What did academic unions ever do about workplace bullying?

'...The behaviour of the AUT and their solicitors (Thompsons of Edinburgh) in relation to my case was abominable. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I felt considerably less stressed once I had decided to represent myself than when I had been represented by the AUT's solicitors.

The solicitor who initially handled my case failed to advise me that I could have filed my initial claim under the Public Interest Disclosures Act, 1998. This failure had significant ramifications for the way the case was subsequently brought.

The same solicitor failed to pass information from ACAS (the Arbitration and Conciliation Advisory Service) to me or from me to ACAS, thus prejudicing the possibility of a settlement without going to an employment tribunal. He also repeatedly failed to reply to my queries.

At one point (when the University submitted a large dossier of papers) the case seemed to become too much for him and he passed it on to a junior colleague. She then sent a report to the AUT which managed to get the reason for my resignation wrong and made so many other misrepresentations that I had to send a nine page list of corrections to the AUT's legal aid committee. It was to no avail. The AUT decided to go with the solicitors misrepresentations, conveniently allowing them to avoid funding a potentially lengthy hearing.

The main thing that I learned from my correspondence with AUT officials and their solicitors was that the union subscriptions I had paid since 1986 were a complete waste of money. I urge all AUT members to think very carefully about why they are subscribing to this union and to consider cancelling their membership. I will make the correspondence available to any AUT member who is interested to consult it in London.

Should either the AUT or Thompsons Solicitors wish to contest what is on this page, I am more than prepared to answer them. If necessary, correspondence can be put up here...'

From: http://www.skorupskislaw.com/AUT.html

University staff urged to assist bullying survey

Alexandra Smith, Friday November 3, 2006 - EducationGuardian.co.uk

A Nottingham Trent academic is launching a study to help discover the extent to which university staff are being harassed, attacked and even stalked by disgruntled students.

Deborah Lee, a sociologist at the university, is urging all university staff to take part in the online survey, which will be available in the new year, to shed light on the issue.

The research follows an earlier pilot study carried out by Dr Lee that focused solely on lecturers.

In her book, University Students Behaving Badly, 22 academics from UK universities, aged between 25 and 65, revealed their experiences of being physically attacked, stalked, verbally abused, bullied, sexually harassed or maliciously accused of poor teaching by students.

Dr Lee highlighted the case of Stella, a 38-year-old senior marketing lecturer at a pre-1992 university, who was physically attacked by a student who objected to failing an assignment. Her line manager was unsupportive, declaring that Stella was "just a girl who couldn't manage students".

The sociologist said: "The problem at the moment is we don't know how bad the problem is."

The Universities Personnel Association (UPA) is funding Dr Lee's new study, the results of which universities would be able to use to help them update their human resources' policies.

The executive officer at UPA, Helen Scott, said: "This is not just about academics, but all staff across universities because we are interested in the wellbeing of all staff.

"We were very interested in funding this study because we are interested to know the extent of the problem, if there is one, because then we could work to prevent it or help staff deal with it."

The joint general secretary of the University and College Union, Sally Hunt, said: "Lecturers do an extraordinary job and the role many of them take in providing pastoral care for students, particularly those away from home for the first time, is often overlooked.

"They need to be confident they can continue to do their jobs and provide this extra care without fear of recrimination. Universities have a duty of care to protect their staff from harassment and they need to ensure that instances where students over step the mark are treated seriously."

Backfire basics - The keys to backfire

Backfire basics - The keys to backfire

• Reveal: expose the injustice, challenge cover-up
• Redeem: validate the target, challenge devaluation
• Reframe: emphasise the injustice, counter reinterpretation
• Redirect: mobilise support, be wary of official channels
• Resist: stand up to intimidation and bribery

The backfire model is about tactics to oppose injustice

Backfire: an attack can be said to backfire when it creates more support for or attention to whatever is attacked. Any injustice or norm violation can backfire on the perpetrator. Backfire can be apparent in adverse public opinion or greater activity by opponents. Even when a perpetrator seems to get away with an injustice, it can be counterproductive in the long term. Most injustices by powerful groups do not backfire, because they are able to inhibit outrage.

Five methods for inhibiting outrage over injustice:

1. Cover up the action
2. Devalue the target
3. Reinterpret what happened
4. Use formal procedures to give the appearance of justice
5. Intimidate or bribe people involved

Two conditions for backfire:

1. An action is perceived as unjust, unfair, excessive or disproportional.
2. Information about the action is communicated to relevant audiences.

Five approaches for increasing outrage over injustice:

1. Expose the action
2. Validate the target
3. Emphasise interpretation of the action as an injustice
4. Mobilise public concern (and avoid formal procedures)
5. Resist and expose intimidation and bribery

An additional consideration: the timing of communication is vital.

Three relevant factors that affect reception of a message are:

1. Receptivity: baseline sensitivity to injustice; meaning systems. If people are already concerned about a type of abuse, their reaction to a new case will be stronger. Social movements can create or increase receptivity.

2. The information environment: visibility, salience (compared with other stories). What else is happening? If other important items are on the news, an injustice may receive little media attention.

3. Actionability: existence of social movements, opportunities for action. When activists are prepared to act, a sudden injustice is more likely to backfire.

The five Rs of revealing, redeeming, reframing, redirecting and resisting can be used in reaction to an injustice or as a way of preventing it.

For example, to help prevent police attacks, be prepared by having witnesses and cameras ready, dressing and behaving in an image-enhancing fashion, etc.

From: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/backfire.html, by Brian Martin, bmartin@uow.edu.au

The Mobs of Academe - Excerpts from an online discussion

The Chronicle of Higher Education

The guest: Kenneth Westhues is a Professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo who has written a five-volume series about mobbing in academe and who frequently visits college campuses to collect data on episodes of mobbing.

'...Academe is a perfect petri dish for the culture of mobbing, according to the sociologist Kenneth Westhues, thanks to its relatively high job security, subjective measures of performance, and frequent tension between individual professors' goals and the goals of the institution. The victims of mobbing are not always wholly innocent, he says, but the campaigns against them are often based on fuzzy charges, take place in secret, happen fast, and are full of overheated rhetoric. And yet academics tend to think they are immune from the groupthink that characterizes mobbing...'

'...Mobbing is especially tragic when the target is a young scholar who has not yet had a chance to acquire credentials to fall back on. The graduate student most at risk is an independent thinker whose scholarly record (e. g., publications) threatens the supervising professors. So yes, of course, mobbing happens at all levels. My priority has been on the mobbing of professors because if professors are not secure, graduate students working with them are even less secure. How does one heal from the humiliation of being mobbed? The general answer is, "Slowly." Support from family and friends is indispensable. Some kind of professional counselling may or may not be helpful. Healing happens above all as the mobbing target regains confidence by renewed achievements in whatever is the relevant field -- or in an altogether new field of work. It can be really, really hard for a mobbing target to "move on," but it gets easier with every day of successful negotiation of relationships at home and at work...'

'...First, encourage administrators and colleagues to inform themselves about the mobbing research (the mobbing.ca website is a rich resource, so is the book, Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, by Noa Davenport and her colleagues in Iowa, or one can simply google "mobbing"). The more aware we make ourselves of the human tendency to mob, the more able we are to control that tendency in ourselves and others.

Specific step number two is to keep campus media for discussion and debate alive and active. A vigorous campus press helps a lot. So do chat rooms for faculty. I often quote Churchill's line, "It is always better to jaw, jaw, than to war, war." Yes, it sounds better with a British accent.

Third and probably most important, stand with mobbing targets. In most healthy, productive, well-functioning departments and faculties, one can identify individuals who do not let colleagues get mobbed. Such individuals have the guts to say at crucial moments, "Cut it out." They are what researchers call "guardians" of prospective targets. They are willing to be seen with a mobbing target and to speak up for him or her when that is a risky, unpopular thing to do...'

'...The starting point for any possibly effective action to stop or turn back a mobbing has to be a careful analysis of the structure of the mob. Who, one asks, is the instigator, the "chief eliminator"? Sometimes this is the administrator who formally leads the exclusionary action, but sometimes such an administrator is only responding to the ardent wishes of some number of colleagues. The goal, generally speaking, is to "break up" the mob, to try to take some kind of action that will get the professors to behave as independent, reasoned thinkers, as they're supposed to be, instead of like a bunch of sheep...'

Complete online discussion available at: http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2006/04/mobbing/

Kampus Kops Kapture Kauffman - Only in America?

'...NEWS FLASH - At 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 25, 2006, the ever-diligent department of public safety (UofM campus cops), arrested distinguished Professor C.W. Kauffman, at his campus office.

Earlier at lunch, Kauffman related a morning phone call from the campus police, saying that they were “investigating 14 old parking tickets, and would you [he] come into the office?” Kauffman’s attorneys called and requested more information, which was not forthcoming.

When Kauffman returned from lunch, the police seized him, handcuffed him, and took him away, transferring him to a Wayne County Sheriff waiting at the Ypsilanti Michigan State Police office. The Wayne Deputy whisked Kauffman to Detroit at more than 100 mph.

After a hearing in front of Wayne county Circuit Judge William Giovan, Kauffman was released. At 7:20 p.m., Attorney Richard G. Convertino, of Plymouth, said he was taking Kauffman to seek medical attention at U of M hospital, and could not comment further at this time.

Kauffman’s whistle-blower lawsuit against the University of Michigan is before the state Supreme Court. He recently was removed from teaching duties at the University’s engineering department, where he is a highly regarded, tenured aerospace engineering professor...'

From: http://wolverinesamok.com/

Send emails of protest and support to the president of the university, Mary Sue Coleman: presoff@umich.edu

Authorship, ghost-science, access to data and control of the pharmaceutical scientific literature: Who stands behind the word?

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/

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

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

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 Boar

Exclusive: 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