Professor Dr Hassan Abdalla - Provost - University of East London

"This means that Hassan feels untouchable at the moment. In the last five years, he has progressed up the ranks at the University of East London (UEL). He treats this place like he owns it. He has abused the system and HR are none the wiser. Here is what has done in the last five years and let's see anyone provide evidence otherwise:

- First, he used redundancy process to fire some 11 faculty claiming that the school is not attracting enough students and the school has massive deficit, only to re-advertised these same positions the following year. Only cunning as he his, the jobs were advertised in trickles.
- Next, he fired a whole set of top manager, claiming their positions are not needed and none sustainable, only to re-advertise these same positions the following year under new titles.
- Only last year, he made the argument for a new set of managerial positions, and then made them redundant six months later!
-He has now pushed for the same tactic for another School under his control. Despite the data suggesting it is financially sound. But as they say, you can make statistics say anything and he is top at that.

But one may rightly say, this does not make sense. What is he gaining? Well, he has an agenda that partly based on his personality of dictatorship and others on his fundamentalist thinking. He would always start these 'redundancy' stance with the intention to:

- Get anyone who opposes him out.
- He has particular distaste to Shia Muslims because he is Suni Muslim. There is evidence that HR can investigate that shows he has fired some 5 Shia Muslims. In fact, of all the new recruitment taken place under his control of the school, not one single Shia Muslim was recruited. All of them are Suni.
- He is also a sexist. Only after big pressure from HR that he has back off. If you observe him in School meetings, you will see that when male colleagues ask a question, he will keep eye contact and answer them in full detail. Female Colleagues asking questions, Hassan will almost never look them in the face and tries to dismiss whatever they have to say with a quick answer.
- He is homophobic, this again comes from his religious background and has would target gay individuals who are open or camp.
- If you want to get into UEL now, you should join him on his Friday prayers. We heard that he once led the Friday prayer in the School. The man is said to be leaning on being Wahabi, the fundamental type of Islam.

Hassan, has learned from his previous experience when he was fired for bullying and has applied cunning new tactics at UEL to hide his tracks. Almost everyone in our department knows this but HR will not address anything of these because they see these as 'circumstantial' evidence. Now that he is in power, he can control who stays, who joins, and everyone is afraid of him. My advice to HR is get on it because a lawsuit gets on you! Question his decisions, and question them more when he reverses them (re-advertise position) and what the hell are you doing with all the formal and informal complaints you have about him! Yes, individually each may look weak but if you collate them, you must have a big picture. 

For there is no smoke without fire!"

JUSTICE4MAXCASU - Bullying and abusing at the University of Leicester

"My name is Max; 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...

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 what potentially 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 number 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..."

Complete story here: 

https://bullyingatuniversityofleicester.blogspot.com/

https://bullyingattheuniversityofleicester.wordpress.com/

"My PhD broke me"—bullying in academia and a call to action

Workplace bullying—repetitive abusive, threatening, humiliating and intimidating behaviour—is on the rise globally. And matters are worse in academia. In the UK, for example, up to 42% of academics report being bullied in the workplace while the national average across all professions ranges from just 10-20%.

Why do bullies bully? According to researchers from Brock University in Canada the goals of bullying come from internal motivations and desires, which can be conscious or not. Bullying takes many forms: the malicious mistreatment of someone including persistent criticism, inaccurate accusations, exclusion and ostracism, public humiliation, the spreading of rumors, setting people up to fail, or overloading someone with work. Bullying is different from accidental or reactive aggression, since it is goal-directed meaning that the purpose is to harm someone when there is a power imbalance.

While anyone is at risk of being bullied in academia, research has found that some of us are more vulnerable compared to others. For example, early career researchers (ECRs), including trainees (e.g. graduate students, postdocs), minority groups, adjunct professors, research associates, and untenured professors are at a higher risk to experience bullying. Employees with more years in a job report feeling less bullied than others subordinate to them, meaning that junior members of a research group or Faculty may be at greater risk of bullying.

...A study of whistleblowers found that 71% of employees tend not to directly report wrongdoing as the perceived personal cost is higher than the perceived reward. People tend to feel that personal costs may be higher if reporting happens through face-to-face meetings with authorities. Hence, anonymous reporting channels are needed.

More info: https://ecrlife.org/bullying-in-academia-tales-from-victims-and-a-call-to-action/

The LL game: The curious preference for low quality and its norms

"We investigate a phenomenon that we have experienced as common when dealing with an assortment of Italian public and private institutions: people promise to exchange high-quality goods and services (H), but then something goes wrong and the quality delivered is lower than promised (L). While this is perceived as ‘cheating’ by outsiders, insiders seem not only to adapt but to rely on this outcome. They do not resent low quality exchanges, in fact, they seem to resent high-quality ones, and are inclined to ostracise and avoid dealing with agents who deliver high quality...

...Assume for simplicity that goods can be produced at two levels of quality, High (H) and Low (L)...

Problems arise if the two individuals agree on H but one of them delivers L. This is, of course, a risk of many exchanges: rational, unprincipled and self-interested agents prefer to dish out L rather than H, while at the same time, one would think, they also prefer to receive H rather than L. Dishonest second-hand car dealers prefer to sell a lemon while charging an H-price. This happens often enough...

...Usually, if one promises to deliver H and delivers L instead, one would think of this as a breach of trust. But in our case, it looks as if they rely on each other not to be entirely trustworthy, they trust their untrustworthiness. Not only do they live with each other’s laxness, but expect it: I trust you not to keep your promises in full because I want to be free not to keep mine and not to feel bad about it. There seems to be a double deal: an official pact in which both declare their intention to exchange H-goods, and a tacit accord whereby discounts are not only allowed but expected. It becomes a form of tacit mutual connivance on L-ness...

L-doers may want to keep up a credible façade with their surrounding H communities because they gain from this: Marseglia had an interest to pretend to comply with EU community standards because he was receiving EU olive oil subsidies. Also, L-doers manoeuvre to prop up their reputation for H-ness with their naïve local audiences by being seen standing shoulders to shoulders – briefly but as noisily as possible to be heard far and wide – with H-doers, as in the case of L-universities liberally dishing out honoris causa degrees.

...the maintenance of an H-façade may simply satisfy the need to reduce the cognitive dissonance between what one practices and what one preaches. The gap between the H-standards and the L-standards creates uneasiness among L-doers. Even if they cultivate specious legitimising reasons to practice L-ness (as we shall see below), many still seem aware that there is another set of reasons, which enjoin one to do H. The dissonance is reduced by interacting always with the same people, whom one can trust for not challenging one’s standards. L-doers segregate themselves in mutual admiration societies..."

The LL game: The curious preference for low quality and its norms in Politics Philosophy Economics 12(1), February 2013

Third of Cambridge University staff 'have experienced bullying'

Nearly a third of staff at the University of Cambridge say they have experienced bullying and harassment in the workplace, according to an internal survey obtained by the Guardian that revealed what one union called “a culture of bullying” in parts of the institution.

 Responses from 3,000 academic and non-academic staff – a quarter of Cambridge’s total workforce – found that nearly one in three had either been the victims of bullying and other forms of victimisation or had seen it directed against colleagues in the previous 18 months.

The survey found that the largest group to have suffered bullying and harassment were women and assistant staff – Cambridge’s term for non-academic support staff – while the largest group to exhibit bullying and harassment were academics. The results are revealed as the Office for Students, the higher education regulator for England prepares to set out new requirements for how universities handle harassment and sexual misconduct affecting students and staff, including intervention by the regulator in cases of ineffective procedures.

...The initial survey was carried out in July 2018 but was only released on the university’s internal network in 2019. A summary of the results includes comments by Stephen Toope, Cambridge’s vice-chancellor, who wrote: “To be a leading institution, we must accept that this type of behaviour has no place at Cambridge. The experiences of bullying and harassment shared by some of the staff participating in this joint survey show us, however, that we have work to do to make this a reality for all.”

Ivan Williams, Unison’s Cambridge branch chair, said: “The levels of staff who say they have witnessed or suffered bullying is deeply worrying. I would also be concerned that, due to a lack of training, many staff is not even aware that some of the treatment they have to deal with at work would be classed as bullying...

From: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jan/07/third-cambridge-university-staff-experienced-bullying

UK universities pay out £90m on staff 'gagging orders' in past two years

UK universities have spent nearly £90m on payoffs to staff that come with “gagging orders” in two years, raising fears that victims of misconduct at higher education institutions are being silenced.

As many as 4,000 settlements, some of which are thought to relate to allegations of bullying, discrimination and sexual misconduct, have been made with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) attached since 2017.

The figures, uncovered by the BBC, have prompted allegations that universities are deliberately using gagging orders to stop grievances becoming public. Dozens of academics told the corporation they were made to sign NDAs after being “harassed” out of their jobs following the raising of complaints.

There are wider concerns that non-disclosure agreements, designed to stop staff sharing trade secrets when moving to a new employer, are being misused to silence workers highlighting misconduct.

Universities UK (UUK), which represents higher education institutions, said NDAs were sometimes used to protect information about research but that they should not be exploited to silence victims.

“Universities use non-disclosure agreements for many purposes, including the protection of commercially sensitive information related to university research,” UUK said. “However, we also expect senior leaders to make it clear that the use of confidentiality clauses to prevent victims from speaking out will not be tolerated. All staff and students are entitled to a safe experience at university and all universities have a duty to ensure this outcome.”

Using freedom of information laws, the BBC obtained information from 96 universities showing £87m was spent on settlements that included gagging clauses in the past two years.
It is not clear how many of the payouts relate to allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct as many of the institutions were unable to disclose why the NDAs were signed.

Anahid Kassabian, a former music professor at the University of Liverpool, broke her NDA to reveal how she felt like she was “bullied out” of her job and treated as a “burden” after being diagnosed with cancer.

Kassabian, 59, who worked at the university for 10 years, said: “We all think we’re isolated and alone, sobbing over past wrongs, when in fact there are many, many of us, and if we could speak to each other it would feel very different.”

The academic, who also has multiple sclerosis and fibromyalgia, said she believed her medical conditions meant her ability to work was called into question and that the causes of the emotional stress she was under were not properly addressed.

The BBC has reportedly seen documents suggesting the university felt it had done all it could to support Kassabian.

The University of Liverpool told the corporation: “We refute these allegations in the strongest possible terms. Ms Kassabian was not subject to discrimination or bullying and the university did not fail to make reasonable adjustments.

“Settlement agreements with a standard confidentiality clause are used for a range of cases including conduct, capability and redundancy. As we too are bound by confidentiality, we are unable to provide specifics in relation to her case.”

From: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/apr/17/uk-universities-pay-out-90m-on-staff-gagging-orders-in-past-two-years

Hundreds of academics at top UK universities accused of bullying

"...A Guardian investigation found nearly 300 academics, including senior professors and laboratory directors, were accused of bullying students and colleagues. Dozens of current and former academics spoke of aggressive behaviour, extreme pressure to deliver results, career sabotage and HR managers appearing more concerned about avoiding negative publicity than protecting staff.
In response, Prof Venki Ramakrishnan, the president of the Royal Society, called for an overhaul of workplace practices, saying bullying had become ingrained in the culture of too many academic institutions. “In science, like in many creative professions such as the film industry, there are huge power differentials,” he said, adding that intense competition and lack of oversight risked allowing bullying to go unchecked.

Other leading academics called for an end to the culture of secrecy around the issue. Prof Athene Donald, a distinguished physicist and the master of Churchill College, Cambridge, said: “I know of two instances where it is hard to think a cover-up is not going on. “They’re at different universities, different situations. I’m really quite bothered about universities desperately trying to damp things down.”

The Guardian sent freedom of information requests to 135 universities. Responses revealed a total of 294 complaints against academics at 55 institutions. A further 30 universities reported 337 complaints against all staff – academic and non-academic. Across 105 universities, at least 184 staff have been disciplined and 32 dismissed for bullying since 2013.

Fourteen universities said they had used non-disclosure agreements to resolve bullying cases, with at least 27 staff signing confidentiality clauses in exchange for financial payouts. Separately, more than 200 academics contacted the Guardian to share their experiences. Dozens were interviewed, with many giving accounts of behaviours that went well beyond robust academic discourse, professional rivalries or personality clashes.

One compared the management style of his boss, one of the country’s most eminent scientists, to that of Henry VIII. Staff were said to be subjected to “classic tyrannical” behaviour, with everyone’s motives treated with suspicion and everyone viewed as “someone else to be crushed”. At another internationally renowned laboratory, the pressure was reportedly so extreme people were driven to falsify data rather than incur the wrath of the director..."

From: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/sep/28/academics-uk-universities-accused-bullying-students-colleagues

Have you experienced bullying in academia? Share your stories - The Guardian

 Concern has been growing about bullying in the world of academia. We want to hear from academic staff about their experiences A top cancer genetics professor quit her job at the Institute of Cancer Research after facing multiple allegations of bullying dating back 12 years.

Prof Nazneen Rahman, who was head of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), was given leave of absence last November after a letter signed by 45 current and former employees accused her of “recurrent bullying and harassment”. The complainants claimed the ICR had failed to take appropriate action for years despite “multitudes of oral and written complaints” against Rahman at both the institute and the Marsden.

This is not an isolated case and concern has been growing about bullying in the world of academia. Earlier this month, the scientific journal Nature reported that the Max Planck Society, a prestigious research body in Germany, was investigating fresh allegations of bullying and sexual harassment. PhD students are thought to be particularly vulnerable because they depend on their supervisors for publications and references.

This can create a dangerous power imbalance. Share your experiences We want to hear from academic staff about the problem of bullying. Have you faced it? How good was your institution at responding to it? Do universities need to do more to tackle the problem?

Share your comments, experiences and thoughts – anonymously or otherwise – with us. You can get in touch by filling in the encrypted form below – anonymously, if you wish. Your responses will only be seen by the Guardian and we will feature some of them in our reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jul/24/have-you-experienced-bullying-in-academia-share-your-stories

Harassment at Annual Meetings American Political Science Association

A "sizable" minority of women and a smaller but still notable share of men have experienced harassment or other inappropriate behavior at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, according to a survey of members that the association has just released.

A solid majority (63 percent) of the 2,424 members who responded to the survey indicated that they had never been harassed or treated inappropriately at the meeting. But the figures were different for men (74 percent) and women (51 percent).

Among the findings:

• Forty-two percent of women and 22 percent of men said that they had been "put down" or "experienced condescension" at the meeting.
• Thirty percent of women and 10 percent of men said that they had experienced "inappropriate language or looks, such as experiencing offensive sexist remarks; getting stared at, leered or ogled in a way that made them uncomfortable; or being exposed to sexist or suggestive materials which they found offensive."
• Eleven percent of women and 3 percent of men reported having experienced "inappropriate sexual advances or touching, such as unwanted attempts to establish a sexual relationship despite efforts to discourage it, being touched by someone in a way that was uncomfortable, or experiencing bribes or threats associated with sexual advances."

The survey looked at specifics within that last item and found that the numbers of people reporting certain kinds of inappropriate behavior were low. But the report published by the association said the data should still be of concern.

"That 29 of our members felt they had experienced threats of professional retaliation for not being sexually cooperative, and 44 felt they were being bribed with special professional rewards is, respectively, 29 and 44 people too many," said the report, published in PS, an association journal. The report found no statistically significant differences in the results by race or ethnicity.

But the study found that nontenured faculty members experience more harassment or inappropriate behavior than do tenured faculty members, graduate students or postdocs...

More at: http://www.insidehighered.com/

Abusers and Enablers in Faculty Culture

...It’s easier to blame the victim than change the system. Abusers weaponize their own idiosyncrasies and parade them as high standards, shaming anyone who falls short. That often sets in motion a cycle of low self-esteem, late work, and less polished writing to prove that the accuser, not the abuser, must be problem.

The feeling of being unheard, untrusted, and not believed keeps the cycle spiraling further out of control. Too many of my clients feel guilt creep into their professional lives. Some can be quick to blame themselves. Others hesitate to turn down requests to give a talk or contribute to a journal, because they think they "owe" colleagues "favors" and will be criticized for not delivering. This is often the legacy of chronic, institutionalized abuse — of people breaking others rather than building up their confidence and helping them be successful colleagues.

If you find yourself saying, "Look, what he did was wrong, but really, her work isn’t that good, anyway," or, "If she were strong, like me, she would have stood up for herself," or, "If she didn’t have something to hide, she would have spoken out" — you are part of the problem...

From: https://www.chronicle.com/article/AbusersEnablers-in/241648