Six weeks of intensive negotiations between John Howard and the ANU's vice-chancellor could not save a multi-million dollar deal to create a controversial degree in Western Civilisation.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt told Fairfax Media on Tuesday that the Howard-headed philanthropic organisation had wanted to sit in on classes to monitor content and veto curriculum decisions, in an "extraordinarily prescriptive micro-management" of the course it had offered to fund.
To "protect its academic freedom", the university pulled out of negotiations with the centre earlier this month, Professor Schmidt says, but the move has since been slammed as "gutless" by conservatives, and even drawn the scrutiny of the prime minister.
Amid the media furore, the Ramsay Centre has rejected claims it sought to compromise the university's autonomy, and is now in talks with the University of Sydney.
Yet, behind the closed doors of the negotiating room, Professor Schmidt and ANU chancellor Gareth Evans say this was not the case, and the centre had even gone so far as to insist the words "academic freedom" be removed from parts of the 70-page memorandum of understanding.
It was at that point Professor Schmidt said he realised "something wasn't right", and stepped into a more active role. Over six weeks in April, he met with former prime minister Howard, who chairs the Ramsay board, to try to right the ship.
Professor Schmidt said it was during those emergency talks that it it became clear "the Ramsay Centre simply did not trust the ANU, one of the great universities in the world and this area, to deliver a program they were comfortable with".
"It took me several months to really figure that out..as our proposal was changed bit by bit," he said.
"You're sort of breaking lots of eggs and suddenly you end up with this omelette...and when you look at it you go 'Hmm this is just not acceptable'."
As detailed on its website during the six-month-long negotiations, the ANU had initially accepted the creation of a "partnership management committee", with equal numbers from both the Ramsay Centre and the university to oversee the new course's curriculum.
While Professor Schmidt acknowledged this in itself was "unusual", he said the university was dealing with an "unusual gift", offering an immense opportunity to expand its 150 existing courses in Western scholarship.
But if the ANU had been willing to give Ramsay a "voice", it had drawn the line when an "effective Ramsay veto" on the course's content and staff emerged in the MOU, Professor Schmidt said.
Ramsay had also insisted its representatives sit in on classes to do "health checks" on their content and teachers, he said. The ANU had further concerns the "short-term" life cycle of the money could leave it "hostage" to a board with "different views on academic autonomy" when its renewal came up in eight years.
But a spokeswoman for the Ramsay Centre denied the claims on Tuesday, saying the organisation "had never sought a controlling influence or veto in curriculum design and staff appointments" and that such all decisions would have still gone past the academic board.
"Discussions between the negotiating teams were amicable and engaging for us all," she said.
Australian Catholic University vice-chancellor Greg Craven, who has canned the ANU's backdown, told Fairfax he found the university's newly-aired list of reasons "implausible" as they did not appear to reflect anything radically different from how universities already carry out business with donors.
"I think this decision is as an assault on academic freedom, frankly," he said. "One of our most respected universities appears to have squibbed in the face of...student and staff protest.
"The tragedy of all this is it's now cast doubt on huge numbers of centres and partnerships [at universities around] Australia..that if judged on the same basis as the Ramsay Centre [deal] would also look bad."
That included the ANU's own Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, which has also come under attack for accepting donations from foreign governments. Professor Schmidt has defended the pratice as standard and in line with its academic integrity.
“If the Ramsay Centre were to take the same approach...we could reach an agreement in less than 48 hours," he said.
Professor Craven said he was open to a course in Western civilisation coming to the ACU, but would not be drawn on whether the university had put in a proposal of its own.
He said the risk now was that all universities would be scared off what was a "geniune proposal to help [revive] the hollowed-out" liberal arts.
Fears about the course's content spiked last month after former prime minister Tony Abbott, who also sits on the Ramsay board, penned a now auspicious article in Quandrant suggesting the centre was "not merely about Western civilisation but in favour of it".
Ramsay chief executive Simon Haines has since conceded Mr Abbott's "mistimed" comments "frightened a lot of people".
While the ANU had previously offered few details about its dealings with the Ramsay Centre out of respect for their confidentiality, Professor Schmidt and Mr Evans said on Monday a "protracted media firestorm" had forced their hand.
The university has left the door open to another offer on the course, but Professor Schmidt confirmed it had had no contact with the Ramsay Centre since Mr Howard wrote to express his disappointment at the decision.
"I really think the [centre] is going to have to rethink how they're going to interact with the community," Professor Schmidt said.
"It would be a shame if they're not able to do this but it's going to require them to change."
On campus, the ANU's decision to scrap the Ramsay proposal has been largely welcomed.
