G. R. Evans speaks up for the academic freedoms of the individual. I work in an institution where any of the academic staff can stand up and make a speech in the university's "parliament", which is also its governing body, and call the administration to account. Nothing of any substance can be decided without its being put to us all for comment. Those who live in such a climate would like the rest of higher education to share it.
And those who run their own show perform better. The supremacy of Oxford and Cambridge in the university league tables is not unconnected with the non-dirigiste collegiality and democracy of their structures.
But the trend is the other way. The trend is to control, and I have to explain to someone whose modus operandi is "control" where I'm coming from in every sense.
The Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards provides a service - given freely by academics to other academics - which is badly needed in both higher and further education.
In the past three years more than 100 lecturers have lodged substantive complaints with CAFAS of being sacked for raising issues of freedoms and standards; of accusations of gross misconduct of which they are given no details; being dismissed without opportunity for discussion because they are alleged not to have met performance review objectives; removed from their posts for medical unfitness, though their doctors write to say that they are perfectly well; made redundant in the middle of running well-subscribed courses.
It is known for the ground for dismissal to move from competency to "gross misconduct", and back to competency, or from ill-health to discipline. In almost every case where there is dismissal there is a failure of due process. The power structures which are emerging need to be looked at hard. One vice chancellor tells me that something would have gone badly wrong before he ever got to hear about a dispute. This is especially a problem in strict line-management structures, and a vice chancellor may even express the feeling that he cannot with propriety "interfere" with the work of a personnel officer.
One case in which a manager abuses the power of discretion to make decisions is one too many. Very often an individual becomes crushed in a machine in which managers have caught their own sleeves. It is the administrators who flick the switches, but they may not be inclined to pull the victims out.
We need clarification of what is professionally unacceptable, especially a definition of "gross misconduct" so that lecturers are not dismissed for merely questioning, as has happened in several cases known to CAFAS.
We need a code of professional ethics which makes it a public disgrace for an institution to exploit for its own ends the law which allows it to get rid of someone by making him or her out to be ill or unnecessary.
In the insecure environment of modern university life expertise or years in the profession may carry no weight against the sanctions a manager can impose. An appraisee should be able to look his appraiser in the eye as an equal. Appraisal should not be linked to the granting of tenure or to promotion or to discipline procedures, or it will become difficult to persuade individuals to "agree" goals with their appraisers. For the "agreement" does not extend to agreement whether or not they have been met. Only the appraiser determines that. CAFAS is working on three active cases in which the management says goals have not been met. The imbalance of power in a line-management structure can decide the outcome whatever the truth about the achievement of the "objectives" set.
There is a need for the pooling of experience in dispute resolution, as well as of ideas about good practice. Under the 1988 Education Reform Act the University Commissioners drew up discipline and grievance procedures which are binding on the old universities. In the "new" universities, such procedures are put together ad hoc. Modifications which many universities have been making to refine and improve these basic rules need to be shared systematically with everyone.
But I spoke to someone in one vice chancellor's office recently who said in despair: "We have this humungous folder. I don't know where it is, though." Such an administration may drive recklessly in disputes. There can be a huge gulf between this week's version of what the procedures say and what actually happens.
Disputes need to be caught early and paced sensibly so that everyone can get a picture of a fair outcome and keep their eyes on it.
When trust goes, a lecturer ceases to believe he will get a fair hearing. He perceives himself to be "up against" the people who have the authority to deal with the matter. Frequently this anxiety is justified. The same person may be both accuser and judge; an individual who has declared someone to be guilty in advance has powers to adjudicate; the accused may be given no opportunity to defend himself, with every rule of natural justice being broken.
CAFAS can offer an ear to institution and aggrieved lecturer impartially. We can liaise in ways lawyers and unions are not free to do. It is often possible to propose a solution which the parties can work towards in a way which is impossible if things remain confrontational. We can seek a solution from which both sides come out well, salvaging the "image" of an institution.
We should like to be out of a job. There is plenty to do in the defence of freedoms and standards even if someone else was taking care of the work we do on disputes.
The Nolan committee suggested that there should be a means of independent review of disputes in the sector, in the form of a panel of arbitrators. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals has a working party looking at this. Its members will understand the tensions in the sector bred by recent government pressures. If it can provide a route for conciliation in these cases managers and lecturers alike will owe it a very large debt of gratitude.
G. R. Evans is lecturer in medieval intellectual history, University of Cambridge, and a member of CAFAS.