What processes did Macquarie University and the Adelaide Festival follow when investigating or responding to allegations against Abdel‑Fattah?
Executive summary
Macquarie University and the Adelaide Festival responded to controversy around Dr Randa Abdel‑Fattah through two different tracks: a formal grant investigation and institutional programming decisions. The Australian Research Council (ARC) suspended Abdel‑Fattah’s fellowship and tasked Macquarie with resolving alleged grant-rule breaches (which Macquarie and the ARC later cleared), while the Adelaide Festival board unilaterally removed her from Writers’ Week on “cultural sensitivity” grounds amid political and community pressure, triggering mass boycotts, resignations and a later apology and reinvitation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. The ARC suspension and Macquarie’s investigatory remit: a formal funding probe
In late February the ARC suspended Abdel‑Fattah’s Future Fellowship and publicly stated that Macquarie University bore responsibility to investigate whether grant conditions had been breached and to refund funds if misuse was found, effectively placing the matter into a formal research‑funding compliance process rather than a disciplinary public debate [1] [2]. Reporting indicates the suspension led to a joint process involving the ARC and Macquarie over roughly ten months; that investigation ultimately cleared her of wrongdoing and the fellowship was reinstated in December 2025, days before the Bondi Beach attack that precipitated the festival fallout [2] [3].
2. What the sources say about Macquarie’s process — and what they don’t disclose
Available reporting frames the Macquarie role as the legally mandated institutional investigator on ARC’s behalf, but provides few granular details about the university’s internal procedures, evidence reviewed, or adjudicative steps; news summaries report clearance and reinstatement without publishing the investigatory report or procedural timeline [2] [1]. The sources therefore establish outcome (cleared) and institutional responsibility (Macquarie to resolve misuse claims) but do not supply the internal mechanics — hearings, interviews, or specific findings — that would allow independent verification of how Macquarie reached its conclusion [1].
3. Adelaide Festival’s decision: governance, “cultural sensitivity” and political pressure
The Adelaide Festival board removed Abdel‑Fattah from the 2026 Writers’ Week program on the stated basis that, given her past statements, “it would not be culturally sensitive” to include her so soon after the Bondi Beach shooting; the board explicitly said it did not suggest any connection between her and the attack [4] [3]. That programming decision occurred in a charged environment: the premier wrote that her appearance was “not in the public interest,” the Jewish Community Council of South Australia lobbied the board to remove her, and federal ministers publicly weighed in — all of which the sources link to the board’s calculus [4] [6] [7].
4. Fallout and procedural backlash inside the festival’s governance
The board’s unilateral removal prompted immediate institutional consequences: dozens of authors withdrew in protest, several board members and the chair resigned, legal representatives for Abdel‑Fattah demanded documentation of the statements relied upon in the board’s decision, and the festival ultimately cancelled Writers’ Week before a new board issued an apology and invited her back for 2027 [8] [6] [5] [9]. Those events indicate the board followed an internal executive decision-making route rather than a transparent adjudicative or consultative process with publicly disclosed evidentiary basis, and that the governance failure was judged severe enough to force leadership change [8] [6].
5. Competing narratives, motives and the limits of available reporting
Media coverage portrays two competing frames: institutional compliance (ARC/Macquarie) that concluded with clearance of funding‑rule allegations, and reputational/precautionary programming choices by the Adelaide Festival driven by community, political and lobbying pressure [2] [4] [6]. Critics characterise the festival’s move as censorship and anti‑Palestinian discrimination while supporters argue the board acted to protect community cohesion after Bondi; sources document both the lobbying by Jewish community bodies and the premier’s intervention, suggesting political and communal inputs shaped the festival’s decision even as the funding investigation had already been resolved [6] [3] [10]. Reporting does not provide Macquarie’s full investigatory file nor the festival board’s internal deliberation minutes, so assessment of procedural fairness must be read against these documentary gaps [1] [8].