Katie, you have almost exactly replicated my conversation with a colleague yesterday. An irony is that as govt funding of universities has declined regulation by govt has increased. The concept of academic freedom is a joke when we are so beleaguered by bureaucracy that we can't get to our real work. It has occurred to me that if my university got rid of its 20 or so pro vice chancellors it would save at least 20 m dollars a year and make our work easier because what they do is think of things we can do to justify their existence.
I want my students to feel that they can argue with people they disagree with so that the nuances and details of the arguments and views of the people come out and we all learn. I want to feel that I can say what I think without someone saying I am evil or an idiot. In the last couple of years I have been hammered a lot, and, like you, many people have come and said quietly, 'I'm glad you said that' because they felt afraid. I know I am relatively safe and if I got sacked I would be ok, but it grieves me that my colleagues often feel like this.
In my own way I try to fight - I say what I think, and I push back on all those courses they make us do ( they are so poorly designed it's a joke) but the pushing back sometimes risks hurting our administrators who are mostly working way beyond the call of duty.
I also wonder if people have forgotten what universities are for, but I think it's very important that people like you ( and me) continue to doggedly say what we think it's all about. Who knows, sometime the tide may turn.
I cannot begin to tell you how significant I think your contributions to things like this blog are ( not to mention your great research !). So don't stop!
Reading your posts on academic law always makes me think of the Shoemaker and the Elves – it’s as though I’ve walked into my own brain to discover that all my scattered, half-formed thoughts have been beautifully and cogently arranged. Thank you, and I’m sorry you are having a hard time.
Katy, the succession problem never seems to end! Recently, at my law school, one colleague fell ill and another left academia—both were vital members of the Land Law team. When the call went out to 85+ staff, no one volunteered to teach Land Law. Eventually, one colleague kindly stepped in after a staff-wide email.
I’m now shadowing the Land Law module leader- attending classes and reviewing materials-to prepare for teaching the module next term.
It feels like private law is dying a slow death. As an early career researcher, I’ve seen first-hand the apathy toward private law teaching, let alone research. There are no significant grants for private law unless the project is tied to something “sexy” or trendy.
You’re probably feeling flat because you’re carrying the burden and witnessing the erosion of a domain you love. I feel the same. I enjoy teaching private law topics, but my enthusiasm isn’t shared by many, nor is it rewarded. Research in private law can feel banal, especially without the networks that other fields like international law enjoy, given its jurisdiction-specific nature.
The overbearing bureaucracy seems to be a hallmark of Australian law schools. I applied to a position at Melbourne Law School several moons ago and never heard back- no rejection, no next steps, nothing.
The funny part? Even when money is thrown at administration at MLS, things still don’t work properly. It makes you wonder: why is this such a money sink if nothing ever really functions as it should? Or who is the one benefitting from this?
I’m so sorry you experienced this re hiring at MLS. I heard lately that they stuffed up the hiring process somehow and had to restart it all again, but they should have explained to people who’d applied the first time. In fact, when I heard what had happened a month ago, I presumed that they *had* contacted everyone and explained. It seems… not.
But this is the thing. SO MANY administrators and managers. Despite this, basic practical things don’t work, all the time. The people who are benefitting are the bureaucracy themselves - as Francis says above, they serve themselves, not the students or the staff who teach, nor the administrators who help us.
I sometimes think the solution is to create a separate entity from the university - like the Royal College of Surgeons - but for compulsory law subjects - where we manage practical teaching, without the distortions of academic metrics, and where we would be valued by the profession at least.
It wasn’t me! [I will be honest, I was going to follow up and see what had happened, but I hadn’t gotten around to it yet this morning.] I’m sad you’re not joining us, but never mind. Invisible influencer, or maybe just chance? Never been involved in hiring.
President Trump is a bull in a china shop, but that;s what one needs to cut administration, and that' what private companies do. The CEO says "Fire 10%", and a bunch of good people get fired too. But it's worth it.
Recruit some violent savage onto your faculty and behind the scenes, make him dean.
So, this is something I’m afraid of. We’ve had management consultants who have gone through the administrative staff like a dose of salts at least three times. What happens is that many of the good people leave and it takes years to recover. None of what should have been cut has been cut and it’s just left us semi-functional.
One day, we will get a Trump. I wrote an article in the MSM in 2020 saying maybe people should be more balanced and stop trying to push their own beliefs, because I seriously don’t think many academics realise how much people on the right despise the bias. Of course… the response: a pile on by all the other academics, which made all my right wing friends think, “They will get what they deserve.”
==Several people have said, “Well, I guess you’ve learned your lesson: don’t stand up for others, because you’ll just suffer. Next time, stay quiet.”==
NO! Keep on trying. I've retired by now, but one of my activities is helping people in trouble in universities, with a kind word and advice. It's actually much more fun helping other people than being the target yourself, because it's easier to think.
Grants are unimportant. I bet you can make more money consulting than filling out grant applications, and you'd enjoy it more.
Also, one does learn a lot fighting evil bureaucrats, and it's satisfying when you make them suffer too, as does happen. Rumor is that a provost would have been president except for her going crazy over me.
Consulting is more difficult than it should be - I need a legal practising certificate to do what I want to do - lots of red tape - but I am going to set up a company and get a practising certificate that way. Next year’s project. It will probably take six months to set up, but I think it will be worth it for the reasons you say.
Katy, you have hit the nail on the head (to change the metaphor!) Well done, as fellow private law teacher I see the same problems that you and Prue have identified! Keep up the great work! Neil
The principal agent problem you describe cuts right to the heart of academic dysfunction. When bureaucrats optimize for metrics that dont capture real teaching or research quality, you get exactly what you incentivise. That cartoon of Breach Man captures how polarization becomes performative, a tool for career advancement rather than genuine scholarly engagement. Custodianship matters as much as innovation.
Custodianship is ESSENTIAL. I’ve had some right wing friends say universities should be smashed - as I note above, I am totally alive to the problems - but to the extent we are still custodians of knowledge, we risk losing that knowledge and throwing the baby out with the bath water…
I have more comments and will try and come back to this. But I need to say that whoever did those paintings is either a (quite young) child or someone in need of some pretty sharp criticism!!
And is unfit to practise law, or at least very unsuited to it.
It reminded me of a cartoon called Captain Planet when I was young. My sister and I were critics of it (yes, we were like that even as children). The fact the people get rewarded for cartoonish, simplistic views of disputes is a worry.
A very large part of the problem with modern government and government funded/overseen/related institutions is that they suffer from 3 related aphorisms
First is Pournelle's Iron Law of bureaucracy:
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization."
Closely related is the second - Parkinson's law of bureaucracy - "the number of workers within public administration, bureaucracy or officialdom tends to grow, regardless of the amount of work to be done."
Then there's Upton Sinclair observation that "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Put these three together and you understand that the institution simply will not reform itself internally as all the incentives for the people involved (at the top anyway) align in the opposite direction.
Just so. Bureaucracy is a large part of the problem. Half the time I think things are done just so someone can say that they did something and tick off their job KPIs. “Instituted change in examination administration” or something like that… You don’t get kudos in a bureaucracy for continuing to steer the ship in a successful direction, reflecting what worked in the past. You get kudos for adding an extra stripe on the bow and making the ship zig zag about.
Katy your thoughts clearly articulate the reality we find ourselves in academia.
Your enormous contribution to your students and legal scholarship, I hope, outweigh the often difficult structures in which we operate.
I find focusing on the students, teaching and nurturing them, preparing them for career paths after law school allows me to keep going. They know I support them as best I can in the university system.
Keep going Katy. Your work makes such a big difference to students and scholarship..R x
"by which point, the bureaucrats who made the decisions have likely gone elsewhere." Yes, and usually to a higher position, on the strength of those KPI's being ticked off at the first institution! Urgh. Thank you once again for your thoughtful and incisive writing, Katy.
Well said, Katy — though I fear the problem is far worse than you articulated. As a recovering accountant and professional cynic, I like to follow the money and build a “business model” to deduce what is actually happening. Warning: if you prefer to be happy, don’t read this. Ignorance is bliss.
I do not think the blue-haired uni students are a nuisance to bureaucrats. Instead, they are the justification for their existence — a feature, not a bug. After all, what would a wellbeing officer at a university do if all the students were happily humming along with no conflict? It is not in their interests to resolve student issues; it is in their interests to cultivate them. And of course, the solution to university problems is never found with the wellbeing officer. They simply listen to grievances, document them, and pass the student along to someone else. The “solution” is documentation: new policies, new modules, new frameworks. But the wellbeing officer doesn’t involve themselves with that — that’s too much work. For that, we need new roles.
I just looked at the UniMelb careers page. There is a vacancy for a “Senior Learning Designer” whose job is to “lead the design and development of high-quality online courses that enhance student engagement and support innovative teaching and learning.” If there were no bureaucratic modules to impose on everyone, how could such a role exist? So of course these are the people who take the documented grievances and turn them into lovely modules for all staff to complete. They incorporate policies (likely written by other bureaucrats), host workshops on cultural sensitivity in Naarm, unconscious bias, sexual consent, and so on. It is in their interests to induce hyper-focus on potential sources of grievance, because those get fed back to the wellbeing officers and generate updates to policies and modules in accordance with “emerging trends.” What an exciting and dynamic culture. This is the bureaucratic ecosystem. And as you said, it is in the bureaucracy’s interest to generate justifications for its own work and to find the lowest-cost (both time and money) “solutions” to complaints.
So that covers the lower-level grunts. But what about the high-level execs earning triple your salary? If they need to manage a large bureaucracy, that also justifies their existence. Someone must be the escalation point for sensitive matters. Someone must “optimise” (i.e., aggressively expand) the bureaucracy. Someone must organise meetings and coordinate stakeholders. Their value depends on the size of the bureaucracy they oversee. Again: it is not in their interest to eradicate grievances, nor to let them spiral out of control. They must maintain a “sweet spot.” On top of that, they must fund the bureaucracy. That is where chasing grants comes in.
Today on UniMelb’s careers site, there is a vacancy for a “Leadership Giving Manager,” whose role is to “manage a portfolio of donors and prospects, cultivating, soliciting, and stewarding gifts and bequests that create lasting impact for the University.” This is literally a professional money-chaser whose purpose is to secure funds so the execs can maintain — and, when possible, expand — their bureaucracy. The sources of these funds then shape the university’s strategy, usually toward “novel” and “exciting” research.
But what if there were a double whammy — a way for the university both to obtain grants through fashionable research and simultaneously generate grievances to justify bureaucratic expansion? If such a thing existed, any university executive would salivate. If only there were a way to integrate the idea that we live in a colonial, phallogocentric society steeped in rape culture and misogyny into legal research! If only that message could be spread to students so they become aware of grievances they didn’t even know they had. Then those grievances would flow back to the wellbeing officers, feeding the bureaucracy and justifying everyone’s existence.
And there we have it: a guaranteed mechanism ensuring the university’s strategic focus is on absolutely insane nonsense. Grievance studies is not an accident. It is a feature, not a bug.
Sadly, actual academics are barely mentioned here. Why? Because they are now ancillary to the university’s true purpose. Yes, they teach and do research, but the institution’s primary objective has shifted: it is to obtain grants to feed a bureaucracy of self-interested managers who have no commitment to genuine teaching or research beyond its usefulness for funding. And even that interest is short-term — just long enough to cover their tenure. The justification for academics in the new university environment is contingent on their ability to generate grants.
I know this all sounds like a grand conspiracy. But as I’ve written elsewhere, no conspiracy is needed for individuals simply to act in their own interests. It is in bureaucrats’ interests to generate grievances, just as it is in their interests to “manage” (i.e., silence) those who introduce reason and good faith into the process — usually academics like yourself. Such people get in the way of self-interest, and the bureaucracy cannot tolerate that. Sometimes, complaints from academics acting in the interests of truth and actual student development can themselves be re-framed as new opportunities: perhaps your challenge to bureaucratic dogma stems from unconscious bias, insufficient cultural sensitivity, or insufficient awareness of the colonial context. Maybe you need to attend a workshop — or complete a new module designed by yet another bureaucrat. You can’t win.
Unfortunately, I think universities have undergone a wholesale takeover. They have been monetised like everything else, and the proceeds funnelled to the administrative class. I see no end in sight — no solution short of total institutional collapse when universities simply cease to produce anything of value and people finally take notice that the emperor has no clothes. At this point, universities produce castes, not education. Elite universities and courses produce elites; everyone else produces the managerial class — the advisors, the bureaucrats etc. Any education produced is incidental to this more fundamental new purpose.
I did confess to writing some very impolitic rants which I haven’t published, didn’t I? I might have twigged that it suits the bureaucracy to find “problematic things” and then roll out policies and training modules to solve them.
My particular beef is that when really bad things occur on the ground, no one actually does anything useful.
Here’s an example which won’t trigger “culture wars” buttons for anyone. I am currently refusing to do the Occupational Health and Safety Training Module. I remain cross because, a few years ago, I fell over and almost broke my leg (bruised the bone). This occurred because I was rushing around because of the total stuff up with exams that year (which was reported in the media, so I’m not talking out of school). I was asked by Central, “What can we do, other than change our exam processes?” Um. That’s basically *all you can do.* Change your exam processes, so that they work, and they don’t create HUGE stress for me, the students and the administrative staff, and so that that the disabled woman (me) doesn’t literally fall over.
Forget the effing training module, which is as patronising and time consuming as all hell, and actually DO something about practical problems when they arise and don’t repeat next time. Erm. Yeah. I guess I’m still not as sanguine as I thought about things…
"My particular beef is that when really bad things occur on the ground, no one actually does anything useful."
This is because the bureaucracy isn't trying to do anything useful. Their primary job is to justify their own existence. If something is 'hard' to do, they will just de-scope it from their remit if there is already sufficient justification for their existence or if there is an easier path to it. The bureaucracy relies on bad things continuing to happen. If they actually solved the problem there would be no need for them!
As to the example you raised:
1. The modules aren't about solving a problem. They're about drawing attention to a problem to justify the bureaucracy and being seen to create a solution. The actual implementation of the policy beyond meetings, modules and workshops is not a matter that the bureaucracy concerns itself with.
2. The fact that the incident you mentioned happened is a grievance. The bureaucracy can use it to justify more modules, policies and training. You want the incident to never happen again. The bureaucracy relies on it re-occurring to continue their work.
3. The fact they can patronise the entire academic staff so brazenly is a power flex. It demoralises academics and others from resisting the power of the bureaucracy. Even having people complain about the Kafkaesque system serves the purposes of the bureaucracy because it facilitates a culture of learned helplessness. Think of it this way: you have a number to call at the university for almost any grievance you can think of except one: the grievance that the bureaucracy does nothing, wastes time and doesn't resolve any of the solutions they purport to mitigate. And if that number did exist, you know it wouldn't solve anything.
In my view, the only way to win this game is not to play. Reality will inevitably catch up with this system but it will take a while to collapse. Possibly beyond our lifetimes. In the meantime all I think one can do is to be mindful of this as a fact of life and find consolation elsewhere. Either that or start your own university.
Katie, you have almost exactly replicated my conversation with a colleague yesterday. An irony is that as govt funding of universities has declined regulation by govt has increased. The concept of academic freedom is a joke when we are so beleaguered by bureaucracy that we can't get to our real work. It has occurred to me that if my university got rid of its 20 or so pro vice chancellors it would save at least 20 m dollars a year and make our work easier because what they do is think of things we can do to justify their existence.
I want my students to feel that they can argue with people they disagree with so that the nuances and details of the arguments and views of the people come out and we all learn. I want to feel that I can say what I think without someone saying I am evil or an idiot. In the last couple of years I have been hammered a lot, and, like you, many people have come and said quietly, 'I'm glad you said that' because they felt afraid. I know I am relatively safe and if I got sacked I would be ok, but it grieves me that my colleagues often feel like this.
In my own way I try to fight - I say what I think, and I push back on all those courses they make us do ( they are so poorly designed it's a joke) but the pushing back sometimes risks hurting our administrators who are mostly working way beyond the call of duty.
I also wonder if people have forgotten what universities are for, but I think it's very important that people like you ( and me) continue to doggedly say what we think it's all about. Who knows, sometime the tide may turn.
I cannot begin to tell you how significant I think your contributions to things like this blog are ( not to mention your great research !). So don't stop!
All the best to you. Prue
Thank you so much Prue. We’re very much on the same page. Really appreciate it.
I didn’t type more last night, because your comment actually made me tear up. Thank you. It was what I needed. I have felt quite alone.
Reading your posts on academic law always makes me think of the Shoemaker and the Elves – it’s as though I’ve walked into my own brain to discover that all my scattered, half-formed thoughts have been beautifully and cogently arranged. Thank you, and I’m sorry you are having a hard time.
Hah! Love this analogy. I am glad it is helpful that I fully pulled together my own scattered thoughts.
Katy, the succession problem never seems to end! Recently, at my law school, one colleague fell ill and another left academia—both were vital members of the Land Law team. When the call went out to 85+ staff, no one volunteered to teach Land Law. Eventually, one colleague kindly stepped in after a staff-wide email.
I’m now shadowing the Land Law module leader- attending classes and reviewing materials-to prepare for teaching the module next term.
It feels like private law is dying a slow death. As an early career researcher, I’ve seen first-hand the apathy toward private law teaching, let alone research. There are no significant grants for private law unless the project is tied to something “sexy” or trendy.
You’re probably feeling flat because you’re carrying the burden and witnessing the erosion of a domain you love. I feel the same. I enjoy teaching private law topics, but my enthusiasm isn’t shared by many, nor is it rewarded. Research in private law can feel banal, especially without the networks that other fields like international law enjoy, given its jurisdiction-specific nature.
The overbearing bureaucracy seems to be a hallmark of Australian law schools. I applied to a position at Melbourne Law School several moons ago and never heard back- no rejection, no next steps, nothing.
The funny part? Even when money is thrown at administration at MLS, things still don’t work properly. It makes you wonder: why is this such a money sink if nothing ever really functions as it should? Or who is the one benefitting from this?
I’m so sorry you experienced this re hiring at MLS. I heard lately that they stuffed up the hiring process somehow and had to restart it all again, but they should have explained to people who’d applied the first time. In fact, when I heard what had happened a month ago, I presumed that they *had* contacted everyone and explained. It seems… not.
But this is the thing. SO MANY administrators and managers. Despite this, basic practical things don’t work, all the time. The people who are benefitting are the bureaucracy themselves - as Francis says above, they serve themselves, not the students or the staff who teach, nor the administrators who help us.
I sometimes think the solution is to create a separate entity from the university - like the Royal College of Surgeons - but for compulsory law subjects - where we manage practical teaching, without the distortions of academic metrics, and where we would be valued by the profession at least.
MLS stuffed up the hiring process in the first round.
Told applicants that they are withdrawing the position.
Then readvertised the position.
Only to lead applicants into the communication void where one never hears back.
This is the second time this has happened to me at MLS.
To be fair, I did not bother following up too.
I am also quite busy with teaching, research and admin.
But it makes me think about all those anxious doctoral candidates looking for their first position.
At some point university admin is like some kind of unnecessary job-creation scheme.
Such a money sink with no returns!
At this stage, a Royal College of University Teachers with a focus on compulsory courses sounds grand!
Looking forward to your next post!
I just got a rejection email from MLS. If it wasn’t you who prompted then I suppose someone in admin team is reading this ! You’re an influencer Katy!
It wasn’t me! [I will be honest, I was going to follow up and see what had happened, but I hadn’t gotten around to it yet this morning.] I’m sad you’re not joining us, but never mind. Invisible influencer, or maybe just chance? Never been involved in hiring.
I’d like to believe you’re now finally in the influencer-sphere !
President Trump is a bull in a china shop, but that;s what one needs to cut administration, and that' what private companies do. The CEO says "Fire 10%", and a bunch of good people get fired too. But it's worth it.
Recruit some violent savage onto your faculty and behind the scenes, make him dean.
So, this is something I’m afraid of. We’ve had management consultants who have gone through the administrative staff like a dose of salts at least three times. What happens is that many of the good people leave and it takes years to recover. None of what should have been cut has been cut and it’s just left us semi-functional.
One day, we will get a Trump. I wrote an article in the MSM in 2020 saying maybe people should be more balanced and stop trying to push their own beliefs, because I seriously don’t think many academics realise how much people on the right despise the bias. Of course… the response: a pile on by all the other academics, which made all my right wing friends think, “They will get what they deserve.”
==Several people have said, “Well, I guess you’ve learned your lesson: don’t stand up for others, because you’ll just suffer. Next time, stay quiet.”==
NO! Keep on trying. I've retired by now, but one of my activities is helping people in trouble in universities, with a kind word and advice. It's actually much more fun helping other people than being the target yourself, because it's easier to think.
Grants are unimportant. I bet you can make more money consulting than filling out grant applications, and you'd enjoy it more.
Also, one does learn a lot fighting evil bureaucrats, and it's satisfying when you make them suffer too, as does happen. Rumor is that a provost would have been president except for her going crazy over me.
Consulting is more difficult than it should be - I need a legal practising certificate to do what I want to do - lots of red tape - but I am going to set up a company and get a practising certificate that way. Next year’s project. It will probably take six months to set up, but I think it will be worth it for the reasons you say.
Katy, you have hit the nail on the head (to change the metaphor!) Well done, as fellow private law teacher I see the same problems that you and Prue have identified! Keep up the great work! Neil
Thank you so much Neil.
The principal agent problem you describe cuts right to the heart of academic dysfunction. When bureaucrats optimize for metrics that dont capture real teaching or research quality, you get exactly what you incentivise. That cartoon of Breach Man captures how polarization becomes performative, a tool for career advancement rather than genuine scholarly engagement. Custodianship matters as much as innovation.
Custodianship is ESSENTIAL. I’ve had some right wing friends say universities should be smashed - as I note above, I am totally alive to the problems - but to the extent we are still custodians of knowledge, we risk losing that knowledge and throwing the baby out with the bath water…
I have more comments and will try and come back to this. But I need to say that whoever did those paintings is either a (quite young) child or someone in need of some pretty sharp criticism!!
And is unfit to practise law, or at least very unsuited to it.
It reminded me of a cartoon called Captain Planet when I was young. My sister and I were critics of it (yes, we were like that even as children). The fact the people get rewarded for cartoonish, simplistic views of disputes is a worry.
I am, again, glad I grew up without cartoons - but that sums up the mentality of the artist: cartoonish
Sure it wasn’t Prince Planet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Planet
Definitely not! Here it is. I recall he had green hair and I was right! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Planet_and_the_Planeteers
Had it been a manga it would have been better.
A very large part of the problem with modern government and government funded/overseen/related institutions is that they suffer from 3 related aphorisms
First is Pournelle's Iron Law of bureaucracy:
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization."
Closely related is the second - Parkinson's law of bureaucracy - "the number of workers within public administration, bureaucracy or officialdom tends to grow, regardless of the amount of work to be done."
Then there's Upton Sinclair observation that "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Put these three together and you understand that the institution simply will not reform itself internally as all the incentives for the people involved (at the top anyway) align in the opposite direction.
Just so. Bureaucracy is a large part of the problem. Half the time I think things are done just so someone can say that they did something and tick off their job KPIs. “Instituted change in examination administration” or something like that… You don’t get kudos in a bureaucracy for continuing to steer the ship in a successful direction, reflecting what worked in the past. You get kudos for adding an extra stripe on the bow and making the ship zig zag about.
Katy your thoughts clearly articulate the reality we find ourselves in academia.
Your enormous contribution to your students and legal scholarship, I hope, outweigh the often difficult structures in which we operate.
I find focusing on the students, teaching and nurturing them, preparing them for career paths after law school allows me to keep going. They know I support them as best I can in the university system.
Keep going Katy. Your work makes such a big difference to students and scholarship..R x
Thanks Rach. And my students are EXACTLY what keeps me going. I taught a Masters’ subject recently, so energising, so wonderful.
"by which point, the bureaucrats who made the decisions have likely gone elsewhere." Yes, and usually to a higher position, on the strength of those KPI's being ticked off at the first institution! Urgh. Thank you once again for your thoughtful and incisive writing, Katy.
Well said, Katy — though I fear the problem is far worse than you articulated. As a recovering accountant and professional cynic, I like to follow the money and build a “business model” to deduce what is actually happening. Warning: if you prefer to be happy, don’t read this. Ignorance is bliss.
I do not think the blue-haired uni students are a nuisance to bureaucrats. Instead, they are the justification for their existence — a feature, not a bug. After all, what would a wellbeing officer at a university do if all the students were happily humming along with no conflict? It is not in their interests to resolve student issues; it is in their interests to cultivate them. And of course, the solution to university problems is never found with the wellbeing officer. They simply listen to grievances, document them, and pass the student along to someone else. The “solution” is documentation: new policies, new modules, new frameworks. But the wellbeing officer doesn’t involve themselves with that — that’s too much work. For that, we need new roles.
I just looked at the UniMelb careers page. There is a vacancy for a “Senior Learning Designer” whose job is to “lead the design and development of high-quality online courses that enhance student engagement and support innovative teaching and learning.” If there were no bureaucratic modules to impose on everyone, how could such a role exist? So of course these are the people who take the documented grievances and turn them into lovely modules for all staff to complete. They incorporate policies (likely written by other bureaucrats), host workshops on cultural sensitivity in Naarm, unconscious bias, sexual consent, and so on. It is in their interests to induce hyper-focus on potential sources of grievance, because those get fed back to the wellbeing officers and generate updates to policies and modules in accordance with “emerging trends.” What an exciting and dynamic culture. This is the bureaucratic ecosystem. And as you said, it is in the bureaucracy’s interest to generate justifications for its own work and to find the lowest-cost (both time and money) “solutions” to complaints.
So that covers the lower-level grunts. But what about the high-level execs earning triple your salary? If they need to manage a large bureaucracy, that also justifies their existence. Someone must be the escalation point for sensitive matters. Someone must “optimise” (i.e., aggressively expand) the bureaucracy. Someone must organise meetings and coordinate stakeholders. Their value depends on the size of the bureaucracy they oversee. Again: it is not in their interest to eradicate grievances, nor to let them spiral out of control. They must maintain a “sweet spot.” On top of that, they must fund the bureaucracy. That is where chasing grants comes in.
Today on UniMelb’s careers site, there is a vacancy for a “Leadership Giving Manager,” whose role is to “manage a portfolio of donors and prospects, cultivating, soliciting, and stewarding gifts and bequests that create lasting impact for the University.” This is literally a professional money-chaser whose purpose is to secure funds so the execs can maintain — and, when possible, expand — their bureaucracy. The sources of these funds then shape the university’s strategy, usually toward “novel” and “exciting” research.
But what if there were a double whammy — a way for the university both to obtain grants through fashionable research and simultaneously generate grievances to justify bureaucratic expansion? If such a thing existed, any university executive would salivate. If only there were a way to integrate the idea that we live in a colonial, phallogocentric society steeped in rape culture and misogyny into legal research! If only that message could be spread to students so they become aware of grievances they didn’t even know they had. Then those grievances would flow back to the wellbeing officers, feeding the bureaucracy and justifying everyone’s existence.
And there we have it: a guaranteed mechanism ensuring the university’s strategic focus is on absolutely insane nonsense. Grievance studies is not an accident. It is a feature, not a bug.
Sadly, actual academics are barely mentioned here. Why? Because they are now ancillary to the university’s true purpose. Yes, they teach and do research, but the institution’s primary objective has shifted: it is to obtain grants to feed a bureaucracy of self-interested managers who have no commitment to genuine teaching or research beyond its usefulness for funding. And even that interest is short-term — just long enough to cover their tenure. The justification for academics in the new university environment is contingent on their ability to generate grants.
I know this all sounds like a grand conspiracy. But as I’ve written elsewhere, no conspiracy is needed for individuals simply to act in their own interests. It is in bureaucrats’ interests to generate grievances, just as it is in their interests to “manage” (i.e., silence) those who introduce reason and good faith into the process — usually academics like yourself. Such people get in the way of self-interest, and the bureaucracy cannot tolerate that. Sometimes, complaints from academics acting in the interests of truth and actual student development can themselves be re-framed as new opportunities: perhaps your challenge to bureaucratic dogma stems from unconscious bias, insufficient cultural sensitivity, or insufficient awareness of the colonial context. Maybe you need to attend a workshop — or complete a new module designed by yet another bureaucrat. You can’t win.
Unfortunately, I think universities have undergone a wholesale takeover. They have been monetised like everything else, and the proceeds funnelled to the administrative class. I see no end in sight — no solution short of total institutional collapse when universities simply cease to produce anything of value and people finally take notice that the emperor has no clothes. At this point, universities produce castes, not education. Elite universities and courses produce elites; everyone else produces the managerial class — the advisors, the bureaucrats etc. Any education produced is incidental to this more fundamental new purpose.
There is an excellent lecture on this phenomenon here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_yhi3-prw&t=3420s&pp=0gcJCQwKAYcqIYzv
I did confess to writing some very impolitic rants which I haven’t published, didn’t I? I might have twigged that it suits the bureaucracy to find “problematic things” and then roll out policies and training modules to solve them.
My particular beef is that when really bad things occur on the ground, no one actually does anything useful.
Here’s an example which won’t trigger “culture wars” buttons for anyone. I am currently refusing to do the Occupational Health and Safety Training Module. I remain cross because, a few years ago, I fell over and almost broke my leg (bruised the bone). This occurred because I was rushing around because of the total stuff up with exams that year (which was reported in the media, so I’m not talking out of school). I was asked by Central, “What can we do, other than change our exam processes?” Um. That’s basically *all you can do.* Change your exam processes, so that they work, and they don’t create HUGE stress for me, the students and the administrative staff, and so that that the disabled woman (me) doesn’t literally fall over.
Forget the effing training module, which is as patronising and time consuming as all hell, and actually DO something about practical problems when they arise and don’t repeat next time. Erm. Yeah. I guess I’m still not as sanguine as I thought about things…
Makes sense.
"My particular beef is that when really bad things occur on the ground, no one actually does anything useful."
This is because the bureaucracy isn't trying to do anything useful. Their primary job is to justify their own existence. If something is 'hard' to do, they will just de-scope it from their remit if there is already sufficient justification for their existence or if there is an easier path to it. The bureaucracy relies on bad things continuing to happen. If they actually solved the problem there would be no need for them!
As to the example you raised:
1. The modules aren't about solving a problem. They're about drawing attention to a problem to justify the bureaucracy and being seen to create a solution. The actual implementation of the policy beyond meetings, modules and workshops is not a matter that the bureaucracy concerns itself with.
2. The fact that the incident you mentioned happened is a grievance. The bureaucracy can use it to justify more modules, policies and training. You want the incident to never happen again. The bureaucracy relies on it re-occurring to continue their work.
3. The fact they can patronise the entire academic staff so brazenly is a power flex. It demoralises academics and others from resisting the power of the bureaucracy. Even having people complain about the Kafkaesque system serves the purposes of the bureaucracy because it facilitates a culture of learned helplessness. Think of it this way: you have a number to call at the university for almost any grievance you can think of except one: the grievance that the bureaucracy does nothing, wastes time and doesn't resolve any of the solutions they purport to mitigate. And if that number did exist, you know it wouldn't solve anything.
In my view, the only way to win this game is not to play. Reality will inevitably catch up with this system but it will take a while to collapse. Possibly beyond our lifetimes. In the meantime all I think one can do is to be mindful of this as a fact of life and find consolation elsewhere. Either that or start your own university.