“Dr Martin had broken the trust of the UoM by failing to protect the interests of a university student and ensure he did not initiate, cultivate or encourage a relationship with a student and these are serious concerns regarding his sexual misconduct which brings into question his fit and proper character as an academic,” it said.
The university said the student and her friend had contacted Dr Martin in about December 2021 and invited him to lunch.
Following the lunch, Dr Martin and the student continued to contact each other and meet on social occasions in December and January.
The interactions included meetings at parks and a lunch at Lygon Street’s La Spaghettata restaurant that was initiated by the student and involved drinking bottles of wine.
But in June 2022, the student contacted the head of the economics department and said she wanted Dr Martin’s communications with her to stop.
Four months later she filed a sexual harassment complaint alleging he “frequently texted [her] to ask her to go out for a drink and to arrange one-on-one meetings in private settings which made [her] uncomfortable”.
Dr Martin, 68, denied he did anything inappropriate and told investigators his interest in the student, then in her early 20s, was “purely academic and supportive”.
Their entire correspondence, he says, was limited to her studies, organising two lunches and four meetings, advice for her friend on maths courses, food and recipes and “talking about pussycats”.
‘Pattern of behaviour’
“There is a big divide between the language used in the allegations and the reality of each situation,” he told the investigator, according to an email quoted in the university’s defence.
But during the investigation – which involved talking to eight witnesses – the university said it was provided evidence that indicated Dr Martin was engaging in a “pattern of behaviour which gave rise to a significant risk to health and safety”.
They included alleged conduct at work-related dinners in 2015, 2017 and 2019 “such as massaging shoulders and asking personal questions”.
Dr Martin has said in his lawsuit the university did not interview any of the students involved in the previous alleged incidents and the investigator had told him he was “guilty until proven innocent”.
But the university denied the investigator ever said this and cited Dr Martin’s email where he thanked the investigator for her “careful and thoughtful deliberations as well as her objective views”.
The investigator had also taken account of Dr Martin’s additional evidence to the extent she changed one sexual harassment finding to “not substantiated”, it said.
It denied it fired him because he made complaints or inquiries or because of his age.
Instead, it said Dr Martin had failed to ensure his relationship with the student was “professional”, to be “mindful at all times of the power imbalance”, and to “not initiate, cultivate or encourage relationships” with a student.
“Dr Martin’s conduct is at odds with the UoM’s organisational values, university policy, and the standards of behaviour the community expects from academic staff in a leading educational institution,” it said.
“The serious misconduct was compounded by Dr Martin’s failure to accept that his behaviour was inappropriate or to recognise or understand the significant power imbalance between himself and the student.”
Department review soon
The parties are expected to start mediation next month.
A spokesman for the University of Melbourne said the review into the department’s culture, first flagged in December, had yet to begin.
“The university has commissioned an independent external assessment of the values, culture and behaviours in the faculty, which is due to commence shortly,” he said.
“This will support the university’s unwavering commitment and ongoing activity to foster a place of work and study that is safe and respectful for everyone.”