The Australian National University... [With links...]

A little over a year ago the Canberra Times, the local newspaper in Australia’s capital city, ran a story announcing that the insurance premiums paid by the Australian National University (ANU) had risen from around $4 million to $11 million per annum over the last three years.

A statutory authority of the Federal Government, Comcare provides workplace insurance for several government agencies, including the ANU. While the premiums it charges them have on average doubled over this period, the ANU has been singled out for a particularly dramatic increase.

Why might this have occurred? The advice on Comcare’s website is unequivocal. It states that the “rate for each employer provides an indication of the employer's effectiveness in preventing injury or illness and in helping employees return to work quickly and safely after a work-related injury or illness.”

When pressed for its own explanation, the ANU however argued that the insurer was merely trying to recoup recent operational losses.

A detailed, forensic, rebuttal of ANU’s reasoning would require access to the kind of sensitive financial and operational information that Universities and Insurers alike are these days loathe to release. But if we take Comcare’s advice at face value and conclude that the increase must be explained, at least in part, by a decline in work safety at the ANU, what might be its source?

University employees are, as a matter of course, at risk of injuris that arise from such activities as repetitive strain, operating laboratory equipment, or work-related travel. Such injuries when they occur, however, are generally well reported and workplace responses can be both swift and effective. Neither seems to be the case here.

The obvious source of this dramatic growth, then, is psychological injury, in particular that arising from alleged workplace bullying and abuse. Certainly, the particular prevalence of such behaviours at the ANU has been brought to the attention of both the current and previous Vice Chancellors, and many recent instances have resulted in successful Comcare claims.

This should be a matter of considerable institutional and public concern. Bullied staff can lose much more than their job and career path. They can also be left with long-term psychological disability. No organisation, let alone an organisation supported by public funds, and with an explicit public good as its underlying remit, should consider the prevalence of such a state of affairs as acceptable.

Staff at the ANU are especially vulnerable to toxic work practices because, unlike other Australian Universities, they do not have recourse to an ombudsman or similar ‘disinterested’ arbitrators when there are allegations of internal wrong-doing.

It is all too easy for senior management and HR staff to become judge, jury, and executioner when confronted with issues of staff behaviour. Senior Management also has access to funds to pay out difficult cases, funds that almost invariably come with associated ‘gagging clauses’ to ensure that the possibility of underlying managerial and cultural problems remain hidden from further scrutiny.

It is especially concerning, then, to learn that the University has now been taking the advice of its Council and actively encouraging claimants to avoid Comcare altogether. They are being asked instead to approach their industry superannuation fund for disability cover, effectively bypassing Comcare’s powers of scrutiny as well as transferring the financial burden back to the employees themselves. At the same time ANU is also now seeking to remove itself altogether from the Comcare scheme and self insure.

This raises the real spectre of the proverbial turkey being in control of Christmas. There is a growing perception at the ANU of a nexus between staff who raise matters of legitimate concern and staff subsequently being confronted with unsafe managerial behaviours. It suggests that behaviours injurious to the health of employees are not merely the result of the actions of a few ‘bad eggs’, but are in fact becoming a normalised tool of University industrial relations. As former ANU academic, David West, recently wrote:

The modern university most rewards those who demonstrate both loyalty to superiors and effective control of subordinates. Good managers are those who gets things done, which tends to mean that they are not hampered by either sensitivity for others’ feelings or democratic scruples. They are assessed according to results rather than the methods they employ, by ends rather than means. It is little surprise, then, that managers are sometimes tempted to resort to a more intense regime of control. The rhetoric of instruction and compliance has largely replaced the more collaborative discourse of request and consent.

More traditional academic cultures of management by consensus, on the other hand, requires Universities to select leaders skilled in internal communication and conflict resolution, and to foster not just mission statements but also broader corporate cultures that are premised on values of honesty, competency, and shared vision.

Long abandoned governance structures that used to give academic staff a controlling stake in deciding who led them, from Head of Department right through to Vice-Chancellor may have had their critics, but at least they helped encourage such cultures to survive, if not flourish.

What has tended to arise in their place, as researchers in the US have found, is based on a much more negative perception of employee capacity, responsibility and core motivation. Trust in staff is replaced by demands for constant scrutiny. Managerial appointments are now routinely made from above without genuine staff consultation, and they are secured by the emergence of massive salary divide between this new class of academic leaders and the staff they manage. 

A culture of “mobbing” can all too easily follow wherein apparently ‘non-compliant’ academics can quickly find that they can easily be stripped of the capacity to function in, let alone, enjoy, their workplace.

To be sure, it is not just the institution as a whole or the individual victims who suffer from this growing toxicity. We are all the worse for it. The burden of pay-outs, legal and medical costs, and, indeed, insurance premium blowouts that inevitably follows is eventually carried by a combination of increased student fees (or poorer student services) and the general taxpayer. 

Most concerning, however, is the possibility that such an industrial culture serves also to undermine the capacity of universities to nurture free thought in our society. In the light of recent political events, that role has never seemed more important.

Workplace bullying and abuse of staff is a symptom, therefore, of a much deeper malaise. Our universities urgently need to apply some of their once hard-won, and much-vaunted, critical thinking skills to the way they run themselves. And it is time for senior leadership at the ANU in particular to make safe and easy for the academic and professional staff they manage to do so.

Ulster's Academic Genocide - Year Zero With Vc "Baddy" Nixon...

Readers of this site will be familiar with the bullying that's befallen Deakin University. Here in the UK, Ulster University recently imported one of the Australian university systems foremost bullies when they appointed a new VC who had been the scourge of his staff at the University of Tasmania. Professor Nixon had bullied and muscled his career advance in Dublin, but by the time he reached Hobart, his willingness to sack staff, irrespective of their scholarly worth, made him notorious. Now the axe has fallen on his new empire at Ulster University.

Nixon Darling...

VC "Baddy" Nixon recently warned his Ulster staff across 4 campuses that under "UU’s Strategic Plan – Five & Fifty", "no-one's job is safe". Having closed Maths and Modern Languages, he now targeted the academically distinguished but cash-poor Department of Irish. All this despite a petition signed by 161 academics from 18 countries exposing the damage to Ulster's international reputation, and another 500 letters from professors forming a "dossier of protest" from international academia. Ironically Celtic at Ulster was awarded 5* grading in the Research Assessment Exercise but it just cannot make any money for the VC, and therefore they must be slashed....

The VC says that no staff can regard their job as secure in modern academia and cites urgent financial cuts for the decision. Ulster University's union officials say these cuts are neither financially or academically justified. Substantial cost savings have already been made with the loss of 148 posts earlier in the year, yet the University is sacking more internationally renowned lecturers while simultaneously recruiting new property managers on 6 figure salaries. This big growth in managerial culture is part of "Baddy's" scheme to make the university the biggest landlord in Belfast since rent-books are far more profitable in the north than scholarly papers!

His grave miscalculation is that to rent real-estate you first have to get planning permission and build houses. Ulster has been turned down time after time because their "new build" plans are so wacky! Ulster's VC regards his empire as more property portfolio than academic centre. Consequently, he would like to slash his way through academic departments and run the university as a big real-estate agency. This is a kind of academic genocide, akin to the acts of philistines.

The local branch of the University College Union say that morale is at an all-time low, and that Nixon's regime is like a "year zero" of some mad dictator. Managing 4 diverse campuses, it is also clear that Nixon has resorted to a bullying managerial style to seek to hold the centre together. Faced with a multi-million expansion plan which has gone "belly upwards" and successive building planning refusals, the VC is desperate to save funds to try to keep his business operational. If he cannot get more property "green lights" his entire empire will soon be as financially as it is intellectually bankrupt!

Magee Baby...

Meanwhile, the College Union and Ulster University's Staff Victims Association, have sought to receive financial compensation for the dozens of staff forced out of their posts with the most meagre of financial settlements, and many others who were wrongfully dismissed but lack the means to fight their cases. At the heart of this decimation of academic staff is Nixon's enforcer, Director of Human Resources, "Mad Bonnie" Magee. It was "Mad Bonnie" who was famously described by an employment Judge as "as crooked as you are arrogant" but as Nixon's henchman, "Mad Bonnie" continues to make Ulster staff lives a misery. There was a hope that the police having discovered his prior criminal convictions, and interviewed him for perversion of the course of justice, "Mad Bonnie" would finally get his own P45.

Unfortunately, like his predecessor, VC "Tricky Dicky", Nixon knows the value of keeping an "ex-con" as his henchman. It takes one to know one, especially when Nixon himself has attracted the interest of the Ozzy police in Tassie. So Ulster have come to regard Nixon and Magee as their own nasty beastly academic "Pol Pots". The Ulster University experience raises broader issues for everyone seeking to oppose bullying in our academic community. Universities "export" bullies across international boundaries, and bullying senior bosses will often "jump before they are themselves sacked". It is rumoured that VC Nixon left Hobart to evade disciplinary action for the suicide of a bullied Arts school professor.

At Ulster, a member of the Celtic department had recently to be rescued from the university's Tower Building in a presumed suicide attempt following the "wipe-out" of that department. He had to be talked down from the roof of the tower block where he had taken a deadly cocktail of prescription anti-depressants and alcohol. In the recent past, the suicide of a prominent member of Ulster's business faculty was blamed on senior management. Ulster under Nixon now has one of the highest sickness absence levels of any university in the British Isles. It has been top of the academic union's "stress at work" warnings for decades. A growing phenomena, of academic "genocide" uprears its ugly head in our university system and "thugs" such as VC Nixon and their "hench men" such as HR Chief "Mad Bonnie" Magee are representatives of a "new order" of senior managers.

A united and sustained opposition by academic staff to this kind of academic bullying in the form of petitions and letters to parliament has never been more important. We must strive to find better and more effective ways in which these bullies are swiftly brought to account, the equivalent of the sort of international tribunals which have investigated gross violations of rights in civil society across the world. They need to be exposed at every step of their nasty way! Write to your MLA and your MP. Get them exposed at the House of Lords. Report them to the European Court of Human Rights! Get your story of bullying into the newspapers!

It is our duty and also our own imperative to expose bullying and malfeasance in public office in our universities and colleges. If we do not do it, believe me, bullying managers will come for us. In the immortal words of Pastor Martin Niemoller, who opposed Nazism:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist....Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist...Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew....Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Deakin University gags staff over harassment case

[Mr Elkadi... and even more on Mr Elkadi]

A "culture of silence" allows academics who display unacceptable behaviour to move between universities without their new employers being aware of their history, a whistleblower says.

Dr Melanie Thomson said her former employer, Deakin University, imposed a gag order on staff preventing them from talking about complaints against a scientist who has since moved on to a more senior position at another university.

At one stage, a female colleague who complained about the scientist resorted to placing a line of tape on the floor around her desk, and telling him to stay behind it.

Dr Thomson, a former lecturer in the school of medicine at Deakin University, said the scientist admitted to her that a complaint had also been made about him at his previous workplace.

She said the gag order imposed by Deakin forced her into a "morally bankrupt" position and prevented her from telling any future employer about the complaints.

"It put me in an awkward position of basically having to lie, or omit the truth," Dr Thomson said.

Dr Thomson has now decided to go public with her concerns, because she holds fears for the "mental health of all the staff" at his new place of work, and believes this kind of gag order is "unethical" in the way that it prevents future employers being warned about unacceptable behaviour.

"He may have become a model citizen," said Dr Thomson, but he "may be a serial perpetrator of bullying and harassment".

The gag order was part of a settlement reached between Deakin University and the scientist last year, which saw him leave the university after an investigation into bullying and harassment complaints.

In a statement sent to Background Briefing, the vice chancellor of Deakin, Professor Jane den Hollander, said that the university did not comment on "individual staffing matters ... and internal decisions and outcomes are not within the public domain".

Troubling behaviour

Deakin University was forced to deal with mounting complaints about the scientist during his time at the institution.

Two female colleagues within his department filed formal complaints. These scientists declined to speak to Background Briefing for this story.

Even as an investigation into the formal complaints was being set up, a new concern was brought to the attention of the head of the school of medicine, Jon Watson.

In an email to the human resources division of Deakin last year, Professor Watson noted he had just received yet another complaint about the scientist's behaviour, in addition to "the multiple previous complaints we have dealt with over the last year, and the two complaints [the HR division] are currently dealing with".

Concerns were raised not only by colleagues from his own department, but also by "various different departments of the university", according to Dr Thomson.

The two female colleagues who complained about the scientist were relocated away from him during the investigation.

Following the conclusion of the formal investigation, staff were told that the scientist had been suspended without pay from the university with immediate effect.

Striking a bargain

Just days later, Dr Thomson was told that the university had reached a settlement with the scientist.

She was warned in an email from the HR division that "one of the terms of the settlement is that the university take reasonable steps to ensure its employees do not disparage or comment negatively" about the scientist.

It is unclear why the university agreed to this deal, but Dr Thomson said the scientist had threatened legal action against the university.

Dr Thomson believed the university wanted to avoid bad publicity.

"The university is always interested in protecting their own reputation, and so if there is an incident of this type that is going on, they want to achieve an outcome which removes the perpetrator but does not affect and tarnish their reputation," she said.

Professor den Hollander rejected this.

"We strongly object to any suggestion that Deakin University has in any way 'contributed to a "culture of silence" around perpetrators of harassment and bullying' and/or that the university prioritises its own reputation over the safety and well-being of its staff," she said.
Speaking out

Dr Thomson has long been outspoken about the barriers facing women in science.

Much earlier in her career, she said she herself was a victim of sexual harassment.

"I, frankly, am sick of it. I'm sick of seeing it, and I've experienced it ... pretty much everywhere I've been as an observer and also directly as a victim myself," she said.

"I've seen that time and time again, people that are well known to be harassers and bullies get ahead and maintain their publication record, whereas the people they have affected end up leaving research.

"The taboo is so strong not to speak. But if not me, who? And if not now, when?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/deakin-university-gags-staff-over-harassment-case/8043152

A living nightmare - 'Prof' Platon Alexiou...

This man presents himself as a real 'Professor' - In fact he has not written a single scientific paper... This man presents himself as knowledgeable about curriculum evaluation matters - In fact he has no clue... But worse is to come... He bullies and blackmails his faculty repetitively, he lies, distorts facts and threatens his faculty on a regular basis and with the complete tolerance of his senior managers... Dr Platon Alexiou is a living nightmare.

None of the above claimed outputs appear in Google Scholar. Not surprisingly, no titles and dates are provided for the selected publications.

http://www.platonalexiou.gr/

-----------------

The serial bully displays behaviour congruent with many of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Characterised by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity and self-importance, need for admiration, and lack of empathy, people with narcissistic personality disorder overestimate their abilities and inflate their accomplishments, often appearing boastful and pretentious, whilst correspondingly underestimating and devaluing the achievements and accomplishments of others.

Often the narcissist will fraudulently claim to have qualifications or experience or affiliations or associations which they don't have or aren't entitled to. Belief in superiority, inflating their self-esteem to match that of senior or important people with whom they associate or identify, insisting on having the "top" professionals or being affiliated with the "best" institutions, but criticising the same people who disappoint them are also common features of narcissistic personality disorder.

Narcissists react angrily to criticism and when rejected, the narcissist will often denounce the profession which has rejected them (usually for lack of competence or misdeed) but simultaneously and paradoxically represent themselves as belonging to the profession they are vilifying.

Fragile self-esteem, a need for constant attention and admiration, fishing for compliments (often with great charm), an expectation of superior entitlement, expecting others to defer to them, and a lack of sensitivity especially when others do not react in the expected manner, are also hallmarks of the disorder. Greed, expecting to receive before and above the needs of others, overworking those around them, and forming romantic (sic) or sexual relationships for the purpose of advancing their purpose or career, abusing special privileges and squandering extra resources also feature.

People with narcissistic personality disorder also have difficulty recognizing the needs and feelings of others, and are dismissive, contemptuous and impatient when others share or discuss their concerns or problems. They are also oblivious to the hurtfulness of their behaviour or remarks, show an emotional coldness and a lack of reciprocal interest, exhibit envy (especially when others are accorded recognition), have an arrogant, disdainful and patronizing attitude, and are quick to blame and criticise others when their needs and expectations are not met.

http://bullyonline.org/old/workbully/npd.htm

Mr Elkadi...

"...As someone with an inherent knowledge of Elkadi, having had him as a head of school I can confirm his management practices can be described as nothing less that Machiavellian. Elkadi is a psychopathic narcissist who has only his own interest at stake. Typically narcissists cover up a deep underlying guilt of shame and humiliation stemming from an early life. 

Elkadi's father was I believe the VC at an Egyptian University and has and is still living in the shadow of his father. This is part of the shame and humiliation he has, as he has not met the expectation of achieving such status. Narcissists typically attempt to stamp their authority on unsuspecting employees by venting there frustrations of having been bullied at school in a prior life and thus ventilate revenge as a form of pay back. 

His strategy is a five year plan at any University. The first two years is about divide and conquer, and implementing plans that only serve to satisfy his own personal KPI's. At about the third year mark he has taken complete control away from those that threaten him and micro managers all and sundry before him. Sound familiar so far at Selford, even though he has been there only two years?. By the forth year cracks in his management begin to open up...

Personal KPI's not being met and being held accountable by senior management. At this juncture Elkadi becomes more aggressive and defensive. By about the fifth year his past catches up and he eventually leaves to find a new University to prey on and cause collateral damage to. This is the same pattern of behaviors exhibited at Ulster and Deakin Universities. 

I feel sorry for all those dedicated and hardworking staff at Salford. Poor bastards. You can't beat a narcissist, generally the only thing you can do is "suck it up" or leave..."

Anonymous

Bullying at Deakin Staff Survey October 2014 - 02

Are you satisfied with Deakin's approach to workplace bullying and other inappropriate behaviours? What can Deakin do to deal with this issue? Can you comment on the workplace culture in your area?

• Deakin treat these problems as too hard to deal with.

• No comment because I am afraid I will lose my job.

• Not at all. The investigation was tainted, biased and resulted in an effective cover up of the core problems. Deakin needs to address this issue as an OHS issue.

• The workplace culture in my area is quite toxic we seem to have a great divide in managerial skills and leadership ability and pockets of staff who have been picked on or bullied in some instances has led to prolonged stress leave or illness. Management say they are doing a better job but this has to be questioned when you hear of exclusion and character assassination still prevails.

• Workplace culture is toxic. My school has been oppressed for years to to strong bullying leadership. Now it has been released but no controls have been put in place.

• Not at all satisfied. None of my concerns were acknowledged, even when I proved no wrong doing on my part. No apology or acknowledgement of unfair treatment and I am still micro-managed and hen pecked on a daily basis. My work mates have been horrified about what has occurred, my direct manager has been excluded from these ambush meetings...

• Deakin requires a change of management at the senior levels. Workplace culture has been reduced to survivalism. There is a total lack of leadership and academic staff are demeaned and not respected or appreciated. This needs to be exposed...

Bullying at Deakin Staff Survey October 2014 - 01

What is going on at Deakin University?

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

We stand with Martin Hirst...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

--------

Settlement of the Deakin Twitter matter
July 13, 2016

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

I will not be making any further public comment.

Martin Hirst

Fight the forced redundancy of Joe Kerr

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

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

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

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

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

Fear and loathing on campus: bullying at Irish universities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managers lacking training

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


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

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

Bullying concerns - Prof Hisham Elkadi - University of Salford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·  My complaint was forwarded to the OIA.

 

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

 

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

 

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

https://bullyingatuniversityofleicester.blogspot.com/

https://bullyingattheuniversityofleicester.wordpress.com/

Justice 4 Max Casu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic Tribalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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