In defence of academic freedom

The 1988 Education Reform Act says this about academic freedom:

(2) In exercising those functions, the Commissioners shall have regard to the need— "(a) to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions;"(1)

I put forward controversial and unpopular opinions and lost my job. Surely as an academic, I was entitled to protection under this piece of statute law?  According to my skeleton arguments provided to the Employment Appeal Tribunal last week, the University's entire disciplinary process including the sanction imposed upon me (dismissal), as well as the conclusions drawn by the Employment Tribunal should have been framed by this piece of legislation. So important is it that the University have incorporated it into their Royal Charter at section 13.

A definition of academic freedom and why it exists

The level of protection afforded to academics is unique in employer-employee relations. By the way, this is not to suggest that academics are special. It's a by-product of the function universities play in society, at the forefront of cutting-edge research, analysis and as cauldrons of contentious, innovative ideas and theories. It's what drives society and technological advancement forward. The more conservative or traditionalist minded might argue that academic freedom should only offer protection to academics whilst acting and producing ideas and theories within their particular fields of knowledge. It's an interesting argument. It's also entirely mistaken.

Academic freedom as a human right - a European perspective

A recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights expands upon this:

"35. In this connection, the Court underlines the importance of academic freedom, which comprises the academics' freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work and freedom to distribute knowledge and truth without restriction (see paragraph 21 above)."(2)

I'll posit for the record the assertion that academic freedom in our public universities must be regarded as sacrosanct by academics, the trade unions who represent academics and lecturers, and wider society. It must be defended at all costs. Why? Well the ECHR elaborated on why academic freedom is vital for democratic societies:

"21. In its Recommendation 1762 (2006), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted the following declaration for the protection of academic freedom of expression:
“...
4. In accordance with the Magna Charta Universitatum, the Assembly reaffirms the right to academic freedom and university autonomy which comprises the following principles:

4.1. academic freedom in research and in training should guarantee freedom of expression and of action, freedom to disseminate information and freedom to conduct research and distribute knowledge and truth without restriction;...

4.3. history has proven that violations of academic freedom and university autonomy have always resulted in intellectual relapse, and consequently in social and economic stagnation;...”(3)

It's a debate that's raging in Canada. If as academics, we lose the right to speak out or publish freely on the way our universities are run or on important matters of public concern in our universities and other issues outside the rarefied atmosphere of academia, what might this mean for the rest of society? Societies would become stagnant. Industries moribund. If the freedom to question and speak out is lost in our universities, the corollary of this would be that our political systems would become even less accountable and increasingly opaque. Yet as we daily lose civil and political rights as the market takes over functions and services once provided by democratically elected councils and the state, the erosion and assaults on academic freedom becomes another battle line. It's intimately linked in the wider sense, to the marketisation of Higher Education and the student as a 'consumer' of knowledge and the walking piggy-bank to the HE sector. According to the mantra, managers should manage, academics should research and teach. Never the twain should meet.

July the 4th and the decision of the EAT

It's within this context that I wish to discuss the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal last Wednesday 4th July, to not permit me to raise the issue of important Article 10 convention rights to freedom of speech in particular, academic freedom of speech. It might be worth reiterating for the benefit of the judiciary and the professionals that labour within the legal system, that all law must be applied within the context of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human  Rights as established in 1950 by the then Council of Europe. Human Rights don't have to be raised, its a given that they exist.

The logic behind the EAT's refusal was that I had not fully pursued the matter of my human rights in the Employment Tribunal last year. Apparently if they are not pursued in the lower tribunal, they cannot be then raised in the higher tribunal. I find this odd given that I'd raised them in my appeal because of the the ET's reliance on their interpretation of 'academic freedom' which according to European law is considered central to Freedom of Speech. But don't take my word for it.

An Employment Tribunal's interpretation of 'academic freedom'

If one peruses the Employment Tribunal's judgement, one can read the Tribunal panel's interpretation of academic freedom:

"43. We think it is worth noting that freedom of expression is very important in universities but primarily applies to academic freedom to make whatever statements are justified in the academic’s view founded in their research, knowledge etc. It does not apply across the board to any issues arising with[sic] an academic institution."

"44. We appreciate the claimant's position that it was felt that there were elements of corruption involved but there were legitimate ways in which the claimant could have raised these issues and the fact that he did not attempt to do that, we think, was unfortunate and ill-judged. (4)

Firstly, before we sink our teeth into the meatus of the matter, it's worth reiterating that the ET raised the matter of academic freedom in their judgement. Therefore, the conclusions they drew in relation to their judgement concerning my authorship and the distribution of the Vice Consul's Newsletters, as well as the sanction imposed by the employer against me (dismissal) and whether this was fair or unfair, was informed by the ET's interpretation of 'academic freedom'.

Secondly, the ET's interpretation of Academic Freedom is simply wrong in law. According to the law, academic freedom does apply across the board to any issues arising within an academic institution. It's the '...without restriction...' bit in Sorguc v Turkey [2009].

Thirdly, according to the law, the Vice Consul's Newsletters were a perfectly "legitimate way" to raise such matters of corruption and corporate governance. It's the "...freedom to distribute knowledge and truth..." bit in Sorguc v Turkey [2009]. Academic freedom as laid out in the judgement of the ECHR, ensures that any mechanism by which one wishes as an academic to raise important matters, is legitimate. In arguing that they were not, the ET have erred in law and breached my Article 10 rights.

Lastly, the only limitation placed upon academics exercising their right to academic freedom of speech (which is a qualified right), is that they act within the law or that they do not violate the rights of others. Now this is the interesting part because the ET have accepted that I produced the Vice Consul's Newsletters in order to highlight issues pertaining to corruption and corporate governance. So it's implicit that there's a public interest issue at stake here. Moreover, the University never claimed that the Newsletters or the contents were 'illegal'. Indeed, the University have never denied any of the allegations contained within the Vice Consul's Newsletters. In fact their own external TCM Report concluded in 2010 demonstrated that managers had manipulated the appointments process in the Salford Business School. 

Taking on the establishment:
It's a shit job... but someone's
got to do it

The value of night-soil versus the value of 'truth'

Now that's a huge night-soil cart load of information to take in. But there's one further little silage-nugget that may give my former colleagues within the Salford branch of the UCU as well as non-union academic and teaching members of staff some cause for concern at Salford. You see according to the judgement of the Employment Tribunal, truth is no guarantee of protection under the aegis of academic freedom. It sounds a little perverse doesn't it? Again, consider the paragraph below of the ET's judgement:

"23.13 It has been suggested from time to time, including at the Tribunal, that the Respondent should have investigated the truth of the allegations before dismissing the claimant, however, the issue was clearly how the matter had been raised allowing the matters to willy nilly enter the public domain and the failure to follow legitimate pathways."

We've already dealt with the 'legitimate pathways' aspect above. It is however, an astonishing admission by the ET that the establishing of the truth (the truth of the allegations in the Vice Consul's Newsletters) by the University in their internal investigations, really should play no part in the University's internal disciplinary procedure on this matter.

An idealist doltmund?

Call a chap a bit of an idealist but surely any reasonable person would conclude that in order to prove that the contents of the Vice Consul's Newsletters were 'malicious' as alleged by the University, and demonstrate that they brought 'the University into disrepute' as alleged by the University, one would need to investigate the 'truthfulness' of the allegations, wouldn't one? If the University found upon completion of their investigation that the issues in the Newsletters were indeed true as I stated in the Employment Tribunal, then how could I bring the University into disrepute. It would already be there. It's quite logical really. It's a bit like blaming a newspaper reporter for bringing an MP and the government into disrepute because he happened to report that the aforesaid MP fiddled his expenses.

Wetting the bed

Look at it the other way round. If all a chap is doing is spreading untruths or truths for that matter, that are not rooted in matters pertaining to public interest or matters of public concern in a publicly funded institution, then 'malice' could easily be concluded and proved. Some elaboration might be necessary. There is no public interest in an academic at University of Fleeceham publishing a document that states that Manager A wets his/her bed, which may be the truth. There was a public interest in publishing a document that focused on bullying and the manipulation of the appointments process in the Salford Business School as highlighted in the Newsletters. Of some note, it was also highlighted in the University's own TCM report published in 2010 which looked into these matters within the Salford Business School. This is more pertinent when public monies are involved. Did the TCM Report bring the University into disrepute...? 

Doin' the right thang

So you see, it may be the case that senior managers and certain staff members were upset about the content of the Newsletters. That happens when a privileged and powerful minority are publicly held to account. The ET accepted that I was only interested in matters of corruption and corporate governance and my reason for producing the Vice Consul's Newsletters (see paras 23.2, 37 of the ET Judgement). According to Sorguc v Turkey [2009] I was perfectly within my rights to author and publish the Vice Consul's Newsletters. It places no restrictions upon how I or any other academic staff at Salford or in any other university in Europe choose to raise such issues.

Wrong in law

There is no court higher than the ECHR. Law established in Strasbourg trumps even the UK courts. 'It's unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right' according to section 6 (1) of the 1998 Human Rights Act. The University as a public authority, acted in a way that is incompatible with my article 10 rights. As an academic, I was entitled to the protection afforded to academics in the University's own Charter, the Education Reform Act 1988, and in European Law. Indeed, I should still be entitled to this basic human right. In upholding the University's decision to dismiss me as fair, the Employment Tribunal have compounded a breach of my Article 10 rights. This has been further compounded in that the ET clearly erred in law with regard to their narrow interpretation of 'academic freedom', one that bears little resemblance to that as established in law.

Perfunctory... a nice word

What's more, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dealt with this important breach of my human rights in a perfunctory manner in deciding to refuse me permission to discuss the breach of my Article 10 rights at the hearing. In doing so, the EAT has in my view committed a more serious breach of my Article 6 rights:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."(5)

In the context of employment law, human rights may be irksome. It might explain why in my opinion the EAT chose instead to bat this contentious issue into the long grass.

Twenty one days

The Tribunal also refused me permission to appeal which is standard. So now I have 21 days to lodge my appeal with the Court of Appeal in London. I find it odd that at a national level, my own union hasn't picked up the baton on this one. They've twice refused me funding for legal representation.** It's down to lil' 'ol' me, with only a single penny to rub against the trouser of a threadbare de-mob suit, who finds himself not only fighting for the rights of academics to enjoy academic freedom in the UK, but the fight to gain access to some notion of equality of arms and justice within the wider UK courts system.


Notes and references

*This does refer to the Salford Business School prior to the investigation conducted by TCM Group and not the Salford Business School of today.
** I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the Salford UCU branch including its President Chris Sheehy, the membership, the Committee and the branch officers for continuing to help support my fight for justice. The UCUS have been invaluable in providing some financial support by covering ancillary costs associated with my ET and EAT hearings. Without this support, I would have holed me below the hemline many years back. I hope the branch will continue to support me in this battle to protect and and reaffirm 'Academic Freedom' as laid out by the ECHR.
(1) Education Reform Act 1988, section 202, (2) (a) 'Academic Tenure' sourced athttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/section/202

(2) Sorguc v Turkey 17089/03 [2009] ECHR 979, paragraph 35
(3) Sorguc v Turkey, para 21
(4) Reserved Judgement Dr Gary Paul Duke v University of Salford, Manchester Employment Tribunals, 16th November 2011, paragraph 43.
(5) Schedule I, Human Rights Act 1998, sourced athttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here or by emailing garypaulduke@gmail.com

A Libel Claim

The McLalford One

By now purveyors of this website will be aware that I am being sued for libel by the University of Salford. Yes it's now official! The claim was served upon me on day one of my recent (adjourned until August) Employment Tribunal. It was a nice touch if a little predictable. It's a very interesting case that The Claimant makes all of which we shall be exploring in greater of detail over the coming weeks and months. That is, as long as I can fend off an injunction restraining my good self and my 'servants or agents from publishing or causing to be published the same or similar words defamatory of the claimant.'(1) This I see as a gross calumny as being unemployed, I simply cannot afford any servants or chauffeurs and I'm not yet the Director General of MI5 as I've only just sent off my completed application. It never occurred to me that when first applying the quill of scrutiny to the yellowed parchment of accountability (the first January Vice Consul's Newsletter) that many years down the line, I would be vested with the unenviable role of defender of freedom of speech (FoS) and upholder of the right to criticise (RtC) without fear of penury at the University of Salford. But there we go. 

Now before I heave-to, I'd just like to state for the record that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Professor Hall and his immediate corporate subordinate Dr Graves are diligent and judicious officers of the University. Taking this nautical theme a stage further, few would disagree that steering such a great ship is vested with a great deal of authority and calls for decisive leadership skills. However, when it comes to matters of law it also calls for a deal of precision particularly when one sets in motion the formidable behemoth known as English Libel Law. One mentions this because one or two anomalies have emerged in the fabric of space-time situated directly over very specific geographical coordinates within the 'Particulars of Claim' sent to me by the University's lawyers. Being a generous chap, I thought I'd take the opportunity to share them with readers.

One is partial for certain particularities within the Particulars of Claim

One of the grounds for suing me for defamation is that I am alleged to have suggested through the use of words organised in a satirical fashion on a Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog "[t]hat Dr Graves and Professor Hall and therefore the claimant [the University] have acted wrongfully and unlawfully and in a secretive manner by keeping from the students and the general public matters which both the students and the general public are entitled to know."(2) The allegation is also made that through rearranging more words into critical satire with a hint of lampoonery and other writings on the Rat Catchers blog, I have stated that "the claimant's senior members of staff and therefore the claimant itself has deliberately flouted and ignored the law and its legal obligations and in so acting considers itself to be above the law and acts in a way that is above the law."(3) Pretty straight forward on the face of it.

One might also say with a degree of certainty that Professor Hall must have read through the 'Particulars of Claim'. I say this with some puissance because it appears to have his signature on it (see below). Now I'm generally regarded to be about as quick on the uptake as a tectonic plate in full reverse, but as I read and absorbed the detail of the claim something occurred to me that readers might be able to help explain. 

One signature from a Vice Chancellor and the facts stated are in his belief true

Dates are not the only fruit

On the 17th November 2010 I made a Subject Access Request to Mr Matthew Stephenson of UoS. Under an SAR, the University by law (Data Protection Act 1998), must provide all information and data that it holds on the requester. My letter went something like this...

Dear Matthew

Further to my email to you dated November 9th 2010, I enclose a cheque in the sum of £10 made payable to University of Salford in lieu of payment for a Subject Access Request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. I would like you to supply me with all data held on me by the University between the period 1st November 2009 to the 17th November 2010.

I can appreciate the immense pressure that you must be under in your role as Head of Information Governance, and the volume of work that must pass through your office daily. With this in mind I have included below a list of the individuals/employees and former employees who may hold, or have held information pertaining to me or who have been involved in any University business pertaining to me. This list may not include all individuals/employees of the University that hold information on me. I would of course expect you to supply any information to me from individuals who are not included on this list.

I will not accept the claim that any correspondence that has been courtesy copied (Cc’d) to University solicitors or legal representatives is legally privileged and will expect any such information to be supplied to me under the terms of the DPA 1998.

Given the past reticence of University employees to supply all information held on me, as well as those who have lied claiming they hold no information, or indeed who have withheld information, only supplying such information when I have raised the issue with you - I refer specifically to my email to you dated 11th February 2010 - any dissembling such as this, or indeed any attempts to circumvent the legal obligations of the University under the DPA 1998, shall immediately be brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner. I also reserve the right to bring matters such as these to the attention of the Employment Tribunal panel, and to the attention of the Court in any future libel proceedings the University wishes to pursue against me.

Kind regards

Gary Duke

And the list went something like this...

Martin Hall
Adrian Graves
Keith Watkinson
Scott Mullholland
Mark Rollinson
Paul Jenks
Prof John Wilson
Ms Xiang Li
Prof Cynthia Pine
Alison Purnell
Ian Austin
Prof Michael Harloe
Matthew Stephenson
Phillip Hopwood
Simon Atwell
Linda Puttick
Heather Mortimer
Richard Morford
Paul Rowlett
Chris Wells
Alan Mawson
Tony Britten
Martin Bull
Prof Chris Andrews
Christine Sheehy
Phillippa Whitakker
Liz Bromley
Ms Lynsey Harris (any correspondence that is not privileged)
Phillip Benton
Edward Rowan (acting for the University in matters relating to Dr Duke)
Jamie Brown
Matthew Webber
Ricky Chotai
Paul Farrall
Jan McKenzie
Any correspondence between the University and the police concerning Dr Duke
All information held by University security or any third party security employed by the University
Any correspondence held by the University between itself and the UCU regional officials or now or past serving UCU branch officials concerning Dr Duke
Any correspondence between the University and any UCU reps and the University concerning Dr Duke

An authoritative letter received

After much to-ing and fro-ing, the sending of large numbers of documents to me (including many copies and some documents that had large parts and names redacted) delays, not sending documents I knew to exist, and vigorous letters to University lawyers, as if to draw a line under my request Martin Hall wrote to me on the 23rd February 2011. It was a nice gesture.

Another signature from a Vice Chancellor

Having received the Vice Chancellor's personal assurance that I had "all" the information I was entitled to, and there was nothing else to send to me, I girded my loins, grabbed the nearest jawbone of an ass and braced myself for the forthcoming battle in the Employment Tribunal. This I did in the knowledge that any documentary evidence held by the University that I might need to rely on in evidence, was safely in my own hands. However, it was with great alarm that the doorbell rang on Monday afternoon. This was odd as I don't have a doorbell. On the other side of the door was a postal worker who handed me a rather large bundle of documents and then walked off barely suppressing her imprudent laughter. This formidable bundle was from the Information Commissioner and supplied to me courtesy of a Subject Access Request made by me to the ICO around the beginning of February 2011. 

Should the owner of this finger plan an extension for all the extra documents?

The bundle contained lots of emails and documents but also included this...

...which is the top part of this and was signed by...

A quick refresher

There were a few documents in this bundle that I'd not seen before. They were from the UoS to the Information Commissioner and they concerned me. They'd have to as it's highly unlikely that the ICO of all people would supply me with documents about someone else. Before we journey any further it might be prudent to take a moment to refresh our collective RAM - part of the claim against me for defamation is that in their words, I am alleged to have suggested on a Rat Catchers blog "[t]hat Dr Graves and Professor Hall and therefore the claimant [the University] have acted wrongfully and unlawfully and in a secretive manner by keeping from the students and the general public matters which both the students and the general public are entitled to know."

Ever so slightly contradictory

This led to a question or two springing forth in the dysfunctional cerebrality of a serial Morrisons shopper like some irked Greek goddess of wisdom who's having to resit her GCSE in maths. Questions such as was Prof Hall aware before he affix't his signature to the 'Particulars of Claim' that his second-in-command had written letters to the ICO? Did he know that the ICO had taken the unusual step of having a face-to-face meeting with Matthew Stephenson and Alison Purnell which is recorded in emails between the ICO and the University? Did he know that the University's lawyers Pinsent and Masons had also written to the ICO on the 1st February 2011 explaining why the UoS had refused more FOIs on the grounds of vexatiousness prior to the ICO making his decision regarding my complaint against the University? He was clearly aware of the decision of the ICO as he'd received a letter dated the 7th February 2011 announcing the ICO's decision. It was all in the bundle and more.

Now I might be missing something here. Martin Hall is an honourable man and a man of integrity. As such he would never put his signature to a document called the 'Particulars of Claim' that was false or untrue? Clearly, if the University illegally withheld information that it was legally obliged to provide me with, then the suggestion that the University have acted wrongfully in keeping secret information that students and the general public are entitled to know would be proven. Of course this is all argumentative... little more than the highly abstract theoretical musings that are characteristic of an over-excited dialectical historian with pretensions towards heinous logorreah (look it up). But unraveling the ethical machinations within the higher echelons of University administration is almost a physical impossibility for someone who finds it challenging simply putting his trousers on in the morning. It may be the case that the Vice Chancellor did not know any of the above. If he did know then he is open to accusation of lying. If he did not know then the question arises as to why did his subordinates not give him the information?

Far from being 'a berk' Dr Duke is taking necessary preemptive precautions in the
event that Hall and Graves are successful in silencing his laptop...

An interesting question arises or does it?

Now a few more interesting questions have crossed a gin-soaked mind. Was Hall deliberately misled by his subordinates or was it incompetence? If the former then surely it amounts to gross misconduct? If the latter then whose incompetence? There is of course the possibility suggested by Hall that he considered that he did not have to provide any further information. If this was his opinion it would be interesting to know who provided this advice to him? This latter suggestion that Hall considered he did not have to provide any more information is somewhat undermined by the speed with which the ICO provided this information. Moreover, the ICO's response and the provision of specific documents gives lie to the idea that the University did not have to provide the information. The ICO's response shows that Hall's personal assurance, that I had been provided with "all" the information I was entitled to, was worthless. When the leader of an august institution such as the University of Salford writes, one can usually rely on its accuracy and veracity. After this incident can anyone place the same degree of reliance on what the University says? There may be a perfectly acceptable reason for all this, yet given the University's reluctance to share even material it's supposed to share with the great British public, please don't hold your breath waiting! I don't want to be on the end of a medical malpractice suit as well.

Dear Dr Duke... Dear Mr Stephenson...

Even now, despite the ocular evidence, the University denies it has any other information that according to Data Protection legislation it has to supply me with. Embarrassingly for the University, and, as if on the whimsy of a Paul Daniels or some other esteemed purveyor of magical entertainment like the long-deceased David Nixon, an email from Mr Stephenson arrived yesterday in response to an earlier letter from my good self to him dated 23 February 2011. It said:

Dear Dr Duke,

Your letter has been considered. The University’s view is that you have received all information to which you are entitled under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Stephenson

Maybe I should write back along the lines of "Dear Mr Stephenson. I did receive quite a bit of information to which I am entitled. The problem is that I did not receive all the information I was entitled to from you!

Yours faithfully

Dr Gary P Duke"

I think I'll not bother and save this one for the High Court.

(1) Page 11, Particulars of Claim signed by Martin Hall 28th February 2011
(2) Page 8, Particulars of Claim signed by Martin Hall 28th February 2011.
(3) Page 5, Particulars of Claim signed by Martin Hall 28th February 2011.

Dr Graves on Hezbollah

Members of the public and the Court heard on the 21st December 2010 that Dr Graves the University of Salford Deputy Vice Chancellor and Mr Ian Austin the lawyer who sits on the University Council as Chair of Audit have both given witness statements to the Court stating Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. These statements will cause offence to many students and staff at the University. So why have they made such statements and are they true?(1)

Hezbollah are a "terrorist organisation" according to
Deputy Vice Chancellor Dr Adrian Graves*

More considered views of Hezbollah

According to the website of the Council on Foreign Relations based in New York, the organisation Hezbollah 'is a Shiite Muslim political group with a militant wing...' It doesn't give much away but it's a start.

Hezbollah has borne huge social responsibilities since its inception in the early 1980s (Lebanon was occupied by Israeli forces for 18 years from 1982-2000) and in particular after Israel's murderous attack on the Southern Lebanese population in 2006. Hezbollah grass roots activists have sought to provide the bombed out civilian population with food and medicine. According to Gulf News  "[a]way from the war front, Hezbollah runs a sophisticated network of schools, clinics and social services in the Shiite community."(2) A report carried out by the UN in 2006 stated that Hezbollah " boasts an extensive social development program. Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members."(3) Does this sound like a dyed in the wool terrorist organisation? Or does it reflect a humanitarian social organisation supported by the people it serves?

According to the UK government and the EU

In 2009, the British government recognised the political wing of Hezbollah and according to Rita Daou of AFP, Hezbollah has not been blacklisted by the European Union as a terrorist organisation. So why on earth do Graves and Austin feel compelled to state that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation?

Hungary 1956: a terrorist?

Smoke and mirrors

Graves’ statement equating Hezbollah to a terrorist organisation, is designed to distract from the focus of a Rat Catchers article(4) which compares and contrasts the democratic structures of Hezbollah with those of the University. If the University considers that Hezbollah is neither democratic nor participates in the Lebanese democratic process then the University is badly informed. Similarly if the University think that only western countries can practise democracy then as a form of Orientalism, this will be deeply insulting to students not only from Middle Eastern states but from all non-western democracies. More seriously, it was made clear to the court on the 21st December by this writer's representative that many students might consider Graves' statement on Hezbollah  "to have racist undertones." It will be especially noxious to those who support the humanitarian efforts of Hezbollah. But Graves does not pick up the challenge to the democratic structures at the University of Salford. Instead he makes accusations of terrorism. Why?

The politics of the playground?

Well, it’s easier to refute being called a terrorist than it is to enter a debate about democracy and your part in the leadership of a University slipping down the academic rankings. Let us be clear, no one is accusing the University of Salford of being in any way a terrorist organisation or acting like one. It is Austin and Graves who make this absurd surreal comparison because from the depths of their own instincts they realise that they cannot refute critical comparison of democracy within UoS Strategic Leadership Team to Hezbollah. So they lash out with tabloid stereotypes in order to brand their critics. It is an old trick; label your critics as extremists and you can avoid debating your own policies. Such tricks are essentially anti democratic in that they swap analysis for hyperbolic name calling. It is the politics of the playground. Is this the level to which the University have sunk?

Photographs of Lebanese among bombed houses in Srifa, Lebanon, Aug. 2006**

Why considered analysis matters

This is not place to discuss the intricacies of strategic opposition to Israeli aggression in the Occupied Territories or the ongoing humanitarian disaster that is Gaza today. However, any analysis of Middle Eastern politics or of the development and consolidation of organisations such as Hezbollah must be carefully considered, nuanced and consider a variety of factors including those that are political, economic, social and historical. Yet it is clear that Dr Graves chooses to eschew this type of considered material analysis of Hezbollah. What is clear is that the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Lebanese would be unbearable without the intervention of this popular grass roots social movement.

University of Salford - a place where diversity, dissent and free speech must be valued

Students come to the University of Salford from many countries, cultures and backgrounds. This mix of differences fuels democratic debate not just about world affairs but also about how the University conducts itself. It’s good, indeed vital that so many opinions can be freely debated in open democratic forums within the Students' Union, the trade unions, in lecture theatres, seminars and other places. The statements by Austin and Graves are based on ignorance of Hezbollah and will do little to encourage the furtherance of free speech and democratic debate at the University.

If Graves and Austin cannot see they have made an error of judgement in this case then what hope is there for critical debate at the University of Salford?

(1) Taken from notes made during the Court hearing 21st December 2010 at Manchester District Registry and quoted by District Judge Smith from the witness statement of Dr Adrian Graves, Deputy Vice Chancellor University of Salford in the case of University of Salford v Dr Gary Duke

(2) 'Hezbollah's welfare services ensure grass-roots support', August 12 2006, sourced at http://gulfnews.com/news/region/lebanon/hezbollah-s-welfare-services-ensure-grass-roots-support-1.249555

(3)UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (March 29, 2006). "LEBANON: The many hands and faces of Hezbollah" sourced at http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26242

(4) "This latest development would seem to confirm a sneaking suspicion that we rats have had for a while now; that Salford University operates as a state within a state, subject to its own laws, whilst administering its own rule through the most draconian measures...." "...However, this view is far from universal, as some staff over a cup of piping hot coffee in Maxwell Cafeteria, have likened the current rule of the Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) to the Majlis al-Shura of Hezbollah (the Majlis al-Shura is a sort of Consultative Assembly), whereas other more cynical types suggest it is more reflective of the Majlis al-Shura al-Karar, which might be likened to a Deciding Assembly. It is clear however, that using extreme powers of analysis in contrasting and comparing, the much vilified Hezbollah might appear to be more democratic, accountable and transparent than the current ruling regime at Salford...." taken from an excerpt of the Rat Catchers blog contained within the witness statement of A Graves and quoted by District Judge Smith to the Court on 21 December 2010 (public domain).

"By their natural and ordinary meaning and/or by way of innuendo the words complained of are meant to mean that the Strategic Leadership Team, led by Professor Hall and of which I am a member, fail to act according to the rules and regulations of the University and in a manner that can be considered as worse than a terrorist organisation. This is completely untrue. The executive team of the University is subject to the rules and regulations of the University and acts in accordance thereto. The University is also run in accordance with highest standards of corporate governance. The executive team is accountable to the University Council and does not act outside its remit or the rules and regulations of the University." section of witness statement provided by Dr A Graves in the case of University of Salford v Mr Gary Duke, this section read aloud to the Court by District Judge Smith 21 December 2010 (Public domain).

*Picture courtesy of University of Salford 
** Picture courtesy of Lefteris Pitarakis at http://www.lightstalkers.org/images/show/320125

Mark well these words

"...we particularly value academic freedom and freedom of expression within a framework of respect and tolerance for the views of others."

"Our decision to focus on Human Rights and Social Justice – one of our chosen themes - serves both as a direction for teaching and research, but also as a means of framing all that we do." (1)

The Installation speech of one Professor Martin Hall, Vice Chancellor of the University of Salford, delivered before a distinguished audience in 2009

Mark well these words

A hearing into things deemed libellous by....

The University of Salford

versus

Dr Gary Paul Duke

Monday 22nd day of November commencing at the hour of two o'clock


Sitting before District Judge Smith

In the County Court of Manchester,

The Civil Justice Centre,

1 Bridge Street West

(1) Hall M, Vice-Chancellor, University of Salford, Installation Address, Monday 12 October 2009, sourced at http://www.corporate.salford.ac.uk/leadership-management/martin-hall/wp-content/uploads/installationv2.pdf