Two active criminal justice theories

There are two active criminal justice theories in use in the USA .

The due process model focuses on rights of the accused. The Crime Control Model focuses on protection of the innocent.

When the bully “punishes” his target, he is using the second model. The “crime” that the victim commits is not submitting completely to the bully’s every whim and delusion.

Yet the bully is not protecting the innocent; he/she is protecting their own self interest.

In a country that honors freedom, the bully ignores the principles most of us follow and uses intimidation to achieve his/her selfish goals.

We only need the government to enforce the law and prohibit bullies from destroying innocent people.

Anonymous

Making the Star Chamber Work

1. The tribunal should extend its jurisdiction or catchment area however broadly is required to take up the complaint against DR. PITA—whether the incident occurred on campus or off, in his professorial role or outside it.

2. Ideally, DR. PITA should be found guilty of something before he finds out what it is. The Harassment Officer may assist one or more complainants in drawing up a plausible preliminary indictment for subsequent approval by the tribunal as a whole.

3. To enlist DR. PITA’s cooperation in his own undoing, confound the roles of counsellor, prosecutor, and judge. In conversations with an official he believes is being friendly, he may make incriminating statements that can later be held against him.

4. Make sure the victim-accuser is on side. More than one case has been lost, even with many ardent complainants, because the alleged victim did not herself find DR. PITA’s behaviour objectionable.

5. Reward accusers. For lowly undergraduates, the attentions of important university officials may be reward enough. Financial compensation or revision of grades, on account of injuries sustained, may also be considered.

6. Avoid falsifiable statements in the indictment. Vagueness and innuendo are far more effective than charges that lend themselves to being disproven.

7. Once the decision is made to proceed to a formal hearing, move as quickly as possible, showing a sense of great urgency. A hearing that cannot be arranged promptly may not be able to be arranged at all.

8. Ignore DR. PITA’s lawyer, if he has one, and forbid the lawyer’s presence at the hearing. Explain that domestic tribunals of a university proceed by norms of collegiality, and that legalistic, adversarial measures are out of place.

9. If the faculty association or other bodies attempt to intervene on DR. PITA’s behalf, accuse them of trying to exert undue influence. Insist that the tribunal will not bend to the political pressure being applied.

10. Ignore claims that the tribunal is biased against him. Respond as one chair did: “I am satisfied that this committee member has no apprehension of bias.”

11. Disregard evidence in DR. PITA’s favour on substantive grounds. Describe it as irrelevant or not germane to the issues under consideration.

12. Disregard evidence in DR. PITA’s favour on procedural grounds. Say it was submitted at the wrong time, to the wrong official, or in the wrong format.

13. If there is evidence that DR. PITA has discussed the case outside the tribunal (he may admit, for instance, having talked about it with his wife, his dean, or some colleagues), charge him with breach of confidentiality.

14. If DR. PITA speaks his accusers’ names outside the tribunal, charge him with breach of confidentiality and with attempting to damage their reputations and cause them to suffer.

15. If DR. PITA (or his colleague-advisor, if the policy provides for one) objects to the tribunal’s procedures, remind him that this is not a court of law, that collegiality must be insisted upon, and that the tribunal will not entertain editorial comments.

16. Ignore the references to context that DR. PITA is almost sure to make. Explain that the tribunal’s only concern is with this particular incident, not with what may have happened before or after.

17. Find an excuse to make a confidential investigation that may yield additional complaints and is useful in any case for damaging DR. PITA’s reputation. Contact former students, for example, or advertise in the newspaper. In a case against a policeman pita, the tribunal set out to contact each of the 2,047 women he had had something to do with during his eight years on the force.

18. Try to provoke DR. PITA into losing his temper or doing something rash, then make appropriate additional charges. Like most professors, DR. PITA is so proud and vain that the hearing itself will insult and fluster him.

19. In the report at the end, find DR. PITA guilty of something, even if it is not what he was initially charged with. The important thing is to find against him. The precise nature of the finding is of secondary importance.

20. Write a long report, preferably at least ten pages single-spaced. Number sections and paragraphs. Include lots of footnotes. Be vague and repetitive. Include nothing that could be quoted out of context as being in DR. PITA’s favour.

21. Recommend multiple punishments: for example, requirements to make several different apologies, go for counselling, and attend a series of workshops, in addition to a financial penalty.

22. Do not let your animus against DR. PITA show, nor lead you to write things that are obviously untrue. Senior managers will not take kindly to a report so extreme they are obliged to reject it, and may deny you the rewards you will otherwise receive for your service to the university.

23. The report should include innuendo so damaging to DR. PITA that he will not himself release it publicly, however strong his objections. Suggestions of sexual predation or mental unbalance serve well.

24. Do not release the report publicly, lest the tribunal be revealed as a kanagaroo court. After my first ethics hearing, the provost put the report on the Internet. I understand from him that he now regrets that decision.

25. For the same reason, never release audio-tapes of the proceeding, much less a transcript. If this cannot be avoided (in connection with an appeal, for instance), DR. PITA may be allowed to listen to the tapes under administrative supervision, but under no circumstances should he be allowed to walk away with a copy.

A Sample Chapter from Kenneth Westhues, Eliminating Professors: a Guide to the Dismissal Process, Lewiston: NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1998.

Workplace bullies

...Most people do not recognize bullying, but realize that there are problems at work that make it difficult to stay motivated. Unlike assault or harassment, bullying is subtle and may involve hundreds of incidents that appear trivial when viewed out of context and in isolation; so therefore, bystanders can't see or understand the whole picture.

Many people will not speak up, even after they recognize a bully because they lack the moral courage to stand up to one. In an environment where bullying is entrenched, it is regarded as “normal” behavior or part of the culture. Typically, there is a climate of fear and low morale throughout the organization. Those with a feeling of hopelessness will “vote with their feet” by quitting their job or retiring early.

When one does take a stand, the bully will often move into phase two of the bullying process, which is elimination. This tactic tends to keep the people in their place while the bully mounts a covert attack designed to force the victim to resign or create a paper trail that can be used to terminate the individual.

Those who refuse to support the bully are isolated, victimized, have undue constraints or workloads imposed, and are subjected to disciplinary proceedings on trumped-up charges as a prelude to termination...

From: http://www.saipantribune.com

Bureaucrats rule universities

Move over dons, administrators now rule, says v-c

The days of the "donnish dominion" are over and university administration is perhaps the key profession in higher education. This is the view of Sir Peter Scott, vice-chancellor of Kingston University.

At the annual conference of the Association of University Administrators this week, he said that despite being a "pretty mixed bunch" in terms of professional responsibilities, administrators probably had greater claim to being the crux of the university endeavour than academics, vice-chancellors or governors.

He said that he regretted the erosion of the power of the senate, and suggested that the influence wielded by senior academics was now more "executive and managerial" than "academic and collegial". "As for the donnish dominion," he said, "I'm not sure there's much of that left outside Oxford and Cambridge."

Professor Scott said that another potentially powerful group in higher education was governors. Their influence had expanded in the past 20 years, partly as a result of the "worship of the free market", he said. This development coincided with the birth of the "quangocracy", typified by government-linked bodies that viewed universities as "delivery organisations".

But none of these groups had as much claim to the title of the "key profession" in higher education as administrators did, Professor Scott said.

He compared universities to the National Health Service and said that anyone who had been in hospital would know that doctors were not the be-all and end-all of the medical profession - indeed, hospitals would not run at all without administrative staff.

Professor Scott said that a glance across the Atlantic to the US would show how important administrators could be. "In some (US universities), faculty are rather peripheral to the whole process," he said.

Maureen Skinner, chair of the AUA, said "I'm encouraged to hear that we the administrators are not powerless, and I'm particularly encouraged to hear that from a vice-chancellor."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
-----------------
We did not need to hear this from the horse's mouth. None of us had any illusions. Sir Peter Scott can be proud of his achievements... Now you lot, academic luben proletariats, get back to work...

Employment Law Changes, UK: Disciplinary & grievance procedures

...Another big change that will most certainly affect HR’s workload is the abolition of the statutory discipline and grievance procedures for handling workplace disputes. In its place will be the Acas Code of Practice, which offers a broader set of guidelines based around five main principles: Employers should act consistently, carry out any necessary investigations, tell the employee the base of the problem, give them an opportunity to put forward their case, and allow them to be accompanied by a colleague or union member.

However while the principles sound fair, the 'grey area' surrounding the correct procedures has certainly expanded: "It was quite prescriptive before and while it is good news for employers that they are doing away with it, the broader principles give more scope for error if you are not clear," says Rachael Heenan, employment partner at Beachcroft law firm. She believes that training for managers is key to ensuring a smooth transition between the old and new laws.

"The five main principles are things that should be dealt with promptly, and that is always an issue: in your day-to-day work, trying to deal with an internal investigation is not always top of the pile and unless HR has had training or lots of experience to deal with it, things can come unstuck," she reflects. "Although it is meant to be more flexible, the ideas in the Acas code can mean that an employer trying very hard to apply the letter of the law and comply with their obligations can find it harder because there is more flexibility; it gives more scope for arguments," says Balfour.

In addition, she believes the new code of practice, which allows employees a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, which includes bringing in witnesses at disciplinary hearings, will inevitably delay procedures: "It could turn proceedings into even more of a mini court-case," she says.

"Although it is meant to be more flexible, the ideas in the Acas code can mean that an employer trying very hard to apply the letter of the law and comply with their obligations can find it harder."

Anne-Marie Balfour, Speechly Bircham

John Ruddell, an employment law solicitor from Barlow Robbins, agrees: "The desired effect of the old statutory procedure was to get fewer claims but it has not worked – it has resulted in the exact opposite," he explains. "One of the main reasons is that it was quite prescriptive and there was a lot of argument over whether it actually applied in the first instance, which actually resulted in more Tribunal claims. But the purpose of this now is to make it more flexible and to lay down some guidelines, especially how to follow the process," he says.

However, Balfour sounds a note of caution: "Training is really important in the early stages to make sure everyone knows what the differences are this time around and also on the transitional provisions; there will be some grievances and dismissal situations that will span the two regimes, so make sure you know which one to work with," she says...

From: http://www.hrzone.co.uk
-----------
Shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic...

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