Our researchers and students have criticised the administration in the past – there’s nothing new in that. But the criticism has a sting in its tail when it follows on the heels of the rector announcing one of the largest rounds of dismissals in the history of the university. And in the context of these dismissals, it seems appropriate to ask whether this is an example of the beast within doing the talking, or whether the criticism reflects the voice of the majority.

A couple of hours before the rector’s presentation, staff and students could read about the cuts in the morning paper “JP Aarhus”. Per Dalbjerg, the chair of the Student Council, was one of the first to suggest where the management could make cuts – even though the students had still not been informed as to the size of these cuts.

“We feel that the management should cut back on all extra projects, communication, branding, events and that kind of thing so we don’t have to make cuts in our basic research and education,” he said – thereby condemning a fair number of AU Communication staff to the gallows.

And the administration suffered further criticism later the same morning. When the rector asked if there were any questions after his presentation, Jens Christian Jensenius, a professor at the Department of Biomedicine, suggested that the staff should accept a one per cent salary cut to cover the deficit:

“But in return the staff should be given influence on the structure, management and administration of the university to give us back the feeling that the university belongs to us – instead of feeling that the administration are in charge, with the rest of being no more than cattle on their farm,” he said.

Nina Smith, a professor at the Department of Economics and Business, suggested where the senior management team might make cuts in the organisation:

“I don’t wish to speak evil of the administration, but it’s important that you ensure that the administration can provide direct support for our research and teaching at local level.”

And she added:

“A number of us feel that there’s rather a lot of nice to have at Aarhus University; whereas what we need to have is support for our research and teaching activities.”

In support of the academic staff

Per Dalbjerg understands why the staff at AU Communication resent his comments in “JP Aarhus”.

“The Student Council use the press as a mouthpiece for our strong views. Some people have criticised us for doing this, while others think it’s a good idea.”

He underlines that the Student Council don’t only suggest cuts in AU Communication. Their other proposals were not included in the article.

“You could take a look at AU HR, and ask whether all the courses they run are strictly necessary. Or at AU Research and Talent, and ask whether we’re getting enough for our money. And the administration hold a huge number of meetings, spending a lot of time on coordination. Could we be more efficient in this area? Our main point is that we need to cut away all superfluous activities,” he says.

“We’ve always been on the side of the technical and administrative staff, forming a joint front against the management; but in this situation we’re forced to be on the side of the academic staff to make sure that the cuts don’t have a negative impact on research and education,” he explains. 

Per Dalbjerg believes that the Student Council’s criticism reflects the views of both students and teachers.

“For some time now, people have felt that a body has been created at the university that virtually constitutes a fifth main academic area. It would be nice if we could find out exactly what the academic staff and the technical and administrative staff cost, so the debate could be based on a firmer foundation,” he says.

Problems at the top

Jens Christian Jensenius also rejects the suggestion that his comments are in any way a reflection of the beast within.

“I’m on the last lap of my career at AU. I’ll be 72 years old soon and I’m going down in hours next year. So personally I’m not worried about the future.”

Nor is his criticism of the administration targeted at the ordinary grassroots staff, he underlines.

“There are several different levels of administration. It works fine at local level, and we’re very pleased with the support we get. There are plenty of highly professional staff members at grassroots level. My criticism is aimed at people higher up the hierarchy, where there are consultants and people in various positions and extra staff members – we don’t always know exactly what they do!”

Nina Smith did not wish to add to her comments in Omnibus.

Respect

During his presentation, Brian Bech Nielsen defended the administration and asked people to treat each other with respect.

“I know what our academic environments think about the administration. And as I hope you have noticed, we are trying to find out how to improve what we do and make things work better by involving you all. Nobody in the administration has empire-building ambitions. On the contrary, in fact. I know there are plenty of dedicated staff members working hard to make things run smoothly. And I’d like to make the following appeal: let’s treat each other with respect.”

University Director Jørgen Jørgensen was asked why he didn’t stand up at the meeting to defend his staff – after all, he is the top manager of the administration. He explains:

“It was the rector’s meeting, and I think he did an excellent job because he asked us to treat each other with respect. The rector is the boss of the whole university, so I think it’s better that he said it instead of me because of course I’m bound to protect the interests of the administration.”

But in response to the criticism of the administrative staff, he says:

“This is obviously really bad timing for the administrative staff because we’re currently trying to improve the psychological workplace environment.”

Don’t oversimplify the arguments

He has no wish to enter into a discussion of whether the criticism is a reflection of the beast within, or whether it reflects the voice of the majority.

“I don’t like over-simplifying the arguments, and I don’t think we should be discussing this on a level which involves attributing various motives to each other.”

Jørgensen does not think that the administration should respond to the criticism in a similar fashion.

“For instance, I don’t think the administrative staff should start talking about problems elsewhere in the system. It’s all about maintaining respect for each other. Instead I’d like us to discuss the issues in relevant forums such as the administration’s panel of users, which is a forum for staff from all over the university where we can talk about where things are going wrong.”

But this panel of users doesn’t include all members of staff, so how can the administrative staff stand up for themselves when they’re criticised as they were after the rector’s presentation?

“It’s important to discuss things wherever there is a need to do so. And our managers and union representatives are responsible for ensuring that these discussions take place in a constructive and indeed respectful manner.”

Translated by Nicholas Wrigley