Bullying of Academics in Higher Education

Carl Baybut

2012-02-07T14:59:00.002Z

The post below was just removed from the THE website.

I am interrupting the conversation to remind you that two years ago this coming Saturday Carl Baybut - an academic - took his own life. He hanged himself from a tree. Death was in part a release from the working conditions that Carl had had to endure at his university. After hundreds of postings on the thread which exposed Carl's hanging, THE blocked the thread. No explanation has ever been given as to why this action was taken. But it's not difficult to guess what the reasons were. The thread was sometimes used by other academics to share their experiences of alleged workplace bullying. Today on THE references to workplace bullying are routinely removed.  

Silence is not the solution.

Anonymous

------------

More info at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

and: http://www.facebook.com

as well as: http://www.thisishampshire.net

Cardiff Business School

2012-02-07T07:37:00.002Z

Something is going on at the Cardiff Business School but we have no details. The keywords are: workplace bullying allegations and tribunal. Please get in touch with us if you can provide more information.

Life is much larger than them

2012-02-06T17:57:00.000Z

My doctoral adviser recruited me and then dumped me after 5 years. She used my master's thesis to further her career, but knowing the quid-pro-quo situation in grad school, I turned a blind eye towards her blatant stealing of other students' (sometimes undergrads) papers and theses as well as mine.

When the time came, she had to get rid of me because I knew too much about her dirty laundry. She falsified information about me and spread malicious rumors in the dept (and I suspect also to the people in my field). I was suddenly dumped by my entire dissertation committee (later found out that the chair of the dept ordered them to do so) and was basically kicked out of school without any official reason. The school backed her up and didn't even give me a proper graduate school committee hearing. Friends and family urged me to sue the school as well as my adviser, but foolishly wanting to survive academia, I decided not to. I was lucky enough to transfer to another school and finally earned my doctoral degree, but what makes me shudder till this day is the manner in which my adviser manipulated people around her to eliminate me. I later found out that the official reason she gave to the dept chair and faculty was that her high school daughter didn't like me. And based on this, the entire school mobilized in such a manner that can only be described as monstrous bullying.

But at the end of the day, there is a thing called karma. The adviser got rejected by her own daughter later in life, one of my committee members lost their child and another ended up fat and lonely. Looking back, the way they treated me was indicative of how they would treat other people. I don't know what makes certain academics the way they are, but I'm suspecting the long years of bullying they witnessed might have registered in their heads as 'normal'. From where I stand now, it seems like academics are the most pitiful creatures. Nobody would ever know who they are except for each other, but they would literally kill to hang on to that little piece of what they perceive as 'glory'. Life is much larger than them.

Anonymous

University worker claims that she was 'bullied and harassed' into retirement

2012-02-05T20:13:00.001Z

A university computer assistant who was diagnosed with epilepsy claimed she was “bullied and harassed” by her line manager and pressured into applying for early retirement.

Jennifer Tucker, 61, appeared at a Bury St Edmunds employment tribunal yesterday where she is claiming she suffered age and disability discrimination by her employer St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. Her part-time job was helping deal with computer problems for students and faculty members.

Ms Tucker, of John Clark Court, Cambridge, said she had started taking medication for her epilepsy in January 2010, when she received an appraisal form from her superior Stephanie Clarke. It contained seemingly damning remarks about her work, which had never been raised before.

She said: “I felt frightened, vulnerable and shocked. I had no memory of many things Stephanie was referring to and rather than raise these as untruths, I accepted.”

Ms Tucker, who had a brain operation in 2002 to clip an aneurysm, said in her statement to the tribunal that she took her first degree aged 46 and a post graduate diploma at 40.

She said a series of development meetings which followed her appraisal were oppressive and more like a trial.

She said: “I was being routinely criticised and demeaned, and my views and evidence ignored.

“I believe they used my condition knowingly to intimidate me in the hope that I would leave a job I could and did do well.”

Stephanie Clarke said in a statement to the tribunal that she had difficulty managing Ms Tucker, who was unwilling to accept that there was any shortfall in her performance. She said she had not known of Ms Tucker’s epilepsy until February 2010, although Ms Tucker claimed she told her much earlier.

She said: “The claimant can be rude to me and to other members of the college.”

Jane Stevens, the Master’s secretary, said she was astounded at her line manager’s comments about Ms Tucker. She said: “She was being bullied in the workplace but management refused to believe it or preferred not to accept her well documented complaints.”

The hearing continues.

From: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk

Please sign Open Letter to NC Supreme Court re: Ginsberg v. NCSU

2012-01-28T17:57:00.003Z

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

At North Carolina State University (NCSU), shortly after Dr. Terri Ginsberg made supportive political comments at a screening of a Palestinian film in 2007, she went from being the favored candidate for a tenure-track position to being denied even an interview. Her efforts at redress were summarily rejected by NCSU and two courts. A jury should be permitted to decide whether NCSU's real reason for firing Dr. Ginsberg was its hostility to her political views, but this legal right has been denied. We urge the Supreme Court of North Carolina to review Dr. Ginsberg's case and to reverse the lower courts' decisions to dismiss it. On this basis, faculty at NCSU and elsewhere may finally exercise their legal right to academic speech on the topic of Palestine/Israel and, as such, to their full human rights as scholars, teachers, and intellectuals in the academic community.

To support this request to the NC Supreme Court, we invite academic faculty and students worldwide to sign our Open Letter as an e-petition at this URL:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/open-letter-to-nc-supreme-court-ginsberg-vs-ncsu.html

We expect to submit the Open Letter with all signatures received by February 7, though signatures received later would still be helpful.

You are also encouraged to send your own letter to:

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 2170
Raleigh, NC 27602-2170 USA

Thank you for your support,

British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) http://www.bricup.org.uk/
U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) http://www.usacbi.org
Center for Constitutional Rights http://ccrjustice.org
Jewish Voice for Peace-Westchester http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jewish-Voice-for-Peace-Westchester-Chapter/201574026528540?v=info
WESPAC Foundation http://wespac.org/
Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism (CODZ) http://www.codz.org

What is going on at the London College of Communication?

2012-01-21T16:13:00.002Z

First there is the article in the Times Higher Education about 16 courses being shut down. The closures include four bachelor's degrees, one master's programme and 11 foundation courses, six of which have "top up" options that allow students to convert them into full honours degrees with an extra year of study.

Then the University and College Union plus others called on Professor Kemp to resign.

Now we hear that academic staff are too scared to talk as some of their best colleagues have lost their jobs by daring to voice their opinion. Bullying and intimidation tactics?

Abuse of Phd students

2012-01-21T12:28:00.002Z

I was a Phd student in the US and went through a similar experience. It is like a hazing process that lasts 4-5 years. Perhaps they were just whipping us into shape, and maybe I learned from it, but at the time it did not feel good, and I'm not sure if it is the most effective learning environment. I witnessed heavy handed punishments for the slightest infractions, abusive and insulting emails and phone calls, mutinies against individuals, and a soviet era style code of silence in the face of this abuse. All faculty and administrators would stick together if a student complained, and there was no authority to report them to. Students would not even talk about the bullying because they were too scared. And there was nowhere to go because we were trapped for 4-5 years, dropping out would have meant wasting all that work it took to get this far, and you need them to graduate and sponsor your thesis, and transferring is not an option. They really do have the upper hand. And the males do seem to get it worse.

By Anonymous on PhD students suffer from bullying supervisors

Make it easier to whistleblow while you work

2012-01-20T14:21:00.002Z

Whistleblowers need more support when reporting falsified or flawed research carried out by university colleagues, leading scientists have claimed.

Following the publication by the British Medical Journal of research suggesting that one in eight scientists and doctors in the UK has witnessed some sort of research fraud, a conference on scientific misconduct heard how junior academics were sometimes bullied into silence or had their contracts terminated if they spoke out.

At the meeting in London organised by the BMJ and the Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope), Peter Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, said that "institutional corruption" had resulted in a culture that "penalised whistleblowers".

"I think the problem is that institutions refuse to deal with the problem," said Dr Wilmshurst, who was embroiled in a four-year legal battle between 2007 and 2011 when a now-defunct US medical company tried to sue him for libel after he criticised one of its products.

He cited several cases in which whistleblowers had been discredited and forced out of institutions while those guilty of falsification continued up the career ladder.

Nick Steneck, director of the research ethics and integrity programme at the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, said many complaints were dismissed too lightly by institutions.

"Some set a very high bar of what the allegation must be - most cases just get ignored," he said.

Observing a "disincentive to whistleblow", he added: "Why do we put junior people in a position where they have to blow the whistle? Most senior people are aware of [the misconduct] - they know and suspect the same things.

"We should have a better whistleblowing process for senior staff."

Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat science spokesman who lost his parliamentary seat in the 2010 general election, said that more independent oversight was needed because universities had a "vested interest" in suppressing cases of malpractice due to fears of reputational damage.

"The temptation to cover it up or not deal with it is enormous," Dr Harris said.

"But it only takes one high-profile case where a patient has suffered for the whole of UK medical research to be put under the spotlight, causing political confidence and the confidence of funders to drop."

Subtler types of research malpractice were, however, more damaging than those few outright cases of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, said Sir Iain Chalmers, coordinator of the James Lind Initiative, which calls for better, more controlled drug trials.

The tendency of journals to publish only "successful" scientific studies with a positive result "created a bias in research, which leads to avoidable suffering and death", he said. Failure to publish those studies that "went up a blind alley" meant that future researchers might undertake similar projects, wasting time, money and even lives.

Sir Iain cited the near-fatal human drug trials conducted by the German pharmaceutical firm TeGenero in 2006, in which participants were left in intensive care as a result of adverse reactions to an anti-inflammatory drug.

This could have been avoided if research on a similar drug had been more widely shared, he said.

"There is a much more insidious influence from minor examples than the 'big bang' examples that reverberate around the world," said Michael Farthing, vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex and a founding member of Cope.

However, despite concerns that some professors were "untouchable" in their departments, the idea of a US-style independent external regulator failed to find favour.

Graeme Catto, a former president of the General Medical Council, said the presence of a state regulator would allow institutions to "duck out of their responsibilities" and "would have to have a huge budget".

Professor Farthing said universities needed a more consistent approach to research misconduct, but argued that self-regulation and greater emphasis on prevention was the way forward.

Research Councils UK and Universities UK are working on a "concordat" to agree aspects of policy in this area but, two years on, nothing has been announced.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Whistle and we won't be able to come to you, or won't have to after all

2012-01-05T17:00:00.001Z

Whistleblowers contacted England's funding council 18 times in the past two years, alerting it to allegations that included pressure being put on staff to lie during an audit and the manipulation of National Student Survey results.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England looked into all of the cases, but either decided that no further action was required on its part or was unable to respond to the whistleblowers to follow up the complaints.

Half of the tip-offs were made anonymously.

The Hefce records for January 2010 to October 2011, released to Times Higher Education under the Freedom of Information Act, show that only four complaints were made using the formal Public Interest Disclosure Act mechanism, which protects whistleblowers who speak out against wrongdoing in the workplace.

A third of the 18 complaints related to the University of Gloucestershire in 2010.

The institution had a turbulent year as it sought to recover from a £31.6 million debt. Its vice-chancellor departed and it lost a damaging employment tribunal to one of its managers, Jan Merrigan.

Hefce audited Gloucestershire's student number returns in 2010.

The Gloucestershire complaints that were submitted to Hefce, all made anonymously, included a request "for each member of the finance team to be interviewed alone during the forthcoming Hefce data audit".

A summary of Hefce's response states: "Audit team advised. Request has not been shared with the institution to ensure that the audit is not influenced."

There was also a complaint about alleged "variance in student number reporting and tuition fee recovery". Hefce said that this had "already been prioritised" in the audit.

Another Gloucestershire complaint alleged that "staff [were] told to lie during [the] forthcoming audit". Hefce's response states: "Audit team aware of the factors which may have prompted staff concerns."

Paul Drake, Gloucestershire's executive director of external relations, said the university was "aware of a number of the issues raised by anonymous individuals, but has not been able to respond to them individually as the authors are unknown".

He noted that "some of the concerns expressed date from a turbulent period of the university's past", adding that a "change agenda" had brought about "a more stable institution and positive financial surpluses".

Other complaints submitted to Hefce concerned the alleged "manipulation of the NSS" at two unnamed institutions. Hefce found that no action was required.

One of the formal Public Interest Disclosures concerned Coventry University, where there was a claim that a "company connected with the university" was "alleged to be returning falsified enrolments".

But Hefce said that "no evidence...[was] found during the audit which was instigated" and described the allegation as "unsubstantiated".

A spokesman for the funding council said that judgements were made "in all cases as to what action was necessary, either by Hefce or the institutions involved".

He added that "if necessary, the matter was investigated to give us the information we needed".

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

2011...

2011-12-31T17:51:00.006Z

• Univ of Texas hires abusive boss sued for creating hostile work environment

• Bullying at Stirling University

• Bullied Macquarie University staff demand an apology

• Legal costs of university in St Andrews v Quigley

• Newcastle uni (Australia) bully claims: Academic says harassment led to illness

• What Killed Kevin Morrissey?

• Bullying at work: the impact of shame among university and college lecturers

• How to get rid of good professors

• University of Salford - Suspension of Staff

• Kingston University: £635,165 on six employment tribunals

• Fresh twist in Fredrics v Scott case

• Legal and other costs - the University of Leicester and others

• Who is the REAL Prof. Hassan Abdalla?

• Dr. Claudius D’Silva

76% white and male? That's today's UK professoriate

2011-12-18T18:24:00.002Z

Figures showing that 76 per cent of UK professors are white men should prompt the sector to address its "inequalities", according to the head of higher education's equality body.

This year's Equality in Higher Education: Statistical Report 2011, from the Equality Challenge Unit, was the first to look at professors in terms of the "interplay of multiple identities", including both race and gender.

The report finds that in 2009-10, only 0.9 per cent of UK staff in professorial roles were black or minority ethnic (BME) women. But 3.4 per cent of staff in non-professorial roles were BME women. And 76.1 per cent of UK national staff in professorial roles were white males. The ECU said it did not have figures on the proportion of white males among all higher education staff.

The mean average salary of female staff was £31,116 compared with £39,021 for male staff, an overall pay gap of 20.3 per cent, the report notes.

David Ruebain, chief executive of the ECU, said: "The statistics do highlight a stark gap in representation at professorial level. We hope they will alert the sector to the need to act to address these inequalities."

He added that the "success of the Athena Swan programme", which aims to improve the careers of women working in science, engineering and technology departments, "has shown that change is needed at the systemic level to tackle these imbalances".

The ECU is currently running pilot programmes on race and gender with a number of universities, seeking to address cultural problems "such as barriers to professorial status and management positions", Mr Ruebain said.

Overall, 53.8 per cent of higher education staff were women. Yet at professorial level, just 19.1 per cent of staff were women.

An ECU spokeswoman explained that a provision in the Equality Act requiring employers to publish figures on their pay gaps has not been enacted by the government and noted that it "wouldn't apply" to institutions of higher education even if it were put in place. Proposals have been formed in Scotland.

The strongest equality duties are in Wales, the spokeswoman said, where universities must collect data on pay differences for all "protected characteristics" including race and gender and must "have due regard" to the need for equality objectives.

The ECU findings came as the National Union of Students published a separate report on disability hate incidents among higher and further education students across the UK. The report found that 8 per cent of disabled respondents "said that they had experienced at least one hate incident while studying at their current institution, which they believed was motivated by prejudice against their disability".

No Place for Hate recommends that universities "should consider setting a specific objective on tackling hate crime as part of their public sector equality duty"; "raise awareness of what constitutes a hate incident and the negative impact of this behaviour on the victim and others"; and establish strong support networks for disabled students.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

University of Iowa settles few bullying cases

2011-12-06T07:18:00.001Z

IOWA CITY, Iowa—
Even though workplace bullying has been identified as a major concern in recent years, University of Iowa officials responsible for informally resolving those disputes are successful in only one in every eight cases, according to data that sheds light on a campus office often shrouded in secrecy.

The Office of the Ombudsperson resolved 8 of 63 bullying complaints brought to its attention by students, faculty and staff between January 2010 and Oct. 5, 2011 and improved the situation in two others, according to data released to an Iowa City lawyer and shared with The Associated Press. The office failed to resolve 13 complaints, and the outcome was listed as "unknown," "unclear" or blank in most of the rest, according to the data, which the university released only after being threatened with a lawsuit.

The data highlights an office whose operations have largely been done in secret since its creation in 1985 and appears to undercut its claims that most employees are satisfied with the service they receive. The office is supposed to serve as "a confidential, neutral and independent dispute resolution service" for the school's 15,000 faculty and staff, according to the university operations manual, but has no authority to order changes if voluntary agreements can't be reached.

Bullying among students has become a major issue in schools following several tragedies involving gay teens, but the issue also is prevalent among adults in the workplace. More than one-third of U.S. workers say they have experienced bullying, the repeated mistreatment by bosses and co-workers that includes verbal abuse, threatening conduct and intimidation, according to a 2010 survey commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute, a group dedicated to combating the issue.

Staff Ombudsperson Cynthia Joyce declined comment on the data and referred questions to university spokesman Tom Moore. In response to written questions, he called bullying "one of the most intractable problems the office handles."

"There are many reasons why a case may not be resolved at the time of the office's last contact with a visitor with concerns about this problem," Moore wrote. "In particular, in the majority of workplace bullying cases, the visitor does not want any action taken by the office."

Critics say the data shows the office favors the university administration and does not do enough to help workers who are mistreated.

"The ombuds office at UI has a long and successful history of resolving conflicts. However, the current atmosphere there is toxic to bullying victims," said attorney Andrew Hosmanek, who has studied bullying in the workplace and shared the data with AP in hopes of changing what he considers an ineffective office. "Bullying victims should be aware that, according to this data, bringing a case directly to the ombuds office is very unlikely to end in a positive result."

Under the current set-up, he said employees may need to pursue a formal complaint, file a lawsuit or consult with a counselor or psychologist to change what he called a "bully culture that has arisen in parts of the UI."

In addition to the low rate of resolution, the data shows:

-- The office made a "low" effort in more than two-thirds of the cases. Moore said that may be because the office simply listened to concerns and helped workers decide on a course of action or that visitors decided to resolve their concerns independently by quitting or transferring jobs, for instance. In complex cases, the office may expend low effort if it is only one of several university offices working the problem, he added.

-- The office made a "high" effort in a single case, which ended by arranging a meeting with a department executive officer.

-- At least five of the complaints later went through a formal legal process, including a lawsuit, an appeal or a grievance.

-- The office redacted the details of each complaint except one: "Significant other of UI grad student is being mobbed at work." That complaint received a low effort by the office and the outcome was unknown.

Hosmanek filed a public records request seeking details on the office's handling of bullying complaints in October after the office's annual report claimed that 81 percent of its visitors left satisfied with the service they received. The report based that claim on a voluntary survey returned by 41 percent of the roughly 500 visitors to the office last year.

The report said complaints of disrespectful behavior, including bullying, have sharply increased in recent years and now involve one-quarter of the office's cases. Against that backdrop, Hosmanek said he wanted to see the data to gauge the office's effectiveness.

Moore claimed many visitors leave satisfied even if the office doesn't resolve their complaints.

University records custodian Steve Parrott at first rejected Hosmanek's data request, arguing the office's promise of confidentiality to those who complain was crucial to its operations. "The office performs no government function, maintains no official documents, and provides mediation services. Its records are confidential and privileged and therefore not subject to open records requests," Parrott wrote.

Hosmanek protested the response, arguing the office was subject to the public records law, served a public function, and did maintain records. Parrott acknowledged the office had records, but claimed they were exempt from disclosure because they were "confidential personnel records" under Iowa law.

After Hosmanek said he did not want names of employees or victims, only data, and threatened to seek legal remedies for an open records violation, Parrott told him there were 63 bullying complaints for that time period. The school eventually released heavily-redacted records from the office's database showing the effort expended in each case, the outcome and whether the dispute later went to a formal grievance or legal process.

"Although the University of Iowa Office of the Ombudsperson position remains that their records are confidential and not subject to disclosure," he wrote, "the Office was willing to share the enclosed documents to bring this matter to a close."

From: http://www.chicagotribune.com

Is a whiter-than-white academy blind to the racial inequality in its midst?

2011-12-05T08:53:00.002Z

Universities are "oblivious" to racial inequalities and are failing to act on problems because they "see themselves as liberal and believe existing policies ensure fairness", it has been argued.

Andrew Pilkington, professor of sociology at the University of Northampton, stated in a lecture, "Institutional Racism in the Academy", that the "sheer whiteness" of universities often means that "they ignore adverse outcomes and don't see combating racial/ethnic inequalities as a priority".

When the Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry was published in 1999, it famously spoke of a police investigation marred by "institutional racism". Jack Straw, the home secretary at the time, broadened the issue, suggesting that "any long-established, white-dominated organisation is liable to have procedures, practices and a culture that tend to...disadvantage non-white people".

In an attempt to remedy these problems, the government introduced colour-blind widening-participation strategies for students and equal-opportunity policies for university staff. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 identified a number of specific duties.

Professor Pilkington drew on research he had carried out for his recent book, Institutional Racism in the Academy: A Case Study, to assess how far universities have risen to the challenge.

The research compares an anonymous "Midshire" police force and a post-1992 university based in the same county. Although there was less racism in the university's "occupational culture", as reported by its black and minority ethnic (BME) employees, it shared with the police force "a taken-for-granted white norm" and was dominated by a white senior management.

The university's employment practices, lack of positive action and the low priority given to race equality also scored badly.

Although universities had undoubtedly addressed equality issues, if only in response to external pressures, Professor Pilkington suggested that "action was particularly evident in the period 2002-03", and had probably achieved more in relation to gender than ethnicity. Subsequent government agendas on themes such as "community cohesion" might also have shifted the spotlight from race.

There remained a great deal to be done and far fewer incentives for universities to devote time and energy to the area, he argued. In widening-participation programmes, "funding letters never mention race or ethnicity but invariably refer to social class or a proxy measure of it", he said, while "performance indicators are wholly class-based".

Pre-entry and access initiatives are given priority over equally vital "interventions once students have entered higher education", he added. And the specific needs of BME learners could drop off the agenda when incorporated into generic widening-participation policies.

Professor Pilkington concluded that "BME academic staff continue to experience significant disadvantage...10 years after the publication of the Macpherson report", while BME students continue to be less likely to be awarded good degrees.

Although adept at finding fault elsewhere, universities "remain oblivious of inequalities in our midst and the need to ensure that our own policies and procedures are evidence-based", he said.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

A bullying culture at Sydney Uni?

2011-11-29T11:13:00.001Z

A bullying culture at Sydney Uni? An understandably anonymous tipster claims bullying of staff and students at the University of Sydney is now so rampant that staff openly seek to garner the support of students in their fight against an "utterly stubborn" management.

They write: "Further, students have been driven to the point of suicide or even attempted suicide at the hands of bullying university staff and the stock university response is to engage its hired legal guns (the Office of General Counsel) to shut the complainants down. Further still, the university's perpetual cash cow, the Business School, is awash with bullying of Chinese students, first through the over-representation of such students in academic dishonesty matters, and again the discriminatory manner in which those students are dealt with when they make special consideration applications due to illness or misadventure. Chinese students are often publicly yelled at by lecturers in the Business School: 'You are in Australia now, do as we do!'"

Are things really that bad? We'd love to hear from more staff and faculty on life on campus. Drop us a line or comment anonymously. boss@crikey.com.au http://www.crikey.com.au/tipoff/

By Anonymous

Will Stirling University ever learn...

2011-11-29T11:10:00.001Z

Stirling University doesn't like bad publicity. However that hasn't stopped them from using their corrupt practices to destroy people's lives. Instead, they try to hide their devious ways from the public gaze. Their lawyer obsessively raises the matter of my blog with judges because it is causing the university and several of its employees considerable embarrassment.

Since 2009, Wikipedia has displayed the story of David Donaldson, who in 2007 was a senior researcher at Stirling University. He removed a colleague's name from her research grant application, and replaced it with his own, attempting to make it look like it was his work. His act of piracy, which required swapping names eleven times, was discovered and he eventually wrote a letter of apology to his colleague, Dr. Rhodes. However, he later unfairly forced her out of her job at the university. She won her unfair dismissal claim at Glasgow Employment Tribunal in February 2009. Stirling University awarded Donaldson a Professorship shortly after he admitted to stealing Dr. Rhodes' work.

A number of attempts have been made to remove the article from Wikipedia. It is bound to be a source of embarrassment to the University. In the talk section for Wikipedia's Stirling University page, a discussion refers to a legal representative for the university asking for the Donaldson article to be removed. The request was rejected.

Times Higher Education carries a more detailed account of what happened.

Of course you must be wondering how an academic gets pushed out of a University by another academic. Dr. Rhodes was subjected to the same sham grievance procedure as I was. HR Director, Martin McCrindle conducted an investigation into her grievance and concluded there was no case to answer. He was backed by Principal, Christine Hallett. When Dr Rhodes told Martin McCrindle that she would prove what happened in court, McCrindle replied saying that she had 'no basis' to make a claim to the tribunal. As soon as she submitted her complaints to the tribunal, which she did as she had no other way of addressing what happened, they declared they wouldn't contest her claims! She won the case before it even got to court!

Their lawyer agreed with the judge when he said that not resisting her claims amounted to agreeing with them. Her claims included the fact that Donaldson's theft of her research had led to her dismissal (the theft for which she had a letter of apology) and a sham grievance procedure to investigate what happened when she found herself forced out. The university changed their reason for dismissing Dr. Rhodes three times. Each time she informed them that the reason was not valid in her case, so they just invented another false reason each time.

Similarly, in my own case, at my appeal hearing against dismissal I advised Martin McCrindle that my dismissal would prove embarrassing to the university and to several of its employees. He replied saying that that was only my opinion. Well, of course it was only my opinion, but I think it was a correct opinion. If my blog isn't causing anyone any embarrassment, then why is the university paying their lawyer to keep going on about it like a broken record? And if they weren't embarrassed by their sham grievance procedure, why would they risk a jail sentence by committing fraud in an attempt to cover it up, Martin?

Will Stirling University ever learn that they can't treat people like this?

From: http://bullyingatstirlinguniversity.blogspot.com

'Prima donna' professors lambasted for failure to mentor

2011-11-17T07:37:00.002Z

A lack of leadership and the failure to support and mentor junior colleagues have been highlighted in a major study of the professoriate.

Of the 1,200 academic staff from lower grades who responded to a survey commissioned by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, more than half (53 per cent) said they did not receive sufficient help or advice from professorial staff.

Only about one in seven (14 per cent) said they did receive enough support.

Asked if they had received excellent leadership or mentoring from professors in their university, 26 per cent said "never" and 36 per cent "occasionally". This compares with 9 and 19 per cent who responded "very often" and "quite often", respectively.

The study was led by Linda Evans, a reader in education at the University of Leeds, who revealed the provisional findings to Times Higher Education.

Working with colleagues at Oxford Brookes University, she collated hundreds of comments about professors from the point of view of "the led", with respondents from across 94 institutions complaining that many professors were remote, unhelpful, haughty, self-aggrandising and poor communicators.

One disgruntled staff member described professors as "prima donnas, bullies and not team players", while another said the "notion of 'professorial leadership' struck a slightly odd note" because he viewed them as "only looking after their own interests".

Another characterised them as "personal glory seekers", while yet another inveighed against "backstabbing assholes who take the credit for other people's work".

Asked about the accessibility of professors to more junior academics seeking advice, one respondent said: "Are you kidding?" Another said they were generally "too 'busy' with 'important stuff' to bother with mentoring".

Dr Evans, whose study is titled "Leading professors: examining the perspectives of 'the led' in relation to professorial leadership", said she was struck by the volume of criticism. "The comments were predominantly negative," she said.

"There were also positive comments, however, so it's certainly not a case of 'professor bashing'. But some academic leaders and management would be quite surprised at how negatively they are viewed."

A lack of clarity over the professorial role helped to create much dissatisfaction, added Dr Evans, with some professors asked to fulfil too many roles.

"It was remarked that many professors are appointed solely on the basis of research and some are almost autistic," she said.

"So why should we expect them to have leadership skills? That was not the criterion on which they were appointed.

"There must be some system of bringing on the next generation of academics, but whether it is done through professors or the wider university is an important question.

"If we are not careful we will be pulling professors in too many directions. They are not Superman - we can't push them into roles they do not want or cannot do."

Defining a professor's remit was also difficult when the university sector contained so many different institutions, she added.

About 87 per cent of respondents said a professor should maintain a publication record above non-professorial staff, while 82 per cent said excellence in teaching should be a requirement.

About 77 per cent said professors should generate a steady stream of research funding, while 52 per cent believed they should have a lighter teaching load than other staff.

However, the comments received in the survey highlight many common gripes.

"I have no idea what professors in my department/college are supposed to be doing," said one academic, adding that "from the looks of things, neither do they".

Another said: "Many of our professors were 'bought' in for the last [research assessment exercise] and have done nothing to contribute to an improved research culture. Some think teaching is beneath them."

Professors were also described as "pointless - they have little or no role outside their own direct concerns" and are "only interested in getting the star on other people's papers and raising research funds with other people's ideas".

"'Professorial' and 'leadership' are two words that in general do not fit together in universities from my experience," concluded another.

"Once promoted to that position, the majority are slowly heading to retirement. Many of them are unknown to colleagues even in their own corridor."

The year-long study will now seek to gain views from professors themselves, with the findings discussed in seminars hosted by the Society for Research into Higher Education.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

The academic as truth-teller

2011-11-07T16:42:00.002Z

The logic of the bureacratisation of academia, forcing academics to 'publish or perish' and cut corners when it comes to teaching, has more to do with the marketisation of universities than learning and scholarship.

Sadly, just as the principle of free higher education is under assault as never before, so too is the idea of the academic as a free-thinking intellectual, particularly in the UK. In the first place, rather than being allowed to pursue ideas for their own sake, increasingly British academics are pressured into meeting university and departmental demands for the five- or six-yearly Research Assessment Exercise (lately renamed the Research Excellence Framework). Introduced in 1985/6 as a means of evaluating the ‘quality’ of academic research across the various disciplines, the RAE requires university departments to submit four publications for each full-time member of staff selected for inclusion. Departments are then ranked according to their research outputs, research environment and indicators of esteem by a panel of subject specialists (there were 67 panels for the 2008 RAE). And it is these rankings that determine the allocation of quality weighted research funding each university receives from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), a non-departmental public body currently overseen by the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. But the pressure to perform well in the RAE has resulted in academics being subject to ever-increasing layers of micromanagement and performance indicators whose logic are more corporate than they are academic. In actual fact, the roots for this bureaucratisation of scholarship can be traced back to the elite US Ivy League business schools and management consultancy firms such as Bain & Company, the Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey.

The upshot of this academic drift is that the ‘publish or perish’ imperative is now endemic within academe. And not just any old publication will do. The sheer volume of submissions to the RAE (over 200,000 outputs were submitted as part of the 2008 RAE) makes it virtually impossible for panel members to read through each and every article, which invariably means that common assumptions are made about the ‘quality’ of articles published in top peer-reviewed journals vis-à-vis those published elsewhere. But what this supposition overlooks is all the very good quality research published by those academics who refuse to play the RAE ‘game’. Indeed, it has been argued that only publishing in the ‘top’ journals forces academics to fashion their research around what those journals want, which can result in an unwillingness to push beyond the narrow confines of specialist fields of study and, ultimately, intellectual inertia[11].

Moreover, with sails trimmed tight, increasingly academics are forced to cut corners if they are to meet the next publishing deadline, particularly newly qualified academics who are expected to combine research with heavy teaching loads and endless administrative duties (a problem whose sheer scale and mind-numbingly tedious and pointless nature appears to be exclusively British). ‘What ever you do, don’t over-prepare’: ‘You only need to be one step ahead’: ‘Just cover the basics, ignore the rest’. These are just some of the suggested coping strategies one encounters when starting a new lecturing post. So much for the idea that the university is a place where teaching is carried out in an atmosphere of research, and vice versa. And this says nothing of the way in which the instrumentalisation of research has undermined collegiality by atomising any sense of a collective academic community[12]. It is no wonder that many junior academics, though grateful to finally have got their feet under the desk, find the early years of their careers strangely alienating and dispiriting, not quite knowing where to begin, what to prioritise or who to turn to[13].

Other ‘McKinseyian’ performance indicators include the unyielding pressures academics now face to secure external sources of funding (otherwise known as ‘grant-capture’), which often involves the preparation of long and tedious application forms for ever decreasing amounts of money and worsening odds of success. To compound matters, most academic funding bodies have rolled out award schemes that encourage collaborative research with a non-academic partner, which necessarily means a further narrowing of research aims and objectives. That many present-day universities so prize ‘cultural partnerships’, ‘corporate sponsorship’ or ‘third-stream funding’ in an effort to offset the shortfall in government funding muddies the waters yet further insofar as one sees increasing numbers of academics posturing as ‘consultants’ in the belief that research which has an economic or technocratic function is the surest way to gain promotion. And should the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework go ahead with the proposed 25 per cent weighting for so-called ‘impact’ (the premise being that academics and university departments will need to demonstrate how their research has impacted on and benefited the wider economy and society) the situation will almost certainly become even worse. In terms of the humanities specifically, the effect would be, as recently noted by Stefan Collini, ‘potentially disastrous’, not least because the implication is that academics will ‘be judged and rewarded as salesmen’ and thus forced into ‘hustling’ and ‘hawking’ their intellectual wares[14].

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: as market-driven research and corporate partnerships are accorded even more importance in higher education due to ever decreasing amounts of public funding, it is increasingly likely that we will see yet more universities adopting a subordinate relationship with possibly corrupt and manipulative power elites. This is all the more reason for academics to adopt the position of truth-teller and to question anything and everything that facilitates the growing marketisation of higher education or undermines academic freedom. However, defending the university requires much more than academics representing truth through democratic criticism and moral indignation. Also needed is a much broader social movement comprising all UK university workers, students, other public sector employees and the trade unions. Only then might politicians start to rethink their present assault on higher education, indeed, on the welfare state at large.

In the meantime, it would seem that the onerous responsibility of speaking truth to power has fallen on the student movement. It is they who have taken the upper hand and who are asking difficult questions. And, who knows, if student occupations spread up and down the country, perhaps we will see the uncovering, just as Warwick’s students did, of yet more evidence of ethical wrongdoing. If such a situation were to occur, however, universities will of course accuse students of irresponsible behaviour and do everything in their power to bring them to heel. In fact, there are already disturbing signs that the state itself may yet ‘police’ matters (in and through its many ideological apparatuses) should student dissent intensify. There is no question that those students singled out for ‘public misconduct’ in the months ahead risk all kinds of draconian sanctions, indeed, they run the risk of jeopardising their future careers. And all because they have the conviction to defend the idea of the university as a vital social and public institution. One only hopes that academics will express equal commitment and courage, not just in their writings, but in their actions too.

Notes

[11] See Simon Head, ‘The grim threat to British universities’, New York Review of Books, 13 January 2011.
[12] See Ronald Barnett, Beyond All Reason: living ideology in the university (Buckingham: Open University Press, in association with the Society for Research into Higher Education, 2003), pp. 108-10.
[13] For a full analysis of the changing academic experience in the UK higher education sector (based on survey evidence), see Malcolm Tight, The Development of Higher Education in the United Kingdom since 1945 (Berkshire: Open University Press, 2009), pp. 271-97.
[14] Stefan Collini, ‘Impact on humanities’, Times Literary Supplement, 13 November 2009, pp. 18-19.

From: http://www.counterfire.org/

The YouTube video they do not want you to watch...

2011-10-26T14:26:00.007Z

The management of the University of Newcastle in Australia somehow managed to ban this YouTube video clip. According to http://stop-b-uon.blogspot.com/, this clip can't be accessed in Australia! In addition, the Federal Police has been invited to investigate.

There are all kinds of questions to ask, some relatively obvious: What happened to freedom of speech? What scares the management of the University of Newcastle in Australia?

Have a look at the video clip at: http://youtu.be/GFtmRmtvhAQ

Also read: Newcastle uni bully claims: Academic says harassment led to illness,

and: Uni staff complain about bullying

Organisations contribute to workplace bullying

2011-10-24T21:00:00.000Z

Poor management and avoiding responsibility may contribute to workplace bullying, leaving employees feeling sadness, shame and pain.

According to research by University of Waikato PhD student Alison Thirlwall, who graduates this week, bullying is usually the by-product of an already troubled workplace and by avoiding responsibility, workplaces contribute to the problem.

Her interest in workplace bullying was sparked when she worked at a south island polytechnic and she found a gap in literature while researching an abusive situation amongst the workforce.

To conduct her research, Thirlwall collected survey data and interviewed workers from 10 New Zealand polytechnics and institutes of technology.

“My enquiry into workplace bullying aims to show how bullying starts, how it’s experienced and managed by targets and the way it ends.”

She found that “Bullying is a process that exhibits a common pattern and is much more than simply negative or inappropriate behaviour. In its most extreme form, targets can be subjected to ostracism and campaigns of verbal and behavioural abuse.”

“Common types of negative behaviour reported in the interviews included shouting, rudeness, and unfairness but the impact of these behaviours was magnified by the overall process, sometimes leading to targets raising grievances, or in extreme cases, wanting to assault their abusers.”

Thirlwall says being in a low-power position does not necessarily make someone more likely to be bullied and men and women reported similar levels of bullying.

“Targets of bullying construct their experience as a complex process that typically starts and ends with a change in an already troubled workplace. The most frequent emotions to emerge are linked to sadness, shame and pain.”

Bullying was described metaphorically in terms of fights, madness, and isolation and perpetrators were described as duplicitous, dangerous animals, and explosive.

“Consequently, targets perceived their job satisfaction as negatively affected. Interestingly, their job performance was unaffected. Enjoyment of, or a commitment to, the job itself appeared to mitigate the effects of bullying on performance but the problems remained.”

One thing that stood out in Thirlwall’s research was how emphatic targets of bullying were about the difficulties they encountered while seeking support from management.

“Organisations, including unions, typically sequestered, or set aside, their responsibility for managing bullying; consequently they contributed to its continuation,” says Thirlwall.

Earlier this year Thirlwall received an outstanding doctoral student award and is one of 500 University of Waikato students who graduate this week at ceremonies held on October 19-20.

From: http://www.scoop.co.nz

The madness of kings

2011-10-15T23:06:00.003Z

In the course of a career lasting 30 years, I have worked for, or observed closely, the activities of six vice-chancellors. All began sensibly, but, with one exception, the longer they remained in power, the odder they grew - and some became positively dangerous.

First the exception. One admirable vice-chancellor in a Russell Group university was so determined not to lose touch with the life of the university that he insisted, uniquely in my experience, on taking responsibility for a first-year module. It happened that this module was delivered in the department that I led. Although it was never a secret, the students were unaware that the nice professor who taught them was, in fact, the vice-chancellor (I don't think many students know who their vice-chancellor is). He took on a full teaching load, set and marked exams, and attended assessment and award boards. This allowed him to speak with authority about how the university systems worked, which made life interesting for several central departments. He was certainly the best vice-chancellor I have met.

I later moved to a second Russell Group institution, arriving just as its vice-chancellor had been reappointed for a second term. I was told that he been quite sensible in his first five years, but in my time the eccentricity index rose sharply. Shortly after his reappointment, a university car (with flag on the bonnet) was procured, along with a chauffeur who drove the vice-chancellor to and from his house and then remained on standby all day "in case he was needed".

Then there arrived an all-staff email saying that the practice of using the vice-chancellor's name was to cease - henceforth we were to address him at all times as "vice-chancellor". The view among the senior team was that the sensation of almost unrestricted power had gone to the vice-chancellor's head. Eventually the council did persuade him to retire, but it was not easy, and the damage he did to that university took years to undo.

The vice-chancellor for whom I have worked most recently confirms my thesis. Although a churchgoer, he lacked compassion. He saw nothing wrong with denying a colleague whose wife was undergoing chemotherapy leave to drive her to hospital.

Once again, the eccentric behaviour became more pronounced with years spent in the post. This time, it took the form of an intolerance of dissent. The vice-chancellor believed that he was always right. Anyone who held a different opinion, let alone argued, had to be wrong and had no place in his university. Some went voluntarily, some did not. In my time, we lost colleagues ranging from deans to secretaries as a consequence of the vice-chancellor's tantrums.

The role of a university council is, we are told, to act as a critical friend to the university - but that requires the members of council to be capable of independent thought. When I was appointed, the council contained members who pre-dated the vice-chancellor's arrival. They provided some moderation. However, this vice-chancellor has now been in the post so long that he has had a hand in appointing every member of council, including the chair. I learned how controlling an influence this was from an acquaintance who had applied to join the university. Apparently, the initial application produces an invitation to meet the vice-chancellor "for an informal chat", after which the applicant is told whether or not "the university would welcome a full application". Through this mechanism, the council has been populated with individuals unlikely to criticise the regime.

The vice-chancellor's dislike of dissent has led to successive reductions in the size of the senior team. First deans were excluded, then senior support staff - and finally pro vice-chancellors. The university is now run by an executive consisting of two people. There are no checks, no debates and no cabinet discussions. There is, however, widespread disquiet.

The result - Edicts are issued without consultation, and the atmosphere in Senate House has become positively feudal. Machiavelli's "Prince" has come to life.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that nobody should be allowed to be a vice-chancellor for too long. In the commercial world, chief executive officers are kept in check by shareholders and customers. Such restraints are absent in a university. The constant deference, insulation from the real world and almost unchecked power weakens most people's grasp on reality, and after a time dangerously autocratic traits may appear.

Perhaps the most important function of a council is to be alert for this and indicate when it is time for the CEO to leave.

Postscript: The author is a senior academic who is leaving the sector for a job in the commercial world.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

-----------------

We note that the above does not only occur with VCs. It is also widespread with other 'lesser' senior managers such as deans. Prof. Hassan are you reading? '...it took the form of an intolerance of dissent. The vice-chancellor believed that he was always right. Anyone who held a different opinion, let alone argued, had to be wrong and had no place in his university. Some went voluntarily, some did not...' and '...Although a churchgoer, he lacked compassion...' Yes, in the first line of prayer!

Academic alleges bullying in $1m suit against film and TV school

2011-10-13T20:03:00.003Z

The head of the Australian Film, TV and Radio School, Sandra Levy, has been accused of bullying, undermining and micromanaging staff by a former executive who is suing for more than $1 million.

Professor Katherine Blashki has launched legal action against the school and Ms Levy, its chief executive, claiming she was forced to work outside normal hours when she was supposed to care for her intellectually disabled daughter.

The school and Ms Levy deny all the claims and will be defending the case.

In a statement of claim filed in the Federal Court, Professor Blashki said Ms Levy would say words to the effect of ''you are stupid'' and ''I don't know why I have you here'', to her at least once a day.

She alleges that in June 2010 Ms Levy leaked to the media the email advising of her resignation, wrongly sent her on ''gardening leave'' and wiped her computer files.

Professor Blashki, a leading academic in interactive digital media, said she agreed to resign from her tenure at Deakin University and move her daughter Phillipa, 24, from Melbourne to Sydney to take up the position of director of education and research at the school.

She says the school knew about her daughter's disability and agreed to provide a flexible working environment in which she could drop off and pick up Phillipa from day programs and other appointments and care for her at other times.

Professor Blashki said Ms Levy knew she could not get to the school's Moore Park headquarters until 9.30am yet she scheduled executive meetings at 9am and would often make decisions regarding her area of responsibility in the first half-hour.

She also claims despite promises made to her before she took up the role in early 2008 she was denied time and resources for academic research, was not allowed to travel overseas for conferences and had no control over her division's budget.

She says Ms Levy bullied her by calling her a liar and denying she had requested or approved work and micromanaged her by standing in the car park and noting the time she left work.

Ms Levy is a long-time film and television producer and former executive at the ABC and Nine Network. Appointed in 2007, she was responsible for overhauling the school's curriculum. Professor Blashki was hired to develop ''new media'' programs such as gaming.

The school is a federal government statutory body with alumni including leading directors such as Phillip Noyce, Gillian Armstrong, Jane Campion and Cate Shortland, as well as Oscar-winning cinematographers Andrew Lesnie and Dion Beebe.

Professor Blashki is seeking damages for discrimination, misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract.

The school and Ms Levy are yet to file a defence. In a statement, the governing council said it had ''total confidence … for the staff and management of the school in this matter''.

The matter returns to court on February 7 next year.

From: http://www.smh.com.au/

Who is the REAL Prof. Hassan Abdalla?

2011-10-12T19:18:00.005Z

University of Iowa Ombudsperson worried about disrespectful behavior on campus

2011-10-11T15:45:00.002Z

Disrespectful behavior on campus and lack of experience with conflict management are among the continued, long-term concerns of the University of Iowa Office of the Ombudsperson, which hears from hundreds of faculty, staff and students annually.

And while total visits to the UI Office of the Ombudsperson declined in 2010-11, the first decline in five years, Ombudsperson Cynthia Joyce said she is more concerned about the types of complaints the office sees and how those are changing or continuing over the years.

“We do not see higher numbers as bad news,” she said. “What we worry about are the reasons people come to see us, and are we seeing big changes there.”

Those specific patterns tell officials more about what’s happening on campus, Joyce said in presenting the 2010-11 Ombudsperson annual report to the UI Faculty Council Tuesday.

The office saw 501 total visits or contacts during 2010-11, a decrease of 3 percent from the year prior. Of those visitors, 45 percent were staff, 32 percent were students and 18 percent were faculty members. When comparing the number of visitors to the numbers in the campus population in each group shows that 4 percent of UI faculty, 1.7 percent of staff and less than 1 percent of students visited or consulted with the Office of the Ombudsperson last year.

“Faculty really are the heavier users of our office,” Joyce said. “Undergraduates are by far the hardest group to reach.”

Officials continue to have concerns about reports of disrespectful behavior on campus, avoidance of conflict and lack of experience in conflict management, problems with accurate performance evaluations, concern about mental health issues on campus and concern about vulnerable populations, Joyce said.

Of the 501 visits last year, 25 percent were concerns about disrespectful behavior, which includes bullying and workplace bullying. That’s an increase from 22 percent the prior year and 17 percent in 2008-09.

The largest area of concern and complaint for all visitor groups to the office stems from a supervisory relationship, such as with a boss or dean — or a faculty member, in the case of students.

The UI Office of the Ombudsperson is a resource for all UI faculty, staff and students with problems or concerns. The office staff provides informal conflict resolution services and advocate for fair treatment and processes.

From: http://thegazette.com

Repeatedly bullied...

2011-10-08T15:19:00.003Z

I was repeatedly bullied by the Vice-President of Hisuping Institute of Technology when I was employed there. After the semester started in September 2002, I soon found that massive fraud was taking place in the form of excessive grade inflation for so-called students with whom there was an open tacit understanding that paying one’s tuition and merely attending classes, or at least sufficiently being present for the roll call, would mean eventually getting a degree.

Personally, I refused to undertake teaching work without honesty and integrity, and therefore failed students according to an accurate appraisal of their performances while they consistently refused to cooperate. The president at that time informed the English department faculty members that regardless of our frustration with the students unwillingness to do what they were supposed to do – study and show at least some nominal respect for classroom etiquette – we must not fail more than 15% of any class.

The Vice-President went further, demanding of me personally on several occasions that I do not fail more than 5% of a class, and impose grades on a bell curve, which he claimed was done at reputable universities, while not mentioning that would constitute fraud. When I said I would not be a party to such fraud, I was told that I would do as I’m told if I wanted “to keep working there.”

I refused to compromise my integrity after being repeatedly called to go to his office where the same demand was repeated and was continuously criticized for allegedly being unable to teach. I was accused of being at fault for the very high failure rates and was even threatened with my work permit being cancelled, which would mean that I would be fired and have to leave the country at short notice, if I didn’t agree to artificially inflate grades to such a high extent that they would be rendered totally meaningless while the so-called students did nothing to earn even passing grades. I was also repeatedly told to resign and publicly ridiculed in department meetings.

After I refused to comply after being repeatedly threatened and forced to listen to baseless false accusations, I was removed from all of the evening classes at short notice and told my contract would not be renewed for the following year, i.e. forced to resign.

“First they abuse you, and then they ridicule you, and then you win.” Mahatma Ghandi

----------

There had been a series of harassing measures taken against me by the present department chair of the AE department at Overseas Chinese University in Taichung, Taiwan.

In April 2010, I was told I must write a self-deprecating letter about how I “plan to improve myself" regardless of my other achievements, including publishing three books and receiving the national research grant for four years. Apparently, turning in teacher training documentation for the school year before he became department chair was more important, and for some reason he made it his business to harass me about this matter, and publicise it among colleagues.

On 19 April 2010, I was mobbed in the teacher training evaluation committee where I was told to speak in my defense before the colleagues there about how I need to “improve myself,” as if this were a campus prosecutor’s court, before being told to leave the room after making my statement. I was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to having to write another letter of self-criticism, and became a journal editor, and find this opportunity on my own, regardless of the fact that no one on this committee but me is a journal editor, and the only member of this committee who has published original research.

On 10 June 2010, the same department chair threatened me with my contract not being renewed if I did not turn in the teacher training documentation for that school year.

Beware of a department chair harassing you for an alleged shortcoming on your annual evaluation, and intending to humiliate you in public because of it and sharing this with your colleagues, and then using the same pretext to threatening you with dismissal solely on the grounds of an alleged minor shortcoming.

Andrew Szanajda

8th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment

2011-10-01T20:11:00.001Z

'Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Towards future Challenges'

The topics on the conference are:

Interventions
Health effects and rehabilitation
Risk factors
The phenomenon of bullying
Identifying and measuring bullying
Bullying and the law
Coping with bullying
Costs of bullying: Organizational and societal
Rehabilitation
Other

The conference will be held on June 13 - 15, 2012, at the University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Social Sciences, in Denmark.

More information: http://bullying2012.com/

Dr. Claudius D’Silva

2011-09-22T14:38:00.002Z

As you know, we (UCU) protested in July against Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) management’s decision to dismiss our branch colleague Dr. Claudius D’Silva for taking a race discrimination case to the employment tribunal. We recognised the dismissal as a serious blow to justice and fair treatment in our workplace. Dr D’Silva, who has a significant and extensive academic profile, was a Senior Lecturer in Chemistry and Environmental Science at MMU from 1993 onward.

We called on the Board of Governors to demonstrate MMU’s commitment to fair employment practices and to reinstate Dr D’Silva to his previous position without loss of standing or earnings.

We also urged the Board of Governors in July to ensure that the university’s disciplinary procedure was not used to undermine the provisions of the Race Relations Act. We urged them to move to restore the good name of MMU in the field of race equality. We also urged the Board to investigate bullying and the use of ‘gross misconduct’ charges against employees at MMU.

We are deeply saddened to report that a panel of the Board of Governors confirmed the dismissal, stating that all was in order.

The university’s final decision poses a threat to all employees at MMU who exercise their employment rights and in particular those who choose to complain about race discrimination.

Judicial Review

We can report that Dr D’Silva is seeking a judicial review of MMU’s actions and that legal papers have now been served on the university. A judicial review provides a legal avenue to challenge violation of one’s rights by a public body.

The Administrative Courts have issued Dr D’Silva’s claim and the university is required to file acknowledgement of service of the notice and provide their summary grounds of defence with the Court by the end of the month. We hope and trust that the Court will grant Dr D’Silva permission to bring judicial proceedings.

Solidarity

Thank you to all those supporters who sent emails of concern and protest to the Board in July. It appears that those emails did not actually reach members of the Board (and this is a concern for the branch in terms of communication with the Board). Thank you to those supporters who protested outside the Board of Governors’ meeting. Thank you to those people who signed the online petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsilva/ calling for fair treatment and reinstatement of Dr D’Silva.

One moving statement on that online petition came from one of Dr D’Silva’s colleagues, Dr Gordon Nicholas, who also stood in protest outside the Board meeting on his final day at MMU before retirement. Dr Nicholas said: Claudius has been a valued Chemistry colleague of mine for many years. The decision to air-brush Claudius out of the RAE several years ago was vindictive, astonishing and short-sighted given his ability and reputation as a researcher. I understand that about one million pounds has been spent by the University in their legal battle with Claudius. I consider this to be a shocking misuse of precious financial resources – the result of gross incompetence by a management more interested in the closing of ranks than supporting an aggrieved member of staff. Effective handling of this affair could not only have saved a lot of money but also avoided the devastating impact that this case has had on the life of my colleague.

Professor Phil Scraton, criminologist of Queen’s University Belfast, wrote: It is a fundamental principle that those who believe that they have grounds to bring a case against an institution can do so without fear of reprisal. The Tribunal should be the place of decision and both sides, in agreeing to the process, should abide by its decision. If, as it appears, the institution punishes the complainant for taking the complaint it amounts to a gross infringement on their right to take a case. It also sends a severe message to others who might have a discrimination case. All efforts should be made to resolve this case and the institution should take the initiative and reinstate Dr D'Silva and allow external due process to decide on the case.

We continue to support Claudius – his career, health and livelihood should never have been so meanly attacked. We honour his determination and fortitude and we hope that he wins justice soon.

You can send a message of support to Claudius at c.dsilva@ymail.com

Walter Cairns, UCU Branch Chair, Manchester Metropolitan University

Who is the REAL Prof. Hassan Abdalla?

2011-09-20T06:51:00.011Z

Nothing has changed at Canberra Institute of Technology

2011-09-17T18:52:00.001Z

Juliana Knight couldn't sleep, she cried constantly and was afraid to leave the house. For her, life was anxious and frightening, the simple task of driving a car too onerous to consider. But then one day the terrified creature started to fight back and demanded justice.

Knight and her former Canberra Institute of Technology colleague Patrick Reubinson have decided to speak out on behalf of a group of former and current CIT staff who say there is a culture of bullying and harassment at the institute.

They have finally gone public following successful Comcare claims for psychological damage and because they say they have nothing left to fear. (The pair were two of four successful Comcare claims for psychological damage.) Meanwhile, WorkSafe ACT is still investigating seven complaints against CIT after the watchdog issued improvement notices on three separate work areas at the institute earlier this year.

The complaints, legal bills and pay-outs may be stacking up, but the CIT's chief executive, Adrian Marron, says ''he was not, and is not'' aware of any culture of bullying and harassment at the institute - although he was made aware of the allegations which are being investigated by WorkSafe.

''Nobody has made a formal complaint to us and we don't have any formal complaints on record,'' Marron says. ''It's inevitable from time to time that there will be incidents and personal issues and they may seem to some people to be one thing and to someone else another. I don't see bullying and harassment as the fabric of CIT.''

But bullying and harassment in the workplace comes at a high cost - a 2010 Productivity Commission report found that 2.5million Australians experienced some aspect of bullying during their working lives. The report found that bullying and harassment in the workplace costs the economy about $15 billion a year, and the issues are not properly addressed in occupational health and safety laws.

The multi-billion dollar bullying black hole did not include the hidden costs, such as hiring and training employees to replace those who left because of workplace stress. The report also found that workplace stress claims tended to be more costly than claims for less serious physical injuries and resulted in more time taken off work. And time is running out for government departments to stamp out bullying, harassment and workplace stress.

From next year successful claims such as Reubinson's or Knight's could open government to multi-million dollar lawsuits and this has prompted the head of WorkSafe ACT, Mark McCabe, to put all government departments on notice.

Under current Health and Safety regulations ACT Government departments and Commonwealth public service departments cannot be prosecuted for breaches of occupational health and safety legislation.

''That's about to change at the end of the year [because] harmonisation protection for the public service will disappear and they will become prosecutable just like any private company,'' McCabe says. ''It should send a warning bell to other departments; what I've been trying to say to departments is you will become prosecutable from the end of this year - you need to make sure your house is in order.''

Patrick Reubinson speaks with a thick Gloucestershire burr, but his voice breaks and tears well in his eyes when he talks quietly about his love of teaching and imparting skills. He gesticulates and his hands are well-used. Not as rough as his father's, he quickly explains. It was Reubinson's blue-collar upbringing that made it hard for him to accept he was suffering psychologically in the workplace. It wasn't like a broken arm or leg - it was much more insidious.

Reubinson devoted his career to teaching. But the litigation took its toll on his health and family. For almost three years he lived away from his wife. The retired chef says the CIT is keeping its eyes firmly shut to the problem until the WorkSafe decision is handed down. He says four Comcare court cases which found staff had suffered serious psychological harm as a result of employment at CIT should be ringing alarm bells.

While the Commonwealth Comcare scheme operates under ''no-fault'' legislation, Reubinson says there is a clear link or pattern to the claims. Reubinson was unsuccessful in his first claim with Comcare, but a hearing in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal subsequently upheld his complaint.

''Either the AAT decided with the complainants, or Comcare conceded, and the only reason Comcare conceded is because they know they are going to lose and that these things did happen,'' he says.

No-fault means that an injured employee does not have to prove negligence on the part of their employer for their claim to be successful, but it must be clear on the balance of probabilities that the injury occurred or disease arose in the course of employment. For a claim for a disease to be successful, the employee must show that the employment contributed to a material degree to the contraction or aggravation of that disease.

The former cooking teacher says he decided to speak out about his experience because he was afraid it would be swept under the carpet. He welcomes the WorkSafe investigation but wants its scope extended.

''I think there has to be an investigation conducted at the highest level outside of CIT.''

The Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal ordered CIT to compensate the 55-year-old after his treatment during a 2008 complaints investigation process left him with adjustment disorder and depression, and he was unable to work.

''My blood pressure went through the roof, I had to go on medication - these things are not good.''

The tribunal found that the CIT's actions after two students accused Patrick Reubinson of inappropriate language were unreasonable, untoward, misleading and without procedural fairness, and he was paid $152,000.

Juliana Knight, 61, says mismanagement, bullying and harassment by her employer, the CIT, almost killed her. The former occupational health and safety teacher succeeded in a claim for compensation and rehabilitation for a psychological disorder, after an incident at CIT left her unable to work. Knight worked for the educational provider for more than 20 years. Her last day at work was February 23, 2009. She has been medically retired and is in the pursuing action which will see she is paid 75 per cent of her annual wage until she turns 65. Her doctors say she will never recover and won't be able to return to useful employment.

With her husband at her side for support the softly spoken woman has made the decision to speak about her experience. ''I do not want this to happen to anyone else, and at some stage someone has to stand up and stop it - it's got to stop,'' she says.

She is determined that things should change and says if policy and procedures at CIT were followed she would still be able to work and contribute.

''I was intimidated and appalled by their behaviour. There have been several occasions where I've been made to feel like I'm a criminal where I'm the guilty party - mentally they crushed me. Before all this happened I was extremely confident I would take on challenges, I was totally independent.''

Marron says things have changed since Reubinson and Knight worked at CIT. He says procedure for handling of complaints have been strengthened and streamlined, but denies there was a systemic problem at any time. Earlier this year all ACT Government departments, including the CIT, implemented the ''RED framework'' for Respect, Equity and Diversity.

''It's a whole new response within the public sector for dealing with harassment and bullying,'' Marron says.

He stresses the Comcare cases, including Reubinson's and Knight's, were not about bullying and harassment. ''It's about a procedural issues which is not about bullying and harassment ... That whole process in the early part in 2010, did raise to me that we needed to have a look at what was happening, and that drove some of the intervention that we subsequently made. I did that because I'm a manager but I did that without making a judgment because I didn't have any evidence. I had a lot of people saying this and a lot of people saying that - but I didn't have any evidence [of bullying].''

And he says an independent 2010 staff survey showed ''that in the main things are pretty healthy''.

It is no longer acceptable to hurl abuse at workers in public or reduce staff to tears with destructive criticism, but Reubinson questions how workers can have faith in the new policies and procedures when they were clearly not followed in the past and there has been no acknowledgment that there was a problem.

''They could not follow the procedure they had in place previously so the new procedures are just token word of mouth,'' Reubinson says. ''Staff are still intimidated and the culture is still very very intimidating.''

Marron says proving bullying is difficult because it boils down to he said, she said. He says the CIT also has a duty of care to protect employees against allegations until they are proven. ''The thing is bullying and harassment is a very serious claim with serious consequences and that's why it needs to be a proven case.'' But other staff who remain employed by the CIT, and spoke on the condition of anonymity, say nothing has changed.

The special counsel for Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Geoff Wilson, represented four CIT employees in their Comcare claims. He says the cases prove there were, and perhaps still are, systemic health and safety issues at the CIT as all the workers he represented suffered a psychological injury.

Wilson says, ''Maurice Blackburn represented four people who became psychologically unwell because of what happened at CIT and the way it was handled ...''

He is unable to go into detail as some of the cases are still ongoing. But in one case a staff member suffered a ''major depressive disorder ... with secondary panic and agoraphobic symptoms, that was significantly contributed to by her employment with Canberra Institute of Technology''.

In that case Comcare paid the CIT staffer compensation and legal costs.

''Comcare claims were lodged and all of these claims were successful,'' Wilson says. ''This is an indication that there are systemic health and safety issues in that workplace.''

Knight and Reubinson say the union is aware of the situation and has tried to help forwarding their complaints to Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.

The acting secretary of the ACT Australian Education union, Glenn Fowler, confirmed a number of members had made allegations of harassment and bullying against the CIT to the union.

''The AEU is aware of issues facing members at the CIT, we have been supporting these member for some time now and we continue to work with them to ensure that they receive due process,'' Fowler said.

When asked if the union was satisfied that the CIT was a safe work environment for its members, Fowler said ''I don't want to answer that, sorry.''

The complaints have emerged as the ACT Government considers its response to the Bradley Report on the University of Canberra and CIT, which recommended merging the institutions.

Meanwhile, the WorkSafe investigation is expected to be completed by the end of the year. But Knight and Reubinson fear more lives will be destroyed and taxpayer dollars will continue to be wasted paying staff who are unable to work because of injuries which should and could have been avoided.

From: http://www.canberratimes.com.au

They don't stop until they destroy...

2011-09-13T09:33:00.001Z

I was a full-time professor of sociology at Harrisburg Area Community College in Lancaster Pennsylvania. And I had kick butt evaluations at Penn st. University. I was mobbed, or multiply harassed dozens of times in the academia at Harrisburg area community college in Lancaster pa.

The people I worked around were sick and mean dude. I classify them now as having sociopathic tendencies. I taught all the advanced sociology courses at HACC, and I was the best sociology instructor there, hands down. In one of my first semesters I taught at HACC, I taught: race and culture, aging, soc problems, and soci 101. The second semester I was at HACC Lancster, I taught four different courses in one semester. can you believe that?

This happened just after I was out of graduate school. The leadership stunk at HACC. There were two other law suits going on at the time. They sat back and watched the harassment go on and on with me. It grew and grew like a snowball. Nobody did anything, but encouraged it to continue. The staff turned students, administration, and colleagues against me.

I finally filed a 60 point complaint of harassment with the PaHRC, and the EEOC. I kept thinking it was gang rape??? The case no are as followed PaHRC case no.200800802, and EEOC No. 17F200960329. In reality the complaint could have had hundreds of individual cases of harassment against me. When I filed the complaint I was fired, and it spread to organized cause stalking in the community of Lancaster Pa. They were spreading all kinds of rumors about me: unstable, aggressive, on drugs, a time-bomb... nothing could have ever been further from the truth. It did happen!

It was documented that one student would harass me 3 to 7 times a day. He did this for six weeks while the administration, and security sat back and watched. Nobody could understand what it was because it was so sick and so unbelievable. Even the doctors and counselors were confused because they haven't dealt with any cases where people had been victimized by mobbing or work place harassment. Only when a Forensic psychologist examined me did people understand what had happened to me. A person is so out of that they really don't even know what has really happened to them. You just get depressed, angry, hurt, and PTSD. Flash back of the torment, and helplessness of being cornered and attacked over and over again. And you just have to keep smiling. It's sick! Sometimes people don't even realize it is going on, but it is. And it has tragic psychological consequences on a person.

My complaint was filed. It is set stone, it did happen, and there is no denying it... my professor warned me this would happen in Lancaster, and it did. I am just glad I documented the entire thing. It happened just like a story prof. Joan Friedenberg wrote about, and posted on a site except it was much worse at Harrisburg Area Community College in Lancaster Pa. Forget the birds dude, they were like wolves and hornets stinging me over and over again... And they don't stop until they destroy, or run off...

Anonymous

Academic Freedom in Canada

2011-09-12T06:53:00.001Z

Academic Freedom in Canada:

http://youtu.be/GJyXW-ld1cs

e-petition: Criminal Penalties for Workplace Bullies

2011-09-10T06:22:00.001Z

Responsible department: Ministry of Justice

In 2010, Unison reported that more than one third of workers had been bullied in the previous 6 months, double the number a decade ago. Complaints of bullying are now more prevalent in claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. However, the current law does not provide adequate protection for the targets of bullying. This petition urges the Government to introduce individual criminal offences and corporate criminal liability for bullying in the workplace, similar to the provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Penalties should include imprisonment, unlimited fines and compensation orders. Bullying and harassment in the workplace was recently criminalised in Australia following the suicide of 19 year old Brodie Panlock, a waitress who was bullied at work. Tragic events should not be necessary to catalyse legislative change. This petition urges the Government to criminalise workplace bullying and harassment.

Sign at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2380

Just because bosses can read about their staff's private lives, it doesn't mean they should

2011-09-07T13:37:00.001Z

This week, a new social media guide for the workplace has finally urged bosses to be transparent and reasonable when "snooping" on their staff via social networks. And it cannot have come soon enough.

ACAS, a body which helps organisations improve relationships with their workers, published the guide in response to the "growing problem" posed by the use of social networks by employees in the workplace.

Refreshingly, the tips are incredibly progressive, urging employers not to be "heavy-handed" by penalising staff for unprofessional comments on websites such as Facebook. Online behaviour should be judged within specific contexts, as offline behaviour is. If managers check on employees' use of social media, they must make it known what they scrutinise and why.

Nearly six out of 10 staff now access social networks at work, either via their computer or smartphone, every day - and while most companies do not have any social media policy to speak of - a factor Acas is trying to change by publishing this guide - the internet still seems to many people a private place for them and their friends.

John Taylor, ACAS's chief executive, has advised bosses to be cautious about reprimanding employees for comments they make on social networking websites and having knee-jerk reactions.

He said: "If an employer is too tough, they need to consider the potential impact of any negative publicity. Heavy-handed monitoring can cause bad feeling and be time consuming.

"A manager wouldn't follow an employee down the pub to check on what he or she said to friends about their day at work. Just because they can do something like this online, doesn't mean they should."

However, it does work both ways, and if an employee does publicly insult their employer online, without applying any privacy settings, then it is the equivalent of shouting out abuse in the town square - and they can be judged for it. A balance definitely needs to be struck between what information is made public and what is put behind strong privacy settings online. But, until now, most guides have laid the onus at the feet of the person publishing information.

The ACAS guide does state that employees should assume that everything they say on the internet could be made public and that they should think about whether they want their colleagues or boss to read it. However, what this guide does which stands out from the rest is address the fact that there are contexts online, just as there are in real life. Just because bosses can read about their staff's private lives, it doesn't mean they should or even that they can use that information against them.

Indeed, the ACAS guide clearly cautions employers about the risks of "Googling" potential employees and using any personal information gleaned from the internet, such as a person's religious beliefs, in the recruitment process.

In no uncertain terms, managers have been warned that they risk being sued for discrimination if they use websites such as Facebook to look into the private lives of prospective workers and then use this information when deciding whether to hire them or not.

In a week that has seen Jodie Jones, one of Britain's youngest councillors, criticised by her colleagues for drunken photos on Facebook, taken before she assumed her post, this part of the guide needs to be taken on board by employers everywhere.

We are entering an era where everyone will have grown up with a social network profile. They may well have published embarrassing photos, the type that used to lie forgotten in dusty albums in the attic and now exist in the full glare of the internet.

Yes, privacy settings should be applied, but sometimes things slip through the net, and so context must be applied when employers come across this type of personal online information. Further, managers should tell prospective employees and current staff whether they have looked at any material and why they have done so. All "snooping" activity needs to be relevant, transparent and appropriate.

The ACAS guide also encourages employers to promote the use of social networking websites in the workplace as a "key part of business and marketing".

The recommendation comes despite a study by myjobgroup, a jobs website, which calculated that social media activity in the workplace cost the UK economy £14bn in lost productivity last year.

Some companies have taken the rash step of banning access on work computers to social networking sites such as Facebook, but doing so is incredibly short-sighted as people can easily access social networks on their smartphones. Moreover, what's the difference between frittering away hours online and old fashioned time-wasters such as making a cup of tea or having a cigarette break? ACAS has advised bosses to draft their own social media policy in order to avoid staff confusion about what is and isn't allowed online.

But rather than these policies prescribing draconian measures which limit freedom of speech, they should preach common sense and apply principles used in the real world.

Every employer does need to make it clear to their staff what the company policy is on the use of social media and employees have a duty to ensure that any information they publish online is either not publicly available, or benign enough for any reasonable manager to stomach.

But, equally, bosses must not abuse information that may be available to them through the internet if it isn't relevant.

If there is more honesty and compassion all round, the modern workplace can evolve and flourish. Ultimately, businesses will reap the rewards in kind through happy workers and clever digital communication.

Emma Barnett is the Digital Media Editor at The Telegraph.

Twitter: @emmabarnett

September 4, 2011

From: http://www6.lexisnexis.com

Looking for YOUR Stories!

2011-09-07T04:05:00.001Z

We are currently seeking individuals who are willing to be interviewed about their personal stories dealing with bullying in the workplace as a victim, bystander, upstander (intervener) or as a bully.

We are particularly interested in how the issue was dealt with and resolved, if was resolved at all.

All types of personal stories

We are looking for all types of stories from the perspective of a victim but also stories that inspire about individuals or organizations who have intervened.

Interviews are for a documentary film

The interviews are to be used as research for a film entitled Workplace on the Edge (working title) a documentary project focused on the current psychological health of the workplace. It profiles people directly impacted by it and corporate structures that unwittingly support patterns of abuse unacceptable in other environments.

If you are willing to share your story please fill out the form and a general outline of your personal story.

We will then contact you by email for further information or an interview.

Information is confidential

All information you provide is strictly confidential and will not be used on this website or documentary without your explicit permission.

If we would like to use the information, we will ask you explicitly for permission to use it in the documentary project which includes the website and documentary film.

More info at: http://bully-free-zone.com/?page_id=1709

University of Ottawa's bad faith dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt

2011-08-31T05:04:00.002Z

On 10 December 2008, Denis Rancourt, a tenured physics professor with 22 years experience, was provided with two letters by University of Ottawa administration officials. The first letter explained that he was being placed under administrative suspension and banned from campus, while the second explained that the Dean of the Faculty of Science had recommended to the Board of Governors that Rancourt be fired.

The stated reason for the University of Ottawa's actions is Rancourt's assigning of A+ grades to all students in a fourth-year physics course (PHY 4385 - cross-listed with PHY 5100) in the Winter 2008 term. Rancourt gave out the grades, which were officially approved by the university, because he believes that rank-ordering students is at odds with effective pedagogy. Thus, to achieve a similar effect as the pass/fail system, which is not approved at U of O, Rancourt handed students the highest possible grade so that they could not try to do any "better" and thus, in his view, focus their attention on learning. Rancourt has asserted that: "Socrates did not give grades...[m]y job is to educate. Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that what we've been doing with the grading system doesn't work. We are creating obedient employees, but not people who think."

At a 31 March 2009 Executive of the Board of Governors meeting, the University of Ottawa dismissed Professor Rancourt.

In July 2008, an arbitration decision declared that Rancourt's approach to grading was protected under the purview of academic freedom.

In November 2008, the Canadian Association of University Professors announced that it would launch an Independent Committee of Inquiry into Rancourt's case

In the interest of full transparency, Professor Rancourt has chosen to make all documents pertaining to his case available to the public on AcademicFreedom.ca. Please click here and explore the many menus on the rancourt.AcademicFreedom.ca site.

Aussie uni bullying stories...

2011-08-30T18:16:00.001Z

The University of Newcastle: It is very, very difficult to 'move on' from workplace bullying.

Many of us have been bullied out of work /study at the University of Newcastle.

It is not at all possible for us to 'move on'. We cannot move on because we have nowhere to go!

My job ended but so did my career - the bully used her contacts to alert her friends and colleagues in all the universities in Australia.

I am not even considered for new positions, I am refused entry to meetings and workshops, purposely avoided by previous colleagues, etc.

So, where do I move on to? Out of Australia with no references?

Leave my work helping people that I am passionate about and forget my hard-earned qualifications and experience (25 years in a specialist field) and "just" start again?

I am not sure it is humanly possible not to feel bitter and excessively angry when you have worked hard, done the right thing, tried to maintain standards, etc and the bullies, with their dodgy ethics, continue to be rewarded and to rise and rise in the University.

More stories and info at: http://www.badapplebullies.com/australianunistories.htm

Parlez-vous français?

2011-08-29T20:04:00.002Z

Recently, one of the regular visitors to this blog is based in France. Sadly, we do not speak French and as such we are not able to provide our French colleague with the support he may need. However, we ask our French-speaking colleague to send us an email anyway, and we will make an effort to find a trustworthy French-speaking colleague that can contact him.

Our email address is: bullied.academics@yahoo.co.uk

This is a true story

2011-08-28T06:33:00.004Z

I was a professor of sociology at Harrisburg Area Community College in Lancaster Pennsylvania. I am a victim of academic mobbing. After working a year and a half in a hostile environment I filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, and the EEOC. The complaints are PHRC Case No.200800802 and EEOC No. 17F200960329.

I didn't realize what it was called until a forensic psychologist spoke to me, and evaluated me in Delaware. A doctor in Lancaster for some strange reason wouldn't acknowledge it happened. However during the harassment I knew something was going on. The faculty were saying things like: I was a time-bomb, on drugs, aggressive, and unstable. Nothing could have been further from the truth, but the playing off the fact I was ex-military with three honorable discharges. There were two female faculty members, that were even turning students against me, and the dean, who was a relative of one of those faculty members, even allowed the students to harass me.

When I filed the complaint I just knew I was being harassed. And only now after two years have I put it all together and realized the harassment was academic mobbing. When I filed a 60 counts/charges complaint I was then terminated after three full-time years at the college. Actually my complaint should have numbered 100 to 200 counts/charges of harassment against me.

I was teaching all the advanced sociology courses, and getting good evaluations, students seemed to like me, but once I filed the complaint of harassment I was released. When the finding came back from the complaints to the PAHRC and EEOC they were filled with lies from people I didn't even know. Once I was released from Harrisburg area community college in Lancaster, the harassment spread into the community of Lancaster, and became organized cause stalking. It ended up with me being set up and thrown in jail. At 5x the normal bail.

When the police showed up they were saying I was dangerous, and telling my neighbors, people I associated with, and so called friends I was a dangerous suspect. And without even having a trial I was posted all over the internet and blacklisted by one man in Lancaster. This one man placed me on the internet 12x. He had ties to the school I taught at in Lancaster. This is a true story.

I was arrested a month prior to the finding being released by the state, And when I got the police reports back the finding and police reports looked strikingly similar. I feel I have one of the most documented cases of academic mobbing in the history of the United states. For some reason, through it all, I kept methodical diaries on all the times and the people involved, and everything they said. I kept all the paper work too.

As Goffman explained life is like a theatre, and it almost seemed as though I was in my own movie when all this crazyness was happening. It was amazing, and the doctors and counselors all ruled me normal, smart, but depressed. True story! They do it for pleasure and sport. They don't stop until they have eliminated you by sending you to a mental institution, commit suicide, incarcerate you, or kill you... This is the God truth...

Leeds Metropolitan University saves £75,000 a year by tackling workplace stress

2011-08-23T19:37:00.001Z

Leeds Metropolitan University has saved £75,000 a year by implementing a scheme to tackle workplace stress.

John Hamilton, head of safety, health and wellbeing at the university, put the scheme in place over two years ago in reaction to bullying and harassment issues that had surfaced.

The scheme is based around a self-help website for staff, and attracted 6,000 hits in its first three months.

When it was first created, the website tackled over 75 topics including stress, fitness, and coping with money worries or grief. Now, it covers more than 200 areas of advice, support and guidance.

The university also held a staff development event in 2009 which supported the scheme, with over 60 events including exercise classes, health assessments, stress management techniques, and self-help sessions.

An occupational health referral scheme was also set up for staff, with treatments for a number of health problems.

Results of the scheme include: the university now saves £75,000 a year in wages; stress-related absence is down by 16%; and the accident rate is now at just 64.7 per 100,000 employees, compared to the sector average of 325.

Hamilton said: “The most important thing about the programme is that staff feel that the university cares about them and their wellbeing.

“It is a great atmosphere to work in and, because of that, motivation and productivity have improved and absence levels are down, proving that a happy workforce is a successful one.

"What has been really important has been the buy-in from senior management. They know this initiative is good for our employees. Morally, it is the right thing to do, but it also makes complete business sense.”

From: http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk

Exactly who is pulling the strings?

2011-08-20T22:06:00.002Z

Serial failures barred from further bidding for grants - 19 March, 2009 'From 1 June, the council will ban repeatedly unsuccessful applicants from submitting proposals for a year. Those who do submit will be asked to take part in a mentoring programme.' - reported by Zoe Corbyn

This thread - which was just refreshed by someone adding a post - has been blocked by THE. In the thread academics are critical of EPSRC policies. It would appear that despite what the editor of THE says - pressure is being put on THE not to have threads that are critical of policies in the way that they used to do. If we do live in a democracy - as is claimed - actions such as this ought to be a cause for concern. Exactly who is pulling the strings behind THE and blocking voices that are critical?

By Anonymous

Why Cameron Dick’s workplace bullying reference group will fail bullied Queensland teachers - again

2011-08-18T09:50:00.000Z

Queensland Education and Industrial Relations Minister Cameron Dick has established a workplace bullying reference group “to ensure that Queensland’s framework for dealing with workplace bullying remains valid and effective.”

To understand why the deliberations of Mr Dick’s reference group will have little impact on the bulling in Queensland workplaces, you need to consider whose interests are being represented by the bodies who have been invited to join the reference group - the Queensland Council of Unions, employer representatives and legal and academic experts. Each of these bodies has a significant conflict of interest in dealing with workplace bullying - many of their members either are the workplace bullies, or are in the business of protecting the workplace bullies, or are funded by the workplace bullies. The bodies on the reference group will protect their own interests well, but there will be nobody on the reference group to really represent the interests of bullied workers.

The Honorary President of the Queensland Council of Unions, for example, is John Battams, General Secretary of the Queensland Teachers Union. The QTU is the largest registered industrial organisation in Queensland. It has 43,000 members - classroom teachers, principals and education department administrators, all together in the same union.

When a Queensland classroom teacher is bullied by their school principal, many other administrators may become involved in the situation - supporting and encouraging the bully principal, providing advice to the bully principal, etc. So QTU officers have to balance the need of the individual union member to be protected from workplace abuse against the need of their many bullying members to be protected from the consequences of their bullying, mobbing, incompetence, negligence, malice, defamation, falsification of the official records, etc, etc. And so a bullied classroom teacher may find that, instead of being actively defended from workplace abuse, they are instead advised that there is no hope of justice and that the best thing to do is to “accept the things you cannot change”, because Queensland teachers who “fight it” are mentally and physically destroyed. The union seems to have adopted a ‘learned helplessness’ approach to dealing with workplace bullying.

In June 2002 I met Ann Bligh in Cairns and I told her that bullied Queensland teachers were being advised to ‘accept the things you cannot change’ because there was no hope of justice. I was whistleblowing, although I did not realise it at that time. I just thought that I was telling the Minister of Education something that she really needed to know. I expected Anna Bligh to be shocked by my disclosure, and to react in the manner that Stephen Smith reacted when he was told about the abuse at the ADF Academy. I expected Anna Bligh to jump about, wave her ministerial arms in the air and tell her senior public servants that the situation was completely stupid, and that this would not do - that Queensland teachers must be protected from workplace abuse.

For a while, I believed that this was what had happened. I was given repeated reassurances that the bullying was under control and I retired in July 2002, a happy whistleblower, believing that I had done what I saw as my duty to other Queensland teachers.

Several hundred other Queensland teachers also retired in July 2002, taking the first of the teachers’ $50,000 ‘career change’ packages. I was told that many of these ‘career change’ teachers were escaping from workplace bullying situations.

A workplace bullying reference group was set up, and in 2004 Queensland implemented a code of practice to help Queensland employers prevent workplace bullying and harassment.

But little seemed to have actually changed in Queensland schools. In 2007 Deidre Duncan and Dan Riley of UNE surveyed 800 Australian teachers. They found that 99.6 per cent of the teachers claimed to have experienced bullying in the workplace. Queensland teachers were over-represented in the survey, suggesting that, five years after I had whistleblown to Anna Bligh, and even after many hundreds of teachers had taken workplace bullying escape packages, workplace bullying was still rife in Queensland schools.

You would think that these shocking research findings would ring alarm bells in the Queensland department of education. You would think that the results would prompt a lot of union agitation. But not in Queensland. And so, nine years after I first whistleblew about the workplace bullying in Queensland schools to Anna Bligh, another workplace bullying reference group has been set up with no body to represent the interests of bullied workers. And no submissions to the reference group have been requested from bullied workers.

Cameron Dick must ensure that the voices of bullied Queensland workers are heard by his reference group, and that their experiences are taken into consideration.

What do bullied Queensland teachers need? They need some independent research into the effectiveness of departmental workplace bullying polices. We need to understand why the departmental policies are failing bullied teachers. They need to be respected. They need to have equal rights with their students. And most of all they need the right to engage in professional discussion, without the fear of ‘payback’ allegations. I would suspect that the repression of professional discussion in Queensland schools is a significant factor in the failure of public education in Queensland. There is little point in employing well qualified teachers in Queensland schools if these teachers are going to be driven into ill health and out of work for trying to do their job to the best of their ability.

The department of education promotion system fails Queensland classroom teachers. Any teacher who is interested in becoming a school principal should be required to demonstrate a sound comprehension of departmental polices before they are considered for ‘acting’ or promotion positions. School principals need to demonstrate that they are literate enough to read the workplace bullying policy documents produced by the reference groups, and they need to demonstrate that they are intelligent enough to apply the workplace bullying policies to their own behaviour. The failure to maintain this professional standard in Queensland schools is negligence. When school principals do not read, or cannot properly comprehend, departmental policies, classroom teachers are exposed to workplace abuse.

The education department investigation process also exposes Queensland teachers to the risk of workplace abuse. It is much too easy for a school principal to make ‘payback’ allegations against a classroom teacher. And it is much too easy, if a teacher disproves these allegations, for the principal to change the allegations.

It is much too easy for a principal to make falsified records of meetings, to ‘record’ imaginary meetings, to ‘lose’ all or part of records supportive of a teacher, to refuse to hear or to record evidence supportive of a teacher, etc, etc. It is much too easy for a principal to place these falsified documents secretly on a teacher’s departmental records.

School principals should be required to provide teachers with a written copy of any allegations. The person making these allegations should make the statement in their own words. The allegations should concern specific facts. The teacher should also be provided with a statement of their rights in this situation, and with a copy of the relevant departmental policy document. Teachers should be allowed the time and opportunity to check the facts, to gather evidence, and to respond to the allegations in writing. Teachers should be provided with independent legal advice. The teacher’s response to the allegations should be properly considered by an officer with no conflict of interest in the situation.

The Crime and Misconduct Commission ‘devolution process’ also fails Queensland teachers. When a teacher first makes a disclosure to the CMC, the teacher may not realise the full extent of the corruption. The CMC have a policy of handing over about 98 per cent of disclosures to the department of education for investigation. And the department of education seem to have a policy of allowing principals and senior public servants to investigate themselves, and to find themselves innocent of any allegations. These senior departmental officers then declare the case ‘closed’ and instruct that any further letters from the teacher should be filed and disregarded.

If the teacher has made a Right to Information application, the RTI documents seem to be delayed till a few days after the teacher’s case has been declared ‘closed’. Then the RTI documents are released, the full extent of the corruption is exposed and the teacher’s protests are filed and ignored.

‘Independent’ departmental investigations also seem to be controlled by the senior departmental officer whose behaviour is the subject of the complaint. This officer is able to limit the independent investigation, to limit the documents ‘considered’ by the investigator and to prevent the investigator from asking certain key questions.

Thousands of dollars of taxpayers money seem to be being wasted on education department ‘independent investigations’ which have been set up to fail.

During the nine years since I first made my disclosure to Anna Bligh, she has often returned to Cairns, but Mrs Bligh no longer takes the risk of sitting down and listening to the concerns of bullied classroom teachers. She stands behind a barbecue, laughing at us and handing us sausages. Its the ‘let them eat sausages’ approach to ministerial responsibility.

Bullied Queensland teachers need an education minister who will really listen to their disclosures and they need a union that will fight for their right to work free from the fear of workplace abuse.

Robina Cosser worked as a teacher and advisory teacher in England, New South Wales and Queensland. She now edits the Teachers Are Blowing Their Whistles website and is a vice-president of Whistleblowers Australia.

Whistleblowers Australia is working with the National Whistleblowers Centre in Washington to have 30 July recognised as International Whistleblowers Day.

Robina Cosser M.Ed. (SYD)
Editor : The Teachers Are Blowing Their Whistles!
Editor : Whistleblowing Women
Vice President and Schools Contact : Whistleblowers Australia

From: http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au

Stirling university ‘broke law’, employment tribunal rules

2011-08-12T06:43:00.001Z

An employment tribunal in Glasgow has ruled that Stirling University broke employment law when it ended the fixed-term contracts of 100 of its employees without consulting the unions.

The staff in question were earning between £20,000 and £30,000 per year and could be awarded up to 90 days compensation by the employment tribunal. This would amount to a compensation payout of £500,000.

Under employment law, employers have a duty to consult with employees when making redundancies. The consultation process is designed to involve employees in the redundancy discussions and ensure that redundancies are as fair as possible.

When there is a collective redundancy situation, which occurs when over 20 employees are made redundant in a 90 day period, the employer is obligated to consult with an employee representative. If the employees are represented by a union, the representative will be the trade union representative.

The University and College Union (UCU) took Stirling University to the employment tribunal because the university failed to consult with the UCU representative on the collective redundancies.

Stirling University argued that because the employees were on a fixed-term contract, the termination of their contracts did not count as redundancies and therefore there was no obligation to consult.

Redundancy rights under employment law only apply to those with the employment status of ‘employee’ and not ‘worker’. The difference between the two terms can be difficult to make out.

In determining employment status, an employment tribunal looks at a number of factors. They will consider, amongst many other things, whether the person has worked exclusively for one company or organisation, whether tax and national insurance contributions were deducted by the employer, and whether the manager or supervisor was responsible for directing the work completed.

The Glasgow employment tribunal held that Stirling University did have a duty to conduct a collective consultation with the UCU representative and that they broke the law by failing to do so.

Stirling University claimed that it had held a number of meetings with the unions about the redundancies; however UCU said the meetings were not meaningful.

UCU Scottish official, Mary Senior, said the employment tribunal ruling is an “important victory” for the former staff, and for the thousands of university staff employed on fixed-term contracts around the UK.

From: http://solicitors.contactlaw.co.uk

Silence is not the solution...

2011-08-09T13:45:00.000Z

I am becoming increasingly concerned about some of the actions being taken. What kind of pressure is being put on Times Higher Education (THE) and by whom? I contributed a lot to Carl Baybut's thread and that too was blocked. That is a thread about an academic who committed suicide partly because of his treatment by his university. Silencing stories which are in the public domain - Kingston and Southampton Solent is surely unacceptable. THE's silence on this matter should be a matter of legitimate public interest. Guardian journalists where are you?

Anonymous post

Bullied at the University of Newcastle (Australia)

2011-08-03T20:52:00.002Z

11 Jul 2011 7:30:24pm

I believe I was bullied out of the University of Newcastle for being a whistle blower. The University of course denies it. When I was taken by ambulance to a hospital after a failed suicide attempt in my office I was told 15-20 other people from the University had been brought in the same condition for the same reasons by two different psychiatrists. All I could think was - will it take a successful suicide for something to be done. Probably.

-----------

11 Jul 2011 3:49:20pm

I am another academic from the University of Newcastle (NSW) whose career was abruptly ended as the University decided I needed to be punished for attempting to expose bullying. So I feel overjoyed at the media attention to this malicious and obnoxious workplace behaviour.

However, it is a cop-out to state that 'Bullying is tricky territory' or that victims should seek alternative employment. There is a plethora of research that clearly identifies what bullying behaviour consistitutes. And more significantly the consequences of ignoring it. Legislation like Brodie's law needs to go National, before more working lives (and lives) are prematurely ended. All workers should have a right to be treated with respect and dignity within their workplace (and elsewhere) and should not be eliminated from their workplace if they allege bullying tactics.

The above posts are from: Background briefing - Bullying at work

Dean criticised by tribunal is promoted

2011-07-28T08:42:00.001Z

Anger has been sparked among staff at a struggling university after a senior manager who told a whistleblower that he did not "do budgets" was awarded a professorship.

Kevin Richardson, dean of the University of Gloucestershire Business School, has been awarded the title despite receiving criticism from an employment tribunal last year relating to his behaviour in his former role as head of education.

The judgment found that Professor Richardson wanted business development manager Janet Merrigan - who successfully brought a tribunal under whistleblowing laws last September - to be sacked and let "nowhere near" an investigation into "significant failures" in the financial running of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Science.

It also accepted Ms Merrigan's evidence that Professor Richardson had told her and a colleague that "I don't do budgets" and to "fuck off" when they raised concerns.

The tribunal suggested in its ruling that "a spell of equal opportunities training" for Professor Richardson "would probably not go amiss".

His appointment as professor of business development comes just days before Gloucestershire's current vice-chancellor, Paul Hartley, officially leaves the institution, which is undergoing a change in key posts and an overhaul of its governance following an independent review.

According to official regulations, the vice-chancellor has final say on professorships "on the recommendation of the professorial board". A university spokeswoman said that Professor Richardson had been awarded his professorship "in accordance with university criteria and processes for this designation".

However, a member of the professorial board has resigned over the matter, while a petition has been signed by dozens of staff members in protest. One academic, who did not want to be named, said there was "massive anger" about the promotion.

Dr Hartley will be succeeded as vice-chancellor by senior civil servant Stephen Marston, the government's former director general for universities and skills, who will take over on 1 August.

Sir Peter Scott, former vice-chancellor of Kingston University and now professor of higher education studies at the Institute of Education, will take over as chair of governors in the autumn.

Meanwhile, it has emerged in council minutes that Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, personally asked Gloucestershire to ensure it drew "on the widest possible field of candidates" in its search for a new chair of council.

Gloucestershire also confirmed that before he was elected chair, Sir Peter had served on the interview panel that chose Mr Marston after Hefce put forward a number of people who could act as advisers to the process.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Open Letter re Race Discrimination Claim at Manchester Metropolitan University

2011-07-12T06:41:00.002Z

To: Board of Governors, Vice Chancellor Professor John Brooks and Chancellor Dianne Thompson - Manchester Metropolitan University

We are writing to express our grave concern at the dismissal of Dr Claudius D’Silva, a senior lecturer in Chemistry and Environmental Science, who has worked without blemish for MMU since 1993. We protest against the use of a charge of “gross misconduct” against Dr D’Silva for bringing a race discrimination claim against MMU. We note his case is still ongoing in the employment tribunal.

We urge you to ensure that the University’s disciplinary procedure is not used to undermine the provisions of the Race Relations Act. We urge you to move to restore the good name of MMU in the field of race equality. We also urge the Board to investigate bullying and the use of ‘gross misconduct’ charges against employees at MMU.

We call on the Board to demonstrate MMU’s commitment to fair employment practices and to reinstate Dr D’Silva to his previous position without loss of standing or earnings.

Sign the petition.

Denis Rancourt

2011-06-29T08:26:00.004Z

This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like at "Canada's university". Renowned workplace mobbing expert professor Kenneth Westhues concluded in a 2009 written report that the dismissal of full and tenured professor Denis Rancourt was an "administrative mobbing".

Watch the video: http://youtu.be/I0HZDN6xXZ8

Plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University

2011-06-26T19:27:00.003Z

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 and QAA 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. 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"...

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. 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... 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 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. 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. 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...

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...

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%. 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... 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.

Professor El-Sayed MS

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.

Stop Bullying at University of Newcastle - Australia

2011-05-23T16:16:00.001Z

We, the undersigned, petition the Ombudsman to instigate an open enquiry into allegations of workplace bullying / harassment at the University of Newcastle, NSW, and concerns about the way senior management have dealt with complaints about such bullying.

In a survey (166 respondents), conducted via the web-site Stop Bullying at University of Newcastle (Oz), the most common effects of bullying were:

• Sleep problems 75.8%,
• Depression 68.9%
• Headaches 46.2%
• Constant tiredness 36.4%

Of major concern is the fact that 24.2% (32 respondents) had suicidal thoughts.

At the University of Newcastle, workplace bullying has become part of a management culture, and policies on workplace bullying are ignored or are ineffectual in dealing with the problem. Unions recommend victims and witnesses of bullying avoid making complaints if they wish to preserve their career. Survey results of bullied victims report:

• 42.8% of respondents were planning to leave the university
• 34.8% were looking for or had found work outside the university
• 27.7% had asked for or already been transferred to another area of the university
• 31 respondents had themselves, or knew of others who had, been given a payout with a gagging clause

Dissatisfaction with the way bullying is dealt with at the University of Newcastle has come under public scrutiny. Significant amounts of tax payers’ money has been used by the University to cover up the serious nature of bullying in this workplace including so called “independent investigations”, paid for and supervised by the University. Survey results indicate:

• Only 4.5% of respondents were satisfied with the outcome of their complaint
• For over half (51.8%), no action was taken by their supervisor or human resources.

Most cases of bullying at the University of Newcastle are directly or indirectly related to the reporting of misconduct. This bullying of “whistleblowers” at the University of Newcastle was previously scrutinized by the NSW Ombudsman who concluded in 2003, that

“Your case suggests this is another area of the University’s culture that may need to be addressed to make clear that whistleblowers –…– are given wholehearted support and encouragement by the university and staff. Any further indication that there may be problems in the handling of whistleblowers will provide A POWERFUL SPUR FOR US TO COMMENCE A FORMAL INVESTIGATION OF THE UNIVERSITY'S CONDUCT IN THIS RESPECT" (Ref: C/2003/7465) (Capitals added)

Therefore, we ask the Ombudsman to act on their statement and commence an independent investigation into the fact that the University of Newcastle fails to provide a safe work environment for staff or students by condoning bullying behaviour and using bullying tactics against staff and students who speak out against inappropriate practices.

We invite you to join our petition for an investigation into workplace bullying and harassment at The University of Newcastle.

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-bullying-at-the-university-of-newcastle-australia

The University of Surrey - Part 1

2011-05-15T18:59:00.000Z

The University of Surrey has changed my absence records without my consent and without my knowledge and is now refusing to correct them when challenged and when faced with clear evidence, can anyone help me please. I have had two strokes in the past and am unable to fight them.

Anonymous

Swindon College - Part 2

2011-05-15T18:56:00.000Z

I am very worried by this case. I have worked at Bath and Swindon College, where Dr Butts is (or was) a govenor and Robert Rowe remains Director of HR. The fact that unsupported rumour could lead to an otherwise explempary academic career being ruined in what Justice Denyer castigated as a "slap-dash" manner remains a real threat as long as such make-weights hold power and their "might makes right".

It is out of the question for any of us to start a "Rowe Must Go" campaign. An iron gate would shut between us and management and it would amount to professional suicide. We already live in a climate of fear and cuts...more so now that the College will have to pay compensation for his incompetence.

An example of how he has affected us follows. When I joined Swindon College some years ago a collegue warned me out of the blue not to expect much from the HR Dept, and that advice has come to seem the prevailing feeling in the college ever since.

E.G. 'Focus' groups have been introduced by H.R. to solicit the opinions of teenaged students on how their lecturers are performing. Some of the latter may well hold petulant grudges after being told to turn off their mobile phones or Facebook and get to work, or at having been reprimanded for not completing projects on time, being late, etc. But this never comes into the equation as their comments are used to urgently confront staff with "concerns" as though these were "facts". With no objective assessment, staff are read the complaints and offered the chance to comment without having terms defined as in reasonable discourse. The assumption is that they should not need to defend themselves, as such trivial discord should never occur in a classroom. I was told recently, "You have to ask yourself, What would their parents say?" Well, most sentient parents know that their offspring may well say disparaging things about their tutors out of pique or simply because they can. Just as I can here, without the benefit of cross-questioning. However, these comments will not go onto Mr Rowe or Dr Butts's official record.

It follows that to some this "proceedure" may recall the MacCarthy trials as one is never told who said what in whatever context. The assumption is that staff are culpable if not actually guilty. Justification is that this system is beneficial to all concerned as "its good to talk", but it is actually dangerously absurd and demoralising to staff as the there is no question of an open forum. We are tainted by "loud whispers", and these - considering the slap-dash standards criticised by Justice Denyer - may well be used against us in the future by Mr Rowe and his minions.

As Voltaire said "Those who believe absurdities are likely to commit atrocities", and this is what one fears from Mr Rowe, who has a very unclear and emotive view of 'Safegurding", employng as he does, an ex-social worker who has passionately stated to us in our compulsory training sessions that all press reports of social workers mishandling of clients are myths produced by journalistic hacks! Is this the standard one expects from educationalists?

As for Dr Butts, her handling of the aspects of Bath's Centers of Lifelong Learning led to their being closed before others in the country with very similar demographics. Her committment was undeniable, but passion was no substitute for what was actually needed - vision and management skills. At least she has been "kicked upstairs" , or has she?

Anonymous

MR ROBERT McKIE (Claimant) and SWINDON COLLEGE (Defendant)

2011-05-09T18:03:00.003Z

...The claimant was born in May 1953 so he is now nearly 58 years of age. His basic specialism is as an art historian. In the 1980s and early 1990s he taught at various educational institutions in Norwich. In 1994 he applied for a job with the defendant, Swindon College. The title of the job was "Contextual Studies Co ordinator". In January 1995, he was appointed to this position. In the years that followed, he was promoted with in the institution and received bonus awards. As is often the way, as he progressed, his work became more managerial and perhaps less classroom focused.

In November 2002, he left the defendants for a job as "programme leader" at Bath City College. On leaving Swindon and in connection with getting the job at Bath City College, he received an excellent reference from the defendants. This reference is set out at page 1 of divider G. It is not, I think, necessary to read all of it. Let me simply read from the middle paragraph (the third paragraph on page 1):

"Rob has continued to show strong leadership skills in his management of the curriculum area. He has also planned the curriculum well, built an effective team and employed resources efficiently. This area had been performing poorly in terms of meeting Key Performance Indicators, Rob has skilfully brought the area a lot closer to those indicators to such an extent that it is now one of the best performing areas. The staff have a high degree of respect for him. This is particularly noteworthy because, his background is not business, leisure and tourism and when he took .... over morale was quite low."

The next paragraph may be of some significance as well:

"[He] has a positive personality. He is not afraid to challenge but in a constructive way. As a senior manager I value this side of [his] character highly. We need challenging constructive managers to get the feedback and ideas we need to move forward as a college. Just as importantly, if Rob has questioned a decision or a direction in which we are moving and the final decision is not what he would agree with, he will take it forward positively with his staff. [He] can be trusted to manage independently but is not afraid to come and ask when he may need further guidance."

...On 5 June 2008, some two or three weeks therefore after he had started work at the University of Bath, an email was sent from Swindon College to the University. It is set out at various places in the bundle but for reference, I will simply refer to divider G at page 28. It is sent from Robert Rowe, Human Resources Manager at Swindon to his equivalent at the University of Bath. It reads as follows (the recipient being Mr Robert Eales):

"Further to our telephone conversation I can confirm to you that we would be unable to accept Rob McKie on our premises or delivering to our students. The reason for this is that we had very real safeguarding concerns for our students and there were serious staff relationship problems during his employment at this College. No formal action was taken against Mr McKie because he had left our employment before this was instigated. understand that similar issues arose at the City of Bath College."

That, as I say, emanates and signed by Robert Rowe, Director of Human Resources, Swindon College.

The evidence that the claimant has produced in respect of his time at Swindon College and to which I have already adverted, would suggest that the contents of that email were largely fallacious and untrue. In spite of that in these proceedings, heard over the last two or three days, the defendants seek to justify its context...

...In summary, the evidence of Mr Hunt in no ways justifies the contents of the email that was sent.

I did not find Dr Lombard to be a particularly helpful witness. He is a chartered psychologist. He tells that he made a report specifically referable to the claimant at the time the claimant was working at Swindon, the inference being that there were sufficient concerns about the claimant, either his teaching methods or his manner of dealing with students that would justify a chartered psychologist looking at the matter and reporting on it. According to him, as I say, he made a report. Sadly, it would seem, that report is now lost. He does not have a copy of it. The defendants do not have a copy of it in the claimant's personnel file. No-one else at Swindon seems to have been aware of it and, I have to say, I find the idea that there was any sort of formal report, critical of the claimant circulating or submitted at a time prior to his leaving Swindon College to be completely and utterly unproven...

Finally, it may be said that is all true, or may be true, but what about causation? The bottom line, say the defendants is this. Bath University sacked the claimant because they, Swindon, would not permit him to enter and that has a superficial attraction. But it totally ignores, in my view, the fact that you cannot simply isolate one sentence in the email from those sentences which surround it. It would be ridiculous, in my view, to say that Bath simply acted on the basis of that line that says he cannot work at Swindon and totally ignore the fact that safeguarding issues were thrown up and, in the climate in which we live now, that is a word of considerable power and the disciplinary action might have been taken against him.

There is simply no way of ignoring the fact that Swindon gave reasons purporting to justify their decision and, as I have indicated, those reasons do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny at all. In other words it is the totality of the email, not just the single line about banning him from the premises, which was the cause of the University of Bath sacking him.

In my view, therefore, applying the Caparo test, mindful that there is no direct authority specifically in point, accepting that this is a slightly different factual situation from Spring, an obviously different factual situation from White , nevertheless I am satisfied damage was foreseeable, the relationship was sufficiently proximate, it is fair, just and reasonable and there is a causal connection between the negligence in and about the sending of the email and the damage whereof the claimant complains.

I therefore find for the claimant on the question of liability.

From: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/469.html

Dr Butt became an OBE in the New Year's Honour's List. Robert Eales is Director of HR Operations at University of Cardiff, Robert Rowe continues as Director of HR at Swindon College, Bill Hunt is now Head of Higher Education at Oxford and Cherwell College and Dr Lombard's company, TIPS continues to provide psychology services to colleges in Wiltshire. The claimant is curently unemployed.

Congratulations Swindon College!

Row after university suspends lecturer who criticised way student was treated

2011-05-05T04:50:00.002Z

A university has been plunged into a row over academic freedom after suspending a lecturer who criticised its treatment of a student who researched al-Qaida.

Rod Thornton, an expert in counter-insurgency at Nottingham University, was suspended on Wednesday after he accused the university of passing "erroneous evidence" to police and attempting to discredit a student who downloaded an al-Qaida training manual from a US government website.

A member of staff at the university also lobbied successfully for Thornton's article to be taken down from an academic website, arguing that it contained defamatory allegations. The masters student, Rizwaan Sabir, was arrested and detained for six days for downloading the al-Qaida material.

A university administrator was also arrested after Sabir asked him to print the document because the student could not afford the printing fees. Both were later released without charge.

In the paper, Thornton wrote: "Untruth piled on untruth until a point was reached where the Home Office itself farcically came to advertise the case as 'a major Islamist plot' ... Many lessons can be learned from what happened at the University of Nottingham.

"This incident is an indication of the way in which, in the United Kingdom of today, young Muslim men can become so easily tarred with the brush of being 'terrorists'."

Thornton's article was prepared for the British International Studies Association (Bisa), which promotes the study of international relations and held its annual conference in Manchester last week. A leaked email exchange shows that one of Thornton's fellow academics at Nottingham claimed the paper made "clearly defamatory" allegations against individuals.

In an email to colleagues, Professor Theo Farrell, Bisa's vice-chair, writes that the request gets the organisation into the "difficult territory" of ensuring academic freedoms while protecting itself from being sued for libel.

Thornton, a former soldier, told the Guardian he had received a letter from the vice-chancellor telling him he had been suspended because of a "breakdown in working relationships with your colleagues caused by your recent article".

He said: "I'm just saddened by it. I'm criticising my own university but there's a bigger issue in terms of the university's treatment of Rizwaan Sabir. They failed miserably in their duty of care to him."

Sabir, now a PhD student at Strathclyde University, said: "A public inquiry is needed more than ever before into the university's actions."

Referring to the arrests in May 2008, Thornton wrote in his paper that both Sabir and the administrator, Hicham Yezza, were "completely innocent" of any link to terrorism. "They were simply caught up in an extraordinary set of circumstances that might be described as laughable if the consequences had not been quite so severe.

"And, at the heart of their tribulations, there does seem to be something really rather dark; something I would never have believed existed in a modern British university and indeed, within modern British society."

Thornton writes that the al-Qaida manual which led to the arrests is now stocked in the university's library. He says the university's administration notified police but had never given any indication they had carried out "even the simplest of internet checks or ... [sought] either advice or guidance from elsewhere".

A university spokesman said Thornton's article was "highly defamatory" of a number of his colleagues.

"The university rejects utterly the baseless accusations he makes about members of staff. We understand that Bisa has decided to remove the article from its website.

"Academic freedom is a cornerstone of this university and is guaranteed in employment terms under the university's statutes.

"That freedom is the freedom to question, to criticise, to put forward unpopular ideas and views – it is not the freedom to defame your co-workers and attempt to destroy their reputations as honest, fair and reasonable individuals.

"It is important to remember that the original incident, almost three years ago, was triggered by the discovery of an al-Qaida training manual on the computer of an individual who was neither an academic member of staff, nor a student, and in a school where one would not expect to find such material being used for research purposes.

"The university became concerned and decided, after a risk assessment, that those concerns should be conveyed to the police as the appropriate body to investigate."

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk

Also: "Terrorism" & Academia Special: Britain's University of Nottingham Claims Another Victim

Negligent (non-)References

2011-05-04T05:10:00.001Z

The QBD has handed down its decision in McKie v Swindon College, which is authority for the proposition that an employer may be liable to a former employee in tort for damages for negligent misstatement when communicating with a future employer about him.

It is well established, since Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296, that an employee may make such a claim following a reference negligently prepared by an employer. HH Judge Denyer QC extended this principle to a statement made by a former employer which was not a reference.

McKie was an exemplary employee of the College. He received a fine reference when he left. He later joined Bath University. His new job involved contact with his old employer, Swindon College. The new HR Director of Swindon, on behalf of the College, caused an email about Mr McKie to be sent to Bath in damaging terms. On the facts this was "fallacious and untrue" and its preparation "sloppy and slapdash". It cost Mr McKie his job at Bath.

Although this was not a reference case the Court held that a duty of care applied. The claim should succeed because the damage sustained was foreseeable, the relationship was sufficiently proximate, the claim fair, just and reasonable and there was a causal connection between the negligence in and about the sending of the email and the damage claimed.

From: http://danielbarnettemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/

Professorial Rights and the Obligations of Academic Deans

2011-04-28T06:42:00.006Z

By Jerome A. Popp, Professor Emeritus, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Introduction

The concept of academic freedom, as it has traditionally been conceived, is a general freedom of inquiry inherent within the status of university professor. In the language of freedom, academic freedom is the freedom to investigate and to teach about problems of shared concern, and the freedom from interference in the pursuit of those activities. However, as the term 'academic' suggests, academic freedom is a concept whose meaning cannot be established apart from our understanding of the nature of academic institutions. John Searle's ontological theory of society and institutions has given rise to an extensive literature in contemporary philosophy, social theory and legal scholarship. An important consequence of his thesis is its provision of a basis for a more complete analysis of academic freedom in terms of the specification of the rights, duties, obligations, and protections inherent in the institutional status of professor.

This analysis is timely, given the numerous reports of academic bullying now appearing in the media, because it allows us to understand the nature of the violations of these rights, duties, and obligations. Beyond the identification of the various transgressions involved in the phenomena of professors attacking professors, this analysis suggests that the curtailment of these attacks falls within the duties and obligations of academic deans. It is further suggested how academic deans may detect the presence of such attacks, so that they may address them in an expeditious manner.

Brief Review of Searle's Social Ontology

As Searle says, we live and function in a sea of institutions. To understand the nature of these institutions, including societies themselves, it is necessary to understand three concepts: (i) status functions; (ii) collective intentionality; and (iii) deontic powers. These ideas are also required to fully understand the nature of professorial institutional status. Since some readers may not be familiar with Searle's ontology of institutions, this review includes, where appropriate and helpful, quotations from Searle's 2010 statement of his theory [1].

Status Functions. Institutions such as currency, baseball, police officers, and prime ministers, like all institutions, are created by status functions that are recognized or accepted within the minds of the members of society. Status functions create some status Y for some X (person--senator, activity--baseball, or thing--dollar bill) in a given context C. When the Founders ratified the Constitution, they created the status of, inter alia, president, senator, and representative. In the language of Searle‟s analysis, the Founders created these and other status functions through a “status-function declaration.” We collectively recognize or accept these statuses, because of the legitimacy we give to the Constitution.

Collective Intentionality. In theory of mind, the term “intentionality” refers to intentions, desires, beliefs, attitudes and so forth. The basic concept or foundational idea upon which Searle's theory is built is collective intentionality, that is, the commonly shared intentions, desires, beliefs, etc. that make society possible. Status functions and deontic powers are created by, and exist within, collective intentionality. Searle's account reveals that the collective intentionality that forms society exists prior to society's institutions, including the institutions of government. (Note that this view is a rejection of the old Social Contract Theory that holds that it is governments that create societies.)

In his original 1995 statement [2], Searle holds that collective intentionality is composed of a primitive form of we-intentionality that cannot be reduced to I-intentionality. To understand this thesis, think of a track and field team. The various events in a track meet require quite different intentions, desires, and beliefs. The events of the pole vault, the shot put, and the 100 yard dash, for example, require intentionalities that have little in common. I-intentionality is what is required for individual successes. The members of the team, nevertheless, do share a collective intentionality, because the members of the team share the belief that each participant desires to make a contribution to a team victory. This belief in a shared or common desire creates the team‟s collective intentionality.

Compare the collective intentionality of the track team with that of a theater ensemble. With the exception of handoffs in the relays, the track meet requires no explicit cooperation,which contrasts markedly with the kind of participation required in the presentation of a theatrical totality. Members of the ensemble are required to have in mind the aesthetic totality to which they aspire to create together. Actors who cannot grasp the complexity of the desired totality may not be able to contribute fully to that product. When audiences detect “upstaging” in a player, they are noticing the presence of an I-intentionality, which stands out against the backdrop of we-intentionality present in the other players.

What is the source of the we-intentionality in members of the theatrical ensemble? Each player has an understanding of the aesthetic totality that the ensemble seeks to create for the audience. Moreover, each understands, at least to some minimal degree, the aesthetic whole and their role in the creation of it. Evidence of the presence of the shared knowledge of the aesthetic totality presents itself when the not uncommon anomalies or glitches in performances occur. These are resolved by various creative adjustments by the participants that overcome these difficulties—often so well that only the most informed audiences can detect their repairs.

Deontic Powers. Status functions always carry with them, “without exception,” deontic powers. [3] “That is, they carry rights, duties, requirements, permissions, authorizations, entitlements, and so on.” According to Searle, “the test for whether a noun names an institution is whether under that description the object named has deontic powers.”[4] Searle's favorite example of deontic power is promise making. When we make a promise, we feel an obligation to keep it, that is, to fulfill the conditions of the promise. If we do not keep the promise, we feel badly about it. What makes us want to keep our promises, and feel deficient if we do not, is our recognition of the deontic obligation at the heart of promise making. Young children show their grasp of this deontic force when they ask, “You promise?” Stated differently, children understand the institution of promising, because they grasp that an obligation is being created.

“It is because status functions carry deontic powers that they provide the glue that holds human civilization together.”[5] These deontic powers, which inhere within institutional statuses, may be of two types: positive deontic powers--rights, and negative deontic powers--duties and obligations. [6] It is by means of this account of deontic powers that we transition from the language of academic freedom to academic rights, duties, and obligations.

As Searle says, “once we get clear about their ontological status, the existence of rights is no more mysterious than the existence of money, private property, or friendship.” Moreove… rights, such as property rights and marital rights, are status functions; that is, they are deontic powers deriving from collectively recognized statuses. They are deontic powers that are imposed on people and can function only by collective recognition or acceptance.” [7]

“The important thing to emphasize is that rights are always against somebody.” [8] If X has a given right, then we know that other people have a corresponding obligation. “To have a right is to have those people, against whom you have the right, obligated to you, and the obligations derive from some status you have.” [9] “Because of your position in an institution, whether it is family, private property, citizenship, or membership in anorganization, you have rights, as well as duties and obligations, that are attached to the position you are in.” [10] Searle's analysis of institutions and their concomitant deontologies provides us with a basic and useful framework for understanding the nature of professorial status.

Professorial Status

Recall that the general idea of a status function is that some status Y is imposed, through collective recognition, on X in context C. When Y is professorial status, the status function assigns this status to persons in universities who fulfill the conditions of assignment of that status function. Inherent within the status of professor are positive and negative deontic powers. To understand professorial status is to understand these powers.

Positive deontic powers are negative rights, which are characterized as follows: “X has a negative right against Y to perform act A implies that X has a certain status S, which places Y under an obligation not to interfere with X‟s doing A.” [11] To know if and how this negative right is violated, it is necessary to have a clear specification of A. In the case of the negative deontic powers of professorial status, A is the duties and obligations of professors, which may generally be characterized as follows:

(i) adequately represent to students, at the appropriate level, the methods and content of the academic disciplines taught;
(ii) investigate problems of shared concern by means of the methods and content at the growing edge of one or more academic disciplines, and to make the results of these studies available to students and others who might have interest in these studies;
(iii) make themselves vulnerable to criticism from competent national and international inquirers in the professor‟s field of expertise by presenting their suppositions, evidence, and arguments in various professional meetings and media.

Note that faculty in what are thought of as teaching universities are not excused from the duties and obligations inherent in the negative deontic requirements of their status as professor.

Faculty in teaching universities, qua professors, have an obligation to: (i) teach well, (ii) participate in some fashion in the investigations of significant problems, (iii) maintain a familiarity with the growing edge of their teaching field, and (iv) find ways to have their conclusions, especially those taught in their classes, publicly exposed to adequate criticism. The latter is typically achieved by means of local, statewide, or regional professional meetings or associations. Note that the point is to have a peer review of presentations so that clarifications and omissions can be articulated by competent others in ways not possible in the typical classroom.

Accepting the institutional position of professor is to make an implicit promise to accept the negative deontic powers of the status of professor

Academic Bullying

If professors have the right to investigate problems of shared concern by means of acceptable methodologies, then all other institutional statuses (students, professors, chairpersons, deans, and higher administrators) have the obligation not to inhibit or restrict such legitimate investigations. There are numerous ways in which the right of professors to pursue their duties and obligations can be inhibited, undermined, or restricted. The most heinous of these is the violation of the negative rights of professors by, of all people, other university professors and administrators. While it is frequently emphasized that the status of professor carries with it the right of non-interference, the activities of academic bullies are often conveniently ignored.

While there is now considerable discussion of the damage done to students, faculty, and programs by professors violating the rights of other professors, and neglecting their own obligations, there are no clear attempts to view these cases in terms of an adequate social ontology. Searle's general account of social institutions provides the resources necessary to identify and explain the kinds of institutional failures that allow such professional misconduct to occur.

There are a growing number of accounts of professors and other teachers being subjected to psychological attacks, currently labeled “bullying,” and sometimes “mobbing,” by those studying this phenomenon. From the Internet and other published accounts of professors attacking professors, it is reasonably clear that the gravamen in such attacks is the violation of the attacked professors‟ negative rights. In the case where there is only one professor infringing on the rights of another professor‟s conduct, pursuant to the deontic demands of professorial status, it is typically managed through the more familiar institutional channels or interpersonal devices. What we learn from the reports of bullying is that there are cases where several professors have been involved in these violations. The collection of Ys engaged in an attack on Professor X are known as, in the lexicon of political activity, a power group. Since the goal of such groups is to achieve something against the public good, they are conspiracies.

Why do some professors bully their colleagues? What is the point of creating such a conspiracy? Cui bono? As one writer puts it, what we have is “the envy of excellence.” [12] What activates professors‟ attempts to drive away other professors who are meeting the obligations of their status? Note that it is not the nonperforming professors who are targeted for removal, because there are normal review procedures that can be used to remove them. It is the professors who do satisfy institutional expectations, and thus cannot be removed for cause, whose presence poses a threat to their attackers.

It is not uncommon to find that some professors are fulfilling the duties and obligations of their institutional status, and are highly competitive with their colleagues in publications, recognitions, and rewards. Even if such competitions may at times exceed the norms of scholarly conduct, they do not give rise to academic attacks. It is generally recognized that there are mutual benefits to be realized by working in the presence of other inquirers. Enthusiastic inquiry attracts like-minded people who want to share their ideas with interested others, as the numerous Internet postings by professors verifies.

From what we know from the growing number of accounts of academic attacks, it seems that such attacks are undertaken by professors as a defensive maneuver to conceal their own deontic transgressions. When some professors are not fulfilling their obligations, their derelictions become most obvious to students, their colleagues, and administrators when they are in the presence of professors who are performing in ways appropriate to their status function. Thus, the attackers and their enablers do profit from the conspiracy created, in that when the performing professors are driven to resign, non-fulfillment of the responsibilities of the attackers status becomes less obvious under the new local norms.

Thinking within the context of Searle's social ontology, what is created is an illegitimate, covert institution. It is an institution because it is a social fact created by a limited collective intentionality that identifies a leader by means of an informal status function. It is a covert and illegitimate institution, because the collective intentionality that sustains it are intentions and desires that its members know are incompatible with the nearly universal collective intentionality that creates the professorial status function. The attackers apparently have no sense of failure in violating the deontic powers of a legitimate institutional status.

The deontic content of professorial status places the attacking professors and their enablers in a double bind. That is, if they understand the deontic content of professorial duties and obligations that is inherent within their status, then they are knowingly violating explicit academic principles in ways that are harmful to professors, students, and the institution in which they have status. On the other hand, if they do not have knowledge of the deontic responsibilities they incur as professors, they contravene the conditions of assignment of that status. Not to understand their academic duties and responsibilities is obviously grounds for dismissal. Yet, in some institutions, those who do perform their duties and obligations are targeted for attack by those who do not.

When professors are attacked, they experience cognitive, emotional, and biological consequences. Note that the attacks in question are not cognitive criticisms of a professor's arguments and conclusions. It is the stock and trade of professors to hear, “I disagree with your conclusion” or “Your suppositions are all wrong.” We may have an emotional response, as well as a cognitive one, to these are highly cognitive objections, but the attacks mentioned in the various reports of “bullying” are psychological attacks that are based on a different methodology.

The effectiveness of such psychological attacks is explained by basic biology. When a person is attacked physically or psychologically, there are three alternative responses: fight, flight, or endure and hope to survive. The flight response should be exercised quickly to be effective. To fight back successfully is difficult, as we shall see. To endure the attack is the most biologically costly.

The biological consequences of these attacks are increased blood levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, and epinephrine, which can cause high levels of anxiety. When a person is attacked and cannot take flight, there are significant negative effects on the cognitive and emotional functioning of the targeted person. It is this degrading of cognitive functioning that reduces the attacked professor's ability to fight back effectively. Ineffective efforts encourage the attackers and further reduce the ability of the victims to defend themselves.

Doing emotional and biological harm to others is clearly immoral. Reducing the cognitive function of a professor is an attack on the mind, which, in a university of all places, should be a high crime. The results of the psychological attacks also, of course, have negative consequences for students and society. Unfortunately, Searle misses the point that the effects of words in a sustained attack can be physically harmful. He says that the effects may be, “psychological states of the hearer and not forms of physical damage. I may be annoyed, exasperated, infuriated, or simply hurt by what you say, but all the same, I am not bleeding and no bones are broken.” [13]

However, Macgorine A. Cassell reports that the following consequences are known to result from attacks on teachers: “stress, depression, suicidal thoughts, reduced self-esteem, self blame, phobias, sleep disturbances, digestive problems, musculoskeletal problems, social isolation, family problems, post-traumatic stress disorder.” [14] In some cases, there may actually be internal bleeding. From many accounts of bullying, it is clear that the traumas that lead to serious distress, and worse, are not the result of physical contact, but of language use.

If the public accounts are correct, then not only are the professors who psychologically attack their colleague abusing their status as professors, but they reveal in their publicly observable behavior that they do not respect the deontic nature of the institutional status they enjoy. People who never feel remorse, betray the trust of others, and use others for their own narrow ends, have never internalized the idea of deontic force in human affairs; thus, they are not part of “the glue that holds civilization together,” but are part of its solvent.

Deontic Powers of the Status of Dean

Within universities, there is the familiar institutional status of dean that, as noted, has positive and negative deontic powers within it, which means that there are negative and positive rights as well. As Searle says, We ought never to allow ourselves to speak of human rights unless we are prepared to state (1) whom the right is against, (2) what exactly is the content of their obligations to the right bearer, and (3) exactly why the person against whom the right exists is under those obligations. [15]

If we should be this precise about our assertions of human rights in general, surely we should be as precise in the narrower scope of rights contained within a specific type of institution. In this analysis, we are not concerned with deans as the bearers of rights, but with deans as having obligations with regard to professors who have rights against them.

The deontic aspects of the status functions that create the academic status of deans includes, inter alia, pecuniary duties and obligations, that is, fiduciary responsibilities that redound to tuition fees, endowment funds, and the use of tax monies−in the case of public institutions. Deans and chairpersons have an oversight role with regard to both the protection of negative rights, and the professorial fulfillment of duties and obligations. Deans and presidents should be acutely aware of the positive and negative deontic powers of professorial status, and those constitutive of their own positions.

As we have seen, professors have the negative right of noninterference, and their attackers have the obligation not to violate that right; but when that obligation is ignored, to whom should professors under attack turn for relief? Who in the institution has the obligation to enforce the noninterference of the negative rights of professors? It is, of course, chairpersons and academic deans.

Within this discussion we exclude the chairperson; if a power group exists in any department, the probability is that the chairperson is either a participating member of the power-group, especially if the chairperson is elected by the department, or is a hostage of it. Note that the chairperson is the first person with the status and obligation to report to professors that they are not satisfying their duties and obligations of their status. Since the chairperson may well be under the control of the attackers and their enablers, the focus here is upon the deans, because they are one step removed from the academic units in which the conspiracies exist. However, the following points are applicable to chairpersons as well as deans.

When all is said and done, everyone, in every department of every university knows the names of the good and poor teachers within their unit; everyone knows, consequently, candidates for attack. Why is it that deans do not know this? The best answer seems to have two parts: on the one hand, the creation of a covert and illegitimate group is the product of intelligent, though misguided people, who set out to undermine the function of a university; on the other hand, deans may not be looking for such covert institutions, because of ignorance, or because of the politically messy process of correcting the situation that might require the dismissal of a faculty members for cause. By the time an attacked professor seeks protection from the dean, that dean is already politically behind in the process; nevertheless, the existence (and perhaps tolerance) of such conspiratorial groups of faculty is a failure of a dean's obligations. We know from the reports of attacked professors that this failure of deans does occur.

What are the positive and negative deontic powers that inhere in the status of dean? Given the reports being made public, a major deontic problem in some universities is that no one assumes the responsibility to enforce the noninterference obligation. Professors who attack professors damage the academic institutions that employ them. Those with oversight responsibility who turn their backs on the issue are also enablers of the attacks by the quasi-professors. Who has the obligation to remove or at least curtail the ability of these faculty members to damage the institutions that pay their salaries?

Academic deans might expect that any attacked professor would report the situation to them; however, professors may feel, for several reasons, that such reporting is a redoubtable task. (i) Being attacked, as noted, creates biological changes that, when intense and sustained, lead to panic attacks. Anxiety may be seen as a sign of personal weakness by the professor and by others. Professors want to be seen, in the face of their attacking colleagues, as remaining strong. (ii) The victim may fear that the dean is a member of the power group or at least is a knowing enabler of it. (iii) A professor may fear the actions taken by a sympathetic dean. (iv) A self-respecting professor who has made major presentations to important groups, or who has successfully engaged in high-level professional activities, will not want to have the attackers find that they have been so effective.

It is likely that the percentage of attacks actually reported is low; it is also likely that bullying is going on in many academic units where it is unnoticed and unexpected by deans. Since the functioning power groups will seek to keep their activities stealth, deans should be aware of certain observable indicators of the presence of professors attacking professors. Some of these are, for a given professor: (i) marked reduction in publication and paper presentation; (ii) decrease in teaching quality; (iii) frequent cancelling of classes; (iv)noticeable lack of attendance or participation in meetings; (v) talk of, or planning to leave teaching; and (vi) observing that a professor‟s achievements are conspicuously ignored by the professor's colleagues and department chairperson, while lesser accomplishments are publicly praised.

Given that attackers are most likely to be found in the population of underperforming professors, and given that underperforming professors are often paid as well as or better than performing professors, especially when chairpersons are enablers or worse, it is now time to reexamine employment and retention policies for both professors and deans. It is time that the leadership in universities recognized that a high percentage of nonperforming professors creates a potential pool of enablers who will readily support those who violate the rights of their colleagues, in exchange for their own protection.

If the collective intentionality of a given university holds that the institution is basically a teaching university, and does not consider it an obligation of faculty to expose the content of their teaching to competent national and international critical review, then academic deans should be aware that any professors who do expose themselves to such evaluations are candidates for removal through psychological attacks. It is also the case that professors who are viewed as both well informed and popular are potential targets. Faculty who find they are not popular with students and who may not enjoy teaching are potential attackers of their colleagues who do, as is suggested in the reports of academic bullying.

The focal point for improvement is, of course, the tenure decision. Giving tenure to nonperforming professors suggests that what is dispositive in the process is membership in an illicit collective, and not what is done to fulfill the obligations of professorial status that determines such decisions. Many of the nonperforming professors would be performers if they knew that such membership would not guarantee them tenure. Given the growing number of discussions of attacks on professors and other teachers, we know that students and society deserve better from their educational leadership. If free and energetic inquiry cannot be protected in universities, then can it be protected anywhere?

References

[1] Searle, John R., (2010), Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization, (Oxford University Press).
[2] Searle, John R., (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, (New York: The Free Press), p. 25.
[3] Making the Social World, pp. 8-9.
[4] Ibid., p. 92.
[5] Ibid., p. 9.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p. 176.
[8] Ibid., p. 177.
[9] Ibid., p. 178.
[10] Ibid., p. 179.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Kenneth Westhues, The Envy of Excellence: Administrative Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors, Tribunal for Academic Justice: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005.
[13] Making the Social World, p. 190.
[14] http://www.gimi.us/CLUTE_INSTITUTE/ORLANDO_2010/Article%20450.pdf,p. 5.
[15] Ibid., p. 185.

Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal

2011-04-17T04:35:00.000Z

As part of my claim to the Employment Tribunal, I had complained that I had been subjected to a sham grievance investigation after I had made a Protected Disclosure to the Principal. Stirling University denied this. The Tribunal asked them to provide details of the alleged investigation, including the facts that led to the decision. It took five months and several letters from me before they finally provided the information they claimed existed in March 2010.

However, there is irrefutable proof that they have lied to the Tribunal. The information they sent describes how Eileen Schofield arrived at a particular decision after referring to the contents of a certain document in March 2010. She describes its contents. Unfortunately for Mrs Schofield, the document she referred to doesn't contain what she said it does.

There is, however, a different document from the same author which contains exactly what she described; but that document was never available to her as part of the grievance process. In fact, it didn't even exist until June 2010.

Therefore, Mrs Schofield has told the Tribunal that she was able to come to a decision based on evidence that simply did not exist until three months after she made her decision.

It's a big fat lie!

It represents an elaborate fraud in an attempt to fool the tribunal into believing that a real investigation had taken place, rather than just admit that there was none.

Last week, Stirling University rejected my suggestion that they were stalling by taking so long to provide evidence that a fair investigation had taken place.

In an earlier post, I spoke about how providing false evidence is fraught with danger.

It would be astonishing if Mrs Schofield was to survive this massive fraud with her job intact.

From: http://bullyingatstirlinguniversity.blogspot.com/

AcademicFOI.Com: Workplace Bullying & Harassment

2011-04-05T17:29:00.000Z

KEY FINDINGS
At least 1,957 university staff asked for support or advice due to bullying or harassment during 2007, 2008 and 2009. The true figure is likely to be a great deal higher since many universities do not record the numbers of informal complaints. 998 formal investigations were made into complaints of bullying or harassment. 764 of these investigations concluded that no bullying or harassment had taken place. 234 investigations upheld the complaints giving an average 23% uphold rate.

MISSION GROUPS
At Russell group universities 34% of complaints were upheld whilst at Million+ universities only 11% of complaints were upheld. This would suggest that Million+ universities either have a significant problem with false accusations or systems of investigation which are wholly defective. Alliance group universities averaged 16%. 1994 group universities averaged 19%. Guild HE universities averaged 23% whilst the universities not in any mission group averaged 29%.

HIGHEST AND LOWEST UPHOLD RATES
At the 3 universities most highly placed in the THE World University Rankings – Cambridge, Oxford and Imperial - 54% of bullying complaints were upheld.
We have identified 41 UK universities with a 0% uphold rate. At these institutions at least 430 staff had sought informal advice about bullying and 56 staff had left citing bullying as a reason. 169 investigations were mounted only to find no evidence of bullying in any of the cases.

STAFF GRADES
Complaints of bullying by staff on a similar grade were upheld in 27% of cases. Complaints against staff on higher grades were upheld in 16% of cases. Complaints against members of the senior executive team - defined as the 10 or so most senior members of staff - were upheld in 15% of cases.

LEGAL COSTS
£1.35M was spent on legal fees in connection with bullying complaints. The true figure will be significantly higher due to the use of in-house lawyers, legal insurance policies and an astonishingly high number of instances where invoices from solicitors were not broken down by reference to specific cases.

REASONS FOR LEAVING
137 staff cited bullying and harassment as a reason that they left the university. The true number will be significantly higher due to the considerable number of universities who appear to file staff exit questionnaires without analysing or reporting the contents.

FOLLOW UP ACTIONS
Dismissals were rarely cited as follow up actions to proven cases of bullying. Only 20 staff were dismissed out of 234 proven cases. No dismissals took place at Million+ universities whilst 13 staff were dismissed at Russell Group institutions.

From: http://academicfoi.com/bullyingharassment/index.htm

Degrees in greed: University chief picked up £1m over four years (and nine others earned more than £300,000)

2011-04-01T05:48:00.002Z

The head of a former technical college earned £1million in four years before taking early retirement while her institution spiralled into debt.

Professor Patricia Broadfoot, 62, was the highest paid university Vice-Chancellor in the UK last year, according to research revealing the pay, benefits and pensions of all higher education chiefs.

The study highlighted the ‘murky’ world of ‘arbitrary’ pay at Britain’s universities and showed that three-quarters of chiefs enjoyed a pay rise last year. Ten vice-chancellors earned more than £300,000 a year. In addition they received annual cash payments into their pension schemes of up to £60,000.

A handful of chiefs at low-ranking institutions, beset with financial troubles, have been granted massive and ‘utterly arbitrary’ pay rises of anything up to 70 per cent. Most disturbing was the amount paid to Professor Broadfoot who last year earned £494,000, including her pension, while presiding over little-known Gloucestershire University.

This sum included a £196,000 ‘pay-off’, equivalent to a year’s basic salary, after she stepped down last March, a year early. Her total earnings over four years were £1,088,000.

The mother of three was also criticised for profligate spending, at one point attempting to hire a personal chauffeur. During her tenure the institution – which became a university in 2001 after teaching mechanics since 1884 – tried to expand and over-invest as the recession took hold.

It plunged into debt and was placed on the ‘at risk’ register of universities threatened with closure or merging.Professor Broadfoot graduated from Leeds University in 1971 with a degree in sociology. Some 13 years later she got her PhD from the Open University.

She was one of five high-profile figures at the university to resign between 2009 and 2011. She was followed by the Chancellor, former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey.

Yesterday the university said it had recently recorded a surplus of £2million and was making a strong financial recovery.

Spokesman Paul Brake said: ‘The university has significantly improved its financial position by reducing costs and growing income through the hard work of staff.’ The research, commissioned for the Times Higher Education Supplement, revealed high levels of pay at other low-ranking universities.

Liverpool Hope boss Gerald Pillay saw his salary balloon by 20.6 per cent to £199,077 as some 110 of his staff face the axe.
Second-highest pay: Professor Andrew Hamilton of Oxford University earned £423,000.

Ninety per cent of the vice-chancellors at the 148 universities earn more than Prime Minister David Cameron’s £142,500 salary. However, 36 vice-chancellors did see their earnings fall. Overall their average pay and benefits rose by 0.5 per cent to £213,813.

The figures come as students face mountains of debt when fees increase to a maximum of £9,000. And with Aston University yesterday announcing it will charge £9,000, as Essex and Surrey did earlier this week, observers warn that all but a handful will charge the full amount.

The study also coincided with thousands of staff at more than 500 universities and colleges going on strike over pay and conditions.

Sally Hunt, of the University and College Union (UCU), called for reform of vice-chancellor pay. She said: ‘UCU members in universities are on strike today defending their pay and conditions and it is somewhat galling to discover that many vice-chancellors are still enjoying handsome, and utterly arbitrary, pay hikes.

‘We want an end to the murky world of pay at the top of our universities and a fair system applied consistently from top to bottom.

‘We have never opposed people being well rewarded for a job well done.

‘However, today’s survey does nothing to suggest that vice-chancellors’ pay is properly scrutinised or that the process for deciding an individual’s pay is fit for purpose.

‘Even after years of promising to rein in pay at the top, there are examples of whopping rises.’

The second highest paid Vice-Chancellor was Professor Andrew Hamilton of Oxford University who earned £370,000 before his pension of £53,000 – a total of £423,000. His predecessor Dr John Hood received £78,000 to cover his relocation costs – he sent belongings to New Zealand and America.

Gloucestershire University has appointed David Willetts’s right-hand man Stephen Marston, from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, as its new vice-chancellor.

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Bullied Macquarie University staff demand an apology

2011-03-23T16:08:00.002Z

Six former Macquarie University staff have demanded an official apology from vice-chancellor Steven Schwartz for the university's failure to act on claims of victimisation and bullying subsequently found to be justified by an Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry.

In an open letter sent yesterday, they also called for further action on other recommendations in the ICAC report, including addressing a chaotic staffing regime at the Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism headed by former NSW police minister Peter Anderson.

The university says it has dealt with these issues, including accepting merit selection as the basis for appointments.

The letter reflects the frustration of former staff that their complaints have been largely ignored, even after the scathing findings of the ICAC-commissioned inquiry and their publication in The Australian a fortnight ago.

The report found nine of the centre's 12 staff made legitimate complaints of victimisation, marginalisation, bullying and harassment. They include the six who signed the letter. Although they pursued the complaints all the way up the university hierarchy to Professor Schwartz, the report says the university took no action to resolve them. Eight of the staff resigned and one did not have her contract renewed.

The report criticised Professor Anderson for contributing to the bullying and victimisation, as well as for appointing people with Labor connections without meeting selection criteria, for claiming inappropriate expenses and for being less than frank in his explanations to the inquiry. The report found no direct evidence of corruption but concluded there were "justifiable perceptions that the processes of recruitment and selection are corrupt".

It said the university should consider providing an apology "for the apparent failure in responding to [the complainants'] workplace grievances and taking appropriate action".

Yesterday's letter says deputy vice-chancellor Judyth Sachs "violated our trust" by forwarding the second complaint sent to her and Professor Schwartz to Professor Anderson, even though it was marked in confidence and contained their names. The former staff who signed the letter are Elton Bien, Alfred Gerstl, Belinda Helmke, Greg Pemberton, David Santoro and Alan Watson.

A university spokesman said yesterday the letter reiterated selected parts of the report, "which contains many serious flaws".

No apology to former staff was warranted as the only formal complaint lodged with the university had been found to be without merit, the spokesman said. Professor Sachs had acted "in an entirely appropriate way and consistently with normal management processes". He also provided a resolution carried by PICT staff last week affirming support for Professor Anderson and asking the university to lodge formal complaints with the Internal Audit Bureau, which conducted the investigation for ICAC, with ICAC itself and with the NSW Ombudsman regarding the "unfair processes and erroneous outcome of their investigation, giving rise to recent adverse publicity".

From: http://www.theaustralian.com.au

Wikipedia: Bullying in academia

2011-03-15T04:50:00.001Z

Bullying in academia is workplace bullying of scholars and staff in academia, especially places of higher education such as colleges. It is believed to be common, although has not received as much attention from researchers as bullying in some other contexts...

Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying_in_academia

UniLeaks is a news organisation

2011-03-11T09:04:00.001Z

Unileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance which is in some way connected to higher education, an agency or government body working in partnership with an institution, e.g., a University.

We absolutely do not accept rumor, opinion, other kinds of first-hand accounts or material that is publicly available elsewhere.

We restrict our accepted material because our journalists write news based on the material, and then provide a link to the supporting documentation to prove our stories are true.

It’s not news if it has been publicly available elsewhere first, and we are a news organisation.

However, from time to time, the editors may re-publish material that has been made public previously elsewhere if the information is in the public interest but did not have proper news analysis when first released.

If you are sending us something, we encourage you to include a brief description of why the document is important and what the most significant parts are within the document. It will help our journalists to write up and release a story much faster.

From: http://www.unileaks.org

Channel 4 is making a documentary

2011-03-07T20:53:00.000Z

Channel 4 is making a documentary about the commercialisation of higher education. One of the areas the programme will explore is the conflict between university managements' desire to increase revenue and the necessity to maintain academic standards.

We are looking to speak on or off the record to academics who feel that standards are being compromised, for example by inflating grades and overlooking poor standards in English, as their institutions seek to maximise income from tuition fees from both UK and overseas students.

If you are willing to speak to me off the record and in confidence, please do get in touch in the strictest confidence.

Gurbir Dhillon - Assistant Producer - Vera Productions
Tel: 0207-292-1480 / 07768-725121
Email: gurbir@vera.co.uk

The Envy of Excellence: Administrative Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors

2011-02-23T15:07:00.001Z

A Sample Selection from Kenneth Westhues, The Envy of Excellence: Administrative Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors, Lewiston: NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2004, 2006.

Elimination in the Narrower, Stronger Sense

The word elimination does not apply equally to all instances of a member of a group being punished, expelled, or humiliated. Every day, restaurant clerks and customers are injured and killed during armed robberies. Yet these tragedies are categorically distinct from the robbery of a New York Wendy’s outlet by an angry ex-employee on May 24, 2000, after which police found the manager and other employees bound, gagged, and shot dead in the restaurant’s walk-in refrigerator: Police had suspected the Wendy’s heist was an inside job because the killers seemed intent on eliminating the victims. “There’s a reason you shoot seven people for a couple of thousand bucks,”one investigator said. (Ridder 2000)

It is this exceptional “reason” that distinguishes cases of elimination, properly so called. It means human beings going after somebody as an end in itself. Interaction turns into a game with no object but to make someone lose, a drama with no plot but to drop some actor from the cast.

For grasping the difference between elimination in its broader, weaker sense, and in the narrower, stronger sense intended here, the hugely popular first season of the CBS documentary, Survivor, aired in the summer of 2000, is worth recalling. Sixteen contestants were secluded on a tropical island, expected to satisfy collectively their subsistence needs and to compete in tests of survival skills. They were divided into two tribes. Each week, a tribe was called together to vote one of its members off the island. As the numbers dwindled, the two tribes were combined, and the weekly voting of one member out continued. The last survivor would win $1 million.

Here was a game, an elimination ritual, that tapped something deep inside the human psyche. Week after week, the show’s ratings soared. How would the group dynamic play out? Who would be voted off next? For the first few weeks, the contestants voted off seemed to be those with fewer survival skills, and those contributing least to group achievements and morale. Most contestants seemed to like and respect almost everybody else, and to be reluctant to get rid of anyone: “I’m sorry to have to vote against X, but the game requires me to make a choice.” This was elimination in the general, looser sense.

Halfway through the series, for its issue of July 8-14, 2000, TV Guide asked a panel of experts to rate the remaining contestants’ chances of surviving to the end and winning the $1 million. The panel ranked a woman named Gretchen as the one most likely to win. An opinion poll of the viewing audience would probably have agreed. Gretchen was competent, skilled, friendly, popular, the apparent leader of her tribe. By most of the relevant criteria, she deserved to win.

To the surprise of the television audience (and to TV Guide’s embarrassment), Gretchen was voted off the very next week, when the two tribes were combined. Members of the other tribe recognized her strengths, formed an alliance, and pooled their votes, consciously and deliberately, to get rid of her. Said one of them, “She had to be voted off because she is bright, and she is strong, and she was a threat” (quoted in Michael 2000).

To the extent this TV game can illustrate a serious point, Gretchen’s ouster was elimination in the stronger, narrower sense. It was not as if the group had coalesced around certain goals or values, reached a consensus about the meaning and purpose of their game, and decided that by these standards, Gretchen was the least valuable or most expendable player. The decision-making process played out in a wholly different way. Her expulsion represented the triumph of imagined collective interest over shared values of any kind. It was a case of Lilliputians bringing down Gulliver.

Is this what happened to Herbert Richardson at Toronto? If it was, it was less obvious than in Gretchen’s case. And if it was, this was no innocent game played for entertainment purposes but a dangerous game played for keeps, where one man’s whole career was on the line. The only way to answer the question is to study the evidence systematically and thoroughly, while keeping in mind what the question is, and what kind of logic and evidence might answer it.

The First, Basic Clue

In lectures on social elimination, I have sometimes said that in every human being are three appetites: for food, for sex, and for humiliating somebody else. The third craving is not ordinarily grouped with the first two. All agree that hunger and sexual desire have a physiological basis, that they drive human behavior in overt and hidden ways, and that they are at times so strong as to preoccupy a person completely, turning him or her into a raging beast, a creature we scarcely recognize as human.

Notwithstanding its less evident basis in biology, the eliminative impulse, the lust to wipe another person out, is categorically similar. It can consume a person to the point of obsession, spread like a virus through a group, and become the driving force behind collective energy. Yet unlike the appetites for food and sex, this one has come to be proscribed in the process of civilization. It is supposed to be held in check by a universal compassion, common allegiance to the “brotherhood of man.” The eliminative impulse, when it does seize control of human behavior, is therefore almost always denied, obscured by the pretense of serving some lofty goal. Girard posits a “persecutory unconscious” in those caught up in the snowballing process (2001, p. 126). It is, he says, what Jesus referred to in his prayer on the cross, “Father, forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing” (Luke 23: 34).

How then can one tell when elimination in its stronger, stricter, narrower sense is underway? Are there identifiable symptoms, empirical indicators that an exclusionary process has escaped the bounds of reason and civilization? Against every professor and teacher a protest has at some time been raised by a student who flunked a test: “You have it in for me.” Can the teacher prove otherwise? When an imposter was forced to resign from the faculty of the University of Regina in 2001, after the degrees on her resumé were shown to belong to somebody else, while she herself had no such degrees, her lawyer protested: “It’s a real old-boys club around here. She’s a foreign-looking person. She has her abrasive side, but she’s easy to gang up on” (Perreaux 2001). Was the eliminative impulse, as the lawyer implied, behind the move to get rid of her? If I, like most professors, would defend her ouster, how do I know I am not acting on my own “persecutory unconscious”? Are there reliable signs that elimination in its savage sense is underway?

The first, most basic clue is the eliminators’ focus on the targeted person, rather than on the allegedly offensive act. “The guilty person is so much a part of his offense that one is indistinguishable from the other. His offense seems to be a fantastic essence or ontological attribute” (Girard 1986, p. 36). Social order requires pointing out errors, infractions, and offenses, and imposing penalties on their account–including jail, in the case of criminal behavior that threatens public safety. Social order does not require spoiling a person’s entire identity, which is what elimination means. An explanation of the need for sanctions that includes personally derisive and humiliating statements about the person on whom the sanctions are to be placed, a statement that break this person’s bond with everybody else: this is the basic indication that the eliminative impulse has been unleashed.

Compare two responses parents can make to a child who has just been eliminated from a spelling bee or gymnastics competition. They can say, “This just wasn’t your day, we’re sorry you won’t be going on to the advanced level, better luck next time.” Or they can say (what most of us have overhead on some occasion, and winced), “You stupid little shit, what’s wrong with you, you’ve brought shame on your school, get out of my sight.” These are radically, categorically different social processes. In the first instance, the child’s person is acknowledged and affirmed even in the midst of inadequate performance. In the second instance, a mistake is enlarged to cover and smear the child’s whole identity. Only the second instance illustrates the process that is the focus of the present book.

From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/socialelim.htm

Bullying at Stirling University

2011-02-12T16:12:00.001Z

I worked at Stirling University for 13 years. I was bullied by my manager, Kathy McCabe. I asked her to stop, but the ill treatment continued, and I raised grievances against her. As a result I was dismissed. Stirling University claims to be committed to allowing employees and students to be able to work and study free from bullying, victimisation and discrimination. However, here I provide evidence of the extreme lengths that management takes to protect and support bullies.

Gerry McCormac became Stirling University's Principal in May 2010. He described the university as one of the most respected in the UK. He said his focus would be on providing leadership and "getting the best out of people".

In accordance with the university's grievance procedures, I wrote to Professor McCormac in September 2010 and sent copies of my letter to Alan Simpson, Chair of the University Court, and Dr James Naughtie, University Chancellor. I alerted them to the widespread corruption that exists within the university's senior management.

You might expect that someone who agreed to take up such a responsible position, and who accepts around a quarter of a million pounds a year to perform his duties, would be horrified to learn of this and would be eager to rid the university of corruption as a matter of priority. You might also expect that he would be eager to speak with me to obtain as much information as possible in order for him to fully understand and deal with the very serious problem at Stirling University.

However, you would be wrong. Professor McCormac decided that it would be best to sweep the issue under the carpet.

It is ironic that a university Cleaner earning around £15,000 a year would probably be sacked for sweeping dirt under the carpet. Cleaners are expected to work with integrity; Principals and senior management are not.

Corrupt or what? I see no evidence to suggest that Gerry is anything but corrupt.

Shame on you, Gerry!

Oh dear! Hot off the press; Gerry has been appointed by Education Secretary, Mike Russell to head up a review of teachers' pay and conditions. Labour and Liberal Democrats are worried that the review may be a sham, and that this is just a cost cutting exercise. With Gerry at the helm, I believe they have good reason to be worried.

Gerry is aware that Mark Toole had decided that I should be dismissed because he couldn't deal properly with my grievance against Kathy McCabe's bullying behaviour. It is likely that Kathy's husband, Liam, being the Finance Director was also a factor. I had made protected disclosures about the university's failure to comply with its legal obligations, so the heat was on for the Uni. Mark's lack of integrity caused him to call in well known 'arse licker', Graham Millar, to carry out a sham investigation which was to produce a report recommending a disciplinary be held. Mark would have told Graham not to allow the facts to get in the way of the required report.

Despite all of the evidence that made it obvious I was innocent, Mark dismissed me, and other corrupt directors upheld his decision.

Immediately prior to this, Mark had arranged for Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield to carry out a sham investigation relating to my allegations that I had been bullied by my manager, Kathy McCabe, for several years, including bullying that took place in Mark's presence. Amazingly, despite all of the evidence, Eileen produced a report stating that I had not been bullied, but that I had bullied my manager. At appeal, University Secretary, Kevin Clarke upheld her incredible decision.

Gerry knew about all of this when he shrugged off my complaints of corruption. Interestingly, he offered no evidence to refute my claims that senior management is corrupt.

Not satisfied with being paid £250,000 a year and ruining an innocent man's career, Gerry will be hoping to be recommended for inclusion in the honours list for carrying out this review. In my opinion, he should be in jail.

Gerry has a wife and three sons. I suppose he is 'lucky' not to have a conscience.

I suppose it's unfortunate from Gerry's and other corrupt people's point of view, that we now have the internet. The world is becoming more transparent. Corrupt dinosaurs, like Gerry, will hopefully become a feature of the past.

My parents were born more than 70 years before most people had even heard of the internet, but that didn't stop them from raising me to be honest, hard working and ethical. Gerry is the type of person they warned me not to mix with.

I feel sorry for his sons who have been deprived of a normal non corrupt life in which they could achieve their goals based on their own genuine desires and honest abilities.

From: http://bullyingatstirlinguniversity.blogspot.com

In defense of Howard Lipman

2011-01-30T12:28:00.002Z

An employee has filed a federal complaint against Ohio University claiming she was stripped of paid administrative leave and her son was kicked out of a masters program in retaliation to sexual harassment and bullying claims she made against former OU vice president Howard Lipman.

Molly Taylor-Elkins spent almost two years as Lipman's executive assistant. She says she felt harassed and bullied by Lipman and that on multiple occasions he made inappropriate sexual comments to her and other female employees.

A university investigation conducted last year agreed Lipman created a hostile work environment but couldn't find enough evidence to substantiate the sexual harassment claims.

Elkins says OU then removed her from paid administrative leave and placed her on sick leave - cutting off her income until she returns to campus next month.

Her son received a letter of admittance to OU's sports administration masters program Feb. 9, according to records provided to The Post. But on March 30, about four weeks after Elkins filed complaints against Lipman, her son received another letter from the program - saying his application had been denied.

In July, Elkins filed a discrimination complaint against the university with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Although the EEOC investigation is still pending, Elkins has demanded $225,000 in damages, free OU tuition for her and two children, and five years paid medical expenses from the university.

"It's not about the money - it's treating people right and being held accountable," she said.

OU says the discrimination claims are unfounded and refused the settlement.

OU President Roderick McDavis and officials in the sports administration program would not comment on Elkins' assertions or the pending EEOC investigation.

Lipman, who left OU in December for a similar, higher-paying position at Florida International University, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

From: http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu

Also: http://kittywampus.wordpress.com

Professor Bob Burgess (Vice-Chancellor, University of Leicester) and the honours system

2011-01-23T17:51:00.004Z

There is nothing new in the view that the British honours system is a discreditable institution. I believe that my encounter with the system adds weight to calls for the system to be reformed or abolished.

As explained in an earlier post on this website ('About the University of Leicester', 21 January 2010 - see also 'Legal and other costs - the University of Leicester and others', 17 April 2010), I have been involved in legal proceedings that I brought against my former employer (I resigned in 2007), the University of Leicester, the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Robert Burgess, and the (now former) Director of Personnel Services, Dr Alison Hall. The respondents denied the allegations. In November 2009 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed an application I had made concerning case management matters in the Leicester Employment Tribunal (there had been no hearing on the merits in the Leicester Tribunal). On 19th January 2010 the EAT published a misleading and superficial judgment delivered by Mr Justice McMcullen, that judge essentially upholding earlier irrational decisions of Judge President Underhill.

In January 2010 I learned that Professor Burgess had been awarded a knighthood by Elizabeth the Queen in the New Year's honours round.

I understand, from information in the public domain concerning the time-scale for processing a nomination, that the decision in the honours machinery to award the knighthood would have been taken while the legal proceedings were still live. If that is not correct, it must at least have been the case that the nomination for an honour would have been making its way through the honours machinery while my legal case was before the EAT and the Leicester Employment Tribunal. And, so far as the EAT judgment is concerned, since the EAT is not the last tier in the legal process, my legal proceedings could not have been considered to be at an end when Professor Burgess was awarded the knighthood.

Information concerning the award of the knighthood to Professor Burgess was sought on my behalf from the Honours and Appointments Secretariat in the Cabinet Office under the Freedom of Information Act. That request was refused by the Honours and Appointments Secretariat and an application for an internal review of the decision was unsuccessful. At the heart of these refusals was the bizarre assertion that confidentiality was essential to the integrity of the honours system. (One element of this secrecy is the 'principle' that a nominee for an honour should not know who nominated them or what was said in the nomination.) My position was that disclosure of the information was in the public interest.

I wish to make clear that I am not arguing here that Professor Burgess had breached the law in respect of the issues I had raised in the ET proceedings. A person is of course innocent until proved guilty. The questions are rather of a different kind. Some of these, taken from the aforementioned application for review of the decision of the Honours and Appointments Secretariat, follow below:

'It is contended that in awarding a knighthood to Professor Burgess when it did, the State effectively interfered in the legal process, putting Professor Burgess and those associated with him in the legal proceedings (other respondents, witnesses for the respondents and the respondents' legal representatives) at an advantage in those proceedings. This is because of the high esteem in which people awarded an honour, especially a knighthood, seem to be held, at least among the more privileged in society. As material explaining the honours system tells the public, recipients of honours are considered by those in the honours machinery to be "exceptional", to have "moral courage and vision" and have undergone investigation to ensure that there are no questions about their "probity". Being awarded an honour undoubtedly involves an elevation of status in the eyes of some. And in Dr Truter's case, the respondents' representatives appear to have considered that status was a factor that would be taken into account by judges, emphasising on more than one occasion in the ET the "senior" status of individuals on the respondents' side and also the fact that the chair of an internal grievance committee was "himself an Employment Judge".' (This grievance committee was responsible for dealing with certain grievances I had submitted before I resigned from my post at the University of Leicester.)

Accompanying the above representations in the application for a review of the decision of the Honours and Appointments Secretariat was the submission that 'questions arising from what has occurred are such as to add to the need for the disclosure of the information previously requested as a matter of public interest', some of the questions being:

- 'According to the Phillips Report, [*] a past "civil judgment reflecting on the probity of the individual would be taken into account" in considering whether someone is fit to receive an honour. Is it the policy to award someone an honour even where such a person is a respondent in legal proceedings? If there are legal proceedings, one consideration might be whether the processing of a nomination should be postponed until the proceedings are concluded, in the interests of the public purse. Clearly, if a recipient of an honour involved in such proceedings is subsequently found by a court or tribunal to have acted unlawfully, and it is then considered necessary to strip him or her of the honour, there would have been a wasting of public funds involved in both the processing of the nomination and the removal of the honour.'
* Report of a review of the honours system undertaken by Sir Hayden Phillips in 2004.

- 'If it is the policy to bestow an honour even in circumstances where there are legal proceedings against the relevant individual, are those involved in the process of investigation and conferral advised that this could mean that they might become drawn into legal proceedings, for example, as witnesses?'

- 'Did Professor Burgess or anyone providing information in respect of his nomination disclose the fact that he was a respondent in legal proceedings? If the reply is in the negative, does this tell us anything about (a) the quality or vigour of the scrutiny of nominations; (b) Professor Burgess's suitability for an honour (if he did not reveal that he was a respondent)? If the reply is in the affirmative, was any further information requested with a view to establishing whether anything might suggest that Professor Burgess's conduct in respect of Dr Truter was not consistent with one or more of the principles of public life? Were any misrepresentations made in respect of the legal proceedings? Were any University of Leicester staff survey results requested for the period in which Professor Burgess has occupied the position of Vice-Chancellor?'

- 'Might any of those involved in the process, including the nominator, have been motivated by a wish to help Professor Burgess and/or those associated with him in the legal proceedings, or have any other questionable motive? And did any of those persons have any connections with judicial officers? As indicated in the [post on the UK bullied academics website headed "About the University of Leicester"], there are questions concerning connections or associations between the respondents and the judiciary which were never examined by the ET or EAT as the law requires.'

There are other issues that I believe need to be explored in the public interest. For instance, the Queen is the Visitor of the University of Leicester, a position that I understand gives her an adjudicative role in respect of certain internal matters; is it really appropriate for her to be conferring honours on individuals she may be called to judge on? Another question, as suggested in the above request for a review of the Honours and Appointments Secretariat decision not to disclose information regarding Professor Burgess's knighthood (and of relevance not only to the award of honours in the higher education sector, but also in other sectors), is whether those in the honours machinery seek to establish through hard data, such as staff surveys, whether there are any employment relations matters that might reflect negatively on a manager or head of an organisation who has been nominated for an honour. For information, a Staff Attitude Survey undertaken in 2004 at the University of Leicester - several years after Professor Burgess took up post as Vice-Chancellor - identified these issues, among others: 33% of academic staff did not think it safe to speak up and challenge the way things were done; 19% of staff said they had been 'subjected to unacceptable behaviours at work'; there was a need to 'improve management and supervisory skills of senior staff'; there was a need for 'more transparency in decision making and intentions'; there was a need 'to talk and listen to staff no matter how far down the ladder they are'; there was a need for 'more staff to avoid excessive workloads'. I am also aware of the results of a survey undertaken in 2006 as part of the University of Leicester's legal duty to implement a disability equality scheme. Those results showed a less than rosy picture in respect of attitudes towards disabled staff within the University of Leicester.

The issue of managers' pay is also potentially relevant in the area of staff relations and is of course also currently very sensitive for the public generally in respect of the public sector and institutions such as banks that are propped up by public funds. In respect of universities, it is no doubt also a sensitive issue for students. So far as Professor Burgess is concerned, the Leicester Mercury newspaper reported on 22nd September 2010 that Professor Burgess '[topped] the public sector rich list [in Leicestershire] with a £245,000 package in the past financial year' (2009/10). That figure is well above the average of a significant proportion of other staff in the University of Leicester. I also understand that in percentage terms, Professor Burgess's pay increase in the aforementioned period greatly exceeded that of most of his colleagues in the University. To be sure, Professor Burgess is not alone in this. The question is, should the Queen, the Prime Minister and others in the honours machinery be holding people up who allow this to happen, whether in the public sector or the private sector, as pillars of the community?

I am adding here a postscript to my initial contribution on this website, 'About the University of Leicester'. In mid-2010, a few months after Professor Burgess received the knighthood, Professor Burgess was made a Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire by the Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire, Jennifer Lady Gretton JP. (As a footnote, it appears that Professor Burgess's appointment was made in honour of service to the local community. The details of this service do not seem to be specified. There is information showing that the University of Leicester is one of the sponsors of the Lord Lieutenant's 'Award for Young People', but - presuming the sponsorship has a financial element - this could not be the service for which Professor Burgess was honoured since it would surely constitute a kind of cash for honours situation - and all the worse since the cash would presumably be that obtained from the public perhaps including financially hard-pressed students in fees. The service to the community given by Professor Burgess must then be something else.)

The Lord Lieutenant is the Queen's official representative for Leicestershire, carrying out various functions on the Queen's behalf. Deputy Lord Lieutenants such as Professor Burgess undertake engagements and duties which include representing the Lord Lieutenant. While it is the High Sheriff who (according to information published by the Lord Lieutenant's office) 'has precedence when in attendance upon Her Majesty's High Court Judges at the Crown Court', one of the 'main duties' of the Lord Lieutenant is 'Leadership of the Local Magistracy as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace (Magistrates)'.

As I indicated in the post headed 'About the University of Leicester', there was evidence suggesting associations or connections between the University of Leicester and the ET, but - despite legal and ethical principles requiring such questions to be addressed - neither the ET nor the EAT responded to the matter. And the respondents remained silent on the relevant submissions that were made on my behalf. Given that Professor Burgess's appointment as a Deputy Lord Lieutenant carries with it associations with judicial officers, there would now seem to be even more reason for anyone who might find themselves involved in a legal dispute with Professor Burgess and/or the University of Leicester to press for clear disclosure in legal proceedings of the nature and extent of connections or associations with the judiciary. Such connections or associations are not illegal but transparency is crucial.

Glynis M. Truter
LL.B. (Hons.) (King's College London), PG Dip. Legal Practice (College of Law), LL.M. (King's College London), Ph.D. (Cambridge)

Univ of Texas hires abusive boss sued for creating hostile work environment

2011-01-13T08:01:00.001Z

In early 2009, Sagun Tuli, MD, Harvard’s first female spinal surgeon, was awarded over $1.5 million in damages incurred from a hostile work environment, including discrimination and retaliation, at the hands of Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital and its then chief of neurosurgery, Arthur L. Day, MD.

A seven-week trial by jury found Brigham and Women’s and Day responsible for creating a severe hostile work environment that was motivated in part by Tuli’s gender and/or national origin (she was born in India). Day, who has had three gender bias cases brought against him in the recent past, including Tuli’s, resigned from his Harvard post in December 2009.

Now, less than a year after Day’s resignation, the University of Texas (UT) has hired and appointed him as residency program director and vice chair for education at the UT medical school’s neurosurgery department at the UT Health Science Center (UTHealth) in Houston. Day, who started his new position on July 1, will once again play a supervisory role for students and residents.

Day’s arrival at UTHealth has stirred up controversy and concern. While some female students, faculty, and employees are outraged at his hiring, UTHealth administration and officials hold steadfast to their decision. Giuseppe Colasurdo, MD, UT medical school dean, and Larry R. Kaiser, president of UTHealth both publicly expressed support for Day.

Tuli stated that Day repeatedly ridiculed and intimidated her. She claimed that Day made racist comments to her and sexist statements as well, such as, “You are just a girl, are you sure you can do that?” during surgery, while frequently referring to his female colleagues as “girls.” Once at a hospital dinner he requested that Tuli “get up on the table and dance for us to show the female residents how to behave.”

In sworn affidavits that supported Tuli’s case, department staff alleged that Day once pointed at the belly of a pregnant staffer and said, “We know what you’re doing at night” and also told a female employee who was counting money, “Sugar, I told you that you don’t have to pay for what I do for you.” He was also notorious for displaying an 8-inch phallic statue on his desk, and once downloaded sexually explicit images onto a nurse’s PDA.

From: http://blog.ebosswatch.com

Teachers unhappy with Glendale investigation

2011-01-13T07:55:00.000Z

A report that dismissed 17 allegations of harassment by a Madison principal towards teachers and other staff failed to actually address charges of bullying, according to a response issued late Friday through Madison Teachers Inc.

The response says that the district's management "has elected to do nothing to support those Glendale staff who have been bullied by Principal (Mickey) Buhl." It also states that some staff members "have been living in fear of Mr. Buhl for 5+ years." In additional comments in the responsde, teachers say that Buhl's behavior towards some staff members "fostered fear and anxiety in the workplace. We finally came forward, even at the risk of exposing ouselves to further vindictive and very hurtful behavior."

I wrote about the release of the report and some background information surrounding the investigation last week, including a link to the full report. The full text of the teachers' response to that report accompanies this story.

In the MTI response, staff members note they were "extremely disappointed with the outcome of the investigation by the attorney retained by the District."

The original report, completed on Nov. 19, was released through an open records request by The Capital Times and others last week, and covered the results of a two-month long investigation by attorney Shana Lewis of local law firm, Ross and Clark. The firm had been hired by the Madison school district to independently assess alleged issues of workplace harassment and bullying by Buhl.

Basically, the Lewis report exonerates Buhl of any formal harassment. But what clearly emerges from detailed comments and interviews in the report, and from the teacher response, is a portrait of a school with a divided staff and a troubled work environment.

Staff members allege they have gotten little to no response regarding their concerns from administration or the Board of Education, but have requested a private meeting with school board members to address what they say are inaccuracies and ommissions in Lewis' report.

"People who were affected (by the report) didn't feel it brought out the full picture of what's been going on at Glendale," said Eve Degen, assistant director of Madison Teachers Inc. in a short phone interview on Monday.

"It's been a very difficult time for the staff at Glendale. This is not something that started two weeks ago, or two months ago or two years ago," she added.

Matt Bell, an attorney for the district, said there would be no comments beyond the release of the report because it has to do with personnel issues.

From: http://host.madison.com

Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education - Causes, Consequences, and Management

2010-12-16T12:59:00.003Z

...While academics have paid little systematic empirical research attention to bullying in academic settings, this has not been the case in several popular online outlets and more traditional trade publications. For example, http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com and www.mobbingportal. com/index.html represent some online destinations. In terms of a respected “industry” publication, the Chronicle of Higher Education has published numerous articles recently on the hostility and mistreatment that occurs on campuses (e.g., Fogg, 2008; Gravois, 2006). This suggests that academic settings are worthy and in need of concerted attention by researchers in workplace aggression and bullying...

...When bullying/mobbing occurs, it tends to be long-standing. McKay et al. (2008) found that 21% of their sample reported bullying that had persisted for more than five years in duration. In our 2008 study, 32% of the overall sample (faculty, staff, administrators, etc.) reported bullying lasting for more than three years. This percentage increased to 49% when we focused on faculty. It may be that academia is a particularly vulnerable setting for such persistent aggression as a result of tenure, which has faculty and some staff in very long-term relationships with one another. Both conflict (Holton, 1998) and aggression (Jawahar, 2002) research note that the longer and more interactive the relationship, the greater the opportunity for conflict and potential for aggression. Further, while ensuring a “job for life,” tenure may also restrict mobility so that once a situation goes bad, there are few options for leaving. Zapf and Gross (2001) observed that the number of actors was linked to the duration of bullying. They found that the more people who joined in the situation, the longer it went on, concluding that it may become increasingly difficult for witnesses/bystanders to remain neutral as bullying proceeds and intensifies...

...While injustice perceptions are common in all work settings, institutions of higher education may present numerous (sometimes unique) opportunities for such perceptions by faculty. For example, student evaluations of instruction are used in many important faculty personnel decisions such as discretionary salary increases, promotions, and reappointment and tenure decisions. Research clearly demonstrates that the content of the course, and “tough” grading, can adversely impact student ratings of teacher performance—leading to stress and frustration (which we discuss below), especially among junior (untenured) faculty. To combat this problem, some faculty may resort to grade inflation as a way of improving their own student evaluations—which, by the way, is often resented by other faculty members. This problem may differ according to academic disciplines and across academic departments. Faculty members are also evaluated using subjective, often ambiguous, criteria, as evident in reviews of scholarly/ intellectual contributions, department- and college-wide service, continuing growth, and community service. Few institutions have clear standards for judging such contributions and, instead, rely on general guidelines or descriptive criteria for making such evaluations. Such judgments often lead to perceptions of distributive injustice, unfair treatment associated with outcomes and procedural injustice, and unfair treatment associated with the decision-making process used to determine those outcomes (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005)...

...Finally, the mechanisms available in higher education institutions may not be appropriately suited for helping faculty deal with these tensions due to their highly formalized structure and limited mandate (Leal, 1995). For example, in the United States and Canada, unions are designed to handle issues between faculty and the administration. They are not set up to handle member-on-member issues. Also, faculty members are less inclined to utilize these formal mechanisms because they take control of the situation out of faculty hands and into those of administration, impinging on the sacred value of autonomy...

Keashly, Loraleigh; Neuman, Joel H.(2010). Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education - Causes, Consequences, and Management. Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p48-70

What to do now?

2010-12-11T15:48:00.001Z

I am a single white tenured male who is being bullied in a primarily all female department. I am a full professor, have a new book coming out next week, however have been called in my dean's office along with another female colleague of 3 years (I have been here 15 years) and had my course schedule changed to work primarily with freshmen... an insult in many cases. Today we did course evaluations and a student came to me and told me that both my dean and the other colleague had pulled them aside a told him to be certain about his narrative answers on the evaluations. He came to me with a "heads up" and told me he did not know what was going on, but I needed to look over my shoulder because he felt someone was out to get me. This guy is 40 years old and former military. So what do I do now?

Signed,
Confused and Angry

Get serious University of Virginia!

2010-12-06T15:20:00.004Z

There’s even more to the Univ. Virginia tale. A couple of years ago, UVa recruited WBI (and others with extensive experience with university communities as well as being researchers and consultants, in other words, heavyweights in the field) to come to campus. UVa instead brought in a “motivational” speaker. At WBI, we pass on several on-site speeches when employers resist creating a solution for the problem that prompted the request in the first place.

The result at UVa was that nothing was done after the speech. The former President’s office was not engaged in discussions about bullying, and possibly the specific Kevin Morrissey complaints. If something had been in place, Morrissey would not have had to resort to pleading with HR and the other institutional helpers as his phone records indicated was done. HR may be implicated in Morrissey’s death. And the feel-good motivational speaker actually encouraged this negligent employer to believe that it had adequately addressed bullying on campus with a speech alone! Get serious UVa. What will it take to get American employers to stop the carnage within the ranks?

From: http://www.workplacebullying.org
Also: UVa Report after Morrissey suicide – No negatives for boss Genoways

Who is Hassan Abdalla really?

2010-11-28T17:36:00.013Z

What price victory? Ten times more than defeat

2010-11-23T17:50:00.001Z

The huge costs that universities can incur fighting employment tribunal claims, even when the institution is vindicated by the result, have been highlighted by a case in Scotland.

The University of St Andrews spent more than £200,000 on legal fees successfully defending itself against a claim brought by a former lecturer - around 10 times the amount that it might have expected to pay in compensation had it lost the case.

The claim was lodged by Declan Quigley, who alleged that in 2002 he had been forced out of his job as a lecturer in social anthropology by a culture of bullying in his department.

He lost his claim for constructive dismissal in 2004, as well as a subsequent appeal.

A Freedom of Information request has now revealed that the university spent £204,000 on the case - far more than the lecturer could have expected to win.

Dr Quigley, who now practises alternative medicine in Barcelona, claimed that the university and its principal at the time, Brian Lang, had failed in their duty to protect him from what he said were intolerable working conditions.

However, the tribunal dismissed his case after hearing evidence that Dr Quigley had been determined to leave. He later brought an appeal on various points of law but these were thrown out by the Employment Appeals Tribunal following a hearing in 2006.

A spokeswoman for St Andrews said the university had "no option" but to defend the allegations made by Dr Quigley.

She said: "We have a commitment to act fairly with respect to all employees and to publicly establish the facts, especially where the reputation of an academic department is being attacked. In this instance, that responsibility came at considerable cost.

"We regret the cost. As a default, the university seeks to ensure that all its resources are focused on teaching and research. But in this case we are vindicated by the result."

Dr Quigley said that, had he won the case, the employment tribunal would have been unlikely to award him more than £20,000.

"I would have settled for much less than the £200,000-plus that the university ended up spending on its legal expenses," he said.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Also check: Skorupski's Law

Please help me

2010-11-23T07:53:00.001Z

Please help me. I have a principal who is nagging me although all my students are passing their classes. Her comments are that because I was raised Catholic I do not have to teach like I am in a catholic school. Another teacher makes fun of my accent and handwriting. I was born in Europe. The other teacher is American born, falsifies attendance records and yet nothing is done. What can be done? I need this job but it really annoys me to work with such an unethical group of people.

Anonymous

Abused PhD candidate

2010-11-21T18:34:00.001Z

As a dissertation editor hired by a PhD candidate who is being emotionally abused by her adviser, I've been googling "grad-student abuse" to find out more about this sickness. I'm appalled how little is being exposed about this, and almost nothing that's recent. It appears to me that this adviser is sabotaging the grad student's work in order to keep her under her thumb as long as possible. This adviser is isolating the student in order to emotionally abuse her, keeping her on the phone all hours of the day and night. She's even ordered the student not to have contact with me. I've APA-edited the paper perfectly and the adviser continues to undo my work and revert to previous versions randomly, so no one knows what's in it anymore. All the while insisting that the student have it done YESTERDAY... The student is about to have a breakdown and it seems there's nothing I can do to help her, since she needs that lunatic's signature in order to submit her paper. How do students keep from murdering their advisers who are certifiably insane?

Anonymous

Disrespectful behaviors at U of I?

2010-11-20T10:46:00.001Z

IOWA CITY — Complaints of disrespectful behavior to the University of Iowa Office of the Ombudsperson have increased steadily over the past four years, a trend university officials called disappointing and disturbing.

In presenting their annual report to the Faculty Council on Tuesday, two ombudsmen said 22 percent of their office’s visitors in 2009-10 came with complaints about disrespectful behavior. That’s up from 17 percent in 2008-09, 12 percent in 2007-08 and 8 percent in 2006-07.

That follows an alarming national trend showing workplaces in general are becoming more disrespectful, with incidents of bullying, yelling, swearing and shunning, staff ombudsman Cynthia Joyce said.

“It is a real concern to us,” she said.

Two years ago, the university office started tracking complaints of bullying, which falls under the category of disrespectful behavior. Explicit complaints about workplace bullying were made by 10 percent of visitors in both 2008-09 and 2009-10.

“The consequences can be very severe ... so we’re worried about that as well,” Joyce said.

Such behavior is a departmental culture issue that must be addressed at the level of each department, said Susan Johnson, the faculty ombudsman.

The office served an all-time high of 517 visitors in 2009-10, a 6 percent increase from the previous year. University staff make up the bulk of the visitors, at 48 percent, followed by 30 percent students and 17 percent faculty.

The increase in visitors could be because of better visibility of the office on campus, along with the belief that early intervention in conflicts is of value, officials said.

The largest area of concern and complaint for all visitor groups to the office stems from a supervisory relationship, such as with a boss or dean — or a faculty member, in the case of students.

The office also is seeing an growing number of situations in which information is posted on Facebook or some other social media site that begins or worsens a conflict. Some people have been fired after inappropriate Facebook postings, Johnson said.

From: http://www.omaha.com

Merrigan versus University of Gloucestershire (UK)

2010-11-17T16:13:00.003Z

Nothing like good news to remind everybody of anti-bullying week (15-19 November 2010).

Summary

Kara Loraine represented a Claimant who alleged that because she was raising concerns about financial mismanagement at the university (protected disclosures), the senior management of the university tried to push her out of her job and when that failed she was sidelined from involvement in various projects.

The Tribunal upheld the complaints, finding that although the university had been supportive when the focus of the investigations/disclosures was on one individual Dean who had since left the university, the senior management’s attitude changed when the Claimant made disclosures that implicated others. In particular the Tribunal held that the Dean of the Business School had influenced others to form a negative view of the Claimant because of her disclosures and this was the reason for the attempt to remove her from her job and the sidelining, which were also found to be detriments.

The Claimant was awarded £6,000 for injury to feelings.

Unison Press Release:

UNISON helped a whistleblower win compensation from the University of Gloucestershire after she was sidelined for exposing suspected financial mismanagement.

The Business Development Manager at the University was asked by the University’s former Deputy Vice Chancellor, Paul Bowler, to look into the finances in June 2009. He had been hired to put together a financial recovery plan for the university, which is on the Higher Education and Funding Council for England’s “at risk” list.

After Mr Bowler left the university in November, the attitude of senior staff, including the Vice Chancellor, Head of Finance, Dean of the Business School and Director of Marketing within the university changed towards Mrs Merrigan.

She told the Tribunal that they had colluded against her to was move her off the work she was doing - the recovery plan and financial investigation were effectively suspended.

Bristol Employment Tribunal found yesterday (30 September) that the Dean of the Business School, who was implicated in Mrs Merrigan’s disclosures, influenced the University to take action against Mrs Merrigan.

As a result, the Business Development Manager had suffered at the hands of the University for disclosing information on financial problems and she was awarded compensation of £6,000 for injury to feelings.

From: http://www.oldsquare.co.uk

Also:

University of Gloucestershire whistleblower wins case

Gloucestershire University whistleblower wins industrial tribunal

University whistleblower who lifted lid on excessive spending on overseas travel wins tribunal

Stop the bullying at the University of Memphis!

2010-10-23T20:18:00.002Z

I want to bring your attention to bullying happening at the college level at the University of Memphis.

I've become a victim to this and I know it's not just me as another young woman in my program got bullied by our department's administration. The interim chair, Sandra Sarkela, told this woman's adviser, David Appleby, that she wanted the woman "out of the program". Then Sarkela had the woman's graduate assistantship supervisor, Katherine Hendrix, assign the woman last minute "work" on a Saturday. Their tactics worked, the young woman dropped out of her assistantship credits and Sarkela's class.

Another young woman in the program was barred from taking certain classes when younger, Caucasian students were allowed. She was also treated differently than these others in terms of grading. When she brought this up to Sandra Sarkela, she was discriminated against and retaliated against.

I, too, have been treated in this manner by Sandra Sarkela and our department administration and even by the university administration and Shirley Raine's office. I have a ADA medical condition that was ignored by the Affirmative Action Officer, Michelle Banks. I was put in a work condition (noisy public computer lab, no air conditioning, no water, being surveillanced) that caused my anxiety problems to worsen.

I complained about discrimination to Sandra Sarkela, who then had me terminated, hence attempting to destroy my academic and work credibility when I have an unblemished record. After figuring out that was a federal crime, the university reinstated me, but since then has retaliated against me at every turn to try to make me leave "voluntarily" like the first young woman.

When I turned in my work, they ignored my sources and called me a plagiarist in an email, again attempting to undermine my academic and work future. They also refused to fill out an incident report for a work injury I had and threatened via email with an "If/Then" statement to stop paying me. This was by university counsel Sheryl Lipman. I am a minority female who moved from California to get a PhD and become part of this community. Now, the university has put a condition on my assistantship that I sign over a full psychiatric examination (fitness for duty) for just working by myself with books- over to them. This is not right.

I would like to share with you and our community the atrocities that are going on in higher education at The University of Memphis.

More info at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/7/stop-the-bullying-at-the-university-of-memphis/

King's College London: Support Virginia Jibowu

2010-10-23T04:50:00.006Z

-----------------
Sign the online petition at:
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/38617.html
-----------------
I am a 26 year old female of Nigerian-Welsh origin. I was a full-time undergraduate student on the Defendant’s Extended Medical Degree Programme (EMDP) from September 2002 until December 2008. On 20 October 2008 I was injured by a porter driving a wheelchair into the back of my leg whilst I was on my clinical attachment at King’s College Hospital. As a result of my injury, Professor Greenough (Head of the medical School) removed me from my programme. I am currently unemployed and suffer from reduced mobility as a result of the injury sustained.

King’s College London medical School is called Guy’s King’s and St Thomas’ School of Medicine (GKT). KCL is in partnership with Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust Hospitals. The Institute of Psychiatry (IOP) became a school of King’s College London in August 1997. The King’s College Hospital is further affiliated with the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. KCL also has various alliances with South London G. P. Practices within Lambeth and other Primary Care Trusts. The General Medical Council and the South Thames Foundation Schools are also closely linked with KCL.

Whilst at King’s College London (KCL) I was subjected to disability discrimination preventing me from taking up the F1 post I had secured with the Wales Foundation School. I suffer from severe incapacitating dysmenorrhoea. This is a debilitating condition which prevents me from carrying on my normal day to day activities for at least 2 days every month (I refer to the letter dated 6 August 2001 from Anne Giwa-Amu to the Health Authority (marked exhibit 1), with the response dated 17 August 2001 (marked exhibit 2), and also the letter dated 10 August 2001 from Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital confirming my referral to the Pain Management Centre (marked exhibit 3).

I was also subjected to ‘continuing acts’ of racial segregation, racial discrimination, harassment, bullying and institutional racism from 2002-2009. In summary:

a) I was racially discriminated against during the recruitment and selection process and racially segregated onto the EMDP course which I had not applied for.

b) Despite my protests, I was kept on the EMDP course from 2002-2008/9.

c) The EMDP course is a 6 year programme whilst the standard MBBS is a 5 year programme. Therefore, being placed on the EMDP course subjected me an additional year at university during which time I could have been employed.

d) I was compelled to wear a badge from 2002-2008/9 marking me out as one of the EMDP students. As the course was advertised as being designed to bring in more students from socially deprived ethnic minority backgrounds this was a humiliating experience for me.

e) I was compelled to participate in various research projects without my knowledge and consent. This included social research, psychological research and IQ tests from 2002 -2008/9.

f) I was covertly monitored without good reason over a period of time whilst on the EMDP course.

g) My complaints of racial harassment and bullying by fellow students were not investigated but I was ‘watched’ because I had made those complaints.

h) I was subjected to ‘institutional victimisation’ because of my complaints by members of the management team who orchestrated a campaign to discredit me.

i) Following my injury whilst on clinical attachment at King’s College Hospital, management refused to investigate my complaints and continued to spread false and defamatory statements about my mental health.

Further details are provided below.

Due to my complaints of racial segregation, racial discrimination, harassment, bullying and institutional racism, I suffered victimisation from members of the management team. My protected acts are as follows:

a) In 2002 I protested to Gavin Brown that my application for the MBBS 5 had been rejected in order to channel me onto the experimental EMDP course.

b) In 2002-2003 I made complaints to Dr Pamela Garlick and Professor Standring about the segregated nature of the EMDP course and asked to be transferred to the MBBS5 course.

c) In 2005 I made a complaint to the college of harassment and bullying by Richard Pinder who was my clinical partner at the time. I asked to be moved away from him.

d) On 2 December 2006, I submitted a written complaint of harassment and bullying against Emily Bowen, Steve Dixon and Simon Hill. I made a verbal complaint to staff indicating that the harassment was racially motivated.

e) On 19 September 2007 I made a complaint to the Dean of Victoria Hospital (St Lucia), and the Elective Coordinator against Alexis Johnson, Johanne Adley, Jaskiren Kaur, Emon Malik and Sivathatishana Meinerikandathevan for assault, bullying, harassment and breach of contract.

f) On 9 September 2007, I sent Emon Malik a ‘letter of claim’.

g) 24 September 2008, I submitted a claim at the Employment Tribunal.

h) 21 November 2008, I submitted a claim for discrimination at the Central London County Court (8CL09060) which was lost on the court system.

i) 23 December 2008, I submitted a replacement claim at the Central London County Court (which was returned as permission was needed to serve on the defendant’s Solicitor)

j) On 28 January 2008, I submitted the claim for racial discrimination at the Central London County Court.

More information at: http://www.virginiajibowu.co.uk

The unkindly art of mobbing - in Academia

2010-10-16T05:14:00.002Z

At a practical level, every professor should be aware of conditions that increase vulnerability to mobbing in academe. Here are five:

• Foreign birth and upbringing, especially as signaled by a foreign accent.
• Being different from most colleagues in an elemental way (by sex, for instance, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, class
origin, or credentials).
• Belonging to a discipline with ambiguous standards and objectives, especially those (like music or literature) most affected by
post-modern scholarship.
• Working under a dean or other administrator in whom, as Nietzsche put it, “the impulse to punish is powerful”.
• An actual or contrived financial crunch in one’s academic unit (According to an African proverb, when the watering hole gets
smaller, the animals get meaner).

Other conditions that heighten the risk of being mobbed are more directly under a prospective target’s control. Five major ones are:

• Having opposed the candidate who ends up winning appointmentn as one’s dean or chair (thereby looking stupid, wicked, or crazy in the latter’s eyes)
• Being a rate buster—achieving so much success in teaching or research that colleagues’ envy is aroused.
• Publicly dissenting from politically correct ideas (meaning those held sacred by campus elites).
• Defending a pariah in campus politics or the larger cultural arena.
• Blowing the whistle on, or even having knowledge of serious wrongdoing by, locally powerful workmates.

The upshot of available research is that no professor needs to worry much about being mobbed, even when in a generally vulnerable condition, so long as he or she does not rock the local academic boat. The secret is to show deference to colleagues and administrators—to be the kind of scholar they want to keep around as a way of making themselves look good. Jung said that “a man’s hatred is always concentrated on that which makes him conscious of his bad qualities.”

By Professor Kenneth Westhues

Stop bullying at the University of Newcastle - Australia

2010-10-12T04:55:00.002Z

We are a group of people who have all spoken out about wrongdoing here and have been bullied into silence. From our experiences, we feel very strongly that the situation cannot continue. To end the bullying, we need to have information on the extent and type of bullying that is going on. This is why we are asking people to fill in this survey.

We are very aware how devastating bullying can be and we do not intend to make anything worse for you. That is why we assure you that this survey is completely anonymous and no details (e.g. ISP addresses) will be tracked.

Please help us to end this bullying.

If you would like to share your story, please add to our blog - you can post anonymously to this blog and no details (e.g. ISP addresses) will be tracked. PLEASE NOTE: Do not include any identifying details in your blogs - we are not responsible for the information posted on this site.

It is a huge support to others to hear your stories of bullying so please contribute if you feel you are able to.

http://stop-b-uon.blogspot.com/

Submission of evidence to IUSS (Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee) regarding plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University

2010-10-01T18:27:00.002Z

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 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 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). 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…

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). 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). 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 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 literature as copying the literature 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"). 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"). 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…

Submission from Professor MS El-Sayed

Tribunal finds in favour of Gloucestershire whistleblower

2010-10-01T16:48:00.002Z

The University of Gloucestershire has lost a tribunal case brought by a manager who claimed she was sidelined after blowing the whistle on the state of the institution’s finances.

Jan Merrigan, business development manager at Gloucestershire’s Faculty of Education, Humanities and Sciences, said she had suffered professionally after drawing attention to financial problems, particularly at the faculty.

She claimed at an employment tribunal in Bristol this week that public money was being spent inappropriately on overseas travel for academic staff and part-time payments for workers already in full-time contracts. She added that Gloucestershire was losing money on courses run in partnership with London-based international colleges.

In 2008-09, the university’s overall deficit was £6.3 million, and the early indications are that it suffered another large deficit in 2009-10.

The university disputed any evidence of unlawful practice during the tribunal hearing, which also heard claims that Paul Bowler, Gloucestershire’s former deputy vice-chancellor, had “plotted a coup” against Patricia Broadfoot, its former vice-chancellor.

Mr Bowler, who left the post in December after a period on suspension, denied the allegation, although he told the tribunal that when the vice-chancellor had asked him whether he thought she should resign, he told her she should.

Professor Broadfoot retired in August.

The tribunal panel upheld the claim lodged by Ms Merrigan, who still works at the university, and ordered Gloucestershire to pay £6,000 in compensation.

Ms Merrigan said: “I am delighted I have won, but most importantly, that my concerns were taken seriously. I never wanted to take my case to an external tribunal, but the internal procedures were flawed and despite my best efforts, the university did not want to hear what I had to say or address my serious concerns over financial flaws.”

Gloucestershire was unavailable for comment.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

UNISON Press Release

Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education: Causes, Consequences, and Management

2010-09-23T15:18:00.009Z

...Surprisingly, university-based researchers have paid relatively little attention to bullying in their own backyards. This is an interesting oversight for a number of reasons. First, it stands in contrast to reliable evidence of other forms of hostile and demeaning behaviors on campus such as student and faculty incivility in the classroom (e.g., Braxton & Bayer, 2004). Second, the quality of interpersonal relations, such as collegiality, is an important factor in retention of faculty (Norman, Ambrose, & Huston, 2006). Third, the extensive literature on conflict and misconduct in higher education (Cameron, Meyers, & Olswang, 2005; Euben & Lee, 2006; Holton, 1998) highlights the structural and interpersonal opportunities for disagreement and potentially for hostility in such settings. Finally, the academic environment has a number of organizational and work features that increase the likelihood of hostile interpersonal behaviors (Neuman & Baron, 2003; Twale & De Luca, 2008).

While academics have paid little systematic empirical research attention to bullying in academic settings, this has not been the case in several popular online outlets and more traditional trade publications. For example, http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com and www.mobbingportal. com/index.html represent some online destinations. In terms of a respected “industry” publication, the Chronicle of Higher Education has published numerous articles recently on the hostility and mistreatment that occurs on campuses (e.g., Fogg, 2008; Gravois, 2006). This suggests that academic settings are worthy and in need of concerted attention by researchers in workplace aggression and bullying.

...First, the rates of bullying seem relatively high when compared to those noted in the general population, which range from 2% to 5% in Scandinavian countries, 10% to 20% in the UK, and 10% to 14% in the United States (Keashly & Jagatic, in press; Rayner & Cooper, 2006).

...in our recent study conducted with university employees (Keashly & Neuman, 2008), colleagues were more likely to be identified as bullies by faculty (63.4%), while superiors were more likely to be identified as bullies by frontline staff (52.9%). Contrary to the current emphasis on student incivility, faculty concern about workplace harassment was more likely to be associated with colleagues (especially senior colleagues) and superiors much more frequently than with students. These findings support the importance of focusing on faculty behaviors in understanding bullying in academic settings.

Another observation is that the experiences reported involved two or more actors, that is, mobbing. Westhues (2004), in discussing the mobbing of professors by their colleagues and administrators, has argued that the experience of being mobbed is very different from the experience (however upsetting) of being harassed by a single actor. In our 2008 sample, we found that rates of mobbing differed as a function of the occupational group being studied. Faculty members were almost twice as likely as staff to report being the victims of mobbing by three or more actors (14.5% vs. 8%, respectively). Frontline (nonacademic) staff members, on the other hand, were 1.5 times more likely to be bullied by a single perpetrator. These occupational group differences, and the possibility of some differences in antecedents, consequences, and dynamics, support our focus on faculty experiences for this article.

When bullying/mobbing occurs, it tends to be long-standing. McKay et al. (2008) found that 21% of their sample reported bullying that had persisted for more than five years in duration. In our 2008 study, 32% of the overall sample (faculty, staff, administrators, etc.) reported bullying lasting for more than three years. This percentage increased to 49% when we focused on faculty. It may be that academia is a particularly vulnerable setting for such persistent aggression as a result of tenure, which has faculty and some staff in very long-term relationships with one another... Further, while ensuring a “job for life,” tenure may also restrict mobility so that once a situation goes bad, there are few options for leaving.

...Of all the types of bullying discussed in the literature (e.g., Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003), the behaviors most frequently cited in academia involve threats to professional status and isolating and obstructional behavior (i.e., thwarting the target’s ability to obtain important objectives)...

Proposition 1: When faculty bullying does occur, aggression will be indirect (as opposed to direct) in form, given the norms of academic discourse and collegiality...

Proposition 2: Tenured faculty exposed to bullying will be more likely than untenured faculty to “retire on the job,” or lower the quality of their courses, or less likely to engage in “discretionary” service-related behavior...

In sum, the studies reviewed here suggest that workplace aggression, bullying, and mobbing are part of the academic landscape, and their impact not only can be damaging to the targets and bystanders, but also may adversely affect the learning environment and the institution itself...

Proposition 3: In general, perceived norm violations will result in higher levels of direct aggression and bullying on the part of senior (as opposed to junior) tenured faculty members.

Proposition 4: Senior (tenured) faculty members will direct their aggression and bullying against untenured faculty members who are lower in rank, students, or staff.

Proposition 5: Senior faculty members will be more likely to engage in indirect forms of aggression against colleagues of equal rank, department chairs, and other senior administrators...

Proposition 6: The experience of frustration and stress among junior (untenured) faculty will result in higher levels of indirect and passive aggression against the perceived source(s) of that frustration and stress...

Proposition 7: Increased levels of cost-cutting measures will be associated with increased levels of negative affect, unpleasant physiological arousal, and, ultimately, workplace aggression and bullying by faculty...

This analysis suggests that faculty may have little motivation (or perceive themselves as not having the “legitimate” authority) to handle issues with “difficult” colleagues—allowing situations to escalate, resulting in a toxic climate and an increased likelihood of aggression and bullying. Recent research suggests that faculty find such circumstances difficult and often intolerable. For example, Ambrose, Huston, and Norman (2005) found that lack of collegiality was a key influence in the dissatisfaction of current and former faculty, resulting in their decisions to leave their institutions...

We believe that we have demonstrated that aggression and bullying is part of faculty experiences, and the potential consequences of these behaviors... Over the past 10–15 years, researchers have learned quite a bit about workplace aggression and bullying in a variety of organizational settings, but very limited attention has been focused on bullying in the academy. We have suggested there are contextual factors that seem unique to institutions of higher education that have been strongly linked to the onset of aggression both theoretically and empirically. Consequently, we believe that there is sufficient justification for pursuing more systematic research on bullying and aggression to better understand the nature, causes, consequences, and management of such damaging behaviors within institutions of higher education...

Keashly, L. & Neuman, J.H. (2010). Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education: Causes, Consequences, and Management. Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 48–70.

Bullying at work: the impact of shame among university and college lecturers

2010-09-13T18:55:00.006Z

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the concept of shame within the context of workplace bullying. Despite a decade or more of international research into bullying at work, there is little or no evidence for explicit exploration of shame amongst those who have experienced bullying. Based on content analysis from the narratives of 15 college and university lecturers who were self-selecting victims of bullying we find clear evidence for feelings of shame which appear to last long after the bullying episodes have ended...

The escalation of workplace bullying

The growth of workplace bullying both in terms of research, and as an organisational phenomena in the UK, has been spectacular since 1993. Although known by a number of different names including ‘mobbing’ (Leymann, 1996; Zapf et al ., 1996), harassment (Bjorqvist et al., 1994), bullying (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Lewis, 1999), workplace harassment (Brodsky, 1976) and emotional abuse (Keashly, 1998) amongst others, the central core of these differing concepts are ‘systematic mistreatment’ of an individual which, if unabated, results in severe problems for the victim (Einarsen et al ., 2003). The reported growth of bullying inside organisations appears widespread, regardless of geography. Studies undertaken in the UK (for example, Hoel & Cooper, 2000; UNISON, 1997), Scandinavia and Europe (for example, Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Vartia, 1996) and Australia (for example, McCarthy et al ., 1996; Richards & Freeman, 2002) have all shown increasing numbers of employees being exposed to bullying behaviours. Part of the reason for this increase in reports of bullying might be the product of amplified coverage by numerous media (Lewis, 2002) and to the growth in litigation and subsequent attention to policy and procedures by organisations and trade unions (Lewis & Rayner, 2003). These different narratives coupled with talk amongst victims, colleagues and ‘canteen lawyers’ provide fertile ground for multiple socially constructed realities of workplace bullying as a phenomenon rapidly on the increase...

Supporting the bullied victim

According to Leymann and Gustafsson (1996) and Matthiesen et al. (2003), bullied victims suffer from a lack of social support in work, which is central to coping with the experience of bullying and in mitigating health and stress symptoms. Hubert (2003) explains that from her experience of dealing with bullied victims, people get pushed from person to person or even institution to institution. Could this process of ‘push’ result in further feelings of shame? Hubert (2003) suggests that the initial desire to offer help to people who have been bullied operates merely as a referral service rather than any real practicable source of assistance. Even when referral to organisational departments who are supposed to assist bullied victims actually takes place, research suggests outcomes can often be unsatisfactory. Both Adams (1992) and Rayner (1998) report how it is often the junior ‘bullied’ individual who is relocated and not the ‘senior’ bully. This sense of injustice might well result in thoughts of shame as one is moved to new surroundings, new colleagues or even new work tasks. Here it is the victim who may suffer feelings of shame for not being able to deal with the original situation...

According to Hubert (2003), inappropriate advice on bullying can often result in escalation of the conflict. Witnesses or bystanders can be drawn into the conflict to such an extent that a ‘conflict of fear’ establishes itself (see Rayner, 1999, for example). Within this enculturation of fear, people become too scared to report bullying or believe that management know about it but will not take appropriate action to deal with it (Rayner, 1999). Liefooghe (2001) showed how employees at a UK bank were reluctant to speak out against bullying, despite assurances of nonreprisal for doing so. Instead, Liefooghe (2001) found more subtle intimidation and discreet forms of bullying occurring as a result...

Given the wider evidence of links between shame and depression, what evidence exists for similar associations in the bullying literature? Although there is limited discussion in the workplace bullying literature about shame, there are clear signals that this construct exists for bullied victims. Regardless of the source of the bullying behaviours, the shame impact, if prolonged and selectively targeted, is the same. Recipients are worn down, frustrated or intimidated, and severe cases can suffer with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003)...

Whilst some bullied victims found it difficult to concede they were victims, they also sought comfort in sharing their experiences with colleagues rather than with legitimised authorities. This contradicts the notion of shame as an isolatory experience. The fact that some victims of bullying seek colleague support during or after a bullying episode may indicate there is a collective need to administer retributive justice that they are unlikely to find within the corridors of personnel or their trades union. Their feelings of humiliation as to what was happening to them can only truly be understood by sharing their experiences with those who have also been bullied, or simply with those who know and understand the context. Neither personnel nor their union representatives seem to be able to undertake this role. This is partly because the bullied victims are experiencing shame at having to expose themselves to authority and also because they have feelings of humiliation for failing to deal with the issues themselves...

In trying to better understand workplace bullying it might serve researchers and those charged with dealing with the aftermath of an event to consider the importance of the shame construct, the ramifications of which are destructive, debilitating and long lasting.

Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: the impact of shame among university and college lecturers, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 281-299.

Bullying at Stirling University

2010-09-07T06:53:00.001Z

I worked at Stirling University for 13 years. I was bullied by my manager. I asked her to stop, but the ill treatment continued, and I raised grievances against her. As a result I was dismissed. Stirling Uni claims to be committed to allowing employees to be able to work free from bullying, victimisation and discrimination. They claim that their commitment exceeds any legal requirement. However, here I provide evidence of the extreme lengths that management takes to protect and support bullies.

More info at: http://bullyingatstirlinguniversity.blogspot.com/

HR stops Workplace Bullying, if 3% = Success

2010-09-03T21:10:00.001Z

I want to love HR. I know good HR people. One shining example was a 2009 WBI University graduate. She was accustomed to serving at the executive level, as Senior Vice President, in several hospitals. When we met, she had lost two previous jobs simply because she dared to stand up to senior manager bullies. Each time, the CEOs terminated her and kept their buddies. We withhold her name so she can work again.

Another good person is a New York City-based HR professional who blogs and has written a book called the HR Toolkit and works with our NY State group to pass the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, despite SHRM’s official opposition to the legislation.

I write this love letter at the request of HR folks who hate reading the negative news about how HR does too little to stop bullying within their organizations. Believe me, I hate the fact that HR doesn’t help enough, too.

Really, I want to tout the value HR brings to organizations, but I need proof. I do not demonize HR. They are not wicked, ok maybe threatening, but not demonic. But I report the experiences bullied targets tell us. It’s that simple.

Clearly individuals are separate from the institutional role that dictates that they serve their executive masters and allow bullies to operate with impunity. The caveat is that whatever personal conflict over doing the right thing or the commanded or expected thing should compel more HR folks to be ethical, right and just.

That’s why I rely on empirical and anecdotal data to shape the story. HR folks, here is what 462 people who probably had been bullied told us on our summer 2010 online Instant Poll.

The percentage of cases in which HR took action and stopped the bullying: 3.4. There it is — the good news. Headline: HR Effectively Stops Bullying (3% of the time). HR you earned it. Celebrate. The 3%-ers are the good people. But what about the rest of you?

In 60% of cases HR did nothing after bullying was reported to them. Doing nothing was followed by an increase in bullying, for 26.6% of respondents.

Worse still, HR botched matters by taking action that helped the alleged bully and hurt the complainant in 32.5% of cases.

This is the reality confirmed by WBI coaches who have listened to over 6,000 detailed tales. And you might want to view the contributions to our HR Forum.

Don’t get defensive. Don’t attack WBI. Just do the right thing for the person hurt by the ones typically more powerful. Stop siding with the powerful just to keep your job or to curry favor from them. Grow a conscience. Be moral leaders. Teach executives about bullying and show them how destructive it is, for people and for leaders.

Now the Good News …

Here’s some great news for HR staffers. Though you have not fooled those who turned to you for help inside your organizations, the general public believes that HR is serving aggrieved employees. This statistic is derived from the latest 2010 WBI-Zogby national poll.

14.3% of adult Americans credited HR with taking appropriate actions that stopped the bullying with positive outcomes for the target. (compared to the 3.4% from the non-scientific online poll)

Botched efforts occurred in only 5.3% of cases.

HR doing nothing was estimated at 24.9%, allowing the bullying to continue but in only 6.2% of situations was the target harmed by increased bullying.

In the majority of cases, 51% of adult Americans , survey respondents were not sure if HR was told about the workplace bullying situation.

So, HR, please do not demonize WBI. Do better and we will gladly report it.

From: http://www.workplacebullying.org

Professor Caroline Gipps VC of the University of Wolverhampton announces retirement

2010-09-03T13:09:00.002Z

...and we remind you of some of her 'achievements':

1. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/06/and-ritual-continues.html#links

2. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/05/pack-of-wolves-1.html#links

3. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/04/university-of-wolverhampton-uk-stress.html#links

University suicide points to nonreponsive employer

2010-08-30T18:54:00.002Z

At universities, people tend to think of teaching and research faculty and staff as the only employees. At the University of Virginia, the president supports a literary journal, the Virginia Quarterly Review, prestigious to poets and fiction writers. Kevin Morrissey, 52, the VQR managing editor had been hired by a young Ted Genoways, 38, new himself to the editor post in 2003.

On July 30, Kevin Morrissey committed suicide after a reported three years of torment by Genoways despite the two having a genuine friendship at the start of their work together.

There was a record of several calls by Morrissey to university institutional helpers (HR, ombuds, EAP, president’s office). Either his call for help was not answered or treated with indifference. Those familiar with Morrissey’s complaints said that the rationalization for Genoways was that creative people like him could be difficult to work with and were often bad managers! In other words, live with him, adjust to him, Genoways is indispensable. Note the abdication of responsibility by this employer for the safe working conditions of its employees.

Said one fawning former intern, “Ted (Genoways) is the creative genius … the fulcrum of discussions about the future of VQR and, honestly, the future of journalism … Ted is the star at the center of VQR‘s constellation.” A publisher familiar with VQR lamented that “A crisis like this (triggered by Morrissey’s suicide) can be a death blow (sic), even to the strongest scholarly publication.”

The magazine had won awards and Genoways himself won a fellowship allowing him to be out of the office. His focus was on funding and enlisted the help of a 24-yr. old UV graduate, Alana Levinson-LaBrosse (she was so rich she gave $1.5 million herself to the university). Morrissey and she reportedly clashed as she, not Morrissey, was included in activities with Genoways.

Staff recalled Genoways screaming at Morrissey behind closed doors. Three VQR staffers even accompanied Morrissey to the president’s office to complain about Genoways. They were brushed off. There is evidence that Genoways sent Morrissey an e-mail accusing him of “unacceptable workplace behavior,” without specifications, ordered him to work from home and prohibited communication with other VQR staff. These are all classic tactics employed by bullies who enjoy privileged protection from the CEO (the former university president who left in July). They not completely unlike torture. The tactics were probably retaliation for Morrissey and Levinson-LaBrosse fighting.

The only tangible response from the administration was an apology by the president’s chief of staff to VQR staff for witnessing the clash between Morrissey and Levinson-LaBrosse at a meeting. No apology to Morrissey. No other official response to Morrissey’s complaints. No holding Genoways accountable. No offer of counseling to Morrissey.

Morrissey’s death followed Genoways’ draconian decisions and one last denigrating e-mail on the morning of his suicide. In that e-mail, Genoways, the espo0used “genius” and “star,” accused Morrissey of failing to help a contributor to a VQR story such that Morrissey put that man’s life at risk!

There was a report that some close to the situation warned the university that Morrissey might commit suicide.

Even after Morrissey’s death, the UVa’s official response to the request for complaint and response details from reporter Robin Wilson for the Chronicle of Higher Education (the source for this story), the university hid behind a faux shield of “confidential personnel records.” Morrissey’s surviving sister blames Genoways and the university and may file a lawsuit.

The negligent employer gets to bury the secrets to protect itself from being revealed.

Epilogue

There’s even more to the Univ. Virginia tale. A couple of years ago, UVa recruited WBI to come to campus. UVa instead brought in a “motivational” speaker. At WBI, we pass on several on-site speeches when employers resist creating a solution for the problem that prompted the request in the first place.

The result at UVa was that nothing was done after the speech. The President’s office was not engaged in discussions about bullying, and possibly the specific Kevin Morrissey complaints. If something had been in place, Morrissey would not have had to resort to pleading with HR and the other institutional helpers as his phone records indicated was done. HR may be implicated in Morrissey’s death. And the feel-good motivational speaker actually encouraged this negligent employer to believe that it had adequately addressed bullying on campus with a speech alone! Get serious UVa. What will it take to get American employers to stop the carnage within the ranks?

From: http://www.workplacebullying.org

The Psychological Effects of Downsizing and Privatisation

2010-08-28T10:04:00.002Z

...Early research in this area concentrated on individuals having to cope with unexpected job loss and the effects of long term unemployment. Studies began by looking at the effects of involuntary job losses and the effects on the unemployed (see, for example, the work conducted by DeFrank and Ivancevich, 1986; Leana and Ivancevich, 1987; Leana and Feldman, 1994). These studies indicated that there were emotional, physical, social and psychological effects on the individual. Further research looked at the effects of employee turnover on the individual and the effects of turnover on those remaining employed after redundancy programs had been implemented (see Mowday, 1981; Brockner & Kim, 1993). This literature provided some insight into survivor reactions to redundancy, whereby survivors may evaluate the effects on those made redundant and how that influences their own reactions...

Empirical evidence (e.g. Greenhalgh, 1983; Armstrongstassen, 1993a) suggests that the post layoff environment can be stressful for a number of reasons: survivors are worried about their own job security, there may be anger associated with the process by which the redundancy program has been implemented and there may be concerns about the creation of heavier workloads due to the reduction of manpower. Brockner (1988) suggests that the onset of stress typically leads to changes in survivors’ work attitudes and behaviors such as reduced organizational commitment, job satisfaction and increased turnover intention. Several articles identified emotional responses in survivors such as guilt, betrayal and isolation (e.g. Machlowitz, 1983). These employee reactions were compared to survivors of other distressing events, such as natural and man made disasters. Brockner et al. (1985) undertook a study directly related to layoffs, or rather designed to simulate a ‘layoff’ situation in a laboratory study using students who were required to complete a proof reading task. The students were then subjected to a ‘layoff’ and were subsequently asked to complete a questionnaire to investigate how they had felt and whether or not they felt the process had been fair. The results found, in support of equity theory, that following layoffs ‘survivors’ experienced increased feelings of remorse and negative attitudes towards co-workers (in order to redress the balance of inequity). Secondly, the study revealed that those who perceived there to be an injustice produced less in their second proof reading task simultaneously suggesting that layoffs have the potential (negatively) to influence productivity...

The complete paper: The Psychological Effects of Downsizing and Privatisation