How we cope with pain...

Feeling mistreated can hurt, especially when it comes to the heart (1). An 11-year study of 8000 senior civil servants in London found that those who strongly agreed with the statement "I often have the feeling that I am being treated unfairly" had an increased risk of heart attack (hat tip pharmagossip ).

Out of the 567 people who agreed very strongly with this statement, 51 suffered a heart attack or severe chest pains, known as angina. By comparison, 64 out of the 966 people who felt mild mistreatment had these heart problems. The results appear in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (2,3).

There is growing evidence that despair can have all sorts of ill effects on the body (4, 5). Wrongly suspended and bullied doctors frequently suffer permanent ill health, and many have committed suicide or have experienced myocardial events (6, 7).

Doctors who have been suspended (often for whistleblowing) have a mortality rate of over 2%. This is higher than the mortality rate for open cardiac surgery and is entirely induced by employers. The mortality falls principally into two categories. (a) clinical depression ending in suicide and (b) myocardial infarction. Myocardial infarction is four times more common among suspended doctors than other doctors of the same age and sex. It has been recommended that affected individuals should take low dose asprin to reduce the risk of cardiac events (7).

This posting is dedicated to my pathology colleague, Dr Chris Chapman who died on 4/11/98 at the age of 56. Chris Chapman was a Principal Biochemist at Leeds General Infirmary working in conjunction with Leeds University, was made redundant after alleging corruption and fraud in the research being carried out. He was sacked the day before his 50th birthday to avoid paying him pension. He was re- instated following his legal victory. In a saga characterised by whitewash and obfuscation, inquiries were held to clarify the facts before a number of senior academics were given early retirement and replaced. However, this was too late for Chris.

See also

• Jean Lennane. The canary down the mine: what whistleblowers' health tells us about their environment [Link]
• Lennane K.J. "Whistleblowing": a health issue. British Medical Journal, 1993. 307: 667-670 [Link]
• Yamey G. Editorial: Protecting whistleblowers. Employers should respond to the message, not shoot the messenger BMJ 2000;320:70-71 [Link]
  

-------------------------------------------------------
From: Scientific Misconduct Blog: Take good care of yourself - the health hazards of truthtelling.

It was the moment of truth, after which they all got back to lying...

PsychologistEthics.net is designed to help inform the public about political psychology; that is, psychologists violating established codes of ethics to carry out the political agendas of others, especially employers. Political psychology is often used to facilitate workplace mobbing...

When one imagines using mental health professionals to target undesirable individuals, one almost always thinks of totalitarian governments such as the former USSR, China, and Cuba. There is a long and ugly precedent of using mental health professionals in those societies to target politically undesirable people and have them placed in mental institutions involuntarily.

Human rights groups refer to this practice as "political psychiatry." Victims of political psychiatry are usually people who have filed grievances or complaints against employers or officials, or are union organizers, people who have publicly criticized officials, members of minority religions, and whistle-blowers. Because of reports of the former Soviet Union and China committing political dissidents to mental institutions, the World Psychiatric Association passed the Madrid Declaration in 1996 declaring that "all forms of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment on the basis of the political needs of governments are forbidden." Unfortunately, no such declarations have been made for or by psychologists to condemn political psychology...

In this case, an SIUC faculty member was mobbed by the university administration with the help of some of her departmental colleagues because they disliked her opinions, which were expressed through grievances, guest columns and letters to the editor, speeches, union activism, and by joining in a suit with other faculty members against the board of trustees to protest the firing of a popular chancellor.

As a result, her office was moved out of the department and her mail was stolen. Frequent whispering campaigns were held in the hallways by colleagues who quickly scattered behind slammed doors when she was sighted. She was unjustly blamed for negative tenure votes and missing department materials. The nameplate on her door was vandalized and she learned that she was referred to as "the little twerp" by some.

The university administration then hired a licensed psychologist who, the faculty member was told, would conduct counseling and conflict resolution for her deeply divided department, but who instead wrote a report for the administration indicating that the faculty member was destructive and in need of discipline and professional help.

The administration disseminated the psychologist's report to over 20 people on the campus. In this case, the psychologist made an unsubstantiated assessment of the faculty member based solely on what the faculty member's "enemies" had said about her...

Take That, You Bully! Victims fight back in the blogosphere

Academics can be found all over the Internet commiserating about academic bullying, including on The Chronicle's own forums and blogs. There are debates over how to resolve bullying, warnings to other scholars, and even primal cries for help.

Historiann (http://www.historiann.com): This blog, subtitled, "History and Sexual Politics, 1492 to the present," is written by a history professor, Ann M. Little, whose posts about her own bullying experience prompted a flurry of reader comments.

"Kelly" writes: "Most days I just want to die because nothing I do works. They say "suck it up, ignore them, etc. etc.," but it just doesn't work. Even the ex-academic women exam supervisors are bullies. I will never forget a particular experience this year where I was shouted at, and told that I was stupid, it cut me to the bone and I just spent the first half an hour of the exam in a daze. I hate that place, everyday it just makes me sick."

"Cahulawassee River Rat" writes: "For the last 2 years I have been working in a department full of bullies, and now I realize that I am not alone. I knew there were similar issues elsewhere, but it is nice to see people coming forth with similar experiences. You hit the nail on the head: the bullies hate change. It will never change until the power structure changes, and that is not likely to happen in my department. I am continually reminded that I will not be renewed if I do ANYTHING to make the tenured faculty upset. Who the hell can function in an environment like that? I am working on getting out but I am finding it very difficult. I feel like getting out of teaching altogether. Why do highly educated people feel that the "Because I had to go through this, so do you" attitude is acceptable? This is supposed to be academia!"

On Hiring (http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring): Readers were eager to comment about bullying on this Chronicle blog.

"Another bullied" writes: "Both my dean and department head are bullies. I don't want to work here and no one else does either (they bully everyone). I have been here longer than anyone in my department (other than the bullies) — a whopping nine years. I would like to move jobs, but here are my questions: who do you use for a reference when your supervisors are losers and bullies? And if bullying is so widespread as these comments suggest, who says moving a job will make things any better? Someone recently commented to me that it is better to work for the devil you know, than the one you don't know. It is very discouraging."

"Elle2" writes: "Bullying research shows that bullies know who to pick on — for instance, single faculty members, those who have limited mobility in job terms because of a spouse, those who need their jobs because of a sick parent, and so forth. If I had to do it again, I'd show no vulnerability to any colleague whatsoever. I'd be sure to have a spouse-equivalent attend parties, invent a mythical trust fund, keep all family details to myself, and in general give them no reason to think that I couldn't quit on the spot if I needed to."

"Callie" writes: "There's a bully in our department that constantly pitches temper tantrums and is rude and obnoxious to everyone who works in our group — except the boss. We all walk on eggshells around this person, and it does affect morale and productivity because we dread having to deal with this person on a daily basis. In this case, fighting back is out of the question. You either learn to deal with it or move on."

"DrFunZ" writes: "Eventually the bully or bully club does something totally outrageous and enough people are incensed. That is the precise time to rally the troops who have been abused and others who are horrified at the abuse, band together and stick it to the bully at every corner — faculty meetings, elections, dean's reports, private meetings, etc. Propose some good-hearted committee, or one that wants to collaborate or cooperate and you will see that the bullies do not want to play anymore. … They will retreat to their caves, licking their wounds. Do not be deceived, however, they are only plotting their return."

Bullying of Academics in Higher Education (http://www.bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/) Mainly a compilation of news articles and roundups of other blog posts on bullying, one of the blog's three main pseudonymous posters was candid about one university.

"Pierre-Joseph Proudhon" called one university "a concentration camp … hundreds of thousands of pounds are wasted in fighting legal cases against good academics who are being bullied out of their jobs. Does anybody care that a serial bully university is wasting money and resources in such a fashion? Does nobody have the decency to stand up to this monster bully and say 'enough is enough'? And so more and more continue to suffer, to be victimized, to be bullied out of their work — many work in fear, in a concentration camp that knows only one thing: to eliminate any dissent. No compassion, no empathy, no mediation … just fear."

From: http://chronicle.com

Legal help with your grievance against your Uni - UK

Through talking to a number of academics, the following seems to be very good source of legal help for victims of workplace bullying:

http://www.mygrievance.co.uk/

There could well be more, but at this stage the above organisation is doing a very good job, and they are very busy...

An important test...

The case of Howard Fredrics v Kingston University will be an important test of the Education Reform Act 1988's provisions that guarantee the rights of academics to challenge accepted wisdom without fear of losing their jobs. The right to report quality of service issues, as stipulated in contractually mandated staff regulations, and to hold minority viewpoints is at stake in what promises to be a landmark case to be heard in the London South Employment Tribunal in January 2009.

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

I have a dream...

Every day I wonder what would happen were all the targets of mobbing and/or bullying 'within an inch of their sanity' to find a safe way to 'come out' and speak the truth to power. Silence serves only to empower bullies, as the quotes above remind us.

Why then are we silent? What do we fear? Among other things, public shame, disgrace, and humiliation; the loss of careers, livelihoods, reputations, and family homes; the hypocrisy, indifference, and finger-pointing ignorance of colleagues; the devastating impact of media publicity on our spouses, children, relatives, and friends.

I had a dream last night: a reality television programme featuring targets on this site and their individual stories, especially those involving elimination rituals, with television cameras recording each day leading up to the event.

Or perhaps a series of BBC special reports on mobbing in UK universities--the recent TUC results would seem reason enough to launch a full-scale UK investigation. The series could be called 'Halls of Shame'. Each episode would feature a different target in a different university. Where necessary or requested, individuals could be anonymised (but with facts of the matter scrupulously and confidentially verified to the BBC).

Think of the outrage and scandal that would ensue from the exposure of evidence that the UK's greatest universities are frittering away public money to cover up private scandals.

True, I talk of dreams . . . and perhaps of nothing as well. Academics, after all, are private creatures, hardly prone to the egotism of public displays, particularly when their self-esteem resides in the gutter in the aftermath of mobbing. All we really want is for the insanity to stop and return to our former lives of quiet contemplation, teaching, and research on the subjects of our passions and expertise.

There must, though, be some way--a powerful way--to train a media spotlight on the problem and thereby illuminate one of the darkest secrets in the hallowed groves of UK academe.

Rosa Luxembourg

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