By Dr. Aubrey Blumsohn, MSc, MB BCh, PhD, MRCPath
Aubrey Blumsohn is a pathologist and osteoporosis specialist, and previously Senior Lecturer in Metabolic Bone Medicine at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. He was suspended from his academic post in September 2005 after discussing concerns about research integrity outside of his institution. He can be contacted at: ablumsohn-3@yahoo.co.uk
'...The past two years has seen widespread commentary about the integrity of pharmaceutical medicine (2-13). The suggested remedy is that pharmaceutical companies must be divorced from direct involvement in researching clinical aspects of their own drugs (3, 7). We are heading, like the Titanic, towards an iceberg of enormous size.
Pharmaceutical companies sell products under the banner of science and medicine. However, their raison d’être is to make money. If industry gets involved in science, it has to balance genuine hypothesis testing and transparency against commercial interests, bureaucracy of drug regulation, and the financial consequences of dishonesty. This is not in itself a criticism – it is a simple fact.
Universities exist for a different reason – to add to human knowledge and to disseminate that knowledge through publication and teaching. Subtle compromises (2) have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to develop an extraordinary stranglehold over the scientific process, academic discourse, regulatory safeguards and common sense (8-11,14). It is hard to see
how safeguards for dispassionate scientific discourse can be sustained when medicine flagrantly disregards them...
The problem of academics who don’t acquiesce
There have been many cases where academics have refused to acquiesce. A dispute arose between James Kahn of UC San Francisco and Immune Response Corp. over effectiveness of an AIDS vaccine in a multi-center trial. The company objected to publication of the analysis of data (which was incomplete since the company refused to supply the rest to the researchers). When UCSF researchers refused to interpret the data more favourably, the company threatened legal action. The study was published with incomplete data (23). The company maintained that because it paid for the trial, it somehow owned the data and therefore the mode of presentation...
Most importantly, as academics we need to reassert the importance of data and the meaning of authorship. We also need to assert “old fashioned” ideas of academic freedom, our right to speak the truth as we see it, and to allow that truth to be subjected to open debate. In the words of George Orwell (1984), “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Read the complete paper by Dr. Aubrey Blumsohn at: Professional Ethics Report and check his blog on Scientific Misconduct at: http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/
October 16, 2006
October 12, 2006
The crisis of conscience... Academic Survival
"...In every profession, every professional with a conscience will be faced with at least one crisis. In a vocational profession like Academe, this is a shock for which the budding academic is completely unprepared. In fact, this is true of all conscientious people, whatever their profession. The fact of having to fight an issue of conscience is a crisis in itself.
Under the impact of this double shock: the crisis of conscience and the crisis of the crisis, people typically fall back on their earliest conditioning. That is, as in all the best childhood propaganda, they stand up for what they believe is right, proclaim their truth with clarity, and wait for the expected vindication and approval. To do less is a betrayal of their values, craven cowardice.
But it is quickly borne in upon the idealist that their profession will not tolerate these attitudes. Some people realise this before they make their first crusade, but all, at some stage, realise that their stark choice is to crusade and be ejected, head held high but professionally stigmatised (and do they have a family to support yet?), or to fold and become part of what they would rather stamp out.
Most, perforce, decide to fold. They may find ways of continuing the good fight in small areas, promising themselves that when they are secure in the system, when they have risen to a position of power, that they'll push for change and protect the vulnerable. Some do manage to achieve this. Many find out too late - if they are still capable of seeing the truth - that the system has instead poisoned them, and that by toeing the line, by standing by when injustices were perpetrated around them, by despising the naivety of the crusaders and believing that they brought their destruction upon themselves - by doing all this, they have become all this. And so it goes on for another generation..."
From: http://www.ariadne.org/studio/michelli/acsurvival.html
Under the impact of this double shock: the crisis of conscience and the crisis of the crisis, people typically fall back on their earliest conditioning. That is, as in all the best childhood propaganda, they stand up for what they believe is right, proclaim their truth with clarity, and wait for the expected vindication and approval. To do less is a betrayal of their values, craven cowardice.
But it is quickly borne in upon the idealist that their profession will not tolerate these attitudes. Some people realise this before they make their first crusade, but all, at some stage, realise that their stark choice is to crusade and be ejected, head held high but professionally stigmatised (and do they have a family to support yet?), or to fold and become part of what they would rather stamp out.
Most, perforce, decide to fold. They may find ways of continuing the good fight in small areas, promising themselves that when they are secure in the system, when they have risen to a position of power, that they'll push for change and protect the vulnerable. Some do manage to achieve this. Many find out too late - if they are still capable of seeing the truth - that the system has instead poisoned them, and that by toeing the line, by standing by when injustices were perpetrated around them, by despising the naivety of the crusaders and believing that they brought their destruction upon themselves - by doing all this, they have become all this. And so it goes on for another generation..."
From: http://www.ariadne.org/studio/michelli/acsurvival.html
October 11, 2006
South Africa: Lecturer Faces Disciplinary Committee, Possible Dismissal, As Free Expression Declines At University
Posted to the web October 10, 2006
The Freedom of Expression Institute is very concerned about the state of freedom of expression and academic freedom at the University of KwaZulu Natal. Free expression and academic freedom are in severe decline at the university.
The latest incident causing concern is the matter of Fazel Khan, who is being hauled before a disciplinary committee. Khan, a sociology lecturer at UKZN, gave interviews to certain media that had approached him regarding the publication of an article in the latest issue of ukzndaba (Vol. 3, No. 6/7, June/ July 2006), a newsletter published by UKZN's Public Affairs and Corporate Communications Department.
The article is about a film Khan had co-directed, but the article makes no mention of him or his involvement in the film, while naming his co-director as the director. The article was accompanied by a picture showing Khan's co-director. The original picture had included Khan but he was cropped out in the newsletter. An aggrieved Khan was very critical of the newsletter when approached for comment. The criticisms will be used against Khan in the disciplinary hearing where he faces possible dismissal.
The university's action is appalling. Only in the most authoritarian societies do universities prevent academics from speaking to the media about their work, their research and their opinions and criticisms on the development of society and of their own institutions.Khan acted on the basis of his constitutional right to free expression. Any disciplinary action taken against Khan would constitute an unreasonable limitation on his right to freedom of expression and would thus be unconstitutional.
Most worrying is that this is not an unusual case. Particularly in the past six months, a climate of fear has taken root at the university, where academics, workers and students are afraid of challenging or criticising the university administration. Such a climate seriously threatens the spirit of enquiry and academic freedom. It also can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression more generally.
A number of incidents over the past year:
1. A recent report found that, "The executive management of the University of KwaZulu-Natal is not trusted by a significant number of faculty and staff to follow through on its promises or to honour its commitments," (The Mercury, 25 September 2006). The report also found there was, at the university, a lack of consultation and a lack of meaningful communication; an authoritarian attitude; the privilege of position; intimidation and bullying; a lack of transparency and democratic procedures. The fact that such perceptions exist among staff should be extremely worrying - whether they are true or not. It is disconcerting in an institution that is supposed to be a bastion of free thinking when those who have the responsibility to foster such free thinking believe it to be authoritarian and bullying.
2. The refusal by the University Vice-Chancellor, Malegapuru Makgoba, to meet with representatives of the Student Solidarity Counselling and Appeals Committee and the Socialist Student Movement to discuss student exclusions simply because they had spoken to the media.
3. An email notice from Professor Dasarath Chetty, head of UKZN's Public Affairs and Corporate Communications Department, in March 2006, to the university community informing them of the university's intention to prevent them from speaking to the media about impending strike action by staff.
4. An academic from Rhodes University, Professor Jimi Adesina, being sued by Chetty for defamation for an email Adesina had sent out wherein he had criticised Chetty's email notice to the university community (referred to in 3. above).
5. An email notice from Makgoba in August 2006, informing them that the "Senate resolved that all members of the University Community should exercise due care when communicating with the media, so as not to bring the University into disrepute."
6. The UKZN "Electronic Communications Policy" which has been effective from January 2006. This policy is a gross violation of academic freedom and freedom of expression more generally. Apart from allowing the university to spy on individuals' email correspondences, it also allows the university to read documents on staff members' PCs. Further, it makes "illegal" any email and web content that "contains material that is unlawful or in violation of any University Policy including but not limited to pornographic, oppressive, racist, sexist, defamatory against any User or third party." This is a severe restriction on academics conducting research on various aspects of racism, sexism, feminism, freedom of expression, etc.
7. A recent incident (The Mercury, 28 September 2006) when an academic was prevented by software the university IT department had installed on his computer from sending out emails because he had not assented to the "Electronic Communications Policy".
UKZN has fostered an environment of fear, apprehension and uncertainty among many staff and students. It is a climate where those who are outspoken and controversial have to be silenced.
If allowed to go unchallenged, the decision about Fazel Khan will set a negative precedent for freedom of expression in South Africa's academic institutions, because it will create a climate of self-censorship at the heart of intellectual life in this country. It will mean that academics will have to refrain from any form of commentary on or reasonable criticism of their universities out of fear of being dismissed. Academics have an inalienable right to engage in political speech about matters of public interest, and should be able to do so freely.
We believe the impending action against Fazel Khan is unnecessary. We have therefore urged Professor Makgoba to withdraw all charges against Khan and to begin the process of transforming the fearful environment at the university.
You can find the contact info for Professor Makgoba online at: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/aboutus/executive.asp
From: http://allafrica.com/stories/200610100867.html
The Freedom of Expression Institute is very concerned about the state of freedom of expression and academic freedom at the University of KwaZulu Natal. Free expression and academic freedom are in severe decline at the university.
The latest incident causing concern is the matter of Fazel Khan, who is being hauled before a disciplinary committee. Khan, a sociology lecturer at UKZN, gave interviews to certain media that had approached him regarding the publication of an article in the latest issue of ukzndaba (Vol. 3, No. 6/7, June/ July 2006), a newsletter published by UKZN's Public Affairs and Corporate Communications Department.
The article is about a film Khan had co-directed, but the article makes no mention of him or his involvement in the film, while naming his co-director as the director. The article was accompanied by a picture showing Khan's co-director. The original picture had included Khan but he was cropped out in the newsletter. An aggrieved Khan was very critical of the newsletter when approached for comment. The criticisms will be used against Khan in the disciplinary hearing where he faces possible dismissal.
The university's action is appalling. Only in the most authoritarian societies do universities prevent academics from speaking to the media about their work, their research and their opinions and criticisms on the development of society and of their own institutions.Khan acted on the basis of his constitutional right to free expression. Any disciplinary action taken against Khan would constitute an unreasonable limitation on his right to freedom of expression and would thus be unconstitutional.
Most worrying is that this is not an unusual case. Particularly in the past six months, a climate of fear has taken root at the university, where academics, workers and students are afraid of challenging or criticising the university administration. Such a climate seriously threatens the spirit of enquiry and academic freedom. It also can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression more generally.
A number of incidents over the past year:
1. A recent report found that, "The executive management of the University of KwaZulu-Natal is not trusted by a significant number of faculty and staff to follow through on its promises or to honour its commitments," (The Mercury, 25 September 2006). The report also found there was, at the university, a lack of consultation and a lack of meaningful communication; an authoritarian attitude; the privilege of position; intimidation and bullying; a lack of transparency and democratic procedures. The fact that such perceptions exist among staff should be extremely worrying - whether they are true or not. It is disconcerting in an institution that is supposed to be a bastion of free thinking when those who have the responsibility to foster such free thinking believe it to be authoritarian and bullying.
2. The refusal by the University Vice-Chancellor, Malegapuru Makgoba, to meet with representatives of the Student Solidarity Counselling and Appeals Committee and the Socialist Student Movement to discuss student exclusions simply because they had spoken to the media.
3. An email notice from Professor Dasarath Chetty, head of UKZN's Public Affairs and Corporate Communications Department, in March 2006, to the university community informing them of the university's intention to prevent them from speaking to the media about impending strike action by staff.
4. An academic from Rhodes University, Professor Jimi Adesina, being sued by Chetty for defamation for an email Adesina had sent out wherein he had criticised Chetty's email notice to the university community (referred to in 3. above).
5. An email notice from Makgoba in August 2006, informing them that the "Senate resolved that all members of the University Community should exercise due care when communicating with the media, so as not to bring the University into disrepute."
6. The UKZN "Electronic Communications Policy" which has been effective from January 2006. This policy is a gross violation of academic freedom and freedom of expression more generally. Apart from allowing the university to spy on individuals' email correspondences, it also allows the university to read documents on staff members' PCs. Further, it makes "illegal" any email and web content that "contains material that is unlawful or in violation of any University Policy including but not limited to pornographic, oppressive, racist, sexist, defamatory against any User or third party." This is a severe restriction on academics conducting research on various aspects of racism, sexism, feminism, freedom of expression, etc.
7. A recent incident (The Mercury, 28 September 2006) when an academic was prevented by software the university IT department had installed on his computer from sending out emails because he had not assented to the "Electronic Communications Policy".
UKZN has fostered an environment of fear, apprehension and uncertainty among many staff and students. It is a climate where those who are outspoken and controversial have to be silenced.
If allowed to go unchallenged, the decision about Fazel Khan will set a negative precedent for freedom of expression in South Africa's academic institutions, because it will create a climate of self-censorship at the heart of intellectual life in this country. It will mean that academics will have to refrain from any form of commentary on or reasonable criticism of their universities out of fear of being dismissed. Academics have an inalienable right to engage in political speech about matters of public interest, and should be able to do so freely.
We believe the impending action against Fazel Khan is unnecessary. We have therefore urged Professor Makgoba to withdraw all charges against Khan and to begin the process of transforming the fearful environment at the university.
You can find the contact info for Professor Makgoba online at: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/aboutus/executive.asp
From: http://allafrica.com/stories/200610100867.html
October 02, 2006
Warwick - Leaked report reveals widespread disaffection amongst university staff
Bullied, harassed, ignored
Written by Donna Bowater, Claire Simon, Catherine Farrant and Lucinda Neal, from the Warwick BoarExclusive: Leaked report reveals widespread disaffection amongst University staff
A leaked report into staff attitudes at Warwick reveals shocking levels of bullying and discrimination of both academic and manual staff.
The report, obtained by this newspaper, show that 730 University employees have been harassed or bullied at work in the last 12 months, whilst 585 members of staff have been discriminated against.
80 percent of those staff members do not believe that their complaints can be resolved through the current system, and almost half of all members of staff are currently “actively seeking alternative employment” as a result of their working conditions.
An investigation by this newspaper has revealed several severe incidents of bullying and harassment of manual staff.
The University have moved quickly to allay the problems highlighted by the report, drafting a new ‘Bullying and Harassment Policy’. A spokesperson admitted: “Some of these problems are caused by poor management.” The revelations come as a series of other industrial problems threaten to disrupt campus. A national Association of University Teachers (AUT) strike over pay and conditions will see many lectures and seminars cancelled next Tuesday. Members are also being balloted over industrial action in response to changes in lecturers’ pensions.
The AUT revealed earlier this week that University lecturers effectively work for free until March 9th according to the average number of unpaid hours they work every year. This would amount to an additional £10,216 a year, adding to the longstanding dispute between lecturers’ unions and universities. The leaked survey also revealed widespread frustration at levels of pay at the University. 60 percent of all respondents were dissatisfied with their pay in comparison to people doing similar jobs in other organisations.
Warwick lecturers could yet call a further local strike, upset at the introduction of a “single pay spine”, with all academic staff to be renamed ‘Professors’.
Academics are currently graded as Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Readers and Professors. The new proposals would see all permanent academic staff named as Professors and the number of grades reduced to three: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and full Professor.
However, the proposals have met serious opposition from the Warwick AUT. “No one really benefits except lecturers, while these added changes to terms and conditions in the new offer mean actual detriment for members. All the campus unions are united in their views about this,” a spokesperson said.
Criticism of University management has come from all levels of staff, with 59% of both academics and manual workers claiming that line managers and supervisors do not deal with poor performance effectively.
Questions have also been raised over the efficiency of communication at Warwick, with 68 percent of staff disagreeing with the statement that, “there is good communication between the various parts of the University.”
From: http://www.warwickboar.co.uk/boar/news/bullied_harassed_ignored/
Teacher Cleared
Published on 30/09/2006, News & Star, by Pam McClounie.
'A teacher from Carlisle is celebrating after winning a five-year battle to clear her name.
Joanne Sherry, 50, who taught religious studies at Trinity School in Carlisle, and risked being banned from ever teaching again, was cleared of professional misconduct yesterday by the General Teaching Council (GTC) in Birmingham.
Minutes after the verdict Miss Sherry told the News & Star: “I’m ecstatic. I’m in shock. I can’t believe it. For five years I said I didn’t do these things and for five years no-one listened to me.
“I worked with some really horrible people and I just want to forget it all now.”
Miss Sherry, who represented herself during the hearing in Birmingham, taught at the school on Strand Road for 16 years until her relationship with senior management broke down and she left.
She was hauled before the GTC accused of five serious allegations between 2000 and 2002. The hearing has taken 18 months to resolve the allegations...'
From: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=418484
'A teacher from Carlisle is celebrating after winning a five-year battle to clear her name.
Joanne Sherry, 50, who taught religious studies at Trinity School in Carlisle, and risked being banned from ever teaching again, was cleared of professional misconduct yesterday by the General Teaching Council (GTC) in Birmingham.
Minutes after the verdict Miss Sherry told the News & Star: “I’m ecstatic. I’m in shock. I can’t believe it. For five years I said I didn’t do these things and for five years no-one listened to me.
“I worked with some really horrible people and I just want to forget it all now.”
Miss Sherry, who represented herself during the hearing in Birmingham, taught at the school on Strand Road for 16 years until her relationship with senior management broke down and she left.
She was hauled before the GTC accused of five serious allegations between 2000 and 2002. The hearing has taken 18 months to resolve the allegations...'
From: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=418484
September 29, 2006
Nottingham Trent University Branch of the University and College Union (UCU)
http://www.ntuucu.org.uk
...This site is designed as an on-line resource on branch matters for use by members of the Nottingham Trent University Branch of UCU (University and College Union) and others interested in our work...
...UCU’s forerunners [AUT and NATFHE] produced an array of papers on the topic of harassment and bullying. Most recently the topic of institutional culture and institutional bullying has surfaced as an issue. At one of the last NATFHE conferences one member from a college in the further education sector gave an impassioned speech on how her college had stripped away the mechanisms of debate, reducing the frequency of staff meetings, reducing staff representation on internal committees and even removing staff representation from the college's governing body. This did not mean that staff were denied information. They were regularly sent in-house magazines and e-mails telling them about the college's achievements but this was not seen as a substitute for dialogue and debate.
At the same time as the college had reduced the mechanisms for debate changes had been made to the rights that the students had. A "Students' Charter" and a new "Students' Complaint Procedure" had been introduced. These initiatives were welcomed by staff and fully supported. However, with a declining resource base and with front line staff unable to voice their concerns it meant that such staff were open to criticism and pressure from every angle and were powerless to see that the concerns being raised by the students were genuinely addressed.
Fear of losing their promotion prospects or even of being dismissed provided additional psychological bonds preventing such staff from speaking out. Work related stress increased as did the number of instances of ill health. Staff were, of course, free to walk away from the situation by resigning and the conference was told that each year many did. However, economic pressures often made this an unrealistic option and many staff did not feel that they should be intimidated into a career change...
From: http://www.ntuucu.org.uk/bh.htm
...This site is designed as an on-line resource on branch matters for use by members of the Nottingham Trent University Branch of UCU (University and College Union) and others interested in our work...
...UCU’s forerunners [AUT and NATFHE] produced an array of papers on the topic of harassment and bullying. Most recently the topic of institutional culture and institutional bullying has surfaced as an issue. At one of the last NATFHE conferences one member from a college in the further education sector gave an impassioned speech on how her college had stripped away the mechanisms of debate, reducing the frequency of staff meetings, reducing staff representation on internal committees and even removing staff representation from the college's governing body. This did not mean that staff were denied information. They were regularly sent in-house magazines and e-mails telling them about the college's achievements but this was not seen as a substitute for dialogue and debate.
At the same time as the college had reduced the mechanisms for debate changes had been made to the rights that the students had. A "Students' Charter" and a new "Students' Complaint Procedure" had been introduced. These initiatives were welcomed by staff and fully supported. However, with a declining resource base and with front line staff unable to voice their concerns it meant that such staff were open to criticism and pressure from every angle and were powerless to see that the concerns being raised by the students were genuinely addressed.
Fear of losing their promotion prospects or even of being dismissed provided additional psychological bonds preventing such staff from speaking out. Work related stress increased as did the number of instances of ill health. Staff were, of course, free to walk away from the situation by resigning and the conference was told that each year many did. However, economic pressures often made this an unrealistic option and many staff did not feel that they should be intimidated into a career change...
From: http://www.ntuucu.org.uk/bh.htm
September 23, 2006
Obituary: Tim Field
By Keith Munday, Member of the Core Group: Freedom to Care, and Honorary President, DAWN
At the time of going to press The Tim Field Memorial Lecture is being jointly organized by the two anti-bullying in the workplace support groups, OXBOW and DAWN. The intention is to hold the Lecture in Oxford on Saturday, 28th October 2006. See: www.dignityatworknow.org.uk
Tim Field, internationally renowned pioneer of anti-bullying in the workplace, and sometime director of Freedom to Care, died of cancer, at the age of 53, on 15th January 2006.
A fellow member of the Core Group of Freedom to Care has shared her impressions of Tim in the following way: 'I will always be indebted to Tim. I first met him at a Freedom to Care AGM and he struck me as being a quiet, modest man. Later I was to learn how far he had pushed the issue of bullying onto the public agenda. Every documentary I saw on TV listed Tim among its credits. His courage was astounding and he remains for me a beacon of hope'.
Tim had suffered from a serious breakdown as a result of the bullying directed towards him in 1994. But, in spite of this - or, perhaps because of this - Tim went on to establish the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line in 1996, and its accompanying website Bully OnLine, the world's largest resource on workplace bullying and related issues. He wrote the highly influential book, Bully In Sight: How to Predict, Resist, Challenge and Combat Workplace Bullying, in 1996, and co-authored, with Neil Marr, Bullycide: Death at Playtime, an Expose of Child Suicide Caused by Bullying, in 2001.
In 1998, he published, through his own publishing house (Success Unlimited), David Kinchin's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: The Invisible Injury. In addition to this, he, lectured all over the world, wrote articles, appeared regularly in the media, and set up Bullyonline, an internet-based discussion forum, as well as source of support for those on the receiving end of this unacceptable form of behaviour.
As Honorary President of DAWN (Dignity At Work Now), an anti-bullying in the workplace support and campaign group, of which Tim was Patron, I admired him tremendously. He was a communicator par excellence, a campaigner, a leader, a teacher, and literally a life-saver. He displayed exceptional integrity, courage, loyalty, generosity and determination. He was compassionate, wise, self-effacing, perceptive and truly inspiring.
I first met Tim when he and I attended one of the spate of conferences dealing with workplace bullying in the latter half of the 1990s. He was already gaining a national reputation as a speaker in this relatively new area which was beginning to attract the keen attention of academics, trade unionists, lawyers, health professionals, and those engaged in personnel issues. For me, this was the start of a most enlightening and rewarding relationship which was to be cruelly cut short by Tim's passing.
Tim deservedly achieved an international reputation for his ability to convey with such profound insight and clarity the true nature of bullying in the workplace. His work gained academic recognition through the award of two honorary doctorates. Moreover, his reputation was enhanced even further by his willingness 'to put his head above the parapet' in his determination to expose, and hold to account, the perpetrators of wrongdoing, even though the sacrifices he made in so doing were undoubtedly at considerable cost to his own well-being. Tim was a good man. He has left an enduring legacy for those wishing to share, and to achieve, his vision of a bully-free world.
June 2006
From: http://www.freedomtocare.org/page337.htm
Checklist of mobbing indicators
'...Perhaps the most important indicator is shown here as No. 12, the enlargement of some real or imagined misdeed or fault in order to smear the target's whole identity, so that he or she is seen as personally abhorrent — a totally alien other, a dangerous, repugnant entity that turns the stomachs of good and decent people.
1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
4. Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is.”
5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson.”
6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.
7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for”or defend the target.
11. The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
16. Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both...'
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/checklist.htm
1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
4. Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is.”
5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson.”
6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.
7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for”or defend the target.
11. The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
16. Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both...'
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/checklist.htm
September 20, 2006
How to humanize higher education and reduce human suffering
By: Paul T. P. Wong, Ph.D., C.Psych. Coquitlam, B.C., Canada
'Year 2005 has been dubbed the "year of suffering" by Erin McClam, Associated Press writer. Last year was dominated by natural disasters and human tragedies - from tsunami, Katrina to Iraq war. The faces of suffering continue to haunt us.
Across the land, away from the spotlight, a different kind of suffering goes on unnoticed - in homes, workplaces, schools, and universities. I am talking about intentional cruelty against other human beings, such as physical and emotional abuse, bullying, oppression and exploitation...
How can people be so cruel? All kinds of explanations have been offered - sociological, psychological and spiritual. For example, the theology of human depravity can be used to account for the historical and continuous presence of evil in human societies. Poverty and privation are frequently cited as societal causes of violence. A host of internal and external factors, such as competition, greed, envy, scapegoating, abuse in childhood, blind ambition provide psychological explanations.
A more important question is: how can we create a kinder and gentler society? Different visions of utopia have been proposed, but none has succeeded. A society of harmony, equality, and compassion continues to elude us.
Does higher education make us more humane?
...we believe by promoting the values of humanism and liberal democracy through education, we can set people free from their intolerance, prejudice and brutality. There is a broad consensus that higher education can help create a civil society, which respects everyone's right to freedom, justice, dignity and quality of life. Indeed, education maybe our best hope for a better world.
Given the above assumptions and expectations, it is most disturbing to see many idealistic and enthusiastic students become disillusioned and cynical because of their negative experiences in centers of higher learning. Some students have been intimidated and verbally attacked by professors because of their political or religious leanings as documented by David Horowitz. Some have been sexually abused. Others have been exploited and abused by their supervisors -- some may have been tormented to the point of suicide.
Suicide on university campuses
...Too often, some students fear, suicides get written off as tragic flukes, but that sort of thinking is flawed, they say. For every Ph.D. candidate who kills himself, there are hundreds who become clinically depressed, drop out, or grimly endure bad situations in silence because of poor relationships with their advisers. This year, it was Mr. Altom; next year, it could be someone else, the argument goes.
In fact, it has been. Mr. Altom, who was about to enter his sixth year at Harvard, was not the first chemistry student to kill himself. There have been eight graduate-student suicides at Harvard since 1980. Four of the students were in the chemistry department, and three of the four, including Mr. Altom, worked for the same research adviser: Elias J. Corey.
...In 2002, Psychology Today reported an increase in clinical depression in both undergraduate and graduate students, and 30% of university counseling centers surveyed have reported student suicides. A more recent study by the American College Health Association showed that 15 percent of students met the criteria for clinical depression and suicide was second to accident as the leading cause of death among college students.
Is graduate education dysfunctional?
The causes of depression and suicides are many and varied. These range from latent psychological disorders prior to admissions, personal immaturity, inability to cope with pressure and failure, unrealistic expectations, loneliness, meaninglessness, broken romantic relationships and difficult student-advisor relationships.
Almost all universities provide adequate student counseling services to support students experiencing academic or psychological problems. However, these centers typically stay away from handling academic grievances and advise students to bring their complaints to their department heads.
The problem of harmful clinical supervision has received increasing attention in recent years (Ellis, 2001), but the detrimental effects of bad dissertation advising are much less researched ...The conclusion seems self-contradictory, until one realizes that academic and professional excellence can co-exist with dysfunctional relationships. While the survey showed that most students had good relationships with their advisors, "a substantial minority felt exploit". About one quarter of the students surveyed felt that their advisors used them as a source of cheap labor to advance their own research and help fulfill advisors' teaching and research obligations...
From my own experiences and observations of elite research universities, graduate students are expected to put in as many as 80 hours per week. In some universities, graduate students are asked to teach an entire course at either the undergraduate or graduate level without any remuneration or acknowledgement, because it is considered an honor to teach the course for a famous professor. This kind of unfair treatment is unheard of in any other kind of organizations...
These illustrious professors are willing and able to make personal sacrifices to achieve eminence in their fields; are their students prepared to make the same sacrifices? Maybe there should be a warning to potential graduate students applying to elite graduate schools: "Admission to this school may be hazardous to your health and well-being. Only the toughest and brightest need to apply."
Bullying and intimidation in higher education
I can understand the need to work 80 hours a week to find a vaccine against AIDS or avian flu, but I can't appreciate the value of such all-consuming passion for fame, money and power. The allures of big science can be just as destructive as the greed of big business and big military-industrial complex. To sacrifice students for personal gains is deplorable.
James Cook University actually has a university policy against bullying and intimidation between supervisors and students, and considers such behavior as a breach of the University Code of Conduct.
...Students' inability to identify bullying makes it difficult for them to respond effectively. Here are some common characteristics of workplace bullies, which can be readily applied to university professors:
* Workplace bullies are autocratic control freaks.
* They make it known that they have the power to destroy the career of their targets.
* They constantly demand respect and consideration whilst treat their subordinates as non-persons.
* They inflict intolerable pain and suffering on others without showing any consideration for the feelings of their victims.
* In spite of their absolutist and unethical behaviors they often get promoted, because they are selfish, manipulative, dishonest and convincing.
What can you do if your supervisor is a bully or psychopath? Your options are very limited, because of the risks of filing a grievance complaint, especially when your supervisor is very influential in the field. Typically, administrators try to cover up for the offender because they don't want to offend a superstar who brings in lots of money and prestige to the university.
The reward systems of most research universities are based on academic accomplishments and financial gains without paying too much attention to students' well-being. Like a steam-roller, the graduate education machine keeps on moving forward faster and faster, without considering how many young lives it has destroyed...
The need to humanize higher education
All kinds of reform of graduate education have been proposed, but few have been implemented or enforced. This inertia can be attributed to a university culture that values ranking and revenues in a highly competitive environment...
Much progress has been made in the area of sexual harassment on campuses. In many universities, there are designated sexual harassment or human rights officers. University administrators are inclined to take sexual harassment complaints seriously because of political correctness... However, in the area of academic bullying which affects more students, little progress has been made.
Most universities have developed policies and procedures to handle difficult advisor-student relationships and grievance complaints, but these guidelines are generally not very effective because of fear of retribution on the part of students and the fear of offending valued professors on the part of the administration. Furthermore, these guidelines do not even recognize the possibility that supervisors may have the problem of bullying and psychological impairment...
Success stories of the humanistic movement
Emory university has already made fundamental changes to humanize medical education with positive results. "We're trying to abuse students less," says Dr. Jonas Schulman, the driving force behind the reform, "and we want to make sure we're sending the message that we place a premium on people skills..."
There are also serious efforts to humanize the hospital. The key to Planetree Institute's patient-centered model is to create a health care environment in which not only patients experience caring, kindness, and respect, but also their families and the hospital staff. Susan Frampton (2003) has documented that they can dramatically increase patient satisfaction level simply by adding a human touch to hospitals.
...Leadership skills are just as important as research skills, because professors often have to manage large research teams of strong individuals with different personalities, cultural backgrounds, and creative ideas. The autocratic leadership style no longer works in the corporate world; how can we expect it to work in an academic community of free thinkers?
Humanizing higher education can be beneficial to both students and society. By creating a caring and engaging environment, universities can become a positive force in reducing human suffering and improving the quality of life for all...'
http://www.meaning.ca/articles06/president/humanity-jan06.htm
'Year 2005 has been dubbed the "year of suffering" by Erin McClam, Associated Press writer. Last year was dominated by natural disasters and human tragedies - from tsunami, Katrina to Iraq war. The faces of suffering continue to haunt us.
Across the land, away from the spotlight, a different kind of suffering goes on unnoticed - in homes, workplaces, schools, and universities. I am talking about intentional cruelty against other human beings, such as physical and emotional abuse, bullying, oppression and exploitation...
How can people be so cruel? All kinds of explanations have been offered - sociological, psychological and spiritual. For example, the theology of human depravity can be used to account for the historical and continuous presence of evil in human societies. Poverty and privation are frequently cited as societal causes of violence. A host of internal and external factors, such as competition, greed, envy, scapegoating, abuse in childhood, blind ambition provide psychological explanations.
A more important question is: how can we create a kinder and gentler society? Different visions of utopia have been proposed, but none has succeeded. A society of harmony, equality, and compassion continues to elude us.
Does higher education make us more humane?
...we believe by promoting the values of humanism and liberal democracy through education, we can set people free from their intolerance, prejudice and brutality. There is a broad consensus that higher education can help create a civil society, which respects everyone's right to freedom, justice, dignity and quality of life. Indeed, education maybe our best hope for a better world.
Given the above assumptions and expectations, it is most disturbing to see many idealistic and enthusiastic students become disillusioned and cynical because of their negative experiences in centers of higher learning. Some students have been intimidated and verbally attacked by professors because of their political or religious leanings as documented by David Horowitz. Some have been sexually abused. Others have been exploited and abused by their supervisors -- some may have been tormented to the point of suicide.
Suicide on university campuses
...Too often, some students fear, suicides get written off as tragic flukes, but that sort of thinking is flawed, they say. For every Ph.D. candidate who kills himself, there are hundreds who become clinically depressed, drop out, or grimly endure bad situations in silence because of poor relationships with their advisers. This year, it was Mr. Altom; next year, it could be someone else, the argument goes.
In fact, it has been. Mr. Altom, who was about to enter his sixth year at Harvard, was not the first chemistry student to kill himself. There have been eight graduate-student suicides at Harvard since 1980. Four of the students were in the chemistry department, and three of the four, including Mr. Altom, worked for the same research adviser: Elias J. Corey.
...In 2002, Psychology Today reported an increase in clinical depression in both undergraduate and graduate students, and 30% of university counseling centers surveyed have reported student suicides. A more recent study by the American College Health Association showed that 15 percent of students met the criteria for clinical depression and suicide was second to accident as the leading cause of death among college students.
Is graduate education dysfunctional?
The causes of depression and suicides are many and varied. These range from latent psychological disorders prior to admissions, personal immaturity, inability to cope with pressure and failure, unrealistic expectations, loneliness, meaninglessness, broken romantic relationships and difficult student-advisor relationships.
Almost all universities provide adequate student counseling services to support students experiencing academic or psychological problems. However, these centers typically stay away from handling academic grievances and advise students to bring their complaints to their department heads.
The problem of harmful clinical supervision has received increasing attention in recent years (Ellis, 2001), but the detrimental effects of bad dissertation advising are much less researched ...The conclusion seems self-contradictory, until one realizes that academic and professional excellence can co-exist with dysfunctional relationships. While the survey showed that most students had good relationships with their advisors, "a substantial minority felt exploit". About one quarter of the students surveyed felt that their advisors used them as a source of cheap labor to advance their own research and help fulfill advisors' teaching and research obligations...
From my own experiences and observations of elite research universities, graduate students are expected to put in as many as 80 hours per week. In some universities, graduate students are asked to teach an entire course at either the undergraduate or graduate level without any remuneration or acknowledgement, because it is considered an honor to teach the course for a famous professor. This kind of unfair treatment is unheard of in any other kind of organizations...
These illustrious professors are willing and able to make personal sacrifices to achieve eminence in their fields; are their students prepared to make the same sacrifices? Maybe there should be a warning to potential graduate students applying to elite graduate schools: "Admission to this school may be hazardous to your health and well-being. Only the toughest and brightest need to apply."
Bullying and intimidation in higher education
I can understand the need to work 80 hours a week to find a vaccine against AIDS or avian flu, but I can't appreciate the value of such all-consuming passion for fame, money and power. The allures of big science can be just as destructive as the greed of big business and big military-industrial complex. To sacrifice students for personal gains is deplorable.
James Cook University actually has a university policy against bullying and intimidation between supervisors and students, and considers such behavior as a breach of the University Code of Conduct.
...Students' inability to identify bullying makes it difficult for them to respond effectively. Here are some common characteristics of workplace bullies, which can be readily applied to university professors:
* Workplace bullies are autocratic control freaks.
* They make it known that they have the power to destroy the career of their targets.
* They constantly demand respect and consideration whilst treat their subordinates as non-persons.
* They inflict intolerable pain and suffering on others without showing any consideration for the feelings of their victims.
* In spite of their absolutist and unethical behaviors they often get promoted, because they are selfish, manipulative, dishonest and convincing.
What can you do if your supervisor is a bully or psychopath? Your options are very limited, because of the risks of filing a grievance complaint, especially when your supervisor is very influential in the field. Typically, administrators try to cover up for the offender because they don't want to offend a superstar who brings in lots of money and prestige to the university.
The reward systems of most research universities are based on academic accomplishments and financial gains without paying too much attention to students' well-being. Like a steam-roller, the graduate education machine keeps on moving forward faster and faster, without considering how many young lives it has destroyed...
The need to humanize higher education
All kinds of reform of graduate education have been proposed, but few have been implemented or enforced. This inertia can be attributed to a university culture that values ranking and revenues in a highly competitive environment...
Much progress has been made in the area of sexual harassment on campuses. In many universities, there are designated sexual harassment or human rights officers. University administrators are inclined to take sexual harassment complaints seriously because of political correctness... However, in the area of academic bullying which affects more students, little progress has been made.
Most universities have developed policies and procedures to handle difficult advisor-student relationships and grievance complaints, but these guidelines are generally not very effective because of fear of retribution on the part of students and the fear of offending valued professors on the part of the administration. Furthermore, these guidelines do not even recognize the possibility that supervisors may have the problem of bullying and psychological impairment...
Success stories of the humanistic movement
Emory university has already made fundamental changes to humanize medical education with positive results. "We're trying to abuse students less," says Dr. Jonas Schulman, the driving force behind the reform, "and we want to make sure we're sending the message that we place a premium on people skills..."
There are also serious efforts to humanize the hospital. The key to Planetree Institute's patient-centered model is to create a health care environment in which not only patients experience caring, kindness, and respect, but also their families and the hospital staff. Susan Frampton (2003) has documented that they can dramatically increase patient satisfaction level simply by adding a human touch to hospitals.
...Leadership skills are just as important as research skills, because professors often have to manage large research teams of strong individuals with different personalities, cultural backgrounds, and creative ideas. The autocratic leadership style no longer works in the corporate world; how can we expect it to work in an academic community of free thinkers?
Humanizing higher education can be beneficial to both students and society. By creating a caring and engaging environment, universities can become a positive force in reducing human suffering and improving the quality of life for all...'
http://www.meaning.ca/articles06/president/humanity-jan06.htm
August 04, 2006
Staff are silenced by fear of reprisals
Times Higher Education Supplement
Jessica Shepherd
Published: 04 August 2006
Poll shows lecturers are alarmed at growing threats to their academic freedom, reports Jessica Shepherd. Four in ten academics say their freedom to express controversial or unpopular opinions is under attack, according to a poll carried out by ICM for The Times Higher.
The survey exposes the extent to which university staff fear academic freedom is being eroded. Some 39 per cent of 502 respondents said their right to question received wisdom - enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988 - was in jeopardy. Some 38 per cent of professors, 45 per cent of senior lecturers and 36 per cent of lecturers said that their academic freedom was under attack.
A separate Times Higher online poll also probed views on academic freedom. More than 40 per cent of 107 respondents said they felt pressure over what they could say about their work and institution. Almost a quarter admitted to self-censorship out of a fear of their institution, and a similar proportion self-censored lest their peers disapproved. One had been fired for falling foul of guidelines, two had been officially disciplined and nine unofficially reprimanded.
The Education Reform Act 1988 made it a legal right for academics to have the "freedom to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have". Many academics say managerial culture is eroding freedom.
Jessica Shepherd
Published: 04 August 2006
Poll shows lecturers are alarmed at growing threats to their academic freedom, reports Jessica Shepherd. Four in ten academics say their freedom to express controversial or unpopular opinions is under attack, according to a poll carried out by ICM for The Times Higher.
The survey exposes the extent to which university staff fear academic freedom is being eroded. Some 39 per cent of 502 respondents said their right to question received wisdom - enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988 - was in jeopardy. Some 38 per cent of professors, 45 per cent of senior lecturers and 36 per cent of lecturers said that their academic freedom was under attack.
A separate Times Higher online poll also probed views on academic freedom. More than 40 per cent of 107 respondents said they felt pressure over what they could say about their work and institution. Almost a quarter admitted to self-censorship out of a fear of their institution, and a similar proportion self-censored lest their peers disapproved. One had been fired for falling foul of guidelines, two had been officially disciplined and nine unofficially reprimanded.
The Education Reform Act 1988 made it a legal right for academics to have the "freedom to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have". Many academics say managerial culture is eroding freedom.
Sally Hunt, joint general secretary of the University and College Union, said: "The Times Higher poll should act as a wake-up call. Universities must protect the rights of academics and the reputation of UK research.
"The number feeling threatened is unlikely to decrease unless universities stop their interventionist approach to research and stop overburdening academics with teaching hours and bureaucracy."
David Rhind, vice-chancellor of City University, added a clause on academic freedom to the university's charter in April.
He said: "There is not much point in having a university unless you have academic freedom. I would defend to my death the right to express an opinion that might offend a university or the Government, as long as there was strong evidence for it."
ICM interviewed 502 academics by telephone between June 6 and June 12.
jessica.shepherd@thes.co.uk
From: Times Higher Education Supplement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)