What allegation was made against 'Professor' David Vaughan, and why did police go to his house?
March 29, 2016
'Professor' David Vaughan...
What allegation was made against 'Professor' David Vaughan, and why did police go to his house?
March 28, 2016
Ersatz professors should be booed off the stage
Senior managers with no scholarly record who claim academic titles are charlatans who harm the sector, argues David Wilson
My research into controversy about the welfare of performing animals in the late 19th century has introduced me to “professors” of the music hall, circus and fairground. These include Professor Woodward, trainer of equilibrist sea lions; Professor Lockhart with his “acting pachyderms”; the animal trainer Professor Chard, supporting Poole’s Myriorama picture show at Hengler’s Circus in Hull; and Professor Devereaux (the son of Professor Peterson, “for fifty years a dog trainer”) at Reynolds’ Exhibition of freaks, waxworks and live acts in Liverpool.
These picturesque characters assumed their spurious titles for commercial effect and perhaps also for reasons of vanity (circus proprietors such as “Lord” George Sanger and “Sir” Robert Fossett took similar liberties). But at least they were experts in their fields, and their audiences were not duped: they accepted such flamboyance as a legitimate device.
Contrast this with some of the UK’s present-day “manager-professors”. Their acquisition of the title has also resulted from vanity and is equally spurious, but in their case it is harmful and reprehensible, and the public is indeed deceived.
A professorial title should be an academic one. And since the definition of an academic must be restricted to someone who is or has been active in research and related teaching, professors should have a strong record in publishing exceptionally high-level, peer-reviewed research, in addition to any contingent management responsibilities or “external partnership” work. Yet a strong research record has not been a prerequisite for becoming a professor in the past 25 years in the UK.
Universities’ published criteria for professorial appointments have increasingly allowed promotion on management-role grounds, regardless of genuine academic credibility, and I wonder how many modern professors offered nothing to their institutions for consideration in the last research excellence framework.
The manager-professor who does not meet strict academic criteria is a dangerous impostor who threatens the reputation of our higher education institutions among the public. And it is not acceptable that when a new vice-chancellor or principal without a professorship is appointed – hey presto! – one appears from nowhere. The adoption by some UK universities of US-style professorial titles in place of traditional designations such as lecturer and reader only adds to the confusion, but at least many of those newly dubbed assistant or associate professors are proper academics (the phoneys grab only “full” professorships).
The problem has worsened in another way. There have been notorious instances of manager-professors blocking the route to a professorship for more worthy candidates. In one case I know of, a college principal (a “professor” with no record in research, and who had not taught for at least 16 years) refused until his retirement to countenance the idea of professorships or even readerships for his staff; now he enjoys an “emeritus” title. One would have thought that for such senior managers, power and remuneration – not to mention the titillating attractions of bureaucracy itself – would have been enough. But he was also apparently determined to maintain an impression of unique academic status.
In another recent case, for the first three years since its creation from “legacy” institutions, a new university (one already replete with manager-professors) denied any accomplished internal academic staff the opportunity to apply for readerships or professorships – while renewing its “Investor in People” status, whatever that actually means in higher education.
What happened to academic leadership? How can we have “academic” line managers – “professors” or otherwise, but often sporting inappropriate titles such as “dean” – who know little about the subjects for which they have overall responsibility, and who are inactive in research and teaching? These are the people against whom the recurring criticism of bureaucratic burdens should be directed, not professional administrative staff. How many millions of pounds have been wasted on managerial bureaucracy and the staffing of it by “academic leaders”? What has been the cost in the time available to devote to disciplines, research and students? How do real professors and real readers, who have earned their titles by hard graft and genuine, continuing academic achievement, feel about the quacks who have undermined their well-deserved status?
To those aware of these trends, encountering a professorial title today invites immediate suspicion rather than respect. The only recourse now is to ask of a UK professorship: “What was it for and where was it awarded?” “Quality assurance” as a management device has not applied to this area, and it is easy to see why. We have allowed the integrity and special meaning of British academic titles to be destroyed. Our audience has become increasingly misled and confused, and the charlatans deserve to be booed off the stage.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/ersatz-professors-should-be-booed-off-the-stage
March 26, 2016
Leeds Met
Hi.
I have just found online the information about the resignation of the VC at Leeds Met in 2009 amidst allegations around bullying at that institution. I've read some of the posts from people working there and the bullying culture they were working within.
I would like to say that although it is many years ago and I have moved onto new work, I am still affected by the bullying I underwent at Liverpool Hope Uni, involving managers and senior people as well as the then Rector as he was before moving to Leeds Met. This ongoing, sustained personal damage lead eventually to my being made redundant and forced out of my job. This has turned out to be the best thing that could have happened to me, but the trauma of what I underwent and the effects of the stress I endured for years there are still there. They have also affected my pension as I had to work part time which has affected my final salary. I now work for myself and go into primary schools. In the course of this work I encounter students on placement in school who are training in Liv. Hope; I always feel a shock when I hear the name of the place and it brings instant fear memories into me. Just the mention of the place, even now. As an example of something that is still strong from that time, I can remember looking every time I went into work, to see if my manager's door knob was visible in the corridor (as that meant her door was shut and I could walk past to get to my office) and then not walking down the corridor if it wasn't visible as I would've been stopped and questioned. Despite so much help and therapy the memories are still in my body.
I don't know if it is helpful to others, but my current work and knowledge for my job confirms for me that what I underwent at Liv. Hope WAS trauma. And the fact that I still have these fearful feelings stored in my body, over a decade on, is further evidence that this was a type of trauma. Although when you are in the midst of being bullied it is very easy to doubt yourself totally, and I don't think I would've believed it was trauma back then. But I do now.
This morning, it has shocked me to learn, well over ten years later, that this behaviour and treatment of staff was repeated at Leeds Met Uni when he moved there.
I don't know if it is of help to write this letter, but maybe it will be. It isn't what I thought I'd be doing this morning. But it has been great to discover your website today and to know that such an organisation exists for people like me whose workplace is a place of fear and terror. There was not this kind of support back when I was struggling.
Thanks for reading this.
Best wishes,
Anonymous
I have just found online the information about the resignation of the VC at Leeds Met in 2009 amidst allegations around bullying at that institution. I've read some of the posts from people working there and the bullying culture they were working within.
I would like to say that although it is many years ago and I have moved onto new work, I am still affected by the bullying I underwent at Liverpool Hope Uni, involving managers and senior people as well as the then Rector as he was before moving to Leeds Met. This ongoing, sustained personal damage lead eventually to my being made redundant and forced out of my job. This has turned out to be the best thing that could have happened to me, but the trauma of what I underwent and the effects of the stress I endured for years there are still there. They have also affected my pension as I had to work part time which has affected my final salary. I now work for myself and go into primary schools. In the course of this work I encounter students on placement in school who are training in Liv. Hope; I always feel a shock when I hear the name of the place and it brings instant fear memories into me. Just the mention of the place, even now. As an example of something that is still strong from that time, I can remember looking every time I went into work, to see if my manager's door knob was visible in the corridor (as that meant her door was shut and I could walk past to get to my office) and then not walking down the corridor if it wasn't visible as I would've been stopped and questioned. Despite so much help and therapy the memories are still in my body.
I don't know if it is helpful to others, but my current work and knowledge for my job confirms for me that what I underwent at Liv. Hope WAS trauma. And the fact that I still have these fearful feelings stored in my body, over a decade on, is further evidence that this was a type of trauma. Although when you are in the midst of being bullied it is very easy to doubt yourself totally, and I don't think I would've believed it was trauma back then. But I do now.
This morning, it has shocked me to learn, well over ten years later, that this behaviour and treatment of staff was repeated at Leeds Met Uni when he moved there.
I don't know if it is of help to write this letter, but maybe it will be. It isn't what I thought I'd be doing this morning. But it has been great to discover your website today and to know that such an organisation exists for people like me whose workplace is a place of fear and terror. There was not this kind of support back when I was struggling.
Thanks for reading this.
Best wishes,
Anonymous
U of Ottawa’s Legal Campaign to Strike out Evidence in Academic Freedom Case
Within the protracted legal battle that has been on-going since 2005,1,2,3
the University of Ottawa is now doing everything it can, at any cost,
to strike out the professors’ union’s affidavit of evidence in support
of the union’s application for judicial review (appeal) of the dismissal
of Professor Denis Rancourt.
Rancourt’s union (Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa, APUO) is pursuing a judicial review of an arbitrator’s January 27, 2014 decision to uphold the university’s December 10, 2008 dismissal of the tenured full-professor.
The arbitrator made negative findings in a total absence of evidence, and ignored relevant evidence that contradicted his findings. He also used a “report” obtained by covert surveillance, which was not in evidence.4 These were violations of natural justice, and are grounds in the judicial review.
In order to prove the arbitrator’s errors, the union must bring an affidavit in the judicial review to say what actually happened during the arbitration hearings, because no court transcript of the 28-day hearing is available.
(The hearings were held between May 2, 2011 and June 26, 2013. The university appeared to do everything it could to delay and complexify the process, including a broad and sustained campaign of character assassination of Denis Rancourt.)
Thus, the union’s affidavit about what actually occurred in the arbitration is necessary for the judicial review. Yet, the university is spending tremendous resources in now-repeated attempts to disallow the union’s affidavit.
The university can of course challenge the union’s affidavit and enter its own affidavit in the judicial review itself. But, instead, it seeks to bar the union from even bringing an affidavit.
The first attempt by the university to bar the union’s affidavit was a motion to a judge of the appellate court (Divisional Court for Ontario) to strike out the union’s entire affidavit. This attempt failed entirely. The appellate judge was unambiguous and ordered the university to pay the union’s costs for the motion.4,5,6
That is not good enough for the university. President Allan Rock instructed the university hired lawyers to appeal the appellate judge’s judgement to a full panel of three appellate court judges. This will be a second costly attempt to strike out the union’s needed affidavit so that the evidence cannot be used in the judicial review. Without the affidavit, or any evidence about what actually was said in the hearings, the judicial review is destined to fail.
The union is resisting this second attempt and will request that punitive costs be ordered against the university. The hearing (about the university’s second attempt to strike out the union’s affidavit) is scheduled for April 2016, before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.
Rancourt’s union (Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa, APUO) is pursuing a judicial review of an arbitrator’s January 27, 2014 decision to uphold the university’s December 10, 2008 dismissal of the tenured full-professor.
The arbitrator made negative findings in a total absence of evidence, and ignored relevant evidence that contradicted his findings. He also used a “report” obtained by covert surveillance, which was not in evidence.4 These were violations of natural justice, and are grounds in the judicial review.
In order to prove the arbitrator’s errors, the union must bring an affidavit in the judicial review to say what actually happened during the arbitration hearings, because no court transcript of the 28-day hearing is available.
(The hearings were held between May 2, 2011 and June 26, 2013. The university appeared to do everything it could to delay and complexify the process, including a broad and sustained campaign of character assassination of Denis Rancourt.)
Thus, the union’s affidavit about what actually occurred in the arbitration is necessary for the judicial review. Yet, the university is spending tremendous resources in now-repeated attempts to disallow the union’s affidavit.
The university can of course challenge the union’s affidavit and enter its own affidavit in the judicial review itself. But, instead, it seeks to bar the union from even bringing an affidavit.
The first attempt by the university to bar the union’s affidavit was a motion to a judge of the appellate court (Divisional Court for Ontario) to strike out the union’s entire affidavit. This attempt failed entirely. The appellate judge was unambiguous and ordered the university to pay the union’s costs for the motion.4,5,6
That is not good enough for the university. President Allan Rock instructed the university hired lawyers to appeal the appellate judge’s judgement to a full panel of three appellate court judges. This will be a second costly attempt to strike out the union’s needed affidavit so that the evidence cannot be used in the judicial review. Without the affidavit, or any evidence about what actually was said in the hearings, the judicial review is destined to fail.
The union is resisting this second attempt and will request that punitive costs be ordered against the university. The hearing (about the university’s second attempt to strike out the union’s affidavit) is scheduled for April 2016, before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.
- Ottawa’s Dismissal of Denis Rancourt, Commentary by Kenneth Westhues, University of Waterloo, August 2009.
- Dismissing critical pedagogy: Denis Rancourt vs. University of Ottawa, By Jesse Freeston, Rabble.ca, January 12, 2009.
- Statement By Denis Rancourt Regarding His Dismissal by the University Of Ottawa, April 16, 2009, Znet.
- Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) and University of Ottawa, Superior Court of Justice for Ontario (Divisional Court), dated 2015-10-26, Court File No. 14-2022, Justice Robert Scott.
- “Maureen Robinson … went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as ‘posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile'” —Divisional Court Judge: Union wins interim motion in appeal of the Rancourt dismissal, U of O Watch, November 1, 2015. []
- Happenings in the U of O’s “motion to strike”, in the judicial review of the Rancourt dismissal, U of O Watch, October 9, 2015.
Outing University Bullies…
Many academics find it hard to believe they could be the victims of
bullies at work. They allow departmental heads to walk rings round them.
They do endless free over-time. They stay late and work all weekend.
Their reaction to college redundancy news is to work even harder. Deans
set new hoops and they ask “how much higher?”. The VC or College chief
sets new tougher targets and the senior managers pass the misery down
into the faculties. A psychologist specializing in bullying, harassment
and inter-personal relationships, Dr. Pauline Rennie-Peyton, recognizes
the possibility of being bullied in all stages of life, and confirms
University is no exception.
This bullying expert also believes one of the main reasons bullying is not reported at places of higher and further education is because of distrust in their Uni’s services putting disciplinary procedures into action, and so there are probably a lot more cases than we even know. She argues “People don’t report their problems because they feel it will blow over by itself or because they lack a sense of confidence in the system,” she says. “They feel nothing would be done about it. I haven’t got any statistics but I can imagine the figures [of those bullied at university] are higher [than we realise].”
It is difficult to find anyone willing to speak of their ordeal, maybe due to embarrassment or inability to self-admit…Dr Rennie-Peyton concludes “But Don’t keep it to yourself. Keep a diary of the events; when, where, who were the witnesses, what time it happened, the impact it had on you and then take it further to members of staff – and if they’re not prepared to do anything about it, take it (further)… All bullying is about impact, not about intention; if someone is upset by it, it is not a joke.”
The distinguished professor of workplace relations, Prof Cary Cooper conducted a land-mark study into bullying in the workplace, which found that it damaged people’s health, mental wellbeing, and productivity and also meant they took more sick days. He could see that people needed a place to go when they couldn’t go to their employers in case it was held against them. This led Prof Cooper to become a patron of the National Bullying Helpline but it is strong evidence of state-level contempt for anti-bullying policies that Cary subsequently resigned because of breaches of the Helpline’s confidentiality over allegations of bullying at No. 10 Downing Street.
Worryingly Cary argues the issue of bullying in the workplace is very important, particularly during times of recession and downturn, because there are fewer people doing more work, for managers who are under more stress than ever before. He argues a “robust” management style is more likely to occur in a recession than at any other time. A manager’s style changes if they feel overloaded and stressed themselves, and can sometimes border on bullying”.
Prof Cooper continues “During a recession people also feel insecure in their jobs, so if they are being bullied they are worried to death about letting anybody know about it, especially their organisation’s human resources department. They need to be able to get legal and other advice, and that’s what a helpline should provide”. When you have a lot of change, job insecurity and too few people – because you are keeping your labour costs down – you’re left with a breeding ground for a more abusive management style. Bulster Uni certainly had such a one with its HR “thug” Mr. Magoo.
What can be done? We are happy to share with you some good news from Bulster University which has a deeply rooted culture of bullying. Despite the efforts of the unions and high sickness levels, Bulster has been a bullying black-spot even after a series of successful internal grievances and industrial tribunals. Recently staff complaints about two of Bulster’s notorious bullies, HR Director “Mad Bonnie” and former Provost Mal Blunt were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Former instructors, “the unquiet American” Jim Skally and sometime British Army intelligence operative “Dave Oberts” face similar charges.
The dossier of police evidence collated against senior Bulster managers include gross misconduct, perversion of the course of justice, abuse of telecommunications equipment, abuse of medical protocols, deletion of phone records and inappropriate orders to subordinate staff in connection with such deletion, and related systematic bullying and harassment.
Finally, after years of misery, Bulster lecturers are beginning to fight back with real impact. Several Bulster senior managers faced police questioning and files have gone through to the Chief Prosecutor. Bullied staff in universities and colleges across the UK should take some comfort in this measure and consider making a complaint to their local police citing harassment or misconduct in public office as grounds for criminal complaint. Even if the Bulster cases do not result in large-scale criminal prosecution, the likelihood of civil prosecution on the foot of criminal complaints is leaving Bulster lecturers hopeful that a tide may finally be turning.
ADVISORY... This is a work of humorous parody and any similarities with persons or places real or imagined is purely a matter of coincidence. If you’ve been bullied at your F/HE institution don’t hesitate to confidentially contact the Bullied Academics forum. Victims may complain without penalty under their college procedures or consider making a complaint to their local police. Where the police are contacted bullying usually ceases immediately. The e-mail address is bullied.academics@yahoo.co.uk
This bullying expert also believes one of the main reasons bullying is not reported at places of higher and further education is because of distrust in their Uni’s services putting disciplinary procedures into action, and so there are probably a lot more cases than we even know. She argues “People don’t report their problems because they feel it will blow over by itself or because they lack a sense of confidence in the system,” she says. “They feel nothing would be done about it. I haven’t got any statistics but I can imagine the figures [of those bullied at university] are higher [than we realise].”
It is difficult to find anyone willing to speak of their ordeal, maybe due to embarrassment or inability to self-admit…Dr Rennie-Peyton concludes “But Don’t keep it to yourself. Keep a diary of the events; when, where, who were the witnesses, what time it happened, the impact it had on you and then take it further to members of staff – and if they’re not prepared to do anything about it, take it (further)… All bullying is about impact, not about intention; if someone is upset by it, it is not a joke.”
The distinguished professor of workplace relations, Prof Cary Cooper conducted a land-mark study into bullying in the workplace, which found that it damaged people’s health, mental wellbeing, and productivity and also meant they took more sick days. He could see that people needed a place to go when they couldn’t go to their employers in case it was held against them. This led Prof Cooper to become a patron of the National Bullying Helpline but it is strong evidence of state-level contempt for anti-bullying policies that Cary subsequently resigned because of breaches of the Helpline’s confidentiality over allegations of bullying at No. 10 Downing Street.
Worryingly Cary argues the issue of bullying in the workplace is very important, particularly during times of recession and downturn, because there are fewer people doing more work, for managers who are under more stress than ever before. He argues a “robust” management style is more likely to occur in a recession than at any other time. A manager’s style changes if they feel overloaded and stressed themselves, and can sometimes border on bullying”.
Prof Cooper continues “During a recession people also feel insecure in their jobs, so if they are being bullied they are worried to death about letting anybody know about it, especially their organisation’s human resources department. They need to be able to get legal and other advice, and that’s what a helpline should provide”. When you have a lot of change, job insecurity and too few people – because you are keeping your labour costs down – you’re left with a breeding ground for a more abusive management style. Bulster Uni certainly had such a one with its HR “thug” Mr. Magoo.
What can be done? We are happy to share with you some good news from Bulster University which has a deeply rooted culture of bullying. Despite the efforts of the unions and high sickness levels, Bulster has been a bullying black-spot even after a series of successful internal grievances and industrial tribunals. Recently staff complaints about two of Bulster’s notorious bullies, HR Director “Mad Bonnie” and former Provost Mal Blunt were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Former instructors, “the unquiet American” Jim Skally and sometime British Army intelligence operative “Dave Oberts” face similar charges.
The dossier of police evidence collated against senior Bulster managers include gross misconduct, perversion of the course of justice, abuse of telecommunications equipment, abuse of medical protocols, deletion of phone records and inappropriate orders to subordinate staff in connection with such deletion, and related systematic bullying and harassment.
Finally, after years of misery, Bulster lecturers are beginning to fight back with real impact. Several Bulster senior managers faced police questioning and files have gone through to the Chief Prosecutor. Bullied staff in universities and colleges across the UK should take some comfort in this measure and consider making a complaint to their local police citing harassment or misconduct in public office as grounds for criminal complaint. Even if the Bulster cases do not result in large-scale criminal prosecution, the likelihood of civil prosecution on the foot of criminal complaints is leaving Bulster lecturers hopeful that a tide may finally be turning.
ADVISORY... This is a work of humorous parody and any similarities with persons or places real or imagined is purely a matter of coincidence. If you’ve been bullied at your F/HE institution don’t hesitate to confidentially contact the Bullied Academics forum. Victims may complain without penalty under their college procedures or consider making a complaint to their local police. Where the police are contacted bullying usually ceases immediately. The e-mail address is bullied.academics@yahoo.co.uk
February 12, 2016
Mount St. Mary's University - Something is wrong...
The president of Mount St. Mary's University in Maryland on Monday fired two faculty members without any faculty review of his action or advance notice. One was a tenured professor who had recently criticized some of the president's policies. The other was the adviser to the student newspaper that revealed the president recently told faculty members concerned about his retention plans that they needed to change the way they view struggling students. "This is hard for you because you think of the students as cuddly bunnies, but you can’t. You just have to drown the bunnies … put a Glock to their heads," the president said.
Many believe a third faculty member may also be fired, as he also has criticized the president's policies. Administrators were seen trying to find that faculty member today for an urgent meeting, which is how the two who were fired were dismissed. It is unclear whether they were able to locate the third faculty member.
Monday's firings follow the dismissal on Friday of Provost David Rehm, who also raised questions about President Simon Newman's retention plans. (Rehm held on to his faculty position.)
Newman's letter firing the tenured professor -- Thane M. Naberhaus of the philosophy department -- accused him of disloyalty.
"As an employee of Mount St. Mary's University, you owe a duty of loyalty to this university and to act in a manner consistent with that duty. However, your recent actions, in my opinion and that of others, have violated that duty and clearly justify your termination," said the letter.
Further, the letter said that Naberhaus's actions "have caused considerable damage" to the university and that the university might sue him. In addition, the letter told Naberhaus he was "designated persona non grata" and banned from the campus.
Faculty members reached on campus Monday were nervous about talking, given that their colleagues were being fired and that the administration has told them to consult with the public relations department before talking to reporters. But, speaking anonymously, professors said some faculty and support staff members were crying in various offices. With the firing of the provost and two faculty members -- all of whom had disagreed with the president -- people said they were scared.
"It's terrifying, and nobody is safe," said one faculty member. "It is shattering. It feels like the end of what so many of us have sacrificed for."
Naberhaus said in an interview shortly after he was dismissed that it was "utterly fraudulent" to fire someone for not being loyal. He said he objected to the idea that dissenting views could be considered sufficiently disloyal to merit dismissal.
Further, he said he wasn't disloyal and that since arriving in 2004, he had worked constantly for the university, leading its honors college, advising students and participating in campus life. "I love this institution and what it's been and what it could be," he said. "I think I've been loyal to the Mount. Who determines that I'm not loyal? And how? How can you fire someone this way?"
A spokesman for Mount St. Mary's did not respond to several email messages seeking comment on the dismissals, except to confirm that the two faculty members known to have been dismissed are no longer employees.
From: https://www.insidehighered.com
From: https://www.insidehighered.com
February 05, 2016
THE University Workplace Survey 2016: results and analysis
...Half of academics are worried about redundancies related to metrics-based performance measures.
...The anonymised comments suggest to Gabriel that academics are exercised by three main issues: growing managerialism and associated “market-driven and rankings-driven policies, constant performance monitoring and target setting”; escalating bureaucracy and “standardisation that erodes professional discretion”; and “excessive preoccupation with image and hype: the bullshit factor, where everyone must be a star, world class, cutting-edge and the like”.
...“Unmanageable workloads, poor work-life balance and the associated stresses are unsurprisingly top of the complaints list for lecturers again this year,” comments Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union. “Survey after survey identifies increasing workloads and poor management as real problems for our universities, yet nothing is done to address the issues. Increasing workloads, higher rates of casualisation and diminishing support are not the way to deliver the world-class system that leaders and politicians say they want.”
...“University leadership are on record saying they want a high staff turnover and…[pursue] this perverse aim by setting unreasonable personal targets for all academic staff, enforcing them with a new draconian performance assessment system,” one academic at a Russell Group university writes.
...And a senior lecturer at a Russell Group university complains that “now it is all about metrics. Performance management is really a euphemism for: ‘If we don’t like you, we will get rid of you or bully you until you quit.’
...The failure of managers to listen to staff views is a major source of frustration for the sector’s workforce, our survey suggests. Some 39 per cent of respondents overall, and 54 per cent of academics, say that they can’t make their voices heard within their university. Only 25 per cent of professional and support staff feel the same way, but the comments suggest that the issue has a dispiriting effect on morale wherever it is felt. “Directives and decrees come down from [on high]…without any consultation or any consideration of the practicalities of implementing them,” states one IT technician at a large university in the North West.
“We get crazy diktats – like they want to take all our printers away,” complains a senior lecturer in science at a Russell Group university. “Nobody bothered to ask us, or we would have told them that we need printers for our [scientific] instruments.”
A senior lecturer at a post-92 university in the South of England claims that the views of academics are not heard by senior management: “Those on the ground, working with students, know what is going on and should be listened to, instead of middle managers who are merely yes-men.”
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/university-workplace-survey-2016-results-and-analysis
...The anonymised comments suggest to Gabriel that academics are exercised by three main issues: growing managerialism and associated “market-driven and rankings-driven policies, constant performance monitoring and target setting”; escalating bureaucracy and “standardisation that erodes professional discretion”; and “excessive preoccupation with image and hype: the bullshit factor, where everyone must be a star, world class, cutting-edge and the like”.
...“Unmanageable workloads, poor work-life balance and the associated stresses are unsurprisingly top of the complaints list for lecturers again this year,” comments Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union. “Survey after survey identifies increasing workloads and poor management as real problems for our universities, yet nothing is done to address the issues. Increasing workloads, higher rates of casualisation and diminishing support are not the way to deliver the world-class system that leaders and politicians say they want.”
...“University leadership are on record saying they want a high staff turnover and…[pursue] this perverse aim by setting unreasonable personal targets for all academic staff, enforcing them with a new draconian performance assessment system,” one academic at a Russell Group university writes.
...And a senior lecturer at a Russell Group university complains that “now it is all about metrics. Performance management is really a euphemism for: ‘If we don’t like you, we will get rid of you or bully you until you quit.’
...The failure of managers to listen to staff views is a major source of frustration for the sector’s workforce, our survey suggests. Some 39 per cent of respondents overall, and 54 per cent of academics, say that they can’t make their voices heard within their university. Only 25 per cent of professional and support staff feel the same way, but the comments suggest that the issue has a dispiriting effect on morale wherever it is felt. “Directives and decrees come down from [on high]…without any consultation or any consideration of the practicalities of implementing them,” states one IT technician at a large university in the North West.
“We get crazy diktats – like they want to take all our printers away,” complains a senior lecturer in science at a Russell Group university. “Nobody bothered to ask us, or we would have told them that we need printers for our [scientific] instruments.”
A senior lecturer at a post-92 university in the South of England claims that the views of academics are not heard by senior management: “Those on the ground, working with students, know what is going on and should be listened to, instead of middle managers who are merely yes-men.”
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/university-workplace-survey-2016-results-and-analysis
January 17, 2016
Bullying and Sexual Predators @ Academy Union (AU)
Last time we exposed long-standing bullying at Academy Union (AU). This time we focus on a specific case of what can happen when an innocent elected Union member falls foul of certain Academy Union staff “enforcers” of the union management.
So that our readers can understood how this injustice to a union member occurred, we have to emphasize that the real controllers of the Academy Union are the top management team who make all day-to-day decisions. Union Managers have a privileged salary, numerous job perks and subsidised life-style such as freedom to work from home. Academy Union staff enjoy working conditions which are much better than any equivalent university or college grade in the sector they represent.
The senior manager claimed he did not have proof of the member’s address. The member produced his Council tax registration and a file of utility address confirmations for his home covering several decades. The manager claimed he wanted to know more about the caring relationship- something which is not even covered in union regulations. Nevertheless the volunteer happily provided full NHS certification for the caring arrangement. The manager said he did not believe the authorising doctor was curently practising and disproved the doctor’s reports as not being written with clincial rigor. The manager had actually mistaken the medical consultant for a different practice with a similar name. The British Medical Association then criticized the Academy Union for potentially slanderous allegations against one of its GPs. The manager claimed he previously knew nothing about the volunteer so could not be held to have acted disproportionately against him. The manager had in fact been named (for the first time at least a full three years previously) in the volunteer’s original sexual assault complaint as the Academy Union official had threatened him if he went ahead with the complaint he would use the senior manager to “bury him”. In addition, the senior manager had been involved in the complaint-review in which another manager had said she would “speak to” the official about his “inappropriate behaviour at a union function”. Moreover the same senior manager had negatively evaluated a case submitted by the volunteer for assistance from the union, some years earlier.
The extent of the union’s investigation of the sexual assault investigation was a two minute phone call to the volunteer made by another union senior manager asking how he would propose to evidence it. The outcome was that the union investigator, a colleague of the complaining senior manager, decided there was no provable case. The volunteer who was on a casual contract found his college’s human resources staff and his branch union officers were encouraged by the complaining senior manager to regard the volunteer as un-employed and stripped him from union membership.
In short, this was a case of an Academy Union senior manager arguing with the human resources director of a college that a member could not have branch membership on the basis of his temporary but renewable contract offer. All this despite the union official policy to defend casual staff. The complaining manager at Academy Union then upped the anty against the volunteer by arguing he was foul of union rules requiring a contract to sit on union committees and thereby also calling into question the eligibility criterion for some of the volunteer’s past expenses. The volunteer made it clear he was blameless, had incurred all expenses in good faith and asked for an independent investigation. Academy Union refused, they ignored fresh evidence on the alleged sexual assault and concluded the volunteer had breached union rules with a view to expelling him.
The entirety of this process was overseen by the senior manager who was named in the volunteer’s complaint, but the union claimed that he could still morally do that while remaining at arms length of his own investigation. The shrewd result of this sanction is that it immediately deprived the member of branch affiliation and scuttled his request for an investigation of the sexual and collusion allegation. The volunteer was still owed more expenses by the union (if they accepted his eligibility) than he had ever claimed. The Union had suspended payment to him of meal, transport, carer’s and other expenses running into many thousands of pounds- a large sum compared with the expenses disputed by the Union.
The volunteer would like to use this forum to appeal for Academy Union to appoint a genuinely independent investigator into both the alleged sexual assault and membership issues. Such an investigation may compel Academy Union to produce previous complaints of sexual assault against Academy Union officials and allegations of alleged collusion between that official and the same named senior manager in regard to past compaints by the union’s volunteers. Such a process would also have to consider if Academy Union had permitted a culture of bullying at its London headquarters and that the Academy Union senior manager had also been subject to previous complaints of “union bullying”. The Academy Union has been criticized for allowing poor management practices e.g. an incestuous line management system complicated by marital and extra-marital relationships among its top employees, and a high level of complaints of staff bullying against the senior manager the volunter has complained of.
The Academy Union employee named in the complaint as an alleged sexual predator has a lengthy history of volunteer complaints. It is disturbing that the Academy Union which prides itself on equality services to members has such lack over-sight of alleged sexual bullying or that his line supervisor would regard it appropriate only to “have a word” with the staff member about his behaviour. This Academy Union senior staffer, again the subject of collusion allegations, has been referred to in previous disciplinary reports as the union’s “enforcer”, and as someone whose forcefulness had allowed his judgement to go unquestioned. We cannot necessarily look to our professional representation as a defense against bullying, and that Academy Union is not the membership-led organisation set out in its principles.
Many members now feel that Academy Union Congress, overtly its supreme body, is controlled by senior managers. However union membership is so weak and the Union Executive so “hands off” that genuine union democracy has long been sacrificed by its well paid Union employees. This web-site has exposed allegations of bullying across the college system, and where it exists, we are equally determined to stamp out bulling at Academy Union so that members can get the genuinely democratic representation their subscriptions deserve.
ADVISORY….This is a work of humorous parody and any similarities with persons or places real or imagined is purely a matter of coincidence. If you’ve been bullied at your union or in any F/HE institution don’t hesitate in complete confidence to E-MAIL:bullied.academics@yahoo.co.uk Victims may complain without penalty under their college procedures or consider making a complaint to their local police. Where the police are contacted bullying usually ceases immediately.
So that our readers can understood how this injustice to a union member occurred, we have to emphasize that the real controllers of the Academy Union are the top management team who make all day-to-day decisions. Union Managers have a privileged salary, numerous job perks and subsidised life-style such as freedom to work from home. Academy Union staff enjoy working conditions which are much better than any equivalent university or college grade in the sector they represent.
Indeed the salaries and conditions of even lower-grade Academy Union officials are only matched by the professoriate salaries of union members in some of the older universities. In an academic sector which is increasingly casualized and a majority of academic staff in the UK are not in permanent jobs, Academy Union employees have some of the best working conditions of employees anywhere in the country. That may explain why only one of the top managers accepted the union’s generous voluntary severance scheme, and he (having allegedly received over £300k) renegotiated a new job leading the Academy Union Dictatorship Section.
When Academy Union faced financial crisis due to hitches in selling two valuable property assets while buying and refitting a third, members took the hit in poor service. The union then spent over a £1 million to reduce its staff compliment by just ten people! Some of the pay-offs were spectacular- do the maths! Some of those “paid off” even immediately came back!
The highest beneficiares in the Academy Union’s generous staff trough are its top managers. Pay and perks @ Academy Union are so good for its staff that only the top 3% of its union members earn as much as the management team of their union. In short, only a tiny fraction of professors at elite universities earn as much as the General Secretary and union managers who are lavishly paid to represent them. That is even before we count the Academy Union’s Presidential Apartments, travel perks and even a bicycle purchase subsidy, pension scheme and union employee benefits. It certainly makes up for having to drink all that acidic “FairTrade” coffee which the union provides free for its staff.
The case we want to expose at Academy Union in this posting concerns an innocent union volunteer and an alleged sex predator among its officials. It also reveals the union’s failure to take action despite years of complaints about this union official, the inaction of his line manager, a cover-up disguised as a perfunctionary union investigation and the collusion of a union senior manager. The union volunteer was allegedly sexually assaulted by the Academy Union official at a union function witnessed by a dozen other union members including members of the union’s National Executive Committee. The volunteer was allegedly assaulted a second time, again during union work, the union official’s drunken behaviour having attracted the concern of premises security. Following the volunteer’s complaint his manager said she would talk to him and another senior union manager became involved as the official warned the volunteer that he would use this senior manager to silence him. Having served as a volunteer for close to a decade this elected member suddenly got a complaint from the senior manager about his expenses claims concerning such matters as his contact, his precise home address and his claim for carer’s allowance while he was on union business.
The senior manager claimed he did not have proof of the member’s address. The member produced his Council tax registration and a file of utility address confirmations for his home covering several decades. The manager claimed he wanted to know more about the caring relationship- something which is not even covered in union regulations. Nevertheless the volunteer happily provided full NHS certification for the caring arrangement. The manager said he did not believe the authorising doctor was curently practising and disproved the doctor’s reports as not being written with clincial rigor. The manager had actually mistaken the medical consultant for a different practice with a similar name. The British Medical Association then criticized the Academy Union for potentially slanderous allegations against one of its GPs. The manager claimed he previously knew nothing about the volunteer so could not be held to have acted disproportionately against him. The manager had in fact been named (for the first time at least a full three years previously) in the volunteer’s original sexual assault complaint as the Academy Union official had threatened him if he went ahead with the complaint he would use the senior manager to “bury him”. In addition, the senior manager had been involved in the complaint-review in which another manager had said she would “speak to” the official about his “inappropriate behaviour at a union function”. Moreover the same senior manager had negatively evaluated a case submitted by the volunteer for assistance from the union, some years earlier.
The extent of the union’s investigation of the sexual assault investigation was a two minute phone call to the volunteer made by another union senior manager asking how he would propose to evidence it. The outcome was that the union investigator, a colleague of the complaining senior manager, decided there was no provable case. The volunteer who was on a casual contract found his college’s human resources staff and his branch union officers were encouraged by the complaining senior manager to regard the volunteer as un-employed and stripped him from union membership.
To seal things the complaining senior manager set up a sting which undercut the volunteer when he relied on his branch to continue as a Committee representative. The volunteer had a long-standing branch approval to do committee work but within two minutes of his lodging his application for Committee nomination, the senior manager had undermined his support.
In short, this was a case of an Academy Union senior manager arguing with the human resources director of a college that a member could not have branch membership on the basis of his temporary but renewable contract offer. All this despite the union official policy to defend casual staff. The complaining manager at Academy Union then upped the anty against the volunteer by arguing he was foul of union rules requiring a contract to sit on union committees and thereby also calling into question the eligibility criterion for some of the volunteer’s past expenses. The volunteer made it clear he was blameless, had incurred all expenses in good faith and asked for an independent investigation. Academy Union refused, they ignored fresh evidence on the alleged sexual assault and concluded the volunteer had breached union rules with a view to expelling him.
The entirety of this process was overseen by the senior manager who was named in the volunteer’s complaint, but the union claimed that he could still morally do that while remaining at arms length of his own investigation. The shrewd result of this sanction is that it immediately deprived the member of branch affiliation and scuttled his request for an investigation of the sexual and collusion allegation. The volunteer was still owed more expenses by the union (if they accepted his eligibility) than he had ever claimed. The Union had suspended payment to him of meal, transport, carer’s and other expenses running into many thousands of pounds- a large sum compared with the expenses disputed by the Union.
The volunteer would like to use this forum to appeal for Academy Union to appoint a genuinely independent investigator into both the alleged sexual assault and membership issues. Such an investigation may compel Academy Union to produce previous complaints of sexual assault against Academy Union officials and allegations of alleged collusion between that official and the same named senior manager in regard to past compaints by the union’s volunteers. Such a process would also have to consider if Academy Union had permitted a culture of bullying at its London headquarters and that the Academy Union senior manager had also been subject to previous complaints of “union bullying”. The Academy Union has been criticized for allowing poor management practices e.g. an incestuous line management system complicated by marital and extra-marital relationships among its top employees, and a high level of complaints of staff bullying against the senior manager the volunter has complained of.
The Academy Union employee named in the complaint as an alleged sexual predator has a lengthy history of volunteer complaints. It is disturbing that the Academy Union which prides itself on equality services to members has such lack over-sight of alleged sexual bullying or that his line supervisor would regard it appropriate only to “have a word” with the staff member about his behaviour. This Academy Union senior staffer, again the subject of collusion allegations, has been referred to in previous disciplinary reports as the union’s “enforcer”, and as someone whose forcefulness had allowed his judgement to go unquestioned. We cannot necessarily look to our professional representation as a defense against bullying, and that Academy Union is not the membership-led organisation set out in its principles.
Many members now feel that Academy Union Congress, overtly its supreme body, is controlled by senior managers. However union membership is so weak and the Union Executive so “hands off” that genuine union democracy has long been sacrificed by its well paid Union employees. This web-site has exposed allegations of bullying across the college system, and where it exists, we are equally determined to stamp out bulling at Academy Union so that members can get the genuinely democratic representation their subscriptions deserve.
ADVISORY….This is a work of humorous parody and any similarities with persons or places real or imagined is purely a matter of coincidence. If you’ve been bullied at your union or in any F/HE institution don’t hesitate in complete confidence to E-MAIL:bullied.academics@yahoo.co.uk Victims may complain without penalty under their college procedures or consider making a complaint to their local police. Where the police are contacted bullying usually ceases immediately.December 16, 2015
University of Ulster Victims Association
An association of former and current staff of Ulster University
who have been subjected to systematic victimization and illegal treatment on Facebook:
https://goo.gl/27fntN
https://goo.gl/27fntN
December 12, 2015
Bad PhD supervisors can ruin research. So why aren't they accountable?
PhD students’ relationships with their supervisors are pivotal; not only in terms of producing a good thesis, but ensuring academic and professional development. But while PhD candidates’ work is regularly checked by supervisors, it is far less common, to have formal checks made on the supervisors, with students assessing their performance.
The imbalance of power in these relationships needs to be acknowledged. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but only if supervisors use their position and privilege to empower students. When they say and do things that impede learning and advancement, it is an abuse of their authority.
One of the main duties of the role, for example, is to provide feedback on a student’s work. In my experience, this can range from general comments to close editing of sentence constructions and grammar. It can take the form of constructive feedback for improvement, or demoralising sarcasm. I have experienced the full range, and it has had a direct impact on my research. The most negatively couched feedback not only hampered my progress, but left me wondering if I should be doing a PhD at all.
Another vital aspect of supervision responsibility is to be, well, responsible. Unanswered emails only increase the anxiety of a student waiting for feedback on a discussion chapter. Unannounced departures for conferences, holidays and research projects are frustrating, particularly when they could have been discussed in advance.
A friend of mine had to deal with the sudden retirement of his supervisor, whose replacement then left after just six months in the role - he now has one who is on research leave with intermittent access to the internet (or is perhaps just intermittent with his responses).
The tensions and discomfort are more keenly felt by students, I suspect. We can’t simply turn away from an errant supervisor and go to another, but we can’t talk freely about how we feel – this is akin to bad-mouthing your boss.
I previously had to psych myself up for supervision meetings; the barrage of criticism I faced often left me feeling stupid. But this kind of thinking trapped me into becoming even more dependent on my supervisor for words of affirmation that came too little and too late. I constantly questioned whether I was good enough. After months of anxiety and stress, and with advice from others who suffered at the hands of the same supervisor, I made a decision to end the relationship.
Luckily I now have new supervisors who behave in more professional and responsible ways. I don’t believe that there is a perfect supervisor, but the ones I have are giving me the support that I need – being responsive, pre-empting future tasks, and most importantly, making me, a novice researcher, feel that I have a valuable contribution to make.
When students have horrible experiences with their supervisors, they tend to share them in private conversations with friends or in social media rants because there is often no formal channel to address them. My university seems shy about putting in place performance measures of PhD supervision, but is proactive about undergraduate students’ evaluations of papers and lecturers. Is there an assumption that PhD students and supervisors are mature enough to work out mutually satisfactory supervision arrangements?
As it stands, students are often left to manage tense relationships, find informal alternatives to make up for bad or non-existent supervision. Unless things become so strained that it is necessary to change supervisors (as it was in my case), students tend to put up with bad behaviour.
Maybe it’s because they think that’s the way a PhD is, or because they can’t see any face-saving way to remedy the situation. But it’s also because supervisors don’t appear to be accountable to anyone. When I have raised this with the academic staff who support doctoral students, I often get an evasive response – “It’s a tricky situation, isn’t it?” – or just an empathetic nod of the head.
There’s huge pressure on universities to produce research in order to prove their worth. If research is so important, then what about making a little more effort to nurture researchers-to-be?
Universities should not only implement performance evaluations of supervisors, but also cultivate safe spaces for doctoral students to share their issues, and have access to support staff who will be able to provide constructive advice and guide them towards workable strategies and solutions.
We need to get rid of the false notion of low-maintenance supervision relationships between consenting adults. These pairings are in fact high maintenance, and fragile. Ignoring the issues will not defuse a bomb that’s waiting to explode – one that could destroy promising careers.
From: http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)