Stuart said... A commitment to monitoring... Ireland

Stuart said...

Pierre-Joseph wrote "Employers should keep all statistics of workplace bullying and provide reports" - we had the suggestion from an expert review group that the Health & Safety Authority require all employers to record the number of bullying complaints, outcomes (upheld , dismissed, resolved without finding), proportion of staff on fixed-term contracts, sickness rates, stress-related leave, staff law suits, legal fees and settlements.

The new Guidelines were watered down to "Monitoring : The policy should include a commitment to monitoring incidents of bullying at work so as to evaluate and improve upon the policy and procedures as necessary".

(http://consultation.hsa.ie/general-applications/cop/
DraftCoPBullyingWeb.8December2006.pdf)
--------------------------------------------
A commitment to monitoring...

Reports are exaggerated...

"...the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated..."

Mark Twain: published in the New York Journal

The mobbing process

Phase 1: is characterized by an initial conflict. At this stage it is not mobbing and the target may not even realize the significance of this critical incident.

Phase 2: characterized by aggressive acts and psychological assaults... that set the mobbing processes into motion.

Phase 3: then involves management that play a role in the negative cycle by misjudging and/or mis-interpreting the situation. Instead of extending support, they begin the isolation and expulsion process.

Phase 4: is critical. Targets are now branded as difficult or mentally ill. This misjudgment by management and/or health professionals reinforces the negative cycle. It will almost always lead to expulsion or forced resignation.

Phase 5: is the expulsion. The trauma of this event, can additionally, trigger post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). After the expulsion, the emotional distress and psychological injury can continue and intensify.

Westhues (1998; 2004a) prefers the term elimination rather than expulsion from the workplace. He acknowledges that this is a harsh term but his intention is to highlight the devastating consequences of mobbing activities that is ‘happening everyday in workplaces in our most civilised societies’...

As noted above, targets are characterized as having a strong commitment to their work. This commitment also engenders feelings of loyalty and a strong belief in the goals of the organization (Davenport 2002). Such principles promote a feeling that that complaining is an act of disloyalty making many stay silent about their ordeal.

Davenport et.al. (2002) noted that once the phases begin they develop their own momentum. Research indicates that the longer the worker endures the mobbing, the more difficult it is for bystanders to remain neutral and they become implicated in the mobbing process (Zapf et.al 2003).

As indicated in the above phases, Phase 3 would seem to represent a circuit breaker to the cycle. Unfortunately, when the target finally seeks assistance they are inevitably suffering a stress related illness and management support the mobbers rather than the mobbing target.

Vanderkerchhove and Commers (2002) assert that the labelling of the target as a ‘troublemaker or mentally ill based on rumours and gossip legitimizes senior management decision to eliminate the target from the workplace’...

Dr. Kate Hartig (NSW) and Jeannene Frosch (ACT), Workplace Mobbing Syndrome: The ‘Silent and Unseen’ Occupational Hazard, Our Work … Our Lives: National Conference on Women and Industrial Relations, Queensland Working Women’s Service and Griffith, Griffith University, Brisbane 12-14 July 2006

Shall we pay the presidents? - Universities rely on institute intake to keep "elite" status

Dear Louise [Michel],

The privatising vanguard of Irish university heads have used "fostering quality" to justify their abysmal record on human relations, without once defining quality. When challenged on their records of institutional bullying they refer to growth in student numbers, private research income and capital assets to defend themselves - not student-staff ratios, professional accreditation, publication output, student achievement, doctoral awards or other "traditional" educational metrics.

Below is an article from the Irish Times newspaper by Professor Emeritus Dr Edward Walsh founding president of the University of Limerick (as he styles himself) advocating "no-nonsense policies that nurture excellence and ostracise the second-rate" and a pay rise of between 66 and 72 percent for university presidents and vice presidents. (Actually they receive between 185,000 and 205,000 euro, which is cheap by comparison with many other countries, but the manner of the appeal offends me).

Below that article is another printed in the same issue on how universities are increasing elitism by failing to admit disadvanted applicants and mature students who are potentially challenging, preferring the malleable "Powerpoint generation" who return the lecturer's own notes as bullet-points in examination.

Best wishes, ...
--------------------------------------
The Irish Times, 16 January 2007 - Shall we pay the presidents? By Ed Walsh

The demand by university presidents for a €300,000 salary is not outlandish.

We must reward those who are committed to change, relevance and the pursuit of excellence. Otherwise, Ireland will fail to sustain the building of the great universities it needs, argues Ed Walsh.

Competition in the knowledge age has become a race for talent: universities have moved to the apex of the competitive system in developed countries. World-class universities give a special competitive edge: they strongly influence foreign direct investment and wealth creation. As a result, governments globally are pressing to ensure that their universities are vibrant and competitive.

Most European governments are agitated by the fact that their universities fare so badly in new international rankings. Prior to the second World War, the world's best universities were in Europe. Now the US wins most of the Nobel prizes in science and European universities make poor showings. Eight of the world's top 10 universities are in the US, and seven of these, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT and Columbia, are run as private corporations with the associated no-nonsense policies that nurture excellence and ostracise the second-rate.

In contrast, many European states have in effect nationalised the universities, turned academics into public servants, locked them on salary scales and created bureaucratic formulas that tolerate mediocrity and often fail to reward excellence. Talent has drifted away and many of Europe's once-great universities have been humbled.

Poor rankings in the international polls have highlighted this reality and many European governments are now moving to revitalise their lacklustre universities. Germany is attempting to create nine elite universities and Britain has given university leadership considerable discretion in fostering and recruiting vital talent.

Recently, under the National Development Plan, Ireland has moved in a most determined and creative way to boost the low research standing of its universities and compensate for 80 years of neglect. Research funding has been dramatically increased from miserly millions to generous billions in a way that has caught the imagination of the multinationals and the international research community. Science Foundation Ireland has been established with panache and is proving a remarkable success. Flexibility has been demonstrated in offering the kind of remuneration packages essential to compete internationally in attracting some of the world's great researchers to Ireland.

The strategy is already paying off: major multinationals have started to make research investments unprecedented in Ireland. Enterprise that invests in research and intellectual talent puts down deep roots that make flitting eastwards before the next minimum wage increase much less likely.

But our universities are still under the maw of the State, governance structures are inappropriate and cumbersome, the executive is constrained and leadership lacks the financial discretion necessary to weave and duck while pursuing and capturing world talent.

The best of the US, UK and Australian universities have the kind of discretion that permits them to "go for broke" in the pursuit of a person who is vital... an academic who is a potential Nobel laureate or a president or vice president with the necessary exceptional abilities. Ireland's development agencies are becoming increasingly aware that Irish universities need similar flexibility and unless a number of our universities make good progress towards the top-100 international rankings Ireland's long-term wealth and job-creation prospects are at some risk.

Moving a university into the top-100 category calls for remarkable commitment at all levels: especially from the president and vice-presidential team. [What happened to academics and the other staff? Do they no come into this?]

Courage and management skill is called for in terminating jaded programmes and transferring resources to more relevant ones, facing down entrenched university groups committed to the status quo - and then selectively allocating resources and reward to those who are committed to change, relevance and the pursuit of excellence. Unless the Irish universities are encouraged to do this, and can compete internationally in attracting and retaining the necessary leadership talent, Ireland will fail to sustain the building of the great universities it needs.

The quality of the university executive leadership team is a key determining factor in building a great university. [Indeed] Despite the public image created by gown-clad presidents mumbling Latin at conferring ceremonies the leadership and executive challenge at presidential and vice-presidential level are immense. With annual budgets now measured in fractions of a billion, several thousand staff, overseas programmes, international fundraising and a diverse list of campus companies, few are fit to undertake the multidimensional role of university president. Given the nature of the people involved and the complexity of the structures, the challenge in driving forward a university is far more demanding than doing likewise with a business of comparable scale.

Universities intent on achieving excellence compete globally and use international head-hunters to track down talent. When a presidential or vice-presidential vacancy is due to arise, a major global talent hunt is launched. In leading US universities, salary is seldom the constraint: but finding the right person willing to take the job is.

The situation in Ireland is otherwise. University governing authorities are finding that, while they have the discretion to head-hunt, salary constraints dominate the recruitment of senior talent.

The annual salary paid to Irish university presidents ranges from €186,000 to €205,000 and in some cases the president is obliged to live on campus in the president's residence (often considered more of an imposition than a benefit). It might seem that remuneration is high enough already and the proposal to move into the €300,000 range is unjustified. But the reality is vividly evident, to those attempting to recruit leadership at both presidential and vice-presidential levels, that existing remuneration packages are uncompetitive. For example, recently a potential candidate for a vice-presidential position at an Irish university was approached. He was working in a senior position in Ireland and willing to accept the university challenge, but when it emerged that his existing earnings were over €300,000 discussions came to a grinding halt: the university could not compete and the appointment was not made.

With experiences like this it is not surprising that those who recognise the importance of moving our universities towards the top-100 league realise that, if world-class leadership is to be attracted and retained, Ireland must abandon the old constraints that hamper senior executive recruitment. Ireland has made great strides recently in putting flexible remuneration packages in place to attract academic research talent; it must do likewise for university leadership.

Remuneration for university presidents has escalated rapidly elsewhere, as an increasing number of developed countries competes intensely for scarce talent. Ireland is now at a serious competitive disadvantage. In the UK the earnings of many university vice-chancellors breached the ?300,000 mark several years ago, while in the US, 50 university presidents are paid over $500,000 and five over $1 million a year.

In this competitive international context the proposed annual salary for Irish university presidents, in the €300,000 range, does not appear outlandish. Smart organisations committed to excellence don't skimp on their senior executive team.

Dr Edward M Walsh is founding president of the University of Limerick
--------------------------------------
Universities rely on institute intake to keep "elite" status. By KITTY HOLLAND

By relying on institutes of technology to increase the proportion of students from disadvantaged groups accessing third-level education, universities are maintaining their "elite" status, an expert on the issue has said.

Prof Tom Collins, head of education at NUI Maynooth, speaking yesterday at the publication of the first directory for mature students of Irish third-level institutions, also said the record of higher education in increasing mature students' access was "patchy" and that secondary schools were not preparing young people for "the intellectual challenges of adult life".

The directory gives a guide to the 32 institutions that admit mature students, along with information on everything from what the CAO is to what supports are available in each institution for mature students.

Prof Collins said access for mature students was patchy from institution to institution.

"It will become easier in the future. I think as modularisation and semesterisation models work their way through, colleges will realise these open up opportunities for different ways of being in college that haven't been explored yet."

He said mature students "challenge universities in their pedagogies", while students straight out of secondary school needed everything set out for them.

"They [second-level students] think like Powerpoint. They find it difficult to construct a narrative; they return exam scripts in bullet points. Second-level education is not training them to link their ideas, to tell a story. They come to university singularly unprepared for the intellectual challenges of adult life.

"Universities are still relying too heavily on the institutes of technology to deal with class," he continued, adding that Dundalk IT had four times the proportion of students from the lowest socio-economic groups as had the universities, while those from disadvantaged backgrounds who did get into university were generally not accessing the "high-prestige" courses such as law and medicine.

The directory has a limited print run as funding was limited. It can be viewed at www.tcd. ie/Trimry_Access/directory_mat urestudents2006.pdf

Reputation Defender to 'consider' Bullied Academics blog!

Reputation Defender, Inc. 2023 Cherokee Parkway, Suite #18 Louisville, KY 40204, January 11, 2007

Dear Professor Neilson,

We are writing to you in behalf of Profession Ivan Perry. He has asked us to contact you and see if you will consider removing the content about him at the following web pages:

* http://www.geocities.com/stuartdneilson/Complaint_Report.htm
* http://www.geocities.com/stuartdneilson/

Please allow us to introduce ourselves. We are ReputationDefender, Inc., a company dedicated to helping our clients preserve their good name on the Internet. Our founders and employees are all regular Internet users. Like our clients, and perhaps like you, we think the Internet is sometimes unnecessarily hurtful to the privacy and reputations of everyday people. Even content that is meant to be informative can sometimes have a significant and negative impact on someone's job prospects, student applications, and personal life.

We invite you to learn more about who we are, at www.reputationdefender.com

When our clients sign up with our service, we undertake deep research about them on the Internet to see what the Web is saying about them. We find sites where they are discussed, and we ask our clients how they feel about those sites. Sometimes our clients express strong reservations about the content on particular websites. They may feel hurt, ashamed, or "invaded" by the content about them on those sites.

As you may know, more and more prospective employers, universities, and newfound friends and romantic interests undertake Internet research, and the material they find can strongly impact their impressions of the people they are getting to know. When people apply for jobs, apply for college or graduate school, apply for loans, begin dating, or seek to do any number of other things with their lives, hurtful content about them on the Internet can have a negative impact on their opportunities.

At some point or another, most of us say things about ourselves or our friends and acquaintances we later regret. We're all human, and we all do it!

We are writing to you today because our client, Ivan Perry, has told us that he would like the content about him on your websites to be removed, as it is outdated and feels that it is invasive of both your and his privacy. Would you be willing to remove or alter the content? It would mean so much to Professor Perry, and to us.

Considerate actions such as these will go a long way to help make the Internet a more civil place. Thank you very much for your consideration. We are mindful that matters like these can be sensitive. We appreciate your time.

Please let us know if you have removed or changed the content on these sites by sending an e-mail to: daves@reputationdefender.com

Yours sincerely,

Dave S., Reputation Defender Service Team
---------------------------------------------
Dear Dave S.,

Many thanks for your message of 11 January 2007 informing me that your client Professor Perry would like me to remove references to my workplace experiences from www.geocities.com/stuartdneilson and related URLs.

Professor Perry may wish to additionally consult, amongst other sources, the online or print versions of University College Cork's Express Student Newspaper (www.ucc.ie/en/SIN/Communications/UCCExpress/) on 17 October 2006 and 31 October 2006, University College Cork's Motley Magazine issue of December 2006, The Irish Examiner (www.examiner.ie) on 18 October 2006, 21 October 2006 and 27 October 2006, The Sunday Times (www.timesonline.co.uk) on 10 August 2003 and The Irish Independent (www.unison.ie/irish_independent) on 25 November 2004, 3 February 2005 and 9 December 2006 for further reference to substantially the same and related issues.

There are further online references at the FUCC University College Cork bulletin board (specifically forum.ucc.ie/viewtopic.php?t=9114), at the Bullied Academics site (bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/index.html, specifically bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/01/professor-
ivan-perry-formal-complaint.html) and at Indymedia Ireland (specifically articles and comments at www.indymedia.ie/article/78472, www.indymedia.ie/article/78749, www.indymedia.ie/article/79696 and www.indymedia.ie/article/80342, although Indymedia is currently offline).

These sources, dates and articles are not comprehensive.

I am actively seeking resolution of these issues with University College Cork.

With best wishes, Stuart Neilson.
----------------------------------------
Dear Professor Nielson,

Thank you for your response. We will take these additional sources into consideration.

Dave S. - Reputation Defender Support Staff
----------------------------------------
So now we are waiting - here at this blog - to be taken into 'consideration' by Reputation Defender.

The experience of injustice...

'...When fairness is flouted, the universe is at risk. Injustice is always unacceptable... Being the recipient of such an injustice is more than emotion. It is excrutiatingly visceral. It invades the human psyche with the most lancing cut. Depending on the severity of the injustice, life may ever after be divided mentally between the time before and after the injust event.'

'The experience of injustice alters the percpetion of oneself, off the safety of the world, the security of life, and the belief that wrongs inflicted will be put right. Injustice destroys justice because it destroys belief in justice. It destroys the notion of justice as something more than an activity or an act but as a powerful principal at work in the universe...'

'For some what is perceived as judicial injustice is a crime upon the crime: a further defilement after rape and an insult that exceeds the original assault...'

'Clinically, the emotions and behaviours consequent upon persception of grave injustice are many... It is all action and immobility, all words and silence, all reality and illusory. Sometimes it chokes in indignation...'

From: Dealing with injustice, by Marie Murray

Allegations concerning higher education institutions: HEFCE policy and procedure

14 January 2003 - To Heads of HEFCE-funded higher education institutions, Heads of universities in Northern Ireland - Circular letter number 01/2003 - HEFCE

For further information contact Paul Greaves, tel 0117 931 7378, e-mail p.greaves@hefce.ac.uk

Dear Vice-Chancellor or Principal

The HEFCE and its Audit Service receive, from time to time, a range of allegations of financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud in higher education institutions, from a variety of sources. The attached annex sets out our procedure for dealing with allegations.

We welcome these allegations insofar as they are brought to our attention in good faith and relate to our statutory functions. Our public interest disclosure, or whistleblowing, procedure has been in existence for a number of years and it has guided the Audit Service in dealing with allegations received. The volume of cases is increasing, and the interaction with those making a public interest disclosure is becoming more complex. Therefore, the policy and procedure have been reviewed and redrafted, informed by legal advice.

If you require any further information, please contact Paul Greaves, tel 0117 931 7378, e-mail p.greaves@hefce.ac.uk.

Yours sincerely

Howard Newby, Chief Executive

Download: Annex A - Allegations concerning higher education institutions: HEFCE policy and procedure. Appendix - Form for submitting allegations about higher education institutions
---------------------------------------------------
From the above download(ed) file:

'...The identity of a discloser and the source of his or her information can be kept confidential on the request of the discloser. However, the Chief Executive and other employees of the HEFCE may need to be given these details to determine the action to be taken in relation to a complaint, to enable enquiries to be made of the institution, and to enable any investigation to be carried out. Confidentiality will be respected if it is still possible for the case to be properly investigated. If it is not possible to protect confidentiality, the discloser will be given the choice of withdrawing or being identified...'

Chances are slim that academics are likely to raise complaints with HEFCE about financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud in higher education institutions, when this is likely to end in 'early retirement', 'garden leave', or even straight forward disciplinary and sacking. However, consider the following:

'...1. Where an individual wishes to make an allegation to the HEFCE about matters in a higher education institution, then he or she should:

a. Read carefully this document and, if necessary, the Financial Memorandum that governs the relationship between the HEFCE and institutions. The Financial Memorandum is available on the HEFCE web-site (reference HEFCE 00/25).

b. Seek further clarification from the Clerk to the HEFCE Board (Simon Cannell, tel 0117 931 7405, e-mail s.cannell@hefce.ac.uk) or the HEFCE Chief Auditor (Paul Greaves, tel 0117 931 7378, e-mail p.greaves@hefce.ac.uk).

c. Satisfy him or herself that:

i. The allegation relates to the HEFCE’s functions and its relationship with the institution as set out in the Financial Memorandum.

ii. The institution’s internal public interest disclosure procedure has been exhausted.

iii. The matter does not relate to an individual or collective personnel dispute for which there are established routes of complaint and remedies.

iv. The matter does not relate to an academic dispute between a student and the institution. Guidance on complaints of this nature can be found in the Code of Practice on Student Complaints to be found on the web-site of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (www.qaa.ac.uk).

d. Complete the form at the Appendix and submit it to the Clerk of the HEFCE Board. An acknowledgement will be sent within five working days.

So one needs to exhaust all internal procedures before reporting to HEFCE. The chances are that by the time an academic has exhausted all internal procedures, they are not likely to have a job, their health will not be the best due to the huge trauma, and other priorities become more important... HEFCE is showing ignorance of the effects of workplace bullying on the targets (victims). Chances are that the target(s) are likely to suffer some degree of PTSD and the last thing they will want is another painful investigation. We know that in some cases 'negotiations' result in a financial payment and a confidentiality clause, and the story of the target never sees the light of day...

An FOI request to HEFCE can perhaps request answers to some interesting questions:

• How many academic/staff complaints regarding allegations of financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud in higher education institutions have you received in 2006?
  
  
• In how many cases did HEFCE 'penalise' or 'report' a university for financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud?
  
  
• How many of the academics/staff who reported such irregularities are still working with the same university?
  
  
• How do you define 'mismanagement'? Does it include not following university regulations concerning disciplinary procedures for academics?
  

We can easily think of a few more...

Equal opportunities and diversity for staff in higher education

Statistics for equal opportunities in higher education, May 2005

Project 1 - Report to HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW by Pamela Abbott, Roger Sapsford, Laura Molloy

Grievance, discipline and working conditions

In a number of circumstances it has been found that an indicator of poor working relationships, and particularly of harassment and bullying, is rapid staff turnover. In principle the HESA record includes date of entry to current institution, date of leaving/changing employment (for leavers) and destination on leaving (divided into early/‘normal’ retirements, those moving to another HEI post and those leaving the sector).

It would be possible to look at speed of turnover, perhaps comparing it with level or salary achieved, separately by gender or ethnic group – controlling for age by discarding people retiring at the normal time, though extent of early retirement and retirement on health grounds might be of interest here). In commerce or industry it is admitted that departments with high turnover may have poor working practices or working conditions.

However, in practice the use of identification numbers may not be sufficiently reliable, between institutions, for such an analysis to be carried out – though it is hoped this problem will soon be solved - nor will existing data permit this kind of analysis for non-academic staff. Further, the ‘destination’ information itself tends to be of poor quality, with a high proportion of reasons for leaving coded as ‘unknown’.

Straightforward records of grievance procedures and disciplinary procedures brought during a given year are kept by institutions. [Good to know.] Some of them monitor these to see if any demographic category of staff is over-represented, and this might be commended to all institutions as an interesting and perhaps enlightening indicator. [Indeed.] It would be possible to aggregate the figures centrally, to look for trends over time or between types of institution, but numbers are always likely to be too small for valid judgments to be made about individual institutions. [Really? How convenient!]

The problem with formal grievance/discipline procedures, from the point of view of statistical monitoring, is that they come at the end of a long chain of actions and decisions and are therefore rare...
---------------------------------------
How rare is rare?

The higher education workforce in England - A framework for the future, HEFCE, July 2006

Challenges for HEIs in implementing equal opportunities

Paragraph 142:

In addition to the legislative and good practice demands on institutions, there are a number of areas where HEIs face specific challenges in implementing equality of opportunity for staff.

Studies[1] as part of the joint funding councils’ research programme into equal opportunities for staff showed that the general lack of commitment of middle managers was a key barrier to the implementation of initiatives, and that under-investment has an impact on improving equality in HEIs (for example, the resourcing of equality practitioner posts, equal opportunities training for staff and other interventions such as mentoring). [We think we could have saved them the time regarding the general lack of commitment of middle managers. They are part of the problem and often the problem itself...]

In most of the institutions studied, the equal opportunities monitoring information was often incomplete and/or HEIs had failed to act on the basis of the data they had collected. Bullying and harassment were found to be a problem in a number of HEIs (17 per cent of survey respondents had experienced either bullying or harassment), with the most likely perpetrators being senior colleagues.
-------------------------------------
1. We would like to know about these studies.

So HEFCE knows, or at least suspects, but does it do anything else?

So HEIs have failed to act on the data they collected... What a surprise! And nobody has done anything about it... More surprises! In fact, life is full of surprises...

Time to kick racism out of university

Harinder Bahra bemoans the failure of higher education to adequately tackle racism on campus

Thursday November 16, 2006 - Education Guardian

Far from celebrating the growing diversity of UK university staff and students, the higher education sector is almost doing the opposite. There has been a collective failure of employers in the university sector to tackle race discrimination and racism, or even accept it exists.

Like football clubs, universities are descending on developing countries, picking up cheaper black and minority ethnic (BME) researchers and lecturers in response to the transatlantic brain drain and continued pressure on operating costs.

BME staff are often on part-time or fixed-term contracts with lower salaries and have difficulty in progressing through to senior positions. Meanwhile, BME students are increasingly being stereotyped as "extremists" in addition to being seen as academically less able.

As the University and College Union today launches a race equality campaign it is high time to ask what is being done.Some universities, like the trade union sector, have appointed BME chancellors or presidents in voluntary, unpaid roles, but without corresponding changes in senior paid positions. This window dressing presents a diverse public profile, but still preserves the status quo.

Leeds Metropolitan University has become the first in the UK to appoint an independent staff ombudsman to cover equality issues - a role that I am delighted to take on. Our initial discussions led to the development of an innovative model where the employee, the university and the trade union could work together with an informed independent intermediary to seek an amicable solution to discrimination cases.

It is encouraging to work with a senior management team that not only recognises that inequalities exist, but are prepared to invest time and effort to develop new solutions rather than resort to normal adversarial responses, which can often destroy the employment relationship leading to a waste of human talent.

Although we are still refining how the process will work, it may provide us with a sector-wide model where we seek mediated solutions instead of adversarial ones. Apart from reducing costs, the process will help develop an inclusive culture, which will enable staff to manage conflict, while maintaining their dignity.

With the plethora of legislative requirements, it has become increasingly difficult for the public sector to keep up to date with best practices on diversity and equality issues. There are no records kept by the funding council for England, Hefce, on the amount universities spend on legal fees dealing with employment matters, or the costs of such discrimination cases on the brand, recruitment of suitable staff, productivity and staff turnover.

I have had first hand knowledge of tackling race discrimination, having been successful in a tribunal case against Brunel University, where the senior management team was heavily criticised for failing to follow their internal processes.

Any attempts to raise issues of racism or other dubious practices within the sector often leads to the withdrawal of "honorary membership" for individuals, who quickly get labelled troublemakers, leading to further discrimination, victimisation, or academic "containment". Some become the subject of a "reorganisation". Some individuals I have encountered are so systematically hunted that they leave voluntarily or are "managed out" of employment through ill health, redundancy or alleged poor performance. It is with sadness, that I have watched the career destruction of those who are far more talented than myself.

Although the sector has collectively responded via Universities UK and Hefce to fund the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), to date it has made some progress, but allowed universities to hide behind their often plagiarised and commended race equality schemes - excellent written documents, but rarely measured or monitored for outcomes. This lack of progress, whatever the reasons - poor understanding, ignorance, collusion, resources or institutionalised racism - has, obviously, led to little change.

It is time for the government to set up an independent commission into the experiences of BME staff and students in higher education (like the FE sector), to investigate the challenges diversity brings the sector and how leadership and the culture of higher education needs to adapt to grasp current and future opportunities.

The trade union movement is often unable to understand and respond to the concerns and experiences of BME staff. Members who have paid union subscriptions and are facing discrimination visualise this giant machinery kicking into life and regiments of trade union activists coming to their aid like a fourth emergency service. Many have commented they have been left stranded and forced to become litigants in person. The added complexity of their cases and difficulty in securing direct evidence often leads to cases being abandoned or to a forced settlement.

Although it is comforting that trade unions have accepted the existence of racism, it is time for trade unions and universities to undertake impact assessments on their respective polices and procedures, including satisfaction surveys, to improve their employment and service delivery. It is only through critical self-reflection and a commitment from both university leadership and trade unions to work together that we can have changes that will enable us to develop world-class cultures that afford equal treatment for staff and students.

· Harinder Bahra is Professor of Management and Diversity at Leeds Metropolitan University.
-----------------------------------
Schwartz slated for role in sacking
Phil Baty - Published: 20 May 2005, Times Highr Education

The Government's senior adviser on the fairness of university admissions has been criticised for the "deeply unfair treatment" of a senior colleague, writes Phil Baty.

The Watford Employment Tribunal this week described how Steven Schwartz, the vice-chancellor of Brunel University, presided over the victimisation of his marketing director, Harinder Bahra.

Releasing its full written reasoning after announcing its verdict last month, the tribunal said that Mr Bahra, who is of Indian origin, was summarily dismissed after revealing that he had an outstanding race discrimination case against his previous employer.

Professor Schwartz, who wrote a landmark report on university access last year, was personally criticised for ordering the sacking. The tribunal said Professor Schwartz's claim that Mr Bahra had been treated "fairly and appropriately" was "simply a travesty"...