January 22, 2007

Quiz

Quiz. Question 1 - Name an HEI (Higher Education Institution) where:
  • many staff have rock-bottom moral

  • staff often work in a culture of fear

  • some staff feel isolated and unfairly treated

  • anger exists between different groups and individuals

  • where there is fear of victimisation

  • leadership and management style is at the heart of much of the unhappiness

  • where an "inner circle" takes over - who are happy in their work and a majority who feel bullied, isolated and discriminated against

  • staff recruitment processes are between "reasonably sound" and "flawed"

  • there is concern about fairness and transparency of the promotions process

  • where performance management are "punitive", and nearly all staff consider communications to be poor
Who is it?
If all bullet points do not apply to your answer, then the winner will be the one with the highest number of bullet points from the above list. ; )

Independent intervention

"It is far more productive to intervene before disciplinary decisions are imposed. For an independent body, external body to assess if the university (employer) has indeed followed the right procedures before reaching a decision. This needs to happen before a decision is imposed and not after."

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : )

'Punishing' style puts staff on critical list

Phil Baty, THES. Published: 19 January 2007 - Whistleblower investigates

Academics at Birmingham's School of Health Sciences feel 'failed' by senior management who, a leaked report shows, were slow to address 'rock-bottom morale' and a 'culture of fear'. Phil Baty dissects the bones of contention.

"I have the sense of a school that is divided, where many staff feel isolated and unfairly treated... "Everyone is aware of the tension, pressure, even anger that exists between different groups and individuals".

This is the conclusion of a report on Birmingham University's School of Health Sciences that is so sensitive that the university refused to even confirm its existence when The Times Higher asked to see it under the Freedom of Information Act.

The report, which was leaked to The Times Higher this week, paints a damning picture of a school at war. It raises serious questions about the state of personnel management at the university and the future of the school.

Stuart Hunt, a human resources consultant, produced the report, which was handed to staff in the school in August 2006. It reports the results of a consultation exercise that involved 22 staff in "focus groups" and one-to-one interviews at the school and "several" further direct contributions to Mr Hunt.

The local branch of the University and College Union had suggested that disgruntled staff boycotted the consultation for fear of victimisation, but the paper, however, concludes that an "excellent level of engagement... should mean that the findings... are valid".

The report identifies a number of "key issues". "Leadership and management style is at the heart of much of the unhappiness that was expressed by the majority of respondents," it says.

A clear split emerges between a minority of staff - described as an "inner circle" - who are happy in their work and a majority who feel bullied, isolated and discriminated against.

The report says that although some staff felt recruitment processes to be "reasonably sound", many others found them to be "flawed". Staff expressed "deep concern about the fairness and transparency" of the promotions process.

They also said favouritism was shown in the allocation of tasks, the granting of permission to attend conferences and the handling of promotion opportunities.

The management was said to be supportive by some staff, but many more felt that the systems and the management style were "much too controlling, even punishing". The report says: "Although several staff explicitly said they had not experienced or witnessed bullying, many more comments contradicted this."

Some staff said feedback and performance management were "punitive", and nearly all considered communications to be poor.

The school, founded in 1995, combines nursing and physiotherapy. For most all of its time, it has been headed by Pat Wrightson, a professor of physiotherapy. It has 63 academic staff and 22 academic-related and support staff who are responsible for more than 500 undergraduate students, 87 taught postgraduates and 15 postgraduate research students.

Nursing received a 3b rating in the 2001 research assessment exercise. The Hunt report highlighted staff fears that the school's problems could further damage its profile and even threaten its survival in a university committed to top-rated research.

Staff blamed high workloads for cutting into research time. The report says some staff felt that teaching and administration was valued more highly than research.

"There is significant concern about personal job security and about the future of the school as a whole, especially in relation to the vice-chancellor's statements about (the need for) research excellence," Hunt says.

The report highlights major staff concerns about five general aspects of work - leadership, professional and career development, communications, management, recruitment and promotion. In each of these areas, between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of all comments made were "negative".

These areas, the report said, "should be seen as highly significant to address".

The university this week released a statement to The Times Higher in which it said that the consultation and meetings with staff have allowed the university to "develop additional responses to address staff concerns".

In particular, "leadership training" for staff at various levels has been implemented.

Staff in the school were due to meet Mr Hunt this week, as The Times Higher went to press, to agree "some key actions" to help develop "a framework for collegiate leadership" in the school, according to a leaked memo.

The Hunt report concludes: "Finally, nearly half of respondents made comments relating to the sense that the university centrally has not supported the school... effectively."

Certainly, the university had clear warnings of the emerging crisis. In October 2005 - almost a year before the Hunt report and as Professor Wrightson's second five-year term of office was coming towards an end - 17 members of academic staff wrote to the head of personnel, Jane Usherwood, raising concerns about how the school was being managed.

The letter, which was followed by a similar one in summer 2006 to the vice-chancellor, stated explicitly that it would not be "appropriate" to reappoint Professor Wrightson because of a number of "significant concerns about the current management style and the relationships within the school, which have led to inequitable workload distribution and inconsistent promotion decisions".

It reported that 12 staff had resigned in the previous three years - six of them "within the last few months" - and referred to "widespread concern that we may not be able to deliver existing courses, nor that we will be returnable in the next RAE". But as the Hunt report noted almost a year later, five staff asked: "What happened to the letter... there was no response, no feedback."

A major warning - described by one staff member as a "huge emergency siren" - came in the form of an October 2005 staff "stress survey" that highlighted the same issues as Hunt, but almost a year earlier. This survey, obtained by The Times Higher under the Freedom of Information Act, showed staff reporting
"a culture of fear" and "rock-bottom morale" in health sciences.

Some 47 staff in the school, including 41 academics, participated in the survey. They reported that promotion and job opportunities were "unfair", that the school suffered from a "blaming culture" and an "unrewarding social climate", and that they suffered "low autonomy, insufficient participation and a sense of lack of control". The report, by consultants Applied Research Limited, recommended an "urgent" investigation into allegations of bullying and favouritism and said that "organisational interventions... are urgently required".

But nine months after the survey was completed, the Birmingham UCU was bemoaning the lack of action. A submission from the Birmingham UCU to a July 10, 2006, meeting of the university stress review group said: "It is no exaggeration to say that UCU members in health sciences are at the end of their tethers. They are asking how much more time it takes for the university to act to address the problem."

In the same month, 15 school staff complained in a letter to the vice-chancellor of a "lack of strategic planning", a "climate of low morale" and "raised stress levels".

Michael Clarke, the vice-principal, replied 18 days later, on July 28, rejecting their request for a meeting but saying that the vice chancellor would "take into consideration" their views about leadership when deciding on the future headship of the school.

Just four days after that, Professor Clarke told the school: "Professor Wrightson has agreed to continue as head of the school. Both Pat and the vice chancellor recognise there are significant issues to be resolved... about the future direction of the school." This should be taken forward by staff "working constructively together". But Professor Wrightson's new term would run only until March 31, 2007, he said.

In a statement this week, the UCU branch said that it had been aware of "serious problems" in the school for several years.

It said: "Some of our members in the school have been off work with stress-related illnesses, and many of them have been afraid to raise their concerns with the university for fear of victimisation.

"Members have also expressed anxiety about their future careers because the perceived absence of a clear research strategy has apparently made the prospect of an RAE return in this round unlikely."

As one member of staff who did not want to be named said: "The university has failed us. They had the stress survey and did nothing for a year.
Then they sent in a consultant to find out what the problem was when they knew the problem all along.

"It is very sad. There is a lot of enthusiasm and ability and potential, but we've just been ground into the ground."

STAFF CLAIMS

"You don't get promoted unless you are part of the 'favoured few' and your face fits." Eight people shared these sentiments.

"My sense is that everything is designed to support the 'inner circle'."

The report said that this term was "used by several people".

"Criteria for promotion are fixed so that only certain individuals can meet them". Five people expressed this view.

"Some people are allowed to go to international events and others are not - this is a favouritism issue." Four staff repeated such sentiments.

"We are desperate for help. We are vacillating between despair and anger."

"There has to be a change in leadership."

Source: the Hunt report

THE BIRMINGHAM RESPONSE IN FULL

"Birmingham University, as a responsible employer, conducts periodic reviews of stress in its schools. As a result of findings of the 2005 stress survey in the School of Health Sciences, the university, in consultation with the school, commissioned a further review from an independent consultant.

"This was intended to provide a more detailed insight into issues raised in the original survey. The university considers the results of both to be confidential, other than to its senior management group and the appropriate staff in the school concerned.

"The findings of both reviews and meetings with staff have enabled the university to develop additional responses to address staff concerns. One such response is to implement a package of leadership training for differing levels throughout the school.

"The university has every confidence in Professor Pat Wrightson, the head of school, who was recently reappointed by council following the normal procedure of consultation with the school.

"The university will not comment further on specific personal cases."

Professor Wrightson declined to add any additional comments beyond the university's official response.

January 21, 2007

One more golden oldie... Dismissal as an academic boomerang

'...Attacks sometimes recoil against the attacker, a process that can be called the boomerang effect... Attacks can boomerang when they are perceived as unjust by participants and observers... The dismissal of an academic can be interpreted as an attack on the academic or on academic freedom, and thus can potentially boomerang...

For getting rid of an academic without repercussions, the cover-up is a powerful tool. If few people know about the reasons, the processes and the outcome, then the potential for generating outrage is minimal.

Many academics cooperate in a cover-up because they are ashamed by the criticisms of their performance and because they are not accustomed to seeking publicity. Indeed, most academics avoid public engagement, much less publicity, seeking recognition only among peers through scholarly publications and conferences.

This means that if discreet efforts are made to get rid of them, many are inclined to go quietly. For them, going public is not dignified. Scholarly self-image can get in the way of the quest for justice or even for survival.


In some cases when academics sue for wrongful dismissal, they reach a settlement with the university that includes a payment to them only upon acceptance of a silencing clause, namely a settlement condition that restricts future public comment about the case. Silencing clauses are potent means for cover-up
...'

From: The Richardson dismissal as an academic boomerang

The role of HR and management - older post but worth reading again

'...Most of the available books are far better on giving personal advice to victims of bullying than on providing policy advice to managers who concerned about the impact of bullying on their organisation. This might be explained by the fact that there are far more actual and potential victims in the book market than concerned managers. But there is something deeper involved. Many managers are themselves bullies and many others are supportive or tolerant of peers or subordinates who are bullies...'

From: Insight and advice about workplace bullying
------------------
'...If situations of mobbing are diagnosed in a wider organisational context, it could be possible to take preventive measures through changes in work organisation. However, this could lead to a modification in the power relations in the company or institution and would involve making the management responsible for resolving the problem...'

From: Court rulings recognise bullying as 'occupational risk'
------------------
'...Lack of leadership in high-level positions leads to nonsense contentions on their part as to no responsibility extending to the target who is being mobbed, no duty of care owed to them, no right of the mobbed to natural justice or procedural fairness. Without the lack of leadership, mobbing could not occur or, if it did, could not prevail...'

From: Mediocrity and the 'No Change' Principle, a recipe for mobbing
------------------
'...Personnel management: When management eventually steps in, the case becomes officially "a case". Due to previous stigmatization, it is very easy to misjudge the situation and place the blame on the mobbed person. Management tends to accept and take over the prejudices produced during previous stages. This very often seems to bring about the desire to do something in order to "get rid of the problem", i. e. the mobbed person. This most often results in serious violations of the individual´s civil rights. In this phase, the mobbed person ultimately becomes marked/stigmatized. Because of fundamental attribution errors, colleges and management tend to create explanations based on personal characteristics rather than on environmental factors (Jones, 1984). This may be the case particularly when management is responsible for the psychosocial work environment and may refuse to accept this responsibility...'

From: Heinz Leymann - file 12220e
----------------
'...Eventually there is a defining moment when the target asserts their right not to be bullied, perhaps by filing a grievance. At this point, the bullying moves into phase two which is elimination. The human resources department and management are hoodwinked by the bully into seeing the target as an underperformer who needs to be got rid of... In this respect the employer becomes an unwitting victim too...'

From: The hidden cost of a bully on the balance sheet
---------------
'...Mobbing is difficult to respond to, legally, or by the usual institutional procedures, because there is typically no single, or identifiable, perpetrator as there is, say, in discrimination, sexual harassment, or workplace bullying. The victim is, typically, at bay: surrounded by an anonymous pack. Moreover, the litany of complaint ("he/she is not doing his/her job, as we are") is, ostensibly, respectable. The mobbee is not being picked on. Legitimate grievance is being aired - democratically...'

From: Mobbing, a term borrowed from ornithology...
---------------
'...Respondents saw university HR departments as protecting institutions and helping bullies rather than victims...'

From: Bullying rife across campus
---------------
'...Empower HR to handle bullying situations fairly and forthrightly. One of the most common remarks from targets of bullying is how "HR was useless" in handling their complaints about bullying and in some cases turned out to be complicit with the bullies. Effective preventive and responsive measures by HR are key components of any anti-bullying initiative...'

From: The business case against workplace bullying
---------------
  • Lesson learnt: HR always works for the employer even if they show sympathy with your situation.
Fight back against compromised HR:

If you have the evidence, you can report all HR mistakes, errors and inappropriate behaviour, to their professional association, the CIPD (The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development is the United Kingdom), and we strongly suggest you do so.

From the CIPD Code of Conduct for the members:

[4.2.1] required to exercise integrity, honesty, diligence and appropriate behaviour in all their business, professional and related personal activities.

[4.2.2] must act within the law and must not encourage, assist or act in collusion with employers, employees or others who may be engaged in unlawful conduct.


If you have evidence that your HR colluded to discriminate against you, victimise you, marginalise you, or collude with the employer, then you should report it to the CIPD. Why do they have a code of conduct for their members?

January 20, 2007

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

January 19, 2007

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

January 18, 2007

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.