There’s been a Grievance raised against a Professor. The Human Resources (HR) division of the University is indolently carrying out an investigation. This might be done by a group of internal academics, advised by HR. Or sometimes the University uses an outside ‘dispute resolution’ company, or a solicitor/barrister, who write a report that is considered by an academic. No matter who does it, the investigation will be contrived.
Let’s give some evidence of recent extensive use of ‘whitewash’.
A good example is the claims of the discovery of the first room-temperature superconductors by Prof Ranga Dias, an Assistant Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester. Not merely was the research later shown to be fraudulent, but the postdoctoral researchers and graduate students working under him suffered threats and intimidation as reported here. They were not allowed to access the experimental data or critique the research results on papers which carried their names. Remarkably, Rochester University carried out not one, not two, but three internal investigations into Prof Ranga Dias. He was exonerated all three times. Finally, following retraction of a number of Dias’ papers by the journal Nature, three external investigators commissioned by the University of Rochester revealed the true facts about the scale of the fraud and abusive supervision.
Dr Magdalen Connolly was an Early Career Researcher at Cambridge University’s Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. She made allegations of bullying and plagiarism against one of her advisors, a more senior academic. The Daily Telegraph identified the alleged plagiarist here. Cambridge University’s HR department lumbered into action. They appointed an academic to superintend the investigation (a ‘Responsible Person’) and assembled an internal committee to consider the matter. Predictably enough, the internal committee did what internal committees always do and whitewashed the senior academic. Dr Connolly appealed. HR plodded into action again, weighed down by sluggishness and inertia. Eventually, four years after the original complaint, a panel of external experts finally concluded that plagiarism had indeed taken place. Dr Connolly was vindicated. At the end of the lengthy investigation, she was also jobless.
Even this shocker is dwarfed by the case of Professor William O’Reilly, Associate Professor of Early Modern History at the same university. He plagiarised a student whom he was tutoring. Chunks of the undergraduate’s essays appeared uncredited in one of Prof O’Reilly’s papers. This was a clear case of cut-and-paste copying from a student. It was also a very serious breach of trust. Cambridge University’s HR department slunk into action, and eventually it was determined that this was not plagiarism, but the “product of negligent acts”. The rationale is nonsensical: “it was an accident” is not and never has been a defence against plagiarism. The panel members of the University Tribunal who rubber-stamped this ridiculous decision are listed here. As they say in Cambridge, “we’ve investigated ourselves and found ourselves innocent”.
In another ongoing investigation at a Russell Group university, a whistleblower made disclosures about a health and safety emergency at his department. Given what we know of ‘campus justice’, it is no surprise to learn that the whistleblower was immediately attacked by HR and made the subject of a prolonged two-year investigation. HR conned a naive and young Professor to act as Responsible Person to superintend matters. However, retaliation against an individual making a whistleblowing or ‘protected’ disclosure is actually illegal and contrary to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. So the young Professor was actually hoodwinked by HR into placing herself into a difficult and ambiguous legal position. As she became aware of her compromised position, she resigned as Responsible Person.
Internal university investigations require academics willing to serve — either to adjudicate or to act on tribunals or to assess external reports. Perhaps many do this because they believe they are being ‘good citizens’. It needs to be clearly stated that they are not. They are ending up complicit in corrupt investigations. Rather than good citizens, they are useful idiots.
The Rochester University Professors who exonerated Ranga Dias three times, or the Cambridge academics who denied plagiarism in the case of Prof O’Reilly, just look ridiculous. Academics participating in such charades demean themselves, perpetuate a broken system of justice and can even place themselves in legal jeopardy.
The 21 Group believes such cooperation from academics should cease. We should be refusing requests to legitimise these investigations.
17 Comments
Damascene · 15 December 2024 at 17:37
Thank you for this new post.
One of the things I liked from the last one, was in challenging the black and white thinking which trauma victims frequently experience. That is, even if the HR “system” does awful things to innocent people, we should acknowledge that many HR staff are individually kind people, and feel conflicted from the rationale and effects of their acts.
Likewise, it is good here to do the same for those of our colleagues who were caught up as “involuntary” participants in acts of institutional bullying, and may as as result struggle with the guilt of their actions (if not fearful awareness of involvement in outright breaches of the law), and in this sense, have become victims of this system also.
Perhaps I am distracted by events in Syria but it seems similar to aftermath of the fall of despotic regimes – at the moment it becomes clear to everyone “who was who” regarding individual upholding (or abandonment) of standards of basic moral integrity.
But could this comparison offer useful lessons for how we deal with the aftermath of the current bullying crisis? For example, is there a way, not only to punish the worst transgressors, but also, offer a means of forgiveness and atonement for those who seek for peace and moral redemption? And if so, how can we draw the line of separation, so as to sanction evident wrongdoing, while forgiving those who were reluctantly compromised?
Anon · 17 December 2024 at 00:57
“One of the things I liked from the last one, was in challenging the black and white thinking which trauma victims frequently experience. That is, even if the HR “system” does awful things to innocent people, we should acknowledge that many HR staff are individually kind people, and feel conflicted from the rationale and effects of their acts.”
People suffering from long-term trauma, usually a form of complex PTSD, as a result of mobbing and being whistleblowers, can often develop black-and-white thinking and a lack of nuance when it comes to the institution where it occurred.
You are right, and that is something that does need to be recognized, particularly by the targets themselves. No one is an angel or a perfect human being when it comes to mobbing, and everyone engages in problematic behavior, including targets, who often don’t help themselves by fighting back for far too long in response to being mobbed, instead of seeing the writing on the wall and cutting their losses by walking away.
In higher education/academia, the situation is made worse by how systemic these problems are. The amount of bystanders, and retaliation from the institution, as well as its general lack of accountability, also only continue to reinforce the self-narrative of the target.
“Likewise, it is good here to do the same for those of our colleagues who were caught up as “involuntary” participants in acts of institutional bullying, and may as as result struggle with the guilt of their actions (if not fearful awareness of involvement in outright breaches of the law), and in this sense, have become victims of this system also.”
That’s a really interesting (and telling) term of phrase: ‘good’… I’m sure it does feel really ‘good’ to be absolved of guilt or moral complicity for a role one played in terrorizing another person or worse—even if only as a bit player—and, as you say, potentially also being forgiven for breaking the law by retaliating against a whistleblower.
But the question is: is forgiveness the onus of the target, and is it ‘good’ for them and progress (both cultural and legislative) in terms of tackling these issues in universities? (Particularly when the institutions themselves routinely absolve anyone involved in this kind of wrongdoing.)
Also, it’s hard not to be cynical. To what extent is ‘guilt’ and that ‘road to Damascus’ moment only felt in hindsight, after being caught and facing the consequences?
“Perhaps I am distracted by events in Syria but it seems similar to aftermath of the fall of despotic regimes – at the moment it becomes clear to everyone “who was who” regarding individual upholding (or abandonment) of standards of basic moral integrity.”
Interesting analogy, but the truth is that institutions and the people within them who involve themselves in mobbing or retaliating against whistleblowers are not Alawites and are not facing imminent execution or mass graves for misconduct.
Typically, due to the nepotism and self-regulation within academia, the careers and reputations of even major perpetrators are barely even dented when the dynamics within institutions are made public. We continue to see them occupying senior roles in universities, carrying on as if nothing happened.
“But could this comparison offer useful lessons for how we deal with the aftermath of the current bullying crisis? For example, is there a way, not only to punish the worst transgressors, but also, offer a means of forgiveness and atonement for those who seek for peace and moral redemption?”
Are the worst transgressors being punished, then?
Well, that’s news to me if they are, because as far as I was aware, there is an endemic problem within academia when it comes to holding these people to account. There’s also a fierce, almost medieval or clerical resistance to any kind of reform to the system, and even a tendency to promote these people, which seems to reward their behavior.
As for moral redemption, if one is a believer (I’m not), the Catholic faith offers much, though, a far better option is to direct a “confession” to an investigative journalist—and obviously to never be involved in these kinds of abuses of staff or students again.
Anonymous · 19 January 2025 at 18:10
I don’t think a good person working in HR would do the things I experienced. I’m also a person of color, which makes my experience even more disturbing. That a white man in HR acted like my complaint against my two white supervisors abusing me and making racist discriminatory remarks, was so personal to him. I was mobbed not just by my two white supervisors and HR, the entire university administration (lawyers too) gang up on me to destroy my life. People who acted like friends tuned on me and are still currently mobbing me online. Good people don’t harm another person to the point where they feel so hopeless that they consider taking their own life. All I did was record my supervisors abusing me and saying racist things to me, and all I did with that recording was make a report to the university. I should have been protected as a whistle-blower, instead the university took every opportunity to destroy my life. Despite the evidence I had and the tournament I went through, the university made it their goal to destroy the whistle-blower.
AtropaBelladonna · 16 December 2024 at 09:16
Campus Justice is described in this brutal piece on Trinity Hall College
https://web.archive.org/web/20240430104301/https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2020/02/18/campus-justice-trinity-hall/
Dr O’Reilly has a starring role. Though even he is eclipsed by the Bursar
“The Bursar mused aloud about getting legal advice on preventing students from making complaints”
Anon · 16 December 2024 at 23:22
Thanks for sharing this. Another desperately sad illustration of what a cesspool Oxbridge is when it comes to addressing whistleblowing and safeguarding student wellbeing.
Cambyses · 17 December 2024 at 02:29
I came across your blog only recently, but I want to you to know from the bottom of my heart, how much reading your posts and these comments is helping me after many years to come to terms with the trauma of academic bullying and victimisation.
Even though I left the university long ago, simply knowing that I am not alone is already a world of difference. And then, having this forum where we can openly share our views, think about how to address the problem, are make something constructive out of these years of pain, that is a real change of paradigm.
On the issue of forgiveness, it matters a lot yes. But it is my right, and mine alone, to either forgive – or not – those who deliberately destroyed my life ambitions and work.
Finally, on the point about staying too long instead of leaving, I respectfully disagree… I left, but that meant taking all the pain and the hurt with me. I did not get resolution, which I suppose is why I am here at 2.30am in the morning writing this comment.
A request for genuine forgiveness would make a huge difference, if from a place of genuine atonement. Not to mention willingness to work on restoring the damage that they caused.
Anon · 18 December 2024 at 09:54
Absolutely. It’s up to each person whether they choose to forgive those who did them wrong or not. It’s fine to push back on anyone insisting on being forgiven, whether that insistence stems from a genuine sense of remorse or more from calculated self-preservation and reputational management.
Leaving early is less about resolution and catharsis, and more about pre-emptively removing yourself from an institution with a culture that enables mobbing (if the luxury of leaving is even an option) and mitigating the worst impacts. We often romanticize the idea of fighting back and whistleblowing, but it’s very complicated, and the injuries sustained—both to your health, psyche, and career—can be serious.
The instinct to fight back from a position of indignation and righteousness can be strong in somebody who is being mobbed—fight or flight; it’s a natural response hardwired into the human animal. But fighting rarely helps someone caught in the eye of the storm of mobbing and will usually only intensify the attacks. Sadly, there’s almost nothing an individual can do to challenge these dynamics or cultures in an institution so flight makes more sense.
Change will come at the systemic level, and that almost certainly requires playing the long game through advocacy, like the work done by the 21 Percent Group. Ideally, this could eventually drive reforms in policymaking and university governance that benefit staff and students, and, fingers crossed, make the higher-ed landscape in the UK more human and less toxic and corrupt.
Anon · 18 December 2024 at 10:36
You might be interested in the concepts of institutional betrayal as a moral injury and the psychology of ambiguous loss.
Across the pond, writer and academic Dorothy Suskind has written a lot on these subjects. She has a blog (Re-VISION) on Substack and writes regularly for Psychology Today.
Lori · 22 December 2024 at 22:46
What I saw in elite UK universities is, hiring people for short periods, inundating them with praise and enthusiasm for 2 years in order to get them to work as hard as possible, and then, dramatically switching in the last 12-18 months with inexplicable attacks and personal criticism.
It is deliberate. The specific goal is to justify constructive dismissal and/or abuse of redundancy law to save on staff cost and distribute workload. As soon as one lot are out, they start on the next batch of victims.
The consequences are psychologically devastating. Victims end up scarred for years, often so damaged they must leave the profession.
What is disgusting and evil about this is the fact that it is conscious and deliberate. Victims are left abused and destroyed, the university never pays the cost.
Anon · 24 December 2024 at 10:07
I’m sorry you’ve experienced this, and I agree. I think it’s a deliberate, though unofficial, policy in many universities to cut staff costs—a kind of “genteel” academic abattoir that serves as “management” in the neoliberal university.
Hohoho · 24 December 2024 at 14:51
I agree entirely. The abuse of employment law and redundancy policies is completely deliberate and highly detrimental not only to the workforce but to the organisation as a whole. The abuse can destroy entire departments, removing valued personnel one by one, picking them off like disposable goods, replacing them with others, dehumanising the “people organisation” as if talent was interchangeable and personal input irrelevant.
I have just been coerced into taking a pay cut, a reward for my valued contribution to a department over many years. I was threatened with a redundancy process if “no agreement was reached”, with senior academics acting as the useful idiots for malevolent HR personnel, parroting each and every changing argument at every stage of the process, signing the next contradictory email, with HR nowhere to be seen.
The final email, recapping a process which was obviously distressing, was sent out of business hours, late on the last working day before Christmas, by those “well-minded but ineffectual academics who can be easily manipulated and are happy to act as a ‘postbox’ for HR” – “we know it means the victim will stew over an unreasonable email all weekend”, all Christmas, in this instance, as the thought might have been…
Merry Christmas, and keep up the good work of this invaluable platform!
Mary Calkins · 18 December 2024 at 22:06
For me personally, the work of Paul Zimbardo has proven a useful reference point, and seems especially pertiment to the comments here, as well as the functioning of the university. The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE; 1971) remains a landmark in explaining how abuse becomes institutionalised. And it was an experiment in a strict sense as it took ordinary (presumably, “empathetic”) individuals, yet showed how organisational design could quickly turn them in to monsters.
Alas, though the Stanford Prison Experiment took place over fifty years ago, the university for which I work has replicated almost all of its core design features. Namely:
1. Diffusion of personal responsibility. Almost all decisions here are taken secretly and collectively. It is a catastrophe for responsibility and ethical accountability. I do not believe for one second that a decent human being would sign off, alone, on the decisions we waive by collectively.
2. Passive tolerance of evil through inaction. This is our status quo. Newcomers sometimes react with confusion… but if they are conscientious they will leave and let us continue.
3. Arbitrary status hierarchies. Here is it exactly the same as the Stanford PE. Except possibly worse, as in academia seeking administrative power is typically a recourse for those with failed research careers… so we deliberately put our most status insecure and jealous in charge.
4. “Mindlessly taking the first small step”. Zimbardo’s first red flag is our basic norm. Heads react by instinct to retaliate; then the whole system swings to protect them.
5. Institutionalised secrecy Again so much our norm we don’t realise how fucking bizarre it is. Recordings are banned when they should be mandatory and open access, minutes are falsified, whistleblowers are harassed, NDAs are pressed, FOIs routinely ignored. Eventually, everyone understands that if they destroy someone weaker than themselves, no-one will ever hold them accountable.
6. Full system closure. The final important aspect of the SPE and how we operate. More than any other UK university, we have made sure to insulate against both a) external scrutiny and b) personnel mobility. Processes that should be majority external (e.g. our tribunal panels) get stacked with insiders. Hiring is for internal candidates who understand “our system” and express loyalty over merit. And thanks to our broader networks we have levers to influence too many systems of justice and accountability which ought to be neutral and independent.
Anon · 19 December 2024 at 21:58
“6. Full system closure. The final important aspect of the SPE and how we operate. More than any other UK university, we have made sure to insulate against both a) external scrutiny and b) personnel mobility. Processes that should be majority external (e.g. our tribunal panels) get stacked with insiders. Hiring is for internal candidates who understand “our system” and express loyalty over merit. And thanks to our broader networks we have levers to influence too many systems of justice and accountability which ought to be neutral and independent.”
This is why I believe that external scrutiny and media exposure of the parties involved in these dynamics are perhaps the only ways to force any kind of accountability on these closed systems. As cynical as it may sound, I don’t think genuine change will happen otherwise. Without external oversight, I don’t believe these institutions are capable of reforming themselves.
Media coverage played a huge role in the Post Office and blood bank scandals, and it will probably soon happen with higher education too. Transparency is in the public interest in cases of corruption and where the law has been broken in retaliating against whistleblowers, especially given that the organizational cultures of many of these institutions ultimately can pose a risk to public health and have, in some cases, been causal factors in people’s deaths through suicide.
As you say, universities and the institutions within them have broader networks to influence the outcomes of justice and accountability, and this may even include elements of the media. I’m speculating here, but I can think of one or two institutions that have retired or “live-in” journalists working for them—and I’d be very surprised if they don’t lean on these connections.
Syed · 19 December 2024 at 19:22
I wonder if the best way to think about this is to flip it around. Are there universities that are “doing things right” – and if so, what are they doing differently?
Same question again is, what can we learn from institutions that used to have issues around staff abuse, but managed to adopt effective and meaningful reforms? Most useful if they are universities but also there must be lessons from other sectors (e.g. police, army, schools, hospitals) too.
Anon · 19 December 2024 at 23:56
“I wonder if the best way to think about this is to flip it around. Are there universities that are “doing things right” – and if so, what are they doing differently?”
I’m sure they do exist, but even if there are positive examples out there, what are the chances of these models being replicated by other institutions, given that it would disrupt and challenge the status quo?
“Same question again is, what can we learn from institutions that used to have issues around staff abuse, but managed to adopt effective and meaningful reforms? Most useful if they are universities but also there must be lessons from other sectors (e.g. police, army, schools, hospitals) too.”
Considering how obstinate UK higher education is towards recognizing and acknowledging the problem, and the extent of denial, I think that might be putting the cart before the horse. To understand how institutions have successfully reformed themselves would entail examining what drove the recognition of the need for reforms and changes to organizational culture in the first place.
I’d imagine that in the majority of cases, the drivers of institutional reform would have been some form of external oversight and pressure, or reputational damage—often from a case being made public and the subsequent fallout in the media. Institutions can’t enact meaningful reform if they don’t first recognize that they have a problem, and in any case, there is still a need for transparency.
Janey Canuck · 20 December 2024 at 14:41
The fact that the list of organizational failures is so long also means there is a lot here to work on. Would have thought obvious ones might include: 1) hard deadlines for processing complaints (e.g. strict 3 months from report to conclusion), 2) open external audit of procedures, 3) tribunal panels with rotating external head (always) and majority external composition (plus strict conflict of interest reporting), 4) ban/quota limit on internal hires for senior roles, 5) full document transparency (including to general public), 6) chairs to sign all committee conclusions as personal responsibility/liability, 7) all procedures to involve complainants at all stages in access to documents, relevant email chains, minutes/meeting recordings (preferably), informal consultations etc.
Çiya · 16 January 2025 at 22:24
The young professor who got roped into the investigation sounds like she had a tough time and got a pretty raw deal. Honestly, she seems like a victim of the system herself. She did the right thing though.