Statement by 91色视频
27 March 2024
"The University is pleased that all claims against the University, the Chancellor and the former Vice-Chancellor brought by Mr Drew Pavlou have been dismissed by the Queensland Supreme Court.
Although the University was always confident of its position, the parties have agreed to resolve the proceedings, which were commenced by Mr Pavlou in June 2020, without any admission of liability.
As a result, the Supreme Court has made an order that the proceeding be dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Rather than incurring further legal costs if the proceedings had continued, the University will provide $120,000 in funding to the UQ Leadership, Excellence and Diversity (LEAD) scholarship. This decision is based on the University’s commitment to supporting students who have experienced educational, social and/or financial disadvantage."
Statement from 91色视频Chancellor Peter Varghese
Published 5 August 2020
As a consequence of his suspension from the University for Semester 2, 2020, Mr Pavlou is no longer legally eligible to sit on the University Senate as an elected undergraduate student member.
In accordance with 91色视频 Act, Mr Pavlou’s place on Senate as the elected representative of undergraduate students must be filled by the candidate with the next most votes at the elections for UQ’s 34th Senate held in 2019, subject to that candidate remaining eligible and willing to serve.
I would emphasise that the University has no discretion on this matter. Eligibility to sit on the University Senate and processes for filling vacancies are set out in 91色视频 Act.
As I noted in my statement of 13 July 2020, neither of the two findings of serious misconduct against Mr Pavlou by the Senate Disciplinary Appeals Committee concerned Mr Pavlou’s personal or political views about China or Hong Kong. The University has consistently said that no student should be penalised for the lawful expression of personal views.
Statement from 91色视频Chancellor Peter Varghese
Published 13 July 2020
The Senate Disciplinary Appeals Committee (SDAC) today issued its findings on the Drew Pavlou matter.
It is not the University’s usual practice to comment on the details of individual matters. However, in view of the level of public interest and Mr Pavlou’s own public comments about the matter, I confirm that the Committee found serious misconduct on two of the allegations, but not the others. The SDAC reduced the period of suspension from two years to one semester, until December 2020.
Neither of the findings of serious misconduct concerned Mr Pavlou’s personal or political views about China or Hong Kong. The University has consistently said that no student should be penalised for the lawful expression of personal views. This should finally put to rest the false allegations that this process has been an attack on freedom of expression.
Contrary to Mr Pavlou’s comments, there were no findings that any of the allegations were fabricated.
The Committee conducted a complete rehearing of the matter and was required to make decisions based only on the evidence before it. Mr Pavlou had legal representation at the hearing.
The decision by the SDAC concludes the University’s disciplinary processes.
Statement from 91色视频Chancellor Peter Varghese
Published 5 June 2020
91色视频 Senate met on 5 June to discuss the disciplinary process concerning Mr Drew Pavlou.
Senate noted that the issues of alleged misconduct and freedom of speech had been so commingled in the media coverage of the case that it made it difficult to untangle in public perceptions.
Senate reaffirmed its view that no student should be penalised for the lawful expression of personal political views. Freedom of speech is a foundational value of the university as reflected in the Senate’s adoption of the model code on freedom of speech drafted by the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. The Senate also noted that the Student Charter and its Student Integrity and Misconduct Policy sets out behavioural expectations of students of the University.
On 2 June Mr Pavlou lodged an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary board. This is the next step for a disputed disciplinary decision.
The appeal will be heard and decided by the Senate Disciplinary Appeals Committee (SDAC) which comprises Senate members as well as staff and student representatives.
The appeal to the SDAC will be a new hearing. The committee has power to confirm, vary or set aside the decision of the disciplinary board.
Mr Pavlou remains an enrolled student and no action will be taken on his suspension while the appeal is being heard.
Comment by 91色视频Chancellor Peter Varghese regarding two year suspension of a student
Published 29 May 2020
I was today advised about the outcome of the disciplinary action against Mr Pavlou.
There are aspects of the findings and the severity of the penalty which personally concern me.
In consultation with the Vice Chancellor, who has played no role in this disciplinary process, I have decided to convene an out-of-session meeting of UQ’s Senate next week to discuss the matter.
UQ's statement about its student disciplinary processes
Published 20 May 2020
The University’s policies are not driven by politics, and we completely reject the claims that this ongoing disciplinary matter is a free speech issue; student disciplinary matters are initiated in response to complaints made to the University.
It is entirely reasonable and appropriate for the University to provide a safe environment for students and staff, both on campus and online, to protect their welfare and mental health. Part of this is ensuring complaints are fairly considered through a standard, confidential disciplinary process which is being followed in this case.
Eroding or undermining these processes reduces the likelihood that students and others will feel safe to report behaviour which they feel is inappropriate or unacceptable.
For this reason, we cannot respond or engage in discussions on our student disciplinary matters - even if this means we cannot correct inaccuracies that misrepresent the University.
Published 9 May 2020
The University does not usually comment about individual disciplinary matters, as they are designed to be confidential to ensure the integrity of the process and to protect those involved.
However, in light of continued commentary and attempts to exert external influence on our processes the University has felt it necessary to make a public statement.
The University’s values and policies set expectations and standards of behaviour for staff and students that, as a member of our community, there is a shared responsibility to uphold.
When there are complaints about the behaviour of staff or students, we have an obligation to take these complaints seriously and manage them through the standard University disciplinary process.
The process provides a fair and confidential course of action for those who have made complaints and those about whom complaints have been made. Decisions are made on the basis of findings of fact and relevant evidence. No decision is made until this process is complete.
Others have chosen to comment on one of our disciplinary processes in the absence of a complete understanding of the facts. Trying to influence our processes could impact on their integrity and could silence individuals or discourage members of our community from making complaints. This is why it is not appropriate for the University to engage on such matters.
The University rejects recent unsubstantiated accusations about any political motivations. The University has always been transparent about its international engagements.
To be clear, disciplinary processes do not seek to prevent staff or students from expressing their personal views or to limit their right to freedom of speech. The University is an active defender of freedom of speech - it has adopted the principles of the French Model Code into its policy framework. Everyday life at 91色视频demonstrates our ongoing commitment to its protection and promotion.
The University has a duty of care to students and staff and expects that all members of our community treat one another with respect and in accordance with our values. We make no apology for that.