I don't know much about how risk assessment in large organizations is done, but that strikes me as an illegitimate attempt to stifle debate. Are there any legitimate reasons the university administrators might keep the risk assessment secret?
In some organizations they quack like auditors, but aren’t really auditors. Usually if they are involved, a big shot doesn’t want to do something.
In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports.
> In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports.
This could be a legitimate reason to cut a risky club while allowing a similarly risky sport; it is not a legitimate reason to hide the report.
I don't mean that as an insult, sincerely. They are typically very very good at what they are trained to do - research - they just aren't trained for this. It is unfortunate that the programs that do exist for training them often do not deliver meaningful training. Some schools have even stopped giving (unless requested) quarterly statements on grant accounts to faculty. I was told that such things were 'difficult' for faculty to understand and led to many questions and confusion.
As an example: The Big 10 Academic Leadership Program Seminar https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/leadershipdev/semin... 2.5 days
First day (12pm-8pm):
a 45min 'conversation'
a 1hr talk on 'the pragmatics of leadership'
a 1:15 panel on the role of the arts in diversity and inclusion
everything else is social.
Second Day (8am-9pm):
1:15 Issues confronting US universities
1:45 freedom of expression and inclusive campus
1:15 public engagement in academia
1 hr 'conversation' with University president.
The rest is social, breaks, field trips, tours, etc.
TL:DR: in 2.5 days, there is approximately 8 hours of content most of which is just someone in a position of authority's opinion/experience.