Alice in Wonderland might do a better job of running the college...

Principal rejects 'insincere' apology - Times Higher Education Supplement - By Melanie Newman. Published: 20 July 2007

A lecturer is set to lose his job because his apology for publicly criticising the principal was judged to be insufficiently sincere.

Sam Richards was sacked after 30 years at Dartington College of Arts earlier this year over an article he posted on a campaign website opposing the college's forthcoming merger with University College Falmouth. The article suggested that characters from Alice in Wonderland might do a better job of running the college than its current principal, Andrew Brewerton.

College governors upheld the dismissal at an appeal hearing in June but advised that an apology might win the lecturer his job back. Mr Richards wrote to Professor Brewerton saying he had intended the article to be a satire. "I now realise that the nature and content of that posting could easily be interpreted as a personal attack against you," he added.

But Professor Brewerton did not accept the apology. He said the statement failed to adequately acknowledge the offence of gross misconduct, and that Mr Richards was "regrettably disingenuous" in his assertion that the article was "merely satirical".

He said the apology "fails fully and unreservedly to withdraw the unfounded allegations contained in your website article. For these reasons I do not regard this as a sincere basis for moving forward."

He encouraged Mr Richards to write a "full and unreserved apology" after which his dismissal would be reduced to a less severe penalty. But Mr Richards has declined to make an alternative apology.

"I produced an apology that I could sincerely make," he told The Times Higher. "Anything more would have been grovelling."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bullied_academics/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bullied_academics/

Bullied academics online forum - Yahoo group

Professor Ellen Larsen...

Coverning up fraud is a rule in Canadian academia

It is a routine procedure in Canadian academia to cover up plagiarism and other fraud. The last issue of Can.Med.Assoc.J. admits this. It starts thus:

“It’s the classic Canadian response to a problem like scientific misconduct, says Toronto physician– scientist Dr. Paul Pencharz. “Deny, deny, deny. Sweep it under the carpet.”

See: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/6/749

However, this organization is corrupt also. They did not even publish my letter to the Editor. This letter follows here.

Re: Call for arm’s-length national research integrity agency

There is no doubt that some highly placed individuals in Canadian academia act as a criminal organisation, committing fraud in research and higher education. I am the victim of such fraud. My case and the documents are posted on the Internet: “University of Toronto Fraud” at http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/.

This fraud started in 1986 and is continuing now. My PhD supervisor, Ellen Larsen, had removed me, after five years of my very successful research from the University of Toronto by making a fraudulent academic decision, and then stole my research and my discoveries. Despite all my complaints, University of Toronto and then - NSERC only continued the fraud.

The case of Prof. V. Fabrikant in Concordia University is well known. In Concordia, the integrity of research was violated, Fabrikant’s legitimate complaints were ignored, moreover, he was threatened. He, in fact, was provoked for violence.

Yet, the Fabrikant case was not a good lesson for the corrupt academia: when documents of my case were received, they were treated the same way - officials continued the fraud. It is not possible to believe that the corrupt academia does not understand what it is doing the second time: this new provocation is continuing for twenty years now.

President of NSERC and its other officials, in my case, have committed concealment of fraud: instead of referring the case to the prosecution (which was a specific point in NSERC policy), they gave the same university administration that committed the fraud to “investigate” it. NSERC has intentionally covered up the fraud, supplied ridiculous “justifications” for it and was sending me one lie after another. All this is in the documents.

It can not be believed that the proposition to establish some new agency was even made seriously. Paul Pencharz knows very well about the fraud in his university. Jim Turk knows this very well also, the exchange of e-mails between him, UofT, CAUT and me is posted on my web site. All this is a criminal, indecent game.

Eventually, when corruption has corroded the officialdom, the victim whose life was destroyed should be able to find a way to expose the criminals in the press. In Canada it is not possible. This puts an end to the peaceful quest for justice.

By Michael Pyshnov, from: http://pyshnov.wordpress.com/
Also check: University of Toronto Fraud

The Higher Education Corruption Monitor

Corruption in all of its many forms has become a central issue in higher education worldwide. Rapid expansion, fueled by growing demand for access; dramatic increase in private higher education providers; the marketization of many aspects of higher education; and the financial problems faced by institutions and teaching and administrative staff have all contributed to a variety of corrupt practices.

Academic corruption can be found in all countries but is especially prevalent in countries facing severe economic hardships and resultant pressure on their higher education systems, in systems with little external supervision and inadequate quality assurance mechanisms, and in countries in which there is a good deal of societal corruption.

Because of its tradition of probity and reliance on objective and meritocratic values, the problem of corruption is especially important for higher education. Academic institutions and the professoriate claim a special status in all societies—the right to academic freedom and individual and institutional autonomy and a high social prestige. Universities, after all, are responsible for educating the next generation of leaders, conducting scholarly research, and providing objective social analysis. As the national competitiveness in the global economy comes to increasingly depend on the quality of knowledge generated within and on the quality of education provided by a country’s higher education institutions, the costs of academic corruption become considerable.

The dictionary definition of corruption will suffice for academe: “impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle; inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means.” Corruption in higher education can occur at both institutional and systemic levels and influences university examinations, the conferring of academic credentials, the procurement of goods and services, academic and administrative staff recruitment and promotion, budget allocation and utilization, property management, and the licensing and accreditation of institutions. Instances of academic corruption may involve bribery, facilitation of cheating and impersonation, the establishment of diploma mills, forgery and falsification of examination results, degrees and credentials, patronage, cronyism, and professional misconduct among teachers.

The primary goal of the Higher Education Corruption Monitor is to shed light on corrupt practices of all kinds in different countries, provide resources on current research on corruption in higher education, and serve as a forum for information exchange. The Monitor will collect and, in some cases, summarize news reports, documents, legal testimony, university reports, conference materials, research articles, and other kinds of documentation, and make the data available through a dedicated website.

The Monitor will also collect information on policies and initiatives of international agencies and on various measures and reforms undertaken in different countries to address the challenges of corruption in higher education. The Monitor will link its website with websites of other institutions and agencies interested in the topic and with other on-line resources on corruption in order to avoid duplication and at the same time provide maximum attention to the issue. From time to time, the Monitor may issue reports on specific themes relating to corruption in higher education. The Monitor will not seek to verify each item placed on its website but will make every effort to choose reputable reports. The website will be part of the Center for International Higher Education’s widely used website.

The Monitor will be coordinated by Natia Janashia, graduate assistant in the Center for Higher Education (e-mail: janashia@bc.edu).

From: The Higher Education Corruption Monitor

A reply from Boris...

Dear Mr Proudhon,

Thank you for your email and the blog link, which I read with interest.

Bullying is abhorrent wherever it takes place and I condemn it in the strongest terms. I don't think it right for me to comment further on specific cases, for the simple reason that universities are autonomous institutions and must be trusted to resolve internal disputes without interference from politicians.

Yours sincerely,

Boris Johnson MP
--------------------
Firstly, we are happy we got a reply. Secondly, we are unhappy about the reply itself. Boris has now moved on to become candidate for mayor of London - good luck to him. We await to hear and see who the next opposition spokesperson will be for higher education, and then we will ask them too to comment.

Regarding the above reply and in particular "...universities are autonomous institutions and must be trusted to resolve internal disputes without interference from politicians", well, Boris my friend you do live in dreamland. This is the point, they can't be trusted to resolve internal disputes, and if politicians don't stick their necks out, well... HEIs are not really accountable to anyone... and so the ritual continues... Thank you Boris for your thoughtful remarks, we are impressed.

Teachers asked if they are being bullied - Australia

School teachers can detail their experiences of being bullied by parents or senior colleagues in a nationwide survey to help curb the problem.

The University of New England (UNE) launched the online survey in late June and will take responses until October 1.

UNE professional studies lecturer Dan Riley leads the study and is working in collaboration with Professor Deirdre Duncan of Australian Catholic University.

The two have previously published results from a 2005 survey that revealed 97.5 per cent of Catholic schoolteachers had experienced some form of bullying in their career.

The survey showed teachers had been bullied most often by school executives, then parents, and followed by principals.

"While most of the situations experienced were at the lower levels of seriousness, including attempts to undermine or belittle a teacher's work or criticism in front of colleagues, they were serious enough to affect the mental or physical health of some of the respondents," Dr Riley said.

"It's a bit frightening – we didn't actually expect to find what we did."

Participating teachers will have their anonymity and confidentiality preserved, the UNE designer of the website said.

The findings of the survey are expected to be published by late December.

From: http://www.news.com.au/ dDan Riley's email is: driley2@une.edu.au

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

This story is typical. Complainers against bullying, especially if done by a manager, rarely succeed and usually lead to dismissals. That's just a fact of life in the UK.

Best to use outside of work methods to put a stop to the bullying -- e.g. criminal charges under the protection from harassment act or private civil harassment suits against the bully him/herself.

Or better still organize your own guerilla campaign of countermeasures - e.g. exposure of the bully.

There are no employment rights left in the UK and employers know it. The Tribunals are stacked with Chairs that are biased/in the pocket of employers and precendents have been established allowng employees to be dismissed fairly if they whistleblow, on the grounds that the whistleblowing causes a 'breakdown in working relationships' -- the catch-all dismissal method these days.

This blogspot is one really good place to expose the bullies as it does have the attention of the media.

No form of accountability...

Anonymous said...

I set out a complaint of bullying under an antibullying policy and grievance procedure, and was asked to justify reference to the grievance procedure. The employer considered the complaint under the antibullying policy only, which had arbitrary investigation procedures and no right of appeal. It was not upheld, and then they terminated my employment.

Policies don't always work as expected, and those with the most offensive working practices often have the best policies. They don't, however, have any form of accountability such as annual records of complaints.

Grievance procedures: the standard three-step procedure

Your employer's grievance procedure may have more than three steps, but it must include the following.

1. Written statement

You must set out your grievance in writing (often called a step one letter). Your employers grievance procedure should say who to send your letter to. If thats the person causing the problem, or if theyve ignored previous complaints, send it to the HR department or to the persons boss.

• Find sample 'step one letters' on the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) website (opens new window)

2. Meeting

Your grievance should be looked into in a fair and unbiased way. Your employer should invite you to a meeting (sometimes called a hearing) to discuss the problem, and you should attend if you can. If there is someone else involved, they might also be there (but you should tell your employer if you are uncomfortable with this).

The meeting should be at a convenient time for you and anyone else involved. If you think you've not had enough time to prepare, ask for more time. If your employer doesnt agree (and they don't have to), you should go to the hearing, but make sure that your lack of preparation time is noted.

Gather your thoughts before the meeting. Don't be afraid to write down what it is you want to say. There is nothing wrong with reading this out at the meeting.

It is up to your employer what format the meeting takes but they will normally go through the issues that have been raised and give you the opportunity to comment. The main purpose of the meeting should be to try to establish the facts and find a way to resolve the problem. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) have a code of practice which sets out how your employer should carry out a grievance procedure.

• Read the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (PDF, 327K) (opens new window)
• Help with PDF files

If you ask your employer beforehand, you have a legal right to take a 'companion' (who is a colleague or trade union representative) to the meeting with you. If no colleague is willing to accompany you, and you're not a union member, ask if you can bring a family member or a Citizen's Advice Bureau worker (but your employer does not have to agree to this). The companion can present and/or sum up your case, talk on your behalf and confer with you during the hearing. They're protected from unfair dismissal or other mistreatment for supporting you.

The meeting must be at a convenient time for your companion. You can ask for a postponement of up to five days if necessary to get your chosen companion there.

• Trade unions - find out more
• More about the companion at a hearing from the Acas code of practice (PDF, 327K) (opens new window)
• Help with PDF files

You should be given notes of the meeting, and copies of any information given by other people. Unless they need to investigate further, your employer should tell you reasonably quickly what's been decided, and about your right to appeal if you're not satisfied. You might be told of the outcome verbally at first but it will usually be confirmed in writing.

3. Appeal meeting

If you're not satisfied with the decision, or you think the procedure followed was seriously flawed, you have the right to an appeal. This is usually heard by a higher level of management. If that isnt possible, your employer could ask an Acas mediator or other independent person to hear it. The appeal hearing is similar to the original meeting, and you have a right to a companion, as before.

Your employer should give you enough time to appeal. If they don't, make your appeal anyway, and say that you'll provide more information later.

If you are considering taking your issue to an Employment Tribunal you may want to appeal even if it seems pointless, because a tribunal award could be reduced if you don't.

If you cant sort out the dispute, you can get help through mediation, conciliation or arbitration, if your employer agrees to it.

• Mediation, conciliation and arbitration - find out more
• How to sort out a problem at work

How soon can you go to a tribunal if you're still not satisfied?

If your grievance is of the type which could ultimately be taken to an Employment Tribunal you must send your written grievance (step one letter) to your employer no later than three months after the date that the problem occurred.

You must then wait 28 days (starting from the date you sent the step one letter) so that our employer can deal with the matter. Then, if you're not satisfied with your employer's response, you can make your claim to an Employment Tribunal.

• More about resolving a problem at work
• Find out more about Employment Tribunals

Some types of Employment Tribunal claims are not subject to the statutory minimum grievance procedures and have strict time limits. If you are unsure about what to do you can get help from any of the sources listed below.

Where to get help

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) offers free, confidential and impartial advice on all employment rights issues. You can call the Acas helpline on 08457 47 47 47 from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday.

• Acas (opens new window)

Your local Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) can provide free and impartial advice. You can find your local CAB office in the phone book or online.

• Find your local Citizens Advice Bureau (opens new window)

If you are a member of a trade union you can get help, advice and support from them.

• More about trade unions

More useful links

• Guidance on the statutory minimum procedures from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (opens new window)
• Visit the Resolving Disputes homepage from the DTI (opens new window)
• Get advice from Acas on discipline and grievances at work (opens new window)
• Read the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (PDF, 327K) (opens new window)
• Help with PDF files
• Advice for employers about handling discipline and grievance issues from Business Link (opens new window)

From: http://www.direct.gov.uk