1/5
According to this article in Times Higher Education (THE): “The information given by universities did not include details of why the agreements were used and some are incorporated into staff’s standard termination of employment […]” THE continued:
2/5 “meaning that there is no suggestion that any of the universities named are silencing victims of harassment or bullying.” No, it means: (a) the journalist did not request, under s. 8, Freedom of Information Act, information on bullying & harassment;
3/5 (b) a university that uses NDAs routinely might be (&, given evidence elsewhere, probably is) silencing victims of harassment & bullying. Systematic use of NDAs to silence such victims raises profoundly important public interest concerns which need to addressed & resolved.
4/5 Harassment includes: s. 26(1)(related to 9 characteristics, including sex & race; referred to in my legal proceedings brought to a satisfactory conclusion against a former university employer), s. 26(2) (sexual harassment), or s. 26(3), Equality Act.
5/5 OK, the article is by a freelancer who may face cost constraints; but why isn’t @timeshighered ensuring that such important questions are asked before publishing; will you seek such information, &, if so, when?
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 ...