Computer lab for indigenous use only: QUT

QUT agrees that the Oodgeroo Unit computer lab ‘is for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ­students only’.

Cindy Prior.

A top university agrees with a claim by a former employee in a racial vilification case that the Oodgeroo Unit and computer lab on its main Brisbane campus “is provided for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ­students only”.

But Queensland Univer­sity of Technology, which released its legal responses yesterday to the Federal Circuit Court in the racial vilification row, denies it is ­endorsing or facilitating racial segregation at Oodgeroo.

The legal responses disclose that Cindy Prior, a Brisbane woman running a $247,470 ­damages claim against students, QUT and academics, wanted a “duress alarm, fast dial access to security, 24-hour swipe card ­access to a computer lab and a ­security guard patrol” because she feared for her safety if non-indigenous students entered her work area, a “culturally safe space”.

Ms Prior was an administrative officer in the Oodgeroo Unit when she turned away three students in 2013 because they were not indigenous. Her decision to refuse the students access to the computers that were not being used led to Facebook posts which described racial segregation.

Ms Prior alleges in her case that the Facebook posts and the related actions of QUT and its staff have caused her hurt and psychiatric injury and stopped her from working for two years. She has accused the students of racial vilification under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The university and two of its staff, professor Anita Lee Hong and director of equity Mary Kelly, want the court to dismiss Ms Prior’s application, which began with a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2014.

A key question arising from the case is whether the operation of the Oodgeroo Unit breached anti-discrimination laws if it was set up, as stated by Ms Prior and agreed yesterday by QUT, for use “only” by indigenous students.

QUT said in its court reply that “many public Australian universities have established and are maintaining similar programs with similar objectives for similar reasons” as the Oodgeroo Unit.

It said the unit had operated successfully for 25 years “in a way which has furthered the purposes for which it was established and has provided meaningful and ­effective support for indigenous students to assist them to enjoy equally with non-indigenous students the experience of and benefits of tertiary education”.

It added that the unit’s facilities “are generally reserved for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students”.

The university alleges in meetings with staff to try to ­resolve Ms Prior’s complaints, she wanted a “duress alarm, fast dial access to security, 24-hour swipe card ­access to a computer lab and a ­security guard patrol”.

Ms Kelly, who is being sued in the case, said she told Ms Prior that in her opinion, ‘”there was no evidence that a ‘white supremacy group’ existed at QUT”.

She did not believe the students who went to the unit were “part of an organised group”. She indicated to Ms Prior that “there was no evidence that any student posed a physical threat to individual staff”. She advised Ms Prior at an early stage the legal threshold for proving racial vilification was high and she should get legal ­advice before proceeding.

In an attempted return to work meeting with Ms Prior, however, “the feasibility of implementing a variety of security solutions for the Oodgeroo Unit was discussed”. Professor Lee Hong ­expressed concern a “security guard patrol at the Oodgeroo Unit might make the students uncomfortable”, but she denied a claim that she had refused to consider the option.

She said swipe card access was implemented along with fast-dial access to security, and she understood “security passes would be possible” and were pending ­approval.

Weeks later, medical reports by two doctors confirmed that Ms Prior, who said she has suffered a psychiatric injury and severe stress, hurt and humiliation, “was able to return to work but not at the Gardens Point Campus”.

QUT said it made multiple responses to alleviate Ms Prior’s concerns and her stress.

Vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake had put a statement on the university’s web page stating “all staff and students had the right to go about their business without being offended by ill-informed ­remarks in the public arena”. “The vice-chancellor also addressed the issue of the posts in similar terms at his campus briefings with staff, which occurred in the days following the incident,’’ QUT’s response says. “Senior staff members of the university met with indigenous student representatives to discuss the support that could be offered by the university to its indigenous students in response to the incident.”

The students who made the posts and are now being accused of racial hatred have strenuously denied the claims. They are being defended by Tony Morris QC, who intends to mount a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 18C.