From the depths of despair...

People left my faculty in my prestigious university destroyed by their experiences and yet the world goes on, it does not stop when people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity, when people are raped murdered, but the crime has happened and even though the sun is shining and people are going about their daily business the target waits in agony for justice to be done.

When people are raped murdered but the crime has happened, and even though the sun is shining and people are going about their daily business the target waits in agony for justice to be done.

People left my faculty in my prestigious university destroyed by their experiences and yet the world goes on it does not stop when people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

When people are bullied to within an inch of their sanity...

The crime has happened...

FUCK YOU BASTARDS, she sweetly shouted...

Aphra Behn

More than 3 million bullied at work, study claims

One in seven people admits to being bullied in their current job, while one in five says that bullying is an issue at their place of work, according to new research.

A YouGov study for the TUC found that bullying is most prevalent in the private sector, where 19% of people said that they were targets, compared to 12% in private companies and just 8% in the voluntary sector.

In addition, professional and associate professional workers are the most likely to be bullied; something the TUC believes is due to the large numbers of these workers in public sector jobs such as teaching and NHS positions.

The research also revealed that men (16%) are more likely to be bullied than women (12%). It suggests that those in middle-ranking jobs (earning £20,000 to £60,000) and the older age groups (45 to 54-year-olds) are most in the firing line and report the most bullying.

The TUC says the figures mean that 3.5 million people across the country are facing workplace bullying. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "This level of bullying at work is completely unacceptable. Every organisation needs to have an anti-bullying policy, and every manager should ensure that there is zero-tolerance of bullying either by line managers or workmates."

From: http://www.morethanbusiness.com
----------------
Nice words from Mr Barber, but... sorry, not good enough... anti-bullying policies mean nothing and are worthless unless organisations become accountable for their actions to external bodies that have power to impose penalties. Certainly in the context of HEIs such policies mean nothing... NOTHING...

Dismissal hearing in employee's absence

Employers who are sceptical about an employee's GP signing them off sick just before a disciplinary hearing should obtain their own medical evidence before pressing ahead in the employee's absence. In William Hicks & Partners v Nadal, the employee's GP had written confirming that, due to stress, she was unfit to attend the disciplinary hearing or put her case in writing. The employer did not accept this as it was aware she had been conducting negotiations, including with a potential new employer.

The manager decided to proceed to dismiss her in her absence, even though she had been off sick for under two weeks and was due to see her doctor again the next day. The EAT ruled the dismissal unfair: it was unreasonable to ignore the GP's evidence, given that the manager was not medically qualified, had not seen the employee and had not put the conflicting evidence to the GP (or any other doctor). It would only have been reasonable to reject the GP's views if the employer had compelling evidence that the employee was pulling the wool over her GP’s eyes or authoritative contrary medical evidence about her fitness.

In contrast, an employer may be able to conduct disciplinary proceedings in the employee’s absence where their refusal to attend is unreasonable. In Balogun v Centre West London Buses, EAT, dismissal was fair where a union representative had advised the employee not to attend because he unreasonably considered there to be a breach of procedure.

The circumstances of these cases pre-date the statutory dismissal procedures. Employers may now be able to argue that it is "not practicable" to comply with the procedure within a reasonable period if the employee is likely to be unfit to attend a meeting for a long period. Medical evidence is likely to be key, but the employer's obligations under the statutory procedure will fall away if an employee fails to attend where it was reasonably practicable to do so. Employers will also need to consider reasonable adjustments to the procedure for disabled employees, such as holding the meeting away from the employer's offices or allowing a wider category of companion.

About academic freedom...

This article raises two critical issues regarding academic freedom. First, following the 1988 Education Reform Act, UK academics no longer have tenure. Consequently, they may be unwilling to report academic fraud and misconduct for fear that they will loose their jobs. On the 17 June 2008 the BBC Website featured an article entitled "Whistleblower Warning on Degrees", in which a UK academic at a world-famous UK university, stated that postgraduate degrees are awarded to students lacking in the most basic language skills (See at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7358528.stm).

Following from this article, the BBC received hundreds of emails from students and academics at other universities confirming that this practice was widespread (see at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7458723.stm). However as was reported in a subsequent BBC article: "Students: Customers or learners?" (see at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7466279.stm) most of the academics who reported this academic corruption to the BBC had to do so anonymously, as they do not have tenure, and hence do not have academic freedom and were afraid to speak out freely about the decline in standards.

When compared with other EU states, the UK has the lowest level of protection for academic freedom (see at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/hep/journal/v20/n3/abs/8300159a.html) which means that corruption is less likely to be reported in the U.K., than in other EU states.

Second, in the majority of nations both academic freedom and, more importantly, its limits, lack a precise definition, which means that the concept is open to abuse –such as false reporting of data, or unjustifiably claiming authorship of academic publications which were written by others. Consequently, in a forthcoming journal article in Higher Education Policy, I have contended that a working definition of academic freedom is required which goes beyond traditional discussions of the rights of academic staff and specifies, not only the rights inherent in the concept, but also its accompanying duties, necessary limitations and safeguards.

With respect to the dissemination of research results, I have argued that “In exercising academic freedom, staff must ensure that, as agreed by their academic peers and relevant academic associations and professional bodies, their research outputs:

(A) accurately and honestly report the full results of their research and are not subject to plagiarism, forgery, misleading manipulation or partial reporting of research data and results;
(B) acknowledge fully and fairly the relative direct and indirect contributions of co- and joint authors, academic colleagues and other people and organisations (including sponsors) involved in the research;
(C) do not compromise the anonymity of research participants, co-researchers and sponsoring bodies, breach personal or institutional confidentiality, or infringe intellectual property rights agreements.” The adoption of such a definition among universities would do much to curb the (apparently) rising tide of fraud in academia.

In a recent article in Higher Education Quarterly, Professor Sir David Watson posed the question “Does Higher Education Need a Hippocratic Oath?”, the answer would seem to be “yes – and as soon as possible”.

By Terence Karran, from: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Some quotes...

• Gagging clauses and payouts of public money should be barred by law. If the institution can't withstand the public scrutiny of a Tribunal proceeding they ought to get out of the business of education.

• Self-regulation is a joke. There IS no self-regulation -- only self justification. Until the government steps in and/or all universities are privatized so as to give up the illusion of accountability, bullying will continue to vex academics in the UK.

Influence of British academe? ; )

Influence of British academe? ;)

I know it happens everywhere, but I am just gobsmacked by the number of cases I have just heard of quite by accident. Three different people in the same small field in three different UK departments? In my own RG uni I know of at least three mobings in addition to my own and three other serious bullyings. All women as it happens. All cases I am aware of involved the withdrawal, retirement and/or removal (ie silencing by comp agreement) of the victims. My Union rep told me he has seen this over and over again and most people sign on the dotted line and don't fight back, so lord knows what the REAL numbers are.

Anonymous

Epidemic proportions - does the minister have an opinion on this?

As a foreigner working in UK academe I must say that I am stupified by the level of bullying and denial that goes on in UK academe. In my own field of research alone, I know of three individuals (all of them foreign, as it happens) who have been mobbed in three different UK departments, two of them Russell Group universities. One has been dismissed, another has managed to remain in post, but seconded out of the home department, and a third is currently undergoing an elimination ritual.

From what I am learning at this wonderful blogsite, the problem seems almost epidemic in the UK. And yet everyone--governors, senior management, HR depts, and above all academic staff--remain in the most appalling states of denial and/or intimidation into silence. I have never seen anything like this in my previous 20+ years of teaching in another country, nor have I heard of (nor read about) so many problems as in the UK.

I am beginning to wonder if there is something endemic to UK institutions of higher education that encourages this kind of rampant mobbing. I would be interested to have the thoughts of others on this subject.

Anonymous academic
-------------------
Does the Minister of State, Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education the Honourable Mr Bill Rammell have anything to say about this situation? If not, feel free to inform him.

More elimination rituals...

I found your website some time ago and I've recently had opportunities to read some of the items.

A great deal of what was described was familiar to me. I taught at a technical institute for several years and, for much of that time, I endured bullying, persecution, and harassment from certain administrators. That place could well qualify for membership in the Hall of Shame.

The only solution for me was to escape and I resigned on my own terms, but, I've been unable to find employment since then. Fortunately, I had some investments and I've made my living from them, though they are no substitute for a proper pay cheque.

It is my hope that websites such as yours bring about an end to this shameful practice. Too much talent and intellect has been squandered due to cheap office politics.

Anonymous
------------------
In the vast majority of cases the offending institutions get away with it because they are allowed to be 'self-regulated'. Read about the sham of self-regulation, and contribute your experience to the elimination rituals happening all the time...

A high price to pay for failing a form-filling test...

People often say, "It's not the money, it's the principle", without really meaning it. In fact, they generally mean the opposite. But the further education college where I teach has recently put me in the unusual position of being able to make this claim with absolute sincerity.

Earlier this year, after protracted wrangling with the University and College Union (UCU), the college management finally agreed to allow suitably qualified lecturers to move up to the top of the pay scale – Spine Point 41, for those who follow these things. But there was a catch. The pay award was discretionary. Only those lecturers who could demonstrate their eligibility would receive the award. And the way we were required to demonstrate eligibility was... to fill in a form.

Like most teachers and lecturers, in the last few years I have had to fill in an ever-thickening blizzard of forms. Forms to enrol students; forms to monitor students' progress (complete with "Smart" targets); forms to record achievement and retention data; survey forms and questionnaires galore, not to mention the Ucas forms I help students fill in – and now a brand-new four-page form to demonstrate that I merit a pay award which, considering that I have worked at the institution for 18 years, I might reasonably expect should be granted as of right.

It is often said, dismissively, that forms are merely hoops to jump through. This is perhaps truer than is realised. Making someone jump through a hoop is a graphic image of exercising power. Forms demand time, effort and concentration – and there are penalties for getting them wrong. It is rare in educational institutions for power to be exercised in its cruder forms; those at the top of the hierarchy do not usually harangue, abuse or bully the toilers at the chalk face. But making us fill in forms is a subtler exercise in power. The form-filler is nearly always acting under duress, and is often, as in this case, a supplicant.

As must already be apparent, on this occasion my form-filling skills were adjudged deficient – along with some 30 of my colleagues. My form failed on two counts: using IT skills in my teaching, and enhancing students' educational experiences. Swallowing my outrage, I lodged an appeal (this necessitated filling in another form, naturally), and in due course was brought face-to-face with two stern-faced stooges who proceeded to grill me as if I had attempted to file a false insurance claim.

Staunchly supported by a union representative, I pointed out that I had used IT in a variety of ways, as detailed on my form, including use of the college electronic system blackboard. But the fact that I had not posted a course outline (even though it was nowhere stipulated on the form that this was the only admissible kind of IT use) counted against me. On the enhancing learning point, my form stated that I'd arranged theatre trips for students – but owing to a deficiency of imbecilic literal-mindedness, I had omitted to explain exactly how literature students who were studying King Lear might benefit from a trip to the theatre to see King Lear. At the hearing I duly spelt this out – only to be told that new evidence was inadmissible as it was not included on the original form.

So my appeal was turned down – although I am allowed to fill out another form to reapply next year. At the end of the hearing, one of the stooges unbent sufficiently to reassure me that the college did indeed appreciate my work, but that the application for the pay award was "form-driven". At the time I was too gobsmacked to reply. But the only appropriate response would have been: "Well, it shouldn't be form-driven, should it?" If a form does not sufficiently demonstrate the applicant's eligibility, then they should be allowed to re-fill it until it does (provided they don't write lies on it). Assuming, that is, that the college is serious about giving the pay award to all the lecturers who deserve it.

Management must have known when they made it a form-driven process that there would be some lecturers who'd fail to make it through that particular hoop – leading to the invidious consequence of lecturers with the same or superior qualifications, capabilities and length of service as their colleagues being paid at a lesser rate (around £2,000 a year pro rata) for doing the same job. It's evident that this is not the way to produce a loyal or contented workforce. On the other hand, it does save money.

Of course, I am not saying that the college is more interested in saving money than in the principle of the thing. But if that were the plan, a form-driven process would be a neat way to accomplish it, wouldn't it?

Useful things, forms.

The writer is a lecturer at Westminster Kingsway College.

From: http://www.independent.co.uk

High Principals and public money

The above from Private Eye.

"...It is hard to see how the public can have confidence in such exercises when potentially crucial paperwork has been destroyed and important witnesses have been gagged through confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements paid for with public money."

Indeed... There should be no doubt, in case this is of interest to the National Audit Office, that the above college is not the only offender, and that HEIs make it a regular practice to silence descent through gagging clauses, thus wasting significant amounts of public money while hiding their wrong-doings. One would have thought that this would also be of interest to the relevant government department... But, hey...