The Dilemma of a former day Obi Wan Kenobi

Well I've spent a good couple of hour googling and I simply can't find it anywhere. I've typed in 'University of Salford' and the word 'Xenophobia'... nothing. Putting together the words 'sexual', 'attack' and University of Salford brought no luck either. I even waded through the ratcatchersofthesewers postings courtesy of the University's lawyers Heatons and interpret as I may, I could find no posting that could be remotely described as 'Xenophobic' or an 'attack' of a 'sexual' nature in any shape or form whatsoever. I have therefore come to one simple and inexorable conclusion - they don't exist. I would add that I'm happy to be proved wrong. If Professor Hall would like to send me the hyperlinks demonstrating clear examples of the "postings" that "are peppered with defamatory attacks on individuals which may be xenophobic , sexual or just downright nasty" I shall feature them so we can all judge for ourselves. I can't say fairer than that can I?

A Literary Device or merely pandering to the lazer lobby?

Yet despite the lack of real detail (ie. the names of the "disaffected individuals with personal grievances") his recent posting regarding "cyber-bullying" seems to have sparked some debate which we'd like to continue. Although a little sensationalist in its overall tone, and putting to one side the rather unsophisticated references to Star Wars or half a Pink Floyd album, it is clear that he's a little worked up over something. At this juncture, this writer would hazard extreme caution as we must be careful of seeing a potential cyber-bully around every corner. Along this road lies the very real possibility of imbuing within the wider public a collective neurosis that may ultimately only be satisfied by the arming of each citizen with a toy light sabre.

Now any form of bullying is wrong. However, shouldn't we adopt a more cautious approach to phraseology as I'm of the opinion that the use of terms such as 'cyber-harassment', 'cyber-bullies' and the 'dark side' are little more than literary mechanisms, and in this context are heavily value-laden. Hall's postings on these matters undoubtedly contain more than a hint of a good old fashioned moral panic. Moreover, it would be silly to state that by using the internet as a medium to elevate issues that question institutional practices (in a public body), corporate policies (in a public body), delve into issues concerning appointments (in a public body), adherence to statutory obligations as well as looking into issues concerning bullying and harassment (in a public body), should itself equate to bullying or harassment or indeed to "criminal harassment". The problem that I have with the thrust of this posting on his blog is that I've been here before.

Myths, misinformation and "toxic shards"

I note from the Vice Chancellor's posting that he argues that "...accepted rights of freedom of speech come with the duty to behave responsibly. This is in our own University Charter. Acting irresponsibility – through defamation or deliberate misinformation – qualifies the right to freedom of expression. This is recognised in law through, for example, legislation against hate speech."

During my suspension in 2009, the Vice Chancellor Michael Harloe and the University thought it wise to release internal and external press releases that I had produced a series of 'posters' that 'viciously' attacked a female student. They also thought it pertinent to mention the fact that she was from 'an ethnic minority'. At the time it was not clear why the UoS would seek to raise the issue of this student/member of staff's ethnicity with regard to the newsletters. Anyone who had read the satirical Vice Consul's Newsletters (apparently many of you did) would be very hard-pressed to detect a neutron of racism within them. Neither did they mention Ms Li's ethnicity. Oddly enough, I didn't consider myself a racist. I still don't. I opposed the BNP's Tony Wentworth when he studied and tried to recruit students at UoS. I cut my teeth in anti fascist work in Oldham and Burnley at the height of the riots, trudging streets leafleting every weekend. I even lectured at UoS to politics masters students on anti-fascism and the growth of the Far Right in the UK. I was (am) an active member of Unite Against Fascism and coincidentally, I'd spent the two weekends prior to my suspension leafleting against the BNP in an area adjacent to the University of Salford where they were standing in the local elections.

A particularly nasty shard

Anger from below and the "moderation" of a Registrar

Rather ironically I taught solely international students. On hearing of my suspension, on their own initiative, the students drew up a petition in my support comprehensively rejecting the insinuation that I was racist. This was handed to the Head of the School of Languages one Dr Paul Rowlett. The University clearly had to respond to the anger of these students who believed I was being portrayed by the University as attacking a female student (no mention was made that this female student was also a member of staff) on the basis of her ethnicity. A statement was put together by management (see below).(1) However prior to this statement being sent to students, it was altered to include a further section that appeared to heavily underscore the issue of the woman's ethnicity (see below).(2)

Before I go any further I wish to avoid any accusation from Professor Hall of producing a "toxic shard" or of abusing individuals within the University. I shall deal therefore with specific evidence supplied to me by the University.

Things became a great deal clearer several months later after I'd received a large box of documents under a SAR*. Buried within the vast amount of documentation was an email. It was from the Registrar Dr Adrian Graves addressed to Executive Director of HR Keith Watkinson, the then Dean of Faculty (now Pro-Vice Chancellor) Brian Longhurst and my own Head of School Dr Paul Rowlett. It was sent with regard to the amending of a statement that was to be sent to the students I taught, many of whom had organised the petition. In his email of 21st May 2009, Dr Graves stated:

"This is and [sic] orchestrated event and the soto voce way forward you have adopted is appropriate. I was tempted to suggest as part of your briefing you might slip in the fact that the allegations include the harassment of a female student of Chinese ethnic origin - but I guess that would be departing from the moderation you are proposing..."(3) 

The amended statement was emailed to my students within the International Foundation Year.

The result of this particular "toxic shard"

I assert that the coupling of the issue of the woman's ethnicity to the Vice Consul's Newletters by the University had very real consequences particularly the press releases sent by the University to the press. I was on one occasion subjected to abuse in the street in Manchester being referred to by one chap as a racist as I exited a restaurant with my partner and a friend. Although upsetting, I'm reasonably thick-skinned and I can quite take care of myself. What I found more upsetting was that my youngest son was also subjected to abuse and threats from a group of young people who knew both of us, threatening to come to our home and in their terms, 'kick the shit' out of me. Never one to back away from threats of violence or intimidation, I told him to mention to them that I would at their convenience, be happy to welcome any representations from their feet in order to put matters straight one way or another.

Your views count 

Clearly, Vice Chancellor Hall has strong views on the issue of misinformation, "toxic shards" and the role information technology plays in their dissemination. I have two questions for him:

• Can he explain why the Deputy Vice Chancellor and Registrar Dr Graves would so casually seek to introduce an issue of a student's/member of staff's ethnicity where none existed?
• Does he feel that this is the best use of the University's IT systems by senior managers?

If Vice Chancellor Hall would like to exercise his right to freedom of speech, I'm delighted to provide a forum on this website so that he may take the opportunity to comment on the above issues. Alternatively, he can contact me directly at garypaulduke@gmail.com

* Subject Access Request under provisions of the Data Protection Act made November 2009

(1) "Dear IFY student. You may be aware that Mr Gary Duke has been suspended from his post at the University. A number of you have in fact signed a petition in support of Gary, which I have forwarded to relevant senior managers within the University. I am sure that you will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the details of Gary's suspension; however, I can assure you that the University is dealing with the situation in an appropriate way through legal processes to ensure that Gary's rights are protected appropriately..." sent to A Barakat and D Lloyd 21 May 2009 timed 19:54 subject 'Email message for IFY students following the sociology and international studies modules'

(2) ""Dear IFY student. You may be aware that Mr Gary Duke has been suspended from his post at the University. A number of you have in fact signed a petition in support of Gary, which I have forwarded to relevant senior managers within the University. The situation is that there has recently been a series of posters appearing in the Salford Business School, but also elsewhere across the campus, that viciously attack a female student of an ethnic minority and a head of school. The content of these posters is sexist, deeply offensive and defamatory. Mr Duke has been suspended owing to allegations that he is responsible for the production and dissemination of these posters. I am sure that you will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the details of Gary's suspension; however, I can assure you that the University is dealing with the situation in an appopriate way through legal processes to ensure that Gary's rights are protected appropriately..." sent via University email system to IFY students 22nd May 2009

(3) Portion of an email from Dr A Graves to K Watkinson, B Longhurst, P Rowlett, 21 May 2009 timed 17:47

A donkey, a pin and a tale...

Well folks, my inbox overfloweth to some fine tune.

Instead of dealing with the usual torrent of queries, quips quibbles and quandaries, yesterday I abandoned electronica choosing instead to immerse my diminishing bodily calculus into the pit - or should I say, the rather ethereal world of the Employment Tribunal - Manchester Employment Tribunal to be precise. The case, a hearing, involved the University of Salford (Respondent) and of course a former employee (The Claimant and not this writer). I will not dwell on the detail here other than to say it was both agreeable and painful... agreeable in that I'm of the opinion that a small victory was scored and it's essential to support a colleague against the machine. Painful in that one can only spend a limited period of time in a hot room and in proximity to a particularly oleaginous type before nausea imparts itself like a random piss-protein into one's thigh marrow.

The Devil's Draft - Fresh Coffee and Ibuprofen

I also didn't deal with my morning caffeine addiction which is only exorcised by a torrent of coffee which is now running to around five large-ish cups of Aldi's finest fresh which at £1.69 a pack is excellent value for money. It would be a gross underestimation of the most hideous kind to say that the concomitant withdrawal headache was a bit of a screamer. It would not be an understatement to suggest that the decision to cycle home on a vintage 1950s Raleigh Superbe at full wallop had the resultant effect of raising the unadulterated temple-oriented agony to the power of ten. However a handful of Aldi Ibuprofen at a very reasonable thirty (30) pence a pack is also excellent value and well worth the investment.

The Devil's Footprints but with no Springs Attached

However, my decision to eschew my nearly steam-driven Mark I for the comings and goings of the Tribunal has led to a rather sizeable backlog of correspondence which I nearly subjected myself to. A gander was taken and one rather brief email did leap out like a liquid crystal Spring-heel'd Jack but not as diabolical. I'd like to share some of the contents of this with you as I'm always one for a little satirical muscle-flexing or jape-fuelled journalistic pull-ups which I'm reliably informed cannot be construed as criminal harassment. Besides, it helps in some small way to while away the fag-end of a compulsory obsessive evensong. The originator of the email shall remain firmly anonymous as I subscribe to the journalists' dictum (yes the dodgy one's also subscribe) that sources should always be protected.

My dear Dr Duke this one is clearly addressed
to you as it begins 'Dear Arsehole...'

A task not a game

Below are some selected excerpts  from a leaked letter that outlined the preliminary findings of a ten-man audit panel in 2008.* The task for you is simple: firstly, read the selected excerpts from the leaked letter and consider its contents carefully. Secondly, try and decide to which university this letter refers. Finally you might like to take a guess as to whom the author of the leaked letter may be. I have of course omitted the name of the educational establishment to make it a little more interesting. If you click on the link at the foot of the page, all will become abundantly clear.

"As you know, I recently chaired the institutional audit of the University of _ _ _ _ ."

“…However, we also noted an extensive and debilitating "climate of hostility" at the university, manifested in adversarial exchanges and the habit of dealing with dissent through disciplinary inquiries and litigation…”

“…We found credible and extensive evidence that this "climate of hostility" is damaging staff morale (and may be causing staff to leave), affecting the university's credibility with employers and other stakeholders and disturbing students. The panel was of the view that, were this approach to dissent to continue, there could be serious damage to the university's continuing viability…”

“…The panel has heard that some aspects of this situation are expressed as lack of academic freedom at the university. In coming to understand this, the panel identified two dimensions of academic freedom that may be inappropriately conflated. One dimension refers to the right to teach, to research and to exercise professional judgment on discipline-related issues without interference. The other dimension refers to the right to engage in debate about matters affecting the university. The panel has found no evidence of interference with the teaching and learning and research activities of staff at _ _ _ _. But the panel has found evidence of stifled debate about institutional matters and of debates conducted in ways which obfuscate rather than elucidate issues…”

“…the panel was heartened by evidence that the human resources division is prioritising measures to take the institution from the habit of litigation to the practice of addressing conflict by means of mediation and conciliation…”

Click here and all will be revealed...


* Courtesy of Michael Savides, The Mercury, January 23 2009 sourced at http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/2009-January/019794.html

A Question of Anonymity

In Professor Martin Hall's weekly blog, which is always a fascinating read, he asserts that "[a]s a university, we have our own share of cyber-bullies and harassers. They are invariably disaffected individuals with personal grievances who hide behind anonymous blogs and e-mail pseudonyms. As Vice Chancellor Hall has opened a debate and invited commentary, and not wishing to be cast as a dreadful "cyber-bully" or serial "cyber-harasser" it would be remiss not to draw readers attention to a little snippet found on Erin Baldwin's campaigning website. It concerns a comment posted on her website by a chap called Mr Ethical Blogger centring on the provision of Personally Identifying Information such as IP addresses and email addresses to the University of Salford. Provided voluntarily I might add for the sake of clarity, by the CEO of Automattic Inc/Wordpress a Mr Toni Schneider.

Ethical Blogger  * 

Has anyone perchance seen
a loose cobbler
knocking around?

“I don’t know any of the details of the case set out here or the ratcatchers blog (strange name), but I strongly believe that bloggers should act ethically and within the law. Is it possible that WordPress acted ethically, concluding that the material published by Dr. Gary Paul Duke on the strangely named blog, contravened their own guidelines for ethical blogging – and was so evidently defamatory (as apparently determined by the British authorities) – that it would inevitably lead to an order for release of the US courts. They released it therefore in accordance with their own principles of publication - saving themselves further administrative and legal costs in the process?”

Erin Baldwin writes:

"I think it’s interesting how the person writing this comment states at the beginning:

“I don’t know any of the details of the case …” then pontificates very astutely about

the major issues of controversy:

(1) that WordPress ethics have been called into question;

(2) that Dr. Gary Paul Duke allegedly published “defamatory” material;

(3) that WordPress claims that the “defamatory” material was against its guidelines;

(4) that British courts deemed the content “defamatory”;

(5) that United States courts concur (since the trend in the states is to terminate as many blogs as possible that express an opinion contrary to the status quo and/or arrest owners of blogs to at least take the heat off for a while); and…. finally and most importantly to Toni Schneider and Matt Mullenweg:

(6) that the US courts would issue a court order to save WordPress legal and administrative fees because they are actually doing them a favor by being the hatchet men for the government. 

I think the writer of this comment knows quite a bit about this case, don’t you? Like maybe he or she is intimately involved in the litigation?"

Oh dear... how sad... never mind

In light of Professor Hall's obvious antipathy to anonymous commentary via cyber-land, I shall of course reserve my own judgement. You however, can draw your own conclusions. If any readers would like to undertake a little bit of their own investigative work, click here and then click here. The results prove very interesting.

Post Script: The author of this blog would like to stress that he has no problem with the issue of anonymous or pseudonymically centred blogging. Indeed anonymous political leafleting and pamphleteering have played an important historical role in creating an a political dissidence and ideological alternative in periods of ruling class hegemony. However, the University of Salford have made it clear via letters to this writer from their rather over-enthusiastic lawyers (who were incidentally Halliwells at the time until they went bust last year) that they believe this type of blogging to be 'cowardly', a view that cuts against the grain of the opinion of Mr Justice Thomas who in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) recognises the 'value' in upholding the right to publish anonymously within the First Amendment of the US Constitution. 

I would also like to say that I would not condone for one minute the UoS seeking to discipline the above anonymous post-er to Ms Baldwin's blog despite the obvious misuse of UoS IT facilities.

  


* I have removed this IP address but this particular IP Address is already in the public domain courtesy of Erin Baldwin at http://erinbaldwin.com/2011/01/12/university-of-salford-busted-for-anonymous-post/