WORKPLACE bullying is rife and on the rise at the University of NSW, according to a staff survey.
The vast majority of 552 people responded to the National Tertiary Education Union survey had experienced or witnessed bullying behaviours, the union found. Those included 68 per cent who said they had been bullied, and 83 per cent who had witnessed such behaviour.
Three quarters reported ‘‘someone being treated differently from other colleagues’’, two thirds said they knew of ‘‘arbitrary decision making with negative impacts on someone’’ and also of ‘‘misuse of power against a subordinate’’, while just under half listed ‘‘repeated shouting, swearing or threatening behaviour towards a staff member in public or private’’.
Of most concern, said Sarah Gregson, branch president of the NTEU, was that 70 per cent of respondents said the behaviour had not stopped, which she attributed to a culture of fear.
‘You would hope that universities are full of people who have the freedom to speak out and what we mainly found through this process is people are afraid to speak out. They know that there are an enormous number of ways that they be surreptitiously got at and so they keep their head down and try to do the best they can. It worries me very much that 70 per cent of people say that bullying is still ongoing.’’
One respondent wrote, ‘‘Fear and anxiety drive the lack of reporting and often because of the way bullying behaviour occurs, there isn’t tangible evidence of the behaviour, so it’s risky for the victim.’’
‘A university spokeswoman said there had not been a rise in reported cases.
‘‘Less than 10 complaints of bullying are reported through our complaint handling processes in any given year.
There has been no increase in the number of complaints received over recent years.’’
The report said the union had handled 18 cases of bullying and several of misconduct and performance management containing elements of bullying over the last two years, including one where the university acknowledged the manager was at fault but the victim left. The union acted on that person’s behalf to negotiate a separation agreement, Dr Gregson said.
Two thirds of the complainants were women but there was no question in the survey asking whether the perpetrator was male or female.
Dr Gregson said responses suggested that some of the bullies were women, and she said previous studies had shown that women were as likely as men to be bullies if they were in a position of power.
The NTEU presented the report to the university management this week. It includes recommendations such as the appointment of an independent bullying officer and the inclusion of clauses in enterprise agreements that ‘‘ensure management accountability, through external regulation and enforceable standards’’
There would be no decision about the recommendations until management had time to fully absorb the report, but the university remained committed to providing an equitable workplace, the spokeswoman said.
‘‘Mutual respect and collegiality is identified as a guiding principle for UNSW and any incidences of bullying that are reported are taken very seriously and addressed.’’
From: http://www.smh.com.au
March 05, 2012
March 02, 2012
Bully buster? VQR spurs UVA launch of 'respectful workplace'
A year-and-a-half after the suicide of the Virginia Quarterly Review's managing editor Kevin Morrissey launched a national debate about whether it was the scene of workplace bullying, UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has launched the Respect@UVA program, a comprehensive workplace initiative designed to promote "kindness, dignity and respect."
But one workplace bullying expert thinks the reforms announced February 15 don't go far enough. Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying Institute, contends that bullying should be put in the context of real violence to avoid letting programs like this get "shackled by all its shortcomings."
In addition to educational resources, the UVA program includes a new complaint reporting system designed to allow employees to air grievances without fear of retaliation from their superiors, as well as a commitment to follow up within two business days.
"As president, I will hold myself accountable to the Commitment to a Caring Community," Sullivan says in statement, "and I will expect all leaders at all levels of the University to do the same. We will not tolerate retaliation against an employee who reports an incident."
As the Hook recently revealed, Morrissey expressed frustration about an alleged lack of oversight over his boss, VQR editor Ted Genoways, and reached out several times to UVA officials, including those in the President's office.
"In every instance," Morrissey wrote in one of his leaked emails, "either through advice given or interaction, the onus was placed on me to deal with the issue."
"It's very upsetting for me to have to think about how valiantly and doggedly Kevin struggled to be heard," says Morrissey's sister, Maria, "only to have everyone he spoke to ultimately say there was nothing they could do without the bully's cooperation."
Shortly after taking office in 2010, Sullivan established a Respectful Workplace Task Force, a group of 26 faculty and staff volunteers that, along with Human Resources vice president Susan Carkeek, created the new initiative.
"The task force members believe that to become best in class as a respectful workplace, we will need commitment from everyone working at all levels of the University," said Sullivan.
The program comes down particularly hard on managers, calling on them to serve as "role models of respectful behavior," bans retaliating in anger to complaints, and it even includes a questionnaire for managers to self-examine their management style entitled, "Could you be the bully?"
While Namie thinks the program is a step in the right direction, alleged shortcomings include the softer term "disrespect" to describe what is happening in an abusive workplace.
"Calling the problem what it is– psychological violence, abusive conduct, or bullying– fosters real outrage and systemic solutions," asserts Namie, claiming that while incivility and disrespect can cause stress and health problems, moderate to severe bullying has been linked to abusive conduct, deep despair, and even suicide.
"If they don't get it right the first time,"says Namie, "the program will not be re-visited and revised unless there's an on-campus murder or suicide, with notes left clearly indicating that abusive mistreatment was the root cause."
Maria Morrissey says she was struck by the fact that the program's examples of retaliation don't include abrasive emails or unjustified accusations of bad behavior against whistle-blowers, both of which were alleged aspects of the VQR situation.
"How will UVA deal with the supervisor who prefers to deal in less obvious forms of bullying and retaliation?" asks Morrissey.
She also wonders how the university– which now promises to ferret out bullying "regardless of position or status"– will deal with potentially untouchable supervisors such as big money fundraisers, literary and academic stars, or– in the case of VQR– a boss who formerly answered only to a busy university president.
"'Regardless of position or status' sounds lovely on paper," says Morrissey," but how will that really work in a hierarchy like a university?"
From: http://www.readthehook.com/102877/bully-buster-uva-launches-respectful-workplace-initiative
But one workplace bullying expert thinks the reforms announced February 15 don't go far enough. Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying Institute, contends that bullying should be put in the context of real violence to avoid letting programs like this get "shackled by all its shortcomings."
In addition to educational resources, the UVA program includes a new complaint reporting system designed to allow employees to air grievances without fear of retaliation from their superiors, as well as a commitment to follow up within two business days.
"As president, I will hold myself accountable to the Commitment to a Caring Community," Sullivan says in statement, "and I will expect all leaders at all levels of the University to do the same. We will not tolerate retaliation against an employee who reports an incident."
As the Hook recently revealed, Morrissey expressed frustration about an alleged lack of oversight over his boss, VQR editor Ted Genoways, and reached out several times to UVA officials, including those in the President's office.
"In every instance," Morrissey wrote in one of his leaked emails, "either through advice given or interaction, the onus was placed on me to deal with the issue."
"It's very upsetting for me to have to think about how valiantly and doggedly Kevin struggled to be heard," says Morrissey's sister, Maria, "only to have everyone he spoke to ultimately say there was nothing they could do without the bully's cooperation."
Shortly after taking office in 2010, Sullivan established a Respectful Workplace Task Force, a group of 26 faculty and staff volunteers that, along with Human Resources vice president Susan Carkeek, created the new initiative.
"The task force members believe that to become best in class as a respectful workplace, we will need commitment from everyone working at all levels of the University," said Sullivan.
The program comes down particularly hard on managers, calling on them to serve as "role models of respectful behavior," bans retaliating in anger to complaints, and it even includes a questionnaire for managers to self-examine their management style entitled, "Could you be the bully?"
While Namie thinks the program is a step in the right direction, alleged shortcomings include the softer term "disrespect" to describe what is happening in an abusive workplace.
"Calling the problem what it is– psychological violence, abusive conduct, or bullying– fosters real outrage and systemic solutions," asserts Namie, claiming that while incivility and disrespect can cause stress and health problems, moderate to severe bullying has been linked to abusive conduct, deep despair, and even suicide.
"If they don't get it right the first time,"says Namie, "the program will not be re-visited and revised unless there's an on-campus murder or suicide, with notes left clearly indicating that abusive mistreatment was the root cause."
Maria Morrissey says she was struck by the fact that the program's examples of retaliation don't include abrasive emails or unjustified accusations of bad behavior against whistle-blowers, both of which were alleged aspects of the VQR situation.
"How will UVA deal with the supervisor who prefers to deal in less obvious forms of bullying and retaliation?" asks Morrissey.
She also wonders how the university– which now promises to ferret out bullying "regardless of position or status"– will deal with potentially untouchable supervisors such as big money fundraisers, literary and academic stars, or– in the case of VQR– a boss who formerly answered only to a busy university president.
"'Regardless of position or status' sounds lovely on paper," says Morrissey," but how will that really work in a hierarchy like a university?"
From: http://www.readthehook.com/102877/bully-buster-uva-launches-respectful-workplace-initiative
February 22, 2012
Over 50 University Staff members have sought advice about bullying
Figures obtained by FOI requests show that nearly 20 University staff members have left York in the last five years citing bullying or harassment as one of the reasons.
During the period 2007-2009, York was ranked as the second worst institution for staff members leaving because of bullying or harassment.
The statistics also state that 53 members of staff have sought advice over bullying or harassment at work.
The University has defended their record, stating: “There have been eight investigations over the past two calendar years, or four per year. We would of course prefer if an investigation was never necessary, but given that we have nearly 3,500 staff, this is not a significant number.”
The only institution to have a higher number of staff leave due to bullying or harassment at work during the period 2007-09 was the Open University, where 16 members of staff left compared to 13 at York.
FOIs were sent to 144 institutions and 118 replied with the relevant data, completing the top five were: Northampton with 11 staff members; LSE with eight; and Liverpool John Moores with seven.
Similarly, a University and College Union (UCU) national survey in 2008 asked a random sample of employees in Higher Education and found that 34 per cent of respondents claimed they had been bullied at work in the preceding six months.
The survey also reported that five per cent of respondents said they were aware of ‘now and then’ derogatory comments about them appearing on student websites, while 13 per cent said they had received derogatory, offensive or bullying e-mails from students.
The University defines harassment as including: suggestive sexual remarks, racist insults or jokes, verbal abuse or foul language, unfair allocation of work, exclusion, and unwelcome attention. It advises staff members to contact a Harassment Adviser or senior staff member amongst others.
A spokesperson for the University commented: “We actively encourage staff who are concerned about potential bullying and harassment to seek support from colleagues in HR and Equality & Diversity.
“The fact that a member of staff raises an issue does not necessarily mean that wrongdoing has taken place, and as the figures show, in most cases, the matter can be successfully dealt with informally.”
But the University suggested that comparing institutions on this issue may be difficult: “In general, the way information of this nature is collected and recorded is likely to be different from institution to institution and it is therefore doubtful that the data resulting from the FOI responses can be compared on a like-for-like basis.”
The UCU survey figures also show that 23 per cent of respondents, who had experienced bullying, made an official complaint to their institution.
Sally Hunt, General Secretary of the UCU, addressed the results of the UCU 2008 survey stating: “Bullying at work can take many forms and all of them create stress for the victim. Everybody has the right to expect to work in a safe environment free from bullying.
“Good institutions are ones that are aware of the problem and are proactively trying to tackle it. Poor ones are those who refuse to accept there may be a problem or try to place the blame elsewhere.”
The UCU survey questioned 9,700 of its members about bullying and harassment in the workplace and found that in 19 institutions at least one in 10 respondents said that they were ‘always’ or ‘often’ bullied.
From: http://www.nouse.co.uk
During the period 2007-2009, York was ranked as the second worst institution for staff members leaving because of bullying or harassment.
The statistics also state that 53 members of staff have sought advice over bullying or harassment at work.
The University has defended their record, stating: “There have been eight investigations over the past two calendar years, or four per year. We would of course prefer if an investigation was never necessary, but given that we have nearly 3,500 staff, this is not a significant number.”
The only institution to have a higher number of staff leave due to bullying or harassment at work during the period 2007-09 was the Open University, where 16 members of staff left compared to 13 at York.
FOIs were sent to 144 institutions and 118 replied with the relevant data, completing the top five were: Northampton with 11 staff members; LSE with eight; and Liverpool John Moores with seven.
Similarly, a University and College Union (UCU) national survey in 2008 asked a random sample of employees in Higher Education and found that 34 per cent of respondents claimed they had been bullied at work in the preceding six months.
The survey also reported that five per cent of respondents said they were aware of ‘now and then’ derogatory comments about them appearing on student websites, while 13 per cent said they had received derogatory, offensive or bullying e-mails from students.
The University defines harassment as including: suggestive sexual remarks, racist insults or jokes, verbal abuse or foul language, unfair allocation of work, exclusion, and unwelcome attention. It advises staff members to contact a Harassment Adviser or senior staff member amongst others.
A spokesperson for the University commented: “We actively encourage staff who are concerned about potential bullying and harassment to seek support from colleagues in HR and Equality & Diversity.
“The fact that a member of staff raises an issue does not necessarily mean that wrongdoing has taken place, and as the figures show, in most cases, the matter can be successfully dealt with informally.”
But the University suggested that comparing institutions on this issue may be difficult: “In general, the way information of this nature is collected and recorded is likely to be different from institution to institution and it is therefore doubtful that the data resulting from the FOI responses can be compared on a like-for-like basis.”
The UCU survey figures also show that 23 per cent of respondents, who had experienced bullying, made an official complaint to their institution.
Sally Hunt, General Secretary of the UCU, addressed the results of the UCU 2008 survey stating: “Bullying at work can take many forms and all of them create stress for the victim. Everybody has the right to expect to work in a safe environment free from bullying.
“Good institutions are ones that are aware of the problem and are proactively trying to tackle it. Poor ones are those who refuse to accept there may be a problem or try to place the blame elsewhere.”
The UCU survey questioned 9,700 of its members about bullying and harassment in the workplace and found that in 19 institutions at least one in 10 respondents said that they were ‘always’ or ‘often’ bullied.
From: http://www.nouse.co.uk
February 07, 2012
Carl Baybut
The post below was just removed from the THE website.
I am interrupting the conversation to remind you that two years ago this coming Saturday Carl Baybut - an academic - took his own life. He hanged himself from a tree. Death was in part a release from the working conditions that Carl had had to endure at his university. After hundreds of postings on the thread which exposed Carl's hanging, THE blocked the thread. No explanation has ever been given as to why this action was taken. But it's not difficult to guess what the reasons were. The thread was sometimes used by other academics to share their experiences of alleged workplace bullying. Today on THE references to workplace bullying are routinely removed.
Silence is not the solution.
Anonymous
------------
More info at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
and: http://www.facebook.com
as well as: http://www.thisishampshire.net
I am interrupting the conversation to remind you that two years ago this coming Saturday Carl Baybut - an academic - took his own life. He hanged himself from a tree. Death was in part a release from the working conditions that Carl had had to endure at his university. After hundreds of postings on the thread which exposed Carl's hanging, THE blocked the thread. No explanation has ever been given as to why this action was taken. But it's not difficult to guess what the reasons were. The thread was sometimes used by other academics to share their experiences of alleged workplace bullying. Today on THE references to workplace bullying are routinely removed.
Silence is not the solution.
Anonymous
------------
More info at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
and: http://www.facebook.com
as well as: http://www.thisishampshire.net
Cardiff Business School
Something is going on at the Cardiff Business School but we have no details. The keywords are: workplace bullying allegations and tribunal. Please get in touch with us if you can provide more information.
February 06, 2012
Life is much larger than them
My doctoral adviser recruited me and then dumped me after 5 years. She used my master's thesis to further her career, but knowing the quid-pro-quo situation in grad school, I turned a blind eye towards her blatant stealing of other students' (sometimes undergrads) papers and theses as well as mine.
When the time came, she had to get rid of me because I knew too much about her dirty laundry. She falsified information about me and spread malicious rumors in the dept (and I suspect also to the people in my field). I was suddenly dumped by my entire dissertation committee (later found out that the chair of the dept ordered them to do so) and was basically kicked out of school without any official reason. The school backed her up and didn't even give me a proper graduate school committee hearing. Friends and family urged me to sue the school as well as my adviser, but foolishly wanting to survive academia, I decided not to. I was lucky enough to transfer to another school and finally earned my doctoral degree, but what makes me shudder till this day is the manner in which my adviser manipulated people around her to eliminate me. I later found out that the official reason she gave to the dept chair and faculty was that her high school daughter didn't like me. And based on this, the entire school mobilized in such a manner that can only be described as monstrous bullying.
But at the end of the day, there is a thing called karma. The adviser got rejected by her own daughter later in life, one of my committee members lost their child and another ended up fat and lonely. Looking back, the way they treated me was indicative of how they would treat other people. I don't know what makes certain academics the way they are, but I'm suspecting the long years of bullying they witnessed might have registered in their heads as 'normal'. From where I stand now, it seems like academics are the most pitiful creatures. Nobody would ever know who they are except for each other, but they would literally kill to hang on to that little piece of what they perceive as 'glory'. Life is much larger than them.
Anonymous
When the time came, she had to get rid of me because I knew too much about her dirty laundry. She falsified information about me and spread malicious rumors in the dept (and I suspect also to the people in my field). I was suddenly dumped by my entire dissertation committee (later found out that the chair of the dept ordered them to do so) and was basically kicked out of school without any official reason. The school backed her up and didn't even give me a proper graduate school committee hearing. Friends and family urged me to sue the school as well as my adviser, but foolishly wanting to survive academia, I decided not to. I was lucky enough to transfer to another school and finally earned my doctoral degree, but what makes me shudder till this day is the manner in which my adviser manipulated people around her to eliminate me. I later found out that the official reason she gave to the dept chair and faculty was that her high school daughter didn't like me. And based on this, the entire school mobilized in such a manner that can only be described as monstrous bullying.
But at the end of the day, there is a thing called karma. The adviser got rejected by her own daughter later in life, one of my committee members lost their child and another ended up fat and lonely. Looking back, the way they treated me was indicative of how they would treat other people. I don't know what makes certain academics the way they are, but I'm suspecting the long years of bullying they witnessed might have registered in their heads as 'normal'. From where I stand now, it seems like academics are the most pitiful creatures. Nobody would ever know who they are except for each other, but they would literally kill to hang on to that little piece of what they perceive as 'glory'. Life is much larger than them.
Anonymous
February 05, 2012
University worker claims that she was 'bullied and harassed' into retirement
A university computer assistant who was diagnosed with epilepsy claimed she was “bullied and harassed” by her line manager and pressured into applying for early retirement.
Jennifer Tucker, 61, appeared at a Bury St Edmunds employment tribunal yesterday where she is claiming she suffered age and disability discrimination by her employer St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. Her part-time job was helping deal with computer problems for students and faculty members.
Ms Tucker, of John Clark Court, Cambridge, said she had started taking medication for her epilepsy in January 2010, when she received an appraisal form from her superior Stephanie Clarke. It contained seemingly damning remarks about her work, which had never been raised before.
She said: “I felt frightened, vulnerable and shocked. I had no memory of many things Stephanie was referring to and rather than raise these as untruths, I accepted.”
Ms Tucker, who had a brain operation in 2002 to clip an aneurysm, said in her statement to the tribunal that she took her first degree aged 46 and a post graduate diploma at 40.
She said a series of development meetings which followed her appraisal were oppressive and more like a trial.
She said: “I was being routinely criticised and demeaned, and my views and evidence ignored.
“I believe they used my condition knowingly to intimidate me in the hope that I would leave a job I could and did do well.”
Stephanie Clarke said in a statement to the tribunal that she had difficulty managing Ms Tucker, who was unwilling to accept that there was any shortfall in her performance. She said she had not known of Ms Tucker’s epilepsy until February 2010, although Ms Tucker claimed she told her much earlier.
She said: “The claimant can be rude to me and to other members of the college.”
Jane Stevens, the Master’s secretary, said she was astounded at her line manager’s comments about Ms Tucker. She said: “She was being bullied in the workplace but management refused to believe it or preferred not to accept her well documented complaints.”
The hearing continues.
From: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk
Jennifer Tucker, 61, appeared at a Bury St Edmunds employment tribunal yesterday where she is claiming she suffered age and disability discrimination by her employer St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. Her part-time job was helping deal with computer problems for students and faculty members.
Ms Tucker, of John Clark Court, Cambridge, said she had started taking medication for her epilepsy in January 2010, when she received an appraisal form from her superior Stephanie Clarke. It contained seemingly damning remarks about her work, which had never been raised before.
She said: “I felt frightened, vulnerable and shocked. I had no memory of many things Stephanie was referring to and rather than raise these as untruths, I accepted.”
Ms Tucker, who had a brain operation in 2002 to clip an aneurysm, said in her statement to the tribunal that she took her first degree aged 46 and a post graduate diploma at 40.
She said a series of development meetings which followed her appraisal were oppressive and more like a trial.
She said: “I was being routinely criticised and demeaned, and my views and evidence ignored.
“I believe they used my condition knowingly to intimidate me in the hope that I would leave a job I could and did do well.”
Stephanie Clarke said in a statement to the tribunal that she had difficulty managing Ms Tucker, who was unwilling to accept that there was any shortfall in her performance. She said she had not known of Ms Tucker’s epilepsy until February 2010, although Ms Tucker claimed she told her much earlier.
She said: “The claimant can be rude to me and to other members of the college.”
Jane Stevens, the Master’s secretary, said she was astounded at her line manager’s comments about Ms Tucker. She said: “She was being bullied in the workplace but management refused to believe it or preferred not to accept her well documented complaints.”
The hearing continues.
From: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk
January 28, 2012
Please sign Open Letter to NC Supreme Court re: Ginsberg v. NCSU
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
At North Carolina State University (NCSU), shortly after Dr. Terri Ginsberg made supportive political comments at a screening of a Palestinian film in 2007, she went from being the favored candidate for a tenure-track position to being denied even an interview. Her efforts at redress were summarily rejected by NCSU and two courts. A jury should be permitted to decide whether NCSU's real reason for firing Dr. Ginsberg was its hostility to her political views, but this legal right has been denied. We urge the Supreme Court of North Carolina to review Dr. Ginsberg's case and to reverse the lower courts' decisions to dismiss it. On this basis, faculty at NCSU and elsewhere may finally exercise their legal right to academic speech on the topic of Palestine/Israel and, as such, to their full human rights as scholars, teachers, and intellectuals in the academic community.
To support this request to the NC Supreme Court, we invite academic faculty and students worldwide to sign our Open Letter as an e-petition at this URL:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/open-letter-to-nc-supreme-court-ginsberg-vs-ncsu.html
We expect to submit the Open Letter with all signatures received by February 7, though signatures received later would still be helpful.
You are also encouraged to send your own letter to:
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 2170
Raleigh, NC 27602-2170 USA
Thank you for your support,
British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) http://www.bricup.org.uk/
U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) http://www.usacbi.org
Center for Constitutional Rights http://ccrjustice.org
Jewish Voice for Peace-Westchester http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jewish-Voice-for-Peace-Westchester-Chapter/201574026528540?v=info
WESPAC Foundation http://wespac.org/
Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism (CODZ) http://www.codz.org
At North Carolina State University (NCSU), shortly after Dr. Terri Ginsberg made supportive political comments at a screening of a Palestinian film in 2007, she went from being the favored candidate for a tenure-track position to being denied even an interview. Her efforts at redress were summarily rejected by NCSU and two courts. A jury should be permitted to decide whether NCSU's real reason for firing Dr. Ginsberg was its hostility to her political views, but this legal right has been denied. We urge the Supreme Court of North Carolina to review Dr. Ginsberg's case and to reverse the lower courts' decisions to dismiss it. On this basis, faculty at NCSU and elsewhere may finally exercise their legal right to academic speech on the topic of Palestine/Israel and, as such, to their full human rights as scholars, teachers, and intellectuals in the academic community.
To support this request to the NC Supreme Court, we invite academic faculty and students worldwide to sign our Open Letter as an e-petition at this URL:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/open-letter-to-nc-supreme-court-ginsberg-vs-ncsu.html
We expect to submit the Open Letter with all signatures received by February 7, though signatures received later would still be helpful.
You are also encouraged to send your own letter to:
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 2170
Raleigh, NC 27602-2170 USA
Thank you for your support,
British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) http://www.bricup.org.uk/
U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) http://www.usacbi.org
Center for Constitutional Rights http://ccrjustice.org
Jewish Voice for Peace-Westchester http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jewish-Voice-for-Peace-Westchester-Chapter/201574026528540?v=info
WESPAC Foundation http://wespac.org/
Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism (CODZ) http://www.codz.org
January 21, 2012
What is going on at the London College of Communication?
First there is the article in the Times Higher Education about 16 courses being shut down. The closures include four bachelor's degrees, one master's programme and 11 foundation courses, six of which have "top up" options that allow students to convert them into full honours degrees with an extra year of study.Then the University and College Union plus others called on Professor Kemp to resign.
Now we hear that academic staff are too scared to talk as some of their best colleagues have lost their jobs by daring to voice their opinion. Bullying and intimidation tactics?
Abuse of Phd students
I was a Phd student in the US and went through a similar experience. It is like a hazing process that lasts 4-5 years. Perhaps they were just whipping us into shape, and maybe I learned from it, but at the time it did not feel good, and I'm not sure if it is the most effective learning environment. I witnessed heavy handed punishments for the slightest infractions, abusive and insulting emails and phone calls, mutinies against individuals, and a soviet era style code of silence in the face of this abuse. All faculty and administrators would stick together if a student complained, and there was no authority to report them to. Students would not even talk about the bullying because they were too scared. And there was nowhere to go because we were trapped for 4-5 years, dropping out would have meant wasting all that work it took to get this far, and you need them to graduate and sponsor your thesis, and transferring is not an option. They really do have the upper hand. And the males do seem to get it worse.
By Anonymous on PhD students suffer from bullying supervisors
By Anonymous on PhD students suffer from bullying supervisors
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)