Josie Appleton's post attracted a number of comments and was reproduced with dismay on the Bullied Academics blog. The post had argued that the Sal Fiore case championed by Bullied Academics was not really a case of academic freedom, since Fiore had been disciplined for maligning his bosses rather than for the content of his work. In the comments, Lee Jones quite reasonably argues that even if this is not an academic freedom issue, employees should be free to criticise their bosses. While, legally, employers may be entitled to sack employees they judge to be harming their interests, it is certainly in the spirit of this blog to argue that they should err on the side of tolerance. Depending on the job, of course, there may come a point when free speech leads inevitably to the sack - Josie Appleton gave the example of a deputy company director publicly disagreeing with his boss; similarly, everyone understands that civil servants' freedom of speech is constrained by their position.
Academic freedom forms an important exception to the very basic rule that employers can sack whoever they want, but the point of the original post was that not everything an academic says comes under the rubric of academic freedom, or even ordinary toleration. Whatever the merits of Sal Fiore's case - about which I make no comment here - it would actually demean free speech to argue that people should be protected from the reasonable consequences of unprofessional or abusive speech, for example. There comes a point when it is fair enough for an employer to sack someone for expressing views that are incompatible with the job, or expressing views in such a way that is incompatible with the job. As long as state sanctions are not involved, the employee keeps his freedom of speech, but loses his job. It's a hard-knock life.
Again though, academic freedom is sufficiently important that it must be defined generously enough to give the benefit of the doubt to academics and prevent university or other authorities from silencing people on spurious grounds: as a rough guide, it is legitimate to sack a lecturer for hurling racist abuse at students, but not for espousing views deemed to be 'racially offensive'. Clearly such distinctions depend on a certain degree of good faith. Another problem thrown up by this case, then, is the shrill rhetoric about 'bullying', 'fascists' and 'fourth rate administrators'. It is telling that while Sal Fiore accused his university of bullying, a disciplinary letter from the university accused him of 'inappropriate and aggressive behaviour'. This spectacle of accusation and counter-accusation is the unedifying consequence of a legalistic and bureaucratic culture in universities, which is utterly at odds with academic freedom. For academics who feel pushed around by their bosses to style themselves as victims of bullying is counterproductive, since in the end it can only exacerbate the bureaucratisation of universities by entrenching anti-bullying codes and procedures. What is needed instead is a robust defence of academic freedom as a collective enterprise marked by thoughtful engagement with the ideas of others.
Dolan Cummings
2 comments:
Dolan Cummings makes some interesting points here. However, I do not feel that the mutual exclusion of either bullying or academic freedom as blights in the lives of academics is necessary or helpful; neither is their separation in many cases.
I agree with the sentiment that the reinforcement of bureaucratic anti-bullying procedures and codes will not serve employees (any more than grievance procedures have). However, bullying, which is one of the malignant means of suppressing and discrediting academics and others, thrives on an inability to expose it and the effects it has on targets' lives. More worrying is the stigma that seems to exist around 'confessing' to being bullied, which leaves so many people hiding in the shadows of anonymity for fear of retaliation, even after all those years of study and contribution to society. Many of these academics simply 'disappear' either through illness, loss of will to be involved in academia any more or straightforward character assasination. Ironically, the latter is often reinforced by those taking up disussion of a case after the fact; a time when a dismissed employee rarely has the resources available or the interest from others, to make ensure all the facts are out.
In the case of Sal Fiore, I can bear witness to the fact that his treatment ranged from racial harassment by a Dean (not just espousing views deemed to be racially offensive) to denial of his contract and attempts to tarnish his reputation and prevent the publication of his research or participation in academic duties. When he took the step to expose and try to address the root of some of this treatment, he was victimised - a word I am sure is uncomfortable for any person to associate themselves with.
It has, as yet, not been reported clearly in all the discussion surrounding this case that one of the correspondences used as evidence against Sal Fiore was in fact a private message, relating not only to his own experiences of being bullied, but his ongoing research into management styles, masculinity and bullying in academia. The comments in that message are not just personal but entirely within the scope of his academic interests and competencies.
Regarding the extent to which the allegations made towards Sal Fiore by teh university of wolverhampton are telling of the legalistic culture in universities, I would recommend anyone pursuing such a theory to read the full documentation surrounding the case, including the evidence so carefully (and tellingly) kept concealed by the accusing parties from the hearing. You may then question why the university deemed it more convenient to hold a hearing they knew the acused was unable to attend because of illness and why they went ahead knowing that he was unaware at the time that such a hearing had been scheduled.
It seems that their concern was with the truths that would be exposed by Sal Fiore at such a hearing; truths that I hope he will continue legitimately and within his rights as an academic and a citizen, to examine and expose.
The main substance of the reasons surrounding this sacking (which include bein critical of policies, undemocratic committees, contract breaches and misconduct by specific managers - including bullying and harassment) have been subsumed in the rhetoric about criticisms of managers' actions (which were themselves about breaches of policies, laws and conduct standards - certainly nothing to do with hair colour or other such matters, Ms Appleton).
Sal's words may have been threatening, but only, in any dignified institution, to the continued job security of such a manager!
The treatment he received was, without question, bullying. However, the question of proprietry is surely also one of academic freedom. It is, after all, primarily the modality of his actions (that is, including colleagues in communications on the matters) that has apparently been most objectionable; the contents being *automatically* regarded as 'unacceptable' (read scandalous) and worthy of going to some lengths to keep hidden from others. The university and one manager in particular, have a documented history of threatening Sal Fiore for raising legitimate criticisms relating to his work, research and working conditions in general.
Perhaps the legalistic culture you refer to can therefore best be understood in light of the willingness of such 'managers' to manufacture the cirumstances in which to summarily dismiss an employee with as little resistance or reference to fact as possible. This, I believe is bullying and a lot of other things too. Bullying is in part about labelling non-conformists as troublemakers, those with 'unacceptable' opinions who dare to 'say what they mean, and mean what they say'.
We do, I agree, need a robust defence of academic freedom, but that cannot mean silencing those who feel bullied and have their health and careers taken away because of their willingness to speak out. The word bullying may be uncomfortable in Britain. In other societies though, people speak freely about it and it is openly and publily treated as a shame not of the target but of the bully(ies).
Can the academic community actually work to find some common ground to combat this disease in today's competitive academy, rather than being led to nothing by committees of University Executives and ineffective unions promising reform? We do not, as both these groups have done, need to shy away from bullying. Sure, bullying is not all about academic freedom, by any means, but there are some cases for which the two debates are inseparable, Sal Fiore's being one.
I cannot imagine any stable individual wishing to "style themselves" as being bullied. If dignity is the first freedom of humankind, what more direct attack than that.
Surely we can do without martyrs and support those who are branded in a way they never could have imagined in their lives and careers and certainly never set out to achieve!
MB
It may be that some "academics who feel pushed around by their bosses" do actually "style themselves as victims of bullying". But if you take the trouble to compare accusations of bullying and resource shortfalls, there is a clear correlation. Some universities - of which Wolverhampton appears to be one - foster a culture in which promotion is through cronyism, assessment is opaque, research is plagiarised, the leadership is incapable of original research and bullying accusations abound.
Post a Comment