1. “Focus on the situation, issue, or behaviour, not the person.”
2. Replace quasi-judicial campus tribunals with administrative decision-making.
3. Unless evidence compels them, avoid forensic words like allegations and charges.
4. Keep the rules clear, fair, and simple; keep policy and procedure manuals short.
5. In the face of demands that a professor be punished, entertain not just the null hypothesis but the mobbing hypothesis.
6. Seek proximate, specific, depersonalized explanations for why some professor is on the outs, as opposed to distant, general, personal explanations.
7. Encourage mindfulness of all the bases on which academic mobbings occur.
8. Defend free expression and encourage dialogic outlets for it on campus.
9. Keep administration open and loose.
10. Answer internal mail.
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/waterloostrategy.htm#one
July 16, 2012
June 25, 2012
Terri Ginsberg
William Randolph Woodson
Chancellor North Carolina State University
Raleigh North Carolina
Dear Mr. Woodson,
The Seriously Free Speech Committee is a Vancouver (B.C., Canada)-based group mandated to defend freedom of speech specifically in relation to issues of Palestinian rights or the criticism of Israeli policies. We write in support of Dr. Terri Ginsberg, whose credentials for a tenure-track position at NCSU were discounted in 2007-8 because of her expressed or implied political views. We are aware that the university’s legal counsel advised offering Dr. Ginsberg a grievance hearing, but that your predecessor as chancellor, supported by your Board of Governors, denied her this opportunity to seek a remedy.
This miscarriage of justice—devastating for the victim—is especially deplorable in light of the apparent praise given recent “Arab spring” events at the start of your 2011-2012 report (available online). The censorship of principled teachers like Dr. Ginsberg can only be seen as complicity in the continuing oppression of an already oppressed people in the Middle East, the Palestinians, with whom Dr. Ginsberg apparently expressed sympathy.
We are aware that Dr. Ginsberg has sought remediation through the courts. While it is not within our purview to address the court, we urge you to correct your predecessor’s mistake: to grant Dr. Ginsberg the grievance hearing she deserved and to offer her a substantial financial settlement to offset the financial hardship she has suffered as a consequence of the university’s apparent refusal to open itself to the play of ideas that should define higher education.
Even better would be to offer her the tenure- track position for which her department evidently considered her well qualified until the question of her politics arose. This is not the way for any university to establish a sound academic reputation, and we hope that you will see your way clear to set right, as far as it lies in your power, the injustice committed against Dr. Ginsberg.
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Delany for SFSC
Chancellor North Carolina State University
Raleigh North Carolina
Dear Mr. Woodson,
The Seriously Free Speech Committee is a Vancouver (B.C., Canada)-based group mandated to defend freedom of speech specifically in relation to issues of Palestinian rights or the criticism of Israeli policies. We write in support of Dr. Terri Ginsberg, whose credentials for a tenure-track position at NCSU were discounted in 2007-8 because of her expressed or implied political views. We are aware that the university’s legal counsel advised offering Dr. Ginsberg a grievance hearing, but that your predecessor as chancellor, supported by your Board of Governors, denied her this opportunity to seek a remedy.
This miscarriage of justice—devastating for the victim—is especially deplorable in light of the apparent praise given recent “Arab spring” events at the start of your 2011-2012 report (available online). The censorship of principled teachers like Dr. Ginsberg can only be seen as complicity in the continuing oppression of an already oppressed people in the Middle East, the Palestinians, with whom Dr. Ginsberg apparently expressed sympathy.
We are aware that Dr. Ginsberg has sought remediation through the courts. While it is not within our purview to address the court, we urge you to correct your predecessor’s mistake: to grant Dr. Ginsberg the grievance hearing she deserved and to offer her a substantial financial settlement to offset the financial hardship she has suffered as a consequence of the university’s apparent refusal to open itself to the play of ideas that should define higher education.
Even better would be to offer her the tenure- track position for which her department evidently considered her well qualified until the question of her politics arose. This is not the way for any university to establish a sound academic reputation, and we hope that you will see your way clear to set right, as far as it lies in your power, the injustice committed against Dr. Ginsberg.
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Delany for SFSC
June 14, 2012
Recognising and managing stress in academic life
Enter the words "academic stress" into any search engine and most of the articles and resources shared focus on helping students while they are at university. I know full well that higher education can be an assault on the senses, and most students will need help with a whole range of issues at some point, but how much support is there for those who make up the other part of academia, the staff of an institution?
There's evidence that support for academic staff is needed. A 2008 report from the University and College Union (UCU) revealed that most universities were failing to meet the standards for psychosocial working conditions set out by the Health and Safety Executive...
More info and details at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network
June 13, 2012
The Perception of Postgraduate Students With Regard to Workplace Bullying
The main objective of the study includes the analysis of the experiences of postgraduate students regarding workplace bullying. These postgraduate students are employed in various business industries in South Africa. This study highlights the seriousness of workplace bullying. Actions need to be taken by all parties concerned to ensure that workplace bullying is adequately addressed in workplaces through policies and procedures, and by legislation. Until these changes are made, workplace bullying will continue to be a costly problem for employers and employees. An NAQ-R (Negative Act Questionnaire Revised) instrument is designed and employed to evaluate exposure to workplace bullying. The questionnaire elicits personal derogation (humiliation and personal criticism), work-related harassment (withholding of information and having one’s responsibilities removed), social isolation, physical violence, and intimidation and work overload. The research evidences that people do not recognise bullying when they experience it or do not realise when they are being bullied. The behaviour is hidden and trivial criticisms and isolating actions occur behind closed doors. In addition, professional people are too afraid to admit that they are being bullied. Interestingly, they are embarrassed, blame themselves and fear that the phenomenon would escalate.
...The self-righteous bully is a person who cannot accept that they could possibly be in the wrong. They are totally devoid of self-awareness and neither know nor care about the impact of their behaviour on other people. They are always right and others are always wrong. R. Namie and G. Namie (2009) described bullies as individuals who falsely believed they had more power than others did. Bullying seems not connected to gender (Peyton, 2003, p. 39). Peyton (2003) listed the following common characteristics of bullies:
(1) They are quicker to anger and sooner use force than others;
(2) They tend to have little empathy for the problems of the other person in the victim/bully relationship;
(3) They often have been exposed to models of aggressive behaviour themselves and chronically repeat the behaviour;
(4) They inappropriately perceive hostile intent in the actions of others;
(5) They focus on angry thoughts and are revengeful;
(6) They see aggression as the only way to preserve their self-image;
(7) They need to control others through verbal threats and physical actions;
(8) They exercise inconsistent discipline procedures at home;
(9) They perceive physical image as important for maintaining a feeling of power and control;
(10) They suffer physical and emotional abuse at home and have more family problems than usual;
(11) They create resentment and frustration in a peer group;
(12) They exhibit obsessive or rigid actions;
(13) They distort truth and reality and blame other people for errors;
(14) They are charming in public;
(15) They tend to be very insecure people and take credit for other people’s work;
(16) They do not want to hear the other side of the story.
The workplace bullying is a person with a history of aggressive behaviour. Their repetitive behaviour becomes habitual, which grows into a way of life, and in the case of the bully, it becomes the chosen method of relating to other human beings. This behaviour is harmful, destructive and often illegal (Lines, 2008).
...Some 25.6% of the respondents have experienced negative behaviour “now and then”, while 3.2% experienced negative acts of intimidation, rumours and gossiping behind their backs, facing insults and name calling on a weekly basis. Some 26.0% of the respondents have experienced physical and social isolation, prevented access to opportunities, being ignored and excluded, while 2.6% have experienced these negative acts weekly. Another 45.5% of the respondents experienced a threat to their professional status “now and then”, which included the withholding of information that negatively affected their performance, the removing of their responsibilities and to be replaced with unpleasant tasks as well as professional humiliation.
In total, 10.9% of the respondents have experienced these negative behaviours on a weekly basis. Excessive overwork, intimidation and tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines are also negative behaviours experienced by most of the respondents. A third (33.5%) has experienced these negative acts “now and then”, while 6.5% have experienced it weekly. One of the worst negative behaviours of workplace bullying is physical violence which involves being shouted at, or being the target of spontaneous anger or rage. Some 21.3% of the respondents have experienced this behaviour “now and then”, while 0.6% has experienced it on a weekly basis.
One can perceive through the research done in the empirical study that people do not recognise bullying when they experience it or realise when they are being bullied as the behaviour is covert and trivial criticisms and isolating actions occur behind closed doors. What one person may consider to be bullying, another may not and this makes the management of the problem difficult. Bullying and harassment cases are not clear-cut and sometimes people are unsure whether the way they are being treated is acceptable or not. Another problem identified through research done is that many highly professional people are too afraid to admit to anyone outside or even to themselves that they are being bullied. They are too embarrassed and afraid that it would escalate or that it might even be their fault...
C. J. Botha, I. M. Herbst, A. Buys, Journal of US-China Public Administration, ISSN 1548-6591, October 2011, Vol. 8, No. 10, 1173-1195
...The self-righteous bully is a person who cannot accept that they could possibly be in the wrong. They are totally devoid of self-awareness and neither know nor care about the impact of their behaviour on other people. They are always right and others are always wrong. R. Namie and G. Namie (2009) described bullies as individuals who falsely believed they had more power than others did. Bullying seems not connected to gender (Peyton, 2003, p. 39). Peyton (2003) listed the following common characteristics of bullies:
(1) They are quicker to anger and sooner use force than others;
(2) They tend to have little empathy for the problems of the other person in the victim/bully relationship;
(3) They often have been exposed to models of aggressive behaviour themselves and chronically repeat the behaviour;
(4) They inappropriately perceive hostile intent in the actions of others;
(5) They focus on angry thoughts and are revengeful;
(6) They see aggression as the only way to preserve their self-image;
(7) They need to control others through verbal threats and physical actions;
(8) They exercise inconsistent discipline procedures at home;
(9) They perceive physical image as important for maintaining a feeling of power and control;
(10) They suffer physical and emotional abuse at home and have more family problems than usual;
(11) They create resentment and frustration in a peer group;
(12) They exhibit obsessive or rigid actions;
(13) They distort truth and reality and blame other people for errors;
(14) They are charming in public;
(15) They tend to be very insecure people and take credit for other people’s work;
(16) They do not want to hear the other side of the story.
The workplace bullying is a person with a history of aggressive behaviour. Their repetitive behaviour becomes habitual, which grows into a way of life, and in the case of the bully, it becomes the chosen method of relating to other human beings. This behaviour is harmful, destructive and often illegal (Lines, 2008).
...Some 25.6% of the respondents have experienced negative behaviour “now and then”, while 3.2% experienced negative acts of intimidation, rumours and gossiping behind their backs, facing insults and name calling on a weekly basis. Some 26.0% of the respondents have experienced physical and social isolation, prevented access to opportunities, being ignored and excluded, while 2.6% have experienced these negative acts weekly. Another 45.5% of the respondents experienced a threat to their professional status “now and then”, which included the withholding of information that negatively affected their performance, the removing of their responsibilities and to be replaced with unpleasant tasks as well as professional humiliation.
In total, 10.9% of the respondents have experienced these negative behaviours on a weekly basis. Excessive overwork, intimidation and tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines are also negative behaviours experienced by most of the respondents. A third (33.5%) has experienced these negative acts “now and then”, while 6.5% have experienced it weekly. One of the worst negative behaviours of workplace bullying is physical violence which involves being shouted at, or being the target of spontaneous anger or rage. Some 21.3% of the respondents have experienced this behaviour “now and then”, while 0.6% has experienced it on a weekly basis.
One can perceive through the research done in the empirical study that people do not recognise bullying when they experience it or realise when they are being bullied as the behaviour is covert and trivial criticisms and isolating actions occur behind closed doors. What one person may consider to be bullying, another may not and this makes the management of the problem difficult. Bullying and harassment cases are not clear-cut and sometimes people are unsure whether the way they are being treated is acceptable or not. Another problem identified through research done is that many highly professional people are too afraid to admit to anyone outside or even to themselves that they are being bullied. They are too embarrassed and afraid that it would escalate or that it might even be their fault...
C. J. Botha, I. M. Herbst, A. Buys, Journal of US-China Public Administration, ISSN 1548-6591, October 2011, Vol. 8, No. 10, 1173-1195
May 20, 2012
Queen Mary: nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
Three timely Offline columns by Richard Horton describe a mindless managerial rampage spreading through Queen Mary University of London, UK. Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, has declared distinguished medical researchers to be at risk of redundancy.
Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences now follows suit. As we write, colleagues declared to be “at risk” just 2 weeks ago are summoned individually to closed audiences with the Head of School, attended by members of the ironically named “Human Resources” (HR) department. If targeted individuals fail to appease the inquisitor, they will be sacked. Other staff members are earmarked for demotion, with replacement “Teaching and Scholarship” contracts that will oblige them to desist from independent research.
But, one might ask, is it not high time to weed out slackers? It might help if one had any way of knowing who they are. Sadly, the “restructuring” hits exactly the wrong targets in many cases, and leaves unproductive academics unscathed. The reason is simple—the Head of School and HR have neither interest in, nor understanding of, individuals' research, still less their research potential. This slaughter of the talented relies entirely on a carefully designed set of retrospective counts of the uncountable. These are labelled research “metrics”.
Are we engaged in special pleading here? Actually, no. Our school has a reputation, envied worldwide, for research by individuals now for the chop. Their retrospective crimes, committed between 2008 and 2011, include too few publications as a “significant” author in high-impact journals, below-average external funding, and failure to meet metrics for allocation of PhD studentships. Where the baseline of research income derived from the Higher Education Funding Council for England has disappeared, no-one seems to know.
So, we are looking at the end of the road for unique and internationally leading-edge Queen Mary research. Among many outstanding projects we stand to lose are: sociogenomics of mole rats, the only eusocial mammals, and a model, incidentally, for the endocrinology of bullying; genetics of circadian rhythms and iron homoeostasis from experiments on fruit-flies; imaging of neural activity in zebrafish—a paradigm for vertebrate development; and heterogeneous catalytic oxidation and carbon—carbon coupling in inorganic chemical synthesis. The list is long.
Alas, there are no boxes to tick for advances in knowledge and understanding—no metrics for science itself. Over in the Medical and Dental School, the grand inquisitor is identified as the Dean for Research, whose own research credentials are, naturally, unavailable for scrutiny. Never mind, we now have the assurance from his colleague that “Each and every faculty member of the college was assessed in this process and from my own personal point of view it was done fairly…”
Who needs evidence in the face of such assurance? “Consequently, to pick him out for criticism in this disgraceful manner is quite iniquitous”. Yet the Dean managed to pick out others—for oblivion, not just criticism. And he got it wrong. The same double standard follows, now, in our School of Biological and Chemical Sciences. For example, one of the “metrics” for research output at professorial level is to have published at least two papers in journals with impact factors of 7 or more. This is ludicrous, of course—a triumph of vanity as sensible as selecting athletes on the basis of their brand of track suit.
But let us follow this “metric” for a moment. How does the Head of School fair? Zero, actually. He fails. Just consult Web of Science. Take care though, the result is classified information. HR's “data” are marked Private and Confidential.
Some things must be believed. To question them is heresy. We hope to report back on our Head's one-to-one interview with himself. After all, we have his word, and that of College senior management, that the restructuring is proceeding with complete fairness and transparency. Perhaps he'll use a mirror?
From: http://www.thelancet.com
Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences now follows suit. As we write, colleagues declared to be “at risk” just 2 weeks ago are summoned individually to closed audiences with the Head of School, attended by members of the ironically named “Human Resources” (HR) department. If targeted individuals fail to appease the inquisitor, they will be sacked. Other staff members are earmarked for demotion, with replacement “Teaching and Scholarship” contracts that will oblige them to desist from independent research.
But, one might ask, is it not high time to weed out slackers? It might help if one had any way of knowing who they are. Sadly, the “restructuring” hits exactly the wrong targets in many cases, and leaves unproductive academics unscathed. The reason is simple—the Head of School and HR have neither interest in, nor understanding of, individuals' research, still less their research potential. This slaughter of the talented relies entirely on a carefully designed set of retrospective counts of the uncountable. These are labelled research “metrics”.
Are we engaged in special pleading here? Actually, no. Our school has a reputation, envied worldwide, for research by individuals now for the chop. Their retrospective crimes, committed between 2008 and 2011, include too few publications as a “significant” author in high-impact journals, below-average external funding, and failure to meet metrics for allocation of PhD studentships. Where the baseline of research income derived from the Higher Education Funding Council for England has disappeared, no-one seems to know.
So, we are looking at the end of the road for unique and internationally leading-edge Queen Mary research. Among many outstanding projects we stand to lose are: sociogenomics of mole rats, the only eusocial mammals, and a model, incidentally, for the endocrinology of bullying; genetics of circadian rhythms and iron homoeostasis from experiments on fruit-flies; imaging of neural activity in zebrafish—a paradigm for vertebrate development; and heterogeneous catalytic oxidation and carbon—carbon coupling in inorganic chemical synthesis. The list is long.
Alas, there are no boxes to tick for advances in knowledge and understanding—no metrics for science itself. Over in the Medical and Dental School, the grand inquisitor is identified as the Dean for Research, whose own research credentials are, naturally, unavailable for scrutiny. Never mind, we now have the assurance from his colleague that “Each and every faculty member of the college was assessed in this process and from my own personal point of view it was done fairly…”
Who needs evidence in the face of such assurance? “Consequently, to pick him out for criticism in this disgraceful manner is quite iniquitous”. Yet the Dean managed to pick out others—for oblivion, not just criticism. And he got it wrong. The same double standard follows, now, in our School of Biological and Chemical Sciences. For example, one of the “metrics” for research output at professorial level is to have published at least two papers in journals with impact factors of 7 or more. This is ludicrous, of course—a triumph of vanity as sensible as selecting athletes on the basis of their brand of track suit.
But let us follow this “metric” for a moment. How does the Head of School fair? Zero, actually. He fails. Just consult Web of Science. Take care though, the result is classified information. HR's “data” are marked Private and Confidential.
Some things must be believed. To question them is heresy. We hope to report back on our Head's one-to-one interview with himself. After all, we have his word, and that of College senior management, that the restructuring is proceeding with complete fairness and transparency. Perhaps he'll use a mirror?
From: http://www.thelancet.com
May 17, 2012
Dismissal threat for metrics letter
Queen Mary, University of London has warned one of its academics that he faces an investigation that potentially could lead to dismissal, after he wrote a letter criticising its metrics-based redundancy programme and two senior managers.
Fanis Missirlis, a lecturer in cell biology, and a colleague put their names to a letter to The Lancet that was published online on 4 May. On 14 May, Dr Missirlis received a letter from a human resources officer at Queen Mary telling him that the college had "decided to commence a fact-finding investigation" into an allegation that in publishing the letter he "sought to bring the Head of School of Biological and Chemical Sciences (Matthew Evans) and the Dean for Research in the School of Medicine and Dentistry (Thomas MacDonald) into disrepute". If the allegations proceed to a full disciplinary hearing and are substantiated, they may constitute misconduct, the letter says, or even gross misconduct, "which could lead to dismissal".
Queen Mary's disciplinary code says managers will "investigate thoroughly any allegations of misconduct that come to their attention and decide if formal action is needed". The restructuring programmes in the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences and the School of Medicine and Dentistry - which are using metrics intended to measure research performance to select candidates for redundancy - have provoked concern among academics at Queen Mary.
In the letter to The Lancet, Dr Missirlis - who has also written a letter to Times Higher Education on the subject - says the "retrospective crimes" of those selected for redundancy, "committed between 2008 and 2011, include too few publications as a 'significant' author in high-impact journals, below-average external funding, and failure to meet metrics for allocation of PhD studentships". He refers to the dean of research in the School of Medicine and Dentistry as the "grand inquisitor" in that school and says the dean's own research credentials "are, naturally, unavailable for scrutiny".
In the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Dr Missirlis says, "one of the 'metrics' for research output at professorial level is to have published at least two papers in journals with impact factors of 7 or more". He asks how the head of the school would fare on that basis.
Chris Pearson, director of human resources at Queen Mary, said: "Colleagues are free to publicly discuss their concerns over restructuring, and we have encouraged discussion and feedback ... We never discuss or comment on individual cases of staff who may or may not be involved in disciplinary matters."
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Fanis Missirlis, a lecturer in cell biology, and a colleague put their names to a letter to The Lancet that was published online on 4 May. On 14 May, Dr Missirlis received a letter from a human resources officer at Queen Mary telling him that the college had "decided to commence a fact-finding investigation" into an allegation that in publishing the letter he "sought to bring the Head of School of Biological and Chemical Sciences (Matthew Evans) and the Dean for Research in the School of Medicine and Dentistry (Thomas MacDonald) into disrepute". If the allegations proceed to a full disciplinary hearing and are substantiated, they may constitute misconduct, the letter says, or even gross misconduct, "which could lead to dismissal".
Queen Mary's disciplinary code says managers will "investigate thoroughly any allegations of misconduct that come to their attention and decide if formal action is needed". The restructuring programmes in the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences and the School of Medicine and Dentistry - which are using metrics intended to measure research performance to select candidates for redundancy - have provoked concern among academics at Queen Mary.
In the letter to The Lancet, Dr Missirlis - who has also written a letter to Times Higher Education on the subject - says the "retrospective crimes" of those selected for redundancy, "committed between 2008 and 2011, include too few publications as a 'significant' author in high-impact journals, below-average external funding, and failure to meet metrics for allocation of PhD studentships". He refers to the dean of research in the School of Medicine and Dentistry as the "grand inquisitor" in that school and says the dean's own research credentials "are, naturally, unavailable for scrutiny".
In the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Dr Missirlis says, "one of the 'metrics' for research output at professorial level is to have published at least two papers in journals with impact factors of 7 or more". He asks how the head of the school would fare on that basis.
Chris Pearson, director of human resources at Queen Mary, said: "Colleagues are free to publicly discuss their concerns over restructuring, and we have encouraged discussion and feedback ... We never discuss or comment on individual cases of staff who may or may not be involved in disciplinary matters."
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
May 01, 2012
University of Canberra case tests anti-bullying boundaries
IN 2008, James Warden was in the bosom of the University of Canberra. He helped stage its 40th anniversary celebrations, wrangled government money for a new Donald Horne Institute for Cultural Heritage and became its first director.
A year later, Mr Warden was no longer director. Last December, he was gone from the university. The falling out is documented in 17 pages of a statement of claim filed with the Federal Court, where Mr Warden is seeking damages. He has his first hearing date on Friday week.
Mr Warden, whose background is in history and cultural studies, says he is unsure why he came undone, but believes that his treatment at Canberra is not an isolated case. "The level of intimidation and persecution left me no option but to resign," he said. He thinks enthusiasm for his institute did not survive a change in middle management.
In September 2009, he said, he was abruptly removed as director and confronted with the first in a series of "throwaway" allegations. "They were a shopping list of complaints, none of which were documented," he said. According to Mr Warden's statement of claim, the university's allegations included "unspecified irregularities" in spending at the institute.
Mr Warden denies any such thing, pointing out that expenses had to be signed off by the dean and acquitted under an ACT government deed of grant. The university also claimed Mr Warden continued to hold out as institute director to undermine his replacement. "Not true," said Mr Warden. He said publications that were in print when he was director appeared after his removal. Introduced at a conference as director, he corrected the record.
The university began a formal investigation into his case and appointed a review committee. "It was minor administrative stuff that they had trumped up as serious misconduct," Mr Warden said. "I was lucky that I had a competent committee with integrity who looked at it and said, 'There's nothing here'."
At odds with the views of the committee, the university told Mr Warden he was "formally censured", according to his statement of claim. At one point in the drawn-out conflict the university directed him to see a psychiatrist. "He said, 'Nothing wrong, looks like an industrial issue'," Mr Warden said.
One of his legal claims is novel for higher education. His lawyers argue the university as a corporation engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct because it led him to believe it would abide by its anti-bullying policy. The university declined to comment on legal grounds.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au
A year later, Mr Warden was no longer director. Last December, he was gone from the university. The falling out is documented in 17 pages of a statement of claim filed with the Federal Court, where Mr Warden is seeking damages. He has his first hearing date on Friday week.
Mr Warden, whose background is in history and cultural studies, says he is unsure why he came undone, but believes that his treatment at Canberra is not an isolated case. "The level of intimidation and persecution left me no option but to resign," he said. He thinks enthusiasm for his institute did not survive a change in middle management.
In September 2009, he said, he was abruptly removed as director and confronted with the first in a series of "throwaway" allegations. "They were a shopping list of complaints, none of which were documented," he said. According to Mr Warden's statement of claim, the university's allegations included "unspecified irregularities" in spending at the institute.
Mr Warden denies any such thing, pointing out that expenses had to be signed off by the dean and acquitted under an ACT government deed of grant. The university also claimed Mr Warden continued to hold out as institute director to undermine his replacement. "Not true," said Mr Warden. He said publications that were in print when he was director appeared after his removal. Introduced at a conference as director, he corrected the record.
The university began a formal investigation into his case and appointed a review committee. "It was minor administrative stuff that they had trumped up as serious misconduct," Mr Warden said. "I was lucky that I had a competent committee with integrity who looked at it and said, 'There's nothing here'."
At odds with the views of the committee, the university told Mr Warden he was "formally censured", according to his statement of claim. At one point in the drawn-out conflict the university directed him to see a psychiatrist. "He said, 'Nothing wrong, looks like an industrial issue'," Mr Warden said.
One of his legal claims is novel for higher education. His lawyers argue the university as a corporation engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct because it led him to believe it would abide by its anti-bullying policy. The university declined to comment on legal grounds.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au
April 17, 2012
Universities’ black and minority ethnic staff still encounter ‘significant disadvantage’
Efforts to promote race equality in higher education have petered out and had "little impact", a conference has heard.
Note that the above appears in Times Higher Education and the option for readers to comment on this article is not available. In other words, no reader comments are welcome.
Speaking at the British Sociological Association’s annual conference in Leeds on 13 April, Andrew Pilkington, professor of sociology at University of Northampton, said the impact of initiatives to encourage race equality in academic recruitment under the Labour government had been “short-lived”.
Efforts to ensure gender equality far outweighed those to eliminate racial discrimination, argued Professor Pilkington, whose books include Institutional Racism in the Academy: A Case Study.
Diversity issues had “fallen down the agenda” in the past decade, he added, while the government now paid only “lip service” to race equality matters.
He quoted from a 2003 report carried out by Gus John, visiting professor of education at the University of Strathclyde, which said that “results suggest that many universities were still struggling to come to terms with what the legislation requires and that they remain on a steep learning curve”.
“Evidence [pointed] to failures in data gathering and target setting, [which] suggests that many universities have not taken equal opportunities policies seriously”, he said.
“The changes afoot are much less remarkable than the continuities. The colour-blind initiatives had little impact at all in promoting race equality.”
More targeted initiatives stemming from the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 initially had an impact, but this proved to be short-lived. “What is more, the pressure is now off”, Professor Pilkington added.
Discourse on community cohesion had now become “marginalised to one concerned with race equality and ethnic diversity”, he said.
“In the light of this, it is scarcely surprising to discover that black and minority ethnic academic staff continue to experience significant disadvantage in higher education.”
On participation of black and ethnic minority students, he also noted that they were well represented in universities, but tended to study less “prestigious” subjects in lower-status institutions.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Note that the above appears in Times Higher Education and the option for readers to comment on this article is not available. In other words, no reader comments are welcome.
March 29, 2012
RMIT academics really not happy about having to be happy at work
Universities that compel academics to show a positive attitude risk an ''immediate backlash'', an industrial relations expert says.
RMIT University staff will fight against a new behavioural code that demands they promote positivity and show passion at work.
University of Adelaide law professor Andrew Stewart said it was reasonable for managers in other fields, such as sales, to expect positive behaviour from employees.
But he said the RMIT plan could threaten critical thinking, although he understood managers' frustrations with academics who complain endlessly about their work.
The RMIT staff will campaign against the code, despite a ruling by the workplace tribunal that the university was allowed to introduce it.
Fair Work Australia ruled last week that RMIT had not breached its workplace agreement with staff by introducing the new behavioural requirements. The National Tertiary Education Union has appealed against the decision, but a hearing date is yet to be set.
The ''behavioural capability framework'' requires thousands of RMIT staff members meet a list of expectations, depending on their level of employment.
It says some academic and professional staff must ''promote the positive rather than the negative'' and display passion for the job.
Staff would be required to achieve ''external benchmarks of performance excellence''.
The union's senior industrial officer, Linda Gale, said the framework contained vague and unreasonable expectations. ''Some of it is nonsensical. Some of it is impossible,'' Ms Gale said.
The union has advised staff who sign the framework to write an accompanying note saying they were forced to sign under duress.
Ms Gale said the code threatened the ability of academic and professional staff to carry out their work. ''We're talking about a university community. People are supposed to be sceptical and questioning. That's their job.''
RMIT chief operating officer Steve Somogyi said the university introduced the framework in response to the results of a staff survey conducted in 2010.
He said the survey had revealed a need to improve career development for staff.
Mr Somogyi denied the framework would limit academics' work. He said academics were free to pursue their field of study and promote their findings.
Staff members have until April 13 to sign off on the framework. They are due to begin negotiating a new collective agreement with the university in July.
Senior lecturer Michael Segon said the document contained some ''wonderful aspirational statements'', but was not specific enough and some of it was poorly written. ''It could be interpreted differently across the university,'' he said.
RMIT union branch president Melissa Slee said up to 700 staff members had signed a petition opposing the framework.
From: http://www.theage.com.au
RMIT University staff will fight against a new behavioural code that demands they promote positivity and show passion at work.
University of Adelaide law professor Andrew Stewart said it was reasonable for managers in other fields, such as sales, to expect positive behaviour from employees.
But he said the RMIT plan could threaten critical thinking, although he understood managers' frustrations with academics who complain endlessly about their work.
The RMIT staff will campaign against the code, despite a ruling by the workplace tribunal that the university was allowed to introduce it.
Fair Work Australia ruled last week that RMIT had not breached its workplace agreement with staff by introducing the new behavioural requirements. The National Tertiary Education Union has appealed against the decision, but a hearing date is yet to be set.
The ''behavioural capability framework'' requires thousands of RMIT staff members meet a list of expectations, depending on their level of employment.
It says some academic and professional staff must ''promote the positive rather than the negative'' and display passion for the job.
Staff would be required to achieve ''external benchmarks of performance excellence''.
The union's senior industrial officer, Linda Gale, said the framework contained vague and unreasonable expectations. ''Some of it is nonsensical. Some of it is impossible,'' Ms Gale said.
The union has advised staff who sign the framework to write an accompanying note saying they were forced to sign under duress.
Ms Gale said the code threatened the ability of academic and professional staff to carry out their work. ''We're talking about a university community. People are supposed to be sceptical and questioning. That's their job.''
RMIT chief operating officer Steve Somogyi said the university introduced the framework in response to the results of a staff survey conducted in 2010.
He said the survey had revealed a need to improve career development for staff.
Mr Somogyi denied the framework would limit academics' work. He said academics were free to pursue their field of study and promote their findings.
Staff members have until April 13 to sign off on the framework. They are due to begin negotiating a new collective agreement with the university in July.
Senior lecturer Michael Segon said the document contained some ''wonderful aspirational statements'', but was not specific enough and some of it was poorly written. ''It could be interpreted differently across the university,'' he said.
RMIT union branch president Melissa Slee said up to 700 staff members had signed a petition opposing the framework.
From: http://www.theage.com.au
March 24, 2012
Manchester Metropolitan University’s skeletons of institutional racism re-surface
On September 22nd, 2011 we reported on Dr D’Silva’s challenge against his unfair dismissal by MMU and his application for judicial review (see http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=claudius+d'silva ).
On 27th March, 2012 the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) will consider the following:
a. MMU’s attempt to derail Dr D’Silva’s judicial review by forcing the Employment Tribunal (ET) hearing first. If successful it would render the review meaningless.
b. An appeal against the ET decision made by Judge Sneath. Dr D’ Silva’s main ground of appeal is that Judge Sneath made an adverse finding against Dr D’Silva, that was based on evidence not before the court. This finding was used by MMU in his unfair dismissal hearing.
c. A review of the EAT decision which set aside overthrowing the landmark decision in his 2005 case of Institutional racial discrimination. This review is to be based on deception by MMU that they were not aware of the issues adjudicated by the Judge prior to her decision.
The Council of Ethnic Minority (http://sites.google.com/site/cemkumar/
manchestermetropolitanuniversityseniorma) and the Council for Academic Freedom and (www.cafas.org.uk) reported the scathing findings of the Manchester Employment Tribunal and its condemnation of the Institutional Racist Culture at MMU under the headship of the then Vice Chancellor, Dame Sandra Burslem.
In a landmark decision in cases no 2409906/03 – 2404779/04 the Manchester ET made findings of racial discrimination against the Vice-Chancellor Dame Sandra Burslem, Professor Barry Plumb Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Maureen O’Neal Pro- Vice Chancellor, Professor Leach Head of Chemistry & Materials, Mr Bill Hallam Human Resources Director, Mr. Peter Gibb Employee Relations Manager and Dr. Julia Dickinson Principal Lecturer in Chemistry. This decision was made in the absence of Dr D’Silva or his witnesses giving evidence to shift the burden of proof. Dr D’Silva at this time was on extended psychiatric leave due to harassment by the University’s management prior to and after his case.
The University’s Counsel, Mr Paul Gilroy.QC, a part time Chairman of the Birmingham Tribunal, despite being presented with no legal opposition and an open goal, failed to make the University’s case against racial discrimination.
Instead of accepting the ET’s black and white finding of racial discrimination, the University’s new Vice Chancellor, Professor John Brooks used the University funds (estimated at £1 million by his UCU representative) to prevent justice from being done by overturning the ET findings in favour of Dr D’Silva. In 2007 Mr Gilroy, MMU’s Counsel appealed the ET decision on the pretext that the case adjudicated by the ET was a different one from that pleaded by the Claimant in his grounds (ET1). Dr D’Silva’s solicitor and Counsel, defending the appeal before the EAT, were disadvantaged, since only Mr Gilroy knew the issues adjudicated by the judge, which they only disclosed recently via case management direction (CMD) documents which they deliberately omitted from the EAT Bundle prepared by them.
As an officer of the court, Mr Gilroy had a duty to ensure justice was done and seen to be done, which is not what he practiced – as can be seen from the case of Lingarten vs BMA in which complaints were raised against him in regard to the conduct of the Tribunal, which was biased in his favour. At the EAT appeal the case was heard by H.H. Judge Clarke, who had already adjudicated other MMU case, such as Rudzki vs MMU, EAT/640/99 with Mr Gilroy as Counsel. He dismissed his an appeal on the grounds that he was not entitled to a second opportunity to make his claim, but Judge Clarke, in Dr D”Silva’s case, tied his Counsel’s hand denying him a disclosure order regarding the issues adjudicated by the ET to prevent Counsel challenging MMU’s assertions. He thus gave MMU a second opportunity to make their case. Judge Clarke then overturned five of the findings that had been in favour of Dr D’Silva and, having dismantled his atomic bomb, of discrimination (removed the critical mass), remitted the sixth issue back to the ET to Judge O’Hara for a re-hearing.
However the judge O’Hara’s impartiality was compromized having being promoted to a full time member of the Manchester tribunal, having previously been used on the basis she was a part-time judge of the Leeds Tribunal, on the basis of bias present in the Manchester Tribunal. The hearing breached the EAT’s orders for the re-hearing and the issues adjudicated were different from those identified by Judge Garnon’s CMD document used in the original hearing used to make the findings of discrimination and the outcome obtained was the dismissal of all findings.
On the 4th May 2010 during disclosure of documents on Dr D’Silva’s new case, the respondents (MMU) provided Judge Garnon’s CMD document from the claimant’s 2005 case which had been withheld from three Counsels acting for Dr D’Silva in his different appeals which elaborated the issues identified by Judge Garnon and used by the Judge in making her findings against the University in its 1995 case. The respondent’s counsel, Mr Gilroy also revealed during an EAT appeal before Judge Richardson that he had spent five days discussing the issues of the case with the judge, having claimed before the EAT that he did not know the issues on which the judge had adjudicated.
The Courts have a duty to make sure justice is done and seen to be done and on the 27th March 2012 they will have to decide whether to allow Dr D’Silva’s review of the EAT decision based on the new evidence of gross deception, or accept the respondents’ defense that the claim is out of time.
Dr D’Silva relies on the Sally Clarke’s case in regard to gross injustice and misconduct. In her case, medical evidence was denied to the court, by the prosecution to progress their case. Time was not an issue then and should not be here.
Those interested in this case should attend the EAT at its new venue at 2-6 Salisbury Square London, EC4Y 8JX - 27th March, 2012
On 27th March, 2012 the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) will consider the following:
a. MMU’s attempt to derail Dr D’Silva’s judicial review by forcing the Employment Tribunal (ET) hearing first. If successful it would render the review meaningless.
b. An appeal against the ET decision made by Judge Sneath. Dr D’ Silva’s main ground of appeal is that Judge Sneath made an adverse finding against Dr D’Silva, that was based on evidence not before the court. This finding was used by MMU in his unfair dismissal hearing.
c. A review of the EAT decision which set aside overthrowing the landmark decision in his 2005 case of Institutional racial discrimination. This review is to be based on deception by MMU that they were not aware of the issues adjudicated by the Judge prior to her decision.
The Council of Ethnic Minority (http://sites.google.com/site/cemkumar/
manchestermetropolitanuniversityseniorma) and the Council for Academic Freedom and (www.cafas.org.uk) reported the scathing findings of the Manchester Employment Tribunal and its condemnation of the Institutional Racist Culture at MMU under the headship of the then Vice Chancellor, Dame Sandra Burslem.
In a landmark decision in cases no 2409906/03 – 2404779/04 the Manchester ET made findings of racial discrimination against the Vice-Chancellor Dame Sandra Burslem, Professor Barry Plumb Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Maureen O’Neal Pro- Vice Chancellor, Professor Leach Head of Chemistry & Materials, Mr Bill Hallam Human Resources Director, Mr. Peter Gibb Employee Relations Manager and Dr. Julia Dickinson Principal Lecturer in Chemistry. This decision was made in the absence of Dr D’Silva or his witnesses giving evidence to shift the burden of proof. Dr D’Silva at this time was on extended psychiatric leave due to harassment by the University’s management prior to and after his case.
The University’s Counsel, Mr Paul Gilroy.QC, a part time Chairman of the Birmingham Tribunal, despite being presented with no legal opposition and an open goal, failed to make the University’s case against racial discrimination.
Instead of accepting the ET’s black and white finding of racial discrimination, the University’s new Vice Chancellor, Professor John Brooks used the University funds (estimated at £1 million by his UCU representative) to prevent justice from being done by overturning the ET findings in favour of Dr D’Silva. In 2007 Mr Gilroy, MMU’s Counsel appealed the ET decision on the pretext that the case adjudicated by the ET was a different one from that pleaded by the Claimant in his grounds (ET1). Dr D’Silva’s solicitor and Counsel, defending the appeal before the EAT, were disadvantaged, since only Mr Gilroy knew the issues adjudicated by the judge, which they only disclosed recently via case management direction (CMD) documents which they deliberately omitted from the EAT Bundle prepared by them.
As an officer of the court, Mr Gilroy had a duty to ensure justice was done and seen to be done, which is not what he practiced – as can be seen from the case of Lingarten vs BMA in which complaints were raised against him in regard to the conduct of the Tribunal, which was biased in his favour. At the EAT appeal the case was heard by H.H. Judge Clarke, who had already adjudicated other MMU case, such as Rudzki vs MMU, EAT/640/99 with Mr Gilroy as Counsel. He dismissed his an appeal on the grounds that he was not entitled to a second opportunity to make his claim, but Judge Clarke, in Dr D”Silva’s case, tied his Counsel’s hand denying him a disclosure order regarding the issues adjudicated by the ET to prevent Counsel challenging MMU’s assertions. He thus gave MMU a second opportunity to make their case. Judge Clarke then overturned five of the findings that had been in favour of Dr D’Silva and, having dismantled his atomic bomb, of discrimination (removed the critical mass), remitted the sixth issue back to the ET to Judge O’Hara for a re-hearing.
However the judge O’Hara’s impartiality was compromized having being promoted to a full time member of the Manchester tribunal, having previously been used on the basis she was a part-time judge of the Leeds Tribunal, on the basis of bias present in the Manchester Tribunal. The hearing breached the EAT’s orders for the re-hearing and the issues adjudicated were different from those identified by Judge Garnon’s CMD document used in the original hearing used to make the findings of discrimination and the outcome obtained was the dismissal of all findings.
On the 4th May 2010 during disclosure of documents on Dr D’Silva’s new case, the respondents (MMU) provided Judge Garnon’s CMD document from the claimant’s 2005 case which had been withheld from three Counsels acting for Dr D’Silva in his different appeals which elaborated the issues identified by Judge Garnon and used by the Judge in making her findings against the University in its 1995 case. The respondent’s counsel, Mr Gilroy also revealed during an EAT appeal before Judge Richardson that he had spent five days discussing the issues of the case with the judge, having claimed before the EAT that he did not know the issues on which the judge had adjudicated.
The Courts have a duty to make sure justice is done and seen to be done and on the 27th March 2012 they will have to decide whether to allow Dr D’Silva’s review of the EAT decision based on the new evidence of gross deception, or accept the respondents’ defense that the claim is out of time.
Dr D’Silva relies on the Sally Clarke’s case in regard to gross injustice and misconduct. In her case, medical evidence was denied to the court, by the prosecution to progress their case. Time was not an issue then and should not be here.
Those interested in this case should attend the EAT at its new venue at 2-6 Salisbury Square London, EC4Y 8JX - 27th March, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)