The bully and bullying...

Bullying occurs when one person, typically (but not necessarily) in a position of power, authority, trust, responsibility, management, etc, feels threatened by another person, usually (but not always) a subordinate who is displaying qualities of ability, popularity, knowledge, skill, strength, drive, determination, tenacity, success, etc. The bully has conditioned himself, or allowed himself to be conditioned, to believe that he can never have these qualities that he sees readily in others.

Displaying high aggression and lacking appropriate interpersonal skills, the immature behaviour skills of the bully are insufficient to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the position into which he has been, or allowed himself to be, recruited or promoted. The nature and demands of the position may have changed over time, perhaps without being realised. If in a position of management, trust, etc, the bully is also unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for the physical and mental well being of those in his charge.

Insecurity and a lack of confidence cause the bully to desire to control the individual using aggressive physical and psychological strategies. The bully seeks to increase his confidence, not by raising his own, but by bringing the other person's down to below his, so that, in relative terms, he can feel good about himself. This process is repeated on a regular basis and becomes both addictive and compulsive.

Through fear, the individual establishes domination, leading to disempowerment of, and loss of confidence. In order to avoid having to face up to, tackle and overcome his own shortcomings, the bully seeks to project his own failings on to other people whilst at the same time actively abdicating responsibility for the consequences of his own shortcomings, the bully seeks to project his own failings on to other people whilst at the same time actively abdicating responsibility for the consequences of his behaviour on others.

If necessary, the bully abuses his position of power, or calls on those with power, to achieve these ends. The bully’s behaviour is exacerbated by his own predominant behaviour style, also by stress, change, uncertainty, financial pressures, the prospect of failing to meet budget targets, lack of resources, and being bullied himself... 

Tim Field

Petition: Vice Chancellor, University of Leeds - Stop Treating International Students Like 2nd Class Citizens!

My name is Sanaz Raji and until recently I was a PhD candidate at the Institute of Communications Studies (ICS) at the University of Leeds in the UK. In September 2009, I was awarded an ICS 3-year full tuition fee and maintenance scholarship. My scholarship was wrongfully revoked by the ICS on the 15 August 2011, without following rules and regulations set forth in the University of Leeds Research Student Handbook. For most of the past year I have been embroiled in an internal dispute with the University of Leeds because they refuse to follow their own written procedures as indicated in the Research Student Handbook. 

In short, the message that the ICS sends to international students is that their education, their wellbeing, even their health is of lesser importance than that of home students.

Please sign and join us in fighting this outrageous decision collectively. Let us make sure that the ICS (University of Leeds) is held accountable for their wrongdoings.

Key points:

1. My PhD supervisors at the ICS (University of Leeds) failed to provide for two consecutive years the minimum required 10 supervision meetings as indicated in the Research Student Handbook.

2. I was repeatedly denied on three occasions a change of supervisors, and I was bullied by the Postgraduate Research Tutor to continue with an unworkable supervisory arrangement. This violates the rules and procedures set forth in the Research Student Handbook.

3. I was not provided sick leave from the ICS when I suffered a broken right ankle. The ICS failed to meet their required pastoral role in this matter.

4. I was racially discriminated at a supervision meeting on the 23 March 2011, when my co-supervisor asked if English was my first language. I was perplexed why I was asked such a question given that English is my native language. Likewise, this co-supervisor had never taken issue with my writing style before this date or when I contributed a chapter for her co-edited book. None of my other PhD colleagues who come from South America, North America, Europe or Asia were asked about their English language skills. This ridiculous question was brought up in order to undermine my confidence and make me feel incompetent because I am a minority student in this country.

5. The ICS Research Scholarship (fees plus maintenance) was withdrawn without the ICS abiding by the rules and procedures set forth in the Research Student Handbook. Specifically, the Research Student Handbook states:

"It is essential that the student should be given clear information in writing on the assessment of progress. Where progress is deemed to be unsatisfactory, the student should be interviewed by the Postgraduate Research Tutor and the supervisor and specific instructions and objectives given. The student should be advised that failure to meet those requirements may lead to a recommendation for the termination of the candidature.” (2009/2010: 74)

In fact, my supervisory meeting notes from 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 do not indicate any issue with my progress.

6. The committee overseeing my appeal against the ICS has conducted a kangaroo court by not allowing a proper hearing between myself and the ICS. On the 12th October 2012, I was informed via e-mail by the Secretariat, Mr. David Wardle that I would by denied a hearing with the committee overseeing my appeal because the evidence I had sent was deemed "comprehensive" and therefore I would not be needed to make any additional comments. This violates my human rights and the law of the land. I am entitled to a hearing in order to (a) present my evidence, (b) hear what evidence the other party, i.e. the ICS has presented to appeal committees, and (c) be able to defend myself against any accusations.

After much delay, on the 16th April 2013, I received a final decision from the university, which was negative and did not address the finer points of the arguments I  made. Despite the ample evidence that I  provided, the University of Leeds does not wish to remedy the situation, but prefer to exhaust me  to such a manner that I am forced to leave academia altogether and give up the research and teaching that I enjoy.

Let us teach the ICS (University of Leeds) that they are not a law onto themselves. They must respect the rules and regulations as indicated in the Research Student Handbook as well as the law of this country.

Please sign the petition.

Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds

For more than a year, I have been engaged in a case against the Institute of Communications Studies (ICS), University of Leeds. After many attempts to change supervision, the Postgraduate Research Tutor, who after that began bullying me, denied me this change.  Instead of providing me with the pastoral care he was responsible for, he forced me into an impossible supervisory arrangement that was preventing me from developing my PhD further.

I had only 8 supervision meetings during the 2009-2010 academic year, which decreased to five supervision meetings in the 2010-2011 academic year, well below the minimum of 10 supervision meetings that I am entitled to as stipulated in the Research Student Handbook. Despite the lack of adequate supervision meetings, I officially passed my upgrade viva and transferred into full PhD status on September 2010.

In November 2010, I broke my right ankle and notified my supervisory team that I was immobile and unable to work. I shared with my supervisory team and the Postgraduate Research Tutor my physician’s letters that stated that the accident I sustained "will have affected her ability to study."  Instead of providing me with pastoral support, the supervisory team sent threatening e-mails indicating that if I did not get well by a certain period of time, they would suspend my PhD.

I had no idea what they meant by "suspension" and when asked to clarify matters I was not given a response. This added considerable pressure and anxiety while I was unwell and is just another example that points to the level of bullying and intimidation that I encountered while being supervised.

I was asked to attend a 6-month progress review meeting on the 10th January 2011. The timing of this meeting was very suspicious, as I had only passed my upgrade viva only four months ago on September 2010. If this was supposed to be a 6-month progress review meeting, it should have been scheduled in March 2011, not in January. Additionally, it was odd that a progress review be called given that I had been unwell for almost two months and was not able to work on my research.

During the 6-month progress review meeting, one of the members asked me rather bizarrely if I was depressed as I “appear[ed] unwell during the meeting”, and once again I explained that I was still recovering from a major accident and still not back to 100% good health. I said that it was highly unprofessional to accuse someone from suffering mental issues in order to obscure the seriousness of my frustrations with his lack of supervision and the general supervisory arrangements thus far.

Additionally, I am told that I have not made sufficient progress with my research. I protested and indicated that I have been unwell and immobile for nearly two months and have extensive medical evidence that indicate that that my accident would affect my ability to study. When I inquired about getting an extension, I am told that my illness does not warrant one. 

I was racially discriminated by one of my supervisors, at a supervision meeting on the 23rd March 2011. I was shocked when this particular co-supervisor asked if English is my first language. I was perplexed why I was asked such a question given that English is my native language. I was not required by the ICS to take a university English language test as indicated in the Research Student Handbook (2009/2010: 11). Likewise, Prof. Knott never mentioned anything of my writing style before this date or when I contributed a chapter for her co-edited book. At no point of working on her book project did this co-supervisor raise any issue with my writing style and/or asked if I was a native English speaker/writer. 

I did not understand the relevance of asking me such a question during our supervision meeting. I mentioned that while I do at times make grammatical errors, that I was confident in fixing those. My main concern was the content of my chapters and the lack of engagement with it during supervision meetings. I can think of no other reason why this co-supervisor would ask such a ridiculous question other than to undermine my confidence and make me feel incompetent because I am a minority student in this country.

Despite continued bullying, I was able to make progress with my research and was invited to give a presentation at the International Association for Media and Communications Research (IAMCR). I received funding by the ICS and support from both my supervisory team and the Postgraduate Research Tutor to attend and represent the ICS at the conference. At the IAMCR conference, a lecturer from the ICS who attended my presentation stated:

"I was in attendance at [Sanaz’s] talk at IAMCR and saw first-hand the high quality of her doctoral research and the way it engaged scholars in a highly productive way."

Returning from the IAMCR conference, I attend a second 6-month progress review meeting on the 22 July 2011. At this meeting, I am told that I am not making sufficient progress with my PhD studies. I argued that none of my written supervisory minutes indicate any issue with the progress that I have made since January 2011, and if there was an issue with my progress, why then did the supervisory team and the Postgraduate Research Tutor encourage and fund my presentation to IAMCR?

After more bullying my research scholarship (fees plus maintenance) was withdrawn without being informed clearly in writing about the assessment of my progress. The withdrawal of my scholarship is in breach of the Research Student Handbook regulations, which state:

Where progress is deemed to be unsatisfactory, the Postgraduate Research Tutor and the supervisor and specific instructions and objectives given should interview the student. The Student should be advised that failure to meet those requirements might lead to a recommendation for the termination of the candidature.

I was never interviewed by the Postgraduate Research Tutor and the supervisory team and given specific instructions and/or objectives towards improving my PhD. In fact, my supervisory meeting notes from 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 do not indicate any issue with my progress.

My scholarship was revoked on 15 August 2011. The ICS knew very well that it would be nearly impossible for me to raise enough money to be able to continue on for my 3rd year of studies, especially as I was only three weeks into the start of the new academic term. The Head of the ICS along with Postgraduate Research Tutor offered me no other help or advice if I wanted to appeal this decision.

It took me four months to collate all evidence to bring forth a case against the ICS. The ICS contributed in preventing the ability to collect all information needed in a timely and efficient manner. On the 16 January 2012 my staff e-mail account, which held a large portion of correspondence central to my case was closed, violating the UK Data Protection Act.

On the 24 May 2012, I submitted a pro forma application for adverse academic decision in order to bring about an internal university investigation concerning my situation. The Secretariat responded on the 18 June 2012 indicating that they would investigate my case further.

Nevertheless, the university continued its program of bullying and isolating me. On the15 October 2012, an e-mail was circulated to institute staff and PhD students indicating that should I try to access my office, they should notify university security to have me escorted off the institute’s premises. I had no knowledge of this e-mail until a fellow PhD student informed me of what was written and later handed me a copy of the circulated message. I currently live in university accommodations. How is it acceptable that I be allowed to live in a university flat but not be allowed access to my office and be allowed to keep up with my PhD work and advocate for my case?

Unfortunately during the university’s internal appeal, the committee overseeing my appeal against the ICS conducted a kangaroo court by not allowing a hearing with the ICS. As evident in the e-mail correspondence with the Secretariat in October 2012, I was told that I would be denied a hearing with the committee overseeing my appeal because the evidence I had sent was deemed “comprehensive” and therefore I would not be needed to make any additional comments. This violates my human rights as I am entitled to a hearing in order to (a) present my evidence, (b) hear what evidence the contra-party, i.e. the institute has presented to the committee and (c) be able to defend myself against any accusations.

After much delay, on the 16 ^April 2013, I received a final decision from the university, which was negative and did not address the finer points of the arguments I have made. Despite the ample evidence that I have provided, the University of Leeds does not wish to remedy the situation at hand, but rather exhaust me out to such a manner that I have no other choice but to leave academia altogether.

Currently, I am waiting to hear from Legal Services Commission (now known as the Legal Aid Agency) to see if I qualify for legal aid in order to (a) get a barrister to advise me on my case, and (b) be able to take this case to court.

It should be stated that I am not the only person who has filed an internal case against the ICS. A PhD student from Thailand filed an internal case against the ICS, for insufficient supervision and for the ICS accepting him onto his PhD course, while knowing all along that he had not passed a University English Language examination and had noticeable problems with his English verbal skills. The University of Leeds found in favor and reimbursed him the full amount of his tuition, £13,700.

I would be grateful for any advice, suggestions, or help that the readers of this blog could give at this time.

Many thanks

Sanaz Raji

Mediating in the Academic Bully Culture: The Chair's Responsibility to Faculty and Graduate Students

Faculty incivility can rear its ugly head at various levels within higher education institutions. It can surface at any one of the many administrative levels with administrators being the bullies, or it can be found within the faculty ranks with faculty members bullying each other. Interestingly, students can also be victims of uncivil behavior. Administrators, faculty, and students can play different roles in the bully culture: perpetrator, victim, or mediator. This article focuses on faculty incivility with the department chair as mediator, as well as faculty incivility to students, particularly graduate students.

The Chair as Mediator

Although chairs can be involved in bullying as the bully, as the one bullied, or as the mediator in a departmental bullying situation, this section will focus on the chair as a mediator between faculty members. This job responsibility often creates consternation in department chairs. At the same time they are trying to build camaraderie among faculty, they are also facilitators who are responsible for carrying out the institution's mission, liaising between the department faculty and higher administration, and making merit and promotion and tenure recommendations. These tasks can often be in conflict with one another.

Because chairs have a major impact on the future of individual faculty members, they must be able to recognize when a faculty member is being bullied and intervene to stop the bully while simultaneously respecting the privacy, professionalism, and integrity of the faculty member involved. Recognizing a bullying situation means chairs must be aware of the indications of a bullied faculty member as well as the traits of a bully.

Indicators of a bully include showing disrespect toward a faculty member and continually promoting him or herself. Chairs should also be aware of a faculty member who makes a habit of "secretly" informing them of departmental matters, be they manufactured or bona fide. That is, the bully will repeatedly initiate and/or perpetuate rumors. He or she may continually break the confidences of other faculty members and reveal highly classified committee proceedings. The chair must recognize this for what it often is: the bully's attempt to ingratiate him or herself to the chair in order to continue bullying without reprimands from the chair. It's an I'll-take-care-of-you-but-I- expect-you-to-take-care-of-me-in-return situation. A bully is also difficult to recognize because his or her behavior is frequently disguised as concern for the department in some way while it is actually promoting the bully's own personal agenda. Aside from ignoring the rumors and confidences shared by the bully, the chair must avoid contributing to the sharing of confidences. This will essentially "grant permission" to the bully to continue his or her inappropriate behavior. The chair must learn to recognize such behavior and not succumb to it. Not supporting the bully ultimately renders him or her ineffective.

The chair must learn not only to recognize bullying behavior but to discern the indications of a bullied faculty member as well. If a faculty member approaches the chair with assertions of being bullied, the chair must not ignore the individual. Bullying is frequently very subtle, and bullies are good at disguising their behavior in public settings. Often, the chair believes that the bullied faculty member is being paranoid, when, in fact, there is a genuine problem. If the chair is uncertain, he or she should avoid immediately dismissing the claim, but rather carefully watch for other indications that the faculty member is being bullied. The chair must recognize behavioral changes in the faculty member. Bullied faculty members frequently isolate themselves. They remain in their offices and talk with no one during the day. Because they often feel marginalized (and, in fact, may actually be marginalized) they rarely volunteer for service opportunities, be they departmental committees or other activities, and seldom engage in departmental discussions. They rarely participate in social activities with colleagues, even when sponsored by the department or institution. The work effort of previously productive faculty who are bullied may suffer. Research productivity may noticeably decrease, and once above-average student evaluations of teaching may suddenly drop. The constant pressure of being bullied might manifest itself as aggression by the bullied. The aggressive behavior will be misdirected, and this will be the clue for the chair that some- thing is amiss. Bullied faculty members are likely to avoid the office and work at home more than usual. Any one or all of these changes should be an indication to the chair that something is wrong.

Among many other responsibilities, the chair must address bullying issues in the department. All faculty must be able to trust the chair, believe that their work will speak for them, and that rewards will be allocated based solely on productive work, evaluated both for quality and quantity. To prevent or minimize bullying, chairs must be focused on their department, not on themselves or on matters outside the department or institution. Chairs must be very careful not to inadvertently reward bullying behavior. At the beginning of each academic year the chair should establish a code of behavior encouraging courtesy and respect and discouraging yelling and arguing and promulgating rumors. If rumors do circulate, the chair is responsible for seeking the truth and thwarting the gossip. The bully must be confronted and reprimanded.

The chair must be knowledgeable about internal grievance procedures and share workplace harassment policy with new faculty. The chair's job is to ensure that faculty work together to understand the institution's policies and procedures and to develop departmental policies and procedures. This cannot be done without establishing common ground within the department. If bullies in the department are only concerned with their own welfare, the goal of common ground or community will be impossible. The chair must protect the tenured as well as nontenured faculty. It is a mistake to believe that bullies go after only nontenured faculty. Faculty members who have only their self-interests in mind and are not concerned with the successes or accomplishments of other faculty will bully anyone they feel is in their way, be the person tenured or not. Above all, the chair must be cognizant of the signs of bullying and be willing to address the behavior as a problem.

Faculty Incivility and Graduate Students

Faculty incivility does not contain itself just to faculty and administrative ranks. It often spills over to involve graduate students and, more often, graduate teaching and research assistants. Faculty cannot only take advantage of their colleagues but their students as well. A power relationship that faculty have over students makes it easy to control them overtly and covertly for several reasons.

Graduate students are reluctant to speak up about faculty who fail to meet minimal obligations to them in terms of teaching, job supervision, or directing doctoral research. Power imbalances of faculty over students coupled with the student's desire to complete the degree typically silence the acts and the student. Furthermore, because students are in this precarious position, they avoid complaining or confronting and instead retreat as a coping strategy and means of survival. Meanwhile, the student's inaction can be seen as an invitation for perhaps another encounter.

A culture of silence explains why other faculty, administrators, and student peers tend to be unaware of or oblivious to these problems. Some are unable or unwilling to intervene on be- half of a student based on the perception that no one would know how to remedy the situation. Considered unprofessional, faculty would be unlikely to criticize colleagues' judgment regarding the oversight of graduate students or their dissertation research. It is possible that the administration knows of certain faculty who poorly supervise and advise their graduate students, and yet they do nothing. What is worse, they tend to cover it up, find plausible excuses for it, and disregard further complaining by disgruntled students. Thus, anything untoward that faculty supervisors and advisors do becomes acceptable by default, supports an insular, protective stratum, and perpetuates the culture of silence.

Few departments and chairs, however, prepare themselves to sanction faculty over this potential form of control or manipulation. If a star professor has already been placed on such a pedestal (or placed him or herself there),the professor may choose to further self-aggrandize to the detriment of the student. Should the student choose to complain, the department would be unlikely to reprimand the professor and more likely to cast dispersions on the student. The faculty member remains above reproach and, furthermore, regards his or her behavior as appropriate.

To overcome this culture of silence, students may benefit from an open forum conducted periodically by a neutral party, such as an ombudsman or human resources manager, especially if the department is unwilling to intervene. Students would be permitted to express problems in oral or written form, whichever is more comfortable, and know that their concerns are being heard.

Graduate students evaluate faculty teaching in the aggregate, but typically students seldom rate faculty supervision of their assistantship or dissertation research. This supports the realization that graduate students are not recognized as part of a community of learners or a community of scholars.

Furthermore, at no time is feedback from this supervisory aspect of academic life factored into faculty promotion, tenure, or post-tenure review. Without a feedback loop, some students will encounter or be assigned to faculty members who exploit their student labor and/or fail to socialize and usher them effectively into the profession. Because some students expect faculty to initiate contact and professors rarely do, students perceive faculty as unsupportive, intimidating, and/or uncaring. An opportunity for the department chair to inquire into the one-on-one relationship between student and faculty member, either separately or as a dyad during a performance appraisal, is essential. Maintaining the sanctity of a strong advisor/mentor/ supervisor relationship between faculty and student should be a top priority.

Educating faculty formally in the supervision of students and academic work and research should be considered a professional development necessity. Discussing the expectations of the faculty/student relationship could begin the graduate student socialization process. Consider a stated contract of ground rules and expectations between student and supervisor, student and dissertation chair, student and advisor, and so on, explaining the duties and responsibilities of each party to the other, the time to be allotted, and the outcomes to be realized, instead of relying on unstated implications. This approach would be helpful to both parties and should be initiated by the department chair. Colleagues seldom choose to police boundaries with another colleague and often decline to condemn, sanction, or remedy the situation; a contract stating expectations may avert that uncomfortable task.

Without a clear policy statement that reaches beyond a stated or implied ethical code of conduct, little can be done to break the silence. Policy discussions may begin with initial research obtained from student exit interviews, alumni interviews, and separate focus groups of current students and faculty and proceed to subsequent drafts from a policy formulation committee that is comprised of faculty and students. Without recognizing that problems exist, there will be no first step toward averting them. This undertaking may be perceived as an arduous task by the chair, but it is one that is worth the effort.

Conclusion

Although we have discussed two different levels of incivility in this article, the indicators of victimization and the solutions for the prevention of bullying are the same regardless of who is being bullied and who is doing the bullying. Victims of bullying, be they faculty members or graduate students, generally retreat into their own world. They become silent, fearful of repercussions or being seen as a whiner or troublemaker. Providing an environment in which the victim feels comfortable to share what is happening is the first step toward minimizing bullying behavior. Another major step is to establish formal policies against bullying, including the actions to be taken to eliminate the behavior. The policy must also include a process by which the bullied can seek help without fear of retribution by the bully. Finally, the policies and processes contained therein must be made available to everyone, even discussed with new faculty and graduate students, so they feel comfortable in the environment and confident that someone will intervene if incivility occurs. The department chair plays a pivotal role in facilitating this process.

From: http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/tomprof/posting.php?ID=992

The University of Ulster

The website ‘www.profrichardbarnett.com’ published information regarding what it means to study and work at the University of Ulster. Information published in this site are all from public domain and verifiable to be correct. They are also considered to be of public interest.

None of the employees of the University of Ulster is responsible for this website or owns the domain name. Information about this website was published in this blog earlier:

http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.in/2013/02/the-curious-case-of-andy-biggart.html. 

 On 27.02.2013, Arthur Cox, a Belfast legal firm acting on behalf of the University of Ulster, threatened the owner of the website of a defamation suit and asked that site should be taken down immediately. The letter is attached herewith. A libel suit in the UK is dreaded like plague. No matter what - the very nature of the UK libel law cuts the defendant deep.

Moreover, the owner of the website does not reside in UK and it is very difficult to defend such an allegation from outside UK. As a consequence of the threat by the University of Ulster the website is taken down for the time being even though all materials published in this site are in public domain and verifiable to be correct.

Possibilities of publishing the materials are being explored and hopefully the website would surface again at the earliest.

Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces -

This article, probably the most concise and lucid summary Leymann ever penned of his foundational research, is published on the Heinz Leymann Memorial Website (http://www.mobbingportal.com/leymannmain.html) with the kind permission of the Springer Publishing Company, LLC, New York, NY 10036, 13 February 2009. Other sites are welcome to link to the article as published here, but any republication elsewhere requires explicit permission from the Springer Publishing Company.

Abstract 

In recent years, the existence of a significant problem in workplaces has been documented in Sweden and other countries. It involves employees "ganging up" on a target employee and subjecting him or her to psychological harassment. This "mobbing" behavior results in severe psychological and occupational consequences for the victim. This phenomenon is described, its stages and consequences analyzed. An ongoing program of research and intervention that is currently being supported by the Swedish government is then considered.

Former University of Iowa surgeon allowed to resign quietly after dispute, records show

A once-prominent University of Iowa surgeon was stripped of key duties after a messy disciplinary dispute with the school and then allowed to quietly resign a year later, according to a settlement agreement released Monday after a two-year fight for access by The Associated Press (AP).

The AP had asked for copies of resignation agreements and similar deals made with College of Medicine employees during a time when the school’s handling of faculty disciplinary issues was in the spotlight. The surgeon fought the release of documents related to him by filing a lawsuit in February 2011 that listed him only as “John Doe.”

The agreement identifies the former employee as surgeon John Chaloupka, an expert in treating brain aneurysms who directed interventional neuroradiology at UI Hospitals and Clinics. Chaloupka now works in a similar, high-level position at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Fla. Chaloupka and his attorney, Philip Mears, of Iowa City, did not immediately return messages left Monday by the AP.

The document does not fully answer questions about why Chaloupka left the university in June 2011, shortly after filing a legal affidavit supporting a discrimination lawsuit filed by a fellow professor in which Chaloupka called their boss a racially insensitive liar. In a later deposition given during a medical malpractice case, Chaloupka said he left Iowa because he was “getting worn down by the winters and wanted to live in a warmer climate.”

The settlement shows Chaloupka agreed not to make “disparaging remarks” about the university and that he and university officials agreed they would say only that he left to pursue another opportunity. It also says three other university doctors, John Buatti, Matthew Howard, and David Hasan, would not disparage Chaloupka. Buatti and Hasan didn’t immediately respond to phone messages left Monday. Howard’s office said he would not be available to comment.

The document shows that Chaloupka was allowed to keep his $380,000 per-year salary for the 2010-2011 academic year, even though he was moved to a non-clinical position, with a different office and no access to the university’s clinical computer records. He went from being a tenured full professor in radiology and director of the neurointerventional radiology division to a professor in the anatomy department and a research professor in radiology.

The agreement calls for Chaloupka to get a $100,000 bonus if he left before Dec. 31, 2010 — but he did not collect that.

The university released the record after the Iowa Supreme Court earlier this month rejected Chaloupka’s request to hear the case, exhausting his legal options to keep it secret after two lower courts had ordered the release to the AP.

The AP sought the document, and others, after the university’s medical school was criticized for moving too slowly to cut ties with a doctor who faked his own stabbing in Chicago and was investigated for viewing child pornography. At the time, the school also was in the midst of a dispute with radiology professor Malik Juweid, who was fired last year for harassing behavior and has returned to his native Jordan.

District Judge Thomas Reidel ruled in February 2012 that the settlement with Chaloupka was public under Iowa’s public records law and said taxpayers had a right to know the details. He said the provision for a $100,000 bonus for Chaloupka’s prompt departure “dangles a carrot” that was of interest to taxpayers.

He rejected Chaloupka’s argument that the document wasn’t a “settlement agreement” — which are public in Iowa — but rather a personnel record that should be confidential under state law. The judge noted the document is titled “Settlement Agreement and General Release” and was meant to resolve the parties’ disputes.

“The public has a right to know about arrangements governmental bodies make for the expenditure of public funds,” Reidel wrote.

The Iowa Court of Appeals ruled upheld Reidel’s ruling in January. During the appeal, Chaloupka argued that he expected the settlement would remain secret when he signed it, and that its public release may affect his relationships with colleagues and ability to get future employment. But the court said a balancing test considering Chaloupka’s privacy rights against the public’s need to know favored disclosure.

“We conclude the gravity of the invasion into plaintiff’s personal privacy does not exceed the public’s interest in the use of public funds,” Judge David Danilson wrote for a unanimous three-member panel.

From: http://thegazette.com/2013/03/18/former-university-of-iowa-surgeon-allowed-to-resign-quietly-after-dispute-records-show/

University of Leicester defies Information Commissioner (and gets away with it)

The University of Leicester has refused to implement a decision issued by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) recommending that the University should provide me with my personal data held in manual files, which the ICO has found to constitute a relevant filing system containing a single category of information, namely, employment matters pertaining to me. 

The data includes job application material such as references, and documentation related to grievances lodged by me and the associated legal proceedings against the University and others.  (On my legal proceedings, see on this website:  'About the University of Leicester', 21 January 2010;  'Legal and other costs - the University of Leicester and others', 17 April 2010;  'Professor Bob Burgess (Vice-Chancellor, University of Leicester) and the honours system', 23 January 2011.)

The ICO's recommendation was issued after investigation of a complaint received from me in 2012, the ICO concluding that the University was likely to have breached the Data Protection Act in withholding the personal data when I presented a subject access request.  The ICO also asked the University to take steps to prevent the situation from happening again.

The University responded by requesting a review of the ICO's decision, arguing that the information was unstructured personal data related to personnel matters and as such was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 33A of the Data Protection Act.  Having informed the ICO that since it did not agree with the ICO's assessment it did not intend to disclose the information to me, the University subsequently promised that it would 'clearly implement any final decision fully'.  But when the final decision, upholding the earlier decision, was delivered, the University reneged on that promise, informing me by letter that it would not supply the data.

The ICO's hands are not tied in such a situation:  it could serve an enforcement notice on the data controller requiring it to disclose the information to the data subject.  (Failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence.)  But the ICO has chosen not to do this, also not responding to certain of my representations about its position in this regard or to questions about the content of a telephone conversation between it and the University just before the University sent me the letter mentioned above advising that it would not disclose the data.  (How can the ICO promote openness if it struggles to apply the concept to its own operations?)

In addition, the ICO has not adequately addressed other problems such as apparent unlawful disclosure by the University of my sensitive personal data.

The strength of the ICO's commitment to promoting the relevant standards has been questioned by Members of Parliament and others in various contexts.  Matters raised by MPs have included concerns relating to the ICO's investigation into blacklisting in the construction industry.

Glynis M. Truter

The curious case of X - University of Ulster

X was a Lecturer at the Y Department of the University of Ulster. In 2007 he took the University of Ulster to the Northern Ireland Tribunals for unfair dismissal and won the case.

The statement above is fairly innocuous. Academics are dismissed all the time in UK, and probably more often at the University of Ulster. Nothing special. But this time the University of Ulster had a bit surprise: it lost the case. Not only that, the tribunal Chairperson had a very strong comment about Mr. Ronnie Magee, the Director of Human Resources:

 “… The reasons advanced by Mr. Magee for not following a proper redundancy procedure are simply breathtaking in their arrogance and inadequacy…”

Wow, somewhat a bit too strong a criticism! Now, wasn’t Prof. Gerry McKenna accused for similar reasons as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Ulster and needed to go? Then how come Mr. Magee is still adorning the University of Ulster as the Director of Human Resources? Any guess?

The X verdict can be found openly in the web but many other cases against the University of Ulster may not have come to day light in the fear of losing a chance of future employment. It will be interesting to trace and document them.

From: http://profrichardbarnett.com/

Ottawa's Dismissal of Denis Rancourt

...The Ottawa administration's decision to fire Rancourt, imposing on him the "capital punishment" of labor relations, was even more vigorously opposed than were the lesser punishments dealt to him in preceding years. In a factual, reasoned letter to the Board of Governors dated 5 January 2009, Rancourt defended himself. Well over a hundred professors and students from Ottawa and elsewhere sent individual letters protesting Rancourt's elimination. Even before the axe fell, the Canadian Association of University Teachers had appointed a three-person Committee of Inquiry to investigate the long series of run-ins, dating back at least to the fall of 2005, between the Ottawa administration and Rancourt.

Is this a case of workplace mobbing in academe? Yes — and more precisely, administrative mobbing. (Click here for the standard checklist of indicators, here for the mainpage of the relevant website, and here for a short, basic article.)

What allows so unqualified a diagnosis is that Rancourt has made comprehensive documentation on the conflict (letters, emails, press reports, videos) publicly available on his blog and at academicfreedom.ca. For want of adequate information pro and con about a professor's dismissal or humiliation, it is often impossible to make more than a tentative assessment of whether it is a case of mobbing or merely a hard but measured and warranted response to some betrayal of academic purpose. In this case, Rancourt has laid bare to the public the actions that got him into trouble, the sanctions imposed, and what is most important, documentary evidence of both his own and his adversaries' views. Thereby he has bolstered his own credibility. Let other aggrieved academics take a lesson: only in so far as full information is publicly available, the cards all on the table, can outside observers make confident judgments and say things worth listening to.

It is plain from the material online that over time, administrators at Ottawa coalesced in the view that Rancourt, despite his stellar research record and the respect given him by very many students, is an utterly unworthy and abhorrent man, fit only for expulsion from respectable academic company. While administrators appear front and centre in this mobbing case, they are joined by dozens, even hundreds of students and faculty who are after Rancourt's neck. According to Karen Pinchin's trenchant article in Maclean's, "nearly one-third of Rancourt’s colleagues at the school have signed a petition of complaint against him." (Click here to read the petition, unambiguous evidence of ganging up.) Even distant pundits like Stanley Fish and Margaret Soltan piled on.

An email from Chemistry Chair Alain St-Amant is telling. Shortly after Rancourt's suspension, with his dismissal pending, St-Amant apparently agreed to debate him on a TV talk show, but then cancelled out. Rancourt sent him an email asking why, and suggesting that administrative or peer pressure was the reason. St-Amant emailed back, "I refuse to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed man. ... This will be the last you will hear from me on this matter. Enjoy the paycheques while they last." The contempt in these sentences is total. With a clever turn of phrase, St-Amant gives Rancourt the ultimate academic insult, that he has no wits, that is to say no intelligence. Then he cuts off communication and gloats that Rancourt will soon be off the payroll. St-Amant would not likely have felt free to send such a message had he not felt himself part of a campus crowd united by scorn for Rancourt.

From the available documents, Rancourt appears to exemplify a type of professor I described in my first book on academic mobbing, a professor I called "Dr. PITA" — acronym for pain-in-the-ass, or in politer terms, a thorn in administrators' sides, the one who makes them see red. Being a team player is not Dr. PITA's priority. Administrative demands that most professors comply with uncomplainingly are occasions for Dr. PITA to raise questions — and more questions.

Real-life professors can become Dr. PITA for any number of reasons. Administrators usually chalk it up to a personality defect. The documentary record suggests that the reason in Rancourt's case, as in many mobbing cases I have studied, is that he has thought deeply enough about education and the search for truth, to realize how much these noble purposes are subverted by the academic structures established to serve them. 

...Awareness of this downside of institutionalization is a common theme of the varied authors Rancourt cites in support of his own brand of anarchism — Paolo Freire, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, Herbert Marcuse, Ward Churchill, among others. 

It was apparently Rancourt's deepening understanding of and commitment to what learning actually involves, that led him to refuse to rank and grade his students in the established, expected way. Since grading is central to the institutionalization of learning, he felt obliged to renounce it. This was the sticking point, the offense that became the main official reason for his termination. As Rancourt plaintively wrote in his letter to the Board, "Socrates did not give grades to his students."

...More often, however, administrators and colleagues find ways to accommodate, sometimes even to honor and reward, the brilliant, unusually effective researcher and teacher whose process of growth has led to reluctance to give grades. Three professors of this kind have written letters of support for Rancourt: John McMurtry, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, John Southin, retired Professor of Biology at McGill University, and David Noble, Professor of Social and Political Thought at York University. These respected academics report that their universities managed to put up with them for decades, albeit sometimes grudgingly, despite their own dissent from conventional systems of student grading.

...Why do some university administrations mobilize collective resources to eliminate professors of the Dr. PITA type, professors like Rancourt or McMurtry or Illich, while others somehow make room for them? One key difference is whether the administrators, despite all the bureaucratic pressures upon them, continue to have a feel for what searching for truth actually means. If they still hear that search as a personal call, they cannot bring themselves to demonize, harass, and try to get rid of one who embodies truth-seeking in a pristine way, despite the administrative challenges such a professor poses. They are able to recognize in Dr. PITA not just bothersomeness and impracticality but successful engagement with inquiry and learning, the fundamental goals of a university...

On the other hand, to the extent a university's administrators are of a purely managerial or technocratic frame of mind, they lose sight of the institution's basic purposes and see a professor like Rancourt as nothing more than sand in the gears of the bureaucracy. They react with rigidity, threats, and punishment instead of dialogue... The administrators and their minions begin circling the wagons against the targeted professor, as if he or she were an invading army and the embodiment of wickedness. Compliant and afraid, many faculty and students join the circle. Energies that could be devoted to some kind of search for truth are expended instead on keeping a genuine, successful searcher outside the embattled circle of imagined rectitude.

...One of the things about Denis Rancourt that has led me to pick his case — out of the very many that come to my attention — for commentary here is his impolitic tenacity in telling the truth as he sees it. As if his troubles with the Ottawa administration over the grading issue were not enough, he committed the further transgression of allying himself with the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — in defiance of President Rock's well-known sympathies. While drawing inspiration from Noam Chomsky, Rancourt has upbraided Chomsky for not being brave enough and serving power too much. And despite drawing much of his support from the left, Rancourt nonetheless published in 2007, an insightful, scientifically informed critique of one of the left's main priorities, the alleged threat of global warming. Here is a man with little more prudence than the storied boy who said aloud that the emperor has no clothes. Any half-way decent educator has to feel admiration for Rancourt and to be glad that Claude Lamontagne and several dozen other professors and students at Ottawa have gone on record as opposing Rancourt's banishment.

The campaign against Denis Rancourt reflects badly on the University of Ottawa, but few professors can accurately say nothing similar has lately happened in their own academic homes. On the whole, Ottawa is not likely a worse educational institution than most others across the continent. We live in what KC Johnson has called, in a 2009 essay in Minding the Campus, "an era of academic mobbing." Some mobbings arise from the left, others from the right, very many from plain intolerance of a skilled truth-seeker with an independent mind. An era of greater devotion to the classic goal of seeking truth is worth working toward.

From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/Rancourt09.htm