Last week, Woroni had a sit down interview with Professor Christine Nixon AO APM, chair of the Nixon review into “toxic” culture at the College of Health and Medicine (CHM), and the ANU Provost Professor Rebekah Brown. Nixon and Brown discussed the review process, its findings, and the opportunities for students to get involved in the various working groups implementing the solutions recommended by Nixon. 

In May, the ANU published the review in full on its website alongside a breakdown of eight key findings and 17 recommendations to the university’s administration. These findings included reports of systemic gender and racial discrimination, a lack of accountability enabled by flawed complaint disclosure tools, and a disrespectful culture within senior management. The report’s recommendations were sweeping, suggesting structural changes to the now-reassigned Schools of Health, Epistemology, and Psychology. 

When asked whether the review process “faced any challenges” from senior staff at the CHM, Nixon described a “willingness to share and help” from students and Vice Chancellor Genevieve Bell. Nixon also commented on the controversial dissolution of the CHM and the merging of its constituent schools into the College of Science and Medicine, announced in October last year and implemented the following January. These changes “didn’t really” impact the review, says Nixon, and the review’s core mission of “understanding what happened within the schools” remained significant.

Provost Brown confirmed that an “external investigator has been appointed” to address the findings of a second, confidential report containing “a suite of allegations” towards specific staff members. Woroni did not receive comment as to the extent of these findings, which will likely be communicated with the community following an investigation. 

In Nixon’s words, the solutions-phase following the review is a “sprint.” Concurrent to the university’s internal procedures following the report, the ANU announced the establishment of seven thematic working groups to be composed of students and staff to advise on certain recommendation points related to specific areas of the report. EOI’s to join these working groups were open until Tuesday 8th of July, and were assessed on relevance to the theme of each group, capacity to contribute, expertise, and diversity. 

According to Provost Brown, there are currently no plans for reviews of a similar scale across the University, however Nixon recognises that “issues around complaints are common to the whole institution, the development of senior leaders is common, and harassment and discrimination in many cases is common as well.” The seven working groups are therefore an essential opportunity for students to engage in the review and implementation process, particularly for students outside of the CHM to guide how the Nixon review’s action points can be applied campus-wide. 

For students who cannot commit to a working group, Nixon and Brown emphasised the creation of the NixonSolutions@anu.edu.au submission portal, where students regardless of academic college can “make submissions around how their experience at ANU can be improved.” 

According to Nixon, the review also uncovered serious issues with disclosure and reporting within the CHM, and a complaints system “not up to scratch”. Students who came forward were initially “not sure, and perhaps afraid that they wouldn’t be heard,” and many believed they would face repercussions for speaking up. 

The review appears to have encouraged the ANU to strengthen its disclosure tools. A university spokesperson confirmed following the interview that the Harmful Behaviours Disclosure Tool has been expanded to include forms of discrimination such as racism and ableism.

Nixon believes that “being heard in a way that didn’t further harm them” means these students were supported in contributing to the review, and that “they had been given the commitment” that their allegations would be addressed. 

Nixon’s priority remains transparency, providing the opportunity for all staff and students to access and use the information uncovered in the review; “[The review] was incredibly transparent… [and] that was part of a commitment we made”.

Provost Brown reinforced that “as an institution, [the ANU] wants our students to have an outstanding experience which is safe, which is respectful, which is inspiring”. Brown hopes that using forums with college deans, alongside the Nixon Solutions submission email, “students [will] know that they are a valuable part of our community, and a valuable part of determining where we’re going as an institution.”

Nixon is optimistic that “the way the leadership, particularly [Provost Brown] and [VC Genevieve Bell] are taking this on” will bring about positive change as her recommendations are implemented. 

Provost Brown concluded our interview by reiterating that the ANU hopes that its “transparency, action, and response” will be “sector leading” at a time when many Australian universities face similar challenges of funding cuts, internal reviews, and controversial discussions about disciplinary practices.