Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles took legal action against the University for Auckland, arguing it had failed to protect her from abuse and harassment. More than 100 academics have now written to the university to say little has changed since Wiles raised her concerns. Photo / Sarah Ivey
Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles took legal action against the University for Auckland, arguing it had failed to protect her from abuse and harassment. More than 100 academics have now written to the university to say little has changed since Wiles raised her concerns. Photo / Sarah Ivey
More than 100 academics at the University of Auckland have signed a letter to the leadership that says high-profile staff are not being protected by the university.
Some of the academics said they no longer felt comfortable speaking publicly or to media for fear of threats and harassment.
Theopen letter, signed by 129 academics, followed an Employment Court hearing in which high-profile microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles argued the university had failed to protect her from a “tsunami of threats”, which followed her commentary on the Covid-19 pandemic.
Its lawyers also argued the university cannot control all threats — especially those made on social media — and it is doing its best to minimise and manage them.
The open letter to the University Council says in the absence of a court ruling, academics “remain exposed to psychological and physical harm while carrying out our work”.
“As racist, transphobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic hate has been rising globally, we are particularly concerned for marginalised groups including Māori, Pacific, transgender and non-binary colleagues.
“We are also concerned that recent politicised conversation around gun control, free speech, and hate speech legislation, as well as public questioning of equity-oriented initiatives in university education (such as MAPAS), is likely to embolden fringe elements.”
While the signatories were from a range of departments, many were scientists or public health experts who had been targeted for abuse during the pandemic.
Professor Nicola Gaston, of the university’s physics department, said some had pulled back from public life.
“A lot of the stories have been that they work in an area that is contentious and they have been asked by media to comment on their work and said no because they don’t feel they will be supported by the employer.”
Professor Nicola Gaston says some academics have pulled back from the public eye because they were uncertain whether the University of Auckland would support them when they faced harassment. Photo / University of Auckland
‘Not fit for purpose’
The letter claimed the university’s staff risk intervention team (SRIT), which supports staff who face external threats, was not fit for purpose. It also questioned whether the recommendations from a recent security audit had been fully implemented.
The group of academics also sought assurances from the council that it understood its health and safety responsibilities.
The academics referred to an all-staff email by vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater during the court hearing in which she wished to remind everyone “of the ways in which we provide support for staff to keep themselves safe”.
The letter says: “This suggests the university conceptualises health, safety and wellbeing related to our work to be our responsibility, rather than theirs.
“Yet under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, we understand it is our employer who has the primary responsibility to protect us from harms arising from our work.”
University of Auckland vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater. Photo / Supplied
In a statement, the university said the institution and vice-chancellor fully understood the responsibilities of employers under the legislation and took these responsibilities seriously.
The statement said SRIT “functions effectively” and was supporting up to 15 staff members a year.
“Due to the evolving nature of threats and impacts on individual staff members, the SRIT is under constant review ... We encourage all staff experiencing any form of threat or harassment to seek SRIT support.”
The university reiterated that all recommendations made in an audit by Quantum Security Services had been implemented.
Those recommendations included developing the SRIT and proactively advising staff about external harassment, offering social media monitoring, and liaising with WorkSafe to discuss best practice.
Wiles argued during the hearing that the social media monitoring carried out by SRIT did not cover some of the fringe platforms where threats usually occurred.
Ms C Tarrant Chancellor and Chair of The Council of The University of Auckland
8th December 2023
Dear Ms Tarrant,
We, the undersigned members of staff, are writing to urge the Council of The University of Auckland to provide immediate assurances regarding the safety of ourselves and our colleagues.
The recent hearing in the Employment Court between Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles and the University of Auckland has exposed ongoing unsafe work conditions for University staff engaging in any form of public communication. (Much of the early media coverage was collated by the Science Media Centre on 10th November.)
In the absence of a court ruling, we and our colleagues remain exposed to psychological and physical harm while carrying out our work. As racist, transphobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic hate has been rising globally, we are particularly concerned for marginalised groups including Māori, Pacific, transgender and non-binary colleagues. We are also concerned that recent politicised conversation around gun control, free speech, and hate speech legislation, as well as public questioning of equity-oriented initiatives in University education (such as MAPAS), is likely to embolden fringe elements.
The staff risk intervention team (SRIT) was established specifically to support staff experiencing external threats, especially those of a gendered nature, such as experienced by Associate Professor Wiles. The evidence presented at the Employment Court has suggested that SRIT was unfit for purpose in AP Wiles’ case, and we are concerned that it remains so.
We also note that the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Freshwater, mentioned in her evidence that she has been followed home herself. This is of considerable concern to us. We seek assurances that as a publicly visible woman, Professor Freshwater has received adequate assessment of, and support from the University for, her personal safety.
As immediate actions, we would like The Council of the University of Auckland to investigate whether the recommendations of the Quantum report have been put in place and if they have, whether they are effective and on what basis they have been judged to be so.
We also seek assurances from Council that you understand your responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Specific concerns relating to recent communications and events are listed in the appendix below.
We believe that there remains significant risk of physical, psychological and emotional harm to our colleagues who work in fields of research politicised in the current environment, and that this risk of harm in the course of doing their work remains to be properly addressed by our employer.
We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.
Angela Tsai, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (in solidarity)
Professor Janet S Gaffney, Faculty of Education and Social Work (in solidarity)
Leila Boyle, Faculty of Science
Isaac Davison is an Auckland-based reporter who covers health issues. He joined the Herald in 2008 and has previously covered the environment, politics, and social issues.
With the new vape laws coming into effect today, Ryan Bridge speaks to Hāpai Te Hauora, Public Māori Health group CEO, Jacqui Harema. Video / Herald NOW
