Open Letter re Race Discrimination Claim at Manchester Metropolitan University

To: Board of Governors, Vice Chancellor Professor John Brooks and Chancellor Dianne Thompson - Manchester Metropolitan University

We are writing to express our grave concern at the dismissal of Dr Claudius D’Silva, a senior lecturer in Chemistry and Environmental Science, who has worked without blemish for MMU since 1993. We protest against the use of a charge of “gross misconduct” against Dr D’Silva for bringing a race discrimination claim against MMU. We note his case is still ongoing in the employment tribunal.

We urge you to ensure that the University’s disciplinary procedure is not used to undermine the provisions of the Race Relations Act. We urge you to move to restore the good name of MMU in the field of race equality. We also urge the Board to investigate bullying and the use of ‘gross misconduct’ charges against employees at MMU.

We call on the Board to demonstrate MMU’s commitment to fair employment practices and to reinstate Dr D’Silva to his previous position without loss of standing or earnings.

• Sign the petition.

Denis Rancourt

This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like at "Canada's university". Renowned workplace mobbing expert professor Kenneth Westhues concluded in a 2009 written report that the dismissal of full and tenured professor Denis Rancourt was an "administrative mobbing".

Watch the video: http://youtu.be/I0HZDN6xXZ8

Plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University

I would like to submit written evidence on "plagiarism" at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). I have been fighting for years to expose the truth about plagiarism at the University but to no avail. I have recently written to the Rt. Hon Mr John Denham MP, Secretary of State for DIUS and Professor Paul Ramsden, Chief Executive for HEA regarding this issue. I have also formally written to HEFCE and QAA asking for the issue to be thoroughly investigated.

It was made clear to HEFCE and QAA that I am unwilling to disclose the substantive, compelling and indisputable evidence of plagiarism at the University without protection against future litigation. The position of these organisations is that they cannot investigate my revelations without disclosing my identity to the University, nor can they offer me protection against future litigation.

I understand the only available pathway to divulge the truth to the public about plagiarism at the University is through the "Parliament Protection Privilege"...

1. Background information

I am Professor of Applied Physiology and worked at the University till I was summarily dismissed on 3 January 2007. I have contributed significantly to the British Education over the last 30 years in the teaching and research domains. This encompassed academic and administrative commitments including the supervision of several Ph.D. and MSc students to successful completion. I have published more than 200 refereed articles, scientific correspondence items, and meeting abstracts. My capability as a teacher and researcher furnish the grounds for my personal written evidence to IUSS on plagiarism at the University.

2. Competing interest declaration

I declare that I do not have any competing financial interest or otherwise. I aim to expose the truth to the public and clear my name by disclosing the truth about plagiarism at the University... Additional substantial evidence will be submitted on request to prove beyond any reasonable doubts that plagiarism has taken place, widespread and chronic academic impropriety at the University.

3. Plagiarism: the case

As it was advised by committee staff, I sent to the Committee very few course work of the students' plagirised reports. I would be happy to send substantially more plagiarised reports if this is required at this stage. These reports clearly and unambiguously exhibit the following:

— The verbatim copying of another's work within reports without clear identification and acknowledgements. This is defined as plagiarism according to the University's definition.

— That some or all of the students appear to have copied review articles and text books carelessly. Unidentified and unacknowledged quotations from another work are the main feature of the students' course work reports. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.

— That some or all the references at the back of the report are not referred to within the text. This is plagiarism according to the University's definition.

3.1 The majority of students are tempted to lift sections of words from published papers or from textbooks. This is a very serious problem in the University. The students were clearly informed at the beginning of each academic semester and prior to the submission of the course work that this lifting is known as plagiarism and it is a very serious academic offence. Students were also informed when they were handed back their course work reports to reinforce the point.

3.2 The first lecture of each new semester was allocated for an overview of the module syllabuses and the subject of the course work assignment. An over head projector was used to advise the students how to write their assignments and avoid plagiarism in line with the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations. A single printed sheet of A4 under the title "Assignment general and specific comments" was handed to the students at the commencement of the semester. This sheet contained a number of comments defining plagiarism and stating why it was unacceptable. Students were advised to develop their own ideas and arguments and learn how to express themselves. They were informed about the seriousness of plagiarism and how to avoid it...

3.3 Students were also referred to the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C) regarding academic impropriety and that their course work should conform to those regulations. Students were advised to show that they have learnt about and can use other people work. They were taught how to quote and reference to show where they got the material from. Students were clearly informed that, in their assignment, when discussing other people ideas, they should acknowledge where the ideas came from with supporting references.

3.4 Students were advised that they must avoid direct copying from published papers or textbooks as this practice may suggest that they are incapable of using ideas for themselves. Students were also informed not to rely heavily on copying out segments from printed literatures as copying the literatures obscure whether the students understand the topic of the course work. Students, when submitted their course work reports, were required to sign a declaration that all sources consulted have been appropriately acknowledged...

4. Although plagiarism is a very serious academic impropriety as clearly stated in the University's Modular Framework Assessment Regulations (Section D Appendix C), the University management has not taken this issue seriously.

4.1 The University strategies to identify plagiarism were inadequate and the procedures available to combat plagiarism were ineffective. I repeatedly tried to have my concerns about excessive toleration of plagiarism considered by the University. However, I was constantly put off by the University Management. All my complaints were ignored despite a litany of requests for action and no penalties were sanctioned when plagiarism was suspected and detected.

4.2 I had numerous grounds of grievances in relation to plagiarism over the years against colleagues and Management at the University. Most notably in May and December 2003 I have attempted to have my grievances about excessive toleration of plagiarism dealt with and investigated under the University's grievance procedures. This never happened.

4.3 When I suspected and identified plagiarism, the University should have taken my concerns seriously and a thorough investigation should have been conducted promptly in line with the University's regulations. This never happened.

4.4 I was only allowed to down mark the plagiarised assignment by 10%. I was not allowed to sanction more severe penalty or to fail any plagiarised course work during the consultation and moderation processes. Following my suspension, two Managers at the School alleged that they have remarked the assignments and came to the conclusion that no plagiarism had taken place (evidence would be provided on request). The external examiner confirmed the Managers conclusion (evidence would be provided on request)! I viewed this as an unacceptable practice. I believe that the managers at the University in collaboration with the external examiner were trying to cover up plagiarism.

4.5 I raised my concern about plagiarism through the University's procedures but it was then converted into a disciplinary against me with allegations that I had not followed University procedures, which is not true... There has been not the merest hint of actually dealing with the issue of plagiarism and I was stopped from providing the evidence I had gathered (abundant compelling evidence is available on request). This demonstrates, I believe, disregard for professional standards to an extent that should be intolerable in a British University.

4.6 Instead of investigating and determining my concerns of May and December 2003 in respect of plagiarism, managers at the University chose to suspend me on 10 December 2003. I was suspended for an unimaginable long time while the most dilatory "investigation" imaginable was conducted. This is viewed as the worst kind of sharp practice. Then I was accused of gross professional misconduct. The University managers made up false allegations against me to justify "Gross Professional Misconduct". I was eventually dismissed in January 2007 following an investigation and grievance and disciplinary hearing in October 2006. In April 2007 I appealed to the University's Board of Governors against the dismissal, but my appeal was not upheld and the final dismissal decision was conveyed to me in May 2007. The investigation was flawed in design and substance. The grievance and disciplinary and the appeal hearings were discriminatory and I was unfairly dismissed.

5. Through the University College Union (UCU) Legal Services Department, three claims (one in 2005 and two in 2007) were lodged with the Employment Tribunal and 20 days have been allocated for hearing the case commencing 14 January 2008. These complaints were based, among other issues, on protected disclosures in relation to plagiarism and overseas students' bench fees and unfair dismissal.

5.1 The Employment Tribunal hearings to a full trial never took place as I was virtually forced to enter into a compromise agreement with confidentiality clauses attached. The compromise agreement was signed on my behalf by the UCU's Director of the Legal Department as I was in a hysterical state and heavily sedated with medications and utterly refused to sign the compromise agreement.

6. My health disintegrated further as can be established by reference to several medical reports including one by the University's own occupational health doctor.

6.1 My academic career is now completely ruined, my health is ruined and the normal social fabric of my family is in a state of turmoil. The damage to my reputation and to my name and career is immense.

7. Conclusion and Recommendation

I do believe that the unfortunate story of plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University is in the public interest and it is therefore my responsibility to bring the above facts to the IUS Select Committee Attention. The corrupted practices by the University are a threat to the public interest and to the reputation of British Education standard nationally and internationally.

I believe that the allegations about plagiarism presented in this written evidence are very serious and warrants further considerations and investigation by IUSS Select Committee. It is hoped that IUSS Select Committee will consider the following recommendations:

— To investigate plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University.

— To introduce and enforce rules to protect public interest and the reputation of the British Education against plagiarism.

— To introduce rules on personal and collective responsibilities and penalties for those helping to conceal plagiarism at the British Universities.

— To introduce rules to protect individuals from victimisation when exposing to the public academic improprieties.

Professor El-Sayed MS

PS: Additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that plagiarism at the University had occurred, widespread and chronic will be provided on request. Likewise, additional substantial and compelling evidence to prove that the University has not taken the issue of plagiarism seriously and endeavoured to cover it up will be provided on request. The involvement of the external examiner in this issue is relevant and, I believe, warrants special consideration and investigation.

Stop Bullying at University of Newcastle - Australia

We, the undersigned, petition the Ombudsman to instigate an open enquiry into allegations of workplace bullying / harassment at the University of Newcastle, NSW, and concerns about the way senior management have dealt with complaints about such bullying.

In a survey (166 respondents), conducted via the web-site Stop Bullying at University of Newcastle (Oz), the most common effects of bullying were:

• Sleep problems 75.8%,
• Depression 68.9%
• Headaches 46.2%
• Constant tiredness 36.4%

Of major concern is the fact that 24.2% (32 respondents) had suicidal thoughts.

At the University of Newcastle, workplace bullying has become part of a management culture, and policies on workplace bullying are ignored or are ineffectual in dealing with the problem. Unions recommend victims and witnesses of bullying avoid making complaints if they wish to preserve their career. Survey results of bullied victims report:

• 42.8% of respondents were planning to leave the university
• 34.8% were looking for or had found work outside the university
• 27.7% had asked for or already been transferred to another area of the university
• 31 respondents had themselves, or knew of others who had, been given a payout with a gagging clause

Dissatisfaction with the way bullying is dealt with at the University of Newcastle has come under public scrutiny. Significant amounts of tax payers’ money has been used by the University to cover up the serious nature of bullying in this workplace including so called “independent investigations”, paid for and supervised by the University. Survey results indicate:

• Only 4.5% of respondents were satisfied with the outcome of their complaint
• For over half (51.8%), no action was taken by their supervisor or human resources.

Most cases of bullying at the University of Newcastle are directly or indirectly related to the reporting of misconduct. This bullying of “whistleblowers” at the University of Newcastle was previously scrutinized by the NSW Ombudsman who concluded in 2003, that

“Your case suggests this is another area of the University’s culture that may need to be addressed to make clear that whistleblowers –…– are given wholehearted support and encouragement by the university and staff. Any further indication that there may be problems in the handling of whistleblowers will provide A POWERFUL SPUR FOR US TO COMMENCE A FORMAL INVESTIGATION OF THE UNIVERSITY'S CONDUCT IN THIS RESPECT" (Ref: C/2003/7465) (Capitals added)

Therefore, we ask the Ombudsman to act on their statement and commence an independent investigation into the fact that the University of Newcastle fails to provide a safe work environment for staff or students by condoning bullying behaviour and using bullying tactics against staff and students who speak out against inappropriate practices.

We invite you to join our petition for an investigation into workplace bullying and harassment at The University of Newcastle.

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-bullying-at-the-university-of-newcastle-australia

The University of Surrey - Part 1

The University of Surrey has changed my absence records without my consent and without my knowledge and is now refusing to correct them when challenged and when faced with clear evidence, can anyone help me please. I have had two strokes in the past and am unable to fight them.

Anonymous

Swindon College - Part 2

I am very worried by this case. I have worked at Bath and Swindon College, where Dr Butts is (or was) a govenor and Robert Rowe remains Director of HR. The fact that unsupported rumour could lead to an otherwise explempary academic career being ruined in what Justice Denyer castigated as a "slap-dash" manner remains a real threat as long as such make-weights hold power and their "might makes right".

It is out of the question for any of us to start a "Rowe Must Go" campaign. An iron gate would shut between us and management and it would amount to professional suicide. We already live in a climate of fear and cuts...more so now that the College will have to pay compensation for his incompetence.

An example of how he has affected us follows. When I joined Swindon College some years ago a collegue warned me out of the blue not to expect much from the HR Dept, and that advice has come to seem the prevailing feeling in the college ever since.

E.G. 'Focus' groups have been introduced by H.R. to solicit the opinions of teenaged students on how their lecturers are performing. Some of the latter may well hold petulant grudges after being told to turn off their mobile phones or Facebook and get to work, or at having been reprimanded for not completing projects on time, being late, etc. But this never comes into the equation as their comments are used to urgently confront staff with "concerns" as though these were "facts". With no objective assessment, staff are read the complaints and offered the chance to comment without having terms defined as in reasonable discourse. The assumption is that they should not need to defend themselves, as such trivial discord should never occur in a classroom. I was told recently, "You have to ask yourself, What would their parents say?" Well, most sentient parents know that their offspring may well say disparaging things about their tutors out of pique or simply because they can. Just as I can here, without the benefit of cross-questioning. However, these comments will not go onto Mr Rowe or Dr Butts's official record.

It follows that to some this "proceedure" may recall the MacCarthy trials as one is never told who said what in whatever context. The assumption is that staff are culpable if not actually guilty. Justification is that this system is beneficial to all concerned as "its good to talk", but it is actually dangerously absurd and demoralising to staff as the there is no question of an open forum. We are tainted by "loud whispers", and these - considering the slap-dash standards criticised by Justice Denyer - may well be used against us in the future by Mr Rowe and his minions.

As Voltaire said "Those who believe absurdities are likely to commit atrocities", and this is what one fears from Mr Rowe, who has a very unclear and emotive view of 'Safegurding", employng as he does, an ex-social worker who has passionately stated to us in our compulsory training sessions that all press reports of social workers mishandling of clients are myths produced by journalistic hacks! Is this the standard one expects from educationalists?

As for Dr Butts, her handling of the aspects of Bath's Centers of Lifelong Learning led to their being closed before others in the country with very similar demographics. Her committment was undeniable, but passion was no substitute for what was actually needed - vision and management skills. At least she has been "kicked upstairs" , or has she?

Anonymous

MR ROBERT McKIE (Claimant) and SWINDON COLLEGE (Defendant)

...The claimant was born in May 1953 so he is now nearly 58 years of age. His basic specialism is as an art historian. In the 1980s and early 1990s he taught at various educational institutions in Norwich. In 1994 he applied for a job with the defendant, Swindon College. The title of the job was "Contextual Studies Co ordinator". In January 1995, he was appointed to this position. In the years that followed, he was promoted with in the institution and received bonus awards. As is often the way, as he progressed, his work became more managerial and perhaps less classroom focused.

In November 2002, he left the defendants for a job as "programme leader" at Bath City College. On leaving Swindon and in connection with getting the job at Bath City College, he received an excellent reference from the defendants. This reference is set out at page 1 of divider G. It is not, I think, necessary to read all of it. Let me simply read from the middle paragraph (the third paragraph on page 1):

"Rob has continued to show strong leadership skills in his management of the curriculum area. He has also planned the curriculum well, built an effective team and employed resources efficiently. This area had been performing poorly in terms of meeting Key Performance Indicators, Rob has skilfully brought the area a lot closer to those indicators to such an extent that it is now one of the best performing areas. The staff have a high degree of respect for him. This is particularly noteworthy because, his background is not business, leisure and tourism and when he took .... over morale was quite low."

The next paragraph may be of some significance as well:

"[He] has a positive personality. He is not afraid to challenge but in a constructive way. As a senior manager I value this side of [his] character highly. We need challenging constructive managers to get the feedback and ideas we need to move forward as a college. Just as importantly, if Rob has questioned a decision or a direction in which we are moving and the final decision is not what he would agree with, he will take it forward positively with his staff. [He] can be trusted to manage independently but is not afraid to come and ask when he may need further guidance."

...On 5 June 2008, some two or three weeks therefore after he had started work at the University of Bath, an email was sent from Swindon College to the University. It is set out at various places in the bundle but for reference, I will simply refer to divider G at page 28. It is sent from Robert Rowe, Human Resources Manager at Swindon to his equivalent at the University of Bath. It reads as follows (the recipient being Mr Robert Eales):

"Further to our telephone conversation I can confirm to you that we would be unable to accept Rob McKie on our premises or delivering to our students. The reason for this is that we had very real safeguarding concerns for our students and there were serious staff relationship problems during his employment at this College. No formal action was taken against Mr McKie because he had left our employment before this was instigated. understand that similar issues arose at the City of Bath College."

That, as I say, emanates and signed by Robert Rowe, Director of Human Resources, Swindon College.

The evidence that the claimant has produced in respect of his time at Swindon College and to which I have already adverted, would suggest that the contents of that email were largely fallacious and untrue. In spite of that in these proceedings, heard over the last two or three days, the defendants seek to justify its context...

...In summary, the evidence of Mr Hunt in no ways justifies the contents of the email that was sent.

I did not find Dr Lombard to be a particularly helpful witness. He is a chartered psychologist. He tells that he made a report specifically referable to the claimant at the time the claimant was working at Swindon, the inference being that there were sufficient concerns about the claimant, either his teaching methods or his manner of dealing with students that would justify a chartered psychologist looking at the matter and reporting on it. According to him, as I say, he made a report. Sadly, it would seem, that report is now lost. He does not have a copy of it. The defendants do not have a copy of it in the claimant's personnel file. No-one else at Swindon seems to have been aware of it and, I have to say, I find the idea that there was any sort of formal report, critical of the claimant circulating or submitted at a time prior to his leaving Swindon College to be completely and utterly unproven...

Finally, it may be said that is all true, or may be true, but what about causation? The bottom line, say the defendants is this. Bath University sacked the claimant because they, Swindon, would not permit him to enter and that has a superficial attraction. But it totally ignores, in my view, the fact that you cannot simply isolate one sentence in the email from those sentences which surround it. It would be ridiculous, in my view, to say that Bath simply acted on the basis of that line that says he cannot work at Swindon and totally ignore the fact that safeguarding issues were thrown up and, in the climate in which we live now, that is a word of considerable power and the disciplinary action might have been taken against him.

There is simply no way of ignoring the fact that Swindon gave reasons purporting to justify their decision and, as I have indicated, those reasons do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny at all. In other words it is the totality of the email, not just the single line about banning him from the premises, which was the cause of the University of Bath sacking him.

In my view, therefore, applying the Caparo test, mindful that there is no direct authority specifically in point, accepting that this is a slightly different factual situation from Spring, an obviously different factual situation from White , nevertheless I am satisfied damage was foreseeable, the relationship was sufficiently proximate, it is fair, just and reasonable and there is a causal connection between the negligence in and about the sending of the email and the damage whereof the claimant complains.

I therefore find for the claimant on the question of liability.

From: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/469.html

Dr Butt became an OBE in the New Year's Honour's List. Robert Eales is Director of HR Operations at University of Cardiff, Robert Rowe continues as Director of HR at Swindon College, Bill Hunt is now Head of Higher Education at Oxford and Cherwell College and Dr Lombard's company, TIPS continues to provide psychology services to colleges in Wiltshire. The claimant is curently unemployed.

Congratulations Swindon College!

Row after university suspends lecturer who criticised way student was treated

A university has been plunged into a row over academic freedom after suspending a lecturer who criticised its treatment of a student who researched al-Qaida.

Rod Thornton, an expert in counter-insurgency at Nottingham University, was suspended on Wednesday after he accused the university of passing "erroneous evidence" to police and attempting to discredit a student who downloaded an al-Qaida training manual from a US government website.

A member of staff at the university also lobbied successfully for Thornton's article to be taken down from an academic website, arguing that it contained defamatory allegations. The masters student, Rizwaan Sabir, was arrested and detained for six days for downloading the al-Qaida material.

A university administrator was also arrested after Sabir asked him to print the document because the student could not afford the printing fees. Both were later released without charge.

In the paper, Thornton wrote: "Untruth piled on untruth until a point was reached where the Home Office itself farcically came to advertise the case as 'a major Islamist plot' ... Many lessons can be learned from what happened at the University of Nottingham.

"This incident is an indication of the way in which, in the United Kingdom of today, young Muslim men can become so easily tarred with the brush of being 'terrorists'."

Thornton's article was prepared for the British International Studies Association (Bisa), which promotes the study of international relations and held its annual conference in Manchester last week. A leaked email exchange shows that one of Thornton's fellow academics at Nottingham claimed the paper made "clearly defamatory" allegations against individuals.

In an email to colleagues, Professor Theo Farrell, Bisa's vice-chair, writes that the request gets the organisation into the "difficult territory" of ensuring academic freedoms while protecting itself from being sued for libel.

Thornton, a former soldier, told the Guardian he had received a letter from the vice-chancellor telling him he had been suspended because of a "breakdown in working relationships with your colleagues caused by your recent article".

He said: "I'm just saddened by it. I'm criticising my own university but there's a bigger issue in terms of the university's treatment of Rizwaan Sabir. They failed miserably in their duty of care to him."

Sabir, now a PhD student at Strathclyde University, said: "A public inquiry is needed more than ever before into the university's actions."

Referring to the arrests in May 2008, Thornton wrote in his paper that both Sabir and the administrator, Hicham Yezza, were "completely innocent" of any link to terrorism. "They were simply caught up in an extraordinary set of circumstances that might be described as laughable if the consequences had not been quite so severe.

"And, at the heart of their tribulations, there does seem to be something really rather dark; something I would never have believed existed in a modern British university and indeed, within modern British society."

Thornton writes that the al-Qaida manual which led to the arrests is now stocked in the university's library. He says the university's administration notified police but had never given any indication they had carried out "even the simplest of internet checks or ... [sought] either advice or guidance from elsewhere".

A university spokesman said Thornton's article was "highly defamatory" of a number of his colleagues.

"The university rejects utterly the baseless accusations he makes about members of staff. We understand that Bisa has decided to remove the article from its website.

"Academic freedom is a cornerstone of this university and is guaranteed in employment terms under the university's statutes.

"That freedom is the freedom to question, to criticise, to put forward unpopular ideas and views – it is not the freedom to defame your co-workers and attempt to destroy their reputations as honest, fair and reasonable individuals.

"It is important to remember that the original incident, almost three years ago, was triggered by the discovery of an al-Qaida training manual on the computer of an individual who was neither an academic member of staff, nor a student, and in a school where one would not expect to find such material being used for research purposes.

"The university became concerned and decided, after a risk assessment, that those concerns should be conveyed to the police as the appropriate body to investigate."

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

Also: "Terrorism" & Academia Special: Britain's University of Nottingham Claims Another Victim

Negligent (non-)References

The QBD has handed down its decision in McKie v Swindon College, which is authority for the proposition that an employer may be liable to a former employee in tort for damages for negligent misstatement when communicating with a future employer about him.

It is well established, since Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296, that an employee may make such a claim following a reference negligently prepared by an employer. HH Judge Denyer QC extended this principle to a statement made by a former employer which was not a reference.

McKie was an exemplary employee of the College. He received a fine reference when he left. He later joined Bath University. His new job involved contact with his old employer, Swindon College. The new HR Director of Swindon, on behalf of the College, caused an email about Mr McKie to be sent to Bath in damaging terms. On the facts this was "fallacious and untrue" and its preparation "sloppy and slapdash". It cost Mr McKie his job at Bath.

Although this was not a reference case the Court held that a duty of care applied. The claim should succeed because the damage sustained was foreseeable, the relationship was sufficiently proximate, the claim fair, just and reasonable and there was a causal connection between the negligence in and about the sending of the email and the damage claimed.

From: http://danielbarnettemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/

Professorial Rights and the Obligations of Academic Deans

By Jerome A. Popp, Professor Emeritus, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Introduction

The concept of academic freedom, as it has traditionally been conceived, is a general freedom of inquiry inherent within the status of university professor. In the language of freedom, academic freedom is the freedom to investigate and to teach about problems of shared concern, and the freedom from interference in the pursuit of those activities. However, as the term 'academic' suggests, academic freedom is a concept whose meaning cannot be established apart from our understanding of the nature of academic institutions. John Searle's ontological theory of society and institutions has given rise to an extensive literature in contemporary philosophy, social theory and legal scholarship. An important consequence of his thesis is its provision of a basis for a more complete analysis of academic freedom in terms of the specification of the rights, duties, obligations, and protections inherent in the institutional status of professor.

This analysis is timely, given the numerous reports of academic bullying now appearing in the media, because it allows us to understand the nature of the violations of these rights, duties, and obligations. Beyond the identification of the various transgressions involved in the phenomena of professors attacking professors, this analysis suggests that the curtailment of these attacks falls within the duties and obligations of academic deans. It is further suggested how academic deans may detect the presence of such attacks, so that they may address them in an expeditious manner.

Brief Review of Searle's Social Ontology

As Searle says, we live and function in a sea of institutions. To understand the nature of these institutions, including societies themselves, it is necessary to understand three concepts: (i) status functions; (ii) collective intentionality; and (iii) deontic powers. These ideas are also required to fully understand the nature of professorial institutional status. Since some readers may not be familiar with Searle's ontology of institutions, this review includes, where appropriate and helpful, quotations from Searle's 2010 statement of his theory [1].

Status Functions. Institutions such as currency, baseball, police officers, and prime ministers, like all institutions, are created by status functions that are recognized or accepted within the minds of the members of society. Status functions create some status Y for some X (person--senator, activity--baseball, or thing--dollar bill) in a given context C. When the Founders ratified the Constitution, they created the status of, inter alia, president, senator, and representative. In the language of Searle‟s analysis, the Founders created these and other status functions through a “status-function declaration.” We collectively recognize or accept these statuses, because of the legitimacy we give to the Constitution.

Collective Intentionality. In theory of mind, the term “intentionality” refers to intentions, desires, beliefs, attitudes and so forth. The basic concept or foundational idea upon which Searle's theory is built is collective intentionality, that is, the commonly shared intentions, desires, beliefs, etc. that make society possible. Status functions and deontic powers are created by, and exist within, collective intentionality. Searle's account reveals that the collective intentionality that forms society exists prior to society's institutions, including the institutions of government. (Note that this view is a rejection of the old Social Contract Theory that holds that it is governments that create societies.)

In his original 1995 statement [2], Searle holds that collective intentionality is composed of a primitive form of we-intentionality that cannot be reduced to I-intentionality. To understand this thesis, think of a track and field team. The various events in a track meet require quite different intentions, desires, and beliefs. The events of the pole vault, the shot put, and the 100 yard dash, for example, require intentionalities that have little in common. I-intentionality is what is required for individual successes. The members of the team, nevertheless, do share a collective intentionality, because the members of the team share the belief that each participant desires to make a contribution to a team victory. This belief in a shared or common desire creates the team‟s collective intentionality.

Compare the collective intentionality of the track team with that of a theater ensemble. With the exception of handoffs in the relays, the track meet requires no explicit cooperation,which contrasts markedly with the kind of participation required in the presentation of a theatrical totality. Members of the ensemble are required to have in mind the aesthetic totality to which they aspire to create together. Actors who cannot grasp the complexity of the desired totality may not be able to contribute fully to that product. When audiences detect “upstaging” in a player, they are noticing the presence of an I-intentionality, which stands out against the backdrop of we-intentionality present in the other players.

What is the source of the we-intentionality in members of the theatrical ensemble? Each player has an understanding of the aesthetic totality that the ensemble seeks to create for the audience. Moreover, each understands, at least to some minimal degree, the aesthetic whole and their role in the creation of it. Evidence of the presence of the shared knowledge of the aesthetic totality presents itself when the not uncommon anomalies or glitches in performances occur. These are resolved by various creative adjustments by the participants that overcome these difficulties—often so well that only the most informed audiences can detect their repairs.

Deontic Powers. Status functions always carry with them, “without exception,” deontic powers. [3] “That is, they carry rights, duties, requirements, permissions, authorizations, entitlements, and so on.” According to Searle, “the test for whether a noun names an institution is whether under that description the object named has deontic powers.”[4] Searle's favorite example of deontic power is promise making. When we make a promise, we feel an obligation to keep it, that is, to fulfill the conditions of the promise. If we do not keep the promise, we feel badly about it. What makes us want to keep our promises, and feel deficient if we do not, is our recognition of the deontic obligation at the heart of promise making. Young children show their grasp of this deontic force when they ask, “You promise?” Stated differently, children understand the institution of promising, because they grasp that an obligation is being created.

“It is because status functions carry deontic powers that they provide the glue that holds human civilization together.”[5] These deontic powers, which inhere within institutional statuses, may be of two types: positive deontic powers--rights, and negative deontic powers--duties and obligations. [6] It is by means of this account of deontic powers that we transition from the language of academic freedom to academic rights, duties, and obligations.

As Searle says, “once we get clear about their ontological status, the existence of rights is no more mysterious than the existence of money, private property, or friendship.” Moreove… rights, such as property rights and marital rights, are status functions; that is, they are deontic powers deriving from collectively recognized statuses. They are deontic powers that are imposed on people and can function only by collective recognition or acceptance.” [7]

“The important thing to emphasize is that rights are always against somebody.” [8] If X has a given right, then we know that other people have a corresponding obligation. “To have a right is to have those people, against whom you have the right, obligated to you, and the obligations derive from some status you have.” [9] “Because of your position in an institution, whether it is family, private property, citizenship, or membership in anorganization, you have rights, as well as duties and obligations, that are attached to the position you are in.” [10] Searle's analysis of institutions and their concomitant deontologies provides us with a basic and useful framework for understanding the nature of professorial status.

Professorial Status

Recall that the general idea of a status function is that some status Y is imposed, through collective recognition, on X in context C. When Y is professorial status, the status function assigns this status to persons in universities who fulfill the conditions of assignment of that status function. Inherent within the status of professor are positive and negative deontic powers. To understand professorial status is to understand these powers.

Positive deontic powers are negative rights, which are characterized as follows: “X has a negative right against Y to perform act A implies that X has a certain status S, which places Y under an obligation not to interfere with X‟s doing A.” [11] To know if and how this negative right is violated, it is necessary to have a clear specification of A. In the case of the negative deontic powers of professorial status, A is the duties and obligations of professors, which may generally be characterized as follows:

(i) adequately represent to students, at the appropriate level, the methods and content of the academic disciplines taught;
(ii) investigate problems of shared concern by means of the methods and content at the growing edge of one or more academic disciplines, and to make the results of these studies available to students and others who might have interest in these studies;
(iii) make themselves vulnerable to criticism from competent national and international inquirers in the professor‟s field of expertise by presenting their suppositions, evidence, and arguments in various professional meetings and media.

Note that faculty in what are thought of as teaching universities are not excused from the duties and obligations inherent in the negative deontic requirements of their status as professor.

Faculty in teaching universities, qua professors, have an obligation to: (i) teach well, (ii) participate in some fashion in the investigations of significant problems, (iii) maintain a familiarity with the growing edge of their teaching field, and (iv) find ways to have their conclusions, especially those taught in their classes, publicly exposed to adequate criticism. The latter is typically achieved by means of local, statewide, or regional professional meetings or associations. Note that the point is to have a peer review of presentations so that clarifications and omissions can be articulated by competent others in ways not possible in the typical classroom.

Accepting the institutional position of professor is to make an implicit promise to accept the negative deontic powers of the status of professor

Academic Bullying

If professors have the right to investigate problems of shared concern by means of acceptable methodologies, then all other institutional statuses (students, professors, chairpersons, deans, and higher administrators) have the obligation not to inhibit or restrict such legitimate investigations. There are numerous ways in which the right of professors to pursue their duties and obligations can be inhibited, undermined, or restricted. The most heinous of these is the violation of the negative rights of professors by, of all people, other university professors and administrators. While it is frequently emphasized that the status of professor carries with it the right of non-interference, the activities of academic bullies are often conveniently ignored.

While there is now considerable discussion of the damage done to students, faculty, and programs by professors violating the rights of other professors, and neglecting their own obligations, there are no clear attempts to view these cases in terms of an adequate social ontology. Searle's general account of social institutions provides the resources necessary to identify and explain the kinds of institutional failures that allow such professional misconduct to occur.

There are a growing number of accounts of professors and other teachers being subjected to psychological attacks, currently labeled “bullying,” and sometimes “mobbing,” by those studying this phenomenon. From the Internet and other published accounts of professors attacking professors, it is reasonably clear that the gravamen in such attacks is the violation of the attacked professors‟ negative rights. In the case where there is only one professor infringing on the rights of another professor‟s conduct, pursuant to the deontic demands of professorial status, it is typically managed through the more familiar institutional channels or interpersonal devices. What we learn from the reports of bullying is that there are cases where several professors have been involved in these violations. The collection of Ys engaged in an attack on Professor X are known as, in the lexicon of political activity, a power group. Since the goal of such groups is to achieve something against the public good, they are conspiracies.

Why do some professors bully their colleagues? What is the point of creating such a conspiracy? Cui bono? As one writer puts it, what we have is “the envy of excellence.” [12] What activates professors‟ attempts to drive away other professors who are meeting the obligations of their status? Note that it is not the nonperforming professors who are targeted for removal, because there are normal review procedures that can be used to remove them. It is the professors who do satisfy institutional expectations, and thus cannot be removed for cause, whose presence poses a threat to their attackers.

It is not uncommon to find that some professors are fulfilling the duties and obligations of their institutional status, and are highly competitive with their colleagues in publications, recognitions, and rewards. Even if such competitions may at times exceed the norms of scholarly conduct, they do not give rise to academic attacks. It is generally recognized that there are mutual benefits to be realized by working in the presence of other inquirers. Enthusiastic inquiry attracts like-minded people who want to share their ideas with interested others, as the numerous Internet postings by professors verifies.

From what we know from the growing number of accounts of academic attacks, it seems that such attacks are undertaken by professors as a defensive maneuver to conceal their own deontic transgressions. When some professors are not fulfilling their obligations, their derelictions become most obvious to students, their colleagues, and administrators when they are in the presence of professors who are performing in ways appropriate to their status function. Thus, the attackers and their enablers do profit from the conspiracy created, in that when the performing professors are driven to resign, non-fulfillment of the responsibilities of the attackers status becomes less obvious under the new local norms.

Thinking within the context of Searle's social ontology, what is created is an illegitimate, covert institution. It is an institution because it is a social fact created by a limited collective intentionality that identifies a leader by means of an informal status function. It is a covert and illegitimate institution, because the collective intentionality that sustains it are intentions and desires that its members know are incompatible with the nearly universal collective intentionality that creates the professorial status function. The attackers apparently have no sense of failure in violating the deontic powers of a legitimate institutional status.

The deontic content of professorial status places the attacking professors and their enablers in a double bind. That is, if they understand the deontic content of professorial duties and obligations that is inherent within their status, then they are knowingly violating explicit academic principles in ways that are harmful to professors, students, and the institution in which they have status. On the other hand, if they do not have knowledge of the deontic responsibilities they incur as professors, they contravene the conditions of assignment of that status. Not to understand their academic duties and responsibilities is obviously grounds for dismissal. Yet, in some institutions, those who do perform their duties and obligations are targeted for attack by those who do not.

When professors are attacked, they experience cognitive, emotional, and biological consequences. Note that the attacks in question are not cognitive criticisms of a professor's arguments and conclusions. It is the stock and trade of professors to hear, “I disagree with your conclusion” or “Your suppositions are all wrong.” We may have an emotional response, as well as a cognitive one, to these are highly cognitive objections, but the attacks mentioned in the various reports of “bullying” are psychological attacks that are based on a different methodology.

The effectiveness of such psychological attacks is explained by basic biology. When a person is attacked physically or psychologically, there are three alternative responses: fight, flight, or endure and hope to survive. The flight response should be exercised quickly to be effective. To fight back successfully is difficult, as we shall see. To endure the attack is the most biologically costly.

The biological consequences of these attacks are increased blood levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, and epinephrine, which can cause high levels of anxiety. When a person is attacked and cannot take flight, there are significant negative effects on the cognitive and emotional functioning of the targeted person. It is this degrading of cognitive functioning that reduces the attacked professor's ability to fight back effectively. Ineffective efforts encourage the attackers and further reduce the ability of the victims to defend themselves.

Doing emotional and biological harm to others is clearly immoral. Reducing the cognitive function of a professor is an attack on the mind, which, in a university of all places, should be a high crime. The results of the psychological attacks also, of course, have negative consequences for students and society. Unfortunately, Searle misses the point that the effects of words in a sustained attack can be physically harmful. He says that the effects may be, “psychological states of the hearer and not forms of physical damage. I may be annoyed, exasperated, infuriated, or simply hurt by what you say, but all the same, I am not bleeding and no bones are broken.” [13]

However, Macgorine A. Cassell reports that the following consequences are known to result from attacks on teachers: “stress, depression, suicidal thoughts, reduced self-esteem, self blame, phobias, sleep disturbances, digestive problems, musculoskeletal problems, social isolation, family problems, post-traumatic stress disorder.” [14] In some cases, there may actually be internal bleeding. From many accounts of bullying, it is clear that the traumas that lead to serious distress, and worse, are not the result of physical contact, but of language use.

If the public accounts are correct, then not only are the professors who psychologically attack their colleague abusing their status as professors, but they reveal in their publicly observable behavior that they do not respect the deontic nature of the institutional status they enjoy. People who never feel remorse, betray the trust of others, and use others for their own narrow ends, have never internalized the idea of deontic force in human affairs; thus, they are not part of “the glue that holds civilization together,” but are part of its solvent.

Deontic Powers of the Status of Dean

Within universities, there is the familiar institutional status of dean that, as noted, has positive and negative deontic powers within it, which means that there are negative and positive rights as well. As Searle says, We ought never to allow ourselves to speak of human rights unless we are prepared to state (1) whom the right is against, (2) what exactly is the content of their obligations to the right bearer, and (3) exactly why the person against whom the right exists is under those obligations. [15]

If we should be this precise about our assertions of human rights in general, surely we should be as precise in the narrower scope of rights contained within a specific type of institution. In this analysis, we are not concerned with deans as the bearers of rights, but with deans as having obligations with regard to professors who have rights against them.

The deontic aspects of the status functions that create the academic status of deans includes, inter alia, pecuniary duties and obligations, that is, fiduciary responsibilities that redound to tuition fees, endowment funds, and the use of tax monies−in the case of public institutions. Deans and chairpersons have an oversight role with regard to both the protection of negative rights, and the professorial fulfillment of duties and obligations. Deans and presidents should be acutely aware of the positive and negative deontic powers of professorial status, and those constitutive of their own positions.

As we have seen, professors have the negative right of noninterference, and their attackers have the obligation not to violate that right; but when that obligation is ignored, to whom should professors under attack turn for relief? Who in the institution has the obligation to enforce the noninterference of the negative rights of professors? It is, of course, chairpersons and academic deans.

Within this discussion we exclude the chairperson; if a power group exists in any department, the probability is that the chairperson is either a participating member of the power-group, especially if the chairperson is elected by the department, or is a hostage of it. Note that the chairperson is the first person with the status and obligation to report to professors that they are not satisfying their duties and obligations of their status. Since the chairperson may well be under the control of the attackers and their enablers, the focus here is upon the deans, because they are one step removed from the academic units in which the conspiracies exist. However, the following points are applicable to chairpersons as well as deans.

When all is said and done, everyone, in every department of every university knows the names of the good and poor teachers within their unit; everyone knows, consequently, candidates for attack. Why is it that deans do not know this? The best answer seems to have two parts: on the one hand, the creation of a covert and illegitimate group is the product of intelligent, though misguided people, who set out to undermine the function of a university; on the other hand, deans may not be looking for such covert institutions, because of ignorance, or because of the politically messy process of correcting the situation that might require the dismissal of a faculty members for cause. By the time an attacked professor seeks protection from the dean, that dean is already politically behind in the process; nevertheless, the existence (and perhaps tolerance) of such conspiratorial groups of faculty is a failure of a dean's obligations. We know from the reports of attacked professors that this failure of deans does occur.

What are the positive and negative deontic powers that inhere in the status of dean? Given the reports being made public, a major deontic problem in some universities is that no one assumes the responsibility to enforce the noninterference obligation. Professors who attack professors damage the academic institutions that employ them. Those with oversight responsibility who turn their backs on the issue are also enablers of the attacks by the quasi-professors. Who has the obligation to remove or at least curtail the ability of these faculty members to damage the institutions that pay their salaries?

Academic deans might expect that any attacked professor would report the situation to them; however, professors may feel, for several reasons, that such reporting is a redoubtable task. (i) Being attacked, as noted, creates biological changes that, when intense and sustained, lead to panic attacks. Anxiety may be seen as a sign of personal weakness by the professor and by others. Professors want to be seen, in the face of their attacking colleagues, as remaining strong. (ii) The victim may fear that the dean is a member of the power group or at least is a knowing enabler of it. (iii) A professor may fear the actions taken by a sympathetic dean. (iv) A self-respecting professor who has made major presentations to important groups, or who has successfully engaged in high-level professional activities, will not want to have the attackers find that they have been so effective.

It is likely that the percentage of attacks actually reported is low; it is also likely that bullying is going on in many academic units where it is unnoticed and unexpected by deans. Since the functioning power groups will seek to keep their activities stealth, deans should be aware of certain observable indicators of the presence of professors attacking professors. Some of these are, for a given professor: (i) marked reduction in publication and paper presentation; (ii) decrease in teaching quality; (iii) frequent cancelling of classes; (iv)noticeable lack of attendance or participation in meetings; (v) talk of, or planning to leave teaching; and (vi) observing that a professor‟s achievements are conspicuously ignored by the professor's colleagues and department chairperson, while lesser accomplishments are publicly praised.

Given that attackers are most likely to be found in the population of underperforming professors, and given that underperforming professors are often paid as well as or better than performing professors, especially when chairpersons are enablers or worse, it is now time to reexamine employment and retention policies for both professors and deans. It is time that the leadership in universities recognized that a high percentage of nonperforming professors creates a potential pool of enablers who will readily support those who violate the rights of their colleagues, in exchange for their own protection.

If the collective intentionality of a given university holds that the institution is basically a teaching university, and does not consider it an obligation of faculty to expose the content of their teaching to competent national and international critical review, then academic deans should be aware that any professors who do expose themselves to such evaluations are candidates for removal through psychological attacks. It is also the case that professors who are viewed as both well informed and popular are potential targets. Faculty who find they are not popular with students and who may not enjoy teaching are potential attackers of their colleagues who do, as is suggested in the reports of academic bullying.

The focal point for improvement is, of course, the tenure decision. Giving tenure to nonperforming professors suggests that what is dispositive in the process is membership in an illicit collective, and not what is done to fulfill the obligations of professorial status that determines such decisions. Many of the nonperforming professors would be performers if they knew that such membership would not guarantee them tenure. Given the growing number of discussions of attacks on professors and other teachers, we know that students and society deserve better from their educational leadership. If free and energetic inquiry cannot be protected in universities, then can it be protected anywhere?

References

[1] Searle, John R., (2010), Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization, (Oxford University Press).
[2] Searle, John R., (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, (New York: The Free Press), p. 25.
[3] Making the Social World, pp. 8-9.
[4] Ibid., p. 92.
[5] Ibid., p. 9.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p. 176.
[8] Ibid., p. 177.
[9] Ibid., p. 178.
[10] Ibid., p. 179.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Kenneth Westhues, The Envy of Excellence: Administrative Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors, Tribunal for Academic Justice: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005.
[13] Making the Social World, p. 190.
[14] http://www.gimi.us/CLUTE_INSTITUTE/ORLANDO_2010/Article%20450.pdf,p. 5.
[15] Ibid., p. 185.