The bullying of academics follows a pattern of horrendous, Orwellian elimination rituals, often hidden from the public. Despite the anti-bullying policies (often token), bullying is rife across campuses, and the victims (targets) often pay a heavy price. "Nothing strengthens authority as much as silence." Leonardo da Vinci - "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men [or good women] do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
January 13, 2011
Teachers unhappy with Glendale investigation
The response says that the district's management "has elected to do nothing to support those Glendale staff who have been bullied by Principal (Mickey) Buhl." It also states that some staff members "have been living in fear of Mr. Buhl for 5+ years." In additional comments in the responsde, teachers say that Buhl's behavior towards some staff members "fostered fear and anxiety in the workplace. We finally came forward, even at the risk of exposing ouselves to further vindictive and very hurtful behavior."
I wrote about the release of the report and some background information surrounding the investigation last week, including a link to the full report. The full text of the teachers' response to that report accompanies this story.
In the MTI response, staff members note they were "extremely disappointed with the outcome of the investigation by the attorney retained by the District."
The original report, completed on Nov. 19, was released through an open records request by The Capital Times and others last week, and covered the results of a two-month long investigation by attorney Shana Lewis of local law firm, Ross and Clark. The firm had been hired by the Madison school district to independently assess alleged issues of workplace harassment and bullying by Buhl.
Basically, the Lewis report exonerates Buhl of any formal harassment. But what clearly emerges from detailed comments and interviews in the report, and from the teacher response, is a portrait of a school with a divided staff and a troubled work environment.
Staff members allege they have gotten little to no response regarding their concerns from administration or the Board of Education, but have requested a private meeting with school board members to address what they say are inaccuracies and ommissions in Lewis' report.
"People who were affected (by the report) didn't feel it brought out the full picture of what's been going on at Glendale," said Eve Degen, assistant director of Madison Teachers Inc. in a short phone interview on Monday.
"It's been a very difficult time for the staff at Glendale. This is not something that started two weeks ago, or two months ago or two years ago," she added.
Matt Bell, an attorney for the district, said there would be no comments beyond the release of the report because it has to do with personnel issues.
From: http://host.madison.com
December 16, 2010
Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education - Causes, Consequences, and Management
...While academics have paid little systematic empirical research attention to bullying in academic settings, this has not been the case in several popular online outlets and more traditional trade publications. For example, http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com and www.mobbingportal. com/index.html represent some online destinations. In terms of a respected “industry” publication, the Chronicle of Higher Education has published numerous articles recently on the hostility and mistreatment that occurs on campuses (e.g., Fogg, 2008; Gravois, 2006). This suggests that academic settings are worthy and in need of concerted attention by researchers in workplace aggression and bullying...
...When bullying/mobbing occurs, it tends to be long-standing. McKay et al. (2008) found that 21% of their sample reported bullying that had persisted for more than five years in duration. In our 2008 study, 32% of the overall sample (faculty, staff, administrators, etc.) reported bullying lasting for more than three years. This percentage increased to 49% when we focused on faculty. It may be that academia is a particularly vulnerable setting for such persistent aggression as a result of tenure, which has faculty and some staff in very long-term relationships with one another. Both conflict (Holton, 1998) and aggression (Jawahar, 2002) research note that the longer and more interactive the relationship, the greater the opportunity for conflict and potential for aggression. Further, while ensuring a “job for life,” tenure may also restrict mobility so that once a situation goes bad, there are few options for leaving. Zapf and Gross (2001) observed that the number of actors was linked to the duration of bullying. They found that the more people who joined in the situation, the longer it went on, concluding that it may become increasingly difficult for witnesses/bystanders to remain neutral as bullying proceeds and intensifies...
...While injustice perceptions are common in all work settings, institutions of higher education may present numerous (sometimes unique) opportunities for such perceptions by faculty. For example, student evaluations of instruction are used in many important faculty personnel decisions such as discretionary salary increases, promotions, and reappointment and tenure decisions. Research clearly demonstrates that the content of the course, and “tough” grading, can adversely impact student ratings of teacher performance—leading to stress and frustration (which we discuss below), especially among junior (untenured) faculty. To combat this problem, some faculty may resort to grade inflation as a way of improving their own student evaluations—which, by the way, is often resented by other faculty members. This problem may differ according to academic disciplines and across academic departments. Faculty members are also evaluated using subjective, often ambiguous, criteria, as evident in reviews of scholarly/ intellectual contributions, department- and college-wide service, continuing growth, and community service. Few institutions have clear standards for judging such contributions and, instead, rely on general guidelines or descriptive criteria for making such evaluations. Such judgments often lead to perceptions of distributive injustice, unfair treatment associated with outcomes and procedural injustice, and unfair treatment associated with the decision-making process used to determine those outcomes (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005)...
...Finally, the mechanisms available in higher education institutions may not be appropriately suited for helping faculty deal with these tensions due to their highly formalized structure and limited mandate (Leal, 1995). For example, in the United States and Canada, unions are designed to handle issues between faculty and the administration. They are not set up to handle member-on-member issues. Also, faculty members are less inclined to utilize these formal mechanisms because they take control of the situation out of faculty hands and into those of administration, impinging on the sacred value of autonomy...
Keashly, Loraleigh; Neuman, Joel H.(2010). Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education - Causes, Consequences, and Management. Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p48-70
December 11, 2010
What to do now?
Signed,
Confused and Angry
December 06, 2010
Get serious University of Virginia!
The result at UVa was that nothing was done after the speech. The former President’s office was not engaged in discussions about bullying, and possibly the specific Kevin Morrissey complaints. If something had been in place, Morrissey would not have had to resort to pleading with HR and the other institutional helpers as his phone records indicated was done. HR may be implicated in Morrissey’s death. And the feel-good motivational speaker actually encouraged this negligent employer to believe that it had adequately addressed bullying on campus with a speech alone! Get serious UVa. What will it take to get American employers to stop the carnage within the ranks?
From: http://www.workplacebullying.org
Also: UVa Report after Morrissey suicide – No negatives for boss Genoways
November 28, 2010
November 23, 2010
What price victory? Ten times more than defeat
The University of St Andrews spent more than £200,000 on legal fees successfully defending itself against a claim brought by a former lecturer - around 10 times the amount that it might have expected to pay in compensation had it lost the case.
The claim was lodged by Declan Quigley, who alleged that in 2002 he had been forced out of his job as a lecturer in social anthropology by a culture of bullying in his department.
He lost his claim for constructive dismissal in 2004, as well as a subsequent appeal.
A Freedom of Information request has now revealed that the university spent £204,000 on the case - far more than the lecturer could have expected to win.
Dr Quigley, who now practises alternative medicine in Barcelona, claimed that the university and its principal at the time, Brian Lang, had failed in their duty to protect him from what he said were intolerable working conditions.
However, the tribunal dismissed his case after hearing evidence that Dr Quigley had been determined to leave. He later brought an appeal on various points of law but these were thrown out by the Employment Appeals Tribunal following a hearing in 2006.
A spokeswoman for St Andrews said the university had "no option" but to defend the allegations made by Dr Quigley.
She said: "We have a commitment to act fairly with respect to all employees and to publicly establish the facts, especially where the reputation of an academic department is being attacked. In this instance, that responsibility came at considerable cost.
"We regret the cost. As a default, the university seeks to ensure that all its resources are focused on teaching and research. But in this case we are vindicated by the result."
Dr Quigley said that, had he won the case, the employment tribunal would have been unlikely to award him more than £20,000.
"I would have settled for much less than the £200,000-plus that the university ended up spending on its legal expenses," he said.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Also check: Skorupski's Law
Please help me
Anonymous
November 21, 2010
Abused PhD candidate
Anonymous
November 20, 2010
Disrespectful behaviors at U of I?
In presenting their annual report to the Faculty Council on Tuesday, two ombudsmen said 22 percent of their office’s visitors in 2009-10 came with complaints about disrespectful behavior. That’s up from 17 percent in 2008-09, 12 percent in 2007-08 and 8 percent in 2006-07.
That follows an alarming national trend showing workplaces in general are becoming more disrespectful, with incidents of bullying, yelling, swearing and shunning, staff ombudsman Cynthia Joyce said.
“It is a real concern to us,” she said.
Two years ago, the university office started tracking complaints of bullying, which falls under the category of disrespectful behavior. Explicit complaints about workplace bullying were made by 10 percent of visitors in both 2008-09 and 2009-10.
“The consequences can be very severe ... so we’re worried about that as well,” Joyce said.
Such behavior is a departmental culture issue that must be addressed at the level of each department, said Susan Johnson, the faculty ombudsman.
The office served an all-time high of 517 visitors in 2009-10, a 6 percent increase from the previous year. University staff make up the bulk of the visitors, at 48 percent, followed by 30 percent students and 17 percent faculty.
The increase in visitors could be because of better visibility of the office on campus, along with the belief that early intervention in conflicts is of value, officials said.
The largest area of concern and complaint for all visitor groups to the office stems from a supervisory relationship, such as with a boss or dean — or a faculty member, in the case of students.
The office also is seeing an growing number of situations in which information is posted on Facebook or some other social media site that begins or worsens a conflict. Some people have been fired after inappropriate Facebook postings, Johnson said.
From: http://www.omaha.com
November 17, 2010
Merrigan versus University of Gloucestershire (UK)
Summary
The Business Development Manager at the University was asked by the University’s former Deputy Vice Chancellor, Paul Bowler, to look into the finances in June 2009. He had been hired to put together a financial recovery plan for the university, which is on the Higher Education and Funding Council for England’s “at risk” list.
After Mr Bowler left the university in November, the attitude of senior staff, including the Vice Chancellor, Head of Finance, Dean of the Business School and Director of Marketing within the university changed towards Mrs Merrigan.
She told the Tribunal that they had colluded against her to was move her off the work she was doing - the recovery plan and financial investigation were effectively suspended.
Bristol Employment Tribunal found yesterday (30 September) that the Dean of the Business School, who was implicated in Mrs Merrigan’s disclosures, influenced the University to take action against Mrs Merrigan.
As a result, the Business Development Manager had suffered at the hands of the University for disclosing information on financial problems and she was awarded compensation of £6,000 for injury to feelings.
From: http://www.oldsquare.co.uk
Also:
University of Gloucestershire whistleblower wins case
Gloucestershire University whistleblower wins industrial tribunal
University whistleblower who lifted lid on excessive spending on overseas travel wins tribunal