Today has apologised for errors it says it made in an article published on Jan 6, 2019 titled "Opaque policies, fixation with KPIs, rankings: Why arts and humanities academics quit NUS, NTU".

The article, which asserted that opaque tenure and promotion policies, resistance to innovation and a “warped” notion of institutional excellence were drivers of the high academic turnover at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU), is no longer available for viewing on the Today website.

Article "did not adequately represent" NUS's views and position

In an editor's note to a letter ("University fully committed to high standards of education and research: NUS") from NUS's Vice Provost (Academic Personnel), Today acknowledged that its now deleted article "did not adequately represent the views and position of NUS on the matters reported and included inaccuracies".

In particular, Today said it did not share the former academics' criticisms and responses with NUS, even though its article said NUS and the provost "did not respond" to the criticisms of the provost shared by the former academics.

Today also mentioned that NUS had earlier informed Today that information on NUS’s policy on promotion and tenure is available to all staff in the Academic Staff Handbook, which is accessible on the university’s intranet.

Today did not mention NTU in its apology.

But here's their note and apology in full:

"Today acknowledges that the article entitled “Opaque policies, fixation with KPIs, rankings: Why arts and humanities academics quit NUS, NTU” published on Jan 6, 2019 did not adequately represent the views and position of NUS on the matters reported and included inaccuracies. The article reported that NUS and the provost did not respond to the criticisms of the provost by former employees. Today did not share these criticisms with NUS or the provost, nor seek their response on them. The article also said that there was no information on NUS’ promotion processes on its website. In fact, NUS had earlier informed Today that information on NUS’ policy on promotion and tenure is available to all staff in the Academic Staff Handbook, which is accessible on the university’s intranet. We are sorry for the errors."

Recap: How this whole issue came about

The Today article was initially published on Jan. 6, and removed on Jan. 10, due to a "legal challenge".

However, five academics released a statement on Jan. 19 saying they stood by their comments published in the Today article, adding that what they said was “accurately reported”.

The five, John DiMoia, Axel Gelfert, Andrew Quitmeyer, Woo Jun Jie, and Linda Lim, were the ones quoted by Today publicly.

On Jan. 20, an NUS spokesperson told Mothership that the article fell significantly short of their expectations and did not adequately represent NUS’s position on the matter.

The spokesperson also said NUS was seeking legal advice regarding the allegations made by former academics about NUS, because the article "has unfairly affected the reputation and standing of NUS locally and internationally".

Top photo from NUS and Today Facebook pages.