University of East London brings itself into disrepute

The personal web site of Prof. Chris Knight where the full report is available: http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/

More info at: Chris Knight Reinstatement Solidarity Group
and http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/

Anarchist scholar sued over VC web disclosure

A professor who posted confidential documents relating to his former vice-chancellor on the internet is being sued for damages by the University of East London, which is also trying to force him to reveal who gave him the papers.

Chris Knight, a professor of anthropology, has been suspended by UEL since 26 March after making remarks about the G20 Summit protests. Managers said the comments brought the university into disrepute.

While suspended, Professor Knight posted on his website copies of evidence supplied to the disciplinary hearing of UEL's former vice-chancellor Martin Everett, including statements provided by senior managers. He removed the material from the site after the university sought a court injunction prohibiting him from displaying it.

UEL wants a court order demanding he disclose the person who supplied the documents, as well as damages for breach of contract and confidence, and a permanent injunction restraining him from disclosing any confidential information that "has come to his knowledge during his employment". The claim, filed at the High Court by UEL's solicitors on 9 April, is valued at "more than £15,000".

Professor Knight, who was chair of the University and College Union branch at UEL's Docklands campus, is defending the claim with UCU support.

As one of the leaders of the G20 Meltdown protest movement, he was suspended following interviews with newspapers in advance of the G20 Summit in London Docklands on 2 April. The Evening Standard quoted him as saying that if the police wanted "violence, they will get it ... if they press their nuclear button, I'll press mine".

At a preliminary hearing under UEL's disciplinary procedures, Professor Knight denied inciting or condoning criminal violence.

The university's investigating committee found that Professor Knight "clearly advocated damage to banking institutions and violence against the police ... and made no attempt to state that such views were personal to him and in no way those of the university". It said this constituted gross misconduct.

The professor had continued speaking to the media and had visited campus after his suspension when he was forbidden from doing so, it added, concluding that this was "serious insubordination".

By publishing documents relating to Professor Everett, Professor Knight had "wilfully and seriously breached confidentiality", the committee decided. A disciplinary panel will now be convened.

Professor Everett was suspended last June following allegations of poor leadership from senior managers and left earlier this year.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Bullied Blogger: ‘I need to do something to get me out of this hole’

...I was shocked by the pre-disciplinary report sent last Friday. I feel I am a fool to have thought that the pro vice-chancellor for law and social sciences was in any way going to give a balanced and objective appraisal of my behaviour. At the time, he seemed concerned, sympathetic, empathic and highly motivated to “get this sorted out”. The report that was sent to me via email and registered post is a terrible indication of how organisations work and deal with people who – through complicated interpersonal disputes that result in severe stress – attempt to challenge in ways that may be problematic. The pre-disciplinary meeting was just another perfunctory way of building a subjective case against me. I feel utterly confounded by the psychological brutality I am experiencing.

I feel like a criminal. Criminalised. It’s hard to recall, but there was a time, not too many months ago, when I loved my job. My students so enjoyed my teaching. All that seems invisible, airbrushed, forgotten, invalidated. It seems impossible to imagine that I will ever be able to return to work for this academic institution. This option is now gone.

My emotions are changeable; I veer towards despair and depression. One good thing I have to hold on to is that Dominic is wonderfully supportive, but he now wants me to resign. He is shocked by the mechanistic and uncaring attitude of this university, that someone can give so much and be “dismissed” so easily. He thinks if my situation were a work of fiction it would be considered an unlikely scenario. I read a great deal about dysfunctional organisations, research on bullying, interpersonal conflict in organisations and how mobbing is a common occurrence. The reading is not optimistic: it paints pictures of sour, hidden malice and ruined careers.

I find the silence from staff in my division disappointing and disheartening. Do they know what is going on? Have they succumbed to the vitriolic character assassination of the individual who has been punished? Do they take the party line? Have they forgotten about me and just carry on unquestioning? Are they so conformist and worried about making contact? For some naive reason, I thought that there would be interest in what is happening to me – and in the division of law and social sciences, what else would one expect but a critical questioning about the way I have been dealt with? But also, what about Alan, my friend? He must have left by now. Where is Alan in all of this? Am I so wrapped up in all of this that I have become too focused on my own experience? There is a world out there and I am in a fog of war. I need to do something to get me out of this hole.

I read and re-read the disciplinary report. It is vindictive, selective and partisan, lacking any sense of humanity. Helen and Marcus say such lies and conjure up a view that vindicates their position. I did not realise people could be so terribly nasty. Apparently, when Marcus read the Easter email he was traumatised. Helen was “shocked and devastated” by my email. There is also a one-page response from the vice-chancellor’s office that talks about “staff seemingly acting with scant regard for official channels of communication” and human resources taking the view that I have been “offensive and unacceptable in my behaviour to staff”. But these are the people who were accused by me after a long period of difficulties THAT WERE MINE. It was I who attempted to resolve matters. They have each other, their religion and mutual association of faith. I cannot believe they have been so offended. It seems orchestrated, contrived and engineered for best effect.

I read the report time and time again. It all seems crazy and ridiculous. They have gone on a fishing expedition and cast their nets far and wide. Seen in isolation, without any context or understanding for my situation, I am guilty as charged. Totally stuffed. But it’s not like that: this has a history. I know it and they know it. I need to hold on to what led me here. I need to hold on to that. But who is believed? These are defensive reactions, and according to bullying websites, they are consistent with how these things play out...

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
-----------------
Times Higher Education removed the option for posting comments on their site. We haven't.

Teacher sues over bullying claims

A teacher is suing the Education Department over an alleged culture of punishment and retribution at a state school.

Humanities teacher Paul Unsworth claims he was bullied and harassed by the principal and other senior staff at Werribee Secondary College over three years. Mr Unsworth told Melbourne Magistrates' Court yesterday that he became depressed and angry during a 2005 review of his role as an expert teacher.

He said Werribee principal Steve Butyn considered him to be dead wood and wanted to get rid of him.

Two other teachers also had WorkCover claims against the school over similar issues, he told the court.

Mr Unsworth said he was stopped from making email contact with the school and an investigation into his review was launched by the Education Department's western region. "I felt completely ostracised from the workplace by not being able to communicate with the school," he said.

An email from western region director Brett New that was accidentally sent to him and the two other teachers offered full support for Mr Butyn's disciplinary actions, Mr Unsworth said. "My perception was that I had no chance of getting a fair hearing," he said.

Mr Unsworth, who made several failed compensation claims against the school, said he was the victim of "a culture of punishment and retribution for speaking up".

Under cross-examination by Clyde Miles, for the Education Department, Mr Unsworth admitted he had been taking anti-depressants since 1998.

Mr Miles said Mr Unsworth had failed to comply with a request to accurately and sufficiently document the good things about his teaching.

Mr Unsworth is still employed by the school but has not worked there since June, 2007. He is seeking weekly payments from the Education Department as part of a WorkCover claim.

The hearing before magistrate Peter Lauritsen continues.

From: http://www.news.com.au

Liverpool John Moores faced 27 tribunal cases in past three years

Twenty-seven employment tribunal cases have been lodged against Liverpool John Moores University in the past three years, Times Higher Education can reveal.

The disputes have raised questions about a "litigious culture" within the university and generated concerns about its management structure. Many of the claims were made by academics from the faculty of health and applied social sciences, the Liverpool Business School and the School of Engineering.

Liverpool John Moores explained the unrest by citing the extensive restructuring it had undergone in recent years, which it admitted had caused upheaval.

A spokeswoman for the institution said: "The university is not afraid to tackle areas that need attention, and over the past three years it has reorganised the structures in four of its six faculties, as well as a number of service teams.

"As a result, staff have been redeployed or have chosen to leave, and a small number have been made redundant. A number of individuals affected ... have sought redress through the tribunal system."

Of the 27 cases, nine are still in process, ten were settled through mediation, three were privately withdrawn, which could mean they were settled out of court, two ended with judgments in favour of the claimant and three in favour of Liverpool John Moores.

As Times Higher Education reported earlier this month, Helena Lunt, senior lecturer at the university's Centre for Public Health, successfully made a claim against Liverpool John Moores for unfair dismissal.

The employment tribunal judgment was highly critical of the university and of the actions of several senior managers, including Godfrey Mazhindu, dean of the faculty of health and applied social sciences.

It said Professor Mazhindu had "unilaterally" taken the decision to remove Ms Lunt as leader of a practice nurse programme, which led to her being "marginalised out of employment".

Professor Mazhindu is married to Deborah Mazhindu, who was appointed head of research development and pedagogy at Liverpool John Moores' School of Nursing and Primary Care Practice in 2007. Professor Mazhindu was not involved in her appointment.

Academics at the university have questioned Dr Mazhindu's suitability for the role because her work was not submitted to the 2008 research assessment exercise.

In the year of her appointment, one researcher used a resignation letter to voice concerns about the potential conflict of interest raised by a married couple in senior positions working closely together.

"This close working proximity of two married senior staff does pose some serious challenges to effective and equitable personnel management," the letter says.

In response, the university said Dr Mazhindu was a "widely respected academic nursing professional with national and international standing in her field".

It added that her current title was not head of research - despite this title remaining on its website - but senior research fellow in advanced practice. It added: "In common with many universities, not all researchers were submitted to the RAE."

The author of the resignation letter, who left after being redeployed from the Centre for Public Health to the School of Nursing, said that six research staff had left the centre alone since 2006: three professors, one reader and two senior research fellows.

One of them, Annette Jinks, now professor of nursing at Edge Hill University, lodged a complaint against Professor Mazhindu for bullying and harassment, but did not pursue it and resigned.

Another academic to take action was Angela Brennan, former director of Liverpool John Moores' School of Applied Social and Community Studies.

She accused the university of unfair dismissal after being made redundant in August 2008, but later withdrew the claim. She told Times Higher Education that she had instituted a grievance procedure against Professor Mazhindu. She lost and was subsequently made redundant.

Phil Lee, who was appointed director of applied social sciences at Liverpool John Moores in 2003-04, took out a grievance procedure against Professor Mazhindu after being told that he had not satisfactorily completed his probation period. Mr Lee, who now works at the University of Lincoln as a senior lecturer in social work, left Liverpool John Moores after signing a compromise agreement.

The university spokeswoman said that four individuals had raised grievances against the dean and that "each case was resolved through the university system".

Adrian Jones, who was the Liverpool region's University and College Union representative for 18 years before his retirement in 2008, said that when Liverpool John Moores was still a polytechnic, industrial relations were good, but that subsequently an "increasingly distant" approach had emerged.

"For example, the lecturers' consultative committee was not convened for years at a time, and the management comment on that was that 'minimalism' was preferred," he said. "A litigious culture is increasingly likely to develop when managers regard structured consultation as an optional extra."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Whistleblower kicked off board

An academic at loggerheads with Manchester Metropolitan University after he blew the whistle on alleged grade inflation at the institution has claimed that he was scapegoated by being kicked off its academic board.

Walter Cairns was ejected from the board following a vote of no-confidence instigated by John Brooks, vice-chancellor of Manchester Met.

The move was made in the aftermath of Mr Cairns' submission to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee inquiry into higher education standards. It concerned a course he taught in which marks were bumped up across the board following an 85 per cent failure rate.

Mr Cairns told the panel of MPs that the changes had been made without his consent and despite an initial indication from the external examiner that his marking was appropriate.

The university responded by suggesting that poor teaching was partly to blame for the low marks - a point Mr Cairns denied.

Speaking after being expelled from the board, which has 25 academic members and is charged with maintaining standards at Manchester Met, Mr Cairns said he had been denied the opportunity to defend himself. He said: "I raised my hand, to be met with an icy stare from the vice-chancellor, coupled with the question: 'Can I ask you to speak last?'

"I complied, taking this to mean that I would be given an opportunity to respond to all the flak - including that thrown by the vice-chancellor himself - that would be cast in my direction from other board members.

"The latter duly complied ... The vice-chancellor then said: 'These contributions fully confirm my own views on the subject. I therefore propose a vote of no-confidence in Mr Cairns which, if it succeeds, will cause him to leave this board.'

"The motion was duly seconded, they stuck up their hands and I was asked to leave ... I therefore find myself expelled, having had no opportunity to defend myself."

The select committee is believed to have contacted Manchester Met to ask it to explain its actions.

In a statement, the university said that Mr Cairns' allegations of grade inflation were "inaccurate and the source of a great deal of anxiety and concern for members of staff and students". It also insisted that its actions were not punitive, and said it had assured the MPs of this.

It said: "Mr Cairns has failed to use the normal academic board process to raise issues of quality and standards, and has ignored its decisions regarding the issues he now raises.

"In that circumstance, the members of the board considered it inappropriate for Mr Cairns to continue as a member.

"The university would like to stress that Mr Cairns' censure is in no way a disciplinary measure, and it has emphasised that point to the select committee."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Auditors called in over bill for exotic holidays taken by former university chief's wife

An investigation has been ordered into multi-million pound bill run up by a university's staff on official credit cards, including exotic foreign trips by the controversial vice-chancellor's wife.

Around £5million was spent over a two-and-a-half year period on everything from tickets to the Olympic Games in China to payment for a professor's parking fines, it has been revealed.

The cards were used to fund trips to Bavaria, Ethiopia, Thailand and France by Patricia Lee, wife of the £300,000 a year Leeds Metropolitan University boss - Simon Lee - who resigned in January amid allegations about his treatment of staff.

Mrs Lee, who has no official post at the university, went on some of the foreign trips without her husband and the full cost of her travel to the taxpayer has not been disclosed.

The university, which has around 30,000 staff, receives half its £160million annual budget from public funds.

Details of the high spending at public expense have emerged from the disclosure of credit card statements to the Yorkshire Post under the Freedom of Information Act. It has prompted the university's management to ask its auditors to carry out an investigation into credit card spending by staff.

But the university claimed spending using official purchasing cards - intending to cut through red tape and reduce administration costs for business purchases - was in line with other universities.

An interim report has indicated no serious problems with expenses and no evidence of fraud or misuse of funds, a university spokesman said.

Last summer Mrs Lee went with a group of staff and students to Bangkok to 'rub shoulders with champions of Indian cinema' as part of the preparations for the Bollywood awards ceremony - the equivalent of the Oscars.

The £1,324 cost of the flight appears on a PA's credit card and the cost of Mrs Lee's accommodation is not known. A week later Mrs Lee was with 24 graduate trainees and staff in Bavaria for a trip costing £8,000.

The university helps fund a centre in the foothills of the Alps which provides leadership and management training.

Leeds Metropolitan University has asked its auditors to carry out an investigation into credit card spending by staff. She wrote on the university's website that the trip to the beauty spot was 'the realisation of a teenage dream.'

The party also visited Schloss Neuschwanstein, one of the world's most famous and spectacular castles.

A month earlier in May Mrs Lee accompanied her husband to Ethiopia at the invitation of athlete Haile Gebrselassie, in connection with the university's African partnership programme.

Six months later she returned with a party of staff and students but without Mr Lee, following another invitation from the world record breaker, this time in connection with the Great Ethiopia Run.

The £1,671 cost of her accommodation at the Addis Ababa Hilton hotel was reportedly on a staff member's credit card who also went on the trip. Her remaining travel costs and who paid for them are not known.

The report also details a trip in February 2007 to Limoges, France, which Mrs Lee went on with two members of staff. The £500 credit card costs did not include accommodation.

The university is still awaiting further information about the £20,000 spent by Mr Lee the outgoing vice-chancellor. It includes £1,000 spent on three meals at a restaurant called Brio.. Other spending by 190 university card holders between May 2006 and December last year included the payment of at least six parking fines.

Leeds Met said it spent £40,000 sending staff to the Olympics to raise the university's profile as a coaching centre of excellence (£8,000 on tickets were put on one card alone).

The university was a sponsor of the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final at Wembley and it spent £2,550 on tickets for the August event - which did not include the 400 tickets it received under the sponsorship deal.

Among the biggest single transactions were £8,500 for the purchase of a VW campervan, used as a mobile exhibition unit at music festivals and events, and £11,800 on publicity material for the crowd at the Leeds Rhinos v Melbourne World Club Challenge rugby league match it sponsored.

One faculty PA spent £671 on 42 bottles of Champagne for staff leaving the university. And £179 was spent at Debenhams on a suit for a chef.

David Willetts, the shadow Innovation, Universities and Skills Secretary, said: 'These are very serious allegations which do cause me concern. It is important the spending on these is clarified as quickly as possible.'

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Also: Exclusive: Leeds Met's champagne and travel spending spree exposed

7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment

Call For Papers

The Centre for Research on Workplace Behaviours at the University of Glamorgan is delighted to announce that it will be hosting the 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment in June 2010.

Taking place from 2nd to 4th June at the Hilton Hotel in Cardiff, capital of Wales, the biennial conference will bring together researchers, academics, practitioners and students from around the world.

We are currently calling for abstracts/ papers, and streams include (but are not limited to):

• Bullying and Harassment
• Corporate Social Responsibility / Morality / Ethics
• Dignity at Work
• Discrimination
• Emotions
• Health and Wellbeing
• Interventions
• Industrial Relations
• Law
• Leadership
• Management
• Mediation / Counselling / Conflict
• Methodology
• Organisational Culture
• Power
• Role of Practitioners
• Whistleblowing
• Workplace bullying / Mobbing
• Workplace Cyber-bullying

For more information on submission, keynote speakers, venue and registration, please see www.bullying2010.com or email workplacebehaviours@glam.ac.uk

Sir Peter Scott and Kingston University Stung by Defamation Suit

Sadly, as a result of Kingston University's public press statements denying the authenticity of documentary evidence, which had been provided by Dr Howard Fredrics to the press and to HEFCE, Dr Fredrics found himself with no alternative than to issue defamation proceedings in the Surrey County Court against the University and it's Vice-Chancellor.

When a recent report by the British Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) upheld allegations of wrongdoing by Kingston staff members in connection with the pressurizing of an External Examiner, the veracity and authenticity of the evidence was clearly and irrefutably established. Yet, despite the publication of this compelling government-sponsored report, the University and Prof Scott failed to issue a public apology and retraction of its allegedly defamatory statements concerning Dr Fredrics' evidence.

Instead, both the University and Prof Scott have, thus far, maintained complete public silence, and have instead indicated (through their solicitors) that they intend to fully contest the Court action filed by Dr Fredrics.

Isn't it a shame that Prof Scott has chosen to reserve what must surely be a rather large sum of public money in order to defend this lawsuit instead of simply issuing a public apology to Dr Fredrics?

During a time of recession, when job cuts are being contemplated in the UK university sector, does it make you angry to know that YOUR taxes are being used to fund the defence of a lawsuit that would never have been filed, had the University and/or Prof Scott simply admitted that they were wrong to have denied the authenticity of Dr Fredrics' evidence?

Source: http://www.sirpeterscott.com

A principled outcome...

We wanted a principled outcome, said the VC who signed the employment termination of one of his bullied staff members.

There are different perceptions of what happened, said the VC to justify how the educational institution ganged-up against the victim in an attempt to cover-up its own massive failures.

It was a principled outcome to fabricate allegations against the victim, including an allegation of sexual harassment against a female staff member who had departed three years before the incident was supposed to have happened.

Of course there are different perceptions of what ought to happen when the senior manager who had an affair with a lady, covered-up for her when the latter was caught stealing sandwiches from the canteen. Different perceptions means double-standards.

It was principled for one of the senior members of the university to state that if he was asked to testify in court, he would deny everything.

Principled outcomes and different perceptions...