The report’s author had particular concerns about the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University. Photo: Lannon Harley, ANU.
“Prevalent” gender bias, sexism and racial discrimination, a “poor and disrespectful” culture, widespread harassment and bullying of staff and students, and appointment and selection systems which facilitated “bias, nepotism and abuse”.
These are just some of the findings of a review into gender and culture at the ANU College of Health and Medicine, and its constituent schools, the John Curtin School of Medical Research (JCSMR), the School of Medicine and Psychology, and the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health.
The ANU College of Health and Medicine has since been disestablished as part of cost-cutting measures at the university.
The John Curtin School and School of Medicine and Psychology are now situated in the new ANU College of Science and Medicine, and the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health is in the College of Law, Governance and Policy.
Professor Christine Nixon was commissioned in September 2024 to conduct a review following “disclosures of harm” from staff and students.
One report has been made public. A separate confidential report outlining specific allegations against named persons has been produced for the ANU to consider for further investigation.
In the public report, Prof Nixon said some of the stories she heard were “very distressing”. Others were “enraging”.
“One participant described a culture of ‘keeping the peace’ at ANU. Yet for many in the University community, this peace has been illusory,” she stated.
“My review has identified significant and consistent failures in implementation and enforcement [of policies and procedures]. This gap between institutional intent and operational reality requires urgent attention if trust is to be rebuilt.”
The report described a “deeply dysfunctional culture” across the College and broader university, “marked by bureaucracy, territorialism, bullying, entitlement and resistance to change”.
It found poor behaviour was “weakly acknowledged” by ANU and attributed to chronic overwork and stress, and that if someone was a strong research performer, it could be enough to “excuse inappropriate conduct”.
“ANU has a remarkable tolerance for poor behaviour and bullying … the most significant factor perpetuating this environment is that at ANU, poor behaviour doesn’t lead to negative consequences,” Prof Nixon wrote.
It was found particularly at the JCSMR that “basic professional civility” was not enforced.
“[This is] because there is a cultural acceptance of having strong views and shouting them at your colleagues in professional settings,” Prof Nixon wrote.
“Other staff have intervened on multiple occasions when this behaviour has been directed at students, but it continues.”
There was a fear of challenging the culture as people felt it could impact their employment or career progression.
Another finding was that leaders and managers were ill-prepared for their responsibilities.
Prof Nixon wrote career progression pathways for academics assumed people would develop management skills over time, and so some were not prepared to manage budgets, staff and culture.
One participant asked: “You wouldn’t go into a job unless you were trained for it. So why do academics get the waiver?”
“The resulting academic culture is one where the practice of good management is not widely understood or valued, and poor management is tolerated,” Prof Nixon wrote.
“There are academic leaders who have become skilful managers by independently seeking out relevant information and guidance. While there have been efforts to provide such opportunities for other staff, academics are not required to engage or rewarded for doing so.”
However, academics have resisted “very successfully” the formalisation of performance reviews, with a “persistent view” that it wasn’t realistic to require academic staff to take part in the process.
“Fair and collaborative performance assessment processes are a critical tool in ensuring accountability … [but] Many staff, particularly academics, have abandoned the practice,” Prof Nixon found.
Prof Nixon particularly expressed concerns about the future of the JCSMR and “what kind of institution should carry forward the John Curtin name”.
“There can no longer be any delay to serious consideration of this issue, which this report and multiple other reviewers show is well overdue.”
ANU Vice-Chancellor Genevieve Bill said many of the recommendations would not only apply to the former College of Health and Medicine, but would improve the experience of everyone at ANU.
“We have work to do to be better for all of us, and it will take time, commitment and support from each of us to get it done,” she said.
“I know in some cases we have fallen short as an institution, and we have let our people down.
“And so to all the students and staff who have been affected by these behaviours and this culture over many years, we at the ANU say sorry.”
Seven working groups will be formed to help address how to implement Prof Nixon’s recommendations, along with an overall Implementation Steering Group.
Prof Nixon will conduct external progress reviews in January and October of 2026.
Original Article published by Claire Fenwicke on Region Canberra.
