The victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown

Up until today the 10 year abuse of this clinical psychologist has been shrouded in secrecy. The evolving story is likely to have many implications. It has to do with the use of mental health diagnosis to suppress dissent. It also raises the problem of academic freedom issues that arise outside of universities.

This blog is about the distortion of scientific debate, most particularly by powerful forces in medicine. It is about the way in which industry, professional bodies, government regulators and powerful individuals collude to prevent scientific debate and to victimize those asking difficult questions (www.nhsexposed.com). It is about the way those entrusted with authority behave.

I have been contacted by many individuals who have found themselves in difficulty. Some of these stories are urgent enough for me to want take a break from my most interesting correspondence with Dr Larry Games Vice President at Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.

One such case is that of the psychologist Lisa Blakemore Brown, a specialist in Autism, ADHD & Aspergers [website] [Book]. Blakemore Brown has been involved on the "wrong side" of the debate about the psychiatric disorder Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), maintaining that many parents have been falsely accused of injuring their children. There have been high-profile releases from jail of women such as Angela Canning.

MSbP is a disorder in which an adult invents or deliberately creates a child’s illness to draw attention to themselves. She has challenged prominent doctors such as Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall who, in her view, have promulgated a wholly inappropriate approach to scientific evidence. She has irritated pharmaceutical companies. But instead of debate Lisa has encountered its very opposite. The abuse of science goes right into the heart of a prominent professional body. Her colleagues have stood by in silence.

I have no special knowledge of the science that underpins the debate surrounding autism, MSbP or vaccine side effects. But I do know that debate is important. It is the lifeblood of science. I will be discussing much more of this tragic case over the next few weeks. It is not only a tragedy for Blakemore Brown, but also part of the tragedy of medicine.

For now I simply place in the public domain a letter written this week by John Stone and myself to the British Psychological Society. It speaks for itself.

Ray Miller, President,
The British Psychological Society
St Andrews House
48 Princess Road East
Leicester LE1 7DR 14 January 2007

Re: Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dear Mr Miller,

We are writing to express our concern regarding the treatment of Lisa Blakemore-Brown (LBB) by the British Psychological Society. The actions of the Society are such as to cast serious doubts upon its motives as well as upon its plausibility as a professional regulatory body.

It is disturbing that the Society appears to be acting to suppress open debate about controversial theories. Our purpose here is not to get involved in this debate, nor do we necessarily agree with her views. Ms Blakemore-Brown's views are in fact irrelevant. She is entitled to hold any views and to express these, no matter how uncomfortable they are to yourselves. This is enshrined by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It seems that the Society have developed an unhealthy obsession with preventing free speech through abuse of mental health diagnosis. Its actions may also be construed as a breach of the Harassment Act 1997.

It cannot be in the interests of society, human rights, patients and of the British Psychological Society to suppress open debate and academic freedom through such mechanisms. The society seems to have encouraged an endless series of unsupportable complaints against LBB, and then progressed them despite evidence that they were not sustainable. The society itself then generated an entirely different complaint (about her irritated response to these very complaints). This is not a proper example for resolving scientific or academic disputes. It appears to be more a method of silencing a critic.

Irritation with a professional body is not in any event an offence. Neither is annoying a professional body. Disagreement with the professional "view" is not a reason to refer an individual for psychiatric assessment except in a Stalinist state. This approach of the BPS is wholly anti-academic and unprofessional. To quote Kingsley Amis "If you can't annoy someone, there's little point in writing". It is also not a prime facie offence to perceive oneself to have been bullied, as the BPS seem to be suggesting.

Having read the case transcripts, we must confess that we find them most extraordinary. The transcript of the first three days of the Fitness to Practice hearing July 2006 reads like an encyclopaedia of legal and psychological abuse. If LBB has responded with irritation, this would seem to be understandable.

• Lisa had been coerced into "hearings" despite having left the society years before. The main charge was modified progressively until it bore no relation to the flawed original charge. The modified "charge" of supposed mental illness (so called "paranoia") was not revealed to Lisa for months after the process had been set in motion.
  
  
• Evidence was assembled by the panel as if having been provided by Lisa herself, and presented to others in a jumbled order and without context to suggest mental incoherence in her correspondence with the BPS (a supposed offence).
  
  
• In one instance it emerged that the material was forged. Despite that, the original complainants were not invited to be cross-examined, and no action was taken against them after the information was dropped.
  
  
• An independent psychiatric report declaring LBB perfectly lucid, quite normal and fit to practice was rejected, and others were requested instead. This is a rather interesting approach for a "psychological society" towards the reliability of such reports. This interesting approach of the BPS appears to be on the basis of the findings of the reports themselves rather than upon the methodology used (since the panel seemed quite happy to consider an assessment based only on LBB's correspondence with the BPS complaining about her treatment, compiled without seeing "the patient" and without any relevance whatever to her clinical practice). More convincing evidence supporting justifiable paranoia and predetermination would be hard to find.
  
  
• A psychiatrist declared Lisa to be unfit to practice with the diagnosis of "paranoia" without examining her, and on the basis of material constructively assembled by the committee. Having read the transcript relating to this material we find this "diagnosis" intriguing, and wonder whether a majority (or even any) other psychiatrists or members of the public would reach such a conclusion based on the same information if we were to provide it to them. In any event the material bears no apparent relation to her practice, only to her views about the suppression of scientific debate.

The society has acted callously over a sustained period seeking to undermine and silence Ms Blakemore Brown, despite her unfortunate family circumstances. It has used the practice of psychiatry and psychological assessment in a non-evidence-based way as a tool for destruction. It cannot improve the reputation of the society to be seen to act in such an arbitrary way using its own tools of trade.

The society must bring this charade to an end before any more damage is done, both to society itself and to the chances of proper public discourse in an atmosphere that is free from fear.

1. We would appreciate the views of the society before taking this matter forward in terms of public discussion.
2. We are unable to find any list of the psychological traits that would render an individual unfit to practice and would appreciate a copy of the same. If supposed "paranoia" or "irritation with the BPS" is on such a list, perhaps bullying should also be added.
3. In addition we would also request that the society provide what scientific evidence it has in relation to the, indications for psychiatric assessment in such cases, as well as the reproducibility and plausibility of such reports.
4. So bizarre are the case transcripts, we believe that open discussion is required. We intend to publish these in full, with appropriate commentary as part of a campaign to prevent such behaviour by professional regulatory bodies. If the society can see any reason such publication should not take place, we would appreciate it if you would let us know those reasons.

Yours sincerely,

Mr John Stone

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
-------------------------------------------------------
From: Scientific Misconduct Blog: The victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown

Threat of legal action by Sussex University against student protestors

The management of the University of Sussex are threatening legal action against some 50 students out of 80 who took part in a peaceful sit-in at the library last November to call for better teaching provision.

The University obtained an injunction from Brighton County Court in advance of the occupation to try to prevent it. Over the vacation the management wrote to those suspected of taking part in the sit-in, suggesting that they intend to pursue action under civil law against them being in contempt of court and to recover legal and other costs incurred by the sit-in from them.

For press coverage see <http://sussex80.blogspot.com/>.

Can anyone direct me to a place where I can find arguments about the implications for academic freedom of this kind of legal action by a university, and information about whether it has been taken before in the UK. I know about the George Fox 6 case but I wonder if there are any others.

Yours
Andrew Chitty
University of Sussex
----------------------------------
Solidarity with others who are fighting against management bullying.

Defending quality

Comment: Defending quality - Academics must guard against losing their voice

By Sally Hunt, Tuesday January 23, 2007, The Guardian

'...Defending quality means putting our arguments on workloads, pay and insecure employment in the wider professional context of the encroachment on academic freedom, diminishing control over curriculums, deskilling of academic-related jobs, threat of marketisation, and a growth of corporate, not collegiate governance...'
-------------------------
Nice words... and then Sally goes on to explain in detail everything except for the 'growth of not collegiate governance'. There are no specific references to workplace bullying in academia.

Some rough figures: It is estimated that 14-16% of the British workforce experiences workplace bullying. In a union with a membership of over 100.000, this translates to over 14.000 members...

None of the two candidates for General Secretary of the new University and College Union (UCU) - Roger Kline and Sally Hunt - have made any explicit references to workplace bullying in academia. The closest we have got to is 'growth of not collegiate governance' - it doesn't sound too bad.

It is bullying Mr Kline and Mrs Hunt, it is bullying...

Early Intervention? What Early Intervention?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Literature on effective interventions to prevent a...":

The whole issue of intervention is so amazingly undeveloped - just today I saw a press release via CCN Matthews ("news distribution experts") saying "Amicus, with the support of the DTI, is running the world's biggest anti-bullying project - a new website for advice on how to deal with bullying in the workplace" co-sponsored by the DTI. Yet on searching for the new DignityAtWork website - omitted by the news experts - there is no mention of intervention!

(http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action
=showRelease&actionFor=631523
and
http://www.dignityatwork.org/default.htm)

Interventions I have seen mentioned by those affected by bullying include

1) (externally audited) statistical monitoring,
2) acceptance of a uniform definition of bullying,
3) exit interviews to determine why staff are leaving,
4) emotional intelligence screening,
5) support of the target in situ (i.e. any intervention must impact the bully, not the target),
6) state appointment of an external reviewer of bullying cases (or an approved mechanism for third-party review).
----------------------------
Thank you Anonymous :)

- Certainly the AMICUS definition of workplace bullying is a bit too narrow.

- From the Dignity at Work site:

Aims

To encourage employee representatives and employers to build cultures in which respect for individuals is regarded as an essential part of the conduct of all those who work in the organisation. The project will also increase awareness and knowledge of 'dignity at work' issues, and encourage the development of partnership working in the workplace through the promotion of joint working on dignity at work.

Their aim is to 'encourage', not impose, not monitor and not police, just encourage...

Literature on effective interventions to prevent and manage bullying at work

General comments on evaluation

It appears that there are few, if any, ‘formal’ evaluations of bullying intervention programmes. For example, the recent HSE Research Report 024 reviewing supporting knowledge for stress management standards (Rick et al, 2002) found no studies examining evidence on interventions to reduce the bullying/harassment stressor.

Informal discussions with delegates at the recent Economic and Social Research (ESRC) seminar confirmed that there is a lack of evaluated interventions. There are many reasons why evaluations are seldom carried out. For one thing, it is often problematic to ensure an appropriate level of scientific rigour in the workplace. However, researchers are starting to acknowledge that some scientific rigour will have to be sacrificed if any evaluation is to be carried out in ‘the real world’.

The measures used to indicate the success of an intervention were discussed at the ESRC seminar, and delegates noted that ‘higher order’ measures such as social competency and selfefficacy may be useful to evaluate success. Delegates noted that the use of diary studies and examining the content validity of an intervention by use of expert panel could be useful methods of evaluation.

General comments on interventions

One of the strongest messages that came out of the ESRC seminar was that the organisational or team context is crucial when designing a bullying intervention. It was also considered vital to motivate people to engage in the intervention – measures must have a positive outcome for employees. [How much money they will save and how more productive the workforce will be] For many, the main aim of an intervention is to ‘do things to create a positive psychosocial work environment’.

Problems with interventions

Some authors (e.g., Rayner, Cooper and Hoel, 2001) have noted that interventions aimed at increasing employee control over their work have been difficult to implement in reality. There may also be problems with initiatives aimed at management level as they might serve to reinforce management control (a potential antecedent of bullying). [One way or another, management does control the process - with or without early intervention]

Initiatives aimed at the selection arena (i.e., selecting out bullies) are also problematic as selection tools can be unreliable and bullies can find ways around them. [They may even claim discrimination...]

Do organisational interventions work?

There are few evaluations that have addressed the impact that an organisation’s bullying interventions/policies/actions have on the ‘targets’, bullies, or other workplace outcomes. This in an area that needs much more work. Some suggestions include auditing bullying policies, exploring what blocks senior managers from tackling bullying.

From: Health and Safety Laboratory,Bullying at work: a review of the literature, 2006. Project Leader: Johanna Beswick. Author(s): Johanna Beswick, Joanne Gore, David Palferman (HSE). Science Group: Human Factors
----------------------------------
So much for early prevention...

However, they got it right with the suggestion to include (external, we hope) auditing of bullying policies - and this should include the keeping of records.

What blocks senior managers from tackling the bullying? They are the problem! 'Leadership' and 'emotional intelligence' workshops for this lot have little - or negative - measurable impact on positive change.

NSW Premier Iemma Control Bullying? What a Laugh - Australia

By Jolly Judge Judy Tuesday January 23, 2007 at 01:45 AM - reporter@wbde.org - Melbourne Indymedia

With hilarity we read that NSW Premier Morris Iemma may attempt to adentify and reduce workplace bullying. NSW is Iemma country - the bullies' paradise.

With hilarity the following article was circulated among some of the huge number of public servant whistleblowers who were bullied/victimised by the corrupt, vindictive Carr/Iemma government. Iemma's and Carr's boys lead the parade of bullies in NSW.

WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed web site have hundreds of items showing the million$$$ of dollar$$$ they have misappropriated to serve their own benefit: silence whistleblowers.

See TAFE teacher Val Kerrison's case at http://www.wbde.org/documents/2006_Mar_03_IndyMedia_
HealthQuestingValKerrison.php
[This case has been going on for ten years and involves a teacher at a further and higher education institution]

See how Ken Boston bullied and victimised the teachers reporting the pedophile Peter Boys at
http://www.wbde.org/documents/Article_
NewcastleHerald_%207July1998.php

...Now we see the pathetic little Telegraph report that the equally lazy/corrupt NSW Teachers' Federation opine that "...It is expected the Iemma Government will be asked to fund formal training "to recognise and reduce workplace bullying."

HA! HA! HA!

Iemma's punks could write the manual on how to bully the defenceless.

Carr [previous Premiere of NSW] already srote the instructions manual on how to send whistleblowers to the corrupt HealthQuest psychiatrists, and make them submit to this degregation, then dupe them out of their jobs with HealthQuest's fraudulent, fake retirement certificates http://www.wbde.org/documents/2001_LozaAffidavit.pdf

Carr's instructions on how to force unwanted public servants to submit to unwanted medical 'assessments' especially to persecute whistleblowers are now held by Iemm. This is Soviet-style psychiatry to punish, discredit, and ruin NSW whistleblowers http://www.wbde.org/references/PsychiatryPolitica
GermanySovietRussiaChinaAustralia.php

NSW government's bullying/victimisation/corruption extends across participating departments, watched by idle, useless 'watchdog' departments state wide http://www.wbde.org/documents/IF_2_OR_MORE_ARE_
RESPONSIBLE_FOR_THE_SAME_PROBLEM_NO_ONE_IS_RESP.php

The courts and ICAC (NSW corruption centre) show their colours towards the bullied/victimised whistleblowers.
http://www.wbde.org/documents/judicial_
corruption_reported_to_ICAC.php

All of this is a great expense to the public, both financially and morally by getting rid of the ethical public servants out of government departments.

Jo Hewitt
reporter@wbde.org
WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed http://wbde.org

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.

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