How sacked whistle-blower Susanne Täuber’s career fared after she spoke out

Denied promotion, Täuber describes what happened to her after she publicly challenged her university’s gender-equity policy.

I began a position as a gender-equality researcher at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands in 2009, achieving tenure in 2015. I was studying factors that undermine the effective implementation of policy into practice. In 2018, after being passed over for promotion, I lodged an official complaint about gender bias. The following year, I argued that the university’s gender-equity policy jarred with my actual experiences at work.

I was dismissed on 7 October 2022. On 8 March last year — International Women’s Day — a district court judge ruled that my dismissal was justified. The ruling referred to a “permanently disturbed working relationship”, but also stated that the university “played an important, if not a decisive role” in creating it.

My Court of Appeal hearing was in November 2023, and I found out in January that I had lost. For me, the appeal was important in getting clarity, for thousands of academics in the Netherlands, as to whether or not they can safely publish their research, especially if it is critical of their institutions.

Sadly, the verdict provides no closure on the protection of academic freedom. But, because my case drew so much attention at the time — including a sit-in by students and a petition signed by more than 3,600 academics around the world calling for my reinstatement — I can now draw on a global network of colleagues who have gone through similar experiences. A fundraiser organized on my behalf by Stichting Inclusive Action North, a Groningen-based social-justice alliance, was an immense relief. I wish that every person affected by bullying had access to such a financial lifeline.

I have worked with academics from around the world to conceive of ways to tackle the censorship and related problems that are increasingly faced by academics. I participated in the Academic Freedom Under Attack webinar series last September, organized by higher-education researcher Carlos Azevedo at the Open University in Milton Keynes, UK, and critical-management scholar Ronald Hartz at Ilmenau University of Technology, Germany. Hartz was among a group of academics made redundant in 2021 by the University of Leicester, UK. I have also been invited by the Radboud Gender & Diversity Studies and the Radboud Women Professors Network in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, to deliver the keynote speech for International Women’s Day this year. Alongside such public events, I regularly meet with people who have been targets of discrimination, harassment and power abuse in academia, and I try to support others who are going through similar experiences.

Academia is a system that desperately clings onto preserving the power and privilege of a happy few. Since my dismissal, I have not done paid work. I doubt that moving to another European country to seek employment would do the trick. All over Europe, academics face the same problems. The factors that undermine academic freedom are present everywhere: the steep hierarchy and power differentials, the dearth of tenured positions, the structural workload being handed down to precariously employed, underpaid and undervalued academics, the intellectual and labour exploitation of the most-vulnerable academics and the push by universities to silence criticism...

...What happened to me taught me more about my area of expertise than any amount of books and articles could ever have. My case was also mentioned last month when the European Parliament published its 2023 Academic Freedom Monitor of European Union Member States. The monitor notes “concerns for a potential chilling effect on academics wishing to address issues of management or other controversial issues”.

My advice for others would be to take a long hard look at the academic environment they’re in and to trust their gut feeling. I doubted my experiences and the accounts of other victims for years, always thinking, “it cannot be that bad, it cannot be that biased”. This self-doubt was more taxing than what came after — the crystal-clear realization that this is a rigged system. So, if you can: don’t waste time doubting yourself. Walk away and take your bright mind to a place where it will be valued.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00700-w

Counteracting deliberate ignorance of academic bullying and harassment

...According to a 2019 synthesis of 70 empirical studies from 20 countries, on average, 25% of faculty self-identify as being bullied and 40–50% report having witnessed bullying within the past year. Women, junior researchers, and members of minority groups are more likely to be bullied and harassed. Moreover, many targets suffer persistent abuse (up to half for 3 years or more; 10–20% for 5 years or more). Yet only a minority of bullying and harassment cases are officially reported, with many targets hesitating to report mistreatment due to fear of retaliation or the belief that their concerns will go unheard...

Deliberate ignorance—defined as the conscious choice not to seek or use information—is known to serve important psychological and social functions, such as regulating emotions or avoiding liability...

...The bystander effect has been demonstrated in many studies: The mere presence of bystanders in critical situations can reduce an individual’s probability of helping. Classic explanations are twofold. First, the more people are present, the lower the experienced sense of personal responsibility. Responsibility diffuses. Second, almost all group members can privately reject a norm to help and, at the same time, believe that almost everyone else accepts it. Ignorance can be pluralistic. Recent research suggests that bystander ignorance may also be deliberate, with people having various psychological motives for turning a blind eye to misconduct. For example, consciously choosing not to seek information—one form of deliberate ignorance—can be a way of regulating one’s emotions and deflecting responsibility. Deliberate ignorance can help to avoid distress and the anticipated guilt for not getting involved. Consciously choosing not to act on relevant information—a second form of deliberate ignorance—may be used as a strategic device to eschew responsibility and to avoid possible harm to oneself...

Psychological motives for deliberate ignorance can depend on the bystander’s status relative to the perpetrator. Strategic motives may be more pronounced in relationships with power asymmetries. For example, junior scientists may anticipate being unfavorably treated by a higher ranked perpetrator and remain deliberately ignorant to protect themselves. Emotion regulation may be a more significant motive when bystanders and perpetrators share a similar rank (e.g., a peer-to-peer relationship between two tenured professors). Witnessing a peer’s unethical behavior can be distressing, and deliberate ignorance can help bystanders to regulate their fear of confrontation with a peer, their guilt for not helping a target, or both.

Perpetrators may choose to ignore the distressing and even traumatizing effects of their behavior on targets in an attempt to escape social or legal accountability. In turn, this can preserve their power and status in academic hierarchies and help them maintain a positive self-image (see Fig. 1). We review policies that address deliberate ignorance in both perpetrators and bystanders and propose corresponding interventions intended to contribute to more ethical environments for all participants in academia...

One important psychological motive for bystanders not approaching targets and inquiring about their wellbeing is to avoid possible harm to themselves. This motive may be particularly pronounced when a perpetrator is more senior. Career progression in academia can depend on a senior scientist’s support, particularly in close-knit fields or disciplines. Whistle-blowers, therefore, need special protection. Beyond legal protections and anonymous reporting systems, a robust whistle-blower protection system includes anti-retaliation policies, optional relocations and fall-back supervision agreements. Further, protection from emotional and mental harm can be supported through the institutional provision of free, anonymous, and independent counseling services. Witnesses who feel protected and have confidence that due process will be followed may be more likely to report unethical practices. This requires a firm stance at the institutional level, with clear and robust consequences for perpetrators (e.g., official reprimands, withdrawal of funding, or even dismissal) being established and enforced...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00044-7

Update to The Envy of Excellence, two decades later, 2020

 ...The closest I have come to listing causes of mobbing was in a 2006 article in Academic Matters, where I identified ten factors that increase the likelihood of a professor being mobbed. Three were characteristics of the workplace:

1. A discipline with ambiguous standards and objectives, especially those (like music or literature) most affected by postmodern scholarship;

2. A supervisor – president, dean, department chair – in whom, as Nietzsche put it, “the impulse to punish is powerful”; and

3. An actual or contrived financial crunch in the academic unit (according to an African proverb, when the watering hole gets smaller, the animals get meaner).

   The remaining seven factors on my list of vulnerabilities were characteristics of the target:

   4. Foreign birth and upbringing, especially as signaled by a foreign accent;

   5. Being different from most colleagues in an elemental way (by sex, for instance, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, class origin, or credentials);

   6. Having opposed the candidate who ends up winning appointment as one’s dean or chair (thereby looking stupid, wicked, or crazy in the latter’s eyes);

   7. Being a ratebuster, achieving so much success in teaching or research that colleagues’ envy is aroused;

   8. Publicly dissenting from politically correct ideas (meaning those held sacred by campus elites);

   9. Defending a pariah in campus politics or the larger cultural arena;

   10. Blowing the whistle on, or even having knowledge of, serious wrongdoing by locally powerful workmates.

   “The upshot of available research,” I concluded, “is that no professor needs to worry much about being mobbed, even in a generally vulnerable condition, so long as he or she does not rock the local academic boat. The secret is to show deference to colleagues and administrators, to be the kind of scholar they want to keep around as a way of making themselves look good. Jung said that ‘a man’s hatred is always concentrated on that which makes him conscious of his bad qualities..."

   Kenneth Westhues

   http://www.kwesthues.com/EnvyExcUPDATE2020.pdf

Professor David Vaughan, BA Ceramic Arts and Ceramics

 

David is not a real Professor; he has never undertaken any research. He acquired the title by simply demanding it when he was appointed Principal of the Cumbria Institute of the Arts (CIA) from September 1991 until retirement in August 2007, when the University of Cumbria was formed. 

 

He never attended classes, visited the campus, or engaged with his teaching colleagues during this period. He was too busy running around the country promoting himself by participating in various committees and pretending he was knowledgeable.

David would turn up at the end of the academic year to chair the Exam Boards, the only time anyone saw him. His view of academics complaining about mistreatment is that they should be suspended indefinitely until they give up and resign their positions. Unsurprisingly, his wife divorced him because he was a bully.

This is a vain man seeking acknowledgement at any cost. He used his position of power to bully, threaten and intimidate. 

Counteracting deliberate ignorance of academic bullying and harassment

Understanding ignorance
Psychological motives for deliberate ignorance can depend on the bystander’s status relative to the perpetrator. Strategic motives may be more pronounced in relationships with power asymmetries. For example, junior scientists may anticipate being unfavorably treated by a higher ranked perpetrator and remain deliberately ignorant to protect themselves. Emotion regulation may be a more significant motive when bystanders and perpetrators share a similar rank (e.g., a peer-to-peer relationship between two tenured professors). Witnessing a peer’s unethical behavior can be distressing, and deliberate ignorance can help bystanders to regulate their fear of confrontation with a peer, their guilt for not helping a target, or both.

Perpetrators may choose to ignore the distressing and even traumatizing effects of their behavior on targets in an attempt to escape social or legal accountability. In turn, this can preserve their power and status in academic hierarchies and help them maintain a positive self-image...

The bystander effect has been demonstrated in many studies: The mere presence of bystanders in critical situations can reduce an individual’s probability of helping. Classic explanations are twofold. First, the more people are present, the lower the experienced sense of personal responsibility. Responsibility diffuses. Second, almost all group members can privately reject a norm to help and, at the same time, believe that almost everyone else accepts it. Ignorance can be pluralistic. Recent research suggests that bystander ignorance may also be deliberate, with people having various psychological motives for turning a blind eye to misconduct. For example, consciously choosing not to seek information—one form of deliberate ignorance—can be a way of regulating one’s emotions and deflecting responsibility. Deliberate ignorance can help to avoid distress and the anticipated guilt for not getting involved. Consciously choosing not to act on relevant information—a second form of deliberate ignorance—may be used as a strategic device to eschew responsibility and to avoid possible harm to oneself...

From https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00044-7

Understanding and Preventing Faculty-on-Faculty Bullying

 

...To some degree globally, the academic profession has moved from a well-defined core of elite scholars to a more peripheral faculty who have for university financial concerns penetrated that gradually declining, highly guarded, elite core... 

... As a result, the academic profession sacrifices some autonomy and academic freedom as university leadership becomes more capitalistic, corporatized, and market driven. A ccording to the labor process theory, incivility and bullying can occur as a result of this market-driven, capitalistic worker relationship...

... ivory towers could not possibly be thought of as harboring toxic work climates with menacing bullies and uncivil tormentors. Furthermore, faculty may no longer have that sense of fit they felt when hired into their academic department. As a result, stress arises. So does uncertainty. New negative behaviors and dormant ones begin to surface in the work setting. Often these shifts become the negative response to unsettling change that manifests itself in incivility and bullying...

... In hiring a new faculty member, Lang recalled, “we cast our votes for either a department that would continue to replicate its current values or one that would head in a new direction, the endpoint of which was not entirely clear” (p. 96). Being the minority supporter for a junior colleague placed Lang in jeopardy among senior faculty majority voters. His ethical beliefs and convictions might interfere with his tenure vote in a few years. As his academic year progressed, he assessed that it at least went well for him in his classroom while he still ruminated over the outcome of his search committee service. Meanwhile, Lang tried to make sense of the “cross- and undercurrents of department intrigue and just to try to take everything at face value” and feared being sucked “back into the vicious cycle of departmental politics”...

...Lang concluded that his best offense in the department entailed proceeding “with my head down, my mouth shut, and my eyes and ears wide open”... In any institution, and the university is no exception, much is veiled purposefully and much operates in the shadows from the consumers who study there, from the taxpayers who indirectly fund the enterprise, and the faculty, staff, and administration who choose not to peek under the veil...

From Understanding and Preventing Faculty-on-Faculty Bullying 

Dying to Be Heard?

Leah P. Hollis writes of the need to address workplace bullying after the tragic death of Antoinette Candia-Bailey.

"Many in the higher education community are mourning the untimely loss of a colleague, Antoinette (Bonnie) Candia-Bailey. The former vice president of student affairs at Lincoln University, in Missouri, was only 49 when she died by suicide. In emails sent before she died, she accused the president of Lincoln, a historically Black university, of bullying and harassing her, causing her mental harm.

Black women, in particular, note yet another woman of color, by her account, cut down by her organization, and they are startled that her employer, an HBCU, seemingly allowed this to occur. Unfortunately, scholars of workplace bullying are not surprised because time and again in our research respondents comment that they have considered suicide to escape a bully.

I have been studying workplace bullying for more than a decade. Between 58 and 62 percent of higher education employees face workplace bullying. The percentages are higher for women, people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community. These vulnerable populations often do not have the power to resist organizational aggression and betrayal.

Though several states (California, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee and Utah) have some type of legislation or policy in place to prohibit workplace bullying, these are penned to protect the powerful employer; only Puerto Rico has strong workplace bullying protections in place. Workplace bullying is still to a large extent legal in the U.S., where under federal laws harassment must be tied to protected class status (race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, etc.) for an employee to take independent legal action.

Some organizations dismiss bullying as stemming from personality conflicts or difficult employees. However, workplace bullying is based on a power differential; when someone abuses the power they have over another, that abuse of power leads to emotional and psychological damage for the target. As we reflect on higher education, we know the bastions of power lie in the presidents’, provosts’ and deans’ offices. A close look at American Council on Education data on the college presidency reveals that such powerful positions are held primarily by white men. The power structures in higher education still fall along racial and gendered lines.

While it was once considered a universal, colorblind phenomenon, workplace bullying data confirm that race and gender matter and are statistically significant factors in the higher education workplace when it comes to bullying. Yet across many colleges and universities there appears to be widespread apathy about this problem. In a recent study of more than 200 human resources personnel at four-year institutions, more than 61 percent stated they didn’t know about workplace bullying training and that workplace bullying just isn’t a priority at their institution.

I fear what we are witnessing at Lincoln University may amount to an organizational betrayal that cost a vice president her life. In reviewing the emails, one can see that Candia-Bailey, a 1998 graduate of Lincoln who took the vice president of student affairs job just last spring, submitted complaints about President John Moseley to the institution’s board and to human resources and sought accommodations for “severe depression and anxiety” under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. After receiving a negative performance evaluation this past fall, Candia-Bailey asked for a specific performance plan, but she claimed Moseley sidestepped the request. She received notice of termination Jan. 3 and was warned that if she did not vacate her campus apartment by the time her firing went into effect, in February, campus police “will promptly remove you and your possessions from the apartment.” I imagine her being stunned and appalled, feeling betrayed by her own alma mater. 

If one did not think a Black woman could be abused at an HBCU, reflect on a recent study I conducted in which Black women from HBCUs made up 62 percent of the sample. Over all, the study revealed poor treatment and the abuse they faced while trying to achieve tenure. Between unequal-pay issues, overloaded course assignments and outsize service requirements, Black women are still treated like second-class citizens in the academy..."

https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2024/01/22/tragedy-workplace-bullying-opinion

 

Academic bullying: Desperate for data and solutions

 

Q: What is the scope of the problem?

A: We don't have robust and comprehensive data in this field, because the targets of bullying don't feel safe talking about it. There is a fear of retaliation, job loss, visa cancellation, or mobbing and ganging-up behaviors, which results in a code of silence. One survey found that the rate of people who are bullied in academia and report it is less than 2%. One leading researcher on academic bullying pulled together a meta-analysis of studies and found that the prevalence of academic bullying is roughly more than 30% across the globe. The Max Planck Institutes in Europe conducted a survey of more than 9,000 of their employees and reported in 2019 that 10% had experienced bullying in the past year. To me, the fact that Max Planck proudly published that figure means that 10% is a very low number for bullying across academia. Personally, I think the rate is much higher and is probably highly dependent on the type of institution. At highly ranked institutions, where competition for joining labs is high and where lab workers can easily be replaced by another candidate, I would guess the incidence is even higher.

Q: Why do you think bullying thrives in the academic environment?

A: There are several reasons for it, but in my opinion, we have no regulations or laws aimed at preventing academic bullying, and this is why institutions feel they cannot do anything about it. At every institution where I have worked, I have had to take mandatory sexual harassment training, but there has never been a single institution where there was training on how to handle bullying, how to report it, or what to do if you witness it. Typical university general harassment policies cover only people in protected classes from being discriminated against due to aspects such as their ethnicity, gender, age, and religion. There are no structures in place to address harassment that are based on an abuse of power by those ranked more highly in the university system—and especially by those who have already achieved tenure as professors. There's no Title IX–like office for bullying.

https://www.science.org/content/article/academic-bullying-desperate-data-and-solutions

Open and Closed Universities Redux

Here we complement the previous posting with a study of the 10 worst performing Non-Russell Group Universities.

Again, we give total number of complaints to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), as well as complaints per 1000 staff (using publicly available estimates of the total number of employees). These statistics are a proxy for the openness of the University. Fewer complaints to the ICO indicate greater propensity to disclose data, as well as better staff-management relations.

We recollect that the worst performing Russell Group university was Oxford with 99 complaints. When normalised to total employees, this is ~ 6.7 complaints per 1000 staff.

The Non-Russell Group has produced six universities worse than Oxford. The performance by St Mary’s University, Twickenham is extraordinary with 70 complaints amongst barely 1100 employees. When normalised by head count, this is by some way the worst performance of any university in the UK. The 21 Group would be interested to hear of any explanation.

The next five universities — London Metropolitan, East London, Birkbeck College, Brunel and Northampton — all generate more complaints to the ICO per 1000 staff than Oxford. This suggest a closed culture, desultory management and poor employee engagement.

We recollect that the ICO is the last resort for Freedom of Information or data protection complaints. Consensual and open universities should not be generating such large numbers of complaints.

So far, we have merely looked at total number of complaints (whether or not the complaints were upheld). In the next posting, we will look at which Universities are failing to comply with the recommendations of the ICO in the case of upheld complaints.

https://21percent.org/?p=854

Inside Claudine Gay’s resignation and the hyper scrutiny haunting Black women in higher ed

 

On Jan. 2, former Harvard University president Claudine Gay resigned from her position. She was the second woman and first person of color to serve as president in the university’s 386-year history. People called for her resignation due to accusations of plagiarism and anti-semitism.

Some individuals like conservative activist Christopher F. Rufocelebrated Gay’s resignation online. “This is the beginning of the end for DEI in America’s institutions. We will expose you. We will outmaneuver you. And we will not stop fighting until we have restored colorblind equality in our great nation,” Rufo said in a Jan. 2 tweet.

However, Black women in higher education like racial, social and gender justice educator Ericka Hart, who was previously firedfrom Columbia University in 2020 for raising concerns about a student’s comments, are calling out the discrimination and racism behind the pressures Gay had to endure.

“We (Black and non Black people of color) have to really sit with how these institutions do not give two s**** about us and will see us out expeditiously if we do not follow their white supremacist agenda,” Hart said in a Jan. 4 Instagram post. Other Black female administrators and professors in higher education as well are now posting and speaking about the extreme pressures they have also faced in these positions compared to their white counterparts.

For Cal Poly Pomona professor and former provost Dr. Jennifer Brown, Gay’s resignation made them deeply saddened about the struggles she knows she has gone through. “I really have no words to describe how it feels to get to a certain point in your career and to have it be so short lived, due to circumstances outside of your control. I could just say that I know firsthand when you are targeted for something the impact it has on your mental health or on your physical health,” Dr. Brown said.

These struggles and racial disparities in higher education can also be seen when looking at the statistics of tenure. A 2021 data setfrom The U.S. Department of Education found that tenured Black women only made up 2.8% of tenured faculty at U.S. universities.

“Black women experience institutional barriers at every stage of the academic process, starting with admission into graduate programs, yielding a small pool of credentialed graduates available for tenure-track faculty positions. Then the tenure process further culls the herd,” Boston University Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Malika Jeffries-ELsaid in a 2021 BU Today article...

From: https://www.nj.com/reckon/2024/01/black-brilliant-broken-inside-claudine-gays-resignation-and-the-double-standards-haunting-black-women-in-higher-ed.html