Readers will recall that for well over a year, the University of Queensland (UQ) was plunged into local and international infamy by its inappropriate relationship with the local Confucius Institute and Chinese Consulate.
In particular, the Universities’ reputation was badly tarnished by its treatment of Hong Kong protestors (and one formerly obscure student named Drew Pavlou). The scandal reverberated worldwide, with condemnation ranging from the Australian Parliament and Supreme Court to the cover of the Wall Street Journal and just about everywhere in between.
The key (mis)manager of this debacle was former UQ vice-chancellor, Peter Hoj, who long before should have been brought to account for bringing the University into global disrepute, ironically the very charge brought unfairly against Drew Pavlou, whose only crime was to arrange a 13-person strong protest in support of HK freedom.
The below 60 Minutes report summarises the debacle in all of its hideous glory:
When 21-year-old student Drew Pavlou organised his first-ever protest at his university campus in Brisbane, little could he have imagined the extraordinary chain of events he would set off. His criticism of China’s record on human rights saw him bashed by pro-Beijing protestors and branded an enemy of the Chinese state. What’s worse, he and his family were deluged with death threats in a disturbing campaign of intimidation designed to shut him up. You’d think the University of Queensland would race to the defence of its student, but it appears instead to have gone on the attack. The accusation that it has sided with the communist regime raises serious questions about its reliance on Chinese money and how deep Beijing’s influence on campus goes.
UQ’s extraordinary practices are also explained in Paul Frijters explosive article, along with the comments.
With this background in mind, it is astonishing to read that Peter Hoj has now been appointed vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide (UA):
The Danish-born biochemist… starts a five-year term at Adelaide on 8 February…
He succeeds interim vice-chancellor Mike Brooks, who has run the university since disgraced former leader Pater Rathjen’s abrupt departure last May over sexual harassment scandals…
Professor Høj presided over a period of prosperity at the University of Queensland, which grew by around 40 per cent to a A$2.2 billion (£1.2 billion) operation under his tenure. Student numbers have increased by some 18 per cent to more than 55,000 since he took over in 2012.
But the success was bankrolled mainly by overseas students, whose ranks more than doubled to over 20,000 while domestic student numbers barely changed. International tuition fees contributed some A$657 million or 30 per cent of the university’s revenue in 2019, the latest year for which accounts are available.
The dependence on international income led to accusations that Professor Høj was too cosy with the leadership of China – a perception fuelled by his position as a consultant to Hanban, the agency that runs China’s Confucius Institutes, and by the university’s treatment of philosophy student Drew Pavlou, an outspoken critic of its links with the Chinese Communist Party.
Drew Pavlou’s response says it all:
You’ve gotta be fucking joking, right? https://t.co/o9bhWdz3eR
— Sharna Bremner (@sharnatweets) February 2, 2021
The UA Student Union is also opposed to the appointment and will hold a protest tomorrow:
The UQ Student Union never stood up for me because it was bought off by the admin. Thank you to the Uni of Adelaide Student Union for your amazing help, your protest tomorrow has my full & total support. Can’t wait to join you for a massive rally ASAP. https://t.co/2xRI4jo8my pic.twitter.com/Ryo74IMtC1
— Drew Pavlou 柏乐志 (@DrewPavlou) February 2, 2021
What on earth is UA thinking? How does it hope to clear the air of past indiscretion by attaching itself to the stink of the larger UQ scandal? It will drag on for years longer, pursued by anti-CCP freedom-fighters across the political spectrum. By doing so, UA only confirms the very rotten culture it is supposed to be addressing.
Let’s ask Professor Hoj at The Australian:
“We totally deny that the Confucius Institute were involved in the formulation of the courses, however, it should never have happened,” Professor Hoj told The Australian.
“When you run a university there are lots of things happening in an institution with 6000 people, most of whom are independent thinkers. As soon as we learnt about it we said: never again. It was a stupid thing to do.”
…Professor Hoj said UQ’s chancellor, Peter Varghese, the former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, had “very mature views” of anything that would jeopardise the national interest. He said the reality was that universities — like other parts of the Australian economy — had become involved with China before the relationship had deteriorated.
“The sense that we were in there to favour a certain nation is right in one sense, because that nation is Australia,” he said. “We have never engaged with China or any other nation through a different lens than this one: what is in Australia’s best interest. However, what has happened is that the world has changed very quickly.
“Geopolitically the world has changed. Our relationship with China is seen through a different lens that says we want to engage, but we can’t compromise our values.”
Ahem, did that justify Professor Hoj’s extraordinary attack on free speech at UQ which transpired years after the relationship hit the rocks? How was that EVER in Australia’s national interest? Does an apology after the fact forgive all sins? Throw open the prisons then!
The corpse of UQ free speech is hardly cool and the good professor is back at it:
…“For the nation, if we don’t get international students back, we have to decide how we are going to fund the research to diversify our economy. I recognise the incredible difficulty those choices pose to politicians. But if we can bring 1200 people back for a tennis tournament, and seem to be able to manage that observing that many of those people came from parts of the world with incredibly high infection rates, we should be able to also bring back students.”
Professor Hoj himself summarises it:
…“People don’t so much listen to what you say, they observe what you do,” he said. “We talk a lot about how there are too many old men at the top of organisations and not enough females. It’s because often they don’t get an opportunity to shine. I will never be on a panel where there are only males. And if somebody has really done something wrong, they need to go.”
We could not have put that better ourselves.
