Ban on [university] student who spoke out on the net

A student who criticised Anglia Ruskin University has been suspended. Disgruntled Naomi Sugai has also been threatened with legal action over her "unfounded" comments on a website.

Naomi posted a video on YouTube complaining about a number of blunders on her £4,750-per-year MA course in management. Her complaints included classes being cancelled without warning and not being able to take advertised modules.

The university has now threatened to sue her over a statement on the site - and warned the 24-year-old security guards will remove her by force if she tries to enter its East Road campus.

Miss Sugai said: "I am really annoyed about this, and I'm not going to take it lying down. The course has not been like they made it sound and, by bullying me more, the university is only making this worse."

She did not remove the offending statements about a member of staff as requested and Steve Bennett, the university's secretary and clerk, warned Miss Sugai: "Should you attend the campus during your suspension, security staff have been instructed to remove you and, if necessary, seek assistance from the police.

"Given the seriously defamatory nature of your comments this matter has also been referred to our solicitors."

Earlier this month, Miss Sugai of Bosworth Road, Cherry Hinton hit out at the "slow and inefficient" university, threatening to report ARU to an independent adjudicator.

The letter from Mr Bennett said: "I wrote to you on March 17 and warned you unless all unfounded allegations were removed from your YouTube site you would be suspended. I regret to note that you have not removed this content.

"I must therefore advise you that you are suspended pending disciplinary (and potentially legal) action against you."

Miss Sugai told the [Cambridge] News she never received a warning about being suspended, and is now taking her own legal advice.

The video has been viewed more than 900 times, and she has been contacted by a number of students with similar concerns.

An earlier letter from Prof Martin Reynolds, pro vice chancellor of the university's Ashcroft International Business School, said: "We would appreciate a response to our request to remove the video. "Its contents are potentially distressing for other Anglia Ruskin students and it undermines the programme you are studying."

After being contacted by the News, Mr Bennett said the suspension was not for complaining, but in response to "serious unfounded allegations against a senior member of staff".

He said: "On March 17, I wrote to the student and asked her to remove the allegations within 48 hours, otherwise she would be suspended forthwith. "As the remarks were not removed, I wrote to her on March 20 informing her that she was suspended pending disciplinary action."

The news comes days after emails encouraging staff to allegedly "bully" students into giving it good ratings in the National Student Survey were leaked to the News.

After propping up the Sunday Times league table, partly due to what vice chancellor Mike Thorne described as "very poor" reviews from undergraduates, he asked staff to advise students positive responses would improve the prestige of their own qualifications. He wrote: "It does occur to me that we need to ensure students are aware of the relation between the grades they give and, thanks to the league tables, the perceived value of their degrees."

Story from: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk

Check the YouTube video and further comments

Workplace bullies and the academy - bullies weren’t exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier!

Check out this brief article in the New York Times about bullies in the workplace, their strategies and the toll they take on individuals and the productivity of the organizations they work for. In response to this article’s request to hear stories of workplace bullying, there are 466 comments, and they’re still being posted this morning as I write. (Don’t miss comment #53 from Liz, an attorney and Army Reservist who said she has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder not from her tour of duty in Iraq, but rather from her civililan job!) I read the first one hundred comments, and have noticed some interesting themes:

1. While careers in medicine and the law are heavily represented in the incidents reported here, the academic workplace is specifically mentioned in ten out of the first 100 complaints: see comments 2, 17, 25, 30, 44, 55, 64, 70, 86, and 96. Yep, folks, read ‘em and weep: Chairs bullying junior faculty, Deans bullying tenured faculty, professors bullying students, and in one case, students bullying a professor, so there’s something for everyone.
   
   
2. The article notes that “a large share of the problem involves women victimizing women. The Zogby survey showed that 40 percent of workplace bullies are women,” and the comments bear this out. Comment 55 from Dana, a graduate student, writes that the faculty member making her life miserable “was awarded her doctorate in the late 1960s, when women had a tougher go of it in higher education. I’m convinced through my experience with her and others that that generation of feminists approach their careers with a grand chip on their shoulders - and take it out on those of us who came in through the next feminist wave of a decade later.”
   
   
3. Just looking at the syntax and writing style of the comments, you can see the toll that workplace bullying takes on people. So many of the comments are in all lower-case letters (people reporting bullying seem to refer to themselves as “i” instead of “I”), and they are full of run-on sentences. I couldn’t read more than 100–my guts were churning and bile was rising in my throat, and there’s only so much rank injustice that a girl can take on a sunny, spring morning!
   
   
4. There are a few commenters who try to jolly the others out of their misery (”try making friends!”), and others who claim that bullying victims are just whiners who can’t take criticism. But, those reactions seem naive on the one hand, and cruel on the other. The clear lesson is that people who are being bullied need to leave those jobs in order to preserve whatever’s left of their health and sanity.

On the question of women bullying other women: I don’t think it’s fair at all to tar a whole generation with that brush–after all, some of the most supportive, nurturing people who have mentored me and many other junior women are from that generation. Until fairly recently, it was only that generation of women faculty who were senior enough to engage in bullying. Sadly, Historiann is familiar with women bullying women–it was considered not a bug, but rather a feature of her former department. The bullying women were “useful idiots” who could be relied on to police junior women; the senior men could then hide behind their skirts and deny that gender bias was an issue. I don’t think this kind of behavior can be pinned on the generation of women who earned their degrees in the 60s and 70s–I’ve seen it in people whose degrees are from the 1980s and 1990s, too. The critical issue is power, not generation, and most regular faculty with 1990s Ph.D.’s are tenured now and therefore have at least a small purchase on power and influence in their departments.

The one advantage that academics have over people in other lines of work is that bullies aren’t as able to affect our prospects for other employment the way that bullying bosses in private industry can. If we keep publishing and maintain connections with supportive scholars outside of our institutions, we can get out of a bad job. We don’t need letters of recommendation from our department chairs–if you’re an Assistant Professor, a letter from a supportive Associate Professor will do nicely to testify implicitly, if not explicitly, that you’re not a troublemaking malcontent but rather an excellent colleage with limitless potential. The only exception to this is if your bully happens to be someone of importance in your field–but this is probably unusual: by definition, people who are important in their field spend their time writing books, working with students, and hobnobbing at conferences with other people important in their field. In general, they don’t have the time, let alone the inclination, to try to mess with someone else’s career. In my experience, the bullies weren’t exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, to put it charitably. They weren’t terribly productive scholars or successful teachers, which is probably why they felt so intimidated by smart young things who were clearly going places. So, they chose to make their post-tenure careers as hall monitors rather than as scholars.

Et vous, mes amis? Any thoughts as to why the groves of academe are such fertile fields for bullies? (Or, conversely, why academics are such thin-skinned, overly sensistive complainers?) Do you have your own stories to share? Discuss.
-------------
From: http://www.historiann.com

...

Stuart said...

Someone once said you can never overestimate the sincerity and dedication of bullies or their acolytes, and never underestimate their stupidity. This puts you in opposition with people who are totally dedicated to the bully, often irrational and incapable of seeing the injustice of their actions. You are simply disloyal and anything otherwise is like trying to reason with a group of toddlers. (Imagine if they were all aged 2-3 and you took them through the sweetie section of a supermarket - familiar?) - Stuart
--------------
From 'Innocent Bystanders' we quote: '...Why don't people intervene when they see colleagues being bullied at work? Often it's the fear factor, says Mandy Telford, coordinator for Dignity at Work at Unite union. "People are frightened that bullying will happen to them and they will lose their job...'

From 'The Bystander Effect' we quote: 'The bystander effect is watching some evil take place, but since we are watching with others who are watching, and no one seems to be doing anything about the evil, we go on watching and doing nothing about it.'

From 'Groupthink' we quote:

'1. Illusion of invulnerability – Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

From 'The Betrayal of the Bystanders' we quote: '...For example, if someone has known you for ten years, they see your track record of conduct for the last ten years. In other words, they have seen how you conduct yourself along this way of life we're bound upon. No, they don't see everything you've said and done. But they have seen a lot. They have seen you react to many various stimuli.

That track record of yours sketches your character in their eyes. This representation of what kind of person you are is based on your CONDUCT (your words and deeds), not on mere hearsay about you. So no one should be able to come along and tell them JUST ANYTHING about you...

To believe these things about you they have to unknow everything they know about you. That is, they have to unknow you. They have to revise history. They have to erase that track record of yours. And that track record is your life. They have to wipe it out. That takes your life. Which is why they call it "character assassination." Your whole life goes up in smoke. And a figment of the imagination is substituted for it...'

Staff give sector managers low marks

University staff have the worst perceptions of their managers of any employment sector, seeing them as secretive, uncaring and controlling, according to new research. The Work-Life Balance 2007 survey carried out by Coventry University asked 2,300 employees across ten sectors for their opinions on the leadership styles of senior managers in their organisations.

"The results for higher education were far from flattering and among the worst of any sector we analysed," the researchers said. "The leadership styles in higher education were perceived to be predominantly reactive, secretive, inconsistent, demotivating, controlling and indecisive."

More than half of the 300 higher education employees surveyed said that their managers were reactive (53 per cent), secretive (52 per cent) and inconsistent (51 per cent) compared with 40 per cent, 42 per cent and 40 per cent respectively in the private sector.

Only a third of university workers said their leaders were caring, compared with almost half of private-sector respondents. Fewer than a quarter of higher education staff felt that their organisation was loyal to them and that it treated them fairly, while more than 40 per cent of private sector staff felt this way.

University staff were also more likely to say they had experienced bullying by managers and colleagues and more likely to report stress than other workers, the survey found. A quarter of university respondents said they felt stressed all of the time or almost all of the time, compared with 19 per cent of staff in other parts of the public sector and 15 per cent in the private sector.

Ewart Wooldridge, chief executive of the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, said the report made "disturbing reading". "It is the kind of evidence we would want to build into our leadership programmes to help participants reflect on sector-wide issues and take those messages back to their institutions," he said. "We are using research-based evidence of our own as the basis for real-life case studies on a wide range of leadership issues, as we think leaders learn best from reflecting on that reality."

Roger Kline, equalities officer for the University and College Union, said: "The report confirms the results of our own surveys, which show there is an epidemic of stress and bullying arising out of poor management.

"Stress is an institutional issue. Universities should not hide behind the idea that it is good for employees or that it is primarily caused by problems in their personal lives," he said. The UCU wants bullying to be regarded as a workplace hazard that needs risk assessment, Mr Kline said.

The Universities and Colleges Employers Association said that the sector placed a "great deal of emphasis" on stress management.

A Ucea spokesman added: "Although this report is based on responses from only 300 higher education sector academic and support staff, there are considerations for all levels of staff. It is reassuring to note that many institutions have exemplary policies and procedures in place to tackle issues such as stress, bullying and harassment."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk, by Melanie Newman
--------------------
Academic managers are predominantly reactive, secretive, inconsistent, demotivating, controlling and indecisive. - YEAP.

Fewer than a quarter of higher education staff felt that their organisation was loyal to them and that it treated them fairly. - YEAP.

A quarter of university respondents said they felt stressed all of the time or almost all of the time. - YEAP.

Now then, what will UCU do about it? What will the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education do about it? What will the UCEA do about it? What will HEFCE do about it? What will the Minister of State, Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, Mr Bill Rammell MP, do about it?

Quote from the web site of the 'Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills':

'Britain's higher education is a major contributor to the economic success and social well being of the country. Higher education is a national asset, whose excellence in teaching and research is world recognised. Better educated and more highly skilled people are more likely to be in work, earn more and contribute more productively to our economy and society. Knowledge and skills provide people with their surest way into work and prosperity, helping eradicate the causes of poverty and division.

About 70% of the 2020 workforce is already beyond compulsory education age. We will therefore have to raise skill levels amongst the current workforce in order for Britain to compete successfully. The future of higher education must be one where:

* higher education institutions work to widen participation beyond young people leaving college or school with good A levels;
* put learners and employers at the heart of their provision; and
* strengthen their leading position in international education through excellent teaching and innovative research.'

Dear Mr Bill Rammell, you will achieve very little of the above when we as academics continue to suffer - very little, for nobody can be productive if they work with fear, lack of dignity and lack of protection from abusive managers. You better have a chat with UCEA to do something about it. As a politician, if you find it difficult to identify with the human suffering, perhaps you may identify with the ever-raising costs of workplace bullying.

Anonymous said... and anonymous is right!

It's not just about anger - some (most?) of the "finest" bullies in higher education wear smiles most of the time. It's a matter of manipulation and establishing stratified order with those at the bottom denied opportunities or acknowledgment. Forgive me if I am ruffling feathers, but I have found that women are most often "skilled" at this sort of "kind-faced" bullying based on their likes and dislikes, particularly if you are what has been described in this blog as a "target." There is little recourse for situations like this because if you object to the situation in a kind or direct manner, this is considered aggressive and you run the risk of being labeled a problem or a bully.

Anonymous

Dear anonymous, you will find that the finest academic bullies (or psychopaths) display the following 'qualities':

Glib and superficial charm, grandiose self-worth, need for stimulation or proneness to boredom, pathological lying, conning and manipulativeness, lack of remorse or guilt, shallow affect - emotional poverty, callousness and lack of empathy, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioral controls, promiscuous sexual behavior, lack of realistic, long-term goals, failure to accept responsibility for own actions, and criminal versatility.

These 'qualities' are identified in both male and female academic managers, occasionally working in partnerships, often feeding from each other as they pursue their rituals of destruction, nepotism and empire-building.

The vast majority of people do not see through the manipulative smile and often consider the bully (psychopath) to be an intelligent and charming person. Academia is full of such trash.

Short stories

I had no idea this happened to others. At my previous job, as an academic radiologist in what purports itself to be the best academic radiology department in NYC, I was first set upon by my section chief, who would behind my back accuse me of not finishing my work, or leaving early–transgression she herself was guilty of, according to the many support staff who finally could not keep this fact from me. I put in a vacation request, six months ahead of time for a week no one else had asked for, and when the week actually came and I was away, an email was sent to my co-workers about how I must have scribbled my name in last over the others who took the week off, apologizing that everyone would now suffer because of my irresponsibility. When I emailed the Vice Chairman of Clinical Affairs to intervene, he completely ignored it.

I was asked to give a lecture at a major conference, the first lecture I’d given, and received virtually no guidance in the process. After I’d given it, my boss never shared the reviews with me. After another section chief told he he’s seen mine, I discovered in fact, i’d gotten better reviews than my boss did. However, when the conference came up the following year, she gave my lecture to someone else, saying that my reviews were terrible, and that someone else asked I not give it.

But it didn’t even stop with my section chief, because despite winning a teaching award from my students, I was given no students to mentor. Ostensibly because I was “part time,” working 4 days a week, and not doing research because I was working on outside creative projects– although I did as much or more clinical work than every person in my section. This was evidently not a role model the chairman felt should be promoted.

I finally decided to quit when my boss was promoted to be Vice Chairman of Education, in charge of the mentoring program! I endured a three month notice before my last day of work, during which I did everything I could to walk out the door without burning any bridges, but during the last week the department refused to digitize the rest of my teaching files, which I was planning to leave behind for my students. At which point I withdrew myself from a propaganda article that was being disseminated to the community about the importance of teaching to the department. From this point on, my chairman refused to make eye contact with me.

Worse yet, my boyfriend, who still worked there, was given carefully worded hints not to be seen with me at any social function, and this contributed to our breakup.

It was the most malignant job I ever had, and three weeks after I left, I looked in my bathroom mirror and saw a face that looked two years younger than the one I had on my last day of work. I am now more academically productive at a small community hospital, than I ever could be at said stalwart of academia.

Thank you.

Posted by Jennifer Martino, MD
---------------

Yes, I was bullied at a major academic institution by my department chair and dean. I was only one in a long line of people who were abused by the chair. The dean condoned it by looking the other way and actually supporting him. Despite a substantial grievance decision against the chair, I was out and he was promoted.

Posted by catch22
---------------

I’m an academic at a university in Georgia, and I’ve been bullied by several colleagues in my department for 12 years. I’ve been treated with disdain, given an unexpectedly bad review when I was pregnant (and told “not to use the pregnancy as an excuse.”)My achievements have been ignored, and new rules were created on the spot to rationalize not giving me promotion. At one time, rumors were spread that I was an alcoholic (I almost never drink!), and that I had been deriding colleagues by name in class. I raised the issue with the University’s affirmative action office(nothing happened, not least because the officer saw her job as one of containing complaints), and four successive deans (all of whom refused to act, and accused me of a “lack of collegiality.”) My productivity was ruined, making it impossible for me to find another job in my field.

I now have major health problems,including cancer. I hate to lose a battle with bullies, which is why I have stuck this out for such an insanely long period, but I’m not sure I can deal with this situation anymore. Meanwhile, I have several supportive and decent colleagues who have helped persuade me that it is not my fault that this has happened (for many years, I did blame myself). And my students’ respect for me has kept me going. Much of the problem is systemic, not only in academe but in this particular region: Georgia has traditionally had an authoritarian culture that values pecking orders, and a “merit” pay system has bred distrust and resentment among faculty. I urge lawmakers to treat workplace bullying as the insidious and enormous problem that it is.

Posted by Anon in GA
---------------

As an assistant professor at a nondescript liberal arts college, I was relentlessly bullied by one of my higher ranked colleagues. She harassed me with phone calls to my home about my failings, egged students on to challenge my grading system, ranted at me in the corridors about trivial matters, and unleashed her temperamental disapproval of me in front of my pupils. I complained to an administrator, who told me to forget it. It turned out that the colleague and the supervisor were having an affair. Needless to say, I resigned as soon as I could.

Posted by Dulce
---------------

As a survivor of workplace harrassment, I can testify that it can be a devestating personal and professional nighmare. I carry the emotional scars of the experience to this day, and am still healing even though it’s been three years since I left the position. When looking back, I marvel that I didn’t have even more serious health problems as a result of the abuse. The experience took place at a major university, and, because I enlisted the help of the union and filed a claim with the EEOC, the university offered me a settlement which I agreed to, only because of my tattered soul after having stood up for myself over the course of two years.

I learned a lot. Sadly, it was to confirm the saying, “Bad things happen when good people do nothing.” Many staff, academic collaborators and community partners recognized my bosses horrible behavior, and of all who saw what she did, only one stood by me to say she would go the course to defend my case. My union representative kept telling me how much he admired my strenght because one other woman he worked with had attempted suicide because of the stress. I also learned that I needed to learn better how to duck.

Posted by Jan Look
---------------

I have been on the receiving end of about half of the behaviors listed... from my students at a large state university. Eye-rolling and hateful glaring is just the beginning. Foul language in class, name-calling and the spreading of gossip on the web, sabotaging of equipment in the lecture room, the refusal of students not in my class to leave the room when my class begins, and finally, vague but disturbing threats of violence (”I know where you live”) — all of these have happened to me in the last few months. This does not stop when the term is over, either: students and their parents threaten lawsuits over poor grades and bombard me with hateful e-mail and phone messages. My chair has let me know that the evaluations that really count, those from my colleagues, are great, and that all of this complaining and misbehavior from students should be ignored as so much noise: but it’s very hard to do and requires a much thicker skin than mine.

I had thought that a career in higher education would avoid the behavior problems that plague public school classrooms — but it turns out not to be so. I dread going to class so much that it has made me ill. There’s no logic to the harassment: can students really think that they can get a better grade, or somehow get “revenge” for a poor grade, by making my job difficult? All I can conclude is that deliberately hurtful and insulting behavior has become a cultural norm, a kind of knee-jerk reaction to even the smallest disappointment or fear of insufficiency.

Posted by stressed professor
---------------

I have worked in a large, famous public university. I recently left a position where my supervisor yelled, did not listen, excluded, assigned projects but took them over without telling me, and whose manner was rude and abusive. Her supervisor, the higher administration, and ombudsman refused to take action. I found another position on campus. The monster continues her rampage, unchecked. Pathetic.

Posted by diane
---------------

As the manager of a university-based program, I had 2 employees (both women) who were bullies. The one was an overt bully and a destructive gossip. Many other employees complained about her; this resulted is several closed-door “coaching” sessions between us. She was a master of manipulation. Usually, the talks resulted in her sobbing and claiming to be misunderstood. The power of her bullying really came to light one day when she lashed out at me (her boss) and started screaming and swearing. I calmly said, “You are addressing me in an inappropriate manner, and you owe me an apology.” Again, she started crying and begged forgiveness. Unfortunately, within the politically correct university system, I could not fire her for being repeatedly out of control. I could only add comments to her performance appraisal– which led to gossip about me being an unfair boss.

The other bully was very covert until the lid was blown off the office-wide spy ring that she controlled. I was totally fooled and thought she was a hard-working employee– until one day when one of her employees came to me to complain. He claimed that she targeted particular employees for elimination and had 2 male employees who went through trash cans and read other employees’ e-mails to gather the dirt. When it was adventageous for her, she let tid-bits of dirt slip out in gossip. (Of course bully #1 above gleefully spread the gossip around.) Sometimes one of them would bring the misinformation directly to me. “Welllll, I thought you should know….”

Eventually 7 of her employees came to me and confidentially told me about threats and other misdeeds. Part of her downfall was that she openly spoke of her plots in Spanish to one of her cronies; she didn’t realize that the initial informant (an anglo) knew Spanish.

I took all of this information to Human Resources and followed all of their advice. I gathered 500 pages of evidence against her– personal letters from the wronged employees, progressive dicipline documents, and even her job applications on which she lied about her experience. She played the system to the hilt– claiming racial and ethnic discrimination on my part. In the end, nothing came of it.

The university said I had gathered “too much information,” and they didn’t have the money to hire a lawyer to go through it all and build a case her. Since she was a classified staff employee (very protected in the university system) she moved to another university department — where they didn’t know her past. I was adjunct faculty (very vulnerable in the university system). Consequently, I became the scapegoat and was laid off. The morale of the story: bullies can pick on underlings and bosses!! Getting laid off was the best thing that could have happened to me. It was incredibly stressful dealing with these evil people.

Posted by Pamela
---------------

I work at a college in New England, where I had a bully for a boss. She routinely humiliated her staff in meetings, ignored ideas and suggestions, and discounted her staff members’ expertise. She would not tolerate disagreement, and, with her angry responses to anything she perceived as dissent, created an atmosphere in which no one dared question any of her orders.

I finally realized that she was simply ruling through fear — her own fear, that is. She was so terrified of her superiors that she could not trust any of her staff, for fear they might do something — anything — wrong. Furthermore, she was so afraid of getting in trouble that she based her decisions on fear rather that on what was actually good for the college. What good does that do anyone?

Fear begets fear. The fearful do not make sound or proactive decisions.

Posted by Just Staff
---------------

Bullying is regularly used in academia to attempt to remove tenured professors. The targeted professor is usually labeled as “dead wood”, given higher teaching loads, refused needed resources, denied significant assignments, refused praise for good work and denied salary increases. Gossip is spread to reinforce the “dead wood” label, turning colleagues against the targeted professor.

If the targeted professor stays in the job, his low status, low salary and the fact that he has to constantly endure the poor opinions that his peers are encouraged to hold about him inevitably lead to depression.

If he chooses to leave, he will have difficulty finding another job without good references from the very people who are bullying him - in other words, he will be unable to find a good position. If he has to support a family and pay a mortgage, he cannot leave and so is trapped in a position that leads to stress and depression and the resulting physical problems these factors cause. If he doesn’t quit because of the bullying, he’ll probably be forced to quit for health reasons.
It is time for academia to put a stop to this common practice.

Posted by NN
---------------
From: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/have-you-been-bullied-at-work/

The university has robust quality assurance procedures in place...

An academic has won the right to sue her university for constructive dismissal - even though she signed a "compromise agreement" and agreed a £30,000 severance payment. Angela Ward had worked as a reader in law at the University of Essex for six years when her manager raised concerns about complaints from students.

In response, Dr Ward wrote a "without prejudice" letter to her employer in which she raised a number of complaints against the university but offered an "amicable withdrawal" in return for a negotiated package. A payment of £30,000 was agreed, and she signed a compromise agreement.

After signing the agreement, Dr Ward wrote another letter of complaint to the university. Matters raised included "infirmities in the examination process" in the law department. She claimed that colleagues had revealed the content of exam papers, putting her in an impossible position, that complaints against her were groundless and that university procedures had not been followed.

Dr Ward later decided to sue the university for constructive and unfair dismissal, telling an employment tribunal that the compromise agreement was invalid because she had signed it under pressure.

The university argued that Dr Ward had not followed procedures by raising a formal grievance and that her claim was therefore out of time, as she had left the university more than three months earlier. It also argued that if she had raised a grievance, it was invalidated by the compromise agreement.

The first tribunal agreed with Essex. But the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the "without prejudice" letter was a valid grievance as it detailed the substance of her complaints in writing. The fact that it contained an offer to settle did not affect this. If a grievance is started, a claimant is given an extra three months to file his or her claim.

Dr Ward's solicitor, James Tait of Shakespeare Putsman, said: "A properly drafted compromise agreement will preclude a tribunal claim. Essex did not draft the agreement properly, and neither did it deal with the grievance. It left itself wide open." If a grievance is raised by an employee and not dealt with by the employer, the compensation awarded in a successful claim may be increased by up to 50 per cent.

A spokesperson for Essex said: "The university has robust quality assurance procedures in place. However it is not our policy to comment on ongoing cases, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal has now referred this case back to the Employment Tribunal."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk, by Melanie Newman

Bullying can't be seen as 'entertainment'

In a low quivering voice, Mary (name have been changed) a highly qualified teacher, sobbed as she told us the story of her distressing experience.

"I loved teaching but now I am totally shattered, and I have lost all belief in myself. I am not able to face a class of students. The awful bullying by my colleagues in the staff room got to me eventually. I couldn't take it anymore. I resigned and took a less-paid non-teaching job. But I am struggling to cope with the deep hurt and psychological pain I suffered."

John, (name has been changed) a State employee who is a victim of bullying, told us his sad story. "My job is on a rota basis but my bullying boss repeatedly changes my rota without informing me. Frequently, when I report to work, the bully's buddies inform me that my rota has been changed and that my boss wants to see me. When I report to the boss in his office he denies that he has sent for me. As I leave the office I am pained to see the sneers on the faces of the bully's buddies. I am often left with no work to do. I feel that life is not worth living. I would be better off dead".

John is not alone in experiencing suicidal tendencies resulting from workplace bullying. Research has shown that 14-20 per cent of all suicides are associated with bullying. Mary and John are among a very large number of people who experience workplace bullying. The Samaritans' recent survey has revealed that one in four workers is bullied.

Anti-bullying organisations have indicated that they are receiving a substantial increase in the number of calls for assistance from victims of workplace bullying. Clinical psychologist Marie Murray states: "Workplace bullying has been found to increase during times of social change and economic uncertainty and when people value commercial achievements over community factors. Increase in stress, in commuting time, in family pressure, in child-minding concerns and in mortgage repayments mean that a significant number of people arrive to work each day highly stressed and this gets articulated in bullying behaviour towards clients or work mates."

Those who are both younger or older or those from minority groups are more likely to be targets for bullying. The less experienced, less established employees are more likely to be intimidated by older more powerful people in an organisation or by unreasonable organisational demands. Equally those who are at the older age scale are often fearful of change, afraid of losing pension rights and because they are unlikely to obtain new employment elsewhere they are in a position of greater dependency than those in their middle years. All the these factors make it easier for bullies to operate unchallenged in the workplace.

Workplace bullying is the repeated acts of aggression that undermine the dignity of individuals at work. These acts can be direct or indirect, whether verbal, psychological, physical or otherwise. Cyber bullying by text messages or email is becoming more frequent. Bullying can cause enormous distress, often resulting in emotional damage, a lack of self-esteem, depression, a decline in physical health and loss of job satisfaction. Many victims feel trapped, desperate and emotionally crippled as a result of the horrific experience of bullying. Heinz Layman, the internationally renowned researcher, says that workplace bullying is psychological terror. Jacinta Kitt, the well- known Irish researcher, believes it is psychological torture. Bullying, which causes horrific psychological pain to victims, must never be accepted as a form of entertainment. The offensive TV scenes of bullying on the part of some celebrity chefs tend to normalise and legitimise workplace bullying.

Edmund Burke's statement: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." is relevant to this problem. Victims of bullying and those who would like to help them can learn practical and effective strategies for confronting bullies at the National Conference on Bullying in the Workplace at the Regency Hotel Conference Centre, Swords Road, Dublin 9 on April 15 and April 22, from 7pm to 10pm.

Minister Billy Kelleher TD, Mr David Begg, Professor Patricia Casey, Governor John Longeran, Senior Counsel Anne Dunne and other professionals will address the conference. For details, phone (01) 838-8888 or (087) 918-0777 or email: info@awarenesseducation.org

Rev Dr Tony Byrne CSSp and Sr Kathleen Maguire PBVM MA founded the Awareness Education Office, which offers programmes on bullying in the workplace, home and school.

- Tony Byrne and Kathleen Maguire, from: http://www.independent.ie

Research themes

The management at Sussex are introducing interdisciplinary 'research themes' to give the university a distinctive identity and to enable researchers to make more effective bids for large interdisciplinary grants. Resources would be directed towards these themes.

One issue that has been raised in the internal debate on this is that there is a danger of gearing research themes to the current strategic priority areas of the Research Councils, at a time when these strategic priority areas are themselves increasingly dictated by the government. On the latter point see the following from Education Guardian on 19 February:

"There has definitely been a switch from responsive funding for
projects that individual academics think up to funding for projects
that match the AHRC's strategic plans," says Tom Gretton, head of
the history of art department at UCL.

"It is clear that they want research whose findings can easily be
measured. We have moved from research that is critical to research
that is manageable, and in the process academics are being turned
into civil servants, because they will inevitably only submit
proposals for study into areas they know the government think are
worthwhile."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,2257830,00.html

Obviously the main problem here is the progressive abandonment by the Research Councils of the Haldane Principle that provides the rationale for their existence: the principle that research funding priorities should be set by the academic community rather than by politicians. This abandonment itself represents a serious erosion of the collective freedom of research of the academic community. However if universities then reinforce the Research Councils' priorities in their internal allocations of resources then arguably this erosion will be compounded.

Has anyone had experience of the 'thematisation' of research in response to govenment funding priorities at other universities? If so, please let me know, on or off list.

Andrew Chitty, University of Sussex