The University of Tokyo announced Wednesday that it will place its affiliated hospital under the direct control of its central administration, following a series of bribery scandals linked to the institution*s insular organizational culture.

※By allowing a closed organizational culture that was significantly out of touch with societal norms to persist, we failed to prevent such incidents and significantly delayed our response,§ the university*s president, Teruo Fujii, said at a news conference. ※These represent serious deficiencies in our university*s governance, for which there is no excuse.§

At the university, a string of corruption cases involving doctors at its affiliated hospital has come to light, including the indictment of a former professor for allegedly receiving ?1.8 million ($11,331) worth of services at high-end clubs and brothels.

A third-party investigation released last week found that the institution ※seriously lacked in its self-correcting function.§

In response, the university announced a series of reform measures, including placing its affiliated hospital under the direct control of its central administration and strengthening oversight to better monitor financial transactions with external parties.

Previously, the medical institution operated at a distance from the university*s core administration, with many faculty members and their research practices left largely unchecked under the assumption that they were leading experts in their fields. This environment fostered a siloed and insular organizational culture, making it difficult for individuals to flag or report inappropriate behavior.

Under the reform plan, the university also appointed an external hire as chief risk officer, effective from April. A risk compliance department established under the officer will be in charge of not only monitoring risks across the institution but also strengthening ethical awareness among all staff.

An internal investigation released by the university earlier this week found that there were at least 21 cases of improper business practices by its staff that violated the institution*s code of ethics.