Fast and Furious(ly) VI

Fast and Furious(ly) VI: Years from now when film study students climb the Everest of cinema they will find Citizen Kane at the base camp. At the last camp before the summit there will be the French Nouvelle Vague. The peak will be Fast and Furious(ly) VI. They will marvel as their grandparents did when watching Citizan Kane about the editing, the cinematography, the special effects, the script, and the lighting. No where in film has any director been able the produce the tension and magic of the relationship between Mr. Vin Diesel and Mr. Dwaye Johnson. It's Tracy and Hepbern, Crosby and Hope, and Astaire and Rogers wrapped into one, except no dancing other than the dancing of lines that never vary from perfect. 

No review is complete with mention of the consistent theme of family and final airplane action scene. It features the longest runway in the world. The large place taxis for about 20 minutes before trying to lift off with lots of vehicles dangling from it. And when Mr. Diesel emerges from the carnage (an obvious homage to Dorothy's return from Oz) the audience burst into applause and this reviewer wept.

Bullying of a PhD Student - One Wrong Word/Death by Paper Cuts

After completing my undergraduate degree, I received a PhD scholarship at the same university in exchange for 15-hours/week research assistance. My undergraduate dissertation was related to the project topic and I had a lived experience of being a member of the social group under investigation. I thought my dreams had all come true; I was to work on a project closely linked to my own research topic and would receive a substantial bursary. That was until the nightmare of working in the most dysfunctional 'team' of people I have ever worked with began.

I remember the day it began. I was early for a meeting. Two members of the 'team' soon arrived and I made polite small talk with them. My mistake seemed to seal my fate for the next three years, particularly with these two people. I casually asked if the two experienced Research Assistants were "just" Research Assistants, or whether they were doing PhD's/research themselves. One wrong word. My innocent question (no malice intended in any way - I have problems with anxiety and sometimes my nerves get the better of me) was met with a very angry response that they were not "just anything!” I was shocked at the aggressive response, so much so that I meekly said that I did not mean to have offended them. I now realise that I would set a benchmark as to how I would accept being spoken to from then on.

Next, the Project Leader (a Social Work Professor) had possibly thought that I was a Social Work graduate, not, in actuality, a Sociology graduate. When I explained this during a one-to-one meeting I was met with silence. I believe that a conflict of ideas and perspectives was potentially key as to why I was bullied, and it came from the top of the project hierarchy. Indeed, it was a gendered hierarchy to say the least, with female members of the 'team' having more secretarial roles than anything else was.

Then, my undergraduate dissertation supervisor (who stayed on as my PhD supervisor) created a scandal at the university. It came to light that he was living a double life and had fabricated a certain amount of malicious gossip about a Professor at the university to deflect from his own highly deceitful behaviour (a close colleague of the Project Leader). I always respected my supervisor and would speak highly of him. I believe that, potentially due in part to my (unwitting) respect for my supervisor, that I was judged guilty by association through gossip and hearsay. I was eventually asked outright if he had ever approached me for an inappropriate relationship, as this was apparently his MO. I absolutely had not, and respected student/lecturer boundaries - plus I was not in slightest bit attracted to him and knew and liked (one of) his partner who was also a PhD student.  

In all honesty, I can only speculate as to why I was targeted, after wracking my brains for almost 3 years, these examples merely serve as potential explanations and potential reasons as to why what happened, happened at all.

The bullying began in earnest; here are some examples (some specific, some general):

1. One of the 'team' was allocated as my supervisor (wholly under-qualified with an MA in Social Work and an insatiable desire to become an academic) - who stole ideas from my research and used it for the project without my knowledge, or permission.

2. The same supervisor would regularly pass off my ideas and contributions as their own.

3. During meetings the two Research Assistants would purposely avoid ANY eye contact with me. Alternatively, they would glare at me, to the point that I became so uncomfortable that I simply had to look away.

4. My contributions in meetings were minuted as 'someone' said/suggested.

5. Whilst sat next to a Psychology lecturer, another member of the 'team', I was repeatedly flicked at below the table (I know this one may sound a tad strange!).

6. Most of my contributions to the project were ignored and/or credit given elsewhere.

7. A child who had been part of the research was asked to attend the university and the Project Leader had bought her some gifts, including a t-shirt.  She, the Project Leader, asked me if I knew whether she had bought the right size for the child.  I said that the child was probably around my size. She exclaimed that she was glad she bought "extra large"...this was in front of two other colleagues who simply sniggered.

8. I was constantly overloaded with work/emails/phone calls (some late at night). Travelled hundreds of miles on weekends, to prisons, alone.

9. I was 'set up to fail' on one occasion - where the data collection and data input (my responsibility) deadline was set on the same day.

10. I was regularly shouted down in meetings, to the point that I stopped contributing.

11.  I was excluded from all publications resulting from the project, even though I was initially promised at least one publication. 

12. The project did not receive certain permissions from the relevant authorities. I was asked to work off campus at the Head Office of a NGO that was working with the project to complete certain tasks relating to those denied permission. I refused.

13. I requested that the supervisor who was stealing my work and/or ideas be removed from my supervision team. Moreover, he did not understand my research. I was threatened with my bursary being removed, as there would be nobody from the applicable School remaining as a supervisor. Thankfully, another of my supervisors, not connected to the project, was.

14. I was regularly ignored and/or isolated during coffee breaks/external meetings/project conferences.

15.  Whilst travelling to undertake fieldwork I was asked if I was "one of those scary feminist types" by a male member of the 'team'.

16. Regularly worked well over the 15 hours/week, causing my own work to suffer.  Either that, or be chastised for not appearing to 'pull my weight'.

17. The Project Leader, toward the end of the project, placed one of the Research Assistants 'in charge' of me, and to 'monitor' certain tasks I was given.

18. I was belittled and undermined in front of individuals from external organisations.  To the point that they eventually ignored me too.

19. At the beginning of a conference (around 200 students in attendance), there were three people who were presenting, myself included.  A close friend and colleague of the supervisor I had had problems with introduced the other two speakers, and completely ignored me. I introduced myself when it came time to present (embarrassing, confusing and devastating all in one go).

20. Made out to be incompetent/a burden/troublemaker to other departments/lecturers/fellow PhD students.

The list goes on, and on, and on and, in all honesty, it is becoming painful reliving it all (death by paper cuts methinks!). Eventually, my partner, friends, and family began to notice that my mental health was deteriorating rapidly toward the end of the project. I didn't go out any more, was constantly lethargic, couldn't concentrate, became weepy, became distant, isolated myself, gained weight, was prescribed anti-depressants and sleeping tablets by my GP, and so on. I also suspended my studies after my second Viva as I had lost all motivation and my work was suffering. Two months before the three-year project was due to end, I attempted suicide.  Thankfully, my mother found me in time. I was released from hospital after spending just over a week under observation on a psychiatric ward. I am sincerely sorry to have put my partner, friends, and family through that.

It has been 8 months since my spell in hospital, 6 months since the end of the project, and my suspension is coming to an end. I still receive emails relating to the project, which does cause me some anxiety and stress, but at least I can ignore them now I am not contracted to reply to them any more. I do feel slightly stronger, thanks to a wonderfully supportive partner, friends, and family. I am due back in a month or so to complete my PhD. I am apprehensive to say the least and truly believe that if I complain about all that has happened, I will not be afforded the opportunity to finish my research. I believe the university would rather me go, than potentially damage their reputation. I simply do not know who to trust, or if anyone is even trustworthy at this university. I just want to finish my research, leave this university, and get on with my life.

Wish me luck!


RMIT professor unfairly sacked

Employers have been warned against using redundancy programs to get rid of ''undesired employees'', after RMIT University was fined $37,000 by the Federal Court for breaking workplace laws, and ordered to re-hire one of its professors.

RMIT sacked youth studies and sociology professor Judith Bessant last April, claiming the redundancy was for financial reasons alone.

But in a decision handed down last week, Justice Peter Gray found the university had likely fired Professor Bessant after she made allegations of bullying and intimidation against another professor, David Hayward.

Justice Gray said his ruling would vindicate Professor Bessant's decision to make a complaint against Professor Hayward without suffering retribution.

Professor Bessant was made redundant despite the university having acknowledged that she was a ''very good researcher'', a scholar ''of international standing'' and ''an impressive teacher''.

In deciding the case, Justice Gray also said he took into consideration the ''apparent determination'' by RMIT Vice-Chancellor Margaret Gardner to ''ignore her knowledge of Professor Hayward's animosity towards Professor Bessant''. Professor Gardner displayed a lack of contrition for what the court found to be a blatant contravention of workplace laws.

The National Tertiary Education Union said the ruling was a warning that all employers must not use ''sham redundancies'' to get rid of staff, when the real reasons would not be allowed by the Fair Work Act. Victorian secretary Colin Long said the judgment provided a telling insight into the management culture at Australian universities.

''The approach taken by the [RMIT] to getting rid of [Professor Bessant] will be all too familiar to university staff across Australia,'' he said.

Dr Long said the decision also reflected the ''group-think'' prevalent in Australian university managements, aimed at silencing dissenters and backing bad decisions.

Justice Gray found that, if Professor Bessant had sought damages against the university rather than asking for her job back, she would have got ''significantly in excess of $1 million'' and potentially up to $1.9 million.

Professor Bessant said she was relieved the matter was resolved, and that the judgment vindicated her position.

''Namely that academics have both a right and an obligation to speak out about the concerns they have about the way social institutions are working,'' she said.

RMIT's chief operating officer Steve Somogyi said the university was reviewing the judgment and would consider an appeal. "The university takes very seriously its obligations under the Fair Work Act," he said.


The bully and bullying...

Bullying occurs when one person, typically (but not necessarily) in a position of power, authority, trust, responsibility, management, etc, feels threatened by another person, usually (but not always) a subordinate who is displaying qualities of ability, popularity, knowledge, skill, strength, drive, determination, tenacity, success, etc. The bully has conditioned himself, or allowed himself to be conditioned, to believe that he can never have these qualities that he sees readily in others.

Displaying high aggression and lacking appropriate interpersonal skills, the immature behaviour skills of the bully are insufficient to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the position into which he has been, or allowed himself to be, recruited or promoted. The nature and demands of the position may have changed over time, perhaps without being realised. If in a position of management, trust, etc, the bully is also unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for the physical and mental well being of those in his charge.

Insecurity and a lack of confidence cause the bully to desire to control the individual using aggressive physical and psychological strategies. The bully seeks to increase his confidence, not by raising his own, but by bringing the other person's down to below his, so that, in relative terms, he can feel good about himself. This process is repeated on a regular basis and becomes both addictive and compulsive.

Through fear, the individual establishes domination, leading to disempowerment of, and loss of confidence. In order to avoid having to face up to, tackle and overcome his own shortcomings, the bully seeks to project his own failings on to other people whilst at the same time actively abdicating responsibility for the consequences of his own shortcomings, the bully seeks to project his own failings on to other people whilst at the same time actively abdicating responsibility for the consequences of his behaviour on others.

If necessary, the bully abuses his position of power, or calls on those with power, to achieve these ends. The bully’s behaviour is exacerbated by his own predominant behaviour style, also by stress, change, uncertainty, financial pressures, the prospect of failing to meet budget targets, lack of resources, and being bullied himself... 

Tim Field

Confused: Law Professors, and "Class" -- Is This Serious?

I have just finish reading a post and numerous comments over on Prawsblawg. My goodness. It seems to start with a casual mention of a book or article or both by Brian Tamanaha on the impact of tuition increases on less affluent students. He takes to task so-called liberal law professors for there inattention to matters of class. Evidently, he give special attention SALT and CLS  for what I think could be called hypocrisy.

After  the initial post the comments devolve into a discussion of whether he has fairly characterized CLS as ever professing to care about class and who mentioned or thought up some kind of national debt relief for overburdened law school grads. Frankly, I could not follow it all and it seemed to include a fair amount of typical law professor prissy debate that leaves plausible deniability with respect to who was "uncollegial" first.
(The movie "Mean Girls" comes to mind here.)

I have just a couple of comments. Any notion that CLS really had anything to do with class is pure hokum. CLS was a showcase for the ultimate in limousine pseudo lefties. Typically privileged people who found a niche that made them seem  oh-so-interesting at least to each other.

Second, isn't it interesting this so called concern about class and the affordability of law school for the less affluent comes along at a time of declining admissions and the threat that law professor jobs may be in jeopardy.  (If we are so determined to subsidized the less affluent, why not start by not subsidizing those who could afford to pay the tab?)

But there something more fundamental than any of this.  This discussion purports to have something to do with class and often the word "poor" comes up. For the most part, law professors would not know what poor means if it bit them in the ass. The idea that the focus of law professors worried about the "poor" would be the impact of tuition on people who have high LSAT scores and GPAs it mind-boggling. This is not to say so-called liberal law professors do not have an intense focus on something. It just happens to themselves --e.g. do I have the best printer, will you pay for my trip to Rio, my offices needs new carpet, I need a new office, 26 students is too many for me to teach,.

The discussion has almost nothing to do with the "poor," disadvantaged, or even social class. Those people have always been around, pushed to the side and ignored my law professors.  Instead it  is about how to keep the law school industry moving forward. A subsidy for a down-trodden law school applicant is a subsidy to a law professor. I'd much rather see things like debt-forgiveness or other forms of subsidies be linked to buying a car that runs, getting decent dental and medical care, having a rat free home to live in, being able to buy a decent pair or shoes, having regular meals on the table, never having to worry about the electricity being turned off,  or in home care for an elderly grandmother.

The poor should be so lucky as to worry about law school tuition.

Tamanaha and Tuition Class Bias? Oh come on!

I write mainly about class basis in legal education meaning that to be professor one almost has to come from a specific sheltered and privileged class. This means that most law professors also come with a powerful sense of entitlement that means that law schools are  operated to achieve their ends.

There is to be sure a class bias when it comes to admissions. By the time a person is  21 or so, he or she has gone through a multitude of filtering processes that gradually eliminate the vast majority from attending law school and much of this filtering is class based.

I know not to trust second hand reports and particular news reports. My last post was about scholars as salesmen. They are topped, however, by news reporters whose livelihood depends catching your eye and telling a story and, as the person discussed in my last post describes himself, they too have a post modern relationship with the truth.

That being said here is a quote, out of context and according the to an article writer from the new book by Brian Tamanaha (talk about someone making a career out the law school disaster);

“The pricing structure of legal education has profound class implications,” Tamanaha writes. “High tuition will inhibit people from middle-class and poor families more than it will deter the offspring of the rich with ample resources. Law school scholarship policies … in effect channel students with financial means to higher ranked law schools, reaping better opportunities, while sending students without money to lower law schools [where they qualify for better aid packages]. A growing proportion of elite legal positions will be held by people from wealthy backgrounds as a result. … Yet as law school tuition rose to its current extraordinary heights, progressive law professors did nothing to resist it.”

Anyone reading this blog knows how much I love to pounce on elitist hypocrisy. It's so easy -- vanity courses, capped sections, the me mentality, a total blind eye to matters of class. The list goes on and Brian has definitely tapped into one. I too have heard very little from self appointed liberals about class. But what is new? Class based issues terrify them. They are fine with race, gender, and sexual preference became they do not even implicitly lead to questioning the legitimacy of their positions. Class, however, is another issue altogether because it forces the question "What did you personally to merit your job." As one friend replied when I asked why we never talk about class, "Too important."

Thus, the indifference Brian writes about is true but the quote way overstates its important. Higher tuition may have the effect he describes but it is only at the extreme margin. Tuition may be something progressive law professors should be concerned about as should commentators like Brian. Maybe they are but, even a tiny focus on that ignores the things that people who have actual contact with poor families know. Believe me, they should be so fortunate that higher tuition is what keeps the out of top or any law schools. If the quote is accurate and not taken out of a broader context, it is  a sad commentary on the lack of class consciousnesses.

As for me. How would I finance higher education.It's easy. Every student in every field would be given a bill for the full cost of their education. Assistance in paying that bill would be based on need. The logic that the state pays for those who score high on test regardless of their means is just another example of the haves getting even more.

Con Men, Salesmen and Law Professors

"What the public didn’t realize, he said, was that academic science, too, was becoming a business. “There are scarce resources, you need grants, you need money, there is competition,” he said. “Normal people go to the edge to get that money. Science is of course about discovery, about digging to discover the truth. But it is also communication, persuasion, marketing. I am a salesman. I am on the road. People are on the road with their talk. With the same talk. It’s like a circus.” He named two psychologists he admired — John Cacioppo and Daniel Gilbert — neither of whom has been accused of fraud. “They give a talk in Berlin, two days later they give the same talk in Amsterdam, then they go to London. They are traveling salesmen selling their story.” " NYT, 

 This passage is from the Sunday Time story about Diederik Stapel's huge academic fraud which consisted of making up data to support outcomes that would jazzy, eye-catching, and therefor, of interest to journals and audiences.  Think about it. He is in a field in which the accuracy of what one does can be checked and journals are refereed.

Now think about legal scholarship -- no numbers, no testing of hypotheses, no referees and no accountability. While Stapel -- a psychologist -- largely wrote for people who were able to understand numbers, law professor write for a far less sophisticated audience, at least as far as assessing reseach methodology.  It took years to catch Stapel. Law professors, unless they outright plagiarize may never be caught. In fact, "caught" may not even be relevant if the norms for care and accuracy are low enough. 

If psychology research  has become a business in which scholars are sellers and tempted to do whatever it takes to advance personal interests, what are we to make of legal scholarship? Certainly law professors are no less self interested and far less likely to be detected when engaged in sales -- whether  in the form of catchy titles, overblown  resumes, and fudged empirical as well as impressionistic results.

Can legal scholarship be trusted when every factor that would have discouraged cheating in the sciences is missing in law?