The
incident up to May 2003 is described in the second edition (Pp.
8-13)of my "Being human" (Intellect, 2004), launched at Stanford in May
2004. (Apologies for the rough appearance - I look forward to the day I
have students to do this kind of thing). DCU's illegal attempt to refuse
credit for a course on Science and society, the leitmotif in the book,
featured in Irish parliamentary proceedings as featured
in the links from this post
As
described below, I ended up teaching at Stanford as a result of student
petition. My courses there were endorsed (and therefore accredited) by
the great Patrick Suppes, whose "Axiomatic set theory" can be checked
against the Fregeian work below. Suppes is Irish on his mother's side,
and may yet be a great asset to Irish education
SIPTU's Double Binds on Academic Tenure
The
“double bind' theory of the genesis of schizophrenia was initially
proposed by the anthropologist and polymath Gregory Bateson. He
acknowledged his intellectual debt to Bertrand Russell, who in turn
produced the “theory of types” in response to an antinomy in Frege's
system. Was the class of all classes that were not members of themselves
a member of itself? In short, if yes, no; if no, yes. It is like the
Kerryman who states that all Kerrymen are liars.
While it is
doubtful that SIPTU was familiar with this work – or indeed the 1989 and
1997 universities act and various court proceedings based on the latter
- they showed considerable mastery of the principles of double bind in
their handling of my case. Double bind is essentially a directive from
an authority figure like a parent, teacher or indeed branch secretary
that, like the Fregeian system, is antinomial. So if a parent says “Be
spontaneous!” or “think for yourself!”one is only obeying orders by
complying and one cannot win.
In June 2002, I was unfairly
dismissed from DCU. I refused to enter yet another set of double binds –
an utterly illegal disciplinary procedure initiated in the middle of a
grievance procedure. SIPTU supported me in this, and I was summoned to a
long meeting in July 2002 with the then branch secretary. Let us recall
that our contracts at DCU require us to remain benefit members of SIPTU
(that is, not just be members, but pay them about E250/year). This
means, for example, that we must picket if there is an approved strike
and we are asked to picket by SIPTU, or else we cease to be employees of
DCU. Indeed, it means that we cannot comply with a disciplinary
procedure that has not been approved by SIPTU, even if we wish to do so.
So
the 1997 act is poorly drafted here, as elsewhere; it requires only
that the union be “consulted” about new disciplinary procedures, though
this is asking for trouble in a closed shop situation. Unambiguously,
however, it requires that permanent academic staff appointed before 16th
June (Bloomsday!) 1997 cannot have their tenure status, protected by
the 1989 act, changed other than by agreement. I was appointed in the
1980's, and like Conal Fanning in the Gilligan judgement, cannot have
this new statute used on me for suspension/dismissal in any case.
The
branch secretary offered me SIPTU's support - at a guess, because they
felt slighted by managerial high-handedness. In any case, she told me to
apply for reinstatement as distinct from compensation, and to appeal to
the EAT through a rights commissioner initially. I filled in the forms
as told. Once I had done so, she immediately told me that I would not be
reinstated. To the best of my recollection, her precise words:
“You're not going to get reinstated, you know”
That
came as something as a shock – I had several excellent grad students, 2
new books and a new edition of my first about to come out, and a
frankly stellar review of one of my previous books was just about to
appear in the American jnl of Psychology. As for my teaching, I have
since had the honour of having courses accredited and teaching at both
Stanford and Berkeley (Nos. 2 and 3 in the world according to the 2008
Shanghai survey, for whatever that is worth). I will post the
encouraging students' ratings of these courses if asked. I also felt
strongly that DCU had an obligation to my students who, alas, have
scattered all over the world. Several were brilliantly gifted. In any
case, the fetters of the first double bind were in place.
In late
September, 2002, as the record shows, my colleagues at DCU voted
unanimously for my reinstatement and threatened strike action. I am
still enormously grateful to them, and they were and are perfectly
entitled to go on strike for an illegal statute and demand the
reinstatement of me and others. At the time, I was also involved with
Donal Lunny, my partner Melanie O'Reilly and others in the creation of
the musicians' union of Ireland and Des Geraghty had offered to
affiliate it to SIPTU. In a corporatist state like Ireland, this meant
at least that musicians could get car insurance. One extremely fortunate
outcome, as it happened, was that I had Geraghty's cell number.
Apparently,
I was to have a say also; a SIPTU official phoned me and asked whether I
appoved a strike, and I inadvertently set the next double bind in
motion by saying “yes”. SIPTU decided to eschew the strike option, and
took an extremely risky case at the Labour court in front of Finbar
Flood. This came about after perhaps 10 aborted or deferred settlement
meetings. Flood's judgement that the 1985 agreement must be superceded
eventually has in any case itself been superceded by the far stronger
and more authoritative Clarke and Gilligan judgements. In short, the
1985 agreement is still in place, and will always be for most purposes.
I
mentioned the critical legislation protecting tenure to SIPTU several
times and was informed that it was actually only a superannuation
clause. As I also informed them, their version of the act had a line
missing; the crucial one. Similarly, it is noticeable that there was
confusion in the Cahill high court case because the crucial lines in
Statute no. 3 on the DCU website destroying academic tenure did not
appear in the printed version. Judge Clarke, somewhat generously,
described this as a technical “glitch”.
I have now faced the
might of DCU management at 5 separate Labour relations meetings.
Remarkably, they are free to change their allegations as they wish, or
indeed repeat the same ones over and over in different fora (It should
be noted that even the Gitmo military tribunals do not allow this). The
Fleming judgement, I believe, was swayed hugely in my favour by the fact
that DCU's story changed radically from November 2002, the first
Fleming sitting, to January 2003, the second. In fact, the first set of
allegations were so risible that the Ibec rep, Graham Fagan, refused to
submit DCU's written document. Fagan eventually withdrew from the case,
citing DCU's refusal to put my main accusers- Morris and Pronz – on the
stand. In fact, they had previously sought to roll back jurisprudence a
few millennia by presenting their case to Gerry Fleming in the absence
of me and my representation.For some reason or other, as the saying
goes.
SIPTU now believed that I might be reinstated. DCU had 6
weeks to appeal, and they waited about 38 days. It was a double whammy –
we are appealing and, by the way, here is the slightly modified
statute, which you will agree in 2 days' time. The shop steward seemed
in shock; I phoned Geraghty. The branch secretary intervened, and there
still is no agreed statute. Thus, and thanks also to Cahill and Fanning,
was tenure and indeed civilised procedures for non-academic staff saved
in Ireland.
A massive “head of steam”, according to a reliable
report, had built up among DCU staff. SIPTU held a meeting at which no
vote was taken. The shop steward phoned me while I was playing a concert
tour in France to say that “they” thought DCU should have a right to
appeal. Who “they” are is as yet unresolved. My reply is and remains
that it was suicide to allow the appeal. Not just mine, but that of the
other staff who have had this utterly illegal procedure visited upon
them.
The branch sec., a month later, told me that I could have
two years' salary if I left quietly. While there was sympathy for me,
she said, non-one had offered to organize a collection (in fact someone
had done so, and, rightly fearing the long haul, I had refused, electing
to sell the house I had lived in since 1974). Senior union officials
had apparently vetoed the idea of a strike. A considerably better offer
came from pronz through the offices of (now Minister) Gormley; payment
until a new job came up. I refused both. This issue has to be cleared up
properly, not by backroom deals. And now we know; we do have academic
tenure in Ireland. It is not the UK.
By July, 2003, the
milk of human kindness was apparently abundant between SIPTU and DCU. A
SIPTU official told me that the statute would now, with DCU's consent,
have to be voted in by a majority of staff. Yet SIPTU never told the
other members this, nor did they keep them informed about the unminuted
negotiations they had. This all must be changed, and a legal team used.
At a guess, the unexpected access of democracy was an attempt to achieve
consent for getting rid of tenure.
Fagan came to talk to me on
Oct 4, 2003. He seems to have been deeply ashamed of his role, and said
that IBEC had withdrawn from the case. Ironically, the appeal was to
have been heard the day before; Arthur cox solicitors had taken over
from IBEC, and SIPTU had agreed a deferral without consulting with me.
Now we were likely to face a full legal team.
The idea of being
able to face one's accusers is at least as old as magna Carta; pronz and
Morris had not turned up for any hearings to date. The idea of parity
of representation is so deeply entrenched that even Karadzic and
Milosevic, who eschew representation, have had a legal team appointed
for them fully equal to that of the plaintiff. SIPTU refuse to employ
barristers, so I got my own , and informed SIPTU of this well in
advance. They still wanted to go ahead as before, and their
representative, as she later explained to Roddy Horan SC, was deeply
upset by her treatment by Mr Mallon. My legal advice remains that there
was no need for the tribunal to collapse the scrum when it did, and we
let the summons lapse. DCU have neglected to continue their appeal.
In
2005, I had a series of meetings with then minister of Labour Affairs
Killeen. It looked like common sense might prevail, and I phoned the
shop steward to say this. She questioned my motives, and reminded me
that – horror of horrors – I had recommended a strike. But, dear, you
did ask me. And so the final double bind was revealed.
There are
at least 3 categories of employee in DCU, with different foundations for
their rights, all of whom need and deserve protection:
Academic staff appointed before bloomsday, 1997, who are protected by Fanning, Cahill and the 1989 act.
Academic staff appointed after bloomsday, 1997, who are protected by Fanning, Cahill and the 1989 and 1997 acts.
Non-academic staff
The
beauty of the Fleming judgement, featured below, is that it can protect
all three. What SIPTU must urgently do is appoint senior counsel to
read the acts, statutes, and judgements. If it finds that it cannot
function at this level, it should bow out of education with whatever
grace it can muster and leave staff free to decide their own negotiation
team. A final personal opinion is that all staff at DCU should use the
same union, whatever it is. Many non-academic staff courageously came to
critical and potentially dangerous hearings to support me and others,
and that is humbling.
Sean O'Nuallain
Visiting Scholar, UC Berkeley
Other blog;
The truth hurts
1/1/12;
Finally, the following are all posted as "comments" rather than the
main text because when this entry was written, I was not an
administrator of the blog and became one only after its posting.
