The academy has progressed...

...Most of the mobbing targets I have studied were dumbstruck that such impassioned collective opprobrium could be heaped on them. They thought they were doing good work – as indeed they were, by standards broader than those locally in force. They trusted overmuch in reason, truth, goodness, and written guarantees of academic freedom and tenure. They missed the cue for when to shut up...

Professors and other workers will continue to be mobbed from time to time. Most will be idealistic high achievers with loyalties higher than the local powers that be. Targets will be humiliated and punished – though less harshly than Socrates was. The academy has in some ways progressed...

Kenneth Westhues

Tribunal backs professor's stand

A professor who resigned in protest after his university overruled his decision to fail more than a dozen of his students has won an Employment Tribunal case for unfair dismissal.

Times Higher Education reported exclusively in March 2007 that Paul Buckland, professor of archaeology at Bournemouth University, had judged that 14 BSc students should fail a resit exam.

His marks were confirmed by a second marker and were officially approved by the examination board. But after the board had signed off his marks, the papers were re-marked and the number of fails dropped to three.

Last week, the Southampton tribunal ruled that Professor Buckland "had been put in an impossible position ... in which his views and his position as a senior academic were disregarded in a manner that he was entitled to regard as insulting". This represented a "fundamental breach" of his contract.

After the August resits, 14 out of 16 students failed Professor Buckland's "Reconstruction of environment and economy" course in 2006, the tribunal said.

The exam board was chaired by Brian Astin, dean of the School of Conservation Sciences, who is also now acting pro vice-chancellor responsible for the university's "academic performance". During the meeting, Professor Buckland described the failing students as "thick, knuckle-draggingly thick" and the board "checked and confirmed" the fail marks.

But after the meeting, Miles Russell, programme leader for the archaeology BSc, "intermeddled (sic) in the exam process" when he had "no business" doing so and remarked the papers. He raised concerns with Dr Astin that the marks were harsh and that there was a lack of comments from the second marker, so a third marker was asked to look at the work.

The judgment of the new marker was "broadly in line" with Professor Buckland's, and he increased marks by "between 2 and 6 per cent overall", the tribunal said. But the effect was to push some students "from a clear fail into ... the compensatable range where students can be awarded a pass". The new marks were approved by Dr Astin "by chairman's action".

Professor Buckland "made the strongest possible complaint" that Dr Astin's action "represented an insult to his integrity", the tribunal said. "We are in no doubt that (his) sense of grievance was fully justified."

"We find that it was an act calculated to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between (Professor Buckland) and the university and was a repudiatory breach of contract."

A Bournemouth spokesperson said the university was "very disappointed with the outcome" and was studying the detailed judgment before commenting further.

He said that a review of the scripts by three independent external examiners had shown "all students marked as passing the examination should have those passes confirmed". He added: "We are absolutely committed to maintaining the high standards of our academic programmes. There is nothing in the judgment that would support a contrary view."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
-----------
We are very encouraged by the decision of the Employment Tribunal. Often what happens under "chairman's action" in Exam Boards is inexplicable and insults the intelligence of good academics whose only priority is quality of education as opposed to bureaucrats who are interested in bums on seats.

Backfire basics - The keys to backfire

Backfire basics - The keys to backfire

• Reveal: expose the injustice, challenge cover-up
• Redeem: validate the target, challenge devaluation
• Reframe: emphasise the injustice, counter reinterpretation
• Redirect: mobilise support, be wary of official channels
• Resist: stand up to intimidation and bribery

The backfire model is about tactics to oppose injustice

Backfire: an attack can be said to backfire when it creates more support for or attention to whatever is attacked. Any injustice or norm violation can backfire on the perpetrator. Backfire can be apparent in adverse public opinion or greater activity by opponents. Even when a perpetrator seems to get away with an injustice, it can be counterproductive in the long term. Most injustices by powerful groups do not backfire, because they are able to inhibit outrage.

Five methods for inhibiting outrage over injustice:

1. Cover up the action
2. Devalue the target
3. Reinterpret what happened
4. Use formal procedures to give the appearance of justice
5. Intimidate or bribe people involved

Two conditions for backfire:

1. An action is perceived as unjust, unfair, excessive or disproportional.
2. Information about the action is communicated to relevant audiences.

Five approaches for increasing outrage over injustice:

1. Expose the action
2. Validate the target
3. Emphasise interpretation of the action as an injustice
4. Mobilise public concern (and avoid formal procedures)
5. Resist and expose intimidation and bribery

An additional consideration: the timing of communication is vital.

Three relevant factors that affect reception of a message are:

1. Receptivity: baseline sensitivity to injustice; meaning systems. If people are already concerned about a type of abuse, their reaction to a new case will be stronger. Social movements can create or increase receptivity.

2. The information environment: visibility, salience (compared with other stories). What else is happening? If other important items are on the news, an injustice may receive little media attention.

3. Actionability: existence of social movements, opportunities for action. When activists are prepared to act, a sudden injustice is more likely to backfire.

The five Rs of revealing, redeeming, reframing, redirecting and resisting can be used in reaction to an injustice or as a way of preventing it.

For example, to help prevent police attacks, be prepared by having witnesses and cameras ready, dressing and behaving in an image-enhancing fashion, etc.

From: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/backfire.html, by Brian Martin, bmartin@uow.edu.au

Elimination rituals...

The University of Strathclyde

The University of Leicester

The University of Nottingham

It has come to our attention that the above three UK universities - due to their actions, fall into the checklist of mobbing indicators as described by Kenneth Westhues, and subsequently they are all awarded the Divestors of People Standard and are now listed in the Hall of Shame.

Sinister...

This omission of proper procedures and standards is at the heart of my complaint and subsequent sacking from my College. My contract states that I am to work 37 hours a week Monday to Friday. But there is another clause that says that I am expected to work flexibly and efficiently.

I've been doing this for years. At first I loved my job so much that I willingly put in many hours overtime unpaid. Then as the years progressed and I begin to feel increasingly disenfranchised I began to flex my hours to enable me to keep my unpaid overtime to a minimum.

Now, because I was seen on a Monday morning by a colleague who subsequently reported it. I have been sacked because the college 'owns' those hours so they have me down as a thief.

The point I have made is that you cannot flex 37 hours Monday to Friday, your either in, or your out. So that contract appears to give the college the right to expect us to work long hours on a promise that you might be able to arrange time off in lieu. Yes!! If your not too busy, or there isn't a meeting coming up or your face fits

This is just one of the gripes made by many of the personnel employed in this centre. I'll show a list of what I think are transgressions below.

I did speak to PCAW about this. The response I got is that at this present time they would advise that whistleblowing could affect my
employment tribunal and to try again after all that is over. This seems to me to be a rather redundant statement but there you go.

Here's my list of gripes.

Trainers are expected to spend in excess of 30 hours per week in contact with students. This leaves little time for paperwork.

Myself was given extra duties because I was on a lecturer pay scale and therefore earning more and receiving longer holidays.

Paperwork is legion and complicated and subject to the variations of human error and availability, therefore being regularly inaccessible.

An large amount of pressure is put onto this unavailable paperwork because failure to 'fill out the forms' (and properly) could result in sanctions from the LSC, which amounts to money, which amounts to jobs.

There is little training and training is inadequate for the complexity of the paperwork.

Huge amounts of resources, papers etc are generated by each trainer during any one academic year. Apart from time wasting this is also an environmental issue.

There is no storage for resources, therefore trainers are accustomed to carrying work around with them in their car or hold it in their house.

There are four computers between 32 people, which results in tensions over usage. Therefore large numbers of trainers have installed computers and internet access to their homes.

Peripatetic trainers are often asked to drive long distances, driving for up 6/8 hours per day. Trainers are often asked to drive long distances, deliver training and then return again, creating 12 or more hour working days. Or are asked to source a cheap form of overnight stay. Pay out of their own pockets and wait for the money to be reimbursed.

There are few procedures written down and those that are are subject to change without consultation usually resulting in email notification and a change electronically to the document.

There are no saving protocols so documents held electronically are duplicated in locations and type. Some have been inadvertently saved over.

These are just few of the many trap doors laid down by this employer, and while I'm the first to say that you would have to live with it to know just exactly how stressful it is. I'm hoping that somewhere someone will see the sense that this particular educational establishment is out of control and responsible for the strain it is putting onto it's staff because this department is an accident waiting to happen.

I've just completed my final appeal with the governors. If they turn me down (and I expect they will) hopefully (it is not clear yet) my Union will get behind me and go to tribunal. I'm not sure whether or not I expect to win that either, but at least then it will be out in the public domain.

People have to know. Education has gone mad. It has lost it's morals along with it's marbles and for me that is a very serious matter. If we are all fish in a big pond then colleges are the barracudas of the pond, universities are the sharks. How can we possibly trust these people to be in charge of educating our young? It is too sinister for words.

Anonymous

HSE report following investigation on work related stress and bullying in Leeds Metropolitan University

The HSE (Health and Safety Executive) released a report dated 28 July 2008, on the high levels of work-related stress at Leeds Metropolitan University. This report is addressed to the Vice Chancellor Simon Lee, the Director of HR Steve Pashley and the Registrar Steve Denton.

You can download the complete report from: http://bulliedacademics.250free.com/HSE_letter_-_28_July_2008.pdf
(After you click the above link, go to the bottom of the page and press 'click here to download')

Below we provide you with segments of the report:

In September/October 2007 HSE received allegations of unacceptable levels of work-related stress (WRS) being experienced by staff employed at the University, by bullying behaviour. Bullying is recognised as a stressor under the management standards... As a matter of policy HSE does not investiagte individuals cases of alleged WRS or specifically allegations of bullying, but undertook to investigate the University's overall policy and arrangements for managing WRS as the duty on the employer is to have systems in place to deal with these type of instances.

...The University has had a written policy since 2002, but we found examples of inconsistent application acros faculties and it is now apparent that the policy no longer reflects the arrangements the SET want to follow...

We conclude that the existing policy, while still relevant to some aspects of your risk control system, should be reviewed and re-launched in line with your current thinking nd your related policy developments...

...The proactive elements we were looking for, to enable the University to produce suitable and sufficient WRS risk assessments, were not in place. Fr4om our interviews we identified weaknesses in the information, instruction and training given to personnel identified in the WRS policy, a lack of suitable performance standards and a lack of clarity on responsibilities. As a result of this suitable and sufficient proactive WRS risk assessments were not being carried out...

...The majority of our interviewees held the perception that the University system for handling WRS issues was predominantly reactive.

...preventative risk assessments for WRS have not been carried out to evaluate risk, identify solutions and generate action plans. We did not identify any overall strategic plans to imrpove the managements of WRS, and employees we spoke to were unaware of one...

...We conclude that the University should develop an overall strategic and coherent plan for dealing with WRS.

...There are no arrangements in place to review the University's performance due to the lack of clear risk control system for the management of WRS, and the lack of longer term strategic plan.

Signed:
David R Green, HM Inspector of Health and Safety
Claire Mason, HM Inspector of Health and Safety
------------------
First of all, congratulations to the management of Leeds Metropolitan University for all the above, and in particular the Vice Chancellor Simon Lee, the Director of HR Steve Pashley and the Registrar Steve Denton.

Secondly, Leeds Metropolitan University is not the only HEI with unacceptable high levels of work-related stress and bullying. You can report offending HEIs to the HSE.

Thirdly, it is good news that the above report is now public knowledge. We must not continue to suffer in silence for change will never happen.
------------------
Anonymous said:

My son has recently completed a degree at the university and believes students were affected by the bullying culture - either as a direct result of lecturers leaving/ being on sick leave and no alternatives found in time to complete lecturer's module commitments or seriously inconsistent marking of coursework with little to no feedback. The university is keen to accept the fees but in many cases does not give value for money. Some departments are worse than others - with the Educational teaching department being one of the worse. There's been a lot of activity over the past year in an attempt to resolve the problem. However, by the end of the year there were still some modules being assessed that did not have a lecturer to take all planned lectures for certain modules. I suspect the problem is taking so long to resolve because the main perpetrators of the bullying culture are still in place. The people who have left appear to be those who were affected by the bullying - whilst those who cause the toxic environment stay to reign another day.
-----------------
Anonymous said:

Wow, I hope this gives Leeds Met the shot in the arm they obviously need. I went for an interview there 6 months ago and had to refuse the invite to a second interview because the interview panel from the 1st interview were so obviously stressed to the eyeballs. I figured no
matter how much I wanted to get away from my current university there was no point jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Despair, anguish, pain...

Bullying of academics... exclusion, discrimination, envy (small dick syndrome), incompetent managers, lack of meritocracy, favoritism, mobbing, ganging-up, isolation... health, career, security, family... UCU where are you?

The cost of bullying in academia

The tolerance of administrative bullying is costly to every aspect of an organization. The cost for the academy and society is exponential. The reason is the pivotal role in the development and advancement of knowledge projected onto the academy. This role is hindered when its implementation is under the guidance of administrative bullying.

Almost 200 academic staff fight against RAE exclusion

At least 190 academics who were told their work would not be submitted to the research assessment exercise mounted a formal challenge against their exclusion, Times Higher Education has discovered. And about one in three of those who appealed was successful in overturning the decision, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The RAE, a periodic assessment of research quality in university departments, is used to determine more than £1 billion worth of grants each year. Any academic omitted from it is, in effect, branded "research inactive", which can prove a blow to their prestige.

The data, which are not officially collated, were compiled by Times Higher Education using information received from 145 universities. In total, 159 higher education institutions are known to have made RAE submissions.

The show that of at least 190 academics who lodged appeals against exclusion, 58 (30.5 per cent) were upheld. Across the sector, six appeals were taken by individuals beyond universities' RAE appeals procedures and became formal grievances. It is not known yet how many academics were excluded from this year's exercise. In 2001, more than 32,500 research-active staff (40.4 per cent) were excluded.

The institution to receive the most appeals was Queen's University Belfast, where 37 academics challenged their exclusion. Of these, 11 were upheld, 26 rejected and two proceeded to formal grievance.

Queen's was followed by the University of Glasgow (21 appeals), Swansea University (17), Queen Mary, University of London (15) and Kingston University, which had 11 appeals. The rest of the sector either did not receive any appeals or received mostly only one or two.

This year's RAE is the first in which universities have had to have an internal code of practice for preparing submissions, including selecting staff for inclusion. An appeals provision is standard. Decisions about which staff to include are at the university's discretion, but they need to be defensible and must not contravene equal opportunities legislation.

Reasons for appeal were wide-ranging. They included: claims that the university was not following its own procedures correctly; that due account had not been taken of special personal circumstances such as maternity leave that affected research volume; that research quality had not been judged correctly; and that new evidence of research output had not been originally considered.

Trevor Newsom, director of research at Queen's, said the reason for the relatively high number of appeals there was that the university had been upfront with academics about why they were excluded. "We made it easy to appeal and that was in keeping with the spirit the Higher Education Funding Council for England had requested," he said.

But Jimmy Donaghey, the local issues secretary of the University and College Union, cited a different reason: "(There was a) lack of transparency in the Queen's RAE selection process and, in some areas, Queen's decision-makers did not use the same weightings for the various measures as will be used by the (RAE) subject panels," he told Times Higher Education.

A spokesman for the University of Glasgow said an appeals rate of "less than 2 per cent" testified to the "robustness of its process". He added that a "substantial number" of appeals were upheld because the academics provided evidence that their publications would appear in time for the RAE deadline.

The vice-chancellor of Swansea University, Richard Davies, said a "major factor" behind the number of their appeals was that the university had applied "stricter criteria" than previously, excluding more academics. He said 92 per cent were submitted in 2001 compared with approximately 80 per cent in 2008. Queen Mary said in a statement that it was "satisfied that the processes used in its RAE decision-making were fair and thorough". A Kingston University official said that although 11 staff had complained, only two submissions were eligible for consideration and one of those had been upheld.

Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute think-tank, said the fact that so few academics had appealed meant they either did not disagree with the judgments or did not think it was worth arguing against.

A spokesman for Universities UK said the low number of appeals suggested that institutions had "robust procedures" in place for selecting staff for inclusion.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, said it had lobbied for a "less selective" RAE and would analyse the data on exclusions, particularly in relation to equality issues. "We do not accept that the relatively low numbers (of appeals) vindicates the current system," she said. "Lodging an appeal is a stressful process and a wholly unsatisfactory one for the two thirds of staff who had their appeals rejected."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
----------------------------
A spokesman for Universities UK said the low number of appeals suggested that institutions had "robust procedures" in place for selecting staff for inclusion!!!

Research Assessment Exercise: Guidance on producing equality profiles

Under RAE 03/2005, institutions were instructed to provide an equality profile of staff who are eligible for submission to the RAE, and indicate those who are submitted and those who are not.

Under equality legislation , institutions are required to monitor the progression of their staff according to racial group, disability status and gender. In addition, HEIs are encouraged to submit the work of all their excellent researchers, including those whose volume of research output has been limited for reasons covered by equal opportunities guidelines, for example disability or absence from work due to maternity leave.

Equality profiles, therefore, provide the evidence base necessary to identify differential submission to the RAE with regard to different equality groups. If any apparent imbalance is found relative to the total potential pool, then the HEI may be required to account for it, and to provide objective, non-discriminatory reasons for the impact, taking into account the factors above.

In order to meet their obligations under equality legislation, HEIs must monitor the submission of eligible staff to the RAE according to race, disability status and gender. They must therefore collect statistics in these three regards for the group of eligible staff and for those selected. ‘Eligible staff’ in this case refers to all academic staff, whose contract lists research and/or teaching as their primary function.

From: Equality Challenge Unit