A Concerning Merger of the University of Auckland Law and Business Faculties

We Are The University 

Students and staff have concerns about the merging of the University of Auckland Faculty of Law and its proposed merger with the Faculties of Business and Economics, including the way in which the consultation process has been communicated and implemented.

The proposal from Vice-Chancellor Dawn Freshwater emphasises the continued strength of both faculties and being responsive to feedback. However, which feedback she refers to is unclear. No data, examples, or even sweeping statements that generalise what that feedback contained are given. This undermines the credibility and authority of the University of Auckland Executive Committee.

The marketing of this restructure has focused on increasing transdisciplinarity content, and there are several red flags that warrant our attention. Management’s supporting resources (University of Auckland, 2024a; 2024b; 2024c) highlight “Synergies,” “Integration,” “Resilience and capacity,” and are “cluttered with the usual business school-speak about ‘alignment,’ ‘collaboration’' ‘enhancement,’ ‘engagement’ and ‘leverage’” (McManus, 2024). These buzzwords are hardly supported beyond noting some shared subjects of interest, a few shared capacities. “It reveals few, if any, benefits to the law school, its critics say” (McManus, 2024). There is also no effort to identify the separation of the schools as an obstacle to such ‘synergies.’ While the Business School’s Dean is currently a legal academic, this merger will provide significantly less “synergy” if the business school would in future appoint an economist or marketing scholar to the position. If the Law and Business Faculties were meant to be together the intensity of their interactions would be such that their formal administrative combination would only be a formality. The value proposition for the business school is also concerning. Professional staff losses will likely be within the Business School, and the inclusion of another entire faculty within an already large and complex faculty is likely to create an ongoing distraction to the Dean and her deputies, to the detriment of the Business School. 

There has been no substantive explanation of how exactly this restructure will produce the proclaimed outcomes, nor any evaluation of alternative, more precise interventions, targeted to facilitate these supposed benefits. Despite running a research and evidence-based institution, the lack of data, detail, and consideration in the statements made by the university administration is all too familiar for students and staff under their management. We have experienced (attempted) fast-tracked course cuts and the subversion of accountability mechanisms such as the administration bypassing Senate (Morton, 2024), performative consultation processes (Arts, Education & Social Work merger), and repeated lies about the supposed successes of their top-down policies (student hubs). This continual lack of academic integrity will be concerning to anyone invested in the reliability of our science and research sector.

The fact that hardly anyone can see any teaching or research benefit from the merger makes clear that the underlying driver is simple cost-cutting. As there is almost certainly going to be a lot of dysfunction in the combined faculty, the savings from lease cancellation and redundancies of a small number of duplicate professional staff will be greatly outweighed by the costs of integration, long-term damage to law education, and eventual disintegration. Ill-conceived large-scale reorganisations can create years of wreckage and are the hallmark of ‘careerist’ managers who don’t plan to be around to deal with the fallout. The statements made by management are clearly bullshit (Heer, 2015). The only apparent, reasonable explanation for the administration's push to merge more faculties is that “there would be a review of professional staff and whether they meet the needs of the new mega faculty.” (Clayton Kimpton, chief executive of the Law Association in RNZ, 2024). Supported in the proposal: “[The merger] would allow us to streamline resources and support structures” is the claim most consistent with patterns of centralisation and poor attempts at economies of scale we have seen from this administration. This is another attack on the professional staff who hold the institutional knowledge that keeps this place running and is likely to severely affect both the Business and Law faculties. This is a repeat of the student hub’s failure all over again. Unfortunately for the administration, it seems student consensus that the modularisation, standardisation, and centralisation of courses, student support services and entire faculties have failed students, with increased wait times, more repeat visits, and more students turning instead to their (more expensive and already overworked) lecturers for help. Instead of increasing the efficiency of the student support systems, management’s cuts have invisibilized the burdens by shifting them off the payroll and onto academic staff and students. They are accelerating the rate of enshittification (Doctorow, 2024).

The lack of substantial benefit offered by this plan is perhaps best highlighted by these examples:

  • The University of Western Australia undid their Law and Business mergers in 2020, originally led by Paul Johnson and Dawn Freshwater (Hiatt, 2016; Campus Morning Mail, 2019)

  • The University of Waikato abandoned a proposed merger of the law and business faculties in the early 2000s.

  • Retired judge and University of Auckland Alumni, John Priestley, summarised: “there’s not one law faculty of any reputable university that I can think of which doesn’t have independence.”  (McManus, 2024)

  • The University of Canterbury’s reversal of a similar merger in 2023, a merger that was followed by a drop in rankings, and an undoing of which was followed by a rise in rankings. “it was found to be unworkable” (McManus, 2024).

  • The University of Queensland’s Law School also dropped in rankings after being merged with their Faculty of Business, Economics and Law.

  • AUT has a merged Faculty of Law and Business, and it is not ranked by QS and Times Higher Education.

Not only will the merger harm the university, students, and staff; but there is an outcry from the law community not to do it. “Three retired judges – all alumni of the University of Auckland’s Law School – have joined the groundswell of opposition to a proposed merger of the university’s law school with the much larger business and economics faculty,” “there is nothing rational or good about the proposal and warn of brand and reputational damage which will impact the law school’s international ranking”; “I’m distressed, and that’s probably a better adjective to use rather than ‘volcanically angry’! I’m distressed by what I regard as a most unwise proposal which is going to impact on the international reputation of what is a very good law school” (McManus, 2024).

Clayton Kimpton states, “I’m yet to speak to a practitioner who supports the proposal and, in fact, a number of very senior practitioners are very concerned about the proposal.” The Criminal Bar Association stands alongside students and staff, concerned about harm to criminal justice education due to the proposed merger. Particular concern across the board is the dilution of the Law School’s reputation as well as the social good it produces for society. Creating separate streams for public and private law undermines the concept of holistic law education and the social benefits it provides. 

“Harvey says the public/private distinction is ‘a little bit silly.’”  (McManus, 2024)

“Criminal law has public law implications in terms of procedure, evidence, admissibility and practice but it also has much wider private law implications. Same with contracts, same with tort. The law doesn’t fit neatly into that sort of classification or categorisation.”  (McManus, 2024)

Barrister William Akel, of Sangro Chambers, says the important thing about law school is that you learn how all the private and public law disciplines interact with each other.  (McManus, 2024)

Many fields of law do not fit neatly into private and public categories, and this division could limit the breadth of legal education. For instance, areas like environmental law, human rights law, and public international law often intersect with both public and private sectors. Still, they may be overlooked if the faculty focuses too narrowly on commercial areas. The focus on commerce is evident in the proposal: “The combined faculty will act as a gateway where business leaders gain direct access to legal expertise and legal professionals draw on the range of commercial, corporate and related expertise,” particularly outraging the three alumni judges  (McManus, 2024).

A combined faculty might disenfranchise students and staff who don’t feel their interests are appropriately valued and recognised. Courses that traditionally cover public interest law, such as public health, environmental law, and human rights, may be reduced or eliminated in favour of more business-oriented subjects.

“The fact that the dean of the law faculty is ultimately going to be subservient to the dean of the business school speaks volumes in my view.” (John Priestly in McManus, 2024)

“To treat it as in some way having a synergy with a business college is to misunderstand the nature of legal teaching, which is all about teaching the fundamentals of the law and a broad range of disciplines that will produce a lawyer.” (Raynor Asher in McManus, 2024)

The merger risks a brain drain of academic staff and students to other institutions, particularly from the BA/LIB conjoint programme (the most popular law conjoint) as students may go elsewhere if they perceive the UoA Law Faculty to be commercially driven.

The faculty’s reputation is apparent in collaboration with demographics far beyond the legal system including mana whenua, hapu, iwi, Māori organisations, non-government and international organisations. Some of whom will be put off by affiliation with the business school. A merger with a business school undermines the independence of the Law faculty that enables open critique of private corporations. Thus, the merger is an attack on the law faculty's identity. 

 “you [would] change the very nature of the degree and also the reputation of the law school.” (Clayton Kimpton in RNZ, 2024) 

And on what grounds? The university administration can’t even articulate the benefit of trying to sever these streams, leaving us to speculate, is it to itemise the incomes & expenses of these new streams, and slowly build a case to defund public law education? This may be obscured by a shifting student demand instigated by artificial separation into public and private streams, or it could be driven by the university's strategic alignment with corporate interests. Lastly, the artificial separation between public and private law seems to run counter to the goal of fostering more transdisciplinary opportunities that recognise the intersections of knowledge and skills. While the university claims to support interdisciplinary learning, the current proposal does not align with this vision.

The rationales provided are vague, there is no evidence provided to support them, and no cost-benefit-risk analysis has been set out. It is important to note the strategic value of ambiguity of justifications for the merger. Management does not provide specifics as to why these changes are valuable, despite being very capable of communicating detail, such as the proposed subservient role of the Law Faculty dean to the Business School Dean. 

In the process management uses language that presupposes that the merger will happen, and at a predetermined timeline; “any action taken will be within the first half of next year,” prescribing discussion to regard how exactly it will happen, instead of if it should. Their ambiguity is either an actual lack of thought put to it, a strategy used to avoid accountability and avoid the work of defending such a harmful policy, or a dystopian mix of both. The urgency remains completely unjustified. Why must this happen in the first half of next year? Is there really no interest in getting such a radical restructuring right?

As outlined by Deborah Stone (2012), ambiguity “[enables] political actors to clothe their behavior in different meanings. By portraying a decision one way in press releases, speeches, preambles, or surrounding language, yet executing it another, leaders can perform the political magic of making two different decisions at once” (p. 181). She goes on to explain “statements of goals are more than wishes and intentions; they are also means of gathering political support.” Accordingly, those opposed to the proposal must flatly refuse the prospect. They are fishing for compromise and we can not give it to them. Stone outlines what appears to be the administration’s playbook:

  • State goals ambiguously, and possibly keep some goals secret or hidden. Be prepared to shift goals and redefine goals as political conditions change.

  • Keep undesirable alternatives off the agenda by not mentioning them.

  • Make your preferred alternative appear to be the only feasible or possible one.

  • Focus on one part of the causal chain and ignore others that would require politically difficult or costly policy actions.

  • Use rhetorical devices to blend alternatives; don't appear to make a clear decision that could trigger strong opposition.

  • Select from the infinite range of consequences only those whose costs and benefits will make your preferred course of action look best.

  • Choose the course of action that hurts powerful constituents the least, but portray your decision as creating maximum social good for a broad public. (p. 260)

Instead, by failing to lay out a solid justification for the changes, it is evident management are taskmasters looking to build a CV of supposed ‘innovative’ change (Graeber, 2020). It is clear we must force the conversation upon management. They don’t want student and staff perspectives, otherwise, they would have emailed us for it, they wouldn’t have held ‘consultation’ during a time when students are not at university and checking university emails, while staff are on leave, having followed the busiest academic time of year, and lawyers and judges are on holiday. The administration proposes these changes while there is no permanent Dean of Law and has not been one for over 14 months. A significant change to the law faculty is proposed when there is no stable representative to champion the faculty. They continue to dodge any conversation forced upon them in the public sphere (McManus, 2024), leaving any consultation they might take up with students and staff as partially informed at best.

Reminiscent of a Freudian slip during similar staff ‘consultation’ processes regarding the merger of the Faculty of Arts with Education and Social Work, when asked “why bother asking staff for feedback when they know the merger will be happening anyway?” Valorie Linton, the provost (a position introduced by Vice Chancellor Dawn Freshwater) at the time explained, “so we can say we consulted you.”

The administration proceeds strategically, rather than honestly – yet another sign that the proposal has little independent merit and that they know communications are categorically bullshit. Students and staff are sick of being sidelined and we are beginning to lack confidence in management. To restore confidence we urge management to provide more transparency around this proposal, identify all motivations, including the alluded “external and internal factors," and release all expert advice received regarding the proposal to enable informed, meaningful dialogue with students and faculty members before proceeding with this merger. Included in meaningful dialogue should be in-person opportunities for students and staff to discuss the implications of this proposal with each other, and with management. Our academic journey is too important to be sidelined by a decision that may not serve the best interests of our communities.

What can be done?

We now call for students, staff, alumni, concerned citizens, legal professionals and everyone to make their voices heard. Please submit your feedback to as many of the appropriate channels as possible (we recommend CC’ing all applicable emails below), or to us, and we can pass it forward to all applicable channels.

We encourage everyone to read student and staff perspectives on the issue and fill our form and we can pass on your thoughts to the correct representatives on council and it can inform our work going forward. Everyone (staff, students, alumni, others) can also fill out the university’s feedback form before the 5pm 20th of January or contact the university council representatives for

We Are The University

We Are The University is a student activist group countering anti-democratic management of universities and working towards a future in which universities better serve the people of Aotearoa. WATU hosts regular reading groups and is available to talk about how universities could better serve you.

wearetheuniversity.org 

instagram.com/wearetheuniversity 

bsky.app/profile/wearetheuniversity.bsky.social

References

Campus Morning Mail. (2019, June 5). UWA’s VC announces departure. Campusmorningmail.com.au. https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/uwas-vc-announces-departure/

Doctorow, C. (2024, April 4). Too big to care - Cory Doctorow - Medium. Medium. https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-04-04-teach-me-how-to-shruggie-kagi-caaa88c221f2

Graeber, D. (2020). “I had to guard an empty room”: the rise of the pointless job – David Graeber. Davidgraeber.org. https://davidgraeber.org/articles/i-had-to-guard-an-empty-room/

Heer, J. (2015, December). Donald Trump Is Not a Liar. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/124803/donald-trump-not-liar

Hiatt, B. (2016, February 3). Restructure bid to save UWA $40m. The West Australian. https://thewest.com.au/business/finance/restructure-bid-to-save-uwa-40m-ng-ya-136210

McManus, J. (2024, December 17). Opposition Mounts against Proposed Merger of Law and Business Schools - Law News. Law News. https://lawnews.nz/administrative-public/opposition-mounts-against-proposed-merger-of-law-and-business-schools/

Morton, J. (2024, August 29). University of Auckland academics in “unprecedented” revolt over controversial course shake-up. NZ Herald. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/university-of-auckland-academics-in-unprecedented-revolt-over-controversial-course-shake-up/ODXSAEWSHFHFLLPR73HWSOEMTE/

RNZ. (2024, December 9). Unease at proposal to change Auckland’s law school. RNZ. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018967773/unease-at-proposal-to-change-auckland-s-law-school

Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (3rd ed.). W.W. Norton & Co.

University of Auckland. (2024a). Consideration of the future organisation of the Faculties of Law and Business & Economics. In The University of Auckland. The University of Auckland. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/news-and-opinion/notices/consideration-future-organisation-law-business-economics-proposal.pdf

University of Auckland. (2024b). Proposed new faculty arrangements: Business and Economics, Law - The University of Auckland. Auckland.ac.nz. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/notices/2024/proposed-new-faculty-business-economics-law.html

University of Auckland. (2024c, December 19). Staff-focused Q&A on proposed new faculty arrangements: Business and Economics, Law. The University of Auckland. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/intranet/stay-informed/staff-communications/notices/proposed-new-faculty-business-economics-law-q-a.html

Kyle Church