What is going on at Deakin University?

What has been going on, and what is still going on?

We stand with Martin Hirst...

They have sacked another Marxist. This time it is Deakin University, and the academic is Martin Hirst, an old friend and comrade (even though we are in different groups.)

Martin posted some twitter comments and a photo which, to put it frankly, I would not have.
According to Amanda Meade in the Guardian:

‘Deakin found that content posted to Hirst’s private Twitter account @ethicalmartini was “offensive and/or disrespectful and/or threatening and had the potential to damage the reputation of the university”.’

The irony of course is that overreacting by sacking staff for what are in my view stupid but not offensive let alone threatening comments itself damages the reputation of the University. So what had Hirst done and said? The Guardian again:

‘The university received a complaint about an exchange on 20 March 2016 in which Hirst said “so are you happy to fail commerce?” to a Deakin University student, Lachlan McDougall, who had insulted his teaching.’

The claim was that Martin was threatening the student with failure. Martin said he didn’t know McDougall was a student at Deakin and it wasn’t a threat. It was a comment on his intelligence. It is also unclear to me how an academic in one School (the School of Communication and Creative Arts) who is not actually teaching the student can threaten the academic progress of that student when they are apparently in another School and Faculty (Commerce or some such.)

Martin also posted a photo on Twitter with the words “fuck it” on a beanie he was wearing. He wrote underneath “Back to work after the Easter break? You need this beanie. I’ve got mine on today, it’s a subtle hint to your boss.”

Martin’s other ‘crime’ was to re-tweet a post from Mark Colvin from the ABC about the very very small size of Andrew Bolt’s audience on the Sky News channel.  Martin wrote: ‘reassuring, masturbating chimps.’

Hirst was already on thin ice. In 2014 The Murdoch Press began attacking him. They used a a photo of Hirst standing beside Marx’s grave in Highgate Cemetery. Martin engaged on twitter about the photo with a troll and, as Melissa Davey in 2014 in the Guardian put it:

‘Hirst adopted a tweet by US actress Kirstie Alley: “… dear stupid as fuck people who just like to be stupid, go be stupid with other stupid people. #stupidfuckcity”.’

Bolt complained to the University and Hirst was suspended without pay for 3 months.

Now he has been sacked. The University took into account his previous 2014 exchanges.

It appears that the University has reacted, again, to not just publicity but a campaign from the most right wing mainstream media organisation in Australia, the Murdoch media. This has implications for all left wing academics. It means that if Murdoch hacks (what more appropriate word to describe the sort of institutional journalism that hacks the phone of a dead girl or lies about the Hillsborough tragedy?) trawl through the personal public accounts (or even blogs) of left wing academics and find some offensive comments those academics can be sacked under the McCarthyite moniker of offensive, or disrespectful,  or threatening, or even the catch all of ‘having the potential to damage the reputation of the University.

As to the latter, the lawyer in me thinks that frankly every action has the potential to damage the reputation of a University, especially if the judge and jury are reactionaries form the Murdoch stable and their cheer squad of right wing nut jobs.

There is a pattern developing here. The Murdoch Press revealed Roz Ward’s Facebook post about the racist Australian flag and La Trobe suspended her before backing down in the face of a strong union and community campaign.

Frist they came for Roz, because of their desire to smash one of the drivers and defenders of the Safe Schools program. We beat them back. Then they came for Martin, and Deakin University has sacked Hirst. Which academic will be next?

We appear to be on the verge of an outbreak of McCarthyism.

I am pretty certain the Murdoch ghouls have been and will be trawling through the Facebook and twitter accounts of other Marxists and leftists to expose them for calling trolls fuckwits or for other ‘crimes.’ These will then be used to call for the employer (University or otherwise) to sack these people for bringing the employer into disrepute. Some leftists jobs will Í think be at stake.

One problem for Universities is that if Hirst’s comments are a sackable offence, what will they do to all the other academics who have posted angry responses in a private capacity and perhaps even a work capacity to right wing nut jobs and others attacking them? I suspect Hirst is not alone in making this type of comment. If so, how does Deakin University propose to enforce its interpretation of its standards and its expectations of appropriate behaviour?

Will some prominent right-wing figure at the University be investigated for his or her non-work comments? Will the University perhaps set up an in-house Un-University Activities Committee to investigate all words and actions that have the potential to damage the reputation of the University? Will it not only rely on Murdoch and other informants but actively investigate the personal lives and views, as captured on public outlets like Facebook and twitter, of its staff? After all if it good enough for Martin, why not apply the same standards to all staff? Having set that standard is it not beholden on Deakin to now begin policing it, with, one can imagine, Orwellian consequences that the University may itself have set in train through sacking Hirst?

I am not for a moment suggesting this happen, just pointing out the dangers that arise from sacking Martin for his comments.  Coming on top of the suspension of Roz Ward at La Trobe for stating what to me is a self-evident truth, that the Australian flag is a symbol of racism, it seems to me that a dark environment is developing at universities.

This dark environment is the consequence of the ongoing and deepening commodification of higher education, a process both major parties have been deeply involved in. When your Grundnorm is profit, ideas which challenge that, however expressed, are a threat to the very essence of the machine that is now the University sector. That machine is destroying the University as the seeming bastion of difference and the dissemination of often currently unconventional and unpopular ideas.


To defend academic freedom we must defend Hirst. His union, the National Tertiary Education Union, has released a statement in support. This must be the first step in building a campaign to stop Deakin University sacking him.

More info at: http://enpassant.com.au/2016/06/11/we-stand-with-martin-hirst/

--------

Settlement of the Deakin Twitter matter
July 13, 2016

I have resigned from my role as Associate Professor at Deakin University. I am no longer employed by the University.

I will not be making any further public comment.

Martin Hirst

Fight the forced redundancy of Joe Kerr

We the students and peers of Joe Kerr believe that he is being wrongfully threatened with redundancy. He is a valued member of the RCA staff and, at present, the only active UCU representative at the college. Joe is an inspirational and thought-provoking lecturer who has also tirelessly worked to support colleagues faced with redundancy time and time again.

Joe has been employed by the RCA since 1998. His role as Head of Critical and Historical Studies is being phased out due to the restructuring of the Programme. Although we are unhappy about the restructuring at the very least we feel that Joe should be able to continue his teaching as a Senior Lecturer. We believe his present teaching hours should not be advertised to others and he should keep this post as a right. We believe if the college do not do this then they are not fully considering alternatives to redundancy, a procedure employers must take before making employees redundant.

Although he is a qualified Architectural Historian Joe also continues to work as a London Bus Driver; a job he has had for 12 years. His commitment to social inclusion is one that can be seen in his teaching, his camaraderie, and his support for the union.

The School of Humanities at the RCA is a fantastic place to learn. Its direction and employees are truly visionary. However if Joe Kerr goes, this will be a major dent to the School. As an ethical employer, who often recruits on its reputation, the RCA cannot allow this to happen.

More info at: https://www.change.org/p/royal-college-of-art-fight-the-forced-redundancy-of-joe-kerr

Fear and loathing on campus: bullying at Irish universities

Is bullying and harassment rife at Irish universities? These institutions are spending millions of euro on legal fees to deal with allegations by staff of bullying, harassment and discrimination, particularly on gender grounds.

A series of high-profile legal cases in recent years has highlighted tension bubbling up across a number of campuses – and many more are in the pipeline.

All of this comes at a time when the seven university presidents are urging greater state investment and the introduction of an income-contingent student-loan scheme.

So what’s going on behind the walls of our higher education institutions? Records released under the Freedom of Information Act show that dozens of lecturers and other staff members have made complaints about bullying, harassment and discrimination across Ireland’s seven universities in recent years.

There is a heavy financial toll. Ireland’s universities paid out more than €3.3 million in legal fees involving staff between 2010 and 2015, a threefold increase in the space of five years.

A significant amount of this money was spent on allegations of bullying, harassment and discrimination, particularly on gender grounds. Colleges often hire external investigators to deal with such complaints.

The Teachers’ Union of Ireland, which represents lecturers at institutes of technology, conducted a survey of more than 1,100 members in recent times to help measure scale of the problem. The results surprised some seasoned union officials: almost 30 per cent of respondents said they are always, often or sometimes bullied at work.

A further 69 per cent said there is always, often or sometimes friction between colleagues at work.

Managers lacking training

Joan Donegan, of the Irish Federation of University Teachers, says it is dealing with fresh allegations of bullying and harassment every month of the year.


“If management are not trained on how to deal with bullying and harassment cases, they can – without realising it – cause more harm. In-house training for HR and support staff is essential and more cost- effective,” she says. “Investment in a qualified external mediator, although expensive, is worthwhile if staff are not trained. Spending money on consultants to conduct investigations is very expensive, and the outcome from such processes is rarely helpful in healing the hurt between the parties.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/fear-and-loathing-on-campus-bullying-at-irish-universities-1.2817956

Bullying concerns - Prof Hisham Elkadi - University of Salford

Staff at School of Built Environment, University of Salford are increasingly concerned by bullying and controlling behaviour of Dean SOBE, Hisham Elkadi. Staff morale is very low since he joined the school in August 2014, after being fired from Deakin University on bullying accusations (see stories in National press below)(. There is dire need of a third party audit of staff grievances and introduction of remedial measures to ensure staff well-being. Concerns about Dean Prof Hisham Elkadi’s attitude are wide ranging including:

•     Bullying and harassment of staff,
•     Humiliating staff in meetings,
•     Discrimination and noticeably favoring staff over others,
•     Long absences from office without informing staff,
•     Lack of transparency in use of school funds,
•     Harassment of individuals who raise any objection to his plans or those who he perceives as threat,
  
•  Micro management and total control of school affairs without due consultation
  

SOBE staff perceive prevailing school culture to be demoralising and demotivating, with record numbers having left the school or considering leaving. Need for independent review to assess scale of dissatisfaction is particularly required given Professor Hisham has faced serious allegations of bullying, at his previous workplace, as reported widely in the international media. At Deakin University, he faced bullying allegations and subsequently brought Federal Court Action against his previous employer. 

It would seem that the Prof. has a certain history:

http://geelongindy.com.au/indy/2015-05-29/deakin-turmoil-deepens-with-new-bully-claims/

Bullying and Discrimination at University of Leicester (UoL): Justice for maxcasu

My name is Max; I was a mature Ph.D. student at the UoL.

 

Unfortunately all my excitements about the above Ph.D. turned into a nightmare;

 

·  It was since the beginning of my academic course that I was continuously insulted, humiliated and treated at lower standards respect other students from senior academic members at the UoL.

·  During my Ph.D. I was able to generate 4 manuscripts and consequently 4 potential publications. Only 1 manuscript was published, with an extremely and unjustified severe delay (the manuscript was ready to be published in the 2010 but it was published only 3 years later). The UoL failed to substantiate what caused the failures of my publications.

 

·  I was accused by Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) that I was constantly missing my academic meetings. Actually, many pieces of evidence prove completely the opposite, it was Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) persistently postponing the meetings or inviting me to take part in meetings decided at the very last minute. Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) was actually postponing group meetings because other students were not able to attend, and they were always being justified by their absence.

 

·  I was obstructed and not supported, applying for post-doc positions or any further higher education academic courses. Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) provided me in a deliberately way a “bland letter of reference“, he was incited acting in this way by Prof Julian Ketley (Head of genetics dep.). It caused me being rejected for an important Legal post-graduate academic course at London South Bank University (LSBU).

 

·  Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) failed to provide me with the adequate support during the writing of my Thesis and the preparation of my Viva Voce. Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) admitted his failures. As a result, I struggled with large distress during the writing of my Thesis and the preparation of my Viva Voce, it caused me the inevitable loss of enjoyment and it inexorably undermined my health causing me a series of severe faintness that affected my Ph.D. and the temporary suspension of it.

 

·  The UoL removed Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) and replaced him with 2 new supervisors, but this remedy was unfortunately applied at very late stages when my Thesis was already submitted and my Viva Voce was already performed.

 

·  During my Ph.D., the UoL provided faulty equipment. A homemade software called “BeFly!” lacking of registration licence and consequently in breach of the UoL‘s policies. The homemade software BeFly! was never be subjected for its accuracy and reliability. It caused me the removing of a large amount of data already analysed, generating me severe stress and frustration. Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) and Prof Julian Ketley (Head of genetics dep.) suggested me to remove the data already analysed. Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) and Dr Ezio Rosato (Internal Examiner) later admitted that the software BeFly! was mistaken.

 

·  I was accused by Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) that; I blamed other students of disrupting my work and my experiments. On many occasions, I invited the UoL and particularly Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) to substantiate these accusations. The UoL, unfortunately, failed to do so. These accusations were forwarded to me only during the procedures of my internal complaint, a clear action of victimisation.

 

·  There is a lot of severe failures during the complaint procedures. The UoL did not respect the internal protocol of the complaint and the appealing procedures, being responsible for irregular procedures; it again generated me a lot of distress. The UoL denied the possibility of a prima facie case.

 

·  The UoL failed to provide my personal files (data subject request access) on the standard time in respect of the Data Protection Act 1998. I received my files after 4 months respect the approved time-scale.

 

·  The UoL prior to my Viva Voce decided to appoint a chair without to inform me and without to substantiate why this decision was taken.

 

·  After having successfully performed the Viva Voce, I was notified that I passed my Viva Voce but also I was notified that I failed my Thesis. The UoL failed to substantiate which potential failures caused the failure of my Thesis. The UoL provided an academic report being very vague and elusive and did not inform me about the potential errors involved on my Thesis. The UoL sustained during my appealing procedure that; “it was not fundamental to know the exact errors involved in my Thesis”. Most of the specific errors listed in the academic report could not be found in my Thesis. The academic report deferred completely from the corrections provided by Dr Kevin Moffat (External Examiner–University of Warwick) that actually showed a list of minor corrections that were amended in less than two weeks. The UoL failed to inform me about my rights of appeal. There is a large amount of internal e-mails from Prof Julian Ketley (Head of genetics dep.) and other senior members of the UoL, which showed how the UoL premeditated the failure of my Ph.D.

 

·  Despite having performed well during my academic course, and even done better respect many others Ph.D. students, despite having generated 4 potential publications and having successfully passed my exams, the UoL rejected my Ph.D. The UoL failed to justify why I failed my Thesis.

·  Accordingly, the UoL appointed a chair in order to prevent me appealing against their decision. The above shows a clear evidence of conspiracy, bias, and prejudice against me.

 

·  The UoL convening appointing 2 new supervisors but it was done after the completion of the writing of my Thesis, the submission of it and the preparation of my Viva Voce.

 

·  According to the UoL‘s policies, I should have had 2 supervisors since the beginning of my Ph.D.

 

·  There are a lot of severe failures during the academic appealing procedures.

 

·  The UoL was constantly breaching their own policies, the QAA code of conduct and the related Law. The UoL was repeatedly invited to investigate the above and put a remedy as it was actually expected.

 

·  The UoL neglected completely the severity of the events occurred, increasing my stress and frustration that ultimately affected my health severely with a series of severe faintness.

 

·  My complaint was forwarded to the OIA.

 

·  The OIA did not consider my complaint appropriately, and despite having provided tangible evidence of the episodes occurred my complaint was classified being “NOT JUSTIFIED“. Consequently, the OIA failed taking action against the UoL. The OIA actually awkwardly attempted to justify and legitimate the awful and malicious behaviour of the UoL and its senior members.

 

·  The case was referred to the Administrative Court for a judicial review against the OIA. The Administrative Court close my case without providing me the possibility having a fair hearing, stating that my case was “TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT” and without to have the possibility to challenge this decision.

 

For more detailed please visit the following web site clicking to the following links:

https://bullyingatuniversityofleicester.blogspot.com/

https://bullyingattheuniversityofleicester.wordpress.com/

Justice 4 Max Casu

"...My name is Max Casu. I was a mature Ph.D. student at the UoL. I made a Ph.D. application in the department of neurogenetics at the above University in December 2007. I was invited for an interview in February 2008. I was classified second among 20 candidates; therefore, I was successful for the 2 vacant Ph.D.’s positions.

I began my Ph.D. in September 2008. I was a home Student. My Ph.D. course was based on a 4 years academic course; it was structured in three years lab work and the fourth and last year in the writing of my Thesis. My Ph.D. course was entirely sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). The BBSRC covered the cost of the academic post-graduate course for the first 3 years. The Ph.D. was arranged with the first year being an APG (advanced post-graduate).

In July 2009, I was validated into my Ph.D. after having completed the APG. Prior to my Ph.D., I successfully obtained a HNC in applied biology and a BSc (Hons) in Pharmacology in two different London’s Universities, obtaining the grades of merit and a 2:1 (closely first class) respectively. I always loved science and everything that was concerned about it, and I was always classified to be an excellent student and respectable person from my previous Universities. I was extremely excited starting this new challenging experience at UoL.

My Ph.D. was based on the study of Huntington’s disease using fruit flies as an animal model. I was allocated since the beginning of my Ph.D. with 1 supervisor; Dr Flaviano Giorgini. The Vice-Chancellor, at the time, was Professor Robert Burgess. From the 1 October 2014, the UoL appointed a new Vice-Chancellor Professor Paul Boyle, my case, unfortunately, was completely ignored by both. Despite having contacted on more occasions the Leicester Students’ Union I never received any support.

As mentioned earlier all my excitement about the above Ph.D. unfortunately, turned into a nightmare; It was since the beginning of my academic course that I was continuously insulted, humiliated and treated at lower standards respect other students from senior academic members at the UoL. During my Ph.D. I was able to generate 4 manuscripts and consequently 4 potential publications. Only 1 manuscript was published, with an extremely and unjustified severe delay (the manuscript was ready to be published in the 2010 but it was published only 3 years later).

The UoL failed to substantiate what caused the failures of my publications. I was accused by Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) that I was constantly missing my academic meetings. Actually, many pieces of evidence prove completely the opposite, it was Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) persistently postponing the meetings or inviting me to take part in meetings decided at the very last minute.

Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) was actually postponing group meetings because other students were not able to attend, and they were always being justified by their absence. I was obstructed and not supported, applying for post-doc positions or any further higher education academic courses.

Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) provided me in a deliberately way a “bland letter of reference“, he was incited acting in this way by Prof Julian Ketley (Head of genetics dep.). It caused me being rejected for an important Legal post-graduate academic course at London South Bank University (LSBU).

Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) failed to provide me with the adequate support during the writing of my Thesis and the preparation of my Viva Voce. Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) admitted his failures. As a result, I struggled with large distress during the writing of my Thesis and the preparation of my Viva Voce, it caused me the inevitable loss of enjoyment and it inexorably undermined my health causing me a series of severe faintness that affected my Ph.D. and the temporary suspension of it.

The UoL removed Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) and replaced him with 2 new supervisors, but this remedy was unfortunately applied at very late stages when my Thesis was already submitted and my Viva Voce was already performed. During my Ph.D., the UoL provided faulty equipment. A homemade software called “BeFly!” lacking of registration licence and consequently in breach of the UoL’s policies. The homemade software BeFly! was never be subjected for its accuracy and reliability. It caused me the removing of a large amount of data already analysed, generating me severe stress and frustration.

Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) and Prof Julian Ketley (Head of genetics dep.) suggested me to remove the data already analysed. Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) and Dr Ezio Rosato (Internal Examiner) later admitted that the software BeFly! was mistaken. I was accused by Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) that; I blamed other students of disrupting my work and my experiments.

On many occasions, I invited the UoL and particularly Dr Flaviano Giorgini (Former Supervisor) to substantiate these accusations. The UoL, unfortunately, failed to do so. These accusations were forwarded to me only during the procedures of my internal complaint, a clear action of victimisation. There is a lot of severe failures during the complaint procedures. The UoL did not respect the internal protocol of the complaint and the appealing procedures, being responsible for irregular procedures; it again generated me a lot of distress.

The UoL denied the possibility of a prima facie case. The UoL failed to provide my personal files (data subject request access) on the standard time in respect of the Data Protection Act 1998. I received my files after 4 months respect the approved time-scale. The UoL prior to my Viva Voce decided to appoint a chair without to inform me and without to substantiate why this decision was taken. After having successfully performed the Viva Voce, I was notified that I passed my Viva Voce but also I was notified that I failed my Thesis.

The UoL failed to substantiate which potential failures caused the failure of my Thesis. The UoL provided an academic report being very vague and elusive and did not inform me about the potential errors involved on my Thesis. The UoL sustained during my appealing procedure that; “it was not fundamental to know the exact errors involved in my Thesis”. Most of the specific errors listed in the academic report could not be found in my Thesis.

The academic report deferred completely from the corrections provided by Dr Kevin Moffat (External Examiner–University of Warwick) that actually showed a list of minor corrections that were amended in less than two weeks. The UoL failed to inform me about my rights of appeal. There is a large amount of internal e-mails from Prof Julian Ketley (Head of genetics dep.) and other senior members of the UoL, which showed how the UoL premeditated the failure of my Ph.D..."

More at: https://justice4maxcasu.wordpress.com/

Academic Tribalism

When I was a younger scholar, a very famous cognitive psychologist came to my office to visit me during his colloquium trip to my university. I mentioned with pride that I had just written a new textbook in cognitive psychology. His quick response was, “Bob, you’re not a cognitive psychologist anymore.”

I was deeply hurt. I had been trained in cognitive psychology by some of the top scholars in the field and always had thought of myself as their protégé. True, I had strayed and done some research on love. What I did not realize was that this straying from the tried and true path would lead to my expulsion from my academic tribe. Like many academics, I always had been a tribal outcast in the public schools because of my interest in intellectual pursuits. Here I had finally found a tribe that would have me, and they seemed not to want me anymore!

I use the term “tribe” to refer to a group of people who are united by customs, tradition, and adherence to a largely common worldview. Others have viewed academics as tribal. Hazard Adams wrote a lighthearted book about tribalism among academics. Tony Becher and Paul Trowler wrote a serious academic work about it. As those works point out, academics often think and act in a tribal manner, although they might not perceive themselves that way. The problem with tribalism is that it interferes with the academic mission.

Limiting of self-actualization. Tribalism limits the realization of one’s own potential by limiting the scope of problems one allows oneself to pursue. For example, as long as I viewed myself as a strict “cognitive psychologist,” I was limited in what I could study. Once I freed myself of my tribal affiliation, I could study whatever I wanted to. And I did!

Uniformity of point of view. A widely shared point of view can lead to an inability or unwillingness to consider other perspectives. South Sudan no sooner declared independence from the rest of Sudan than tribes within the new country, the Nuer, Murle, and Dinka, starting fighting among one another. In academe, tribes form within and across disciplines, and have trouble seeing why anyone would see things another way. In psychology, scientists and practitioners often have trouble speaking with one another because of their adherence to their own point of view, emphasizing either scientific inquiry or helping clients. In some English departments, there is a similar tension between traditional literary scholars and creative writers. In each case, particular approaches come to be seen, falsely, as mutually exclusive.

Distrust of outsiders. When I visited an American Indian reservation in which two mutually hostile tribes had been placed together by the American government, I was struck by the two tribes’ distrust of each other, even though they had lived on the same reservation for many years. We see that kind of tribalism in academics’ tendency to disparage those who think differently: scientists’ suspicions about humanists and vice versa; academic departments’ suspicion about the athletic department and vice versa. Even different tribes within a department can be wary of one another, such as zoologists and botanists in some biology departments. Instead of perceiving certain approaches to be complementary, a not-so-hidden disdain and sense of rejection often prevail.

Hiring and promotion wars. When multiple tribes coexist within a department, they often battle for resources. In my administrative experience, I have seen hiring and promotion wars between tribes that make it difficult for either side to get its way: between French and Spanish factions of modern-language departments; between theoretical and experimental physicists; and between quantitative and qualitative methodologists in sociology. Even graduate-student slots may be bitterly contested. The result can be that a department is held back because each tribe is so intent on making sure that it, not its competition, gets additional slots.

Rejection of interdisciplinarity. Perhaps even worse than being a member of another tribe can be a scholar’s attempt to be a member of multiple tribes. I saw junior faculty members try, without success, to stay out of a war in a philosophy department between Continental rationalists and British empiricists—they were almost forced to choose sides. I also have seen scholars who engage in interdisciplinary work being rejected by both disciplines because the academics are seen as good for only half the slot they are occupying, thereby “wasting” the other valuable half-slot. Academics may end up praising interdisciplinarity as long as it does not take away valuable positions from their tribe.

Transmission of a tribal value system to students. I took a course on abnormal psychology from a behaviorist. The engaging professor had little good to say about Freudians. I had trouble, as I suspect other students did, separating out the professor’s tribal viewpoint from “the truth.” Similarly, in one of my analytical philosophy courses, the professor regularly disparaged rationalist philosophers. When tribalism passes from one generation of students to the next, it continues to reinforce strongly categorical ways of thinking that prevent students from seeing how different approaches to problems can be useful in tandem or even when melded.

Tribalism does little good for academe other than giving academics a sense of belonging and affiliation. We all like to belong, but academics need to embrace intellectual inclusion rather than exclusionary ways of thinking.


Robert J. Sternberg is a professor of human development at Cornell University. He is a former president of the American Psychological Association and of the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. He also has been a university dean, provost, and president.

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/02/26/academic-tribalism/

Without values the academy risks anarchy...

"...This ‘me first’ approach is also not helped by academia’s demanding working conditions. In labs an entrenched hierarchy prevails which determines whose agenda dominates the work flow and whose name takes precedence on publications, whilst for more independent researchers, long hours spent in isolation in libraries or archives can take its toll on basic social capabilities and interactions.

While the realities of the academic environment do not excuse individuals from displaying discriminatory or anti-social behaviour towards others, they go some way to explaining why some academics do not see anything untoward about their own uncouth conduct, or why they are attuned to thinking about themselves and their own gain first. When it comes down to it, the system in which they work has come to facilitate narcissistic and egotistical behaviour, if not even demand it.

In this context, putting an emphasis back on the original values of a university could do much to quell the rise of bullying and discrimination. Allowing the market-driven model to dominate the higher education sector for so long has only created a vacuum of values in the way the academic system operates, removing a university’s in-built system of moral checks and balances that might otherwise serve to keep its staff on the straight and narrow.

The ivory tower has lost sight of its primary, foundational function – namely, to nurture the flourishing of the human spirit for the benefit of wider society. When community values were at the core of the academy, its outputs were beneficial to civil society and its workforce adhered to the principles of partnership, equality and fairness. With these values now replaced by the pursuit of profit and fame, is it any wonder that the new academic arena has become a breeding ground for bullies?

If the ivory tower is to retain its image of an idyllic place to work, then, it would not go far wrong in revisiting the common and societal-based values that once shaped its past. Without these values, the academy has no value to anything other than itself. And without these values, the academy may as well prepare for anarchy now..."

Dr Diana Beech is a research consultant at the Research Information Network and a research associate at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, where she currently manages a project exploring the role and relevance of values to contemporary European research policy. Beech is also an active member of the EURAXESS ‘Voice of the Researchers’ network, providing researchers with a channel to influence policy in the European Research Area.

From: http://goo.gl/8YF65I

Bullying in Academia Up Close and Personal: My Story

ABSTRACT
This paper is a personal account of being mobbed and bullied over the past four and half years. This whole experience began on October 26^th 2009, with what the literature describes as the Critical Incident. Despite the fact that the assessment instrument had not been published, and accompanying medical documentation provided a context for what had occurred, people decided to ignore this information and utilized this incident to demonstrate that what the author had done was unethical and required swift retribution by the University. However, following an administrative review, it was determined that the author had not committed this alleged offence. Certain individuals were appalled and refused to abide by this decision. The outcome was that over the next four and half years the author was subjected to many of the experiences that Leymann, Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, Friedenberg, Khoo, and Westhues describe in typologies of bullying and mobbing. The most serious consequence was that on July 23^rd 2012 the author suffered an Ischemic stroke. Not only was the author’s medical health compromised during this experience; this experience had a devastating impact on his emotional well-being, career and professional development. Within the School of Social Work, I was unable to receive peer support, administrative acknowledgement or empathy regarding the impact that this illness had regarding my well-being. What was even more troubling was the University’s unwillingness to confront the bullying and mobbing. Instead, with no resolution the school leadership continues to hold onto earlier accusations and through communications and interactions blame the victim.

Key words: mobbing, bullying, mental health consequences, physical health repercussions, personal and professional ramifications, critical incident method

Full paper