Accent Training Debate Sparks Equity Concerns at Leading Australian University

No Formal Accent Training, Says University of Sydney After Staff Backlash

A recent controversy at the University of Sydney has reignited critical conversations around language bias, academic equity, and the treatment of culturally diverse staff in higher education. The debate emerged following reports that the university was considering accent-related support as part of a new student evaluation pilot programme. Although speculation suggested that “accent training” might be introduced to assist staff with communication, the university has since issued a firm denial, stating that no formal plan exists. The issue came to light after academics from the School of Social and Political Sciences were invited to a meeting with Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education), Professor Joanne Wright. During this session, the proposed student feedback system was outlined to gather student perspectives on teaching quality. However, the implications of such a system quickly prompted concern among staff and sparked wider debate across academic circles.

During the meeting, one staff member reportedly raised the issue of bias, questioning how the university intended to safeguard against unfair evaluations. Particular concern was expressed about the potential for women, academics with accents, and staff from diverse national backgrounds to be disproportionately marked down. Some attendees later claimed that the concept of “accent training” had been mentioned, though it was accompanied by assurances that no one’s employment would be jeopardised due to their accent. In response, a university spokesperson clarified that the idea had only been raised hypothetically, specifically in cases where feedback might indicate that accents were creating barriers to learning. They emphasised that the university’s priority was to ensure students could clearly understand their lessons, and that the current focus remained on piloting the evaluation system, reviewing its outcomes, and addressing any biases that might surface.

Nonetheless, the discussion drew sharp criticism from academic representatives. Dr Peter Chen, President of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) branch at Sydney, argued that even entertaining the notion of accent-related training was problematic. He described it as either a poorly considered suggestion or, more seriously, an example of “nationalising linguistic racism.” According to Dr Chen, bias in student evaluations is a longstanding issue, with disproportionate effects often felt by women, visible minorities, and staff with disabilities. He noted that negative qualitative comments frequently reflect prejudice rather than genuine concerns about teaching quality. Following the backlash, Professor Wright issued a message to staff expressing regret if her remarks had been misinterpreted. She clarified that her comments were intended only as a hypothetical example of support. However, Dr Chen criticised the apology, describing it as a “sorry if you were offended” response that fell short of the accountability expected from senior leadership. He further suggested that the idea of workplace language training had been circulating for some time, citing a consultant from Wright’s office who had previously floated the concept.

The controversy has resonated beyond the University of Sydney. Dr Rohini Balram of Western Sydney University shared her own experience of accent-related discrimination. She recalled presenting at an international symposium in 2019, only to be told, “For an Indian, you speak very clearly and have good English. The remark, she explained, was offensive not only because she was born in Fiji, but also because it erased her identity and implied that her academic legitimacy was unexpected due to her presumed racial background. She described the incident as deeply unsettling and a reminder that migrant and culturally diverse staff are often judged through a prejudiced lens. This debate coincides with the Australian Human Rights Commission’s ongoing investigation into racism in universities. Its interim Racism@Uni report, released in November, revealed that both students and staff continue to face entrenched discrimination on campus.

Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman noted that staff frequently feel “othered” and less confident in expressing themselves, with insecure employment and rigid hierarchies compounding the issue. He highlighted key concerns, including ineffective complaint mechanisms, gaps between policy and practice, and low racial literacy across institutions, all of which hinder meaningful progress in anti-racism efforts. Dr Chen also warned of the broader risks associated with discussions around staff communication and accent-related measures. He cautioned that such conversations could lead to pressure on staff to modify their speech patterns to improve student feedback scores. This, he argued, could result in selective targeting of certain accent groups, encourage criticism based on ethnicity or neurodiversity, and ultimately link evaluations to performance reviews and promotions in harmful ways.

He stressed that such proposals are inappropriate for an international institution with a richly diverse academic community. Rather than suppressing difference, universities should focus on inclusive teaching practices, staff development, and cultural competence. Research, he pointed out, shows that monolingual societies tend to be less tolerant of linguistic diversity than multilingual ones—making it all the more important for educational institutions to model respect and inclusion. While Dr Chen acknowledged that most students and colleagues value the contributions of international staff, he warned that ideas like workplace accent training undermine those efforts. He urged the University of Sydney’s leadership to reject the proposal outright and instead reaffirm its commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusive excellence in teaching. This controversy serves as a timely reminder that inclusion must be intentional, and that academic institutions must lead by example, not by erasing difference, but by embracing it.

Editor’s Note

The University of Sydney’s accent training controversy has shown a clear divide in how universities handle diversity, inclusion, and student feedback. What started as a pilot programme to measure teaching quality has quickly turned into a wider debate about bias against language, cultural identity, and the limits of what institutions should control. The main issue is whether staff should be expected to change their accents to meet student expectations. The university has denied that there is any formal plan for accent training. Still, the fact that it was even mentioned, even as a hypothetical, has worried academics. Many believe it could discriminate seem acceptable if it is presented as support. The strong reaction from union leaders and scholars shows that this is not just a matter of words. It points to a larger problem with how student evaluations are used. These evaluations often contain hidden bias, yet they can affect staff hiring, promotion, and workplace culture. Dr Peter Chen explained that the danger comes when performance measures are linked to ethnicity, gender, or speech patterns related to neurodiversity. These are traits that should be valued, not punished.

This situation also connects with the Australian Human Rights Commission’s investigation into racism at universities. The report already shows that both staff and students feel racism is a serious issue. This makes it clear that universities need to go further than symbolic actions. They must address deep, structural problems directly. The personal story of Dr Rohini Balram shows why this issue matters so much. She shared how a comment about her accent and background made her feel erased and judged unfairly. Her experience proves that language bias is not just an abstract idea. It is something real, ongoing, and hurtful.

Skoobuzz asserts that universities must decide whether to build environments that respect and empower diverse voices or to pressure individuals into conformity,a choice that will not only define the role of student feedback but also determine the integrity and fairness of higher education itself.