Perhaps a lot of people don't realise that it's not just academics who are victims in the bullying culture at Kingston University. Admin/Support staff including those in KUSCO (the service company wholly owned by the university and set up by them to save money - joke) bear the brunt of stalinist diktats. I for one wholeheartedly support Dr. Frederics in his continued fight against the mindless morons who run this institution. Cripes, am I allowed to say that?
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
November 04, 2009
November 01, 2009
Not Your Child's Playground: Workplace Bullying Among Community College Faculty
Community colleges have provided an entree into higher education for many women. Yet, women faculty perceive the overall climate of community colleges as “chilly.” To deconstruct the interpersonal dynamics that may lead to perceptions of a chilly climate, this study examines the prevalence of workplace bullying among and between community college faulty. The purpose is to understand the nature of harassment, the ways in which women define and respond to it, and the importance of contextual factors in the prevalence.
Workplace bullying is a form of interpersonal aggression that has implications for how individuals perceive the organizational climate, job productivity, and job satisfaction. Findings from this study indicate that workplace bullying among faculty includes many subtle practices characterized by informal and formal use of power, faculty workplace bullying is affected by several enabling structures specific to the context, and victims typically respond with avoidance. This study has implications for harassment policies, faculty involvement in institutional governance, and the gendered nature of interpersonal dynamics.
From: http://www.ingentaconnect.com
Workplace bullying is a form of interpersonal aggression that has implications for how individuals perceive the organizational climate, job productivity, and job satisfaction. Findings from this study indicate that workplace bullying among faculty includes many subtle practices characterized by informal and formal use of power, faculty workplace bullying is affected by several enabling structures specific to the context, and victims typically respond with avoidance. This study has implications for harassment policies, faculty involvement in institutional governance, and the gendered nature of interpersonal dynamics.
From: http://www.ingentaconnect.com
Leadership Styles as Predictors of Self-reported and Observed Workplace Bullying
The connection between leadership or management style, on the one hand, and perceptions of bullying, on the other, has received little attention within bullying research. Hence, the aim of this study is to examine the relationship between subordinates' ratings of their immediate superiors' behaviours, and both perceived exposure and claims of observations of bullying at work. Based on a sampling process which emphasized randomness and representativeness, the responses from 5288 respondents in Great Britain taking part in a nationwide study on psychosocial issues at work were included in the analysis.
Bullying correlated with all four leadership styles measured. Yet, 'non-contingent punishment' emerged as the strongest predictor of self-perceived exposure to bullying, while autocratic leadership was the strongest predictor of observed bullying. Hence, while observers particularly associate bullying with autocratic or tyrannical leader behaviour, targets relate bullying more to non-contingent punishment, i.e. an unpredictable style of leadership, where punishment is meted out or delivered on leaders' own terms, independent of the behaviour of subordinates. In addition, laissez-faire leadership emerged as a predictor of self-reported as well as observed bullying. Thus, leadership styles seem to play an important but complex role in the bullying process.
From: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com
Bullying correlated with all four leadership styles measured. Yet, 'non-contingent punishment' emerged as the strongest predictor of self-perceived exposure to bullying, while autocratic leadership was the strongest predictor of observed bullying. Hence, while observers particularly associate bullying with autocratic or tyrannical leader behaviour, targets relate bullying more to non-contingent punishment, i.e. an unpredictable style of leadership, where punishment is meted out or delivered on leaders' own terms, independent of the behaviour of subordinates. In addition, laissez-faire leadership emerged as a predictor of self-reported as well as observed bullying. Thus, leadership styles seem to play an important but complex role in the bullying process.
From: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com
October 24, 2009
Website ban for academic bailed on harassment charges
Ex-Kingston lecturer faces six months’ jail if found guilty. Melanie Newman reports
A criminal court has banned an academic from adding material to a website criticising Kingston University’s vice-chancellor. Kingston Magistrates’ Court imposed the ban on Howard Fredrics as a condition of bail after he was charged with harassing vice-chancellor Sir Peter Scott.
Dr Fredrics was dismissed from his job as a music lecturer at the university in 2006 and has been involved in an employment dispute with the university ever since. He faces up to six months in jail if found guilty.
The harassment charge brought against Dr Fredrics relates to his website, www.sirpeterscott.com, on which he regularly posts songs, performances and other material critical of Sir Peter and the university.
The magistrate said that since July 2007, when the website was set up, Dr Fredrics had “pursued a course of behaviour which amounted to harassment” of Sir Peter. He was also charged with breach of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to a chance meeting with Sir Peter in Kingston in summer 2009. The charge sheet says the academic used “threatening words or behaviour” to “cause harassment alarm or distress”.
The academic was given bail on condition that he did not contact the vice-chancellor by any means or add further material to his website.
In 2008, Dr Fredrics published on the website an audio recording of a psychology lecturer at Kingston telling students to give the university good scores in the National Student Survey because “no one will employ you if they think your degree is shit”.
Sir Peter later complained to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) that Dr Fredrics was breaching his trademark by using the site.
But in May 2009, WIPO ruled that Dr Fredrics had the right to continue using the domain name, saying that Sir Peter had not acquired sufficient goodwill to establish the name as a trademark, and that Dr Fredrics had not commercially exploited it.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
A criminal court has banned an academic from adding material to a website criticising Kingston University’s vice-chancellor. Kingston Magistrates’ Court imposed the ban on Howard Fredrics as a condition of bail after he was charged with harassing vice-chancellor Sir Peter Scott.
Dr Fredrics was dismissed from his job as a music lecturer at the university in 2006 and has been involved in an employment dispute with the university ever since. He faces up to six months in jail if found guilty.
The harassment charge brought against Dr Fredrics relates to his website, www.sirpeterscott.com, on which he regularly posts songs, performances and other material critical of Sir Peter and the university.
The magistrate said that since July 2007, when the website was set up, Dr Fredrics had “pursued a course of behaviour which amounted to harassment” of Sir Peter. He was also charged with breach of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to a chance meeting with Sir Peter in Kingston in summer 2009. The charge sheet says the academic used “threatening words or behaviour” to “cause harassment alarm or distress”.
The academic was given bail on condition that he did not contact the vice-chancellor by any means or add further material to his website.
In 2008, Dr Fredrics published on the website an audio recording of a psychology lecturer at Kingston telling students to give the university good scores in the National Student Survey because “no one will employ you if they think your degree is shit”.
Sir Peter later complained to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) that Dr Fredrics was breaching his trademark by using the site.
But in May 2009, WIPO ruled that Dr Fredrics had the right to continue using the domain name, saying that Sir Peter had not acquired sufficient goodwill to establish the name as a trademark, and that Dr Fredrics had not commercially exploited it.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
October 15, 2009
Study confirms role of perpetrator incompetence in workplace bullying
Individuals bullied at work have intuitively felt that they pose a threat to bullies -- the integrity of independence, possessing more technical skill, being well liked, and acting ethically and honestly. When personally threatened, people tend to get defensive. This seems true in bullying situations at the bully to target, interpersonal, level.Bullies present themselves as omnipotent and powerful to dissuade confrontation and to keep from being revealed as something different. Targets intuitively sense that bullying is compensatory behavior, attempts to cover wrongdoing with bluster and bravado. It's like the Wizard of Oz in the palace who is exposed by Toto, the dog, when he pulled back the curtain showing the small man pretending to be bigger than he was. It's nearly impossible to call a bully insecure or cursed with a sense of self-inadequacy because of the power they often enjoy in the workplace. However, the intuition of bullied targets and witnessing co-workers is spot on. Bullies can be small people.
Now there is some science to back the common-sense notion.
In a 4-study research paper to be published in the November issue of the journal Psychological Science, by Nathaniel Fast (University of Southern California) and Serena Chen (University of California, Berkeley) linked aggression at work to perceived inadequacy of people in power (bosses). [Fast, N.J. & Chen, S. (2009) When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence and aggression. Psychological Science, Nov. 2009] Three of the studies tested working adults and are most relevant to the workplace.
In the first study, 90 working people completed assessments of their formal authority and power at work, the degree to which they feared being negatively evaluated by others (the inadequacy measure), and their level of aggressiveness as traditionally measured (willingness to hit others, ease with which arguments are entered). The aggression survey is a reliable predictor of physical violence, verbal abuse and the tendency to get into fights. For people with organizational power, believing themselves to be incompetent led them to be more aggressive than competent people. This was not true for people without power.
In the second study with working adults, some people were guided to think about their power or competence beforehand. Aggression translated into how loud (decibel levels from 0 to 130) they would be willing to blast a horn at another person who made mistakes over 10 trials. For people who already had organizational power, being primed to think even more about that power made them more aggressive if they also felt incompetent.
The third study of adults asked participants to rate their organizational power and their aggressiveness as in the first study. People were then sorted into low- and high-power groups based the demand their jobs required. Low power tasks typically involved doing simple work, completing tasks, High power tasks involved influencing others -- supervising, closing sales. Then, the experimenters manipulated the perceived level of competence for people within each power group. Those subjected to their own incompetence were instructed to write about an experience where they failed to meet a task demand. Competence was primed by having those people recall a time when they successfully completed work projects.
This study also added another manipulated factor. Half of the people in each group were asked to select the most important value to them from a list (social life, relationships, business, etc.). They then wrote a paragraph justifying the value's personal importance. This was done to bolster a sense of self-worth, a self-affirmation. People in the no affirmation group selected their least favorite value and wrote about how the value could be important to others.
In all three studies, incompetence increased aggression for high-power, but not for powerless, working adults. Aggression decreased when powerful people were reminded of their competence. When incompetence was primed (the person was reminded of failures) for low-power people, aggression decreased. The affirmation factor created some ego defensiveness and it seems to be the explanatory factor for why power and incompetence mix the way they do to lead to more aggression.
Thus, the results point to the dangerous combination of incompetence in the hands of people with power. The authors, Fast and Chen, highlight that their work demonstrates that power holders have an increased vulnerability to perceiving potential psychological threats. Rather than feeling safe in their positions of power with the ability to disproportionately affect the outcomes of other people on a routine basis, the feelings of incompetence escalate the perception of threat in the eyes of people with actual power and authority. In turn, this leads to ego defensiveness (a self-protective mental device) that leads to aggression.
There was some limited exposure of participants to flattery, but the manipulations were weak and artificial compared to real-world kissing-up, ingratiation, that bullies receive at work. So, research on flattery's effect on aggression by a boss is yet to be advanced.
It would be an innovative to extrapolate link between perceived threat and aggression to the organizational level. Executive sponsors feel threatened when their bullying toadies are accused of wrongdoing. They react defensively. With guidance from legal counsel and HR, the entire organization responds defensively attacking the bullied accuser who dared to reveal internal weaknesses. But that is a study for another day. As they say, in the academe, further study is warranted.
From: http://www.examiner.com
October 10, 2009
Providing Leadership for Higher Education in the 21st Century
This site tells a story through documentary evidence, images, music and video. It paints a picture for the reader/viewer to judge for him/herself, rather than putting forth a particular point of view about relevant events, by asking difficult and important questions to consider about what it means to work and study at Kingston University.
A brief summary of background facts follows:
Dr Howard Fredrics began his employment as Senior Lecturer and Route Leader of Creative Music Technologies in September 2002. He moved with his wife, Lori from the United States, leaving a full-time permanent position to relocate his life to the UK.
In early 2003, he was approached by a colleague, Mike Searby, to sign a letter of grievance against his manager. Dr Fredrics decided that he did not want to become involved in such matters, as he was new in in post, still on probation, and simply did not wish to join in a mob action to address concerns about his manager. Rather, it was Dr Fredrics view that such matters are best handled on an individual basis through direct discussion with management to resolve individual concerns as they arise.
But Mr Searby did not take no for an answer. He continued to pressurize Dr Fredrics and even approached Dr Fredrics' wife, Lori to try to prevail upon her to convince Dr Fredrics to sign the letter of grievance. He also told Dr Fredrics that ALL other staff had signed the letter (a false statement) and that it would not be in his (Dr Fredrics) "best interests" to not sign the letter -- a clear threat, which Dr Fredrics understood as such. Shortly thereafter, Mr Searby and another colleague, Dr Frank Millward approached Mrs Fredrics to try to pressurize her further into getting Dr Fredrics to sign the grievance. They told Mrs Fredrics that Dr Fredrics was already becoming "marginalized" and that he would "find himself being sent back to the US" if he ended up on the "wrong side" of the battle against his manager.
What follows below are a series of links to pages containing documents, which show what happened to Dr Fredrics and his wife, Lori after Dr Fredrics made it clear that he would not engage in mobbing of his manager. Indeed, all Dr Fredrics wanted to do was to do his job, to concentrate on his teaching and research, to improve the quality of Kingston, to be helpful to his colleagues, and to live a normal and happy life. Alas, this was not to be...
To whet the reader's appetite to read/listen on, the following recording of a conversation amongst UCU union rep., Chris Wills, Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery and Dr Fredrics documents Mr Wills request to Mrs Lanchbery that the University's appointed "independent" investigator look into allegations that Dr Fredrics was threatened by his colleagues with the loss of his job if he did not sign onto the letter of grievance against his manager. You'll note that Mrs Lanchbery agrees to formally instruct the investigator to perform such an investigation upon receipt of a written request from Mr Wills, who did precisely that. (n.b. the recording contains brief silences where the name of Dr Fredrics' manager is mentioned, in order to respect the privacy of that individual).
Mrs Lanchbery did NOT, however, include such instructions to the University's investigator, and he did NOT, therefore, investigate whether or not Dr Fredrics was threatened or otherwise pressurized by his colleagues, and whether or not this may have ultimately led to the targeting for elimination of Dr Fredrics by some of his colleagues through a collective grievance, one that was issued in much the same manner as had been done in order to eliminate Dr Fredrics' manager.
Does it seem to you that Dr Fredrics may have been bullied by his colleagues and later, by Mrs Lanchberry?
Do you think that the failure to conduct a FULL investigation, not only of allegations against Dr Fredrics, but also of charges of bullying by Dr Fredrics' colleagues means that the investigation was, from the outset, fatally flawed?
From: http://www.sirpeterscott.com
A brief summary of background facts follows:
Dr Howard Fredrics began his employment as Senior Lecturer and Route Leader of Creative Music Technologies in September 2002. He moved with his wife, Lori from the United States, leaving a full-time permanent position to relocate his life to the UK.
In early 2003, he was approached by a colleague, Mike Searby, to sign a letter of grievance against his manager. Dr Fredrics decided that he did not want to become involved in such matters, as he was new in in post, still on probation, and simply did not wish to join in a mob action to address concerns about his manager. Rather, it was Dr Fredrics view that such matters are best handled on an individual basis through direct discussion with management to resolve individual concerns as they arise.
But Mr Searby did not take no for an answer. He continued to pressurize Dr Fredrics and even approached Dr Fredrics' wife, Lori to try to prevail upon her to convince Dr Fredrics to sign the letter of grievance. He also told Dr Fredrics that ALL other staff had signed the letter (a false statement) and that it would not be in his (Dr Fredrics) "best interests" to not sign the letter -- a clear threat, which Dr Fredrics understood as such. Shortly thereafter, Mr Searby and another colleague, Dr Frank Millward approached Mrs Fredrics to try to pressurize her further into getting Dr Fredrics to sign the grievance. They told Mrs Fredrics that Dr Fredrics was already becoming "marginalized" and that he would "find himself being sent back to the US" if he ended up on the "wrong side" of the battle against his manager.
What follows below are a series of links to pages containing documents, which show what happened to Dr Fredrics and his wife, Lori after Dr Fredrics made it clear that he would not engage in mobbing of his manager. Indeed, all Dr Fredrics wanted to do was to do his job, to concentrate on his teaching and research, to improve the quality of Kingston, to be helpful to his colleagues, and to live a normal and happy life. Alas, this was not to be...
To whet the reader's appetite to read/listen on, the following recording of a conversation amongst UCU union rep., Chris Wills, Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery and Dr Fredrics documents Mr Wills request to Mrs Lanchbery that the University's appointed "independent" investigator look into allegations that Dr Fredrics was threatened by his colleagues with the loss of his job if he did not sign onto the letter of grievance against his manager. You'll note that Mrs Lanchbery agrees to formally instruct the investigator to perform such an investigation upon receipt of a written request from Mr Wills, who did precisely that. (n.b. the recording contains brief silences where the name of Dr Fredrics' manager is mentioned, in order to respect the privacy of that individual).
Mrs Lanchbery did NOT, however, include such instructions to the University's investigator, and he did NOT, therefore, investigate whether or not Dr Fredrics was threatened or otherwise pressurized by his colleagues, and whether or not this may have ultimately led to the targeting for elimination of Dr Fredrics by some of his colleagues through a collective grievance, one that was issued in much the same manner as had been done in order to eliminate Dr Fredrics' manager.
Does it seem to you that Dr Fredrics may have been bullied by his colleagues and later, by Mrs Lanchberry?
Do you think that the failure to conduct a FULL investigation, not only of allegations against Dr Fredrics, but also of charges of bullying by Dr Fredrics' colleagues means that the investigation was, from the outset, fatally flawed?
From: http://www.sirpeterscott.com
When workplace bullying enters academe in a good way
Experiencing workplace bullying in academe is a bad thing, but the entry of workplace bullying into academic dialogue is a big step in the right direction. I had an opportunity to witness the latter twice during the past two weeks.
Two weeks ago, I participated in a conference at the Western Institute for Social Research in Berkeley, California, a tiny storefront college devoted to social change and community activism. I’ve been pursuing graduate studies at WISR via distance learning, and this conference was an opportunity to present some of the work I’ve been doing on workplace bullying and intellectual activism. Overall the conference was terrific, and my presentation was greeted with an array of thoughtful, insightful comments and questions. Many of the participants shared stories about workplace bullying drawn from their own employment experiences.
At the end of last week, I visited the main center of Empire State College — the adult learner-centered college of the State University of New York system — in Saratoga Springs, New York, for a series of meetings and events built around the 25th anniversary of the school’s graduate programs. (I earned a master’s degree in labor and policy studies from ESC in 1999.) From the many discussions I had with faculty and administrators, I could tell that workplace bullying registered with them as a topic worthy of attention. My former thesis adviser told me how pleased he was to see one of his current students citing my work on workplace bullying, and I was interviewed at length on the topic for the alumni magazine.
It is noteworthy that within academic circles, the attention given to workplace bullying is bubbling up mainly from the grassroots. Many of the leading researchers are from state colleges and regional universities, not from elite private schools. Their research often embraces, rather than avoids, practical applications. Among the graduate students who are researching and writing about workplace bullying, many have returned to academe after some time in the real world. It makes eminent sense that many are enrolled in distance learning and flexible degree programs that accommodate their busy schedules, support independent study, and encourage them to draw inspiration and insight from their own work experiences.
By David Yamada, from: http://newworkplace.wordpress.com
October 02, 2009
The truth needs to come out! - Part 1
[Parts of the two posts below, were posted by viewers/readers on the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) online, where we originally got them from. However, within the last 24 hours THES removed the posts. Today, we had a number of visits from the QAA, including one that lasted about 27 minutes. We consider what happened to Prof. MS El-Sayed as a clear cut case of workplace bullying/mobbing in academia.]
------------------
Submission from Professor MS El-Sayed
SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE TO IUSS REGARDING PLAGIARISM AT LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
I would like to submit written evidence on "plagiarism" at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). I have been fighting for years to expose the truth about plagiarism at the University but to no avail. I have recently written to the Rt. Hon Mr John Denham MP, Secretary of State for DIUS and Professor Paul Ramsden, Chief Executive for HEA regarding this issue. I have also formally written to HEFCE (evidence enclosed:[346] electronic correspondence with Professor David Eastwood) and QAA (evidence enclosed[347] letter from Mr Peter Williams to the Chairman of Select Committee on IUSS) asking for the issue to be thoroughly investigated.
It was made clear to HEFCE and QAA that I am unwilling to disclose the substantive, compelling and indisputable evidence of plagiarism at the University without protection against future litigation (please see Mr Peter Williams letter to the House of Common on 30 October 2008).[348] The position of these organisations is that they cannot investigate my revelations without disclosing my identity to the University, nor can they offer me protection against future litigation.
I understand the only available pathway to divulge the truth to the public about plagiarism at the University is through the "Parliament Protection Privilege". To this end, enclosed please find a very small sample of the plagiarised students' course work reports[349] as evidence.
1. Background information
I am Professor of Applied Physiology and worked at the University till I was summarily dismissed on 3 January 2007. I have contributed significantly to the British Education over the last 30 years in the teaching and research domains (please see enclosed statements by colleagues).[350] This encompassed academic and administrative commitments including the supervision of several Ph.D. and MSc students to successful completion. I have published more than 200 refereed articles, scientific correspondence items, and meeting abstracts. My capability as a teacher and researcher furnish the grounds for my personal written evidence to IUSS on plagiarism at the University.
2. Competing interest declaration
I declare that I do not have any competing financial interest or otherwise. I aim to expose the truth to the public and clear my name by disclosing the truth about plagiarism at the University. I only enclose very few samples of plagiarised (as defined by LJMU Academic Misconduct 2004-05, document enclosed)[351] course work reports by the students. Additional substantial evidence will be submitted on request to prove beyond any reasonable doubts that plagiarism has taken place, widespread and chronic academic impropriety at the University.
3. Plagiarism: the case
As it was advised by [committee staff], I sent to the Committee a very few course work of the students' plagirised reports. I would be happy to send substantially more plagiarised reports if this is required at this stage. These reports clearly and unambiguously exhibit the following:
— The verbatim copying of another's work within reports without clear identification and acknowledgements. This is defined as plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all of the students appear to have copied review articles and text books carelessly. Unidentified and unacknowledged quotations from another work are the main feature of the students' course work reports. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all the references at the back of the report are not referred to within the text. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.
3.1 The majority of students are tempted to lift sections of words from published papers or from textbooks. This is a very serious problem in the University. The students were clearly informed at the beginning of each academic semester and prior to the submission of the course work that this lifting is known as plagiarism and it is a very serious academic offence (please sees evidence attached).[352] Students were also informed when they were handed back their course work reports to reinforce the point.
3.2 The first lecture of each new semester was allocated for an overview of the module syllabuses and the subject of the course work assignment. An over head projector was used to advise the students how to write their assignments and avoid plagiarism in line with the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations. A single printed sheet of A4 under the title "Assignment general and specific comments" was handed to the students at the commencement of the semester. This sheet contained a number of comments defining plagiarism and stating why it was unacceptable (please sees evidence attached).[353] Students were advised to develop their own ideas and arguments and learn how to express themselves. They were informed about the seriousness of plagiarism and how to avoid it. The enclosed "Assignment general and specific comments" sheet[354] was clearly explained to the students and at the commencement of each new semester, during the semester, and prior to the submission of the course work.
3.3 Students were also referred to the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C) regarding academic impropriety and that their course work should conform to those regulations. Students were advised to show that they have learnt about and can use other people work. They were taught how to quote and reference to show where they got the material from. Students were clearly informed that, in their assignment, when discussing other people ideas, they should acknowledge where the ideas came from with supporting references.
3.4 Students were advised that they must avoid direct copying from published papers or textbooks as this practice may suggest that they are incapable of using ideas for themselves. Students were also informed not to rely heavily on copying out segments from printed literatures as copying the literatures obscure whether the students understand the topic of the course work. Students, when submitted their course work reports, were required to sign a declaration that all sources consulted have been appropriately acknowledged (evidence submitted as attached to some of the plagiarised course work reports already sent to the Committee).
4. Although plagiarism is a very serious academic impropriety as clearly stated in the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C), the University management has not taken this issue seriously.
4.1 The University strategies to identify plagiarism were inadequate and the procedures available to combat plagiarism were ineffective. I repeatedly tried to have my concerns about excessive toleration of plagiarism considered by the University. However, I was constantly put off by the University Management. All my complaints were ignored despite a litany of requests for action and no penalties were sanctioned when plagiarism was suspected and detected.
4.2 I had numerous grounds of grievances in relation to plagiarism over the years against colleagues and Management at the University. Most notably in May and December 2003 I have attempted to have my grievances about excessive toleration of plagiarism dealt with and investigated under the University's grievance procedures. This never happened.
4.3 When I suspected and identified plagiarism, the University should have taken my concerns seriously and a thorough investigation should have been conducted promptly in line with the University's regulations. This never happened.
4.4 I was only allowed to down mark the plagiarised assignment by 10% (see attached evidence entitled "Disciplinary Case").[355] I was not allowed to sanction more severe penalty or to fail any plagiarised course work during the consultation and moderation processes. Following my suspension, two Managers at the School alleged that they have remarked the assignments and came to the conclusion that no plagiarism had taken place (evidence would be provided on request). The external examiner confirmed the Managers conclusion (evidence would be provided on request)! I viewed this as an unacceptable practice. I believe that the managers at the University in collaboration with the external examiner were trying to cover up plagiarism.
4.5 I raised my concern about plagiarism through the University's procedures but it was then converted into a disciplinary against me with allegations that I had not followed University procedures, which is not true (see attached evidence entitled "Disciplinary Case").[356] There has been not the merest hint of actually dealing with the issue of plagiarism and I was stopped from providing the evidence I had gathered (abundant compelling evidence is available on request). This demonstrates, I believe, disregard for professional standards to an extent that should be intolerable in a British University.
4.6 Instead of investigating and determining my concerns of May and December 2003 in respect of plagiarism, managers at the University chose to suspend me on 10 December 2003. I was suspended for an unimaginable long time while the most dilatory "investigation" imaginable was conducted. This is viewed as the worst kind of sharp practice. Then I was accused of gross professional misconduct. The University managers made up false allegations against me to justify "Gross Professional Misconduct". I was eventually dismissed in January 2007 following an investigation and grievance and disciplinary hearing in October 2006. In April 2007 I appealed to the University's Board of Governors against the dismissal, but my appeal was not upheld and the final dismissal decision was conveyed to me in May 2007. The investigation was flawed in design and substance. The grievance and disciplinary and the appeal hearings were discriminatory and I was unfairly dismissed.
5. Through the University College Union (UCU) Legal Services Department, three claims (one in 2005 and two in 2007) were lodged with the Employment Tribunal and 20 days have been allocated for hearing the case commencing 14 January 2008. These complaints were based, among other issues, on protected disclosures in relation to plagiarism and overseas students' bench fees and unfair dismissal.
5.1 The Employment Tribunal hearings to a full trial never took place as I was virtually forced to enter into a compromise agreement with confidentiality clauses attached. The compromise agreement was signed on my behalf by the UCU's Director of the Legal Department as I was in a hysterical state and heavily sedated with medications and utterly refused to sign the compromise agreement.
6. My health disintegrated further as can be established by reference to several medical reports including one by the University's own occupational health doctor.
6.1 My academic career is now completely ruined, my health is ruined and the normal social fabric of my family is in a state of turmoil. The damage to my reputation and to my name and career is immense.
7. Conclusion and Recommendation:
I do believe that the unfortunate story of plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University is in the public interest and it is therefore my responsibility to bring the above facts to the IUS Select Committee Attention. The corrupted practices by the University are a threat to the public interest and to the reputation of British Education standard nationally and internationally.
I believe that the allegations about plagiarism presented in this written evidence are very serious and warrants further considerations and investigation by IUSS Select Committee. It is hoped that IUSS Select Committee will consider the following recommendations:
— To investigate plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
— To introduce and enforce rules to protect public interest and the reputation of the British Education against plagiarism.
— To introduce rules on personal and collective responsibilities and penalties for those helping to conceal plagiarism at the British Universities.
— To introduce rules to protect individuals from victimisation when exposing to the public academic improprieties.
Documents already submitted to the Committee:[357]
1. Letter from Mr. Peter Williams; Chief Executive of QAA to IUSS Select Committee regarding my allegations about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
2. Correspondences exchanged with Professor David Eastwood, Chief Executive of HEFCE about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
3. Liverpool John Moores University's widely distributed and publicised literature regarding academic misconduct and definition of plagiarism and cheating.
4. Very small sample (eight) of plagirised students' course work reports (2002 and 2003). This was the advice of [committee staff].
New documents enclosed:[358]
1. Statements by colleagues
2. Assignment general and specific comments.
3. Two pages report entitled "Disciplinary Case".
PS. Additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that plagiarism at the University had occurred, widespread and chronic will be provided on request. Likewise, additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove that the University has not taken the issue of plagiarism seriously and endeavoured to cover it up will be provided on request. The involvement of the external examiner in this issue is relevant and, I believe, warrants special consideration and investigation.
February 2009
From: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
------------------
Submission from Professor MS El-Sayed
SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE TO IUSS REGARDING PLAGIARISM AT LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
I would like to submit written evidence on "plagiarism" at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). I have been fighting for years to expose the truth about plagiarism at the University but to no avail. I have recently written to the Rt. Hon Mr John Denham MP, Secretary of State for DIUS and Professor Paul Ramsden, Chief Executive for HEA regarding this issue. I have also formally written to HEFCE (evidence enclosed:[346] electronic correspondence with Professor David Eastwood) and QAA (evidence enclosed[347] letter from Mr Peter Williams to the Chairman of Select Committee on IUSS) asking for the issue to be thoroughly investigated.
It was made clear to HEFCE and QAA that I am unwilling to disclose the substantive, compelling and indisputable evidence of plagiarism at the University without protection against future litigation (please see Mr Peter Williams letter to the House of Common on 30 October 2008).[348] The position of these organisations is that they cannot investigate my revelations without disclosing my identity to the University, nor can they offer me protection against future litigation.
I understand the only available pathway to divulge the truth to the public about plagiarism at the University is through the "Parliament Protection Privilege". To this end, enclosed please find a very small sample of the plagiarised students' course work reports[349] as evidence.
1. Background information
I am Professor of Applied Physiology and worked at the University till I was summarily dismissed on 3 January 2007. I have contributed significantly to the British Education over the last 30 years in the teaching and research domains (please see enclosed statements by colleagues).[350] This encompassed academic and administrative commitments including the supervision of several Ph.D. and MSc students to successful completion. I have published more than 200 refereed articles, scientific correspondence items, and meeting abstracts. My capability as a teacher and researcher furnish the grounds for my personal written evidence to IUSS on plagiarism at the University.
2. Competing interest declaration
I declare that I do not have any competing financial interest or otherwise. I aim to expose the truth to the public and clear my name by disclosing the truth about plagiarism at the University. I only enclose very few samples of plagiarised (as defined by LJMU Academic Misconduct 2004-05, document enclosed)[351] course work reports by the students. Additional substantial evidence will be submitted on request to prove beyond any reasonable doubts that plagiarism has taken place, widespread and chronic academic impropriety at the University.
3. Plagiarism: the case
As it was advised by [committee staff], I sent to the Committee a very few course work of the students' plagirised reports. I would be happy to send substantially more plagiarised reports if this is required at this stage. These reports clearly and unambiguously exhibit the following:
— The verbatim copying of another's work within reports without clear identification and acknowledgements. This is defined as plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all of the students appear to have copied review articles and text books carelessly. Unidentified and unacknowledged quotations from another work are the main feature of the students' course work reports. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.
— That some or all the references at the back of the report are not referred to within the text. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.
3.1 The majority of students are tempted to lift sections of words from published papers or from textbooks. This is a very serious problem in the University. The students were clearly informed at the beginning of each academic semester and prior to the submission of the course work that this lifting is known as plagiarism and it is a very serious academic offence (please sees evidence attached).[352] Students were also informed when they were handed back their course work reports to reinforce the point.
3.2 The first lecture of each new semester was allocated for an overview of the module syllabuses and the subject of the course work assignment. An over head projector was used to advise the students how to write their assignments and avoid plagiarism in line with the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations. A single printed sheet of A4 under the title "Assignment general and specific comments" was handed to the students at the commencement of the semester. This sheet contained a number of comments defining plagiarism and stating why it was unacceptable (please sees evidence attached).[353] Students were advised to develop their own ideas and arguments and learn how to express themselves. They were informed about the seriousness of plagiarism and how to avoid it. The enclosed "Assignment general and specific comments" sheet[354] was clearly explained to the students and at the commencement of each new semester, during the semester, and prior to the submission of the course work.
3.3 Students were also referred to the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C) regarding academic impropriety and that their course work should conform to those regulations. Students were advised to show that they have learnt about and can use other people work. They were taught how to quote and reference to show where they got the material from. Students were clearly informed that, in their assignment, when discussing other people ideas, they should acknowledge where the ideas came from with supporting references.
3.4 Students were advised that they must avoid direct copying from published papers or textbooks as this practice may suggest that they are incapable of using ideas for themselves. Students were also informed not to rely heavily on copying out segments from printed literatures as copying the literatures obscure whether the students understand the topic of the course work. Students, when submitted their course work reports, were required to sign a declaration that all sources consulted have been appropriately acknowledged (evidence submitted as attached to some of the plagiarised course work reports already sent to the Committee).
4. Although plagiarism is a very serious academic impropriety as clearly stated in the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C), the University management has not taken this issue seriously.
4.1 The University strategies to identify plagiarism were inadequate and the procedures available to combat plagiarism were ineffective. I repeatedly tried to have my concerns about excessive toleration of plagiarism considered by the University. However, I was constantly put off by the University Management. All my complaints were ignored despite a litany of requests for action and no penalties were sanctioned when plagiarism was suspected and detected.
4.2 I had numerous grounds of grievances in relation to plagiarism over the years against colleagues and Management at the University. Most notably in May and December 2003 I have attempted to have my grievances about excessive toleration of plagiarism dealt with and investigated under the University's grievance procedures. This never happened.
4.3 When I suspected and identified plagiarism, the University should have taken my concerns seriously and a thorough investigation should have been conducted promptly in line with the University's regulations. This never happened.
4.4 I was only allowed to down mark the plagiarised assignment by 10% (see attached evidence entitled "Disciplinary Case").[355] I was not allowed to sanction more severe penalty or to fail any plagiarised course work during the consultation and moderation processes. Following my suspension, two Managers at the School alleged that they have remarked the assignments and came to the conclusion that no plagiarism had taken place (evidence would be provided on request). The external examiner confirmed the Managers conclusion (evidence would be provided on request)! I viewed this as an unacceptable practice. I believe that the managers at the University in collaboration with the external examiner were trying to cover up plagiarism.
4.5 I raised my concern about plagiarism through the University's procedures but it was then converted into a disciplinary against me with allegations that I had not followed University procedures, which is not true (see attached evidence entitled "Disciplinary Case").[356] There has been not the merest hint of actually dealing with the issue of plagiarism and I was stopped from providing the evidence I had gathered (abundant compelling evidence is available on request). This demonstrates, I believe, disregard for professional standards to an extent that should be intolerable in a British University.
4.6 Instead of investigating and determining my concerns of May and December 2003 in respect of plagiarism, managers at the University chose to suspend me on 10 December 2003. I was suspended for an unimaginable long time while the most dilatory "investigation" imaginable was conducted. This is viewed as the worst kind of sharp practice. Then I was accused of gross professional misconduct. The University managers made up false allegations against me to justify "Gross Professional Misconduct". I was eventually dismissed in January 2007 following an investigation and grievance and disciplinary hearing in October 2006. In April 2007 I appealed to the University's Board of Governors against the dismissal, but my appeal was not upheld and the final dismissal decision was conveyed to me in May 2007. The investigation was flawed in design and substance. The grievance and disciplinary and the appeal hearings were discriminatory and I was unfairly dismissed.
5. Through the University College Union (UCU) Legal Services Department, three claims (one in 2005 and two in 2007) were lodged with the Employment Tribunal and 20 days have been allocated for hearing the case commencing 14 January 2008. These complaints were based, among other issues, on protected disclosures in relation to plagiarism and overseas students' bench fees and unfair dismissal.
5.1 The Employment Tribunal hearings to a full trial never took place as I was virtually forced to enter into a compromise agreement with confidentiality clauses attached. The compromise agreement was signed on my behalf by the UCU's Director of the Legal Department as I was in a hysterical state and heavily sedated with medications and utterly refused to sign the compromise agreement.
6. My health disintegrated further as can be established by reference to several medical reports including one by the University's own occupational health doctor.
6.1 My academic career is now completely ruined, my health is ruined and the normal social fabric of my family is in a state of turmoil. The damage to my reputation and to my name and career is immense.
7. Conclusion and Recommendation:
I do believe that the unfortunate story of plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University is in the public interest and it is therefore my responsibility to bring the above facts to the IUS Select Committee Attention. The corrupted practices by the University are a threat to the public interest and to the reputation of British Education standard nationally and internationally.
I believe that the allegations about plagiarism presented in this written evidence are very serious and warrants further considerations and investigation by IUSS Select Committee. It is hoped that IUSS Select Committee will consider the following recommendations:
— To investigate plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
— To introduce and enforce rules to protect public interest and the reputation of the British Education against plagiarism.
— To introduce rules on personal and collective responsibilities and penalties for those helping to conceal plagiarism at the British Universities.
— To introduce rules to protect individuals from victimisation when exposing to the public academic improprieties.
Documents already submitted to the Committee:[357]
1. Letter from Mr. Peter Williams; Chief Executive of QAA to IUSS Select Committee regarding my allegations about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
2. Correspondences exchanged with Professor David Eastwood, Chief Executive of HEFCE about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.
3. Liverpool John Moores University's widely distributed and publicised literature regarding academic misconduct and definition of plagiarism and cheating.
4. Very small sample (eight) of plagirised students' course work reports (2002 and 2003). This was the advice of [committee staff].
New documents enclosed:[358]
1. Statements by colleagues
2. Assignment general and specific comments.
3. Two pages report entitled "Disciplinary Case".
PS. Additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that plagiarism at the University had occurred, widespread and chronic will be provided on request. Likewise, additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove that the University has not taken the issue of plagiarism seriously and endeavoured to cover it up will be provided on request. The involvement of the external examiner in this issue is relevant and, I believe, warrants special consideration and investigation.
February 2009
From: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
The truth needs to come out! - Part 2
The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee's report on "Students and Universities" accused the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of failing in its duties. QAA declined to judge academic standards. The Committee also recommended that QAA should be abolished or transformed and given new responsibilities.
When QAA was asked, to use "cause-for-concern" processes to investigate allegations of plagiarism and research data falsifications at Liverpool John Moores University, the request was declined. When the same requst was made to HEFCE under Public Interest Disclosure, the request was also declined.
The IUSS Select Committee, Chaired by Mr Phil Willis, also recommended protection for academic whistleblowers like Professor El-Sayed who made true and honest revelations about the appaling quality and standard at liverpool John University. Professor El-Sayed had no protection whatsoever from either QAA or HEFCE. In fact he was continuously punished and victimised for over 2 years by QAA and HEFCE. The quangos endeavoured vigorously to cover up the revelations about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University and brush the case under the carpet.
Dr John Selby (HEFCE) and Mr Peter Williams (QAA) desperately endeavoured to cover up the case claiming that the revelations are not protected by the whistle blowing act. This is not true. The IUSS Select Committee brought the case into light and publicised, in its report and House of Common website, the corruption and deception taking place at Liverpool John Moores University regarding the quality and standard of the product the University offers. The Committee's report also warned: "The pressures within the system to protect the reputation of the institution are so strong that they risk not only sweeping problems under the mat, but also isolating and ostracising unjustly those raising legitimate concerns."
Following his revelations about plagiarism, Professor El-Sayed was suspended for nearly three years, then was dismissed. He lost his employment, he lost his career, he lost his health and he lost his family because of his honesty and integrity. Now professor El-Sayed is completely destroyed.
Mr Phil Willis questioned Professor Michael Brown; VC LJMU (Committee's session held at Liverpool Hope University March 2009); the VC was sloppy in his response and did not tell the truth about the way the university manage the deterioration of standard and quality and the way whistle blowers, such as Professor El-Sayed, have been treated. This is well documented in the uncorrected and corrected evidence published the Committee. In its report, the Select Committee called for legal protection for those who expose failings within universities, recommending that existing legislation should be strengthened.
QAA in collaboration with HEFCE, failed Professor El-Sayed and failed the public and further contributed to the failing standard and quality of higher education in England. Melanie Newman at THE has written a number of article about this case. An investigation should be authorised by Mr Anthony McLaran (QAA) into the allegations made against LJMU about plagiarism and research data fasification restore some confidence in the quality and standard of higher education in England.
The revelations made by Professor El_sayed are protected by the whistle blowing act and are in the public interest and the public has the right to know. The truth needs to come out!
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
When QAA was asked, to use "cause-for-concern" processes to investigate allegations of plagiarism and research data falsifications at Liverpool John Moores University, the request was declined. When the same requst was made to HEFCE under Public Interest Disclosure, the request was also declined.
The IUSS Select Committee, Chaired by Mr Phil Willis, also recommended protection for academic whistleblowers like Professor El-Sayed who made true and honest revelations about the appaling quality and standard at liverpool John University. Professor El-Sayed had no protection whatsoever from either QAA or HEFCE. In fact he was continuously punished and victimised for over 2 years by QAA and HEFCE. The quangos endeavoured vigorously to cover up the revelations about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University and brush the case under the carpet.
Dr John Selby (HEFCE) and Mr Peter Williams (QAA) desperately endeavoured to cover up the case claiming that the revelations are not protected by the whistle blowing act. This is not true. The IUSS Select Committee brought the case into light and publicised, in its report and House of Common website, the corruption and deception taking place at Liverpool John Moores University regarding the quality and standard of the product the University offers. The Committee's report also warned: "The pressures within the system to protect the reputation of the institution are so strong that they risk not only sweeping problems under the mat, but also isolating and ostracising unjustly those raising legitimate concerns."
Following his revelations about plagiarism, Professor El-Sayed was suspended for nearly three years, then was dismissed. He lost his employment, he lost his career, he lost his health and he lost his family because of his honesty and integrity. Now professor El-Sayed is completely destroyed.
Mr Phil Willis questioned Professor Michael Brown; VC LJMU (Committee's session held at Liverpool Hope University March 2009); the VC was sloppy in his response and did not tell the truth about the way the university manage the deterioration of standard and quality and the way whistle blowers, such as Professor El-Sayed, have been treated. This is well documented in the uncorrected and corrected evidence published the Committee. In its report, the Select Committee called for legal protection for those who expose failings within universities, recommending that existing legislation should be strengthened.
QAA in collaboration with HEFCE, failed Professor El-Sayed and failed the public and further contributed to the failing standard and quality of higher education in England. Melanie Newman at THE has written a number of article about this case. An investigation should be authorised by Mr Anthony McLaran (QAA) into the allegations made against LJMU about plagiarism and research data fasification restore some confidence in the quality and standard of higher education in England.
The revelations made by Professor El_sayed are protected by the whistle blowing act and are in the public interest and the public has the right to know. The truth needs to come out!
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
September 28, 2009
Intimidation at work
When Ravi Raj accepted a position at the Harvard-MIT Data Center, he was thrilled to have the opportunity to work for a university that he believed would be a progressive and prestigious employer. Yet, to his surprise, Raj received warnings early on from his managers to never take part in union activity at his new job—although he was a member of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers. He was even more disturbed when a new supervisor began to subject him to racial slurs, mocking his Indian accent in front of other staff. The incidents that followed are not just an embarrassing, and as yet unresolved, incident for the Harvard community; they demonstrate a troubling lack of accountability in protecting union rights on campus.
Raj immigrated to the United States from India in 1986. Receiving a master’s degree in Management Information Systems, he worked at Hewlett-Packard, Anderson Consulting and Tufts University before accepting his job here at Harvard. When Raj stood up for his rights and complained to administrators about his poor treatment, he faced the consequences of a flawed system: Raj’s boss took away his office, criticized his work, and gave him a mediocre evaluation while Raj waited for assistance that never came.
Though Harvard provides official avenues for employees to voice complaints of discrimination, Raj has hit several roadblocks and in the meantime has faced threats and intimidation. Last April, on the day of Raj’s scheduled meeting between his union representative, his supervisor at HMDC, and Human Resources, a stranger approached Raj inside a building where he was working and threatened him by name. According to Raj, the man said, “Ravi Raj, you have chosen the wrong path and the wrong union. You should watch out.” Such an action is despicable for its cowardly and bullying nature.
Harvard University cannot tolerate discrimination and the intimidation of its workers. As appalling as the racial slurs against Raj may be, more disturbing is his experience when he decided to speak up. While Raj has filed complaints with the Harvard University Police Department and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Raj currently must work under the same supervisor and has received threats of being fired—even though clients often write compliments about his efficient work. The mechanisms in place at Harvard to deal with discrimination and intimidation in the workplace have failed Ravi Raj.
Raj has pursued conflict resolution with management at HMDC, HR, and even the office of the University Ombudsman without success. When contacted, HR and the office of the Ombudsman declined to comment, citing employee confidentiality. While this may be simply their policy, someone needs to step in and speak up on Raj’s behalf. One of the mechanisms in place must be broken—if not the whole system—as it appears Raj’s case has been lost without resolution. Even if there is a reason that Raj’s superiors, HR and the office of the Ombudsman have not pursued his complaints, their official silence has not allowed for resolution of Raj’s unfortunate situation. Regardless of whether the people able to bring about a positive change for Raj believe his story, they still should recognize that an employee feels seriously threatened in his workplace. It is inexcusable that no one has moved to resolve this situation for Raj on humane grounds alone.
In this challenging economic time it is even more important that we remain vigilant about cases of discrimination and intimidation in the workplace. With jobs more scarce, such cases are more likely to go unreported as people are afraid of being laid off. For his part, Raj works in fear that he will be fired because of the animosity that exists between him and his supervisor, and he believes that his co-workers are too afraid to stick up for him because of fears for their own jobs. Do we have a good enough system in place to ensure that Harvard employees are safe to defend their rights, whether on their own or as a member of any union? It would be difficult to look Raj in the eye and say, “Yes.”
Ideally the avenues in place to deal with complaints of discrimination would have worked, and Raj would have been placed elsewhere immediately, the supervisor punished, and the situation resolved. For Raj, still working in an environment that feels unsafe, a fair solution would be for management to place him in a different office with a new supervisor. Union members, students and concerned community members have held several demonstrations on Raj’s behalf. These should continue. More broadly, though, the University must look closely at the mechanisms that are currently failing to protect workers.
From: http://www.thecrimson.com
Raj immigrated to the United States from India in 1986. Receiving a master’s degree in Management Information Systems, he worked at Hewlett-Packard, Anderson Consulting and Tufts University before accepting his job here at Harvard. When Raj stood up for his rights and complained to administrators about his poor treatment, he faced the consequences of a flawed system: Raj’s boss took away his office, criticized his work, and gave him a mediocre evaluation while Raj waited for assistance that never came.
Though Harvard provides official avenues for employees to voice complaints of discrimination, Raj has hit several roadblocks and in the meantime has faced threats and intimidation. Last April, on the day of Raj’s scheduled meeting between his union representative, his supervisor at HMDC, and Human Resources, a stranger approached Raj inside a building where he was working and threatened him by name. According to Raj, the man said, “Ravi Raj, you have chosen the wrong path and the wrong union. You should watch out.” Such an action is despicable for its cowardly and bullying nature.
Harvard University cannot tolerate discrimination and the intimidation of its workers. As appalling as the racial slurs against Raj may be, more disturbing is his experience when he decided to speak up. While Raj has filed complaints with the Harvard University Police Department and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Raj currently must work under the same supervisor and has received threats of being fired—even though clients often write compliments about his efficient work. The mechanisms in place at Harvard to deal with discrimination and intimidation in the workplace have failed Ravi Raj.
Raj has pursued conflict resolution with management at HMDC, HR, and even the office of the University Ombudsman without success. When contacted, HR and the office of the Ombudsman declined to comment, citing employee confidentiality. While this may be simply their policy, someone needs to step in and speak up on Raj’s behalf. One of the mechanisms in place must be broken—if not the whole system—as it appears Raj’s case has been lost without resolution. Even if there is a reason that Raj’s superiors, HR and the office of the Ombudsman have not pursued his complaints, their official silence has not allowed for resolution of Raj’s unfortunate situation. Regardless of whether the people able to bring about a positive change for Raj believe his story, they still should recognize that an employee feels seriously threatened in his workplace. It is inexcusable that no one has moved to resolve this situation for Raj on humane grounds alone.
In this challenging economic time it is even more important that we remain vigilant about cases of discrimination and intimidation in the workplace. With jobs more scarce, such cases are more likely to go unreported as people are afraid of being laid off. For his part, Raj works in fear that he will be fired because of the animosity that exists between him and his supervisor, and he believes that his co-workers are too afraid to stick up for him because of fears for their own jobs. Do we have a good enough system in place to ensure that Harvard employees are safe to defend their rights, whether on their own or as a member of any union? It would be difficult to look Raj in the eye and say, “Yes.”
Ideally the avenues in place to deal with complaints of discrimination would have worked, and Raj would have been placed elsewhere immediately, the supervisor punished, and the situation resolved. For Raj, still working in an environment that feels unsafe, a fair solution would be for management to place him in a different office with a new supervisor. Union members, students and concerned community members have held several demonstrations on Raj’s behalf. These should continue. More broadly, though, the University must look closely at the mechanisms that are currently failing to protect workers.
From: http://www.thecrimson.com
September 25, 2009
Kenneth Westhues: Correction of Mobbing Episodes in Higher Education
The insight in Schneider’s analysis of the “ineducability of administrators,” their common reluctance to rescue mobbing targets or even to grasp the concept, derives from his use of Max Weber’s favoured method of social research, verstehen, his stepping into administrators’ shoes and looking at things from their point of view. Schneider’s similar insight into the peril faculty associations put themselves in if they support the target has the same origin: understanding from the inside the political constraints on the association leadership.
Schneider is right that mobbing is a “loaded characterization” and mobber a “stigmatizing term.” By definition, the mere application of the term mobbing to a sequence of events in a university (or any other organization) is going to be contested by the instigators and the main participants, since it implies that reason and evidence do not support what they are doing, that in mobilizing for a colleague’s humiliation and eventual elimination, they have been “carried away” by collective passion into wreaking unwarranted harm on their scapegoat (another loaded term), as well as on the values underlying academic life.
This problem in the scientific study of mobbing is so fundamental one is tempted to switch to some other specialty. Why make trouble for yourself? All the social scientist has to say is, “By standard measures, it looks to me that so-and-so has been mobbed.” The beleaguered target may say thanks, but the great majority of those involved will do all in their power to keep this diagnosis off the table, and if they feel obliged to respond, they may well ratchet up their attack on the target, or even broaden it to include the scholar who has called it mobbing.
To whom, then, can one look for acknowledgement that a mobbing has indeed occurred, and for action toward turning back the mob and rescuing its target? Who will take the risk of disagreeing with an angry crowd?
There is no formulaic answer. A mob is sometimes stopped by a single person – a dean, a professor, maybe a secretary – with strength of character enough to stand up and say, “Cut it out. Lay off. There will be no ganging up in this workplace.” Far more mobbings than ever make the news are nipped in the bud by one man or woman who has guts. A famous example occurred long ago in the Middle East. A brave, charismatic rescuer shamed mobbers into slinking away by saying, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” That rescuer, of course, was himself mobbed sometime later, fatally.
To the question of how to correct a mobbing, a further answer is that if the mobbing has reached an advanced stage, the odds of full correction are close to nil. Leymann could not cite a single case from all his years of research, in which the mobbing target was given an apology and fully reintegrated into the workgroup. Once you’ve been collectively expelled, you can never quite go home again. The most one can hope for is mitigation of the target’s losses, in terms of reputation, respect, position, income, health, friendships, family. The realistic question is how to achieve as much mitigation as possible – the difference, for instance, between departing with a large buyout or with nothing but life and the chance to start over somewhere else.
Regardless of how much correction is won, the correcting agent is generally from outside the organization in which the conflict has occurred. Mobbing comes into clearest focus at a certain distance. Outsiders’ vision is less clouded by mobbers’ passion. Once informed of the evidence, outsiders can more easily see what has gone on and label it accurately. Further, outsiders are less vulnerable to the mobbers’ wrath. They face fewer penalties than insiders do for framing the events (to use Schneider’s term) in a way that transfers some blame from the target to the righteous enforcers of virtue...
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/AAUP09.htm#pt5
September 23, 2009
Achtung Kingston University Staff Members
By order of the management of Kingston University, staff are not permitted to access this site from University computers. But what are they afraid of? Could it be that independent thought has become dangerous to the interests of the University?
From: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/
From: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/
The world of the sociopath...
...People with this disorder appear to be charming at times, and make relationships, but to them, these are relationships in name only. They are ended whenever necessary or when it suits them, and the relationships are without depth or meaning, including marriages. They seem to have an innate ability to find the weakness in people, and are ready to use these weaknesses to their own ends through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation, and gain pleasure from doing so.
They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go, without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have, it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes...
From: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
----------
...Despite this emotional deficiency, most psychopaths learn to mimic the appearance of normal emotion well enough to fit into ordinary society, not unlike the way that the hearing impaired or illiterate learn to use other cues to compensate for their disabilities. As Hare describes it, psychopaths “know the words but not the music.” One might imagine that such a false and superficial front would be easily penetrated, but such is rarely the case, probably because of the assumption we all tend to make that others think and feel essentially the same way as ourselves. Differences in culture, gender, personality, and social status all create empathy gaps that can seem almost unfathomable, but none of these is as fundamental a divide as the one that exists between an individual with a conscience and one without. The psychopath’s psychology is so profoundly alien to most people that we are unable to comprehend their motives, or recognize one when we see one. Naturally, the industrious psychopath will find this to his advantage...
From: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind
----------
The serial bully:
They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go, without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have, it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes...
From: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
----------
...Despite this emotional deficiency, most psychopaths learn to mimic the appearance of normal emotion well enough to fit into ordinary society, not unlike the way that the hearing impaired or illiterate learn to use other cues to compensate for their disabilities. As Hare describes it, psychopaths “know the words but not the music.” One might imagine that such a false and superficial front would be easily penetrated, but such is rarely the case, probably because of the assumption we all tend to make that others think and feel essentially the same way as ourselves. Differences in culture, gender, personality, and social status all create empathy gaps that can seem almost unfathomable, but none of these is as fundamental a divide as the one that exists between an individual with a conscience and one without. The psychopath’s psychology is so profoundly alien to most people that we are unable to comprehend their motives, or recognize one when we see one. Naturally, the industrious psychopath will find this to his advantage...
From: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind
----------
The serial bully:
- is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
- is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
- exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse
- in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy
- holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret...
September 21, 2009
Up to tenth of workers victims of bullying - study (New Zealand)
Up to 200,000 employees - one in 10 - are victims of workplace bullying, new research suggests.
The two-year research project undertaken by academics at three universities surveyed 1600 employees from 20 organisations in the hospitality, health and education sectors.
Preliminary results showed one in 10 workers had been bullied by a colleague in the past six months, the Sunday Star Times reported. Figures extrapolated to the full working population suggested as many as 200,000 people were being bullied at work.
Waikato University organisational psychologist Michael O'Driscoll said workers were asked if they had been intimidated or abused at work, if their efforts had been sabotaged and what, if anything, was done about it.
The researchers defined bullying as a situation in which a person felt they had been repeatedly subjected to the negative actions of co-workers.
The research aimed to show how workplace bullying affected workers' health, wellbeing and job performance. "There are definite negative effects for individuals and for organisations," Mr O'Driscoll said. "People being bullied are experiencing high levels of work-based stress which you would then expect to flow on into physical symptoms."
Final results will not be available until the end of the year.
From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz
Also: http://www.stuff.co.nz
September 20, 2009
Unresolved complaint against Keele University
This unresolved complaint against Keele University regarding inadequate supervision and numerous instances of disability discrimination, has been going on for over ten years, during which time I have been thrust into the deepest emotional and psychological distress and turmoil. What started out as an academic dispute rapidly turned into a whistle blowing situation as the University spent more and more resources on covering up their initial, and then further inept decisions. My consultant psychiatrist sister told me once that I was the most stable person she had ever met – I’d certainly never before suffered from any illnesses that would have come within her sphere of expertise. But during this desperately long and painful process I have been prescribed anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication for years.
My tale is convoluted and at first sight seems inextricably complicated. But like many such stories, upon examination it tends to have the same few common strands, coalescing into a relatively simple narrative about some of the basest of human interactions – vanity, greed, power. It also encompasses the mindless knee-jerk self preservation of a large and wealthy organization at the expense of individuals.
http://www.myblog.keele-hauled.com/index.htm
http://www.keele-hauled.com/
My tale is convoluted and at first sight seems inextricably complicated. But like many such stories, upon examination it tends to have the same few common strands, coalescing into a relatively simple narrative about some of the basest of human interactions – vanity, greed, power. It also encompasses the mindless knee-jerk self preservation of a large and wealthy organization at the expense of individuals.
http://www.myblog.keele-hauled.com/index.htm
http://www.keele-hauled.com/
September 19, 2009
Some readings...
Len Sperry, WORKPLACE MOBBING AND BULLYING: A CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY PERSPECTIVE AND OVERVIEW. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 2009 American Psychological Association, Vol. 61, No. 3, 165–168
Abstract
Mobbing and bullying are forms of abusiveness that are of increasing concerns in the workplace. This special issue overviews various issues and interventions relevant for the practice of consulting psychology. The articles describe theoretical issues including prevalence, definitional clarity, and the influence of individual, work group, and organizational dynamics; they also describe various organizational interventions, including alternative dispute resolution, antimobbing training, and antibullying policy development. These articles and commentaries are intended to inform, provide strategies, and foster discussion of how consulting psychologists can best serve clients and client organizations that are experiencing mobbing and bullying.
----------
Patricia A. Ferris, THE ROLE OF THE CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGIST IN THE PREVENTION, DETECTION, AND CORRECTION OF BULLYING AND MOBBING IN THE WORKPLACE. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 61, No. 3, 165–168
Abstract
It is clear that psychological aggression is both common in workplaces and harmful to individuals and organizations. An emerging line of research examines organizational responses to allegations of bullying and mobbing. As a result, some researchers now identify processes for detecting, correcting, and preventing bullying and mobbing. Strategies to improve the quality of working life such as surveillance, policy development, training, coaching, and the development of selection, performance management, and reward systems that set standards for collaborative and supportive behavior at work are all necessary to move organizations toward eliminating tolerance of bullying and mobbing. Consulting psychologists have the expertise to provide such interventions because of their in-depth understanding of personality, testing, and assessment, and the application of these concepts to selection, coaching, and performance management. The consulting psychologist brings an attention to human factors that humanize the workplace. The author reviews research on bullying and mobbing, adds practitioner insights based on 13 years of practice in this area, and discusses interventions applied in practice settings.
----------
Maureen Duffy, PREVENTING WORKPLACE MOBBING AND BULLYING WITH EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTATION, POLICIES, AND LEGISLATION. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 61, No. 3, 242–262
Abstract
Workplace mobbing or workplace bullying has only recently entered the lexicon of the American workplace. Although its impact is devastating to the health and well-being of individuals, organizations also experience its effects in terms of loss of productivity, absenteeism, turnover, legal costs, and negative publicity. Legislation and policy development are 2 key initiatives that, used wisely, can help prevent such mobbing and bullying. Although the United States currently
has no legislation addressing workplace abuse, it is anticipated that bullying and mobbing will be the next legislative front for the protection of workers and the improvement of workplace culture. Today, many organizations are working with consultants to develop policies to prevent bulling/mobbing and to foster high-care work environments. A template for developing effective antimobbing/ antibullying organizational policies is provided.
Abstract
Mobbing and bullying are forms of abusiveness that are of increasing concerns in the workplace. This special issue overviews various issues and interventions relevant for the practice of consulting psychology. The articles describe theoretical issues including prevalence, definitional clarity, and the influence of individual, work group, and organizational dynamics; they also describe various organizational interventions, including alternative dispute resolution, antimobbing training, and antibullying policy development. These articles and commentaries are intended to inform, provide strategies, and foster discussion of how consulting psychologists can best serve clients and client organizations that are experiencing mobbing and bullying.
----------
Patricia A. Ferris, THE ROLE OF THE CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGIST IN THE PREVENTION, DETECTION, AND CORRECTION OF BULLYING AND MOBBING IN THE WORKPLACE. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 61, No. 3, 165–168
Abstract
It is clear that psychological aggression is both common in workplaces and harmful to individuals and organizations. An emerging line of research examines organizational responses to allegations of bullying and mobbing. As a result, some researchers now identify processes for detecting, correcting, and preventing bullying and mobbing. Strategies to improve the quality of working life such as surveillance, policy development, training, coaching, and the development of selection, performance management, and reward systems that set standards for collaborative and supportive behavior at work are all necessary to move organizations toward eliminating tolerance of bullying and mobbing. Consulting psychologists have the expertise to provide such interventions because of their in-depth understanding of personality, testing, and assessment, and the application of these concepts to selection, coaching, and performance management. The consulting psychologist brings an attention to human factors that humanize the workplace. The author reviews research on bullying and mobbing, adds practitioner insights based on 13 years of practice in this area, and discusses interventions applied in practice settings.
----------
Maureen Duffy, PREVENTING WORKPLACE MOBBING AND BULLYING WITH EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTATION, POLICIES, AND LEGISLATION. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 61, No. 3, 242–262
Abstract
Workplace mobbing or workplace bullying has only recently entered the lexicon of the American workplace. Although its impact is devastating to the health and well-being of individuals, organizations also experience its effects in terms of loss of productivity, absenteeism, turnover, legal costs, and negative publicity. Legislation and policy development are 2 key initiatives that, used wisely, can help prevent such mobbing and bullying. Although the United States currently
has no legislation addressing workplace abuse, it is anticipated that bullying and mobbing will be the next legislative front for the protection of workers and the improvement of workplace culture. Today, many organizations are working with consultants to develop policies to prevent bulling/mobbing and to foster high-care work environments. A template for developing effective antimobbing/ antibullying organizational policies is provided.
September 12, 2009
Ottawa's Dismissal of Denis Rancourt
Commentary by Kenneth Westhues, University of Waterloo, August 2009A good five years of conflict between administrators at the University of Ottawa and senior tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt came to a head on December 10, 2008. Dean of Science André Lalonde formally recommended to the Board of Governors that Rancourt be dismissed from the faculty. That same day, Provost Robert Major suspended Rancourt, closed his lab, and forbade him to set foot on campus.
The Ottawa administration's decision to fire Rancourt, imposing on him the "capital punishment" of labor relations, was even more vigorously opposed than were the lesser punishments dealt to him in preceding years. In a factual, reasoned letter to the Board of Governors dated 5 January 2009, Rancourt defended himself. Well over a hundred professors and students from Ottawa and elsewhere sent individual letters protesting Rancourt's elimination. Even before the axe fell, the Canadian Association of University Teachers had appointed a three-person Committee of Inquiry to investigate the long series of run-ins, dating back at least to the fall of 2005, between the Ottawa administration and Rancourt.
Is this a case of workplace mobbing in academe? Yes — and more precisely, administrative mobbing. (Click here for the standard checklist of indicators, here for the mainpage of the relevant website, and here for a short, basic article.)
What allows so unqualified a diagnosis is that Rancourt has made comprehensive documentation on the conflict (letters, emails, press reports, videos) publicly available on his blog and at academicfreedom.ca. For want of adequate information pro and con about a professor's dismissal or humiliation, it is often impossible to make more than a tentative assessment of whether it is a case of mobbing or merely a hard but measured and warranted response to some betrayal of academic purpose. In this case, Rancourt has laid bare to the public the actions that got him into trouble, the sanctions imposed, and what is most important, documentary evidence of both his own and his adversaries' views. Thereby he has bolstered his own credibility. Let other aggrieved academics take a lesson: only in so far as full information is publicly available, the cards all on the table, can outside observers make confident judgments and say things worth listening to.
It is plain from the material online that over time, administrators at Ottawa coalesced in the view that Rancourt, despite his stellar research record and the respect given him by very many students, is an utterly unworthy and abhorrent man, fit only for expulsion from respectable academic company. While administrators appear front and centre in this mobbing case, they are joined by dozens, even hundreds of students and faculty who are after Rancourt's neck. According to Karen Pinchin's trenchant article in Maclean's, "nearly one-third of Rancourt’s colleagues at the school have signed a petition of complaint against him." (Click here to read the petition, unambiguous evidence of ganging up.) Even distant pundits like Stanley Fish and Margaret Soltan piled on.
An email from Chemistry Chair Alain St-Amant is telling. Shortly after Rancourt's suspension, with his dismissal pending, St-Amant apparently agreed to debate him on a TV talk show, but then cancelled out. Rancourt sent him an email asking why, and suggesting that administrative or peer pressure was the reason. St-Amant emailed back, "I refuse to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed man. ... This will be the last you will hear from me on this matter. Enjoy the paycheques while they last." The contempt in these sentences is total. With a clever turn of phrase, St-Amant gives Rancourt the ultimate academic insult, that he has no wits, that is to say no intelligence. Then he cuts off communication and gloats that Rancourt will soon be off the payroll. St-Amant would not likely have felt free to send such a message had he not felt himself part of a campus crowd united by scorn for Rancourt.
From the available documents, Rancourt appears to exemplify a type of professor I described in my first book on academic mobbing, a professor I called "Dr. PITA" — acronym for pain-in-the-ass, or in politer terms, a thorn in administrators' sides, the one who makes them see red. Being a team player is not Dr. PITA's priority. Administrative demands that most professors comply with uncomplainingly are occasions for Dr. PITA to raise questions — and more questions.
Real-life professors can become Dr. PITA for any number of reasons. Administrators usually chalk it up to a personality defect. The documentary record suggests that the reason in Rancourt's case, as in many mobbing cases I have studied, is that he has thought deeply enough about education and the search for truth, to realize how much these noble purposes are subverted by the academic structures established to serve them. During his first dozen years of university teaching, he seems to have not only lengthened his vita but actually developed his mind, gaining awareness that institutionalizing the process of learning (that means creating a formal organization with a policy manual, chain of command, course credits, degree programs, human resources office, and so on), even though it facilitates learning in some ways (not least by providing teachers with a stable livelihood), cheapens and diminishes learning in many other ways. A student's working life easily becomes a matter of memorizing things and jumping the hoops of standardized tests, without personal engagement or independent thought. Indeed, one of the things students learn is not to learn about power, nor to question the structure of power in place, since the organization depends on this structure for funding and public legitimacy. Awareness of this downside of institutionalization is a common theme of the varied authors Rancourt cites in support of his own brand of anarchism — Paolo Freire, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, Herbert Marcuse, Ward Churchill, among others.
It was apparently Rancourt's deepening understanding of and commitment to what learning actually involves, that led him to refuse to rank and grade his students in the established, expected way. Since grading is central to the institutionalization of learning, he felt obliged to renounce it. This was the sticking point, the offense that became the main official reason for his termination. As Rancourt plaintively wrote in his letter to the Board, "Socrates did not give grades to his students."
Rancourt's revulsion at assigning marks is not common among professors, but neither is it rare. Over the past four decades, I have known dozens of professors who, in the course of their intellectual maturation, became exceedingly uncomfortable with assigning grades. A few of them met the same fate as Rancourt. One of the offenses that led to the dismissal of theologian Herbert Richardson from the University of Toronto in 1994 (a case of administrative mobbing to which I have devoted a substantial book), was that he and his students in a graduate seminar agreed that all of them should receive the same final grade.
More often, however, administrators and colleagues find ways to accommodate, sometimes even to honor and reward, the brilliant, unusually effective researcher and teacher whose process of growth has led to reluctance to give grades. Three professors of this kind have written letters of support for Rancourt: John McMurtry, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, John Southin, retired Professor of Biology at McGill University, and David Noble, Professor of Social and Political Thought at York University. These respected academics report that their universities managed to put up with them for decades, albeit sometimes grudgingly, despite their own dissent from conventional systems of student grading. McMurtry wrote that he "almost got fired for challenging the grading system at my university 35 years ago. The V-P Academic, the Dean and the Chair all went on the record as deciding to dismiss me, but many faculty and students successfully defended me." Noble told Maclean's that "he hasn’t given grades for more than 35 years."
It is worth remembering, moreover, that Ivan Illich, dean of educational iconoclasts and author of the 1971 classic, Deschooling Society, was recruited to the faculties of Pennsylvania State University and the University of Bremen in the last decades of his life. Those universities were apparently pleased to have Illich around for students and colleagues to learn from, despite his congenital lack of docility and institutional loyalty.
Why do some university administrations mobilize collective resources to eliminate professors of the Dr. PITA type, professors like Rancourt or McMurtry or Illich, while others somehow make room for them? One key difference is whether the administrators, despite all the bureaucratic pressures upon them, continue to have a feel for what searching for truth actually means. If they still hear that search as a personal call, they cannot bring themselves to demonize, harass, and try to get rid of one who embodies truth-seeking in a pristine way, despite the administrative challenges such a professor poses. They are able to recognize in Dr. PITA not just bothersomeness and impracticality but successful engagement with inquiry and learning, the fundamental goals of a university. Their own commitment to education obliges them to show respect for the dissenter, in much the same way as commitment to the basics of Christianity obliged Joseph Ratzinger, an organization man if ever there was one, to invite the dissident theologian Hans Küng to dine with him at the Vatican, a few months after Ratzinger was elected pope.
The complete commentary: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/Rancourt09.htm
September 11, 2009
7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying
The Centre for Research on Workplace Behaviours at the University of Glamorgan will be hosting the 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment between the 2nd and 4th June 2010, for more information on this please see the website:
September 08, 2009
Conference Announcement / Call for papers
1st Global Conference - Bullying and the Abuse of Power: From the Playground to International Relations 6-8 November 2009 - Salzburg, Austria
Call for Papers
This inter- and multi-disciplinary conference aims to explore the phenomenon of bullying as it manifests and has manifested itself in a wide range of contexts in the personal, social and global spheres. Bullying is a multi-faceted phenomenon, of interest and concern to academics and professionals of all kinds, including psychologists, sociologists, teachers, ethicists, politicians, social workers, philosophers, theologians, historians, physicians and human rights lawyers. It is present in every sphere of life and consists, essentially, of the abuse of power. It can involve psychological cruelty; cultural and personal insults; religious and sexual intolerance. Anyone can be bullied,anyone can bully. It goes on in schools, workplaces, and on the street. It can occur in any context in which people meet people. Bullying damages society; it produces human misery and corrupts societal values. It can ruin lives, and it can end lives. Most of us have experienced bullying, whether as a victim or as a perpetrator, or as one who has stood by while bullying went on before our eyes. Like other enduring cultural phenomena it has an ability to mutate into new forms – for example, the invasive use of email to intimidate people, or the use of text messaging and social networking sites which have claimed lives through the suicide of victims.
Abstracts are invited for papers that discuss bullying from any of the perspectives and in any of the contexts mentioned above. They are also invited for papers that address bullying as it manifests itself in other contexts at a societal and global level, including the abuse of political and economic power and ultimately physical force, by repressive political regimes that suppress dissent, through, for example, torture and 'disappearances'. Submissions are welcomed from people who view other phenomena in the modern world as manifestations of bullying, including the ways that powerful nations exert power over and interfere in the affairs of less powerful ones, or the ways in which some multi-national companies do business with suppliers of produce, and manage to exert their influence over the shopping habits of consumers, to the detriment of local retailers. Bullying is perhaps the most important ethical problem in the modern world, because it is arguably present everywhere.
The following list of themes and sub-themes may be helpful. Abstracts which illuminate and comment on more than one sphere in which bullying manifests itself will be especially welcomed, as will abstracts that draw together insights from more than one academic, professional or vocational area. As a result, abstracts may fall into more than one of the themes outlined. The conference programme will thus be organised with a view to producing the most vigorous and helpful debate.
* Bullying in everyday contexts
Bullying in school/in the workplace
Bullying of older people/disabled people
Sexual bullying
Racial bullying
Religious intolerance
* From playground bullying to genocide/Bullying:
How far can it go?
Human Rights abuses
Genocide
The Holocaust
Human trafficking
* International relations
Cultural intolerance
Terrorism as a means of persuasion
Imposition of the wishes of the developed
world on developing countries
Bullying of Indigenous people
* Multinationals, impoverished nations and corner shops
The effects of globalisation on business
Changing patterns of shopping: corner shops vs superstores
Advertising and vulnerable consumers
Cut price goods and low pay for workers
Papers will be considered on any related theme. 300 word abstracts should be submitted by Friday 12th June 2009. If your paper is accepted for presentation at the conference, an 8 page draft paper should be submitted by Friday 9th October 2009.
300 word abstracts should be submitted simultaneously to both Organising Chairs.
Abstracts may be in Word, WordPerfect, or RTF formats with the following information and in this order:
a) author(s), b) affiliation, c) email address, d)title of abstract, e) body of abstract.
Please use plain text (Times Roman 12) and abstain from using footnotes and any special formatting, characters or emphasis (such as bold, italics or underline). We acknowledge receipt and answer to all paper proposals submitted. If you do not receive a reply from us in a week you should assume we did not receive your proposal; it might be lost in cyberspace! We suggest, then, to look for an alternative electronic route or resend.
Organising Chairs
Gavin J Fairbairn
Professor of Ethics and Language
Leeds Metropolitan University
Leeds
United Kingdom
Email: G.Fairbairn@leedsmet.ac.uk
Rob Fisher
Inter-Disciplinary.Net
Priory House, Wroslyn Road
Freeland, Oxfordshire OX29 8HR
Email: bully@inter-disciplinary.net
The conference is part of the Ethos Hub series of ongoing research and publications projects conferences, run within the Critical Issues domain which aims to bring together people from different areas and interests to share ideas and explore innovative and challenging routes of intellectual and academic exploration.
All papers accepted for and presented at the conference will be eligible for publication in an ISBN eBook. Selected papers may be developed for publication in a themed hard copy volume.
For further details about the project please visit:
http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/critical-issues/ethos/bullying-and-the-abuse-of-power/
For further details about the conference please visit:
http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/critical-issues/ethos/bullying-and-the-abuse-of-power/call-for-papers/
September 06, 2009
Checklist of 16 mobbing indicators
1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
4. Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is.”
5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson.”
6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.
7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for”or defend the target.
11. The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
16. Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both.
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/checklist.htm
September 05, 2009
University of Ottawa dismisses Professor Denis Rancourt over grading dispute
I was fired by the University of Ottawa on March 31, 2009. I was fired under the false pretext of having arbitrarily assigned high grades in one course in the winter 2008 semester. All relevant documents have been made public at http://academicfreedom.ca/.
In order to fire me the university had to dispense with due process. In the words of the professors’ union’s lawyer, my dismissal was “both a denial of substantive and procedural rights […] and a contravention of the basic principles of natural justice.”
Until my firing I was for the whole of my 23 year career, a professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. I was tenured and had occupied the highest academic rank of Full Professor since 1997. I am recognized as an expert in my profession and have taught over 2000 students.
Throughout my tenure, my overriding goal has been to give my students the highest quality of education, affording them the best possible means of learning and understanding a sometimes difficult and daunting subject. To achieve this I have researched pedagogy, conferred with professional physics education researchers, and implemented many new teaching techniques. I have developed several unique and very popular undergraduate and graduate courses, including the Physics and the Environment (Physique et environement) course, the Science in Society course, and a graduate interdisciplinary course in measurement and characterization methods in science. The Science in Society elective course had to be given in the largest auditorium on campus to accommodate the registered and community participants.
The Physics and the Environment required course was considered one of the most motivating courses in the Environmental Studies (ES) program: The executive members of the ES Student Association have referred to me as a “phenomenal teacher” and to the course as “extremely enriching … individualized … empower[ing]” and as “creat[ing] a positive learning environment where inspired students gained confidence and courage” (Letter to the dean of science dated March 15, 2007).
I have paired this teaching profile with a strong research effort, receiving throughout my entire career some of the largest research grants in the Faculty of Science. I have one of the highest scientific impact factors (h-index) in the entire Faculty, with an h-index of 25. To put this in perspective, my present scientific impact factor is more than twice that of the dean of the Faculty of Science, 40% higher than that of the present chairman of the physics department, 80% higher than that of the present chairman of chemistry, and more than twice that of the previous chairman of physics. In 2008, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) reviewed my research and renewed my grant through 2013. Such research success had been expected, because I started my university career under the prestigious NSERC University Research Fellow program, following a national competition among newly sponsored university professors.
In 2001, after I obtained the largest NSERC Strategic Project Grant ever obtained in the Faculty of Science, to study boreal forest lakes for five years, the university put out full-page-width advertisements [click to see in English / French] in the Globe and Mail, The Ottawa Citizen, Le Droit, and Silicon Valley North featuring me and my research group and entitled "Can you recognize Canada's university of the 21st century? Denis Rancourt, LSSE group" (LSSE = Lake Sediment Structure and Evolution). I have supervised more than 80 junior research terms or degrees at all levels from post-doctoral fellow to graduate students to NSERC undergraduate researchers. I have been an invited plenary, keynote, or special session speaker at major conferences nearly 40 times, an exceptional number by Faculty of Science standards. To put this in perspective, many past and present science department chairs and deans have never been a plenary or keynote speaker at an international scientific conference.
No reasonable person, and in fact so far not a single person or organization who has examined the background of my dismissal, lends any credibility to the university's claim that my grading in one course, one year ago, is the real reason for its recent actions. How can a disagreement about grading possibly justify ordering the university police to remove a tenured professor from campus, banning him from campus, assigning his graduate students to other faculty, firing his postdoctoral research fellow, and summarily firing him without due process?
The university’s pretext for firing me is particularly ironic given its Vision 2010 strategic plan, which states that the university will “Support and recognize initiatives designed to implement a range of new and diversified strategies for learning and evaluation.”
The lack of due process in the university’s recent actions is also alarming and is a threat to the principle of tenure. The dean simply asserted that my grading was not part of my teaching method and thereby circumvented a formal evaluation of my teaching without my ever being heard by a committee of my peers, as foreseen by the due process rules in place...
More info at: http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/component/content/article/25.html
and
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/
September 03, 2009
Institutions slap down those who speak up, argues campaigning scholar
Scholars who embrace the role of the "public academic" are not only insufficiently rewarded for their efforts, they are often punished for them, too.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes, an American professor who campaigns against human trafficking for the illegal trade in vital organs, has said that the reward system for publicly engaged intellectuals is "a fallacy". Her comments come as UK academics face growing pressure to take on a public role, with plans in the pipeline for research funding to be linked to public engagement.
The proposals mooted for the forthcoming research excellence framework could lead to funding being allocated on the strength of television or newspaper work.
Writing in the journal Anthropology Today, the professor of medical anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, says: "Scholars who want to reach diverse publics - through popular writing, speaking or participating in social activism - are not only under-rewarded by their universities, they are often penalised for 'dumbing down' anthropological thinking, cutting social theory into 'soundbites', 'vulgarising' anthropology, sacrificing academic standards or (in the US) for playing to the anti-intellectual, illiberal American popular classes."
Professor Scheper-Hughes says her engagement with the media and her participation in parliamentary hearings and on United Nations and World Health Organisation panels is counted by her university as "community outreach", "on a par with giving a lecture on the cultural origins of Hallowe'en to local primary school students".
"This academic reward system is based ... on a fallacy," she says.
Professor Scheper-Hughes is one of the founders of Organs Watch, a project that aims to make the global trade in human organs a pressing social issue.
She said her involvement with the organisation had led to her being excluded from meetings, ridiculed, called a liar and branded, among other things, a "medically unsophisticated naif caught up in urban legends of blood-sucking, organ-stealing monsters" and an "organs terrorist". But, she says, her interventions "eventually bore fruit".
She argues that the goal of public anthropology is to make issues public, rather than simply respond to issues publicly. Academics who are politically engaged with their work are "very much like the first generation of working mothers", forced to do "double time", she says.
This includes "keeping up with the expected home-front duties, with the expected rate of scholarly productions of books, articles and graduate students, participating in academic meetings etc, while simultaneously doing human rights work, serving on international panels, giving keynote speeches in places and at events that don't matter a hoot to one's peers".
Despite the difficulties, Professor Scheper-Hughes warns against academics waiting until they are "safely tenured" before jumping into the "public fray".
"If you do, you may find you have lost what I call 'the habit of courage'.
"But protect yourself by keeping up with the expectations of the academic home front. And don't complain about being overworked and underpaid. Just be glad they don't pull you off the stage and haul you off to jail for speaking your mind, and for being what academic administrators sometimes call a 'loose cannon'," she advises...
From: Times Higher Education
Nancy Scheper-Hughes, an American professor who campaigns against human trafficking for the illegal trade in vital organs, has said that the reward system for publicly engaged intellectuals is "a fallacy". Her comments come as UK academics face growing pressure to take on a public role, with plans in the pipeline for research funding to be linked to public engagement.
The proposals mooted for the forthcoming research excellence framework could lead to funding being allocated on the strength of television or newspaper work.
Writing in the journal Anthropology Today, the professor of medical anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, says: "Scholars who want to reach diverse publics - through popular writing, speaking or participating in social activism - are not only under-rewarded by their universities, they are often penalised for 'dumbing down' anthropological thinking, cutting social theory into 'soundbites', 'vulgarising' anthropology, sacrificing academic standards or (in the US) for playing to the anti-intellectual, illiberal American popular classes."
Professor Scheper-Hughes says her engagement with the media and her participation in parliamentary hearings and on United Nations and World Health Organisation panels is counted by her university as "community outreach", "on a par with giving a lecture on the cultural origins of Hallowe'en to local primary school students".
"This academic reward system is based ... on a fallacy," she says.
Professor Scheper-Hughes is one of the founders of Organs Watch, a project that aims to make the global trade in human organs a pressing social issue.
She said her involvement with the organisation had led to her being excluded from meetings, ridiculed, called a liar and branded, among other things, a "medically unsophisticated naif caught up in urban legends of blood-sucking, organ-stealing monsters" and an "organs terrorist". But, she says, her interventions "eventually bore fruit".
She argues that the goal of public anthropology is to make issues public, rather than simply respond to issues publicly. Academics who are politically engaged with their work are "very much like the first generation of working mothers", forced to do "double time", she says.
This includes "keeping up with the expected home-front duties, with the expected rate of scholarly productions of books, articles and graduate students, participating in academic meetings etc, while simultaneously doing human rights work, serving on international panels, giving keynote speeches in places and at events that don't matter a hoot to one's peers".
Despite the difficulties, Professor Scheper-Hughes warns against academics waiting until they are "safely tenured" before jumping into the "public fray".
"If you do, you may find you have lost what I call 'the habit of courage'.
"But protect yourself by keeping up with the expectations of the academic home front. And don't complain about being overworked and underpaid. Just be glad they don't pull you off the stage and haul you off to jail for speaking your mind, and for being what academic administrators sometimes call a 'loose cannon'," she advises...
From: Times Higher Education
August 31, 2009
August 26, 2009
Elimination ritual...
Dear Madam or Sir,
I have spent two and half years as an Assistant Professor of English at XXX University in Northern XXX. My first year at XXX was challenging and pleasant, while the remaining year and half was a living hell, complete with harassment, sexual harassment, physical intimidation, false charges, false testimony, perjury and the obstruction of justice. It has been a long process, with some triumphs and some defeats. Eventually, as in all bullying stories, I was forced to leave. A year and a half after leaving XXX I am still trying to come to terms with my horrible experience there.
I am appending my story in the hope that it might be of use to other people who undergoing similar experiences. I would also be happy to communicate with other victims in order to share experiences and offer comfort and motivation: In summer 2005, I was hired as an Assistant Professor at the department of English Literature and humanities in XXX. I arrived in XXX in August 2005 and worked hard and with great expense to relocate my family to Northern XXX while preparing well in advance for the coming school year. The school year began with great turmoil on campus resulting from a fierce labor dispute. A number of promises that were made to me in a hiring letter were not kept, and I was unable to receive a working contract until February 2006. As soon as the school year began, one faculty member in my department resigned and left immediately, and the number of students that I was teaching doubled. At the same time the department chair announced that she was resigning as well, sending the department into a perpetual crisis. Instead of complaining and looking for a different job, I was grateful to work at XXX and had said so at every opportunity.
I volunteered to serve my department at every opportunity and did my best to be a helpful, friendly and supportive colleague. I volunteered for every committee (including a conference and a hiring committee for which I prepared the call-for-papers and job announcement respectively), and when the chair wanted to restructure the MA program I was happy to conduct research for this project as well as to contribute my experience and ideas, most of which have been incorporated into the restructured program proposal. When the chair asked for urgent faculty help in coordinating a large proposal for a translation laboratory that was due within four days I volunteered to accomplish the task and had a good report on her desk before the deadline. When the department was desperate to produce on-campus events I volunteered to give a poetry reading. At the chair’s request, I prepared two new versions for the departmental web page.
I maintained good professional relationship with both faculty and students, and I continuously received good students’ evaluations as well as occasional notes from students thanking me for my work and for my help. When students sometime complained, I worked closely with the chair to solve their problems and have always deferred to the chair’s judgment.
I have also done well at XXX academically. During my time there, I added a number of academic publications to my CV. I presented new research at the ACLA conference in Mexico in April 2006, and I was recommended by XXX as an expert in English Language and Humanities for the European Union’s FP7 project. I was nominated as an advisory board member of the University’s Women Studies Center and associate editor of the journal, Women 2000. In Spring 2007 I have organized a campus visit and lecture by a renowned scholar.
During my first year at XXX I approached the chair periodically to ask how I am doing and if there is any area in which I should improve. Without exception, the response was always positive. I was complemented for the quick way in which I adapted to living in Northern XXX and working at XXX. The chair observed one of my classes towards the end of the fall semester and complemented my teaching. The chair has found me a devoted employee and supportive colleague and included me, not only in professional activities, but also in social activities in the department. Sometime in April I was recommended for a continued two-year contract.
It was within a month since that recommendation that the tables turned. Sometime in May 2006, and for reasons that are completely unknown to me, the department chair and my colleagues in the department began to hate me with a passion. From that point on I was continuously harassed, my work was being continuously sabotaged and I was even physically intimated at one time. I was “punished” with a “silence treatment” and barred from departmental activities, faculty meetings, equipment, important memos and even the department’s Christmas party. At one point, the entire faculty (except me) was asked to submit a list of courses that they would like to teach in the following semester. At some point, the chair announced again that she is “resigning” but in fact did not leave her post. As a “perpetual non-Chair,” she has been using the ambivalence of her position to persecute me with renewed vigor. I was no longer allowed to say “hello” to the chair, and have been verbally and physically abused when I tried to do so. I had no access to the department’s office, and could only enter the department's mail room, using my key and avoiding the secretary desk. The Chair had also organized students, asking them to sign a petition against me. When I complained about that, the petition was simply put away, placed secretly in my personal file to be used against me at a later time. The chair also asked the faculty members in the department to sign a petition to have me removed from the department. Six men, whom I have never hurt, some who have been my friends, and who have absolutely no reason to hate me, signed this document without thinking twice.
On December 28, 2006 I had to lodge a formal complaint at the XXX police station after the chair’s husband physically threatened me in my office. I complained bitterly to the university’s administration about the Chair’s treatment and her behavior against me. Eventually, the Chair did leave the department and I believed that my difficulties were over. A new chair and a new faculty Dean were appointed, and I was told that the slate was cleaned, that all of the Chair’s previous complaints against me were dismissed, and that everyone will now strive to work together harmoniously. I was delighted and have again done everything to contribute to the department in faculty meetings, committee work, and socially, as I was now able to talk with colleagues, join them for lunch, etc. I was extremely careful to avoid any misunderstandings, and when I thought that I erroneously hurt someone, I apologized immediately. I was determined to patch things up and put past trouble behind me. I went to an international conference in Mexico in April where representation from Northern XXX was highly appreciated, and at the conference, I arranged for a renowned scholar to come and give a talk at the department. I published another book review and sent an article for publication.
Unfortunately, these efforts were neither appreciated nor reciprocated. My situation in the department remained consistently intolerable. I was still isolated and unable to receive basic services from the department. I did not have a working university computer since November 2006, and I could not receive professional collaboration from my colleagues. And my colleagues used every opportunity, either in committee work, exam invigilation or other professional opportunities, to create altercations and disrupt any possible working relationship.
In fact, as I found out on April 30, while I was trying to be professional, courteous and helpful, my colleagues have been keeping a close watch and reporting through gossip, innuendos and semi-official complaints on my "behavior." I was confronted by the new department chair by a list of silly, petty, and sometime simply untrue complaints. I told the chair that if harmony is to be achieved in the department, the effort should be made on both sides. I asked him to communicate this to my colleagues and try and affect some peace in the department. When he failed to do so, I wrote a letter to my colleagues, urging them to put last semester’s events behind them and to make an effort to work together harmoniously.
But the chair had done nothing to assist me, and in fact turned my complaints against me. I was harassed again. A student who attended two of my classes “suddenly” began to disrupt and sabotage classes, as well as harassing me through emails and phone calls. My complaints to the Chair, the Dean and the University's Disciplinary Committee were “strangely” ignored, and I was even presented with a list of “students’ complaints:” that I was looking at my watch during the lesson, that I was penalizing students when they are late for class, and that I was “forcing” them to buy the reading materials for the course. It was laughable, but again, for “strange” reasons taken very seriously.
In May 2007, I finally complained again to the university’s administration about being harassed by my colleagues. I was first told by the vice rector that the problem should be solved “in discussion with the chair and the dean of the faculty.” I told him that I welcomed such a discussion, but no conversation ever took place. One day later, the chair of the department filed disciplinary action against me.
My complaint was completely ignored. The Chair’s complaint, however, was a thing of beauty. The students’ complaint that they were forced to come to class on time and buy class materials disappeared. Instead, alongside a number of petty accusations (some completely false) were finally the contents of the student petition that the former chair organized in November 2006: The former chair had organized the students in my gender studies class to complain that I have been discussing sexual content! The charge was not only completely ridiculous (why does the university have gender studies classes in its curriculum if it forbids sexual context? Why wasn’t I ever notified of such prohibition (which does not exist)? Why wasn’t I ever consulted with while teaching the class?). It also smacked of bad faith and was illegal according to university rules. Any complaint must, according to university rules, be dealt with within 60 days. This complaint was lying in wait for six months (!). It was prepared in November and presented to me in May. There wasn’t a disciplinary committee in the world that could find me guilty. That is, none other than the disciplinary committee of XXX University, which was set to convict at all costs.
The charges, presented to me on June 18, were made by an investigator who never discussed them with me, and on the basis of evidence that I have never seen and testimony by witnesses that I do not know and whom I did not have an opportunity to ask any questions. The date of the hearing was set for June 21, only three days (!) later. My requests to have legal and/or union representative present, to meet and question witnesses and see the documents on which the charges are based, and specific dates and necessary details for understanding the charges were flatly denied. Only after my lawyer's intervention, I was given more time to prepare a defense.
But the committee had no interest in hearing (or reading) my defense. The committee members first refused to listen to my defense, and when I insisted on presenting it, they interrupted me, made deprecating comments about my arguments, and expressed disinterest and impatience with a response to the charges that I worked very hard to prepare. When I rose from my sit to hand out documents to the committee, I was reprimanded for standing up and ordered to sit down again. Afterwards, the chair of the disciplinary committee rose from his sit and stood next my chair, close enough to touch me, and disrupted me while I was talking. I was forced to ask him to sit down and keep an appropriate distance from me. I had to ask the committee repeatedly and sometime forcibly to “be quiet” and listen to me. I needed to raise my voice and fight hard to present my defense. Even so, I was only able to deliver a part of my defense, and the disciplinary committee seemed disinterested in the parts that I was able to make them listen to.
The committee, not having heard, read or considered any of my arguments, sentenced me to six months suspension without pay, throwing my family and me into poverty at a moment's notice and at the end of the summer when the prospects of finding academic employment are nil. My wife, our four-year-old daughter and I found ourselves in an impossible situation, with nowhere to go and no immediate prospects of income or employment.
To prevent me from complaining further, it was communicated to me unofficially that the disciplinary committee had also access to further complaints, which I have not seen or heard. When I was told of some of these complaints, I found that I could answer them and provide documents and witnesses to prove that they are not true. But since I was never asked about them (and since the disciplinary committee had never listened to any of my arguments), I was unable to defend myself. Furthermore, these complaints were still kept as a threat against me, as they are kept in stock to be pulled out later in the same way that the complaint from November 2006 was used in May 2007.
Nevertheless, I appealed the committee’s decision, as I was preparing to take the university to court. I decided that I had nothing to lose and everything to gain by fighting back against an institution towards which I have shown nothing but good faith, and received none in return. In August 2007 I had also sent letters to the Higher Education Council and the Ministry of Education in XXX, the Union of European Universities, UNESCO and the Embassy of my country in XXX and in XXX. I asked for their advice and opinion on the ridiculous charges that the university made against me – which I was not embarrassed to quote. In fact, it was the university that should have been embarrassed, and it certainly was! The same officials who dismissed me like a piece of trash were now in panic. Even though I stopped short of fully denouncing the university or writing to newspapers, the university's vice rector was outraged. He had also made a quick deal to clear my name, refund the money that was already deducted from my salary, and put me back to work until the end of the semester, at which point I agreed to leave XXX. If I was to be left to work in peace until the end of the semester and to leave XXX without further hassles at that time, I agreed to write no more letters, and not to embarrass the university further by telling the truth about the way it behaved towards me.
I was quickly cleared of all the charges and was put back to work, this time teaching different courses in a different department. My colleagues also asked that I will be moved to another office. As I was told, their feelings against me were so strong that they could not bear to look at me. I wasn't surprised. How could they look me in the face after what they have done? On my part, I certainly had no intention of packing all my books and moving to another office only to move again after four months. As to the fact that seeing me reminded my colleagues of their crimes and unethical conduct, I was only sorry to realize that they will forget all about it as soon as my back is turned. I simply ignored them and carried on with my work.
Nevertheless, this was a difficult semester. My wife and daughter left XXX in the summer. They settled in with my mother in law, in my wife's childhood bedroom, sleeping on a double-bed on the floor. Unprepared, my wife was now a single mother, working full time and taking care of our child by herself. Her mother, helping as much as she can, is old and needs some attention herself. They managed bravely. But it was hard. As for me, I was missing them, living by myself, teaching classes that are not in my field, and spending time in a criminal university that continued to treat me horribly.
I was denied a standard pay raise that is given to all faculty members at the beginning of each school year for no other reason than that the chair of my department "doesn't want to give it to me." I was continuously pushed by the administration to move to another office… even one month before the semester was over. And although an agreement with the university has been reached in September, the vice rector just couldn't help himself from trying to trick and cheat me further. I was asked to place a resignation letter in trust, which would go into affect as soon as I receive everything that was promised me by the university. This included no compensations or special privileges. Merely a letter of reference, a letter of clear record, and everything that all exiting faculty receive: paid leave, airline ticket and assistance in receiving the money accrued in a trust fund throughout one's time at XXX. But the trust was broken. The faculty member who was supposed to hold on to the letter betrayed me and gave it to the administration. They, on their part, had no intention of treating me fairly even for a second. Two weeks before I was supposed to leave XXX forever, I received no cooperation on any of the things that I deserved merely by virtue of being someone who had worked in the university for two and a half years.
I realized that this was indicative of only one thing. That the vice rector who persecuted me forgot the temporary rage and embarrassment that he felt in August 2007, as I was telling the entire world of his and the university's unprofessional, unethical, criminal and disgusting behavior. A few days before I left XXX, I simply walked into his office and reminded him that I am still capable of sending letters to international newspapers and the press. I have certainly said the magic words. Within hours, checks were cut, letters were written and forms were signed. I received everything that I have asked for, and have left through XXX airport with an unimaginable sense of relief. Certainly, fairness, good management or even legality mean nothing to XXX officials. However, the prospects of public embarrassment obviously mean everything to them.
My story with XXX is not completely over. Even though I am back with my family, teaching elsewhere, and enjoying a life without hate, racism and corruption, I am still angry with XXX. My colleagues, who believe that their crimes of harassment, sexual harassment, physical intimidation, false charges, false testimony, perjury and the obstruction of justice are expunged as soon as my back is turned, are wrong. Their crimes do not disappear merely because they are not punished for them. Their crimes remain crimes, and they remain criminals.
Anonymous
I have spent two and half years as an Assistant Professor of English at XXX University in Northern XXX. My first year at XXX was challenging and pleasant, while the remaining year and half was a living hell, complete with harassment, sexual harassment, physical intimidation, false charges, false testimony, perjury and the obstruction of justice. It has been a long process, with some triumphs and some defeats. Eventually, as in all bullying stories, I was forced to leave. A year and a half after leaving XXX I am still trying to come to terms with my horrible experience there.
I am appending my story in the hope that it might be of use to other people who undergoing similar experiences. I would also be happy to communicate with other victims in order to share experiences and offer comfort and motivation: In summer 2005, I was hired as an Assistant Professor at the department of English Literature and humanities in XXX. I arrived in XXX in August 2005 and worked hard and with great expense to relocate my family to Northern XXX while preparing well in advance for the coming school year. The school year began with great turmoil on campus resulting from a fierce labor dispute. A number of promises that were made to me in a hiring letter were not kept, and I was unable to receive a working contract until February 2006. As soon as the school year began, one faculty member in my department resigned and left immediately, and the number of students that I was teaching doubled. At the same time the department chair announced that she was resigning as well, sending the department into a perpetual crisis. Instead of complaining and looking for a different job, I was grateful to work at XXX and had said so at every opportunity.
I volunteered to serve my department at every opportunity and did my best to be a helpful, friendly and supportive colleague. I volunteered for every committee (including a conference and a hiring committee for which I prepared the call-for-papers and job announcement respectively), and when the chair wanted to restructure the MA program I was happy to conduct research for this project as well as to contribute my experience and ideas, most of which have been incorporated into the restructured program proposal. When the chair asked for urgent faculty help in coordinating a large proposal for a translation laboratory that was due within four days I volunteered to accomplish the task and had a good report on her desk before the deadline. When the department was desperate to produce on-campus events I volunteered to give a poetry reading. At the chair’s request, I prepared two new versions for the departmental web page.
I maintained good professional relationship with both faculty and students, and I continuously received good students’ evaluations as well as occasional notes from students thanking me for my work and for my help. When students sometime complained, I worked closely with the chair to solve their problems and have always deferred to the chair’s judgment.
I have also done well at XXX academically. During my time there, I added a number of academic publications to my CV. I presented new research at the ACLA conference in Mexico in April 2006, and I was recommended by XXX as an expert in English Language and Humanities for the European Union’s FP7 project. I was nominated as an advisory board member of the University’s Women Studies Center and associate editor of the journal, Women 2000. In Spring 2007 I have organized a campus visit and lecture by a renowned scholar.
During my first year at XXX I approached the chair periodically to ask how I am doing and if there is any area in which I should improve. Without exception, the response was always positive. I was complemented for the quick way in which I adapted to living in Northern XXX and working at XXX. The chair observed one of my classes towards the end of the fall semester and complemented my teaching. The chair has found me a devoted employee and supportive colleague and included me, not only in professional activities, but also in social activities in the department. Sometime in April I was recommended for a continued two-year contract.
It was within a month since that recommendation that the tables turned. Sometime in May 2006, and for reasons that are completely unknown to me, the department chair and my colleagues in the department began to hate me with a passion. From that point on I was continuously harassed, my work was being continuously sabotaged and I was even physically intimated at one time. I was “punished” with a “silence treatment” and barred from departmental activities, faculty meetings, equipment, important memos and even the department’s Christmas party. At one point, the entire faculty (except me) was asked to submit a list of courses that they would like to teach in the following semester. At some point, the chair announced again that she is “resigning” but in fact did not leave her post. As a “perpetual non-Chair,” she has been using the ambivalence of her position to persecute me with renewed vigor. I was no longer allowed to say “hello” to the chair, and have been verbally and physically abused when I tried to do so. I had no access to the department’s office, and could only enter the department's mail room, using my key and avoiding the secretary desk. The Chair had also organized students, asking them to sign a petition against me. When I complained about that, the petition was simply put away, placed secretly in my personal file to be used against me at a later time. The chair also asked the faculty members in the department to sign a petition to have me removed from the department. Six men, whom I have never hurt, some who have been my friends, and who have absolutely no reason to hate me, signed this document without thinking twice.
On December 28, 2006 I had to lodge a formal complaint at the XXX police station after the chair’s husband physically threatened me in my office. I complained bitterly to the university’s administration about the Chair’s treatment and her behavior against me. Eventually, the Chair did leave the department and I believed that my difficulties were over. A new chair and a new faculty Dean were appointed, and I was told that the slate was cleaned, that all of the Chair’s previous complaints against me were dismissed, and that everyone will now strive to work together harmoniously. I was delighted and have again done everything to contribute to the department in faculty meetings, committee work, and socially, as I was now able to talk with colleagues, join them for lunch, etc. I was extremely careful to avoid any misunderstandings, and when I thought that I erroneously hurt someone, I apologized immediately. I was determined to patch things up and put past trouble behind me. I went to an international conference in Mexico in April where representation from Northern XXX was highly appreciated, and at the conference, I arranged for a renowned scholar to come and give a talk at the department. I published another book review and sent an article for publication.
Unfortunately, these efforts were neither appreciated nor reciprocated. My situation in the department remained consistently intolerable. I was still isolated and unable to receive basic services from the department. I did not have a working university computer since November 2006, and I could not receive professional collaboration from my colleagues. And my colleagues used every opportunity, either in committee work, exam invigilation or other professional opportunities, to create altercations and disrupt any possible working relationship.
In fact, as I found out on April 30, while I was trying to be professional, courteous and helpful, my colleagues have been keeping a close watch and reporting through gossip, innuendos and semi-official complaints on my "behavior." I was confronted by the new department chair by a list of silly, petty, and sometime simply untrue complaints. I told the chair that if harmony is to be achieved in the department, the effort should be made on both sides. I asked him to communicate this to my colleagues and try and affect some peace in the department. When he failed to do so, I wrote a letter to my colleagues, urging them to put last semester’s events behind them and to make an effort to work together harmoniously.
But the chair had done nothing to assist me, and in fact turned my complaints against me. I was harassed again. A student who attended two of my classes “suddenly” began to disrupt and sabotage classes, as well as harassing me through emails and phone calls. My complaints to the Chair, the Dean and the University's Disciplinary Committee were “strangely” ignored, and I was even presented with a list of “students’ complaints:” that I was looking at my watch during the lesson, that I was penalizing students when they are late for class, and that I was “forcing” them to buy the reading materials for the course. It was laughable, but again, for “strange” reasons taken very seriously.
In May 2007, I finally complained again to the university’s administration about being harassed by my colleagues. I was first told by the vice rector that the problem should be solved “in discussion with the chair and the dean of the faculty.” I told him that I welcomed such a discussion, but no conversation ever took place. One day later, the chair of the department filed disciplinary action against me.
My complaint was completely ignored. The Chair’s complaint, however, was a thing of beauty. The students’ complaint that they were forced to come to class on time and buy class materials disappeared. Instead, alongside a number of petty accusations (some completely false) were finally the contents of the student petition that the former chair organized in November 2006: The former chair had organized the students in my gender studies class to complain that I have been discussing sexual content! The charge was not only completely ridiculous (why does the university have gender studies classes in its curriculum if it forbids sexual context? Why wasn’t I ever notified of such prohibition (which does not exist)? Why wasn’t I ever consulted with while teaching the class?). It also smacked of bad faith and was illegal according to university rules. Any complaint must, according to university rules, be dealt with within 60 days. This complaint was lying in wait for six months (!). It was prepared in November and presented to me in May. There wasn’t a disciplinary committee in the world that could find me guilty. That is, none other than the disciplinary committee of XXX University, which was set to convict at all costs.
The charges, presented to me on June 18, were made by an investigator who never discussed them with me, and on the basis of evidence that I have never seen and testimony by witnesses that I do not know and whom I did not have an opportunity to ask any questions. The date of the hearing was set for June 21, only three days (!) later. My requests to have legal and/or union representative present, to meet and question witnesses and see the documents on which the charges are based, and specific dates and necessary details for understanding the charges were flatly denied. Only after my lawyer's intervention, I was given more time to prepare a defense.
But the committee had no interest in hearing (or reading) my defense. The committee members first refused to listen to my defense, and when I insisted on presenting it, they interrupted me, made deprecating comments about my arguments, and expressed disinterest and impatience with a response to the charges that I worked very hard to prepare. When I rose from my sit to hand out documents to the committee, I was reprimanded for standing up and ordered to sit down again. Afterwards, the chair of the disciplinary committee rose from his sit and stood next my chair, close enough to touch me, and disrupted me while I was talking. I was forced to ask him to sit down and keep an appropriate distance from me. I had to ask the committee repeatedly and sometime forcibly to “be quiet” and listen to me. I needed to raise my voice and fight hard to present my defense. Even so, I was only able to deliver a part of my defense, and the disciplinary committee seemed disinterested in the parts that I was able to make them listen to.
The committee, not having heard, read or considered any of my arguments, sentenced me to six months suspension without pay, throwing my family and me into poverty at a moment's notice and at the end of the summer when the prospects of finding academic employment are nil. My wife, our four-year-old daughter and I found ourselves in an impossible situation, with nowhere to go and no immediate prospects of income or employment.
To prevent me from complaining further, it was communicated to me unofficially that the disciplinary committee had also access to further complaints, which I have not seen or heard. When I was told of some of these complaints, I found that I could answer them and provide documents and witnesses to prove that they are not true. But since I was never asked about them (and since the disciplinary committee had never listened to any of my arguments), I was unable to defend myself. Furthermore, these complaints were still kept as a threat against me, as they are kept in stock to be pulled out later in the same way that the complaint from November 2006 was used in May 2007.
Nevertheless, I appealed the committee’s decision, as I was preparing to take the university to court. I decided that I had nothing to lose and everything to gain by fighting back against an institution towards which I have shown nothing but good faith, and received none in return. In August 2007 I had also sent letters to the Higher Education Council and the Ministry of Education in XXX, the Union of European Universities, UNESCO and the Embassy of my country in XXX and in XXX. I asked for their advice and opinion on the ridiculous charges that the university made against me – which I was not embarrassed to quote. In fact, it was the university that should have been embarrassed, and it certainly was! The same officials who dismissed me like a piece of trash were now in panic. Even though I stopped short of fully denouncing the university or writing to newspapers, the university's vice rector was outraged. He had also made a quick deal to clear my name, refund the money that was already deducted from my salary, and put me back to work until the end of the semester, at which point I agreed to leave XXX. If I was to be left to work in peace until the end of the semester and to leave XXX without further hassles at that time, I agreed to write no more letters, and not to embarrass the university further by telling the truth about the way it behaved towards me.
I was quickly cleared of all the charges and was put back to work, this time teaching different courses in a different department. My colleagues also asked that I will be moved to another office. As I was told, their feelings against me were so strong that they could not bear to look at me. I wasn't surprised. How could they look me in the face after what they have done? On my part, I certainly had no intention of packing all my books and moving to another office only to move again after four months. As to the fact that seeing me reminded my colleagues of their crimes and unethical conduct, I was only sorry to realize that they will forget all about it as soon as my back is turned. I simply ignored them and carried on with my work.
Nevertheless, this was a difficult semester. My wife and daughter left XXX in the summer. They settled in with my mother in law, in my wife's childhood bedroom, sleeping on a double-bed on the floor. Unprepared, my wife was now a single mother, working full time and taking care of our child by herself. Her mother, helping as much as she can, is old and needs some attention herself. They managed bravely. But it was hard. As for me, I was missing them, living by myself, teaching classes that are not in my field, and spending time in a criminal university that continued to treat me horribly.
I was denied a standard pay raise that is given to all faculty members at the beginning of each school year for no other reason than that the chair of my department "doesn't want to give it to me." I was continuously pushed by the administration to move to another office… even one month before the semester was over. And although an agreement with the university has been reached in September, the vice rector just couldn't help himself from trying to trick and cheat me further. I was asked to place a resignation letter in trust, which would go into affect as soon as I receive everything that was promised me by the university. This included no compensations or special privileges. Merely a letter of reference, a letter of clear record, and everything that all exiting faculty receive: paid leave, airline ticket and assistance in receiving the money accrued in a trust fund throughout one's time at XXX. But the trust was broken. The faculty member who was supposed to hold on to the letter betrayed me and gave it to the administration. They, on their part, had no intention of treating me fairly even for a second. Two weeks before I was supposed to leave XXX forever, I received no cooperation on any of the things that I deserved merely by virtue of being someone who had worked in the university for two and a half years.
I realized that this was indicative of only one thing. That the vice rector who persecuted me forgot the temporary rage and embarrassment that he felt in August 2007, as I was telling the entire world of his and the university's unprofessional, unethical, criminal and disgusting behavior. A few days before I left XXX, I simply walked into his office and reminded him that I am still capable of sending letters to international newspapers and the press. I have certainly said the magic words. Within hours, checks were cut, letters were written and forms were signed. I received everything that I have asked for, and have left through XXX airport with an unimaginable sense of relief. Certainly, fairness, good management or even legality mean nothing to XXX officials. However, the prospects of public embarrassment obviously mean everything to them.
My story with XXX is not completely over. Even though I am back with my family, teaching elsewhere, and enjoying a life without hate, racism and corruption, I am still angry with XXX. My colleagues, who believe that their crimes of harassment, sexual harassment, physical intimidation, false charges, false testimony, perjury and the obstruction of justice are expunged as soon as my back is turned, are wrong. Their crimes do not disappear merely because they are not punished for them. Their crimes remain crimes, and they remain criminals.
Anonymous
August 23, 2009
Workplace Bullying ‘Epidemic’ Worse Than Sexual Harassment
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Workplace bullying could cause more harm to employees than sexual harassment, researchers say.
Belittling comments, exclusion from outings and criticism of work may seem relatively benign and get brushed off by business higher-ups as “kid’s stuff.” But the consequences to employees and even the bottom line are far from child’s play.
“Organizations don’t realize that just rude behaviors, ongoing discourteous types of behaviors, have such negative effects on employees,” said Sandy Hershcovis, assistant professor of business at the University of Manitoba, who is presenting research here today at the Seventh International Conference on Work, Stress and Health.
The meeting was co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology.
“Unless you’re in the situation you just don’t understand,” Hershcovis told LiveScience. “A lot of people say, ‘Oh it’s just a personality conflict, they don’t really mean it.’ But when you’re in the situation – and many of us have been – it’s pretty horrible.”
Bully prevalence
The Workplace Bullying Institute found in a nationally representative poll last year that 37 percent of the U.S. workforce, or 54 million employees, have been bullied now or some time during their work life.
“Anything that affects 37 percent of the public is an epidemic. But it’s a silent epidemic,” said Gary Namie, Director of the Workplace Bullying Institute in Bellingham, Wash.
Evidence from several research fields, including law, communications, business management and psychology, are revealing the hardships that targets of bullying face, and they ain’t pretty.
“Targets of severe workplace bullying are suffering from physical and psychological conditions that would just drive even the strongest of us into the ground,” said David Yamada, of Suffolk University Law School in Boston. Yamada chaired a presentation session here on workplace bullying.
Bully consequences
Hershcovis and Julian Barling of Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, reviewed 110 studies conducted over 21 years and involving the consequences of workplace aggression and sexual harassment. The research duo focused on 12 consequences, including: job satisfaction, co-worker and supervisor satisfaction, job stress, intent to quit, psychological and physical well-being, anger and anxiety levels, withdrawal from work and level of commitment.
Bullying is just one form of so-called workplace aggression, which the researchers divided into categories:
- Incivility: rudeness and discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviors.
- Bullying: persistently criticizing employees’ work; yelling; repeatedly reminding employees of mistakes; spreading gossip or lies; ignoring or excluding workers; and insulting employees’ habits, attitudes or private life.
- Interpersonal conflict: behaviors of hostility, verbal aggression and angry exchanges.
Compared with sexually harassed workers, employees on the receiving end of raging-boss behaviors and other forms of workplace aggression reported lower overall well-being, less job satisfaction and less satisfaction with their bosses; they were also more likely to quit their jobs.
Specifically the bullied employees reported more job stress, less job commitment and higher levels of anger and anxiety than did sexually harassed employees.
The upshot
The review results by Hershcovis and Barling suggest that bullies can wreak more havoc on a company than can sexual harassment.
“I want to make sure that’s not misinterpreted to mean that sexual harassment didn’t also have negative outcomes; it did,” Hershcovis said. “It’s just that bullying was worse.”
Some explanations for the findings include the fact that sexual harassment is illegal.
“There is a legal outlet to victims of sexual harassment,” Hershcovis said. “Organizations have policies in place to prevent and deal with it. That ability to voice may give employees who experience sexual harassment some kind of hope.”
In addition, since sexual aggression is illegal, the victims may be more likely to blame the perpetrator and not themselves, as can happen with workplace bullying, Hershcovis said.
Bully ban?
Beating up the bully may succeed on playgrounds, but inside the business world success is not so clear-cut. For one, often the bully is the boss or other manager, and so fighting back could cost a job.
While some countries, such as Sweden, and places like Quebec and Saskatchewan have implemented some form of anti-bullying workplace legislation, researchers here agree the United States has done little in the form of anti-bullying laws. Corporations in the United States also lack policies for preventing or dealing with workplace aggression.
“Employers ignore bullying because they can. Its legality is what gives them the license to ignore it,” Namie said during his presentation at the conference.
Following in the footsteps of sexual harassment, however, bullying could gain enough awareness for legal action.
“Where we are now with workplace bullying is where we were with sexual harassment maybe 15 years ago,” said Suzy Fox of Loyola University in Chicago, “before we had key court cases, before we had the major Anita Hill blow-up.”
In 1991, Hill, a law professor at the time, came forward with accusations that Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her. And like sexual harassment, workplace bullying needs a clear definition, Fox noted.
“Bullying is often more subtle, and may include behaviors that do not appear obvious to others,” Hershcovis said. “For instance, how does an employee report to their boss that they have been excluded from lunch? Or that they are being ignored by a coworker? The insidious nature of these behaviors makes them difficult to deal with and sanction.”
From: http://sutterjobs.wordpress.com
August 17, 2009
Mobbing as a factor in faculty work life - Composite Story of a Mobbing
...But despite your hopes, things do not improve. You are no longer chosen for committees. The department chair neglects to call on you when your hand is raised in meetings. And when you attempt to offer comments without raising your hand, you are called out of order. When you offer suggestions, your colleagues roll their eyes. If you disagree with the prevailing departmental view, even politely, you are shouted down. This explains why, during department meetings, your heart pounds, your hands tremble, and sweat runs down your back...
Read the complete story.
Read the complete story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
