Useful, interesting, informative links

The Mobbing Portal: http://www.mobbingportal.com/

32 cases of academic mobbing: http://www.mobbingportal.com/casesofmobbing.html

Minding the workplace: http://newworkplace.wordpress.com/

Resources for Teachers: http://www.mobbingportal.com/teachers.html

UCU clarifies staff pay rises as vice-chancellors go on defensive over their exorbitant rises - UK

In an article in the Times Higher Education it was stated that the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) figures used to calculate staff pay rises do not include the annual 3 per cent increment most academic staff would have received in that year and Jocelyn Prudence, chief executive of the Universities and Colleges Employers' Association (UCEA), says that once this increment is taken into account, the average annual pay rise for an academic would increase to 9 per cent.

That is not the case. The HESA average salary figures do include incremental increases.

As the joint union-UCEA Review of Higher Education Finance and Pay Data of December 2008 said about HESA pay data: 'It will include the effect of any annual uplift in pay scales and additional increments or promotion increases but excludes certain additional payments.' (para 319). Therefore the average annual pay rise for an academic was in fact 5.7%. The annual rise for vice-chancellors was 9%, which took their pay, on average, up to almost £200,000.

Key figures from the survey:

• The overall increase in vice-chancellors' pay was 9 per cent from 2006/7 to 2007/8, up from the 8 per cent increase enjoyed the previous year
• The average pension contribution for a vice-chancellor was £26,129, a 16 per cent increase on the previous year
• The average vice-chancellor pay was £193,970
• Academics earned an average of £43,486 - a 5.7 per cent increase on the previous year
• Seventy-one vice-chancellors enjoyed a salary bigger than the prime minister
• Sixty-three vice-chancellors earned more than £200,000 and four earned more than £300,000
• In total, the UK's heads of universities were paid over £30 million

UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'As some universities call for higher university fees and staff are being warned that any pay increases may lead to redundancies, it is quite incredible and rather distasteful that vice-chancellors again enjoyed such exorbitant pay rises.

'These staff pay rises date from the middle of a three-year pay deal that we were told was at the brink of affordability. That vice-chancellors were pocketing close to twice the pay rise they begrudged staff at the time is extraordinary. It is even more disappointing that instead of trying to justify their pay they are spending their time trying to mislead the public over the figures.'

From: http://www.ucu.org.uk

Download the full chart of Vice-Chancellors annual salaries for 2008-09, and note that some of these VCs received increases from 10-80% at at time when their institutions are implementing massive staff cuts.

Causes for Concern - published outcomes Kingston University

In July 2008, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) received a communication from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) raising a concern about an alleged irregularity in external examining at Kingston University. HEFCE forwarded a redacted version of a public interest disclosure that they had received on 8 July 2008. This included an allegation that, following examinations in summer 2004, pressure had been placed on an external examiner in the School of Music to alter the conclusions to her report. The disclosure also alleged that suggestions had been made within the School of Music that, in future, external examiners should be selected who would be '…more sympathetic to the challenges faced by the School in terms of widening participation issues and who would be more understanding of the type of students that enrol on the course'.

QAA investigated the matter within the terms of its published Causes for Concern procedure. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by a senior member of staff from QAA. The investigation included: a review of documentation submitted with the public interest disclosure; interviews at the University with the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Academic Registrar; a telephone interview with the external examiner concerned; and a review of documentation provided by the University.

The preliminary enquiry confirmed that the external examiner had been asked to change a judgement in her report and that a revised version of the report had been submitted to the University. A summary of the revised report had subsequently been placed on the national Teaching Quality Information website (now Unistats). In addition, the external examiner had commented on a number of other matters in her report, including examples of over-generous marking and the need for more support for less experienced students. The enquiry also looked at the way these matters had been considered and dealt with by the University.

Following its preliminary enquiry, QAA considered that sufficient evidence had been forthcoming to permit an assessment of the circumstances of the case to be made without the need for a full inspection, and that there was therefore little justification for conducting such an inspection.

The case refers to one external examiner's report among the several hundred that are received and reviewed by the University each year. No other evidence has been forthcoming to suggest a more widespread problem. The QAA Institutional audit of the university in 2005 found that the external examiner system at Kingston was working effectively. Nevertheless, the case has raised some questions about the University's practices and procedures. To address these concerns QAA has recommended that:

• a public statement be made available on the QAA website to show that the alleged incident has been investigated and an appropriate course of action has been identified
• if it has not already done so, the University reviews the assessment procedures in the School of Music to assure itself that its current external examining arrangements are working effectively
• the issues identified by the external examiner, regarding the capabilities of students and the perceived over-generous award of marks for students' work, are discussed at the appropriate levels within the University to provide assurance that the standards of awards are not being compromised
• the University reviews and, if necessary, amends its academic regulations in respect of the required independence of external examiners
• the outcomes of the above recommendations and the more general effectiveness of external examining arrangements be subject to specific scrutiny by the audit team at the time of the next QAA Institutional audit in autumn 2010.

The University has responded to the preliminary enquiry report, informing QAA that the School of Music was restructured in 2004 and is now part of a larger School of Performance, located within a different faculty structure. The faculty has looked closely at the issues raised by this case and are confident that external examiner processes are now working effectively and in accordance with normal good practice. In addition, the University has introduced stronger oversight of external examiner arrangements by senior management and the central University quality and standards team. A procedure of early alerts at senior level, in respect of concerns raised by external examiners in their reports, has been introduced. The University will also consider the issue of over-generous marking at the appropriate university-level board in the context of feedback on this matter from all external examiners.

QAA believes that the University has taken all reasonable measures to address the concerns raised, but will review progress at the next scheduled Institutional audit, in 2010. The University remains in good standing with QAA.

QAA March 2009

Also: Kingston showed ‘lack of regard’ for external examiner’s role, says QAA

VCs stand together in tribunal

The acting and former vice-chancellors at Leeds Metropolitan University are due to give evidence at an employment tribunal this month. Simon Lee, who resigned as vice-chancellor after he was told to leave or face suspension while concerns about his treatment of colleagues were investigated, is due to give evidence alongside Geoff Hitchins, acting vice-chancellor, and Keith Ramsay, deputy chair of governors. They will fight a claim of race discrimination brought by a former academic at Leeds Met, who said he was bullied by his line manager. The case was due to start on 16 March.

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

Bradford failed to confront bullying and racism, inquiry finds

A "systemic, institutional failure to confront bullying, harassment and racism" at the University of Bradford has been uncovered by an independent review.

A report by the review panel, which examined allegations made in the School of Health, found a "denial of the existence of racism" among management. The report says it "found clear evidence of a systemic, institutional failure to confront bullying, harassment, racism and racial discrimination against black and minority ethnic (BME) staff within the division of nursing, and at the School of Health Studies, between late 2001 and autumn 2007".

The review was commissioned in July 2008 after Bradford issued apologies to two academics in the nursing division who had lodged race-related grievances.

Two internal grievance panels found that, while there had been poor management, there had been no discrimination in either case. These findings were later reversed, with conclusions that discrimination had occurred. Two other grievances were settled.

The review panel, headed by Peter Herbert, chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers, said management failure to apply or adhere to equality policies or deal with inappropriate behaviour led to the grievances.

"The culture of the university was to regard any finding of race discrimination as being significantly worse than any other form of discrimination," the report says.

The fear was based on the city of Bradford's history of racial divisions, possible damage to the university brand and "a moral denial of the existence of racism being a characteristic of the university management", the report suggests.

Out of 12 university disciplinary hearings conducted in recent years, ten were made against BME staff. Of the nine grievances lodged by staff, seven came from BME employees, with one raising three grievances over two years.

"The records kept were poor and inaccurate," the review panel said.

In the division of nursing, 12 complaints were made between 2001 and 2006 by white and BME staff. The complaints were dealt with individually and the dean of health and Bradford's human resources department were unaware of the problems until a race grievance was lodged.

"There was a collective failure of leadership ... in recognising the extent of the problem," the report says.

Uduak Archibong, Bradford's diversity and race champion, was implicitly criticised in the report, which referred to a "lack of competence" around race and diversity issues in the HR department and the school's management, "including the dean and the diversity/race equality champion".

The review also criticises the University and College Union branch at Bradford, saying it "did not properly represent the needs and concerns of its BME members". It claims the union became effective only after help was sought from regional and national officials.

The review concludes that procedures and practices at Bradford remain flawed and leave it at risk of future employment tribunal claims.

A School of Health staff survey carried out by the panel in 2008 found that most staff felt they "did not fit in". Most highlighted BME staff as the group of employees most likely to be treated unfairly. The staff picked "equality champions" as the university initiative that had the least positive impact on equality.

Another BME employee in the School of Health is understood to have lodged a legal claim against Bradford for bullying and harassment. The case will be heard by an employment tribunal in June.

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

Unexcpected departure and a demotion

Announcing the latest news from Kingston University:

Following the recent National Student Survey and External Examiner scandals, Prof Gail Cunningham, Dean of FASS, has 'retired' rather unexpectedly, effective July 2009.

Similarly, Dr Fiona-Barlow Brown, Field Leader of Psychology and the infamous voice heard telling students that their degrees would be 'worth s*&t' unless they falsified their responses to the National Student Survey, has been demoted back to her previous post as Senior Lecturer.

These events correspond with the series of recent reports to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Standards in British HE and the imminent publication of the results of the QAA commissioned investigation of alleged wrongdoing at Kingston.

From an anonymous source.

Hope you die soon...

My father was bullied out of his job as a Law Professor because he has Aspergers. When he went into hospital for a heart operation someone in the department wrote on his 'get well card': "It's so nice here without you. Hope you die soon."

Anonymous

Faculty Incivility: Darla Twale, PhD

www.sirpeterscott.com

Kingston University has engaged the services of a London Top 50 law firm to press its complaint to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) against a former staff member, Dr Howard Fredrics, after he registered the domain name, sirpeterscott.com. Although the domain has been in active use for more than two years, the University has only recently taken action to wrest control of the domain name from its owner, after the website, http://www.sirpeterscott.com posted documentary evidence of alleged wrongdoing by the University and a number of staff members, including, Sir Peter Scott.

The site, which has received over 300,000 hits, was the first to reveal recorded evidence of senior staff members in the Psychology Department at the University presurizing students to falsify their 2008 responses to the National Student Survey in order to raise Kingston University's standing in the League Tables, a ranking system developed by the UK Government that is linked with levels of funding and which has become an important public relations and marketing tool for many UK universities.

Despite confirmed reports that University officials, including its Vice-Chancellor, were informed of this widespread practice at the University, Sir Peter Scott issued repeated public denials that he was aware that this incident was anything more than a one-off. The Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) later found Kingston guilty of the alleged offense and ordered the University's Psychology Department removed from the 2008-09 League Table results.

The site was also the first source to reveal efforts by the now defunct School of Music at the University to pressurize one of its External Examiners into changing her damning 2004 report of the School's standards. The Surrey Comet and BBC have both since reported the fact that the Examiner did, indeed, change her report to be less critical in response to efforts by the School's administration, including BMus Course Director, Gloria Toplis, MA Course Director, Mike Searby and then Acting Head of School, Carol Gartrell to convince her that the School's survival would be placed in jeopardy if an accurate report were to be published.

Dr Fredrics reported this clear breach of ethics to the HEFCE, who then forwarded the complaint to the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). The QAA conducted an investigation into the allegations under its Cause for Concern procedures and concluded that the allegations should be upheld in full. In October, 2008, Chief Executive, Peter Williams released details of QAA's findings to a Parliamentary Select Committee as part of its inquiry into standards in British higher education.

Although Dr Fredrics presented and published substantial documentary evidence of the hatching and actioning of a plan to presurize the External Examiner, Kingston University has continued to deny the authenticity of the evidence, despite the fact that press accounts by the BBC report that the Examiner, herself, confirmed the facts cited in the allegations.

The site also refers to allegations of witness intimidation and harassment by the University, its senior officials, and its lawyers, Charles Russell Solicitors, with evidence suggesting, among other things, that Sir Peter Scott authorized or was aware of efforts to send threatening letters to Dr Fredrics, his wife and his solicitor in connection with efforts to suppress recorded evidence gathered by Mrs Fredrics that suggested improper conduct by the University's Board of Governors and Vice-Chancellor during an internal University grievance appeal process. According to Court documents published on the site, the University Secretary, Donald Beaton sent a series of threatening and intimidating letters demanding that Dr and Mrs Fredrics turn over all existing copies of the evidence under threat of criminal prosecution and civil penalties.

The complaint to WIPO refers to Dr Fredrics' site as containing 'defamatory' and 'insulting' material, however the University has not filed Court action alleging defamation, copyright or trademark infringement. Dr Fredrics maintains that the material on the site, which is drawn principally from documentary evidence, including audio recordings, published press accounts, court documents, and witness statements, is not defamatory, that it contains 'Fair Use' parodies, and that it represents an effort to present vital information in the public interest.

The complaint by Kingston University represents the opening of a new battlefront in the ongoing war between employers, who want to defend their ability to silence 'rogue' employees, and whistleblowers, who continue to strive to defend their right to expose wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. A decision by WIPO is pending and could result in the forced shut down of the website and seizure of its domain name.

Criminal Behavior

I was targeted at 2 universities in the U.S. as a graduate student: the first time at the university where I was pursuing my PhD in clinical psychology--in this instance, the bullying grew into mobbing; the second time in a research division of a medical department at a university in the same state (near my home), where I was severely targeted by my supervisor, whose data I had planned to use for my dissertation.

The emotional fallout and threat to my workplace reputation was so severe during the second experience, I was forced to choose between my mental health/reputation and the completion of my degree.

I am now ABD (permanently) and am blacklisted at the only university near my home where I can seek employment as a research assistant. As a result, I am working as a low-paid administrative assistant. The years of scholarly work have come to naught, and my career was completely destroyed. And all I did was perform my work at a very high level--so high that apparently, I was a threat to those who supervised me and whom I at first thought would mentor me.

The grief I have felt over my losses (including severe financial losses) has been profound. I hope to someday work to make this type of unacknowledged (in the U.S.) criminal behavior illegal in the states.

Anonymous