New Beginnings with Professor Dan Hunter, Executive Dean
He’s a world-leading researcher in automated decision making and intellectual property, but our new Dean Professor Dan Hunter is also a start-up entrepreneur and the only Law Dean in Australia who plays video games (well, probably). Catherine Bugler spoke to Dan about university post-COVID and how he defines success.
So... what does an Executive Dean do?
Other universities might call my role a Pro Vice Chancellor. An Executive Dean is in charge of more than one school. In that role I look at the strategies of the schools, how to deal with large scale structural changes, how to manage the budgets, and I sit between the schools (of law and justice) and the university.
In particular during COVID-19 I was the one that was responsible for making sure people who were overseas came back in time, people were able to leave campus safely. It’s a middle manager of sorts.
Or a CEO?
Haha yes CEO of this tiny sandbox.
You completed your PhD at Cambridge University, have been a professor at New York Law School, Melbourne University, and a Foundation Dean of Swinburne. Can you say that there are clear cultures at universities? What is the culture of our Law School?
I’d say that it’s progressive, friendly. The difference to the other unis I’ve been to is that people don’t attend on campus as much. Other universities have compulsory in person attendance and that impacts the culture.
Do you think attending in person is important?
Well, there is a tension that universities have between being overly paternalistic and telling students that the best way to learn is to attend on campus and to be involved, and removing the agency and authority students have, and on the other side, providing students the freedom to learn how they want and the mechanisms to choose how to learn.
The thing is, it is a difficult tension because I know more about how students learn than most students – I’ve read the literature and had 30 years of experience in teaching – and so in that sense I do know to best learn. But we can’t just enforce attendance, because that’s punitive; it’s not our way and we recognise that people do have responsibilities outside of coming to class.
You are a Chief Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, what are you researching at the moment?
How do we deal with explanation in these new automated systems. Explanation is a fundamental part of legal analysis and these systems can’t currently do that. And the other component is around functionally conscious machines. The law has a lot of requirements which assumes intentionally – for instance in torts or criminal law – or rationality – in administrative law or contract law. We are now entering an age where machines are making these kinds of decisions without applying these principles of legal causality or intentionality. Ordinarily you would sue the machine’s manufacturer, but these manufacturers are not responsible in the sense of being responsible for a defect – because if a machine is making a conscious decision that’s not really the manufacturer’s responsibility.
What do you think success is, and how can we cultivate a healthy relationship with the pursuit of success?
Everyone has to define success themselves. I would say that it is better to look at happiness. For me, success and happiness are defined by pursuing my curiosity while also having enough money to raise my kids and pay the rent. When I worked as a lawyer I was offered partnership, but I ultimately decided that that role wasn’t going to allow me to pursue what I am truly interested in. For students, I would advise them to ask: ‘What is it that you enjoy doing?’ and what would be the best possible outcome in 5 years’ time to pursue that? And then work backwards each year, and ask what do you need to achieve this year to get there incrementally?
Interview conducted by Catherine Bugler
This article appeared in the Torts Illustrated 2.5. Begin Again (2020) Publication