Thanks to members of Southampton UCU who completed our recent workload survey. We summarised the responses and presented them at the Joint Negotiating Committee meeting on 11 November with university management. Management were very interested to see the results and have committed to work with UCU in early 2022 on this important issue.
If any members are interested in getting involved with a local working group on workloads, please get in touch with Amanda at the UCU office (ucu@soton.ac.uk).
Spiralling workloads have been an endemic problem in higher education for several years, made only worse by the pandemic. The average working week in higher education is now above 50 hours, with 29% of academics averaging more than 55 hours. In December 2020, 78% of UCU respondents reported an increased workload due to the pandemic.
At the University of Southampton the situation is particularly alarming. While some other universities were hiring more staff (although often on insecure contracts), the rule last year at UoS was to not replace staff who had left through the voluntary severance scheme. Members reported dealing with exceptionally high workloads, having to pick up the work left by those who left often in the middle of the year, without notice. Staff also bore the brunt of the overnight pivot to online working and the increased pressures and demands of virtual learning.
The workload survey conducted by your branch in June 2021 shows that only 3.3% found their workload fine, 24% manageable while 72.3% found it very high or unmanageable with many respondents noting that they had to work evenings and weekends, and some reporting up to 70-80 working hours a week. The feeling of being overwhelmed and anxious about workload was widely shared.
This unsustainable workload has consequences on the health and wellbeing of staff: many reported anxiety, depression, or panic attacks from working overtime. Some had to be signed off for several weeks for depression and anxiety. In our survey, 75% of respondents said overwork had impacted on their mental health, while around half developed neck and back pain and sight problems and a third repetitive strain injuries and weight gain.
Loss of sleep, migraines, overall fatigue were frequently cited as symptoms of this overwork. One respondent said they cried every day for at least a week.
Workloads affect our private lives and the quality of the work we deliver. Respondents noted that the work pressure made it difficult to ‘switch off’ and was detrimental to relations with friends, partner or children (68%). 84% of our respondents said they could not have weekends or evening completely off while 61% said they were not able to take all their annual leave. One colleague noted that they refrained from taking sick leave because they knew there was no process to cover their work and that the burden would fall on already overworked colleagues. The situation is even worse for staff on insecure contracts who don’t get paid annual leave or sick time.
Overwork also makes us less efficient and creative in our work. Over four fifths of our respondents said that overwork did not give them ‘thinking time’ to reflect on their practice, be creative, read or get proper training. Many note that they can’t keep up with the changes of procedures within the institution. For colleagues on balanced contracts, research is often the first thing that is sacrificed when workloads are too high, while for others it is professional development and long-term career planning that get dropped. They note that things are often rushed, that they feel disorganised and that it lowers their mood. Basically, staff feel that they are mostly fire-fighting and have no time to ‘reflect, discuss and share their experiences’. ‘Collegiality’, understood as mentoring colleagues or taking on additional activities to be a ‘good citizen’, is also not factored in workload models. It is still important for many colleagues as shown in our survey, but done as a voluntary activity on top of their other tasks.
Your branch will take the survey results to senior management at the next Joint Negotiation Committee in November. We want them to confront the reality of high workloads at Southampton and to commit to an open discussion of the different ideas brought up by survey respondents to tackle the issue: hire more people, in particular professional services staff who play a vital role in our academic community; have a more realistic assessment of our workloads and in particular of our administrative duties; create a staff-led forum to decrease the bureaucracy; a more transparent and fair distribution of teaching load which reflects the realities of staff-student ratio; have proper working contracts for PGRs; create the conditions for staff to take leave by provisioning for parental/sick leave replacements and having enough slack in the system to allow for annual leave.
What are we fighting for?
We are at a breaking point and we can’t go on like this any longer. Abstaining or voting no in the Four Fights Dispute is accepting the situation. So vote yes for strike action and action short of a strike in the Four Fights dispute. By using your vote, you also give your branch the power to fight for better conditions here at Southampton.
We want:
I reply to your email dated 30/09/21, sent to all members of the UEB. I reply on their behalf. Also thank you for sending me the notes of your EGM which took place on the 24th September. This was before our regular meeting on Tuesday 28th September which did provide an opportunity for you to raise these and any other points. I am disappointed that you chose not to discuss these in the forum set up for that very purpose. I also note that union H&S representatives have continued to meet with Cathy Day (Director Health, Safety & Risk), using that appropriately as an opportunity to raise and resolve such issues. Indeed Adam George Dunn (UCU Health & Safety representative) reported at the meeting on 28th September that he would not follow up the issue of ventilation at the meeting because he was having extensive and detailed discussions with Maurice Woodcock (Director of Estates Operations) that were making good progress.
In response to your 10 points:
The terms Clinically Vulnerable and Clinically Extremely Vulnerable were developed by the NHS during lockdown to help prioritise health services and to advise on shielding for those who had clinical conditions. Since all shielding and the lockdown have now ended, Government ‘Guidance for those who were previously considered clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID-19’ states ‘As a minimum, you should continue to follow the same guidance (provided to all) on staying safe and preventing the spread of COVID-19. You should consider advice from your health professional on whether additional precautions are right for you’.
The University is very mindful of its duty of care under Health & Safety legislation and as such has strongly encouraged the uptake of full vaccination and regular testing. We have developed guidance for vulnerable adults which enables employees to request a person specific risk assessment carried out in collaboration with their line manager. This assessment will help to identify and implement additional control measures, where relevant to the specific vulnerability, which enable the employee to fulfil their role and meet organisational needs.
Throughout the pandemic the University has followed Government guidance to make the workplace as safe as reasonably practicable. If employees have concerns about their workplace health and/or safety they should raise this in the first instance with their line manager who should work with them to identify their concerns and address them if they are able. Employees can consult with their union appointed staff representative in addition to reporting incidents and near misses via the Health & Safety Incident Reporting system.
3. Southampton UCU have not seen detailed data about ventilation in classrooms, despite numerous requests. Our H&S representatives need to urgently be supplied with quantitative data on each room cleared for teaching and shared occupancy.
As mentioned in my first paragraph I understand from our meeting on 28th September that Adam George Dunn as UCU rep is meeting with Maurice Woodcock to discuss this matter thoroughly.
4. If anyone feels that a room is not well-ventilated, they should be able to ask for it to be checked by Estates. UCU asks the university to provide portable CO2 monitors so colleagues can check rooms which may be unsafe and to regularly monitor ventilation in rooms.
Maurice Woodcock addressed this issue at the meeting on 28th September. The University is considering the potential contribution of CO2 monitors in teaching rooms. Government guidance on this, from the DfE does not encourage this for universities and I am not aware of guidance on how to interpret CO2 monitor data in respect of Covid transmission risk. We therefore continue to investigate the potential benefits of CO2 monitoring.
In July this year all legal restrictions were lifted included the use of social distancing and face coverings. The University continues however to strongly encourage and expects staff and students to use face coverings indoors when moving around and in crowded spaces. A crowded space is likely to include lecture theatres and seminars or any space where physical distancing affords a greater challenge.
The University continues to provide face coverings for those who may have lost or forgotten theirs. These are and will be available in teaching rooms. The Government has made it very clear that some people will be exempt and that proof of such exemption should not be requested.
Guidance on face coverings is available from the Health & Safety SharePoint site as it has been throughout the pandemic and there have been consistent and regularly repeated communications provided to all staff and students via Sussed and other communication channels.
From early 2020 the University has developed clear processes for line managers to report and manage local cases of COVID-19. We also have an Outbreak Control and Response Plan for dealing with multiple cases which has been endorsed by the Directors of Public Health from both Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council. The plan and process are focused on the prevention of infection spread. The need for self-isolation is no longer required for close contacts who are fully UK vaccinated (with the exception currently of students from overseas). If someone does need to isolate they should speak with their line manager so that alternative temporary measures can be take e.g. substitution.
Vaccination and testing is already strongly encouraged, nationally by Government, locally by the Directors of Public Health and within the workplace by the University, including a video campaign used on all our digital channels. Vaccination data is held by the NHS and as such is subject to legal confidentiality which means it’s not readily available to the University. A vaccination survey of students has recently been undertaken and anonymised results are available.
As mentioned at 5. above all legal restrictions were lifted in July, including social distancing. The University chose to take a more cautious approach initially in line with our local authority partners by gradually removing social distancing, signage and one-way systems. Our Principles document includes the following statement for the local management of shared spaces – ‘Try and aim for 2 metres space between each person if at all practicable’.
This issue is addressed in the email from the Vice President (Education) circulated on 23 September.
As stated at 2. above if a member of staff feels unsafe they should in the first instance inform their line manager. It is quite possible that some people will not be wearing face coverings either because of exemption or another reason, but this doesn’t automatically make a space intrinsically unsafe. All those attending should however be encouraged by the staff member, to wear a face-covering if at all possible. Room capacity identified for the purpose of fire safety and emergency evacuation should not be exceeded.
Room ventilation is extremely difficult to assess without full understanding of the ventilation type and how to measure it. The Estates team have checked CLS and teaching spaces to ensure they meet the standards recommended by CIBSE and the HSE. Any spaces which did not do so have been taken out of use. Rooms which only have natural ventilation should have opening windows that the attending staff member can check and open if not open already.
Richard Middleton
Chief Operating Officer
We have today (30/9) sent the below email to UEB, following overwhelming support of our motion discussed at the recent EGM. You can read the full motion at the bottom of the thread.
——————–
Dear UEB
On Friday 24th September, UCU organised an EGM to discuss the back to campus teaching plans. This was in response to a large number of concerns raised by our members about the COVID mitigations being proposed by the University. UCU drafted a motion in the meeting, which outlined the main areas of concern and set out some clear expectations from the University. This motion was then voted on via survey monkey. There was overwhelming support from members to accept the motion (77% for, 13% against, 10% abstain). The motion is attached.
We hope it is clear from this motion that large numbers of teaching staff are very uncomfortable with the University’s position on masks, physical distancing and ventilation. Induction events which have taken place this week have shown that there is not the level of compliance on mask wearing we would hope to see, and staff taking part in those events are reporting overcrowding in rooms which are ‘stuffy’. We are deeply concerned that the survey of all rooms to be used this semester has not yet been completed. Timetabling has been under enormous pressure and many staff have not yet received their correct timetable so they are unable to check their rooms for suitability. In the final days of preparation before teaching staff are coming to campus, all of this feels very chaotic and does not reflect the ‘careful planning’ which university communications state has been taking place over the summer.
As things stand, without the University addressing the concerns outlined in this motion, UCU cannot endorse the University’s plans. We request a response from UEB which can be shared with members at your earliest convenience.
——————-
SOUTHAMPTON UCU EGM – 24 SEPTEMBER 2021
MOTION – RETURNING TO CAMPUS
Southampton UCU notes:
Southampton UCU also notes:
However, this branch believes that the measures the University has put in place are not sufficient to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of all staff and students and the wider community.
This branch calls on the University to immediately agree to implement the following safeguards for the 2021-22 academic year, which have been formulated with reference to the Independent SAGE report and research published in the BMJ, and following numerous expressions of concern from members and reps:
This branch resolves to:
Proposer: Lucy Watson
Seconder: Claire Le Foll
For: 77%
Against: 13%
Abstain: 10%
SHESC on the 9th September was organised to decide the next steps in UCU’s campaigns on USS and the Four Fights. The SHESC was contentious from the outset given the strong views represented in the union about the best strategy for industrial action. Additionally, the decision of HEC to delay acting on motions at June’s HESC, including motion HE12 which had proposed a summer ballot over USS was perceived by some as having lost us time. Since the last HESC, UUK has submitted their proposals to the USS JNC, which have been accepted and will cut the retirement benefits of members in USS. UCU had not been able to submit counter proposals because UUK refused to offer the same covenant support as they would for their own.
Southampton UCU shared the motions with members prior to voting at conference and asked for feedback, and we also canvassed members through our survey conducted in May prior to HESC. We gathered important feedback on USS and the Four Fights, primarily focusing on whether members would support industrial action on pay, USS and/or Four Fights, the timing of any industrial action, whether IA should be aggregated or disaggregated, and whether Four Fights and USS should be fought for together or separately. The feedback we received from branch members was mixed but there was a steer for delegates to vote:
In the lead up to SHESC on September 9th, there was a lot of information being shared by pensions negotiators and experts, including Sam Marsh and Michael Otsuka. The following blogs were also made available and clearly illustrate the differences between the views of UCU’s members:
Our advice for HE Special Sector Conference 9th September | ucuagenda
If we don’t fight, we lose – UCU Left
At the conference itself, the discussion was detailed and informative despite the usual restrictions of the webinar format which has become the norm for large UCU meetings during the pandemic. Here are the motions which were debated:
Overall, delegates were convinced of the need to take action on USS sooner rather than later, although it was acknowledged that HEC would make the final decision. We believe that we need to ballot on USS now, notwithstanding all the difficulties that presents to branches in terms of launching a successful get the vote out campaign. We also voted against disaggregated strike action because we believe that may weaken our action. Branch delegates acknowledged that there were strong reasons to ballot for Four Fights, not least because another below inflation pay award has been imposed, but also to show solidarity with post-92s and to stand with precarious and junior colleagues. The arguments presented that Four Fights and USS are linked, that pensions are deferred pay, and that inequalities in pay continue through to retirement were compelling.
Nevertheless, the two disputes will be resolved via different negotiating groups and it would be difficult to communicate what would constitute a win on both. Additionally, while we were convinced that there are strategic reasons to ballot for industrial action over USS now, coordinating the two disputes forces Four Fights onto the same timescales as USS which could be counterproductive to building a sector wide strike mandate timed to have the most disruptive impact. In the end, our steer from branch members was that we should separate Four Fights and USS so delegates voted in line with this. However, on motion 10 ‘what a win looks like’ there were clear instructions for branches to continue to campaign in the issues of the Four Fights ‘with vigour, determination and all means possible, bar strike action for now’. Your delegates voted in favour of this motion. Equalities, anti-casualisation and workload are issues that we will (continue) to fight hard for locally and we need members to help shape specific, measurable aims for making improvements for all staff at Southampton.
One of the more controversial motions of the conference was B4, which committed UCU to ‘initiate exploration of the feasibility and promise of Conditional Benefits (or Conditional Indexation)’. While it was understood that investigating was never off the table, delegates voted in favour to show our willingness to explore all avenues available to protect pension benefits.
You can read the results of votes online here:
We have received a response from the University regarding the COVID bonus. UEB only responded to one of our concerns and it was to confirm that UniWorkforce staff did not receive the bonus which was awarded to frontline staff at the beginning of the pandemic either. This clearly underlines the fact that the University is operating a two-tier workforce, where some members of staff are treated less favourably than others. UCU will continue to challenge this system and work hard to address the inequalities that casualisation causes in our institution.
The branch has an insecure contracts organising group, which we would really like members to get involved with. We need as many people as possible to get behind our anti-casualisation campaign in order to successfully challenge this two-tiered system and win better employment terms and conditions for our insecure colleagues at Southampton. If you want to be part of the campaign for fairness and equality in our community, then please contact us on ucu@soton.ac.uk.
Date: 9/9/2021
Dear UCU,
Further to your email on 25 August following the University’s response to your concerns regarding the ‘Staff bonus payment’ and our subsequent discussion with local representatives and the Chief Operating Officer on 9 September, I can confirm that the University will not be reconsidering its decision on this matter and consider it concluded.
I can also confirm that nobody engaged via UniWorkforce was in receipt of the payment made to key frontline workers in June 2020. More details on the payment can be found here.
Best wishes,
Luke Kelly
Industrial Relations Business Partner
Southampton UCU Executive Committee has written to the VC and University Executive Board, urging them to reconsider their decision not to award the one-off COVID bonus to University of Southampton workers employed on casual contracts or whose fixed-term contracts ended before 13th July.
We are, of course, pleased to see that the hard work of colleagues has been recognised in this one-off bonus of up to £600. We know that it has been an exceptionally difficult year for many of our members, who have often gone above and beyond to carry out their duties in the face of huge uncertainty and upheaval. We are sincere in saying that the bonus is a significant gesture for a sector that is prone to recognising staff contribution in words rather than action. However, we are compelled to highlight a fundamental inequality in the bonus as structured — specifically, the decision to exclude casual colleagues from receipt of the payments.
Since the announcement, many of our hourly-paid members have contacted us to express their disappointment and anger about their exclusion from the bonus payment. They have pointed out that their work over this period is often indistinguishable from that of staff on more secure contracts. Additionally, like their permanent counterparts, they have stepped in to take on additional duties as part of the COVID-19 response. This is to say that they have taught, marked, enabled, supported and administered in the same way as their colleagues. In fact, they have seen their workload increase with the extension of teaching slots from 45 to 60 minutes, with no accompanying increase in pay. They have worked even when sick, because of the shameful policy that leaves Uniworkforce employees with no contractual sick-pay entitlement. They have also been unable to access many of the schemes of Government support made available to more formalised employees during lockdown.
The hard work of staff on casual contracts deserves no less recognition and reward than that of other staff. We appreciate that there may be added complexities in identifying and quantifying the work histories of casual workers — and we are happy to work with UEB to seek solutions to these.
Actions you can take
Those who share our sense that this situation is unjust are welcome to join us in the following actions:
What else is Southampton UCU doing?
As well as lobbying for a reversal of this decision not to include casual workers in the bonus, Southampton UCU remains committed to improving the long-term employment conditions for all our members, including those on casual contracts. Under the new definition of a casual worker being introduced by HR, we hope to see all colleagues engaged with Uniworkforce for more than 12 weeks move over to fixed-term contracts. We will push for equality of these contract terms with those currently offered to permanent staff members.
In line with the recently launched PGR manifesto, we will be campaigning for uniformity across the University of Southampton in the way PGRs are treated: concerning both research work, and paid teaching work. In addition, for those PGRs who teach, we are seeking to negotiate a Graduate Teaching Assistant Contract based on the principles of employment laid out in the recently launched UCU PGR manifesto and in the 2021/22 JNCHES pay claim, which includes the principle that PGRs who teach should be included in any reward or recognition schemes run by the employer.
We recently wrote to the Vice-Chancellor raising serious concerns about the discriminatory nature of some comments posted on the University’s Strategy Consultation padlet site. Please see below our email and the VC’s response.
From: ucu <ucu@soton.ac.uk>
Sent: 26 April 2021 12:47
To: Vice-Chancellor <vice-chancellor@soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Mark Spearing <S.M.Spearing@soton.ac.uk>; Camilla Gibson <C.R.L.Gibson@soton.ac.uk>; Lucy Watson <Lucy.Watson@soton.ac.uk>
Subject: UCU concerns on contributor content on Padlet for University Strategy
Dear Vice Chancellor
We are writing to you to express our dismay at some of the remarks we have read on the Padlet you authorised for the University community to share their views on the University of Southampton Strategy.
It is extremely disturbing to see a few people have chosen to use this platform to anonymously air aggressively racist and transphobic views under the guise of ‘free speech’. [We included screenshots from Padlet of these comments; the Padlet has now been removed.]
While we can see the benefit of using such platforms in educational settings to enable people to contribute to discussion, this Padlet is accessible on SUSSED and open to anyone to use or abuse as they see fit. We are concerned that allowing these posts to remain in the public domain risks serious reputational damage, particularly when staff across the University are working hard to make it an inclusive place to work and study.
These comments are directed at colleagues who work in gender and race studies and one of them is an attack on the student-led de-colonizing the curriculum plan. They are not relevant to the university strategy document, and they create a hostile environment for both staff and students. To allow these comments to remain unchallenged goes against the stated aims of the UoSRespect campaign and recent EDI initiatives which have been widely publicised.
We are concerned that the Senior Management Team thought it appropriate to use this platform for this type of consultation without considering the possibility of its misuse. As employers, you have a duty of care for your staff and students, and we question whether the impacts of this open unregulated Padlet have really been thought through. Freedom of expression must always be balanced with our Public Sector equality duty, which stresses the legal responsibility of HE providers to think about how they can promote equality and minimise tension and prejudice between different groups on campus. A number of these comments have made both staff and students feel vilified and marginalized.
It is our responsibility as the University’s UCU branch executive committee to actively and publicly oppose discrimination and discriminatory and offensive language wherever it is found. Therefore, we ask that managers reconsider their approach to creating an inclusive and appropriate space for this online consultation, including some system of moderation with a clearly defined set of rules about how moderation will work. This would rebuild trust in the process and reassure colleagues that the hostility expressed by these anonymous individuals will not be allowed to continue unchecked and should not, therefore, dissuade them from engaging as valued members of the University community.
We look forward to hearing back from you.
Southampton UCU Executive Committee
——————————
From: Vice-Chancellor <vice-chancellor@soton.ac.uk>
Sent: 28 April 2021 10:13
To: ucu <ucu@soton.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: UCU concerns on contributor content on Padlet for University Strategy
Dear UCU Colleagues,
Thank you for raising the issue around a small number of the posts to the recently launched Strategy Consultation on the Padlet site. Like you, I was disappointed to see that a small minority of anonymous posts did not really play to the values we aspire to of courtesy and respect. There will be members of our community who will hold some of the points that were criticised very dearly. Any member of our University community affected by this can access support via volunteer Harassment Contacts, our staff networks or their line manager.
These few posts really ran counter to the intent behind running the consultation an open, co-designed way as this was in direct response to the community’s feedback that they wanted a more active and inclusive role in shaping the strategy. It was recognised that adopting a co-design methodology is never without risk. This was not simply a decision of senior management as the approach was explored in detail with a range of academic colleagues who are experts in this area. One of the points made by our co-design expert colleagues was that such a community approach may surface some of the more challenging views that colleagues hold. The weight of community response then should cause people to reflect on others’ viewpoints. It was noticeable in the cases that you highlight that our community in their responses were self-moderating, resulting in criticism of the tone of some comments as well as a diversity of perspectives. In that context I would also note that the issues that you draw attention to include ones which are part of the current national discourse. Given the current focus on free speech a University should not censor challenging or uncomfortable debate, but encourage a civil exchange of views, indeed our regulatory responsibilities expect the promotion of free speech rather than its restriction.
Since the launch of the consultation less than a week ago our initial assumptions about the security of the Padlet have been tested in action. The issue of external security has also been raised by a few other people. We are not comfortable with the level of security that has been achieved; this has resulted in the Padlet being replaced yesterday with an online reporting form that accords colleagues a more rigorous level of protection as they post their responses.
We also heard from some colleagues whilst the Padlet was live that the small number of less than civil posts was deterring engagement. I hope that the swift action described above will encourage people to have their say. Responses are being sought from both individuals and teams/networks and mangers will reinforce the values of respect, courtesy and dignity when highlighting this opportunity.
It is important we have strong engagement and a civil exchange of views in arriving at our strategy.
With best regards,
Mark
We were asked to publish this guest post by a member of the University community. The views in the post are not necessarily those of the UCU Executive Committee, but we felt it raised many issues about which members are currently concerned.
Easter is the time of resurrection. To my friend, who doesn’t believe in that Biblical tale, the short break of a few days helped recall to the surface much thought he had suppressed over a period of three and a half decades.
The friend about whom I write teaches at a UK University, specialising in the subject of making inferences from large and complex datasets. His background of escaping from a racist environment is relevant to what follows. At the age of 20 one night, he stood at a police cordon crying, when the library in his town was torched by thugs under the supervision of government ministers. Then at the age of 22, during race riots, he gained his second lease of life by jumping from a second-floor balcony to escape machete-wielding militia.
For someone with that background, the protective bubble of research intense British universities is paradise. He is safe, pursuing curiosity-driven research and challenging junior members with open-ended coursework to show them there is joy in learning. Increasingly though, these are being threatened, with research quality measured by grant income and education packaged into learning outcomes.
Career-wise, it bothers him that he has reached the top and has to stop. If we view a university as consisting of a hierarchy of career jobs, positions of its upper strata of a senior chief, some deputy senior chiefs, other middle ranking chiefs and some deputy middle ranking chiefs are not accessible to my friend. Other observations have upset him, too. The classes he teaches are at best 15% female, homogeneous in ethnicity, and the purchasing power of his students is likely to be in the top fifth of the age group. Along those three orthogonal axes, his subject is far from being inclusive.
Of both the above – the glass ceiling and the non-inclusive enrolment — universities claim to be taking action: reports written, strategies drafted, charters signed, and awards distributed. Yet, over a thirty five-year period, nothing much has changed. Noise, however, gets amplified. For example, should the proportion of female students in a class increase from 14% to 15%, someone in the hierarchy would claim credit for strategic planning. The phrase “Eee-Dee-Eye” has entered all walks of life like the mantra one repeats during transcendental meditation: rhyming, repetitive and meaningless.
On observing these, my friend shrugs his shoulders, buries the irritations they evoke and carries on with his scholarship. It is easy for him. The knocks he receives from the glass ceiling don’t hurt, for he is endowed with a thick helmet. His knowledge of far worse. That of his library burning. That of jumping off a second-floor balcony to save his life.
What has changed this Easter, and why is there a re-surfacing of suppressed thoughts?
Context is important. About a year and a half ago, the Equalities Commission (EHRC) suggested UK universities are “institutionally racist”! In a follow-up report, Universities UK (UUK) agreed with that assessment. The timing of these coincided with Black Lives Matter protests. Health inequalities exposed by the pandemic added to the context. The Royal Society, too, chipped in with a report, observing significant differentials in attrition rates along ethnic lines, while failing to analyse why this is so. Then more recently, a UK government commissioned report on race suggested that such things won’t exist, if only one were to stop looking.
The response of universities to these events was predictable. They issued statements. My friend read about ten such and was amused by how correlated they were: (i) about taking it all seriously; (ii) about a lot of work having already been done; and (iii) about much work still remaining to be done. Perhaps the same management consultant was hired to write them. When EHRC and UUK described the universities as institutionally racist, not a single Vice Chancellor could respond by saying “No, my institution is not like that!” Even the future King did a better job when a member of the household was alleged to have expressed curiosity about the skin colour of Her Majesty’s then unborn great grandchild.
Where has my friend heard that shameful phrase “institutional racism” before? Twenty years ago, the Macpherson report on the Metropolitan Police’s botched up inquiry into the racist murder of a Black teenager used that description. Even if one could have some sympathy with the police accumulating statistical bias because, day in day out, they deal with crime, can my friend accept the environment he reveres so much, and where he has sought sanctuary, attracting such a description?
With these thoughts resurrected during the Easter break, my friend ponders: Why?
Mercifully, the ceiling above him is made of glass. He can see through it and look at the holders of high office. None of them could ever be described as racist. None of them would ever utter a racist word or even have racist thought. They value my friend as a person, as a colleague and as a scholar.
That poses a paradox. How is it that individuals who are not racist, collectively run organisations that is judged to be structurally so?
“When malice is not present,” I suggested, “incompetence is where the explanation lies.”
He dismissed me instantly on the grounds that any holders of high office are analytical problem solvers who know how to identify the root cause and solve it at source than fiddle with symptoms. Person specifications of senior jobs require those fine qualities. Having ruled out malice and incompetence, we are left with one last plausible explanation, the mistaken belief in meritocracy.
Senior managers of universities tend to believe that their positions were attained by fair and rigorous processes with merit as their determinant. This is perpetuated by a remuneration system that has expanded its scale in recent times. It is then easy to make the transition from a job interview position of “I am good, pay me a high salary” to a self-fulfilling position of “I am paid a high salary, so I must be good!” Such self-evaluation is a right, my friend concedes, but is that supported by available data, he questions.
This belief is so strong that we have seen several examples of unhealthy behaviour recently: a leader found guilty of bullying holds onto their job; another who erected fences around student halls of residence, attracting a vote of no confidence, also remains in post; another claimed that even though their salary is admittedly high, soccer players earned more; yet another reportedly filed a claim of two pounds for biscuits.
Power does corrupt, does it not?
Once the mindset of meritocracy gets entrenched, cloning becomes the driving force in making appointments. One would want to find someone “solid” to be their deputy or to carry their legacy. In that process of cloning, the use of recruitment consultants is a clever way the system keeps the “other” out. These talent-spotting agents are skilled at saying: “the job attracted a large number of highly qualified applicants” in so many eloquent ways. One could be sceptical of such claims when considering, across the sector, the statistics of international searches discovering that the favoured local candidate to be the best since sliced bread.
More broadly, illusory meritocracy also hurts at the level of enrolment, when entry grades we set are insensitive to wider educational inequalities at schools. To my friend, long-term payoff could only be maximised by encouraging applicants from under-represented communities into Foundation Year programmes and offer them the motivation and skills the schools were not resourced to impart.
With these thoughts resurrected, my friend had a terrible time this Easter weekend. His doctor has ordered doubling his daily dose of Amlodipine as a temporary solution to hypertension.
But he has a long term solution, too, when Semester starts and burying disturbing thought becomes easy: there are research questions to pursue; part of a new module to teach; a challenging assignment to set, and to show students that intellectual curiosity is fun.
A safe and enriching life indeed, beneath the glass ceiling.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Author’s Disclaimer:
Material in this piece is based on publicly available data and aims to address a generic structural issue of importance. Except in the few examples specifically linked, no part of this blog should be taken as referring to any specific institution or office holders in it.
The motion below was passed by a quorate General Meeting of Southampton UCU members, held on Wednesday 17th March 2021.
Motion: Branch support for funded extensions for postgraduate researchers
This branch notes that:
This branch believes that:
This branch resolves to:
Proposer: Bea Gardner. Seconder: Alex Nicol- Harper
Motion passed.