College faculty members who are bullied or abused by coworkers often feel they must either suffer through it or quit. Soon, however, colleges may be pressed to give them a third option: requesting the intervention of a mediator or arbitrator to try to turn their workplace situation around.
What is unclear is whether such interventions will make life more tolerable for bullies' victims or leave them feeling more beat up than they were before.
Colleges already frequently use various forms of third-party intervention, broadly known as alternative dispute resolution, to try to keep complaints of unlawful discrimination from turning into costly legal battles. Noting that such disputes often involve allegations of bullying or other forms for workplace abuse, two prominent organizations that provide alternative dispute resolution plan in the coming months to undertake a national campaign to urge colleges to use that same approach in handling complaints of mistreatment that do not necessarily violate any civil-rights laws.
The effort is being led by the American Arbitration Association, a nonprofit provider of alternative dispute resolution based in New York, and by the ADR Consortium, which consists of companies and individuals that offer such services. Also involved is the Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations at Loyola University Chicago, which plans to do research on the effectiveness of the approach.
In a paper scheduled for presentation Wednesday at the annual conference of the American Association of University Professors, Lamont E. Stallworth, a professor of human resources and employment relations at the Loyola institute and a founder of the ADR Consortium, and Myrna C. Adams, an organizational consultant who formerly served as Duke University's vice president for institutional equity, argue that alternative dispute resolution offers an "ethical, professional, and cost-effective" way to deal with bullying and other forms of workplace incivility.
By handling bullying complaints confidentially in such a manner, the paper by Mr. Stallworth and Ms. Adams says, colleges can help keep the victims of bullies from developing psychological or health problems as a result of their stress, and can avoid the costs associated with having to replace faculty members who otherwise might quit their jobs in response to the bullying they have experienced or witnessed.
Mr. Stallworth and Ms. Adams acknowledge, however, that they cannot point to any research showing alternative dispute resolution to be an effective means of dealing with bullying. And many experts on bullying argue that what research actually shows is that mediation by some third party is an ineffective means of dealing with bullying, and may even leave the victims worse off.
"There is great consensus about the futility of [alternative dispute resolution] to work with bullying," Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying Institute, said in an e-mail message.
In a September 2009 article in Consulting Psychology Journal, Mr. Namie and Ruth Namie, his wife and partner in running the Workplace Bullying Institute, wrote, "Traditional conflict mediation ignores the targeted worker's need for justice and acknowledgment of the harm" and "focuses only on current and future circumstances, ignoring the past."
"If there is a power imbalance between target and bully, as there often is, mediation can harm the target," they said.
Bully for You
Workplace bullying is a big concern in academe and a source of much misery for some faculty members.
Kenneth Westhues, a professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, has devoted much of his career to studying "mobbing"—the type of bullying that occurs when a bunch of people gang up on someone—and has found academe to be rife with such behavior. Mobbing, he says, occurs most in workplaces where workers have high job security, where there are few objective measures of performance, and where there is frequent tension between loyalty to the institution and loyalty to some higher purpose. Colleges fit that bill.
The AAUP's annual conference this week has three sessions devoted specifically to faculty bullying. In their paper, Mr. Stallworth and Ms. Adams describe how bullying in academe can take forms other than mobbing, including "regulation bullying," where the victim is forced to comply with unnecessary rules; "legal bullying," which involves using legal action to control or punish a person; "pressure bullying," which involves making unreasonable time demands; and "corporate bullying," in which an employer abuses a worker who cannot easily find another job.
They blame three common features of academic environments—big egos, an individualistic ethic, and tolerance for behaviors not accepted elsewhere—for the prevalence of bullying behavior in such settings.
Bullies and Victims
In a paper scheduled to be presented on Thursday, three researchers from Wilkes University, in Pennsylvania, will discuss the results of a survey that asked faculty members in economics and business about bullying behavior. They found that among such academics, men are more likely to be bullies than women, both genders are about equally likely to be victims, and older faculty members are more likely to be bullies and younger ones to be victims.
The most common type of bullying behavior faculty members engage in, the Wilkes researchers found, is discounting another person's accomplishments, followed by turning other people against their victim, or subjecting their victim to public criticism or constant scrutiny.
The researchers—Jennifer Edmonds, associate professor of statistics and operations management; Dean Frear, assistant professor of organizational behavior; and Ellen Raineri, assistant professor of business—caution that their survey had a low response rate. Just 60, or 2.7 percent, of the 2,200 faculty members they contacted via e-mail responded to their questions, they said, and thus their findings may be skewed by sampling bias.
But a 2007 online survey of more than 7,700 adults conducted by Zogby International for the Workplace Bullying Institute similarly found that, among workplaces in general, men and bosses are disproportionately represented among bullies, and women and people in nonsupervisory roles account for a disproportionate share of victims.
Other survey research by the institute has found that only a small fraction of workers who complain about bullying to their employers feel that a fair investigation was conducted, that they were protected from further bullying, and that their bully suffered consequences. The far more common outcome was for the employer to do nothing and for the victims to be retaliated against and eventually lose their jobs.
The institute's 2007 survey found that workplace bullying was four times as prevalent as discriminatory harassment that is prohibited by law. The organization has been urging states to adopt what it calls the Healthy Workplace Bill, a measure that gives workers who have been subjected to an abusive work environment the right to sue their employers. Since 2003, 17 states have considered such legislation, but none has yet passed it into law. The New York Senate passed such a measure last month, but the State Assembly has yet to vote on it. The bill's opponents include many business leaders and the mayor of New York City, Michael R. Bloomberg.
Among the other nations that have passed laws intended to curb workplace bullying are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Quebec adopted such a law, called the Quebec Psychological Harassment Act, in 2004.
Different Perspectives
A key element of the campaign planned by the American Arbitration Association and the ADR Consortium is persuading colleges to adopt anti-bullying policies and codes of civility. That way, although alternative dispute resolution would not be used unless both sides agreed to it, the alleged perpetrator would have an incentive to enter into the resolution process, to avoid facing disciplinary action.
Christine L. Newhall, senior vice president of the American Arbitration Association, said in an interview on Tuesday that many types of dispute resolution could be used in such situations, including fact-finding, binding or nonbinding arbitration, or mediation in which a facilitator tries to bring together both sides. She is confident that well-trained providers of such services can resolve many bullying-related conflicts in academe, just as they settle many other workplace disputes.
"Sometimes the bully does not even know they are a bully," Ms. Newhall said.
Mr. Stallworth is playing a central role in the effort as both a faculty member at the Loyola institute and program director of the ADR Consortium, which he established in 1995. A veteran user of alternative dispute resolution to settle complaints of illegal discrimination, he says he became interested in research on workplace bullying several years ago and has been considering how to apply the expertise of those like him to such conflicts.
If mediation can be used to resolve disputes over equal-employment opportunity, Mr. Stallworth said in an interview this month, "then there is no reason why we cannot structure mediation protocols—or, for that matter, arbitration protocols—to deal with any issues of power imbalance in workplace bullying disputes."
Martin F. Scheinman, a prominent professional arbitrator and mediator who helped set up the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution at Cornell University, said in an interview Tuesday that he similarly sees the potential of alternative dispute resolution to defuse such workplace conflicts in academe, especially in situations where one side may not even be entertaining the perspective of the other.
"When people don't get what they want, they don't say, 'Maybe it has something to do with me,'" Mr. Scheinman said.
Mr. Stallworth said that he and other leaders of the effort plan to invite higher-education associations to join it, and to offer local and regional training to colleges in dealing with bullying and incivility. When problems crop up on campuses, the American Arbitration Association and the ADR Consortium will provide referrals to people affiliated with or trained by them who can provide conflict-resolution services.
The groups involved with the effort plan next year to host a national summit on alternative dispute resolution in Washington. They intend to devote much of the conference to discussions of bullying and incivility at colleges, and plan to invite various higher-education associations to participate.
Dangers Ahead
"I go for anything that works," Mr. Westhues, the mobbing expert at the University of Waterloo, said this month. He cautioned, however, that even the best-intentioned approaches to bullying can backfire. For example, many colleges have been adopting "respectful workplace" or "dignity at work" policies calling for people to be civil to their fellow employees, but he has watched bullies bring frivolous complaints under such policies as just one more means of tormenting their victims.
"From my research, the bottom line that I come to is that there is no substitute in the workplace for adroit, fair management or administration," Mr. Westhues said. If a college embraces alternative dispute resolution but "you have an administration that is basically incompetent or lacks imagination in working out ways for people to live with each other, what you are going to have is an endless series of disputes going to some formal dispute-resolution mechanism."
In an article published in August 2004 in the British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Patricia Ferris, then a doctoral student in industrial organizational psychology at the University of Calgary, studied organizations' responses to bullying and found that "mediation was frequently unsuccessful due to power differentials between the employee and the bully, inexperience on the part of the person conducting the mediation, and lack of understanding of the differences between bullying and interpersonal conflict." In fact, she said, mediation "was the most damaging response to employees" because they often felt betrayed by organizations that did not provide the help they sought, and ended up seeking more psychological counseling, on average, than people who worked for organizations that either did nothing about bullying behavior or had policies against bullying which they rigidly enforced.
Mr. Stallworth argues, however, that there are many types of bullying behavior and many approaches to alternative dispute resolution, and some forms of mediation do not require the two sides to even have any contact with each other. He said he is confident that the approaches he advocates will be effective in a variety of situations involving bullying in academe, and that they are preferable to the choices the victims of faculty bullies now face.
"So many people have dealt with the consequences of being bullied," Mr. Stallworth said. "We all know how terrible it is to be treated in that fashion."
From: http://chronicle.com/
June 02, 2010
Sir Peter's GUARDIAN ANGEL!
Sir Peter's GUARDIAN ANGEL!
The Times Higher Education article announcing Sir Peter's stepping down as Kingston's Vice Chancellor was swamped with very critical comments from readers highlighting his contribution to workplace bullying. I admit they presented a very unflattering image of the man.
As of today (1 June 2010) all these critical comments have been removed from that blog. What was left is a wash out. Does Sir Peter have a guardian angel?
Anonymous
--------------
No, he has expensive legal help that threatens THES with legal action so the latter removed the 'offending' comments and replaced them with the following statement:
The Times Higher Education article announcing Sir Peter's stepping down as Kingston's Vice Chancellor was swamped with very critical comments from readers highlighting his contribution to workplace bullying. I admit they presented a very unflattering image of the man.
As of today (1 June 2010) all these critical comments have been removed from that blog. What was left is a wash out. Does Sir Peter have a guardian angel?
Anonymous
--------------
No, he has expensive legal help that threatens THES with legal action so the latter removed the 'offending' comments and replaced them with the following statement:
- Editor's comment
We welcome free speech but not comments that are libellous, unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable. Any postings of this nature will be removed.
Ann Mroz, Editor
June 01, 2010
When the Boss Feels Inadequate
ABSTRACT
When and why do power holders seek to harm other people? The present research examined the idea that aggression among the powerful is often the result of a threatened ego. Four studies demonstrated that individuals with power become aggressive when they feel incompetent in the domain of power. Regardless of whether power was measured in the workplace (Studies 1 and 4), manipulated via role recall (Study 2), or assigned in the laboratory (Study 3), it was associated with heightened aggression when paired with a lack of self-perceived competence. As hypothesized, this aggression appeared to be driven by ego threat: Aggressiveness was eliminated among participants whose sense of self-worth was boosted (Studies 3 and 4). Taken together, these findings suggest that (a) power paired with self-perceived incompetence leads to aggression, and (b) this aggressive response is driven by feelings of ego defensiveness. Implications for research on power, competence, and aggression are discussed...
CONCLUSION
The present findings highlight the importance of perceiving personal competence when holding a position of power. Power holders who do not feel personally competent are more likely than those who feel competent to lash out against other people. Additionally, the finding that self-worth boosts assuage the aggressive tendencies of such power holders implies the effectiveness of a strategy commonly employed by underlings: excessive flattery. It is both interesting and ironic to note that such flattery, although perhaps affirming to the ego, may contribute to the incompetent power holder’s ultimate demise—by causing the power holder to lose touch with reality.
Full paper at: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~nathanaf/power_incompetence_and_aggresssion.pdf
When and why do power holders seek to harm other people? The present research examined the idea that aggression among the powerful is often the result of a threatened ego. Four studies demonstrated that individuals with power become aggressive when they feel incompetent in the domain of power. Regardless of whether power was measured in the workplace (Studies 1 and 4), manipulated via role recall (Study 2), or assigned in the laboratory (Study 3), it was associated with heightened aggression when paired with a lack of self-perceived competence. As hypothesized, this aggression appeared to be driven by ego threat: Aggressiveness was eliminated among participants whose sense of self-worth was boosted (Studies 3 and 4). Taken together, these findings suggest that (a) power paired with self-perceived incompetence leads to aggression, and (b) this aggressive response is driven by feelings of ego defensiveness. Implications for research on power, competence, and aggression are discussed...
CONCLUSION
The present findings highlight the importance of perceiving personal competence when holding a position of power. Power holders who do not feel personally competent are more likely than those who feel competent to lash out against other people. Additionally, the finding that self-worth boosts assuage the aggressive tendencies of such power holders implies the effectiveness of a strategy commonly employed by underlings: excessive flattery. It is both interesting and ironic to note that such flattery, although perhaps affirming to the ego, may contribute to the incompetent power holder’s ultimate demise—by causing the power holder to lose touch with reality.
Full paper at: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~nathanaf/power_incompetence_and_aggresssion.pdf
It's official: Your bullying boss really is an idiot
Got a bullying boss? Take solace in new research showing that leaders who feel incompetent really do lash out at others to temper their own inferiority.
"Power holders feel they need to be superior and competent. When they don't feel they can show that legitimately, they'll show it by taking people down a notch or two," says Nathanael Fast, a social psychologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who led a series of experiments to explore this effect.
In one, Fast and his colleague Serena Chen, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, asked 90 men and women who had jobs to complete online questionnaires about their aggressive tendencies and perceived competence. The most aggressive of the lot tended to have both high-power jobs and a chip on their shoulder, Fast and Chen found.
To see if a bruised ego can actually cause aggression, the researchers manipulated people's sense of power and self-worth by asking them to write about occasions when they felt either empowered or impotent and then either competent or incompetent. Previous research has suggested that such essays cause a short-term bump or drop in feelings of power and capability, Fast says.
Feel-bad factor
Next, Fast and Chen asked their volunteers to select a punishment to be given to university students for wrong answers in a hypothetical test of learning. Volunteers chose between horn sounds that ranged from 10 decibels to a deafening 130 decibels.
The volunteers who felt the most incompetent and empowered picked the loudest punishments – 71 decibels on average. Workers who felt up to their jobs, selected far quieter punishments, between 55 and 62 decibels, as did those primed to feel incompetent yet powerless.
Flattery seems to temper the aggressive urges of insecure leaders. When Fast and Chen coaxed the egos of these volunteers by praising their leadership skills, their aggressive tendencies all but disappeared. This is proof that leaders are aggressive because of a hurt ego, not simply a threat to their power, Fast says.
This might also explain why leaders of organisations both big and small surround themselves with yes-men and women, he says.
Blind flattery may not be the best solution for the 54 million US citizens estimated to have experienced workplace bullying. But easing leaders into new positions of power, or telling them that it's natural to feel daunted, could prevent future outbursts, says Adam Galinsky, a social psychologist at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management in Evanston, Illinois.
From: http://www.newscientist.com/
"Power holders feel they need to be superior and competent. When they don't feel they can show that legitimately, they'll show it by taking people down a notch or two," says Nathanael Fast, a social psychologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who led a series of experiments to explore this effect.
In one, Fast and his colleague Serena Chen, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, asked 90 men and women who had jobs to complete online questionnaires about their aggressive tendencies and perceived competence. The most aggressive of the lot tended to have both high-power jobs and a chip on their shoulder, Fast and Chen found.
To see if a bruised ego can actually cause aggression, the researchers manipulated people's sense of power and self-worth by asking them to write about occasions when they felt either empowered or impotent and then either competent or incompetent. Previous research has suggested that such essays cause a short-term bump or drop in feelings of power and capability, Fast says.
Feel-bad factor
Next, Fast and Chen asked their volunteers to select a punishment to be given to university students for wrong answers in a hypothetical test of learning. Volunteers chose between horn sounds that ranged from 10 decibels to a deafening 130 decibels.
The volunteers who felt the most incompetent and empowered picked the loudest punishments – 71 decibels on average. Workers who felt up to their jobs, selected far quieter punishments, between 55 and 62 decibels, as did those primed to feel incompetent yet powerless.
Flattery seems to temper the aggressive urges of insecure leaders. When Fast and Chen coaxed the egos of these volunteers by praising their leadership skills, their aggressive tendencies all but disappeared. This is proof that leaders are aggressive because of a hurt ego, not simply a threat to their power, Fast says.
This might also explain why leaders of organisations both big and small surround themselves with yes-men and women, he says.
Blind flattery may not be the best solution for the 54 million US citizens estimated to have experienced workplace bullying. But easing leaders into new positions of power, or telling them that it's natural to feel daunted, could prevent future outbursts, says Adam Galinsky, a social psychologist at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management in Evanston, Illinois.
From: http://www.newscientist.com/
May 29, 2010
Bye, bye, baby bye, bye...
Sir Peter Scott is stepping down as vice-chancellor of Kingston University to take up a post at another institution, it was announced... More info at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Check also: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/
Legal costs of university in St Andrews v Quigley
Dear Mr Quigley,
I refer to your request dated 3 May, 2010 under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 for "How much money did the University of St Andrews spend on legal representation in the case of Dr D Quigley v The University of St Andrews during 2002/3/4/5? I can confirm that the total cost inclusive of VAT was £204,192.36.
Yours sincerely,
June Weir
Freedom of Information Officer
University of St Andrews
------------------
For legal costs involving different universities, check: http://www.academicfoi.com/untoldstories/
One hopes that the new government will try to put an end to this waste of public money.
I refer to your request dated 3 May, 2010 under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 for "How much money did the University of St Andrews spend on legal representation in the case of Dr D Quigley v The University of St Andrews during 2002/3/4/5? I can confirm that the total cost inclusive of VAT was £204,192.36.
Yours sincerely,
June Weir
Freedom of Information Officer
University of St Andrews
------------------
For legal costs involving different universities, check: http://www.academicfoi.com/untoldstories/
One hopes that the new government will try to put an end to this waste of public money.
May 21, 2010
Does this constitute a breach of freedom of expression?
Having had to issue a formal complaint against several members of staff at the University of Ulster for bullying and harassment I had accusations of bullying leveled against me for highlight the clear inefficiencies and inadequacies in the delivery of a final year module on my blog.
I have been instructed by the University that if I do not remove the comments then I will be suspended.
Does this constitute a breach of freedom of expression? I think so!
Check out my blog:
http://jay-bsccomputerscience.blogspot.com/
I have been instructed by the University that if I do not remove the comments then I will be suspended.
Does this constitute a breach of freedom of expression? I think so!
Check out my blog:
http://jay-bsccomputerscience.blogspot.com/
May 13, 2010
Stressed staff can't get no satisfaction
People working in higher education are "dissatisfied with their jobs and careers" and are "stressed at work", according to new research.
Academics from The Open University, the University of Portsmouth and the University of Bedfordshire quizzed more than 2,500 people from four universities for the paper, "The work-related quality of life scale for higher education employees", published by the journal Quality in Higher Education.
Staff were asked questions about job satisfaction, well-being, work-life balance, stress at work, control at work and working conditions using a Work-related Quality of Life (WrQoL) scale devised by Darren Van Laar, a Portsmouth psychologist.
"Overall, higher education employees in the sample are dissatisfied with their jobs and careers, are generally dissatisfied with working conditions and control at work, and report that they are stressed at work," the authors write.
The paper says the WrQoL scale has "psychometric properties" that would be useful to institutions "throughout the UK to evaluate employees' quality of working life".
The authors argue that issues such as career satisfaction, stress and work-life balance must be looked at as a whole.
Increasing well-being would "enhance the delivery of education to students and improve working relationships among work colleagues", they write.
Simon Easton, senior lecturer in psychology at Portsmouth and one of the authors, said: "Studies around the world show work-related stress is widespread in higher education.
"University staff in the UK tend to report that demands are increasing, while support and a sense of having control at work have fallen. Many complain about the rushed pace of work, the lack of respect and esteem, having too much administrative work to do, inadequate support and lack of opportunity for promotion. The psychological stress among university employees appears to be much higher than in other professional groups and the general population."
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Academics from The Open University, the University of Portsmouth and the University of Bedfordshire quizzed more than 2,500 people from four universities for the paper, "The work-related quality of life scale for higher education employees", published by the journal Quality in Higher Education.
Staff were asked questions about job satisfaction, well-being, work-life balance, stress at work, control at work and working conditions using a Work-related Quality of Life (WrQoL) scale devised by Darren Van Laar, a Portsmouth psychologist.
"Overall, higher education employees in the sample are dissatisfied with their jobs and careers, are generally dissatisfied with working conditions and control at work, and report that they are stressed at work," the authors write.
The paper says the WrQoL scale has "psychometric properties" that would be useful to institutions "throughout the UK to evaluate employees' quality of working life".
The authors argue that issues such as career satisfaction, stress and work-life balance must be looked at as a whole.
Increasing well-being would "enhance the delivery of education to students and improve working relationships among work colleagues", they write.
Simon Easton, senior lecturer in psychology at Portsmouth and one of the authors, said: "Studies around the world show work-related stress is widespread in higher education.
"University staff in the UK tend to report that demands are increasing, while support and a sense of having control at work have fallen. Many complain about the rushed pace of work, the lack of respect and esteem, having too much administrative work to do, inadequate support and lack of opportunity for promotion. The psychological stress among university employees appears to be much higher than in other professional groups and the general population."
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
April 27, 2010
Cambridge changes rules to make sackings easier
Proposed changes to an ancient Cambridge University statute may make it easier to sack and silence difficult dons.
Ross Anderson has lost count of the times he has made himself unpopular with ministers and big business in the past 20 years. In March last year, the Cambridge University professor of computer security co-wrote a report that found government databases, including a directory that holds the name, address, date of birth, GP and school of all under-18s, were "almost certainly illegal".
In the last few months, Anderson has published papers proving that criminals can deceive high street banks' chip and pin devices to steal their customers' money.
"If I hadn't had the guaranteed security of tenure I do as an academic at Cambridge, I certainly would have thought twice about criticising the government of the day and powerful institutions," he says.
That is why Anderson is so worried by a proposal to reform one of Cambridge's statutes, which he, and others, say will make it easier for the university to sack and silence difficult dons. The reforms have been proposed by the majority of the university's council, which is headed by the vice-chancellor.
This week and next, just over 4,000 members of Regent House — the dons' parliament which comprises half the university's staff and includes academics, heads of colleges, librarians, curators and administrators – will be asked to vote on the changes. If the reforms are passed, it will mean Regent House will be stripped of its right to approve the names of staff pinpointed for redundancy.
Grounds for the dismissal of academics will be changed too. At the moment, they can only be sacked for "conduct of an immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature, incompatible with the duties of the office or employment". This has hardly changed since the Reformation.
But the wording – thought by some to be "unnecessarily broad" – will be changed, so that academics can be fired if their actions come under "gross misconduct", which includes an "unreasonable refusal to carry out a reasonable instruction".
The changes would mean academics who face a redundancy hearing will be placed on an equal footing with librarians, lab technicians and other non-academic staff who have their cases heard by a tribunal of three people chosen at random by a head of a department at the university. Until now, academics have had the right to have their cases heard by the vice-chancellor and a committee of seven, which acts as a university court of appeal.
The vote will be counted on 7 May and the reforms, if passed, are likely to be incorporated into the university's statutes over the summer.
It is unfortunate timing. Cambridge is having its funds from government cut by 1.9% in real terms from this September, although the university is far less reliant on state funds than many other institutions. Some fear a further £20m cut after the election – 11% of Cambridge's current government subsidy. On top of this, the university's accounts – while healthier than many – revealed a deficit of £19m in November, after a £28m surplus the previous year.
"I am afraid that some people will see this as an easy way to deal with the cuts," says Anderson. "My deep concern is that once tenure goes, the culture will change. We evolved as a bottom-up university, a place driven by the academics. Our administration tries in dozens of little ways to make us more top-down and to replace the culture of academic self-governance with one of managerialism, targets and box-ticking. Giving the managers the power to hire and fire would be a huge step along that road, and must be resisted if Cambridge is to remain great."
The unions are also concerned. The general secretary of University and College Union, Sally Hunt, says: "UCU is strongly encouraging its members at Cambridge to take part in this important ballot, recognising as we do that the very act of exercising a vote on how their university is run has already been eroded at many other institutions. We will resist any attempts at Cambridge, and beyond, to reduce the protection of the rights of academic staff, which is the cornerstone of any university. It is no coincidence that those universities with the highest academic reputations worldwide tend to be those which are the most democratically governed."
Mike Clarke, reader in therapeutic and molecular immunology, is worried that the reforms will be used to weed out academics who "don't toe the party line". "In a university, we need to protect the rights of individuals to fall out of line and speak out against things they are concerned about," he says.
Such anxieties are unnecessary, say those who back the reforms, such as William Brown, professor of industrial relations and master of Darwin College.
There would be no change to academics' security of tenure or any weakening of their freedom of speech, Brown says. "There are no plans to sack academics, although we are having to freeze a regrettable number of posts as they fall vacant, as are all universities. The university is not making it easier to sack academics. Our protections are enviable and envied by most other universities and will continue to be so."
Brown says that at the moment, grievance procedures are "lamentably slow". The new procedures would impose time limits, to stop delays being used as weapons, and would make more use of conciliation to resolve disputes. Grievances take on average a year to resolve at the moment. Academics would also get a right of appeal against disciplinary judgments made by their heads of department.
"Our university's procedures are no longer fully adequate. The absence of effective time limits means that grievances have been slow to resolve. Precisely the same right [on academic freedom] remains enshrined in the statutes," he says
Both sides admit that they can't remember the last time an academic was sacked, but then we are in different territory now. Universities have been asked to make cuts of almost £1bn by 2013.
The knock-on effect is, as a Guardian investigation found in February, that universities across the country are preparing to axe thousands of teaching jobs, close campuses and ditch courses.
Outside Cambridge, institutions are considering using post-graduates rather than professors for teaching and delaying major building projects. Such plans are inevitably being resisted by academics. Just last week, staff at University College London and the University of Westminster voted for strike action over a dispute about funding cuts.
Anderson believes that instead of sacking academics, universities should be encouraging them to pick up the phone and ask businesses for cash to fund PhDs and research.
But for the time being, some Cambridge dons are anxious about the consequences for smaller faculties if these reforms go through. David Abulafia, professor of Mediterranean history, says although his department is large, his biggest fear is for "small departments that might be zealously shaved off the university in the name of financial necessity".
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education
Ross Anderson has lost count of the times he has made himself unpopular with ministers and big business in the past 20 years. In March last year, the Cambridge University professor of computer security co-wrote a report that found government databases, including a directory that holds the name, address, date of birth, GP and school of all under-18s, were "almost certainly illegal".
In the last few months, Anderson has published papers proving that criminals can deceive high street banks' chip and pin devices to steal their customers' money.
"If I hadn't had the guaranteed security of tenure I do as an academic at Cambridge, I certainly would have thought twice about criticising the government of the day and powerful institutions," he says.
That is why Anderson is so worried by a proposal to reform one of Cambridge's statutes, which he, and others, say will make it easier for the university to sack and silence difficult dons. The reforms have been proposed by the majority of the university's council, which is headed by the vice-chancellor.
This week and next, just over 4,000 members of Regent House — the dons' parliament which comprises half the university's staff and includes academics, heads of colleges, librarians, curators and administrators – will be asked to vote on the changes. If the reforms are passed, it will mean Regent House will be stripped of its right to approve the names of staff pinpointed for redundancy.
Grounds for the dismissal of academics will be changed too. At the moment, they can only be sacked for "conduct of an immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature, incompatible with the duties of the office or employment". This has hardly changed since the Reformation.
But the wording – thought by some to be "unnecessarily broad" – will be changed, so that academics can be fired if their actions come under "gross misconduct", which includes an "unreasonable refusal to carry out a reasonable instruction".
The changes would mean academics who face a redundancy hearing will be placed on an equal footing with librarians, lab technicians and other non-academic staff who have their cases heard by a tribunal of three people chosen at random by a head of a department at the university. Until now, academics have had the right to have their cases heard by the vice-chancellor and a committee of seven, which acts as a university court of appeal.
The vote will be counted on 7 May and the reforms, if passed, are likely to be incorporated into the university's statutes over the summer.
It is unfortunate timing. Cambridge is having its funds from government cut by 1.9% in real terms from this September, although the university is far less reliant on state funds than many other institutions. Some fear a further £20m cut after the election – 11% of Cambridge's current government subsidy. On top of this, the university's accounts – while healthier than many – revealed a deficit of £19m in November, after a £28m surplus the previous year.
"I am afraid that some people will see this as an easy way to deal with the cuts," says Anderson. "My deep concern is that once tenure goes, the culture will change. We evolved as a bottom-up university, a place driven by the academics. Our administration tries in dozens of little ways to make us more top-down and to replace the culture of academic self-governance with one of managerialism, targets and box-ticking. Giving the managers the power to hire and fire would be a huge step along that road, and must be resisted if Cambridge is to remain great."
The unions are also concerned. The general secretary of University and College Union, Sally Hunt, says: "UCU is strongly encouraging its members at Cambridge to take part in this important ballot, recognising as we do that the very act of exercising a vote on how their university is run has already been eroded at many other institutions. We will resist any attempts at Cambridge, and beyond, to reduce the protection of the rights of academic staff, which is the cornerstone of any university. It is no coincidence that those universities with the highest academic reputations worldwide tend to be those which are the most democratically governed."
Mike Clarke, reader in therapeutic and molecular immunology, is worried that the reforms will be used to weed out academics who "don't toe the party line". "In a university, we need to protect the rights of individuals to fall out of line and speak out against things they are concerned about," he says.
Such anxieties are unnecessary, say those who back the reforms, such as William Brown, professor of industrial relations and master of Darwin College.
There would be no change to academics' security of tenure or any weakening of their freedom of speech, Brown says. "There are no plans to sack academics, although we are having to freeze a regrettable number of posts as they fall vacant, as are all universities. The university is not making it easier to sack academics. Our protections are enviable and envied by most other universities and will continue to be so."
Brown says that at the moment, grievance procedures are "lamentably slow". The new procedures would impose time limits, to stop delays being used as weapons, and would make more use of conciliation to resolve disputes. Grievances take on average a year to resolve at the moment. Academics would also get a right of appeal against disciplinary judgments made by their heads of department.
"Our university's procedures are no longer fully adequate. The absence of effective time limits means that grievances have been slow to resolve. Precisely the same right [on academic freedom] remains enshrined in the statutes," he says
Both sides admit that they can't remember the last time an academic was sacked, but then we are in different territory now. Universities have been asked to make cuts of almost £1bn by 2013.
The knock-on effect is, as a Guardian investigation found in February, that universities across the country are preparing to axe thousands of teaching jobs, close campuses and ditch courses.
Outside Cambridge, institutions are considering using post-graduates rather than professors for teaching and delaying major building projects. Such plans are inevitably being resisted by academics. Just last week, staff at University College London and the University of Westminster voted for strike action over a dispute about funding cuts.
Anderson believes that instead of sacking academics, universities should be encouraging them to pick up the phone and ask businesses for cash to fund PhDs and research.
But for the time being, some Cambridge dons are anxious about the consequences for smaller faculties if these reforms go through. David Abulafia, professor of Mediterranean history, says although his department is large, his biggest fear is for "small departments that might be zealously shaved off the university in the name of financial necessity".
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education
April 26, 2010
Fresh twist in Fredrics v Scott case
Harassment judgment set aside, but lecturer may still see day in court. An academic’s conviction for harassing his former vice-chancellor via a website has been set aside, meaning that he could face a new trial.
Howard Fredrics, a former senior lecturer of music at Kingston University, was convicted in December 2009 of harassing Sir Peter Scott, Kingston’s vice-chancellor, by posting critical messages on a website the lecturer had set up, www.sirpeterscott.com.
Dr Fredrics was found guilty in his absence by Kingston Magistrates’ Court, having failed to appear for the hearing owing to ill health. A warrant was also issued for his arrest.
Judith Jewell, chairman of the bench, said: “We believe the course of conduct he pursued in setting up this website was intended to harass Sir Peter Scott... he ought to have known that such actions would amount to harassment.”
As well as criticising the vice-chancellor, Dr Fredrics had used the site to expose controversial practices at Kingston.
In 2008, he posted a recording of lecturers pressurising students to inflate their National Student Survey responses. [Check: Kingston University students 'told to lie' to boost rankings - Universities face survey warning]
Dr Fredrics’ barrister, Richard Thomas of Doughty Street Chambers, argued that the lecturer was denied the right to a fair trial with legal representation because the court would not agree to postpone the case until Dr Fredrics was well enough to attend.
He also said that the prosecution was an “unjustified interference” with Dr Fredrics’ right to free expression.
On 23 April, the court set aside both the conviction and the arrest warrant on the grounds that the trial should not have gone ahead without the academic being present.
A directions hearing on 14 May will decide how to proceed with both the harassment charge and an outstanding offence under the Public Order Act, which relates to a chance encounter between Sir Peter and Dr Fredrics in Kingston.
The academic is accused of “threatening behaviour” towards the vice-chancellor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)