Save Middlesex Philosophy

Press Release, 1 July 2010

The Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy moved from Middlesex University to Kingston University today. Four members of philosophy staff moved with the Centre. Two of these members of staff were placed under ‘precautionary’ suspension by Middlesex management on 21 May, pending an investigation into their role in the occupations at Trent Park. Their suspensions were never lifted, and they remained suspended when their Middlesex employment came to an end on 30 June.

This directly contradicts the assurance two weeks ago by ­John McGuinness (Director of Human Resources at Middlesex) to several parties, including half a dozen external examiners and the UCU regional representative, that the suspensions would be lifted by 18 June. Along with several other issues raised by the campaign, the general question of Middlesex University’s abuse of disciplinary procedures thus remains unresolved. The Middlesex UCU branch has now moved to stage 2 of its Disputes Procedure with the University over these suspensions and their implications. The campaign against mismanagement, abuse of process and intimidation of academic staff continues, as does the mobilisation to save the undergraduate programme in Philosophy and to resist the erosion of education at Middlesex more broadly.

Press release, 24 June 2010

The ‘precautionary’ suspension of two members of academic staff in Philosophy at Middlesex continues, despite a statement last week by the University’s Head of Human Resources, John McGuinness, that it would be lifted. The statement appears to have been used to deceive the External Examiners of several departments who had been boycotting the assessment process into abandoning their boycott, in the run-up to Middlesex graduation ceremonies in early July.

On Friday 18 June, Roger Bull, Associate Dean for Learning and Quality Enhancement in the School of Arts and Education, wrote to External Examiners who were boycotting the assessment process in support of the suspended staff:

“The Head of Human Resources, John McGuinness, confirms on behalf of our University that the suspension to a member of staff who will remain at Middlesex University has been lifted and those suspensions relating to academic staff moving to Kingston University (as previously announced by the University) will be lifted this week. In the light of this information I would ask you to confirm with me and with the academic staff in the University with whom you carry out your external examining duties, the grades and standards for the samples of work you have seen, such that all undergraduate students in Art and Design may have their grades confirmed.”

External Examiners subsequently confirmed the grades. Yet, as of noon on Thursday 24 June, the staff in question confirmed that they remain suspended.

The University has also failed to undertake the regular 10-day review of their suspensions required by the University’s disciplinary procedures.

Despite a statement by the Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex University, Michael Driscoll, that the transfer of four Philosophy staff to Kingston was ‘amicable’ and a promise that the transition would be ‘seamless’, the University continues to harass its staff in Philosophy.

Under the terms of their suspensions these staff must “refrain from entering the University premises … [and] refrain contacting in any way any University employee, student or any University contractor or supplier without the prior agreement of the Dean or a member of the Executive”.

Christian Kerslake, one of the three suspended philosophy lecturers at Middlesex University, had his suspension hearing yesterday (Monday 14 June). He read this statement out after his hearing to the demonstration that had gathered in solidarity with him. Christian heard this morning that his suspension has now been lifted.

The demonstrations today and tomorrow are in defence of the right to protest within the university. The term ‘university’ basically means ‘a community of students, scholars and teachers’. It is a place for learning and teaching, and a place for the free exchange of ideas, including political ideas and including ideas about what a university should be, and how it should respond to the economic and social climate it inhabits.

If one cannot protest freely, peacefully and rationally within a university, and if one cannot protest within the university against the decisions made by the management of the university, then this is a sign that something has gone seriously wrong somewhere. What we have seen over recent weeks is the Vice-Chancellor of this University, Michael Driscoll, taking an authoritarian and intimidatory stance towards some of the students of this university. Michael Driscoll and the University Executive arbitrarily singled out seven individuals at the end of the occupation, and the doors of the Mansion Building at Trent Park still bear their names, barring them from the premises. The four students suspended after the library occupation remain barred from the premises, and after years of working hard at their courses, now have to write for permission to visit the University.

I would like to ask the University Executive to do the decent thing and immediately lift all suspensions from all the students involved in the occupations. Take those ugly legal notices from the doors of the Mansion Building at Trent Park and restore that building to its function: as a house for students and free thought. Until those notices come off those doors, the Mansion Building cannot be said to belong to a University.

Much damage has been done, and there are many things that the remaining philosophy students can legitimately demand from the University. What we need to do now is secure the conditions for a truly excellent undergraduate programme in philosophy at Middlesex over the next two years. But also we should not give up on the core goal of the campaign: to reinstate philosophy at Middlesex. We have a concrete goal that is quite achievable: to re-open philosophy at Middlesex in 2011, to start admitting students again, and to re-build the department from there.

For now, I would like to urge everybody here, if they can, to come along on Tuesday to support Peter Hallward and Peter Osborne and defend their right to protest.

On Friday May 28th four students attended disciplinary hearings at Trent Park campus regarding their alleged participation in the occupations of the Mansion building and the library at Trent Park. These occupations were in response to management’s unjustified proposal to axe the highly successful philosophy programme in its entirety.

The hearings focused around three points: admittance of participation in the occupations, allegations of injury, and agreement not to participate in future occupation of University property or cause further ‘disruption’ of the university.

All students freely admitted their role in both occupations. Facing the threat of expulsion a collective decision was made to agree not to participate in future occupations. This was in no way expressed as a disavowal however, and all students stated explicitly to the panel that they would continue to participate fully in the campaign and be present at future demonstrations, exercising their legal rights to protest and freedom of speech and association.

All students denied allegations of assault or violence. The panel alleged that two members of staff were injured and one hospitalised. No hard evidence was produced however. The students responded that despite police attending on three occasions at no point did they intervene and nor have they questioned any students regarding such allegations. The response from the panel was that police involvement would depend on the ‘severity of the injury’. When asked to elaborate on the severity of alleged injuries, as well as allegations of broken bones made by security and management in the press, the panel declined to comment. The students made it clear that whilst they would not condone injury nevertheless they did not injure anyone.

The students also questioned the nature of the hearing and its adherence to university protocol. It was noted that evidence was not provided beforehand as promised and that insufficient time was given for the students to prepare their case, factors contributing to what the students deemed an unfair hearing. Some statements by security also contained factual inaccuracies and other visual evidence was extremely ambiguous, in some instances it being questionable as comprising evidence.

The university’s scapegoating tactic was also queried by all students, to which no coherent response could be elicited from the panel. Nor could they explain the criteria used to identify particular individuals.

The hearing was brought to a (provisional) conclusion with each student having 3 points (‘grave warning’) marked against their student record, with consequent exclusion from university premises without permission for the period it takes management to investigate the occupations (approx. one month), after which the case will be reviewed.

The students believe the repeated emphasis on misleading, vague and ambiguous questions by the panel to be part of a strategy to predetermine the outcome; confirmation that the hearings were not conducted fairly or without prejudice – this is clear in view of the university’s violation of its own disciplinary protocol. In the Vice-chancellor’s immediate public response, he inaccurately deployed the phrase ‘the regret’ of the students ­ which they strongly refute. Political action is not a regret for those who see it as both their right, and indeed a necessity, to stand up and protect their education; to resist the oppressive stealth tactics of unthinking bureaucrats who try to steep us and the university in a morass of neo-liberal logic.

Ali Alizadeh, Nicola Goodchild, Johann Vadseth Hoiby, Hoi Yen Voong

Christian Kerslake, one of the three members of staff in Philosophy who was suspended a couple of weeks ago pending an investigation into the recent occupations at Trent Park, has a hearing scheduled for noon on Monday 14 June at Hendon.  (The other two hearings will take place on Tuesday). We hope that students and staff who condemn these suspensions as an abuse of managerial power, and as an attempt to stifle legitimate protest and dissent, might gather from 11:15 at Hendon on Monday to support Christian as he goes into his hearing, and to call on management to reinstate all the suspended staff at once and without conditions or recrimination.

An open letter to the Vice-Chancellor and all members of the University, 11 June 2010.

Dear colleagues,

As you may know, three members of staff in Philosophy (Christian Kerslake, Peter Osborne and I) are currently suspended from the University. Our hearings are due to take place early next week.

We have been suspended, without any specific allegation, pending an investigation into our involvement in the recent occupations protesting the closure of the Middlesex Philosophy programmes. The terms of our suspension, as set out in a letter from Human Resources of 21 May, command us to ‘refrain from contacting in any way any University employee or student without the prior agreement of the Dean or a member of Executive.’ I was subsequently refused permission e.g. to contact Admissions, or to attend a union meeting.

In a further letter sent late on 28 May, Human Resources reminded me that my unauthorised attendance at an emergency UCU meeting held at Hendon that afternoon, along with my unauthorised attendance at a public rally held outside Hendon the previous day to oppose the closure of Philosophy, violated the terms of my suspension and are thus ‘disciplinary offences in themselves.’

Like the members of our UCU branch, like the UCU national congress, and like many thousands of academics and students in the UK and across the world, I consider our suspensions to be an abuse of managerial power. Like many of my Middlesex colleagues, I consider such abuse a matter of general and growing concern for the University community. Causes for concern appear to be accumulating by the day. Use of our email system is now subject to new restrictions, and this past week several other colleagues, in several different departments, have been ‘cautioned’ or summoned to quasi-disciplinary meetings with their line managers, for daring to raise questions about the suspensions and the way management has tried to justify them. In my opinion such intimidation is profoundly inimical to the spirit of free critical discussion that should animate any university worthy of the name.

Christian Kerslake’s suspension hearing is scheduled for noon on Monday 14 June at Hendon. (Peter Osborne & I have hearings scheduled for 15 June). I hope that colleagues who share concerns about these suspensions, and about the related and ongoing bullying of our colleagues, might gather from 11:00 at Hendon on Monday 14 June to support Christian as he goes into his hearing, and to call on management to reinstate him at once and without conditions or recrimination.

Perhaps such reinstatement might constitute a first step towards re-establishing relations of trust between management and staff.

yours sincerely,

Peter Hallward
PL for the Philosophy MA programmes.

Tuesday 8 June 2010

The campaign to save our philosophy programmes has just won a partial but significant victory: Kingston University in south-west London announced today that it will re-establish our Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy (CRMEP) at Kingston, by employing the four senior staff in Philosophy at Middlesex (Eric Alliez, Peter Hallward, Peter Osborne and Stella Sandford). Our MA and PhD programmes (full-time and part-time) will be re-launched at Kingston this September, and all current post-graduate students will be invited to move along with the staff. Institutions in France and Germany have also made significant new proposals for collaboration with the CRMEP, which may allow it to expand the European dimensions of its work considerably in the near future.

This remarkable turn of events would never been possible without the extraordinary local and international campaign that began six weeks ago, to save our philosophy programmes.

Like Middlesex, Kingston is a post-1992 university, with a commitment to widening participation in education. Unlike Middlesex, Kingston is expanding rather than cutting back its provision in humanities subjects, and it is investing in research in these areas. In addition to taking on CRMEP staff, Kingston will be making a number of other high-level appointments over the coming months, and is launching its own London Graduate School in conjunction with colleagues from several other Universities internationally.  We believe that Kingston will provide an enthusiastic and supportive base for the activities of the CRMEP.

Although we have not won all the demands made by our campaign, the move to Kingston is a major achievement. We have found a way to keep all of our postgraduate programmes open, and to keep most of the CRMEP staff together in a single unit. We have preserved a place in London for the unique academic community that has built up around the Centre and its distinctive research interests, and this will continue to be a place where the criteria for entry and participation remain as open as possible. The campaign has directly refuted the line that Middlesex managers have repeated for many years now – a variation of the line that ‘there is no alternative’ but to follow the neoliberal way of the world, and to close down small academic departments in favour of large vocational ones. The campaign hasn’t merely proved that ‘another way is possible’: it has helped to indicate what needs to be done to make such a way a reality, and shown that there are universities in the UK and in Europe that are willing to embrace it.

We hope that the campaign will continue, evolving to become one of several contributions from a range of institutions across London and the region to a broader and deeper struggle in support of philosophy, the humanities and public education more generally. Some of the protestors who made the biggest impact in our campaign came from supportive universities such as Sussex, KCL, SOAS, Westminster and Goldsmiths. This emerging network of education activists isn’t going to disperse, and is likely to play an important role in the struggles that will soon affect the entire sector. Although the closure of Philosophy at Middlesex is yet another indication of the ongoing commercialisation of education in the UK, our campaign, along with other recent mobilisations at universities up and down the country, has helped change the balance of power across higher education. The campaign to save philosophy at Middlesex has already made a powerful intervention in the fight for public education in general and for endangered humanities programmes in particular. The future looks challenging but there is now much to build on, at Middlesex, at Kingston and across the UK.

Eric Alliez, Peter Hallward, Peter Osborne and Stella Sandford

*  *  *  *  *

The decision to leave Middlesex University was very difficult. Recently it became clear that some of the steps taken by Middlesex management to shut down Philosophy would be irreversible in the short term. Management have already written to all our current undergraduate applicants, informing them that our BA programme is closed. No new PhD applicants have been able to apply since early March. Belying some apparent suggestions of last-minute compromise from his deputies, on Friday 28 May Middlesex Vice-Chancellor Michael Driscoll reiterated his determination to end Philosophy recruitment and to phase out all Philosophy teaching. Management ignored a UCU motion calling for staff suspensions to be lifted by noon on Wednesday 2 June, and we know that effective UCU action to oppose the closure and suspensions will now take several months to prepare. The national political context is also significant. A first round of severe cuts to the Higher Education budget will be announced on 22 June, with more drastic measures to follow in the autumn. Given the financial pressures that will soon apply to every university in the country, if the door is shut at Middlesex then the time for a group move may be now or never. If programmes are to be validated and new students admitted in good time for the start of the new academic year in September then we need begin the transition immediately.

We are acutely aware of the fact that such a move is only an incomplete victory for the campaign. Despite relentless local and international pressure the central demand of the campaign, to save philosophy at Middlesex itself, has fallen on deaf ears. Vice-chancellor Michael Driscoll and those managers who support his vision of a university purged of critical thinking, research and humanities teaching have amply demonstrated their contempt for the passionately argued priorities of their own students, and for the academic judgement of many highly respected scholars in and around our field, in the UK and the world over.

Kingston University, meanwhile, doesn’t yet have an undergraduate programme in Philosophy, and in order to make this move possible it will have to provide a substantial sum of transitional funding, through to the end of the current research funding cycle (i.e. for a minimum of three years). Given these constraints, Kingston is only able to take four of the six members of staff in Philosophy at Middlesex. We very much regret that we haven’t managed to find a secure base for the CRMEP that includes all Middlesex Philosophy programmes and staff. We hope that Middlesex will now honour its commitment to teach out its under-graduate programmes and that it will retain our colleagues Christian Kerslake and Mark Kelly (if they so choose) to teach them. In the longer term, we hope that Middlesex will offer to retain Christian and Mark to teach philosophy courses for programmes in other areas. In addition to providing a place for current Middlesex undergraduates to pursue an eventual MA or PhD, we hope that Kingston will launch its own undergraduate provision in due course, enabling new appointments in Philosophy.

We know that in leaving Middlesex we are leaving many courageous and embattled colleagues who have supported the campaign and whose own programmes remain vulnerable. We know as well that several of the most urgent issues of the campaign remain unresolved: students and staff are still suspended, our undergraduate programme is slated for termination, the situation of our current undergraduate students is uncertain, the criteria for further ‘sustainability’ decisions remain unclear, and the future of humanities provision is as precarious as ever. Middlesex managers have not changed their position and the union remains in dispute over the staff suspensions and the way in which closure decisions are taken. The mobilisation of Middlesex staff in and beyond our UCU branch is proof of their readiness to fight not only for a radical transformation of these procedures but also for the general principles that have animated this campaign: the defence of universal access to education and the opportunity to pursue independent critical thinking; the defence of teaching and research in terms that challenge the prevailing divisive and hierarchical criteria used to assess ‘performance’ and ‘excellence’; the defence of academic freedom and the right to protest; the defence of collective action by students and staff alike.

We will continue to do everything we can to support our colleagues and our suspended students, and to resist any further intimidation of campaign activists. Christian Kerslake, Peter Osborne, and Peter Hallward have suspension hearings scheduled for this coming week, and we will fight not just to overturn these suspensions but to discourage any future use of such punitive and inappropriate sanctions in the face of peaceful protest and dissent. 

Today our campaign enters into a new phase. It has succeeded in showing that there is indeed an alternative to the narrow corporate priorities championed by Middlesex managers, and that in closing their Philosophy programmes and then persecuting their students and staff, Middlesex management have violated their own procedures, damaged the reputation of the University and lost the confidence of many students and members of academic staff. These students and members of staff will no longer tolerate management incompetence, bullying and unaccountability. Middlesex can no longer be managed in the same old way. As it changes to become part of the broader struggle for public education, our campaign will continue to emphasise collective action and direct confrontation with the forces that are driving the neoliberal assault on our education system.

One phase of this campaign is over; the struggle continues.
 

Dear Professor Driscoll

Thank you for sending us this update regarding the closure of Philosophy programmes and suspension of staff and students following the occupations that took place at Trent Park. As you are well aware, many of us in the University, and many more thousands of academics nationally and internationally, have been expressing concerns about the total lack of accountability and openness on the part of Senior Management and Executives, as well as concerns about the environment of fear and anxiety you have created amongst staff through your recent decisions and actions with regard to the Philosophy programmes and the campaign to Save Philosophy at Middlesex. Since the beginning of this dispute, you have not been able to promote “a working environment where employees can feel safe to raise concerns without fear of being seen as troublemakers and to encourage freedom of speech without workers being subject to any detriment, including victimisation and disciplinary action” (Human Resources Policy Statement HRPS21).

However, I wish to go beyond merely reminding you of your responsibilities here: This latest email you sent all University staff – together with the official University statement on the staff intranet – only adds to and intensifies the doubts we have regarding your accountability and openness as it involves various misleading statements, of which I shall address only one for the time being.

In your letter you state that “In accordance with the University’s Staff disciplinary Procedure, a suspension on full pay may be made where there are allegations of possible misconduct”. Again, according to the official University statement on the intranet “The suspensions are part of standard University policy to enable a thorough internal investigation into alleged misconduct to proceed unhindered”. This is simply not true.

In case you have failed to read the University’s Disciplinary Procedure document produced by Human Resources (October 2009), let me remind you what the standard procedure is:
“Accordingly, when an alleged conduct issue is identified, HR and Dean/Director are to be informed. This is part of the so-called Informal Procedure: During this stage, the staff member in question is to be given five working days notice of an interview with his/her Line Manager, together with a written indication of the complaint(s) to be discussed. In such an interview the member of staff shall have the opportunity to rebut the allegation. Following the written notification, the Line Manager meets with the employee to informally discuss the incident. Then the Line Manager decides if further investigation is required: at this point s/he decides whether the incident potentially constitutes gross misconduct. If s/he decides that the incident does not constitute gross misconduct, then the Line Manager gathers witness statements, submits investigation report and conclusion to Chair, who then decides if a disciplinary hearing is required.”

It is, therefore, NOT standard policy to suspend staff on allegations of misconduct without following the above-outlined procedure. Contrary to what you claim, nowhere in the Disciplinary Procedure document or the Academic Staff Handbook is it stated that staff can be suspended for alleged misconduct. By copying Teresa Kelly into this email, I request information regarding the date the required notifications mentioned above – which are part of the Informal Procedure – were sent to Professors Peter Osborne, Peter Hallward and Dr Christian Kerslake; and the date and time they have met with their Line Managers. I suspect these notifications were never sent, and the meetings have never taken place.

It therefore must be the case that the allegations made are of GROSS MISCONDUCT, since according to the Disciplinary Procedure document, “Suspensions may be used where the complaint is of serious or gross misconduct and/or urgent cause relating to the University’s aims and objectives which could potentially amount to gross misconduct” (DP 2009: 2). Furthermore, “where Gross Misconduct is alleged the nature of the misconduct shall be such as would normally justify dismissal. (ASH 1996: 39). In such cases, the so-called Formal Stages of the Disciplinary procedure are to be used, and “the decision to involve the formal stages of the procedure lies with the Senior Manager” (ASH 1996: 38). Note that the Formal Procedure involves 2 stages: during the initial stage the Senior Manager normally gives five days written notice to the member of staff of a formal interview to discuss a disciplinary matter. However, according to the Disciplinary Procedure document, “It may be appropriate to move straight to Stage 2 of the Formal Procedure for alleged gross or serious misconduct, provided that a thorough investigation precedes such a decision. It shall be the first duty of those using the procedure in this way to consider whether such use can be justified and to make a formal written report on this as well as on the substantive issue. (ASH 1996: 39)

Now I ask you: Since you have moved immediately to the second stage of the Formal Procedure after the occupations at Trent Park, did you prepare such a formal report justifying the decision to suspend staff, did you establish the validity of the claims, and if yes, when and by what means? Most importantly, did you talk to Professors Osborne and Hallward and Dr Kerslake as part of your evidence gathering stage? Once again, I request information about this report you should have prepared from Teresa Kelly.

Surely, you are aware of the fact that there is a categorical difference between misconduct and gross misconduct? If there were not, the University Disciplinary Procedure document produced by Human Resources in October 2009 would not have clearly differentiated misconduct and gross misconduct (p.9). Misconduct involves cases such as: breaches of the University’s Code of Conduct, failure to meet performance standards, poor timekeeping, poor attendance record etc., whereas gross misconduct involves the likes of theft, fraud, threatening physical violence, deliberate damage to University property, bullying or harassment of students or colleagues, being under the influence of alcohol, serious breaches of occupational health and safety procedures including endangering others in their work. Can you clarify what the nature of the gross misconduct allegations against the three suspended staff members is?

You are in effect claiming that you have judged, based on no proven evidence, that three very distinguished and respected members of our academic community constitute a risk to the University or to others if they remain at work while the investigation is carried out (DP 2009: 10).

To summarize:

If the allegations are of misconduct, by authorizing the suspension of the three staff members in Philosophy, you have seriously breached the Disciplinary Procedure Codes specified in detail by the University’s own documents.

If, on the other hand, the allegations are of gross misconduct, you have been deliberately and systematically spreading untrue, misleading information to all University staff as nowhere in any of your communications with us did you use the term “gross misconduct”. If gross misconduct “is the kind of act or behaviour that would undermine the trust and confidence which is the basis on which all of our contracts of employment are made” (DP, 2009:9), then you could be accused of allegations of Gross Misconduct yourself for either of these actions.

I invite you to rectify this situation immediately; otherwise, an official Public Interest Disclosure of your mismanagement will be in order.

Prof. Dr. Mine Dogantan Dack
Research Fellow, Music
Department of Performing Arts
School of Arts and Education

References:
DP – Disciplinary Procedure; Produced by Human Resources in October 2009
ASH – Academic Staff Handbook; Produced by Middlesex University in April 1996