Follow the SRC on Social Media

Secret component of Broderick Review withheld from public

In an Academic Board meeting held on campus on Tuesday, Spence revealed that a third report containing first-person experiences was withheld from the public.

Elizabeth Broderick launched the review at a media conference in Sydney.

A third section of the 2017 Broderick Review has been revealed by Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence.

The controversial report was previously released in two parts: suggestions on amending college culture and reports on individual university colleges.

However, in an Academic Board meeting held on campus on Tuesday, Spence revealed that a third report containing first-person experiences was withheld from the public.

According to Spence, the unseen review details conversations with college leadership.

The final product was made available to the colleges but not to university administration or media.

The nature of the findings was deemed invasive for not only the students who shared their information, but also for associated or implied figures who may not want their experiences told.

“[I’m] extremely keen not to double victimise – [these are] not our stories to tell,” said Spence.

He said there was no “public interest in people [sic] knowing the details of individual stories” as the focus should be on general behaviour.

The findings from the original Broderick report, released late last year, was criticised by advocates for ‘watered down’ findings on campus sexual misconduct.

While praising Nina Funnell, Spence also implied that the journalist behind the End Rape On Campus findings had opposing views on the matter.

When questioned by an academic staff member about the University’s slow response on an issue spanning for “decades”, the Vice-Chancellor responded that the University had “never been here before”.

He said that the University had “been engaged with colleges in a comprehensive process of cultural renewal with an expert recognised by the UN in this area that has brought change”.

Spence also argued that the University was heavily assisting the colleges in changing their culture but could not disaffiliate with them entirely for legal reasons. He said that USyd has “nothing to do with them” despite continually taking “brand damage in the papers”.

The Vice-Chancellor added that college mentality was being turned on its head, and that “students maintain culture and take strong action when culture is threatened in one way or another … student leadership in colleges is involved in ways they’ve never been involved before.”

If no visible improvements were made over the year, “all options were on the table”.