Bullying isn’t restricted to youngsters. A study shows that it is a trend that can make life miserable for academics too.
Bullying can happen anywhere, to anyone, and a Rutgers-Camden nursing scholar has shed light on how it is becoming increasingly common in academia.
“What worries me is the impact that bullying is having on the ability to recruit and retain quality educators,” says Janice Beitz, a professor at the Rutgers School of Nursing-Camden. “It has become a disturbing trend.”
Beitz is the co-author of “Social Bullying in Nursing Academia”, an article published in the September/October 2013 edition of Nurse Educator that draws upon interviews of 16 nursing professors who were the victims of social bullying in an academic nursing workplace.
“We don’t know how widespread this is, but it exists,” says Beitz, who said she too was bullied in her career.
“Not many people look at bullying in the academic environment. We wanted to raise awareness of it.”
In the study, Beitz notes that among the most common cases of bullying, academic administrators are targeting faculty, but in some cases, faculty are bullying other faculty members or their administrative superiors, reports Science Daily.
“The bully can make life miserable for the target,” she explained.
“That’s because in an administrative role, a bully has the power to make decisions about the target. Part of it is the unique nature of higher education.”
“The tenure process is different than any other environment. Administrators in academia have power over colleagues, and sometimes that power causes them to bully their subordinates,” she said.
From: http://www.canindia.com/2013/12/bullying-makes-life-miserable-for-academics-study/
January 12, 2014
January 02, 2014
The dark side of emotional intelligence
Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by
emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr. presented his
dream, he chose language that would stir the hearts of his audience.
“Instead of honoring this sacred obligation” to liberty, King thundered,
“American has given the Negro people a bad check.” He promised that a
land “sweltering with the heat of oppression” could be “transformed into
an oasis of freedom and justice,” and envisioned a future in which “on
the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former
slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of
brotherhood.”
Delivering this electrifying message required emotional intelligence—the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Dr. King demonstrated remarkable skill in managing his own emotions and in sparking emotions that moved his audience to action. As his speechwriter Clarence Jones reflected, King delivered “a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope. His tone of pained indignation matched that note for note.”
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. Recognizing the power of emotions, another one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century spent years studying the emotional effects of his body language. Practicing his hand gestures and analyzing images of his movements allowed him to become “an absolutely spellbinding public speaker,” says the historian Roger Moorhouse—“it was something he worked very hard on.” His name was Adolph Hitler.
Since the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman’s bestseller, emotional intelligence has been touted by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. If we can teach our children to manage emotions, the argument goes, we’ll have less bullying and more cooperation. If we can cultivate emotional intelligence among leaders and doctors, we’ll have more caring workplaces and more compassionate healthcare. As a result, emotional intelligence is now taught widely in secondary schools, business schools, and medical schools.
When you’re
good at controlling your own emotions,
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has
obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their
emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you’re
good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true
feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their
heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.
Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In emerging research led by University of Cambridge professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remembered less of the content. Ironically, audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.
The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler’s persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions—he would “tear open his heart”—and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would “stop thinking critically and just emote.”
"Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts."
Shining a light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London Professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Emotionally intelligent people “intentionally shape their emotions to fabricate favorable impressions of themselves,” Professor Kilduff’s team writes. “The strategic disguise of one’s own emotions and the manipulation of others’ emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare’s stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded.”
Of course, people aren’t always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, emotional skills are simply instrumental tools for goal accomplishment. In a study of emotions at the Body Shop, a research team led by Stanford professor Joanne Martin discovered that founder Anita Roddick leveraged emotions to inspire her employees to fundraise for charity. As Roddick explained, “Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts.” However, Roddick also encouraged employees to be strategic in the timing of their emotion expressions. In one case, after noticing that an employee often “breaks down in tears with frustration,” Roddick said it was acceptable to cry, but “I told her it has to be used. I said, ‘Here, cry at this point in the ... meeting.” When viewing Roddick as an exemplar of an emotionally intelligent leader, it becomes clear that there’s a fine line between motivation and manipulation. Walking that tightrope is no easy task.
In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. In jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. In settings where emotions aren’t running high, emotional intelligence may have hidden costs. Recently, psychologists Dana Joseph of the University of Central Florida and Daniel Newman of the University of Illinois comprehensively analyzed every study that has ever examined the link between emotional intelligence and job performance. Across hundreds of studies of thousands of employees in 191 different jobs, emotional intelligence wasn’t consistently linked with better performance. In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. Salespeople, real-estate agents, call-center representatives, and counselors all excelled at their jobs when they knew how to read and regulate emotions—they were able to deal more effectively with stressful situations and provide service with a smile.
However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we’ve put the cart before the horse.
Instead of assuming that emotional intelligence is always useful, we need to think more carefully about where and when it matters. In a recent study at a healthcare company, I asked employees to complete a test about managing and regulating emotions, and then asked managers to evaluate how much time employees spent helping their colleagues and customers. There was no relationship whatsoever between emotional intelligence and helping: Helping is driven by our motivations and values, not by our abilities to understand and manage emotions. However, emotional intelligence was consequential when examining a different behavior: challenging the status quo by speaking up with ideas and suggestions for improvement.
Emotionally intelligent employees spoke up more often and more effectively. When colleagues were treated unjustly, they felt the righteous indignation to speak up, but were able to keep their anger in check and reason with their colleagues. When they went out on a limb to advocate for gender equity, emotional intelligence helped them keep their fear at bay. When they brought ideas for innovation to senior leaders, their ability to express enthusiasm helped them avoid threatening leaders. On a much smaller scale, they were able to follow Martin Luther King Jr.’s lead in rocking the boat while keeping it steady.
More than two decades have passed since psychologists Peter Salovey at Yale and John Mayer at the University of New Hampshire introduced the concept of emotional intelligence in 1990. Why has it taken us so long to develop a more nuanced view? After Daniel Goleman popularized the idea in 1995, many researchers—perhaps awestruck themselves by enthusiasm for the concept of emotional intelligence—proceeded to conduct studies that were fatally flawed. As University of Lausanne Professor John Antonakis observed, “practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research.”
One of the most persistent problems was the use of self-report measures, which asked employees to rate their own emotional abilities on items like “I can tell how people are feeling even if they never tell me” and “I am generally very good at calming someone down when he or she is upset.” Abilities cannot be accurately measured with self-reports. As emotion experts Sigal Barsade of Wharton and Donald Gibson of Fairfield University lament, “One might compare this approach to assessing mathematical skills by asking respondents, ‘How good are you at solving algebraic equations?’ rather than asking the person to actually solve an algebraic equation.”
Thanks to more rigorous research methods, there is growing recognition that emotional intelligence—like any skill—can be used for good or evil. So if we’re going to teach emotional intelligence in schools and develop it at work, we need to consider the values that go along with it and where it’s actually useful. As Professor Kilduff and colleagues put it, it is high time that emotional intelligence is “pried away from its association with desirable moral qualities.”
From: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-emotional-intelligence/282720/
Delivering this electrifying message required emotional intelligence—the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Dr. King demonstrated remarkable skill in managing his own emotions and in sparking emotions that moved his audience to action. As his speechwriter Clarence Jones reflected, King delivered “a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope. His tone of pained indignation matched that note for note.”
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. Recognizing the power of emotions, another one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century spent years studying the emotional effects of his body language. Practicing his hand gestures and analyzing images of his movements allowed him to become “an absolutely spellbinding public speaker,” says the historian Roger Moorhouse—“it was something he worked very hard on.” His name was Adolph Hitler.
Since the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman’s bestseller, emotional intelligence has been touted by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. If we can teach our children to manage emotions, the argument goes, we’ll have less bullying and more cooperation. If we can cultivate emotional intelligence among leaders and doctors, we’ll have more caring workplaces and more compassionate healthcare. As a result, emotional intelligence is now taught widely in secondary schools, business schools, and medical schools.
When you’re
good at controlling your own emotions,
you can disguise your true
feelings.
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has
obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their
emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you’re
good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true
feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their
heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In emerging research led by University of Cambridge professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remembered less of the content. Ironically, audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.
The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler’s persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions—he would “tear open his heart”—and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would “stop thinking critically and just emote.”
"Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts."
The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence.
Leaders who master emotions can rob us of our capacities to reason. If their values are out of step with our own, the results can be devastating. New evidence suggests that when people have self-serving motives, emotional intelligence becomes a weapon for manipulating others. In a study led by the University of Toronto psychologist Stéphane Côté, university employees filled out a survey about their Machiavellian tendencies, and took a test measuring their knowledge about effective strategies for managing emotions. Then, Cote’s team assessed how often the employees deliberately undermined their colleagues. The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence. They used their emotional skills to demean and embarrass their peers for personal gain. In one computer company studied by Tel-Aviv University professor Gideon Kunda, a manager admitted to telling a colleague “how excited we all are with what he is doing,” but at the same time, “distancing my organization from the project,” so “when it blows up,” the company’s founder would blame the colleague.Shining a light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London Professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Emotionally intelligent people “intentionally shape their emotions to fabricate favorable impressions of themselves,” Professor Kilduff’s team writes. “The strategic disguise of one’s own emotions and the manipulation of others’ emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare’s stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded.”
Of course, people aren’t always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, emotional skills are simply instrumental tools for goal accomplishment. In a study of emotions at the Body Shop, a research team led by Stanford professor Joanne Martin discovered that founder Anita Roddick leveraged emotions to inspire her employees to fundraise for charity. As Roddick explained, “Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts.” However, Roddick also encouraged employees to be strategic in the timing of their emotion expressions. In one case, after noticing that an employee often “breaks down in tears with frustration,” Roddick said it was acceptable to cry, but “I told her it has to be used. I said, ‘Here, cry at this point in the ... meeting.” When viewing Roddick as an exemplar of an emotionally intelligent leader, it becomes clear that there’s a fine line between motivation and manipulation. Walking that tightrope is no easy task.
In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. In jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. In settings where emotions aren’t running high, emotional intelligence may have hidden costs. Recently, psychologists Dana Joseph of the University of Central Florida and Daniel Newman of the University of Illinois comprehensively analyzed every study that has ever examined the link between emotional intelligence and job performance. Across hundreds of studies of thousands of employees in 191 different jobs, emotional intelligence wasn’t consistently linked with better performance. In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. Salespeople, real-estate agents, call-center representatives, and counselors all excelled at their jobs when they knew how to read and regulate emotions—they were able to deal more effectively with stressful situations and provide service with a smile.
However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we’ve put the cart before the horse.
Instead of assuming that emotional intelligence is always useful, we need to think more carefully about where and when it matters. In a recent study at a healthcare company, I asked employees to complete a test about managing and regulating emotions, and then asked managers to evaluate how much time employees spent helping their colleagues and customers. There was no relationship whatsoever between emotional intelligence and helping: Helping is driven by our motivations and values, not by our abilities to understand and manage emotions. However, emotional intelligence was consequential when examining a different behavior: challenging the status quo by speaking up with ideas and suggestions for improvement.
Emotionally intelligent employees spoke up more often and more effectively. When colleagues were treated unjustly, they felt the righteous indignation to speak up, but were able to keep their anger in check and reason with their colleagues. When they went out on a limb to advocate for gender equity, emotional intelligence helped them keep their fear at bay. When they brought ideas for innovation to senior leaders, their ability to express enthusiasm helped them avoid threatening leaders. On a much smaller scale, they were able to follow Martin Luther King Jr.’s lead in rocking the boat while keeping it steady.
More than two decades have passed since psychologists Peter Salovey at Yale and John Mayer at the University of New Hampshire introduced the concept of emotional intelligence in 1990. Why has it taken us so long to develop a more nuanced view? After Daniel Goleman popularized the idea in 1995, many researchers—perhaps awestruck themselves by enthusiasm for the concept of emotional intelligence—proceeded to conduct studies that were fatally flawed. As University of Lausanne Professor John Antonakis observed, “practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research.”
One of the most persistent problems was the use of self-report measures, which asked employees to rate their own emotional abilities on items like “I can tell how people are feeling even if they never tell me” and “I am generally very good at calming someone down when he or she is upset.” Abilities cannot be accurately measured with self-reports. As emotion experts Sigal Barsade of Wharton and Donald Gibson of Fairfield University lament, “One might compare this approach to assessing mathematical skills by asking respondents, ‘How good are you at solving algebraic equations?’ rather than asking the person to actually solve an algebraic equation.”
Thanks to more rigorous research methods, there is growing recognition that emotional intelligence—like any skill—can be used for good or evil. So if we’re going to teach emotional intelligence in schools and develop it at work, we need to consider the values that go along with it and where it’s actually useful. As Professor Kilduff and colleagues put it, it is high time that emotional intelligence is “pried away from its association with desirable moral qualities.”
From: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-emotional-intelligence/282720/
December 21, 2013
Bullying in Academia More Prevalent Than Thought
"What worries me is the impact that bullying is having on the ability
to recruit and retain quality educators," says Janice Beitz, a
professor at the Rutgers School of Nursing-Camden. "It has become a
disturbing trend."
Beitz is a co-author of "Social Bullying in Nursing Academia," an article published in the September/October 2013 edition of Nurse Educator that draws upon interviews conducted with 16 nursing professors who were the victims of social bullying in an academic nursing workplace. Beitz says that the participants described in detail instances in which they were slandered, isolated, physically threatened, lied to, or given unrealistic workloads, among various other bullying tactics.
The participants in the study were primarily non-tenured female faculty teaching in baccalaureate programs throughout the Unites States.
"We don't know how widespread this is, but it exists," says Beitz, who says she was bullied in her career. "Not many people look at bullying in the academic environment. We wanted to raise awareness of it."
In the study, Beitz notes that in the most common cases of bullying, academic administrators are targeting faculty, but in some cases, faculty are bullying other faculty members or their administrative superiors.
Bullies may be threatened by a fellow academic's qualifications and scholarship, or victims may be targeted because they are perceived as weak, Beitz says.
"The bully can make life miserable for the target," she explains. "That's because in an administrative role, a bully has the power to make decisions about the target. Part of it is the unique nature of higher education. The tenure process is different than any other environment. Administrators in academia have power over colleagues, and sometimes that power causes them to bully their subordinates."
Beitz says bullying victims will often blame themselves for the actions of a colleague and she says sometimes the only thing a victim can do is leave the environment altogether, which can dissuade nurses from pursuing careers as educators.
"Institutions need to have good faculty who are experienced clinicians and researchers. That doesn't happen in a bad bullying environment," she says. "If I hadn't had support from fellow faculty, I would have left education. I wouldn't have wanted that to happen. I've enjoyed my career. I feel like I've had an impact on a lot of wonderful graduates who have gone on to have great careers. People want to feel valued. That's why it's important to serve the people you work with and employ a collegial, positive environment."
Beitz is now working on a follow-up study on resilience and how victims are surviving when bullied. Additionally, since her bullying study does address the prevalence of bullying in nursing academia, Beitz hopes to cast a wider net and perform a quantitative study on the issue nationwide. Beitz's co-authors on "Social Bullying in Academia" were La Salle University nursing professors Earl Goldberg, Ciara Levine, and Diane Wieland.
From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219162948.htm
Beitz is a co-author of "Social Bullying in Nursing Academia," an article published in the September/October 2013 edition of Nurse Educator that draws upon interviews conducted with 16 nursing professors who were the victims of social bullying in an academic nursing workplace. Beitz says that the participants described in detail instances in which they were slandered, isolated, physically threatened, lied to, or given unrealistic workloads, among various other bullying tactics.
The participants in the study were primarily non-tenured female faculty teaching in baccalaureate programs throughout the Unites States.
"We don't know how widespread this is, but it exists," says Beitz, who says she was bullied in her career. "Not many people look at bullying in the academic environment. We wanted to raise awareness of it."
In the study, Beitz notes that in the most common cases of bullying, academic administrators are targeting faculty, but in some cases, faculty are bullying other faculty members or their administrative superiors.
Bullies may be threatened by a fellow academic's qualifications and scholarship, or victims may be targeted because they are perceived as weak, Beitz says.
"The bully can make life miserable for the target," she explains. "That's because in an administrative role, a bully has the power to make decisions about the target. Part of it is the unique nature of higher education. The tenure process is different than any other environment. Administrators in academia have power over colleagues, and sometimes that power causes them to bully their subordinates."
Beitz says bullying victims will often blame themselves for the actions of a colleague and she says sometimes the only thing a victim can do is leave the environment altogether, which can dissuade nurses from pursuing careers as educators.
"Institutions need to have good faculty who are experienced clinicians and researchers. That doesn't happen in a bad bullying environment," she says. "If I hadn't had support from fellow faculty, I would have left education. I wouldn't have wanted that to happen. I've enjoyed my career. I feel like I've had an impact on a lot of wonderful graduates who have gone on to have great careers. People want to feel valued. That's why it's important to serve the people you work with and employ a collegial, positive environment."
Beitz is now working on a follow-up study on resilience and how victims are surviving when bullied. Additionally, since her bullying study does address the prevalence of bullying in nursing academia, Beitz hopes to cast a wider net and perform a quantitative study on the issue nationwide. Beitz's co-authors on "Social Bullying in Academia" were La Salle University nursing professors Earl Goldberg, Ciara Levine, and Diane Wieland.
From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219162948.htm
December 19, 2013
Imperial College...
Putting any lack of investment in staff development, strategies that
exist to promote cronyism, incompetence, favoritism, and inequality, and
to disguise management failures, Imperial College is a place where
internal grievance procedures are used selectively by managers - against
staff, with most senior managers untouchable and no accountability or
transparency in any decision making process. If any complaints ever
reach the surface those are ignored and the staff are victimised and
penalised in such a way so that they serve as a lesson for others. Fear
prevails among a silent majority, over-managed or under-managed
according to senior staff needs. The working environment is toxic.
Anonymous
Anonymous
December 15, 2013
Why the Gifted Are at Heightened Risk
...A review of the literature by Zapf and Einarsen (2005) suggests that individuals describing themselves “as more achievement-oriented and as more conscientious than their colleagues” (p. 253) are more often mobbing targets. The (D.) perfectionism that is a virtue of the highly gifted individual is (A.) misunderstood by others, whereas for the gifted individual this is but an expression of his or her (D.) estheticism in the same way that a perfect diamond’s refraction of light is also beautiful. Colleagues will know that their work does not stack up by comparison, and they will need no one to tell them so. The gifted individual’s perfectionism and estheticism are seen as a threat, even if the gifted individual does not speak about them and does not offer criticism of others. A highly gifted adult cannot obscure his or her presence in such a milieu even through innocuous behavior. Such a presence will become and remain a recognized social fact because gossip, malicious and otherwise, will establish it as such. This malice will enforce the gifted adult’s social isolation, probably also intensifying his or her search for the meaning of that social isolation. Highly gifted adults’ (A.) difference from others, exacerbated by (A.) others’ misunderstanding of this difference, offers less capable colleagues the opportunity to establish by rumor and innuendo other socially recognized “facts,” to the detriment of the gifted person, whether those “facts” are actually true or not.
It is unhappily the case that there are not always enough places in superlative organizations to house the number of highly talented and gifted individuals who merit such positions. At institutions less than first-rate, therefore, one characteristically finds a small number of highly talented individuals who merit placement at a truly first-rate institution, surrounded by a rather larger number of less talented individuals who know that they could never reasonably aspire to such a position. The latter will typically compensate for their sense of inferiority by seeking ego-satisfaction through the acquisition of institutional power and prerogative. This power they will then tend to employ to make others’ lives hell, often targeting highly talented colleagues whose greater abilities evoke their own deep-seated insecurity.
Einarsen’s (1999) research on “predatory mobbing” (i.e., cases where the victim has not acted in any provocative manner that might justify the behavior of the predator) gives examples of the foregoing destructive cycle. Stucke’s (2002, cited in Zapf & Einarsen, 2005, p. 251) study establishes empirically that “active mobbing behavior [is] highest for a group high in narcissism but low in self-esteem stability, [as this group’s] individuals had to stabilize their high but unstable selfesteem by treating other individuals negatively.” In other words, inflated but weak egos need to beat down genuine quality in others. This is a “textbook description” not only of the organizational culture of the institution where I worked but indeed of the cultural syndrome of the whole broader social milieu of which the institution is characteristic. Zapf and Einarsen (2005) explain how such a dynamic develops on the microsocial level:
This group of victims was certainly [D.] not among the least efficient employees in the organization. Their problem was that they clashed with the norms of the work group to which they belonged. It is likely that in this case, the victims’ [B.] conscientiousness went against a group culture characterized by rigidity and low tolerance for diversity. These victims were probably perceived as constant annoyances or even threats to the work group to which they belonged. As a consequence, the group may have started to harass these individuals, either to enforce conformity or to get rid of the person. (p. 254; emphasis added)...
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/Kotleras-mobbing2011.pdf
November 23, 2013
Workplace Bullying in Canadian Graduate Psychology Programs: Student Perspectives of Student–Supervisor Relationships
From: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-36056-001/
November 09, 2013
Otago University bullying alleged
The director of the University of Otago's marketing and
communications division has been accused of bullying and being
responsible for a ''toxic'' environment in the division.
The accusations against Virginia Nicholls were made at an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) case in Dunedin yesterday by former head of marketing services Kerry Kirkland, who claims she was unjustifiably dismissed and is seeking more than $270,000 in compensation from the university.
The accusations were supported by two other former staff members - including Dr Kirkland's predecessor - who agreed Ms Nicholls bullied staff and created an unhealthy environment in the division.
Dr Kirkland said the university failed to adequately address problems in the division.
''The work environment was toxic and the university had knowledge of the problems but refused to acknowledge or remedy this which is what made the working relationship untenable,'' she said in a statement provided to the authority.
After Dr Kirkland took the job in October 2011, it soon became apparent Ms Nicholls' management style was causing problems, Dr Kirkland said.
''I found the atmosphere in the department to be oppressive and staff members were distraught about the situation with Ms Nicholls and how they had been treated by her.''
Her relationship with Ms Nicholls got to the point where she went on stress leave in February this year after a doctor provided a medical certificate saying her work environment was harmful to her health.
The university responded on March 20 with a letter saying Dr Kirkland could not return to work unless she had a medical certificate saying she had ''recovered'' enough to return to work in the ''existing environment''.
She was later sent a letter dismissing her from her position on May 16 on the grounds of ''medical incapacity''.
Dr Kirkland argued the condition requiring her to get a medical certificate before returning to work was illegal and impossible to fulfil.
She said her relationship with Ms Nicholls deteriorated after allegations made by other staff members that she had been ''rude'' in meetings were repeatedly brought up by Ms Nicholls.
She felt the allegations were unfounded and was disappointed they were not investigated by the university thoroughly enough for either her name to be cleared or for her to be able to learn from her behaviour.
Under cross-examination of Dr Kirkland, counsel for the university Barry Dorking asked if comments made by her during the meeting with one of the staff members could be perceived as being ''rude''. Dr Kirkland replied saying ''clearly'', but said she was merely doing her job.
After being questioned by ERA member David Appleton about the ''extraordinary amount'' of compensation she was seeking, Dr Kirkland said she was still having problems sleeping. Her experience had resulted in a loss of confidence, damage to her reputation and she was yet to find a full-time permanent job.
Dr Kirkland's predecessor, Ruth Mackenzie-White, told the authority she left the university because of her relationship with Ms Nicholls.
''I regularly felt bullied by Ms Nicholls and I was frequently in tears in my one-on-one meetings with her due to the way she spoke to me.''
Former staff member Kate Kidson, who left the division this year, also backed Dr Kirkland, saying in a statement to the ERA she ''witnessed'' Ms Nicholls bullying Dr Kirkland. She also talked about the unhealthy culture in the division.
''In my opinion, there was a culture of fear at the department of marketing services.'' She was present at one of the meetings where Dr Kirkland was accused of being ''rude'' and did not believe the accusation was correct.
Lawyer David Sim gave evidence on a report he wrote for the university on Ms Nicholls' management style after the university received a letter of complaint about Ms Nicholls from the Tertiary Education Union.
Under cross-examination from counsel for Dr Kirkland, Len Andersen, Mr Sim accepted there were problems in the division, but stood by comments that none of the about 70 allegations he uncovered ''could reasonably be described as bullying'' - a comment he made in a letter to the court.
Mr Appleton said he did not ''understand'' how some of the allegations made by Dr Kirkland to Mr Sim could not be described as accusations of bullying.
Mr Sim replied to his questions saying, ''bullying is an easy word to use, but whether there is any substance [to claims of bullying] is another question''.
University chief operating officer John Patrick said following Mr Sim's report, the university had taken actions to improve the situation in the division.
He had met division staff in February and told them they could raise any concerns over Ms Nicholls' behaviour, for a period until June 30, directly with him.
Ms Nicholls was also asked to participate in a leadership course.
Asked if the environment had improved since, he said, ''Yes, I think [it has] improved significantly.''
He mentioned, based on his experience, that Dr Kirkland could be ''abrupt'' and recalled his first meeting with her, saying she told him: ''They tell me you can be ... a difficult person to deal with.''
He also recounted a meeting he had with Dr Kirkland in February at which he told her the university was not going to discipline her over accusations she had been rude in meetings with other staff.
At the meeting, he offered for the university to investigate the claims of rudeness made against Dr Kirkland.
Mr Appleton said there was confusion over whether the investigation offered would involve disciplinary action against Dr Kirkland.
Mr Patrick replied saying the investigation would not have been part of any disciplinary action.
The case continues.
From: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/279901/varsity-bullying-alleged
Also: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/280095/bullying-claims-rejected
The accusations against Virginia Nicholls were made at an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) case in Dunedin yesterday by former head of marketing services Kerry Kirkland, who claims she was unjustifiably dismissed and is seeking more than $270,000 in compensation from the university.
The accusations were supported by two other former staff members - including Dr Kirkland's predecessor - who agreed Ms Nicholls bullied staff and created an unhealthy environment in the division.
Dr Kirkland said the university failed to adequately address problems in the division.
''The work environment was toxic and the university had knowledge of the problems but refused to acknowledge or remedy this which is what made the working relationship untenable,'' she said in a statement provided to the authority.
After Dr Kirkland took the job in October 2011, it soon became apparent Ms Nicholls' management style was causing problems, Dr Kirkland said.
''I found the atmosphere in the department to be oppressive and staff members were distraught about the situation with Ms Nicholls and how they had been treated by her.''
Her relationship with Ms Nicholls got to the point where she went on stress leave in February this year after a doctor provided a medical certificate saying her work environment was harmful to her health.
The university responded on March 20 with a letter saying Dr Kirkland could not return to work unless she had a medical certificate saying she had ''recovered'' enough to return to work in the ''existing environment''.
She was later sent a letter dismissing her from her position on May 16 on the grounds of ''medical incapacity''.
Dr Kirkland argued the condition requiring her to get a medical certificate before returning to work was illegal and impossible to fulfil.
She said her relationship with Ms Nicholls deteriorated after allegations made by other staff members that she had been ''rude'' in meetings were repeatedly brought up by Ms Nicholls.
She felt the allegations were unfounded and was disappointed they were not investigated by the university thoroughly enough for either her name to be cleared or for her to be able to learn from her behaviour.
Under cross-examination of Dr Kirkland, counsel for the university Barry Dorking asked if comments made by her during the meeting with one of the staff members could be perceived as being ''rude''. Dr Kirkland replied saying ''clearly'', but said she was merely doing her job.
After being questioned by ERA member David Appleton about the ''extraordinary amount'' of compensation she was seeking, Dr Kirkland said she was still having problems sleeping. Her experience had resulted in a loss of confidence, damage to her reputation and she was yet to find a full-time permanent job.
Dr Kirkland's predecessor, Ruth Mackenzie-White, told the authority she left the university because of her relationship with Ms Nicholls.
''I regularly felt bullied by Ms Nicholls and I was frequently in tears in my one-on-one meetings with her due to the way she spoke to me.''
Former staff member Kate Kidson, who left the division this year, also backed Dr Kirkland, saying in a statement to the ERA she ''witnessed'' Ms Nicholls bullying Dr Kirkland. She also talked about the unhealthy culture in the division.
''In my opinion, there was a culture of fear at the department of marketing services.'' She was present at one of the meetings where Dr Kirkland was accused of being ''rude'' and did not believe the accusation was correct.
Lawyer David Sim gave evidence on a report he wrote for the university on Ms Nicholls' management style after the university received a letter of complaint about Ms Nicholls from the Tertiary Education Union.
Under cross-examination from counsel for Dr Kirkland, Len Andersen, Mr Sim accepted there were problems in the division, but stood by comments that none of the about 70 allegations he uncovered ''could reasonably be described as bullying'' - a comment he made in a letter to the court.
Mr Appleton said he did not ''understand'' how some of the allegations made by Dr Kirkland to Mr Sim could not be described as accusations of bullying.
Mr Sim replied to his questions saying, ''bullying is an easy word to use, but whether there is any substance [to claims of bullying] is another question''.
University chief operating officer John Patrick said following Mr Sim's report, the university had taken actions to improve the situation in the division.
He had met division staff in February and told them they could raise any concerns over Ms Nicholls' behaviour, for a period until June 30, directly with him.
Ms Nicholls was also asked to participate in a leadership course.
Asked if the environment had improved since, he said, ''Yes, I think [it has] improved significantly.''
He mentioned, based on his experience, that Dr Kirkland could be ''abrupt'' and recalled his first meeting with her, saying she told him: ''They tell me you can be ... a difficult person to deal with.''
He also recounted a meeting he had with Dr Kirkland in February at which he told her the university was not going to discipline her over accusations she had been rude in meetings with other staff.
At the meeting, he offered for the university to investigate the claims of rudeness made against Dr Kirkland.
Mr Appleton said there was confusion over whether the investigation offered would involve disciplinary action against Dr Kirkland.
Mr Patrick replied saying the investigation would not have been part of any disciplinary action.
The case continues.
From: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/279901/varsity-bullying-alleged
Also: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/280095/bullying-claims-rejected
October 14, 2013
Bad habits...
The professional services department I've worked in at the University of
Northampton has a habit of bringing in people on contracts, getting them
to do huge amounts of work, bullying them and then sacking them when
they finish projects. People get thrown to the dogs as soon as they
finish big jobs, then the incompetent managers pick apart the work of
that person and use them as scapegoats for their own incompetence. It
happens every few months! You would think after a while people would
catch on but the bullying culture of the department means that
colleagues do nothing to support each other. Everyone is out for
themselves. I've spent months medicated in order to cope. The managers
are just ridiculous, they can't make decisions for themselves and
change the rules and the goals constantly. They don't have experience
in higher education either, so they don't even know some of the basics
of working in HE.
HR is useless, they are only there to support the same bullying managers
time and on.
Anonymous
Anonymous
October 07, 2013
Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics
University of Ottawa must end its financing of a private defamation lawsuit
(Ottawa, August 2013) — The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is demanding that the University of Ottawa stop financing a private defamation lawsuit against its long-time and outspoken critic Denis Rancourt.
The lawsuit is about a blog article on “U of O Watch” in which Rancourt concluded (correctly, it turned out) that the president had asked a black professor to criticize a student report that accused the university of racial discrimination.
Rancourt has published his “U of O Watch” blog since 2007, and is a former professor of the university. The private action was initiated in 2011, and has been widely reported in the media. The Ontario Superior Court recently scheduled the matter for a three-week trial starting May 12, 2014. A pre-trial hearing will be held on December 19, 2013.
The University of Ottawa is using public funds to finance the lawsuit. University president Allan Rock admitted under cross-examination that he approved the financing without a spending limit (with “no cap”) from the university’s operating budget.
Based on court submissions for legal costs, OCLA estimates that the university has spent over $1 million to date pursuing Rancourt, who was fired by the university in 2009, and who is self-represented in the civil action.
OCLA believes that the university’s funding is wrong because:
1. It violates Rancourt’s right of freedom of expression and the public’s right to hear all points of view; and
2. It is antithetical to academic freedom, which the university is bound to protect.
It is against the law in Canada for the government to sue an individual for defamation because that would violate the individual’s Charter right to free expression, yet here the government is financing such a lawsuit about a matter of public interest — racial discrimination at a major public institution.
From: http://ocla.ca/our-work/public-campaigns/public-money-is-not-for-silencing-critics/
(Ottawa, August 2013) — The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is demanding that the University of Ottawa stop financing a private defamation lawsuit against its long-time and outspoken critic Denis Rancourt.
The lawsuit is about a blog article on “U of O Watch” in which Rancourt concluded (correctly, it turned out) that the president had asked a black professor to criticize a student report that accused the university of racial discrimination.
Rancourt has published his “U of O Watch” blog since 2007, and is a former professor of the university. The private action was initiated in 2011, and has been widely reported in the media. The Ontario Superior Court recently scheduled the matter for a three-week trial starting May 12, 2014. A pre-trial hearing will be held on December 19, 2013.
The University of Ottawa is using public funds to finance the lawsuit. University president Allan Rock admitted under cross-examination that he approved the financing without a spending limit (with “no cap”) from the university’s operating budget.
Based on court submissions for legal costs, OCLA estimates that the university has spent over $1 million to date pursuing Rancourt, who was fired by the university in 2009, and who is self-represented in the civil action.
OCLA believes that the university’s funding is wrong because:
1. It violates Rancourt’s right of freedom of expression and the public’s right to hear all points of view; and
2. It is antithetical to academic freedom, which the university is bound to protect.
It is against the law in Canada for the government to sue an individual for defamation because that would violate the individual’s Charter right to free expression, yet here the government is financing such a lawsuit about a matter of public interest — racial discrimination at a major public institution.
From: http://ocla.ca/our-work/public-campaigns/public-money-is-not-for-silencing-critics/
October 04, 2013
Mobbing in two American universities
Prof.
Jeff Johnson, from Northborough, Massachusetts done in court after
allegations of harassment and identity theft quashed, from Boston,
Massachusetts State, USA, intl., by Charles Dusman, Freelance
Editorialist and News Writer, United Kingdom, Octwoodward@gmail.com, in consortium with Istanbul Bilgi University in Turkey.
On
Friday, September 20, 2013, former Western Connecticut State University
administrator Linda Vaden-Goad, currently Vice President of Academic
Affairs at Framingham State University, was ordered to attend a
settlement hearing in Bridgeport, Connecticut in regard to civilly
libelous behavior she wrongfully exercised toward former Western
Connecticut State University professor Rosalie Appel.
As
first reported by United Kingdom press last spring, charges were
suddenly quashed in pretrial conferences against Framingham State
University Prof. Jeff Johnson, where he worked as an Assistant Professor
for several years until he decided to part ways in 2011. According to
court records, almost every administrative decision preceding Johnson's
departure involved Vaden-Goad. Court documents confirmed the
unprecedented fact that Vaden-Goad oversaw Johnson's employment hearing,
under a provision of the collective bargaining agreement that does not
exclude parties directly involved.
Appel and
Johnson's cases are part of a foray on academic mobbing worldwide,
including cases in North America, South America, Australia and here in
Europe. All examples meet one criterion: an administrator who is a
driving force in two different case studies.
THE LEGAL ELEMENT
Rosalie
Appel started experiencing retaliatory behavior from Vaden-Goad after
she (Appel) came to the aid of a colleague in another WCSU case.
Vaden-Goad was very much a key defendant in Appel's own civil lawsuit.
According to court records, "The 'controlling question' was 'whether
defendant(s) [Vaden-Goad] can show indisputably that they would have
taken the same adverse actions, namely implementation and enforcement of
the [remediation plan] and the resulting discipline against Appel, even
in the absence of her protected speech'" The court ruled in favor of
Appel.
On 27 Mar 2013,
Vaden-Goad et al., appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals, who upheld that, "...a question of fact existed as to
whether [Vaden Goad's] treatment of Appel after Appel filed her 2006
lawsuit...was motivated by legitimate reasons or impermissible
retaliation [and] therefore affirm the district court's denial of
qualified immunity on Appel's First Amendment claim."
The 27 Mar 2013
court records also affirmed Appel's second claim, "that defendants
violated her right to privacy by requesting that she show them her
medical records in connection with a psychiatric examination she was
required to undergo to continue teaching."
The
court added that, "invading or intending to invade the privacy of an
employee's medical or mental health records will violate the employee's
Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process if the employer's
intent is to "injure or to spite" the plaintiff."
According
to the LCCS, "These two rulings are direct vindication for injurious,
calculating and retaliatory behavior that Vaden-Goad et al. wantonly
and maliciously demonstrated toward Appel."
It
is also a victory of principle and profession for Johnson, whose
resignation is not without an extraordinarily similar pattern of
escalating behavior perverted by Vaden-Goad upon Appel. The LCCS
confirmed that comparing court documents show an almost "xeroxed" match
in the methodology of both academic mobbing campaigns, both pursued by
Vaden-Goad.
THE AMERICAN PRETRIAL
Although
some laws and procedure vary state to state, pretrial proceedings
involve a 9-12 month process, during which the plaintiff's attorney and
defense counsel pursue a disposition agreeable to the plaintiff(s),
defendant(s) and counselors. The counselors then present the
disposition to the judge. Fruition of a disposition generally requires
9-12 months, particularly those involving misdemeanor allegations.
The pretrial procedure in the United States justice
system generally follows the following steps: arraignment, discovery,
compliance/election, continuances and status appearances. A trial will
follow if the ADA and defense attorney cannot reason an agreeable
disposition.
This case, filed
in July of 2011, lasted twenty-two months in pretrial court
proceedings. Significant delays are most often caused by unsuccessful
efforts for a public prosecutor (an assistant district attorney) and
public or private defense attorney to agree on a pretrial disposition.
Awaiting evidence analysis is another common cause for delay.
It is seldom
that prosecutors enter their intent to no longer pursue charges after so
much time has passed since the filing date. Longer time periods are
indicative of the state strengthening their case against the defendant.
Among
Common reasons a
prosecutor/plaintiff may not prosecute include the nature of the
offense, lack of or no valid and reliable evidence, the defendant’s
(lack of) criminal history and (lack of) prior appearances in court. The
defendant’s residence, employment status, and ties to the community are
also contributing variables.
These steps
would normally call for a 9-12 month period following the date that the
charges were pressed in court. A trial would not add any more than a
month.
Even
more peculiar is the consent and participation of the affiant in press
coverage of an ongoing investigation for which they identify themselves
as the alleged victim, as was written in a November 2011 university
article.
ACADEMIC MOBBING
This article marks the
ten-year anniversary of Susan Dunn's breakthrough report on
multi-international academic mobbing reports among the nations of three
continents: Australia, Europe and North America. Dunn is a prolific
writer for Webpronews.com and marketing coach, consultant and website
reviewer of Webstrategies.cc.
Following the
tradition of Dunn's work, the current research mainstreams an
international foray of academic mobbing examples. Among approximately
eight hundred academic mobbing examples since 2003, sixty cases
significantly surpassed the profundity of exploitation, extensiveness
and injurious effect solicited upon higher education faculty by their
respective institutions.
In comparison and counterpoint to Appel's case, this
article reports one of the most "heinous" and "obvious" examples of
academic mobbing that experts have considered in recent years, also
involving Vaden-Goad. Research, legal analysis and integration of court
documents, bankruptcy records on affiants involved, police reports and
prior media attention provides a voice to enfranchise the victim of
mobbing, Professor Jeff Johnson of Framingham State University. "Mobbed
faculty" are rarely complicit to offer direct testimony about their
mobbing experience. Exhaustive. Johnson's case is particularly
intriguing due to his tenacity and insistence not to speak publicly
about it.
According to Freelance compatriot and legal
journalist Jayne Howarth, "A mobbing campaign commonly begins with a
benign incident provoked and facilitated by an administrator, usually
the Academic Affairs leader: a dean or VP. The target of mobbing is
almost always a non-tenured, middle-class, young and well-liked
professor or a long-standing, tenured and senior faculty member."
"The trigger
incident is benign in order that the administration has access to
control it's narrative. The outcome is almost always imposing
disciplinary action on the unsuspecting non-tenured faculty member, and
exploiting the characteristic emotional instability in the tenured
professor. " Howarth added.
According to
Howarth, "The academic affairs facilitator then acquires the resources
and influence from Human Resources to persuade the tenured faculty
member to pursue recourse with their union. The escalation of paper
purposely trails on a fast track toward internal law enforcement. An HR
director's goal is to massage the tenured employee to report
allegations that require little to no evidence to substantiate and
hardly any power to enforce: harassment. The tenured professor is
usually quieted by direction from HR, as they could sabbatical the
validity of the harassment claim."
Howarth noted that, "Court records in the Framingham
State University case demonstrate the most reliable evidence that
academic mobbing is at play: the 'the victim who readily discloses to
media outlets.'"
Victims who aggressively reveal their identity with
an on-going investigation of harassment and a harassment order in play
disrespect the resources of the court. Swedish academic mobbing cases
readily treat the alleged victim who pursues public disclosure as
committing tortious interference."
Tortious interference charges are controversial
because they impose a distinction between speech freedom and speech
privilege. When an alleged victim is complicit to engaging in publicity
about an individual who has allegedly harassed them, they harm the
credibility and integrity of the order with every word they convey.
Howarth added that, "'People who obtain a
restraining order out of a genuine need are in fear for their safety,
and do not publicize their their grievances on an alleged defendant in
any way. Publicity has historically provoked undue and avoidable
retaliation."
"Legislation in
the United Kingdom. USA and Canada holds that victims who publicly name
their alleged victimizer is just as well perjuring their restraining
order's credibility and civic integrity. Violation of harassment orders
are almost always quashed following an alleged victim's revelation of
the defendant and details in regard to affidavits and police reports
they submitted to police," Howarth added.
Howarth further
stated, "A victim's public behavior may likely be wantonly and
maliciously considered as a revenge tactic for unfulfilled intentions
they had when first obtaining the restraining order. This circumstance
conveys an ex post facto admission that the original order was
fraudulent, and can result in a variety of criminal and civil charges."
These charges
may include charges for intentionally filing a false police report,
slander, defamation, liability for causing law enforcement to
unnecessarily expend public funds to investigate false allegations and
perjury.
"Victims who
journalistically disclose their alleged harasser's identity is waving a
red flag of false pursuance of the order, to the extent that it is
virtually unheard of on the United Kingdom, The United States and
Canada, for alleged victims to willingly pursue, comply with and
participate in news coverage of their alleged harasser in an ongoing
investigation." Haworth stated.
Audits for
perjury are not uncommon when an alleged victim shows a zealous
willingness to comment in the news prior to investigation closure.
Freelance
compatriot journalist Maureen Hunt-Yellick added that, "When an alleged
victim is willing to pursue and offer substantial feedback to the
'published public' on harassment charges and any related criminal
allegations, courts historically call into question the credibility of
the affiant."
Hunt-Yellick
added that, "a 'smoking gun' that perjurious and injurious behavior has
been committed by a plaintiff upon a so-called defendant is whether or
not the plaintiff specifies the defendant's motive to the published
public, and then changes that motive to this audience in later
publications."
This
investigation discovered the inconsistency a month prior to
Hunt-Yellick's "smoking gun" contribution. "Poor review, discrepancies
in resume, a grant, pending termination," are just a few incongruous
reasons provided by the "victim" in Johnson's case.
Hunt-Yellick
elaborates that, "Victims virtually never make public statements about
open harassment charges they filed. A willingness to disclose
substantial details for journalists denotes that the affiant did not
possess a credible level of emotional distress or alarm warranting the
successful fruition of harassment charges. It is alarming how often and
willingly the alleged "victim" consented to commenting publicly about
her own alleged harassment, and how often she entirely changed the
reasons why it happened."
Hunt-Yellick
added that a reasonable affiant essentially forfeits their claim of
emotional distress and alarm by voluntarily and willfully offering an
abundance of published feedback on an open harassment case. They also
disqualify the infliction of a "reasonable person" requirement. Alleged
victims who press harassment charges, or any charges for that matter,
injure their claims and credibility, because the defense can use the
alleged victim's feedback as a vital and intuitive tool that contradicts
the requisite level of distress and alarm. Many precedent cases hold
that an alleged victim voluntarily commenting publicly on their open
case because any sign that they arguably publicized privileged and
personnel related information expresses contempt for the resources they
sought from the court. In other words a violation of this privilege
by the alleged victim has precedently been deemed retaliation by the
alleged victim. It is then admissible for the defendant to submit that
the affiant is exploiting the court's resources and limiting their
potential to protect the alleged victim. The alleged victim injured
their credibility because public disclosure, although legal, will call
into question the veracity and integrity of the distress and alarm they
felt from the defendant.
Hunt-Yellick
concluded that, "A legitimate harassment claim does not demonstrate
unreliable testimony from the complainant. A lawful claim of harassment
does not tolerate publication of privileged fact or false statement of
fact. Legal review and precedent holds that an alleged victim of
harassment expels the integrity of their harassment claim by
participating in wanton press coverage with suggestive or overt punitive
editorial of the defendant. In other words, in my personal opinion,
the university and the "victim" "cooked" this complaint. It is textbook
academic mobbing directed at Johnson."
Courts
can neither tolerate nor justify legally admissible however voluntary
punitive treatment of defendants. To reiterate, the result is a
corruption of the court's litigious assistance that the alleged victim
requested after the initial harassment claim.
Mr. Johnson could not be reached for comment on the morning of 4/29/13. No phone calls were returned on 4/29/13.
According to former student Aaron Chase, "Jeff [Johnson] is the most docile person I ever met."
Mr.
Chase stated that since the individual who filed these charges may
still be teaching, he [Johnson] may not want to comment because it was
not in the best interest of former, present or current students.
Mr. Chase
studied Public Speaking under Johnson in the summer 2009. Chase added,
"When I heard about this matter, it felt like I was kicked in the
stomach. But I always knew Jeff was innocent and these charges were
bogus."
Another student
Alla Stackland added, "Everyone in the loop knew that Jeff [Johnson] was
innocent. Nobody commented on the charges other than students."
"Nontenured
and part-time faculty are the most vulnerable targets of academic
mobbing," Strickland added. "There is much less liability for a college
or university to target the non-tenured professor regardless of any
legal or moral dilemma. Conflicts involving the pairing of one tenured
and one non-tenured professor, unions, colleagues and administrators are
well-versed, ahead of time, in the institution's potential liability,
and very often they feel they can move more cost efficiently on the non
-tenured party. Administrations lack of pursuance to rid this problem
and elevate the morale of the academic and collegiate culture is a
testament to the chronic problem of academic mobbing.
"Colleagues are unlikely to openly support the target openly out fear of retaliation, and job loss," Strickland added.
Tigrel added, "The more recent the incidents of academic mobbing are, the more disturbing they reverberate."
After an exhaustive review of public court documents
and affidavits provided by Framingham, Johnson fits almost the entire
criteria according to American expert Joan Friedman's extensive research
on mobbing characteristics both foreign and domestic.
According to
Friedman, "First, mobbing victims are typically productive, inner-
directed individuals who also often act on their principles. Their
productivity in higher education may also include successful grant
procurement (personal observation). They are also often a little
different. You might have noticed that our mobbing victim was
foreign-born, had accented speech, came from a working class background,
and, unlike colleagues, was religiously observant. The results of
several studies in Europe suggest that woman are mobbed more than men
(Meschkutat, Stackelbeck, & Langenhoff...however these results are
controversial and may be influenced by women’s willingness to report
this embarrassing phenomenon more.
Fear of retaliation was both warranted and
precedented. According to public court documents, this is not the first
time a member(s) of Framingham State University's administration
allegedly used tactics to injure the professional fitness of a faculty
member.
Vice President of Academic Affairs Linda Vaden-Goad
was concurrently one of several defendants in a civil litigation matter
in Connecticut.
Professor
Rosalie Appel, a tenured Art Professor of nearly 40 years at Western
State Connecticut University (herein referred to as WCSU) experienced
discrimination and professional misconduct at the hands of
administrators.
Court documents show WCSU administrators violated
legal and civil rights of Ms. Appel. According to court records, among
these administrators was Ms. Linda Vaden-Goad (herein referred to as
Vaden-Goad), the now current Vice President of Academic Affairs at
Framingham State University.
Three other administrators at WCSU were also found
to have violated Ms. Appel's rights. The egregious way Appel was
treated also violated union and even legal standards. According to
court documents, the civil infractions against Appel were initiated by
Vaden-Goad.
Vaden-Goad et al. began an alleged mobbing campaign
by making Appel the target of an unsanctioned petition against Appel..
Vaden-Goad approached the WCSU Art faculty to mobilize a
department-wide petition in protest Appel's alleged behavior.
Following the petition, Vaden-Goad et al. founded a
special assessment committee to examine Appel‟s conduct and develop an
action plan to address any problems the Committee identified, ultimately
calling for Appel to undergo a neuropsychological and projectives
assessment.
Court records
indicate that Ms. Appel's confidential medical records were accessed by
administrators. By law, access to medical records is prohibited by any
subject unless permitted otherwise. However Ms. Appel gave no such
permission.
Ms. Appel was not successfully contacted for comment.
The
most unbecoming factor was Vaden-Goad et al.'s due process violation
clause of the 14th Amendment in ordering Appel to submit to a
psychiatric exam while intending to access Appel's mental health record
and the results of the exam.
The recent Framingham State University matter sounds
an alarm that continued arrogant, unethical, union-violating and
illegal behavior was not quelled by this WCSU case. Reports of grant
investigations, teaching quality and adviser competence against Johnson
and countless others are common publication items that university
administrations use to "attack the target".
These target strategies are meant to suggest
suspicion because investigations took place. University officials,
especially those in the public sector, do not publish any counterfactual
or meretricious proceedings on current or former employees, and jargon
such as "investigation" functions in school press to transfer guilt and
defamatory suggestion onto the "target".
By law, receipt or provision of monies exceeding
$5,000 are always subject to investigation. Even more, banks are
required to report funds transacted in excess of $4999.99 to the IRS.
According to tax consultants Ernst & Young, financial
advisers for the Oslo Atrium, Christian Frederiks Plass, and financial
consultants in the United States, "An investigation of Johnson's grant
is an article that could be written about anyone who receives grant
money in excess of $5,000."
Court records show that Mr. Johnson solely informed a
former university advancement director of applying for the funds and
receipt of a pledge. The Assistant District Attorney corroborated this
fact on the record in pretrial proceedings.
A representative for the NFIE, an organization
through which the monies were pledged to Johnson, confirmed that, "We
maintain a strong climate of privacy and anonymity about our grant
activity. Our mission is to grant funds directly to recipient without
administrative sifting of funds."
They added, "Many universities and institutions have
delayed the progress of grants by presuming they have a right to a
portion of the funds. It is not uncommon for this misunderstanding to
lead to trumped up disciplinary action."
The NFIE strongly encourages institutions to observe
that there is no guarantee of administrative entitlement to the funds.
They urge institutions to study [their] philosophy about grant privacy.
They stress that privacy and anonymity is a means to help prospective
recipients use their affiliates' funding as they see fit.
The NFIE corroborate that the grant was at their
pledge stage. They noted a receipt of a copy of an email sent to
Campus Currents, in which Johnson solely reported his application and
pledge status with the grant.
After lengthy court proceedings, Appel‟s due
process claim was deemed to have merit to proceed against Rinker,
Spiridon and Vaden-Goad. Appel‟s 2006 claim of First Amendment
retaliation claim was also deemed substantive and having merit. Also,
Appel's claim of First Amendment retaliation arising out of a claim
filed a year earlier will proceed against Spiridon and Vaden-Goad.
Appel
established a substantive case to proceed against Vaden-Goad et al. in
their official and individual capacities. See the following court
documents which outline the case.
Note: Charles Dusman is a
freelance journalist for the London Times. This article's intent ls to
report the sizable that international/sc o academic mobbing.
Note the following selected public documents:
Bibliography of Spiridon v. Appel Records
December 2006
June 2008
July 2008
August 2010
August 2011
(concurrent with Framingham State University matter.
September 2011
January 2012
As of 2012
March 2013
References
Friedman, Joan. "The Anatomy of Academic Mobbibg." Academic Mobbing (2009): 64. Print.
Journal ArticleTagsEditDelete
E. Yelgecen
Tigrel and O. Kokalan, "Academic Mobbing in Turkey," International
Journal of Behavioral, Cognitivex Cxx, Educational and Psychological
Sciences (1:2 2009), pp. 91-99. CThis a
About the Author & Contributors
Charles Dusman, author, is a freelance reporter on London, UK.
Elvgin Tigrel is a professor of Istanbul E. University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1) Jayne Howarth, Freelance Journalist.
2) Maureen Hunt-Yellock Freelance Journalist, London; Free Press Online Contributor
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)