...So that this book may be of maximum practical value, this chapter sets forth in point form some helpful hints for the professors, secretaries, and students who sit on harassment tribunals...These tips are for the modal situation, where the tribunal needs to bring down a finding of Dr. PITA's guilt and a recommendation for punishment. Cases where Dr. PITA herself appeals to the tribunal are easier to deal with, usually by finding a plausible way to rule her complaint out of jurisdiction...
1. The tribunal should extend its jurisdiction or catchment area however broadly is required to take up the complaint against Dr. PITA - whether the incident occurred on campus or off, in his professional role or outside it.
2. Ideally, Dr. PITA should be found guilty of something before he finds out what it is...
3. To enlist Dr. PITA's cooperation in his own undoing, confound the roles of counsellor, prosecutor, and judge. In conversations with an official he believes is being friendly, he may make incriminating statements that can later be used against him...
5. Reward accusers...
8. Ignore Dr. PITA's lawyer, if he has one, and forbid the lawyer's presence at the hearing. Explain that domestic tribunals of a university proceed by norms of collegiality, and that legalistic, adversarial measures are out of the place.
9. If the faculty association or other bodies attempt to intervene on Dr. PITA's behalf, accuse them of trying to exert undue influence...
10. Ignore claims that the tribunal is biased against him. Respond as one chair did: "I am satisfied that this committee member has no apprehension of bias."
11. Disregard evidence in Dr. PITA's favour on substantive grounds...
12. Disregard evidence in Dr. PITA's favour on procedural grounds...
13. If there is evidence that Dr. PITA has discussed the case outside the tribunal (he may admit, for instance, having talked about it to his wife...), charge him with breach of confidentiality...
16. Ignore the references to context that Dr. PITA is almost sure to make...
18. Try to provoke Dr. PITA into losing his temper or doing something rash, then make appropriate additional charges...
19. In the report at the end, find Dr. PITA guilty of something, even if it is not what he was initially charged with...
23. The report should include innuendo so damaging to Dr. PITA that he will not himself release it publicly, however strong his objections...
24. Do not release the report publicly, lest the tribunal be revealed as a kangaroo court...
From: "Eliminating Professors. A Guide to the Dismissal Process", by Kenneth Westhues, published by Kempner Collegium, 1998.
4 comments:
Check out this example of a biased disciplinary hearing chair:
http://www.sirpeterscott.com/secretmeeting.html
I continue to be hounded... I just want to give up the fight....
...speak out against bullying...
....people in my university know that I feel that I am being bullied..
....they do nothing... except to try to discredit me...
...speak out against bullying...
...there are policies now..
.. Dignity at Work Policies..
...use them... people fought for those policies..
...universities use them hypocritically...
...speak out against bullying...
..do it now...
...bullying can kill...
..there is no neutral stance against bullying...
Haven't I read this somewhere before....?
Aphra Behn
Thanks for the great tips... some new ones here we hadn't thought about
...tee hee hee..
... we're the bullies and we don't care...
Let's hear it everyone..
..as loud as you can...
WE"RE THE BULLIES AND WE DON"T CARE
Aphra Behn
Profile of an Associate Dean
www.glam.ac.uk/sapsschool/staff/LewisRhobert.php
Rhobert Lewis was belatedly investigating an association of a researcher with an institution. That investigation started 3 days after the reserahcer challenged the management's false statements.
Rhobert Lewis first told the researcher that his university was not aware of the extent of his involvement with another institution. The researcher provided evidence to the contrary. He then sent an email to that researcher telling him that the university was not aware he was getting paid for his association. The researcher responded by reminding Rhobert Lewis that his contract of employment does not require declaring payments, it only requires declaring associations and responding to any queries on that association. The researcher also reminded Rhobert Lewis that he declared that he was a part-time research fellow at that specific institution early on and that, unlike the honorary association that he held at a third institution, is widely known to involve payment.
Rhobert Lewis was also provided solid evidence that the work was done during the weekends. Rhobert Lewis then decided to prolong the investigation 3 months, despite being aware that the reserahcer was suffering from poor health, whihc started prior to the investigtation. Communications between him and an HR manager proved that he was trying to prolong the investigation. Communications between him and management and HR shows him displaying disrespect towards the researcger's illnees. After pressing Lewis for an outcome, Lewis sent an email to HR to the effect that "this forces our hand". What they were tring to achieve is to get some research work completed and come up with a conclusion that ensures the credibility of the research fellow is damaged should that research fellow report the false statements made to the NERC. Despite the evidence and the conditions set in the contract of employment, Rhobert Lewis concluded the "investigation" with a statement that they were not aware of the "extent" of the researcher's association with "X University" and that the researcher has breached the contract. Rhobert Lewis failed to specify the exact clause that was breaced. The fact that the investigation was 7 months too late was of course not considered. The fact that there was no crossover in research was never accounted for. Rhobert Lewis claimed that no disciplinary action was taken to ensure the continuity of the project, not because the investigation was fundemantally flawed and immoral.
In contrast, the management was well aware of the external and time demanding activities of another research fellow, which incurred material rewards of a much larger scale, but refused to report or investigate. This is despite their knwoledge that that research fellow delibrately failed to record his activities in the university transparency reviews. This is also despite the fact that there was crossover between research done at their institution and other research.
As for Terry Driscoll, the UCU rep, well one only has to look at email exchanges bewteen him and HR ("Colleagues, I asked X to reconsider his situtuation" and "Ocupational health has a role to play" and " I don't know what else can be acheived"...).
Rhobert Lewis was the addressee in an email in which his colleague, Malcolm Thomas, made a racist statement about the targeted researcher, Rhobert Lewis, an associate dean fails to condemn Malcolm Thomas' statement and finds it unnecessary to start an "investigation" into what is clearly an environment of hate.
Did I mention that Malcolm Thomas was specifically appointed by the Rhobert Lewis to provide "pastoral support" after the researcher contacted the health and safety executive in the last month of his employment?
Post a Comment