directions with
coordination.
Te Koronga has grown significantly over the last five years. This includes the appointment of
staff, inclusion of te ao Māori in teaching and research, support for tauira, and growth of the
postgraduate student cohort. Te Koronga also worked on community partnerships to support
Māori aspirations, and a home for kaupapa Māori that advances hauora Māori within the
academy. This moved the concept from what was initially a focus on growing Māori postgraduate
students’ research excellence, into a formal research theme with a kaupapa that provides a
protected space for indigenous research.
The final contextual issue that gave rise to the current situation was a series of institutional
review processes and the responses. These were the:
● change of name of the School in 2015;
8 “Reduce barriers to education for all, including for Māori and Pacific learners/ākonga, disabled learners/ākonga and those with learning
support needs”. Ministry of Education, Objective 2, The Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) & Tertiary
Education Strategy (TES)
9 The survival and expansion of Mātauranga Māori wil be determined by our ability as Māori, whānau, hapū and iwi to contribute to its
continuing development as a living, vibrant and dynamic knowledge system that shapes our lives. It is our right as Indigenous people to
ensure that our living Indigenous knowledge systems survive and thrive in the throes of everyday colonisation; a right that is upheld in
both the Declaration of Independence and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Rauika Māngai. (2020).
A Guide to Vision Mātauranga: Lessons from Māori
Voices in the New Zealand Science Sector. Wellington, NZ: Rauika Māngai.
10 Walker, Prof. Ranginui. Treaty of Waitangi Review of the University of Otago, October 1998.
11 SEPSES Website, visited 2022. https://www.otago.ac.nz/sopeses/about/index.html
5
● SPESES Management of Change process across 2016-2018;
● Quality Assurance Review (QAU) of SPESES October 2020; and subsequent staff
meetings to discuss the QAU Review; and
● SPESES Cultural Survey of July 2021.
The remnants of the Management of Change implementation which saw staff layoffs cannot be
underplayed in creating the cultural context which contributed to the expression of allegations
and this Review.
Together, these have resulted in staff feeling stressed, anxious, and fearful for the future. Te
Koronga’s allegations of systemic racism and the subsequent exit of its staff and students from
the School directly triggered this Review.
Terms of Reference Objectives
The following section represents a paraphrasing of personal or collective comments ensuring
the anonymity guaranteed to participants. Some are observations about shared experiences
referenced by several participants, whether recollection of the same event or same experiences
across different events.
Some comments fall under more than one of the Terms of Reference objectives. In upholding
the allegation of systemic racism discrimination and bullying, this section provides cumulative
evidence that provenance the Review findings.
Objective #1
Identify and understand any reports of racism, discrimination and bullying at the School level
The Review heard:
1.1 Participants observed, experienced personally, and heard about behaviours that were
described as being not desirable, not “overtly” racist, shaming, blaming, and “toxic”;
behaviours that crossed the boundaries of what is acceptable, and contribute to a
finding of casual racism.
1.2 A cross-section of staff reported that senior colleagues had bullied female colleagues to
the point that they just learned to “put up with it”.
1.3 Comments were reportedly made by senior staff that were interpreted by participants
as “jealousy” of the success (i.e. grants, promotions, awards etc) of their junior Māori
academic peers. Those comments were described as bullying, discriminatory and
racist. Other references included derogatory comments being made about Māori
success, “Māori money” being the only basis of success, and other such pejorative
comments. Participants felt that there was no acknowledgement of the Māori academic
or research success being a part of the SPESES.
1.4 Bullying, ‘lambasting’ of individuals, and discrimination were behaviours experienced,
and described in most interviews.
1.5 Over the years, leaders had been made aware of these behaviours; some staff noted
that leadership sought external support, but allegations led to no action or change of
staff culture or behaviours.
1.6 Staff felt unsupported by Human Resources, with one evidencing active
discouragement to take matters further (by means of a threat to discontinue the
recording of experiences of racism).
6
1.7 Management of staff appointment processes was variously described as discriminatory
and confrontational guised as ‘robust discussion’ or ‘rigorous critique’, effectively
silencing some junior staff.
1.8 Leadership decisions in supporting new staffing proposals, Māori appointments as one
example, were felt not always to be transparent or not understood in the wider
strategic context, and staff felt frustrated by this.
Objective #2
Determine whether there are conduct and culture issues (i.e.: racism, discrimination and
bullying) that could be affecting the safety and well-being of staff & students
The Review heard:
2.1 Communication is a key conduct issue for the School, “both in verbal communication
and in the communication of listening”. Participants reported intimidation, tone, manner,
aggression, yelling, physical smashing of tables with clenched fists and storming out of
meetings as regularly occurring examples of communication styles. How
communication is moderated through the University and School’s values and filters,
along with how complaints relating to communication are built into accountability
measures, is a concern for many staff.
2.2 Te Koronga’s success, which should be celebrated and set up as a model for what the
University aspires to achieve (i.e. CoRE, grants, teaching awards etc.), had led to
“over-zealous scrutiny”. Other successes and subsequent growth and/or resource
allocation in the School were believed by some to receive less scrutiny.
2.3 Staff work hard, they are passionate about their work; but feel “worn down” and
“exhausted” by how people talk about and/or past each other.
2.4 The MSF and things Māori are not centre place in the School. The bulk of the work
falls to one or a few people and those implementing the MSF “do not have the mana or
authority to do so”. Responsibility for the MSF was referenced as stopping at best at
the PVC level or was solely due to a very few individuals’ dedication to the kaupapa.
The Office of Māori Development had all of the responsibility yet none of the authority
to implement Māori Strategy and goals.
2.5 A number of participants did not understand or accept the fiscal drivers of the
Management of Change, nor accept that the University has a responsibility to act
where it has such concerns. This lack of understanding of decision-making imperatives
or transparency impacts peoples’ sense of their job security.
2.6 A sense of the University being the ‘sponsor’ rather than the employer was raised
during the Review. This remains a fundamental issue and could be tied almost to a
disrespect for the University and its leadership.
Objective #3 Describe the current culture within SPESES
The Review heard:
3.1 There is a strong sense of pride in the School.
3.2 There was support for Te Koronga expressed by all participants.
3.3 The University has increased its numbers of undergraduate Māori scholarships, with
the SPESES attracting a high number of tauira or student enrolments. The School,
through Te Koronga, has grown the Māori staff caucus, and other measures of
success are similarly evidenced.
3.4 A culture of ‘us’ and ‘them’ has developed that arose from the growth of the School of
Physical Education to become SPESES, with new papers and majors, the introduction
of applied courses, and the increase of Māori curriculum content.
7
3.5 There remains a disconnect between ‘hard’ sciences i.e. biomechanics, and ‘soft’
sciences, i.e. psychology etc.
3.6 Responsibility for the implementation of the MSF is confusing. The Division and
University are seen as needing to resource this work. This School is waiting for
resources and guidance and feedback; the MSF is not a priority within the School.
3.7 Leadership has been undermined due to alleged lack of transparency in decision
making. This has had a negative impact on the culture of the School evidenced by the
behaviours described.
3.8 Administration and support staff feel they belong in and contribute to the School,
however, any new processes and policies are not respected or adhered to by some
staff who demonstrate poor interpersonal behaviours, and some staff feel “worn down”
by these interactions.
3.9 Te Koronga’s open invitation to all staff to attend Māori cultural events and training is
appreciated; a lack of time prohibits attendance, which contributes to frustration at
things Māori not being valued, and lack of visibility of things Māori.
Objective #4 Identify any procedures/policies or practices, within SPESES, that may inadvertently enable or
support conduct or culture issues The Review heard:
4.1 Decisions not to prioritise QAU 2020 Review recommendations have contributed to the
current situation.
4.2 Grade moderation and curriculum policy discussions were noted as being challenging.
One example was that the ‘traditional’ norms of assessment challenged Te Koronga
pedagogies of group activity and assessment, despite the model having a strong
indigenous foundation and validity.
4.3 An explicit mandate for the appointment of Māori staff is not visible but “must be a
priority of SPESES”.
4.4 A view that the University needs to change radically (“get blown up”) to achieve the
aims and objectives being pursued by Te Koronga and in line with the MSF goals.
4.5 There is no leadership or reference point for Māori academic leadership and mediation.
This leads to the definition, moderation, management, and response to things
academically Māori being contestable and open to individual response.
Objective #5 Assess the current cultural competence12 of SPESES in relation to university policies and
frameworks, university values and Treaty obligations
The Review heard:
5.1 The burden on and cultural taxation of Māori staff and students to meet School
bicultural outcomes is significant and is not commensurate with the expectations on
other staff.
5.2 The Māori Strategic Framework makes clear the University’s commitment to Māori
advancement, then it is left to the Departments to prioritise implementation.
12 Cultural competence and confidence is the ability to interact confidently and appropriately with persons from a background that is
different from one’s own. It goes beyond an awareness of, or sensitivity to, another culture to include the ability to use that knowledge in
cross-cultural situations. At an institutional level, it includes the development and implementation of processes, procedures and practices
that support culturally competent and appropriate services.
The aim of bicultural competence is not simply about ‘Māori’ or ‘culture’ or tied to ethnicity or current awareness of cultural safety. It
includes the ability to understand oneself within the context of applying the chosen discipline in a bicultural Aotearoa and multicultural
society.
8
5.3 Understanding and knowledge of things Māori is not prioritised. The MSF has not been
front and centre of strategy and professional development, but this has been left to
individual staff to pursue.
5.4 Cultural competency
13 training is seriously lacking, and a very real need has been
identified across all staff. Staff also acknowledge a sense of “apathy” in responding to
bicultural training or supporting things Māori.
5.5 The School has not resourced cultural competency development which would help
support meeting research, teaching and other University MSF obligations.
5.6 There’s a view that implementing things Māori come “on top” of or are additional to
current workload, rather than them being an integral part of job expectations.
5.7 Māori and a few non-Maori staff who incorporate te ao Māori in their work are rewarded
in seeing the success of many students and staff; this is not, however, deemed to be
valued, supported, or adequately resourced.
5.8 Māori staff viewed the QAU School Review recommendations as a directive to the
School for implementation; in subsequent staff feedback these were relegated to not
being a high priority.
5.9 There are some perspectives that MSF deliverables are reliant on additional resources
or are the University’s responsibility, not the School’s. A unified understanding, strategy
and shared way forward is required.
5.10 The frequent replacement of Dean position means that there is no cohesive and
cumulative management of Te Tiriti o Waitangi responsibilities.
Objective #6
Make recommendations for addressing identified issues that may be affecting the safety and
wellbeing of staff and students
The Review heard:
6.1 Staff are taking mental health and hauora/well-being leave to recover from the
exhaustion of these allegations and the culture/behaviours experienced.
6.2 There is a sense of bewilderment about recent events in the School and a desire for
strong leadership to address the issues and find resolution to them.
6.3 Communication about and transparency on these matters is urgently needed and are
key for staff and students’ engagement, safety, and wellbeing.
6.4 Junior academics are intimidated by senior academics whose behaviour is described as
being ‘not desirable’.
6.5 Staff have raised incidents and concerns with the (previous) Dean and Management
team, Human Resources, with the Of ice of Māori Development and within the Divison
of Sciences, and have recorded events
14 where their health and safety and wellbeing
have been compromised, and almost all have not resulted in any outcomes for those
bringing forward such matters (whether by way of feedback or the same behaviours
continuing to be present in School meetings and staff interactions).
Note:
These observations are captured in this objective, however, recommendations
are left for the conclusion of the Report.
14 The Reviewer has had privileged access to viewing a document recording experiences of racism by staff and students.
9
Objective #7
Make any other observations and/or recommendations that will assist any future efforts to
improve the conduct and culture within SPESES
Ultimately, to respond effectively and recognise the serious and complex nature of such matters
leading to the Review, the following are critical points for the Sponsor of this Review to note. In
some ways these are repetitions of points raised above, but in respect of the decisions of ‘how’
to respond to this Report, it is my opinion that they are absolutely critical as they extend beyond
SPESES and the Division of Sciences.
Promises
● The University has articulated a commitment to and espoused an environment
that will support Te Tiriti o Waitangi responsiveness, and Māori success through
enabling and recognising kaupapa Māori, mātauranga Māori and biculturalism. It
has also articulated that all students (Māori and non-Māori alike) will have an
experience that gives exposure to these guarantees. These commitments are
not being fulfilled.
Similarly, staff are guaranteed an environment free of racism, discrimination and
bullying as articulated in the Ethical Behaviour Policy. The University has failed
on those commitments and guarantees.
This is not something the University can sweep under the mat, gloss over, bury
nor deny - it must act or the risk of not doing so will be significant.
The resolution of this matter also goes beyond the remit of the School or of
individuals who participated in this Review. This is a matter for the institution to
address.
Māori Strategy
● The OMD was identified as the ‘owner’ of the Māori Strategic Framework, which
becomes a default avenue for some staff and Schools and Departments to opt
out of prioritising Māori responsiveness.
Further, the OMD has no authority, empowerment or resources to enact a Māori
academic agenda. Similarly, in the defining of, mentoring through, leadership of
and mediation of Māori aspirations (kaupapa Māori, Mātauranga Māori) there is
no capacity, credibility or leadership with institutional authority to support the
promises implied in the institutional strategy. For this to be the case, it would
need to be by Māori for Māori and possibly not in the jurisdiction of the
University or non-Māori to control.
Māori Academic Agenda
● The Māori academic agenda is a critical issue in the context of the allegations
that have led to the current situation. While Māori staff follow the accountability
measures and structure for University expectations, the accountability for things
Māori (for non-Māori and Māori staff) on Māori academic issues has no
leadership or reference point. This leads to a contested interpretation between
Māori, between Māori and non-Māori and across the wider University structures.
As a consequence of this systemic failure, Māori staf have been left to
determine, contest and carry the burden of challenging the University.
Staff Health, Safety and Wellbeing
These points cumulatively lead to negative health and well-being outcomes for staff.
● HR have been aware of the issues associated with the allegations, and have
failed the staff who brought these allegations forward. Trust and confidence in
HR to support Māori staff are totally lost.
Te Koronga have offered insight and opportunities to support the School, signal
10
ways forward and grow responsiveness in the School, which have not been
responded to in a significant way.
Te Koronga have brought forward issues of alleged unacceptable behaviour to
HoDs, HR and PVC/VC, who have failed to respond substantively.
Te Koronga have participated in University processes such as the QAU Review,
where the School endorsed the Panel and Terms of Reference and despite the
recommendations coming from the independent Panel on bicultural
opportunities to strengthen the School, these have been challenged by staff as
not being a priority.
Te Koronga Location
●
of Te Koronga has advised that they are unwilling and not
prepared to entertain any form of return to the SPESES.
That is contradictory to what almost every other participant in this Review wants,
including those who may or may not have been privy to events that have
contributed to Te Koronga’s allegations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend, therefore, that you:
●
Agree to elevate this Report to the University Senior Leadership team so that macro
issues will be responded to alongside specific School actions;
●
Define who has access to and what is shared in this report following consideration of this
by the University’s Senior Leadership Team;
●
Consider how the University will own and communicate the findings of this Report
15;
●
Provide strong support systems to the new Dean of SPESES. The School culture will
require active and strong facilitation to ensure staff who made (and who expressed
support of) allegations are not retraumatised and/or are not actively targeted ‘for robust
discussions’ (in recognition of people’s experiences of a toxic culture and clear evidence
of bullying within the School);
●
Consider a facilitated process to refresh and rewrite a Vision and strategy for SPESES;
●
Acknowledge that staff have experienced racism, discrimination, and bullying;
●
Agree to provide resources to support the cultural and individual safety of staff and
students during this next period, post-Review;
●
Commence active discussions with Te Koronga, recognising the strong sentiment of Te
Koronga leadership that they will not return to the School;
●
Address the absence of senior Māori academic leadership in the University: where it
sits, its authority, its responsibilities, and its mandate for things Māori. This must include
establishing capacity and a mechanism for Māori academic mediation;
●
Re-establish that MSF responsibilities and implementation must be embedded across
the institution, including at a School/Department level and that all staff are engaged in its
prioritisation;
●
Review the University Ethical Behaviour Policy, considering the findings of this Report.
15 I would recommend that the University has the right to claim space and time to formalise a meaningful response to the Review. I would
note, again, this will mean management of risk, and time will be of the essence.
11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The allegations are challenging: challenging to define and challenging to reveal. For those
bringing such allegations forward, there is the challenge and risk of being re-traumatised in the
telling of their experiences. This was a serious consideration for me during the course of the
Review and I would, therefore, like to acknowledge and mihi to those who contributed to this
process.
He waka eke noa
We are all in this waka together16
Dr Darryn Russell
16 This whakatauki eminates a sense of drawing strength in unity and collectivising a response or action as a whole of group.
12
