Point 3.1.8 is most interesting and seems to underline earlier reports that there is a culture of bullying amongst management. Contrary to assertions by the UoS this report is not positive. The Report summary underlines some serious deficiences in the management at UoS. That UoS can be so complacent about it is not surprising. What is surprising is the the UCU have co-operated in what can only be seen as an attempt to suppress the Report. The limited access regime operated by UCU whicfh only allows a very limited reading of the Report Summary demeans the UCU membership as not being trustworthy. The UCU have also banned any copying or wider circulation of the report but there is no Branch mandate for this censorship. In this instance the UCU are also acting undemocratically in that they are denying information to the membership, information from a Report that the membership not the UCU forced the UoS to undertake. It seems that there is a seceret deal between the UCU and the UoS regarding the availability of this Reprot, its time to publish the seceret deal and the whole report - the members are the UCU not the officers. There is a wonderful Russion folk proverb, a fish rots from the head down. Its time the UCU represented its members instead of resenting them.
We note with serious alarm Professor Martin Hall's 'up-in-arms' attitude to the decision of a University in South Africa not to publish a similar report of which Professor Hall was the author.
It seems there is one rule for what a University ought do in principle, and another for what UoS will do in practice under Hall's leadership.
Point 3.1.8 is most interesting and seems to underline earlier reports that there is a culture of bullying amongst management. Contrary to assertions by the UoS this report is not positive. The Report summary underlines some serious deficiences in the management at UoS. That UoS can be so complacent about it is not surprising. What is surprising is the the UCU have co-operated in what can only be seen as an attempt to suppress the Report. The limited access regime operated by UCU whicfh only allows a very limited reading of the Report Summary demeans the UCU membership as not being trustworthy. The UCU have also banned any copying or wider circulation of the report but there is no Branch mandate for this censorship. In this instance the UCU are also acting undemocratically in that they are denying information to the membership, information from a Report that the membership not the UCU forced the UoS to undertake. It seems that there is a seceret deal between the UCU and the UoS regarding the availability of this Reprot, its time to publish the seceret deal and the whole report - the members are the UCU not the officers. There is a wonderful Russion folk proverb, a fish rots from the head down. Its time the UCU represented its members instead of resenting them.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteWe note with serious alarm Professor Martin Hall's 'up-in-arms' attitude to the decision of a University in South Africa not to publish a similar report of which Professor Hall was the author.
It seems there is one rule for what a University ought do in principle, and another for what UoS will do in practice under Hall's leadership.