FancyMancy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2017
- Messages
- 7,032
Imagine the scenario - you are a fifth-year doctoral student. You have done everything you're meant to – studied, researched and completed a dissertation, you're on the cusp of getting your degree, but in the final months, a fresh batch of complaints about your "conduct" surfaces and the university decides to deny you a PhD.
Education Secretary Gillian Keegan arrives to attend the weekly meeting at Number 10 in Downing Street on 7th February 2023 - Dan Kitwood/Getty ©Dan Kitwood/Getty
What, you might wonder, could this student possibly have done to deserve such a crushing punishment? Did they break the law? Was their work sub-par? No, it was nothing like that. In fact, to read through the investigatory "evidence" on this real case, as I have done, is to delve into a litany of pettiness that almost defies belief.
I wish I could name the student, but the person is reluctant to have their name associated with a penalty they are powerless to overturn. So I will instead try to summarise the case. One of the charges is that the student confronted a professor who had made a complaint about their conduct. The confrontation, according to the university's investigation, was awkward but non-aggressive. Still, the professor, the investigation found, was made anxious by the incident.
Another of the incidents is that, using a personal social media account, the student made "transphobic" remarks to someone online – a person who had nothing to do with the university. In another, the student was accused of being racist by arguing that a non-White professor who argued for diversity policies in the university might have ulterior motives for promoting ideas that favour non-White people. Is this racist? It could be; it could also just be unpalatable to those who disagree.
The student was further deemed guilty of misconduct because of a refusal to take the disciplinary process seriously enough. How does the university know this? The student's own academic supervisor reported some off-hand remarks to that effect after a private conversation.
In short, reading through it all, one gains a picture of a social misfit with "unpopular" opinions who did not shut up and keep their head down. For this, aside from barrages of disciplinary hearings, the student claims they were also subject to an ongoing campaign of aggression from other students, including an instance of being told to "f--- off" while innocently using a lift.
What is the student's recourse in such a situation? They can go through the university's own process. After that, there is meant to be a robust and cheap safeguard in the form of scrutiny by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). A read-through of the OIA's report on this case, however, reveals it to be nothing more than a rubber-stamping body for the universities. Rather than grappling with any of the relevant legal requirements to protect free speech or act proportionately, the judgment summarises the university's regulations and accepts its conclusions.
This leaves a student with only one option - a judicial review. If brought in this case, it may have the university scrambling for cover, but there's a catch. The initial cost is £15,000; the potential cost of losing runs to over £100,000. The student simply cannot afford the risk. The government claims it is going to fix this type of problem by passing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, but though the law may allow students to sue their universities, it will not change the cost-benefit analysis of doing so. Until a university happens to pick on a student with bottomless financial resources and a willingness to have their name trashed, they can operate with impunity. As Paul Diamond, a Human rights barrister, puts it - "[This] is not an operating safeguard system". It is not a pretty picture of our university sector either.
https://archive.is/uga5j
Education Secretary Gillian Keegan arrives to attend the weekly meeting at Number 10 in Downing Street on 7th February 2023 - Dan Kitwood/Getty ©Dan Kitwood/Getty
What, you might wonder, could this student possibly have done to deserve such a crushing punishment? Did they break the law? Was their work sub-par? No, it was nothing like that. In fact, to read through the investigatory "evidence" on this real case, as I have done, is to delve into a litany of pettiness that almost defies belief.
I wish I could name the student, but the person is reluctant to have their name associated with a penalty they are powerless to overturn. So I will instead try to summarise the case. One of the charges is that the student confronted a professor who had made a complaint about their conduct. The confrontation, according to the university's investigation, was awkward but non-aggressive. Still, the professor, the investigation found, was made anxious by the incident.
Another of the incidents is that, using a personal social media account, the student made "transphobic" remarks to someone online – a person who had nothing to do with the university. In another, the student was accused of being racist by arguing that a non-White professor who argued for diversity policies in the university might have ulterior motives for promoting ideas that favour non-White people. Is this racist? It could be; it could also just be unpalatable to those who disagree.
The student was further deemed guilty of misconduct because of a refusal to take the disciplinary process seriously enough. How does the university know this? The student's own academic supervisor reported some off-hand remarks to that effect after a private conversation.
In short, reading through it all, one gains a picture of a social misfit with "unpopular" opinions who did not shut up and keep their head down. For this, aside from barrages of disciplinary hearings, the student claims they were also subject to an ongoing campaign of aggression from other students, including an instance of being told to "f--- off" while innocently using a lift.
What is the student's recourse in such a situation? They can go through the university's own process. After that, there is meant to be a robust and cheap safeguard in the form of scrutiny by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). A read-through of the OIA's report on this case, however, reveals it to be nothing more than a rubber-stamping body for the universities. Rather than grappling with any of the relevant legal requirements to protect free speech or act proportionately, the judgment summarises the university's regulations and accepts its conclusions.
This leaves a student with only one option - a judicial review. If brought in this case, it may have the university scrambling for cover, but there's a catch. The initial cost is £15,000; the potential cost of losing runs to over £100,000. The student simply cannot afford the risk. The government claims it is going to fix this type of problem by passing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, but though the law may allow students to sue their universities, it will not change the cost-benefit analysis of doing so. Until a university happens to pick on a student with bottomless financial resources and a willingness to have their name trashed, they can operate with impunity. As Paul Diamond, a Human rights barrister, puts it - "[This] is not an operating safeguard system". It is not a pretty picture of our university sector either.
https://archive.is/uga5j
