1/10
I’ve signed a petition for Professor Jim Newell’s reinstatement to the University of Salford. Please sign: bit.ly/2Ls0nQu. The reasons relied upon by Salford (as set out in the petition) are unacceptable & inconsistent with University’s Charter.
2/10
It is clear from comments on the petition website and on Twitter (e.g. @PSA_IPSG@PeterKGeoghegan) that the dismissal of Professor Newell raises widespread concerns & has brought the University of Salford into serious disrepute.
3/10
Professor Newell’s dismissal is inconsistent with the University’s Charter (bit.ly/2uIJ725), according to which the University exists for: “the advancement of knowledge, the diffusion and extension of arts, sciences and learning,
4/10
“the provision of liberal, professional scientific and technological education and for enabling Students to obtain the advantage of University education and for the furtherance of the objects”.
5/10
Those objects are: “to advance education and knowledge by teaching and research, and in doing so to foster an academic environment which is enterprising and applied to business and the professions for the benefit of society at large.”
6/10
The foregoing does not justify dismissal because an academic is not meeting arbitrary targets for grant capture or strengthening links with business.
7/10
The matter of Professor Newell’s dismissal should urgently be tabled before the University Council which has responsibility for “overseeing the University’s activities, determining its mission and future direction.”
8/10
According to the Ordinances of the University (bit.ly/2L5xe1a), the Vice-Chancellor can be removed for “any conduct which brings the University into serious disrepute”, 11.5(g).
9/10
Unless Professor Newell is offered reinstatement, or a valid reason is provided for his dismissal (which, apparently, cannot be provided), I am henceforth boycotting the University of Salford until further notice.
10/10
If Professor Newell (@LawrieNewell) isn’t in a union that will fight on his behalf, & if he wishes to fight this dismissal through alternative means, may I suggest engagement of an employment lawyer immediately. #Solidarity. #WeAreTheUniversity
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (@theRSAorg), I support the strike action by staff members @RsaUnion.
The vote by 93.33% of members to strike, on a 78.95% turnout of members (a significant proportion of RSA staff), is emphatic. [1/16] iwgb.org.uk/en/post/rsa-st…
I'll also show support to staff on any picket.
As a former union rep, I know that members don’t strike lightly—not least as they’ll lose pay. Their sacrifice is for the collective good. So, support can also be shown by donating to the strike fund. [2/16] actionnetwork.org/fundraising/su…
This strike is potentially avoidable if management return to fresh negotiations with the union, which argues that an improved offer would cost the RSA less than 3% of its unrestricted reserves. The union also point to a growing pay gap between senior execs and other staff. [3/16]
A thread in which I set out concerns with the UK government’s plan for addressing free speech in universities.
Given existing reliable surveys on free speech, the plan is misplaced, and, even on its own logic, will likely be counterproductive.
[1/30] bbc.co.uk/news/education…
The BBC report doesn’t cite evidence justifying such intervention. While there are instances of some censorship on campuses, these are not sufficiently widespread to justify the government’s measures, which are akin to using sledgehammers to crack a nut.
[2/30]
There are already free speech laws governing universities. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 provides for “such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees”. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/…
[3/30]
A significant development in external investigation of university management in England, here through a power statutorily conferred on the Office for Students ('OfS') (@officestudents). [1/8] theguardian.com/education/2021…
The Guardian refers to Ofs’ ‘powers to scrutinise whether members of senior university management meet a test for being “fit and proper” to exercise their roles.’ The report doesn’t mention the basis of the powers. I set out below what I believe that basis to be. [2/8]
The Higher Education and Research Act 2017, s. 13(1)(b), confers power on the OfS to include in the initial or ongoing registration conditions for higher education providers a public interest governance condition. [3/8] legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/…
Sloppy, unethical, and unprofessional article by Gabriella Swerling in her Daily Telegraph article earlier this week.
Swerling smears Professor Corinne Fowler (@corinne_fowler) as ‘[t]he “woke” National Trust academic who has been reviewing its links with colonialism.’ [1/11]
Professor Fowler is not a ‘National Trust academic’. She is employed by the University of Leicester and was seconded to the Trust in 2019-2020 to conduct research; one of the outcomes from which is a co-edited report published by the Trust (referred to further below). [2/11]
I have found no record of any of the sources cited by Swerling – Andrew Roberts, Oliver Dowden, Nigel Huddleston or, indeed, members of the Common Sense Group – referring publicly to Professor Fowler as ‘woke’, not that I would think it appropriate if they did. [3/11]
Further press coverage of Durham County Council’s sanctions against Councillor David Boyes following my complaint about his communication in respect of Travellers. This coverage focuses on the Hearing Panel’s reasoning and Councillor Boyes’ apology. [1/6] chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-eas…
The coverage notes that right up to the hearing Councillor Boyes denied that his communications amounted to a breach of the Code. While the coverage correctly refers to the Panel’s view that Cllr Boyes’ actions were ‘careless’,
[2/6]
it does not refer to the Investigating Officer’s findings – with which the Panel agreed – which include: (1) Cllr Boyes’ ‘liking of the offensive comments did amount to a failure to treat those who were the subject of such comments with respect’ contrary to the Code, and
[3/6]
Press coverage of Durham County Council’s sanctions against Councillor David Boyes for his communications in respect of Travellers – by James Harrison/@JHarrisonLDR, Local Democracy Reporter, Sunderland Echo: who I commend for covering this story so well. sunderlandecho.com/news/politics/…
'The panel also rejected suggestions by Mr Feenan that Cllr Boyes should resign his position as chairman of the county council’s Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committee, which carries a special responsibility allowance worth £2,660.' Interesting detail by @JHarrisonLDR.
Important to add that the Council upheld the Investigating Officer’s findings, including that Cllr Boyes’ ‘liking of the offensive comments did amount to a failure to treat those who were the subject of such comments with respect’ contrary to the Code, and ...