Video presentation

For a video on the case against the merger see here: https://youtu.be/feP9UbZ3-PQ

Lack of due process
The Premier of SA did not promise a merger at the last election but an inquiry into one. The Foreword to the policy says: “Should the independent Commission determine that a university merger is in the interests of the South Australian economy and the welfare of the people of the State, then a merger will be the first term priority for a Labor Government”.

However, the feasibility process has gone ahead without full transparency of the terms of reference of the study. Disappointingly, the Commission has been axed. There is also a great sense of fait accompli and lack of close consultation with staff and stakeholders.

We the undersigned believe that Government should be kept to the undertaking of an independent Commission.  

No clear vision or rationale
We the undersigned believe that broad generalities for a future "super university" are insufficient grounds for starting the process.  No detailed vision or rationale has been articulated. Given the idea has collapsed a number of times in the past, the obvious barriers have not even been addressed. 

The onus is on the proponents of change to establish the benefit  of the merger and not just assume it to be the case. 

These are two quite different universities with vastly different rankings serving different demographics very well. Both are good at what they do. And yet the proposal is that the combined university will play the role of the highly ranked university. This will then shrink the diversity of offerings in the State, and amounts to a takeover, not a merger. 

No net job losses are promised, but no indication of actual job losses are indicated. There is no binding promise, regarding what will happen after a merger. There has been no attempt to even give indicative solutions to glaring issues such as the broadened spread in staff track records in a combination of vastly different institutions, and how staff rankings and promotions would be resolved.

The best universities in the world tend not to be large sausage factories; how will student experience and alumni relations be maintained? And so on. These and many other issues are discussed in the attached articles [scroll down and click on "more updates"].

The downsides of a merger or take-over
We the undersigned believe universities are public entities that serve the community. Being able to serve all types of diversity in the community, including neurodiversity. Therefore to treat universities as if they were corporate entities, forming corporate style mergers and acquisitions, without regard to the community they serve runs against university ethos.

Key well-known shortcomings of university mergers are as follows:

1. Loss of institutional identity:  Loss of the unique character, traditions, and identity of each institution. Leads to a sense of disconnection and disengagement among students, faculty, and staff.
2. Negative impact on alumni relations: Merging universities  negatively impacts on alumni relations, as alumni feel a sense of loss and disconnection from their alma mater. This results in reduced alumni engagement, donations, and support for the new institution.  I certainly will not be making an endowment to a merged university.
3. Resistance to change: Staff have worked hard to develop their existing programs, curricula, and research initiatives. Sweeping this success aside, results in reduced morale.
4. Financial instability: Mergers are costly and often lead to financial instability, especially if the newly formed institution is unable to achieve the expected cost savings or increased revenue.  It is unlikely this merger will cost less than $1 billion. Student numbers double, yes there are double the buildings, but room sizes don't double. A major rework of buildings and spaces is exorbitant. This will require continue taxpayer support over the next decade to the tune of several billion, and/or sell off of further university land which is shortsighted.
5. Administrative complexity: Mergers create administrative complexities, such as the need to reconcile different systems for financial management, student services, and academic policies. This comes at enormous cost and loss of momentum.
6. Decreased access to resources: Loss of access to resources that were previously available, such as specialized facilities, research funding, or unique academic programs.
7. Loss of local control: Mergers often result in a loss of local control, as decision-making power is centralised in the new institution. This  leads to a sense of alienation among local stakeholders, including students and staff.
8. Decreased competition: This merger will decrease competition among institutions, which leads to higher tuition rates, reduced access to financial aid, and decreased diversity of educational offerings.
9. Impact on community: Impact on the local community, including job losses, changes in the local economy, and reduced access to higher education for residents.
10. Cultural clashes: Different cultural backgrounds, values, and ways of doing things, leading to potential cultural clashes that creates stress, confusion, and a sense of disconnect among staff and students.
11. Staff layoffs: Mergers lead to staff layoffs, especially as the new institution seeks to streamline operations and reduce costs. Reduction of costs is inevitable when over ambitious student targets are not met due to visa capping, changes in world events etc.
12. Disruption of academic programs:  Disruptions in academic programs, including changes to course offerings, curriculum, and degree requirements. This is disorienting for students and delays their progress towards graduation.
13. Negative impact on research: Mergers negatively impact on research activities, as staff become diverted from their research projects to focus on administrative tasks related to the merger.
14. Reduced student satisfaction: A reduction in student satisfaction, as students feel less connected to the institution and its mission. This results in lower retention rates, reduced enrolment, and a decline in the reputation of the institution.
15. Loss of institutional autonomy: More centralised decision-making, reduced academic freedom, and increased bureaucracy is often a consequence of a university merger.
16. Legal and regulatory challenges: University mergers may face legal and regulatory challenges, accreditation requirements, and state regulations. This results in increased costs and loss in momentum.
17. Communication challenges: Differences in communication styles, terminology, and information-sharing practices. This creates confusion, misunderstandings, and delays in decision-making.
18. Loss of community ties: A merging uni often prioritises its goals and needs over those of the surrounding community. This creates reputational damage.
19. Governance challenges: Disagreements over leadership, decision-making processes, and representation on governing boards. The "game of thrones" creates confusion and delay in decision-making,  negatively impacting the institution's operations and reputation.
20. Staff retention issues: This is cause by uncertainty about the future direction and priorities of the new institution.
21. Difficulties in managing logistics: Logistical planning, such as coordinating schedules, moving equipment and supplies, and integrating IT systems are enormous. These challenges are time-consuming, costly, and disruptive to normal operations.
22. Reduction in student diversity: Merging will result in a reduction in student diversity, in the State, as some students may choose to attend other institutions rather than the newly formed institution. This can reduce the institution's reputation and competitiveness in the marketplace.

There is an alternative Plan B to a merger

The key goal of the proposed merger is to maintain the top 100 ranking. A good feasibility study should present a cost-benefit analysis, examine the risks and opportunity costs, then  balance this against another viable alternative.  To have a feasibility study focusing on just one outcome is not best practice, narrow, and high risk.  There needs to be a Plan B.

We the undersigned support the following viable alternative Plan B to a merger:

1) Do not merge.

2) Shift resources. Relocate UniSA from the City East campus and consolidate it at City West. This move is known to be favoured by both universities. It is known that UniSA wants to consolidate, and UoA needs extra space. Then, UoA can expand into that space, as well as Lot 14, greatly enhancing its ability to construct new, world-leading strategic laboratories to maintain international competitiveness. This would require only a fraction of the high cost associated with a merger.

3) Provide more PhD scholarships. It is acknowledged that the difference between elite universities (Harvard, Princeton, etc.) and UoA lies in the fact that 20% of their students are enrolled in PhDs, while only 7% of our students are pursuing PhDs. To improve international rankings, a sensible approach would be to increase our research intensity through increased PhDs. The State of South Australia can win by investing in more ongoing PhD scholarships. The impact on ranking will potentially be significant, and the cost would be small compared to that of a merger. We do not need to achieve a 20% target immediately, but a sustained plan to approach that goal over, for example, a decade could be implemented. 

4) Revise the University Act. The Act should revise the composition of the Council so that it represents the traditional purpose of a true university rather than an extension of immediate corporate needs. Rewrite the Act to preserve university core values and acknowledge that it is not a corporate entity. Limit the number of Council members with corporate backgrounds. There should be solid  representation of the professoriate. Ensure diversity in the membership including First Nations representation. Council members from industry should attend an induction about the nature of a university and its core values to ensure a thorough understanding. There is a substantial difference between the larger-scale purpose of a university and the short-term, moment-to-moment demands of commerce. A lack of understanding of this issue leads to a large disconnect. The Act should enforce Council meetings to be public and transparent. A study should be made of which University Councils in Australia are actually functional and compare their Acts to ours, with a view to positive change.