Letter from university staff in support of the uni!
worker | 04.06.2008 18:07
Looking for promotion perhaps? Dr. Sean Matthews and Dr. Macdonald Daly have written this rather laughable open letter which appeared on the times website. It is of note that they wrote it, and are the only 2 signatories om it, compared to the 40+ signatures from university staff on the open letter to the Uni from the Hich camp.
Anyway here it is to laugh at/rip apart.
Anyway here it is to laugh at/rip apart.
The statement below can be found at 
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402188&c=1.
As employees of the University of Nottingham we share your concern that the recent arrest of Hicham Yezza, an administrator in the School of Modern Languages and Cultures, and Rizwaan Sabir, a masters student in the School of Politics and International Relations, has resulted in the arrest, and possible deportation, of Mr Yezza.
However, of equally strong concern to many in the institution has been the irresponsible, opportunistic and unethical conduct of many colleagues involved in the campaign to support Mr Yezza. We do not believe that sympathy for Mr Yezza's position should be incompatible with respect for one's colleagues, or the truth. Indeed, as scholars and academics, we believe that academic freedom involves a responsibility to veracity and honesty which has been repeatedly betrayed by those speaking for Mr Yezza.
We are confident that the University's declarations about upholding academic freedom have been reflected in its response to the arrests. We do not believe that the arrests constitute a challenge or threat to academic freedom. The course of events was unfortunate, and for Mr Yezza catastrophic, but had Mr Sabir not forwarded the material for illegitimate printing, exploiting Mr Yezza's position (in his turn, he was exploiting his own function in the institution), then this situation would never have arisen. Perhaps the very safety, the academic freedom, that a University provides for the examination of controversial material obscured the fact that, for many people outside a School of Politics, such documents might appear dangerous or threatening. But it is significant that Mr Sabir chose not to ask either his tutor, or his own School, to print the materials. Furthermore, had Mr Yezza been able to substantiate his claim to the University that he had the appropriate legal employment status, as all employees are required to do when they take up a post, or even had he been able later when the University asked him, as it is legally required to do, to provide documentation to substantiate such a claim, he would not have been arrested for immigration irregularities. Again, the responsibility for his arrest appears to relate to his own failure to provide appropriate documentation.
We believe that the University has shown extraordinary restraint in the face of ignorant attacks on its employees (by which we mean spokespersons, managers and administrative staff who were caught up in this matter, and faced with awful decisions), many of those attacks emanating from their colleagues. The prejudicial language employed by those campaigning for Mr Yezza has no place in such a campaign, and revolts many of us who are nonetheless equally appalled by the current Terror and Immigration policies. The violent expression of concerns about academic freedom we are currently hearing is particularly misplaced.
The University has been for some time already in consultation with its employees to develop guidelines designed to avoid such unnecessary arrests in the future. We are hopeful that this process may now be more rapidly brought to a conclusion, given the evident scope for misunderstanding, even amongst senior academics, of the nature and responsibility of academic freedom.
The formal support of the University for Mr Yezza, which included a letter from the Vice-Chancellor to the Home Secretary, and which, we might add, includes hosting protest marches on his behalf, and doubtless the turning of a blind eye to numerous faxes, emails and telephone calls emanating from University machines, is something we acknowledge and applaud. Our management's ultimate reaction to the abuse of several of its employees, and the ways in which the campaign has brought the name of the University into disrepute, is something which we will watch with interest: again, we suspect that under the circumstances the University's managers will take the view that open debate, and academic freedom, is the most important principle, even if, with many of us, they share the disappointment at the behaviour of many colleagues.
Dr Sean Matthews (School of English)
Dr Macdonald Daly (School of Modern Languages and Cultures)
The authors both contributed to the drafting of the UCU Motion in support of Mr Yezza which was unanimously carried at the annual conference last week.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402188&c=1. As employees of the University of Nottingham we share your concern that the recent arrest of Hicham Yezza, an administrator in the School of Modern Languages and Cultures, and Rizwaan Sabir, a masters student in the School of Politics and International Relations, has resulted in the arrest, and possible deportation, of Mr Yezza.
However, of equally strong concern to many in the institution has been the irresponsible, opportunistic and unethical conduct of many colleagues involved in the campaign to support Mr Yezza. We do not believe that sympathy for Mr Yezza's position should be incompatible with respect for one's colleagues, or the truth. Indeed, as scholars and academics, we believe that academic freedom involves a responsibility to veracity and honesty which has been repeatedly betrayed by those speaking for Mr Yezza.
We are confident that the University's declarations about upholding academic freedom have been reflected in its response to the arrests. We do not believe that the arrests constitute a challenge or threat to academic freedom. The course of events was unfortunate, and for Mr Yezza catastrophic, but had Mr Sabir not forwarded the material for illegitimate printing, exploiting Mr Yezza's position (in his turn, he was exploiting his own function in the institution), then this situation would never have arisen. Perhaps the very safety, the academic freedom, that a University provides for the examination of controversial material obscured the fact that, for many people outside a School of Politics, such documents might appear dangerous or threatening. But it is significant that Mr Sabir chose not to ask either his tutor, or his own School, to print the materials. Furthermore, had Mr Yezza been able to substantiate his claim to the University that he had the appropriate legal employment status, as all employees are required to do when they take up a post, or even had he been able later when the University asked him, as it is legally required to do, to provide documentation to substantiate such a claim, he would not have been arrested for immigration irregularities. Again, the responsibility for his arrest appears to relate to his own failure to provide appropriate documentation.
We believe that the University has shown extraordinary restraint in the face of ignorant attacks on its employees (by which we mean spokespersons, managers and administrative staff who were caught up in this matter, and faced with awful decisions), many of those attacks emanating from their colleagues. The prejudicial language employed by those campaigning for Mr Yezza has no place in such a campaign, and revolts many of us who are nonetheless equally appalled by the current Terror and Immigration policies. The violent expression of concerns about academic freedom we are currently hearing is particularly misplaced.
The University has been for some time already in consultation with its employees to develop guidelines designed to avoid such unnecessary arrests in the future. We are hopeful that this process may now be more rapidly brought to a conclusion, given the evident scope for misunderstanding, even amongst senior academics, of the nature and responsibility of academic freedom.
The formal support of the University for Mr Yezza, which included a letter from the Vice-Chancellor to the Home Secretary, and which, we might add, includes hosting protest marches on his behalf, and doubtless the turning of a blind eye to numerous faxes, emails and telephone calls emanating from University machines, is something we acknowledge and applaud. Our management's ultimate reaction to the abuse of several of its employees, and the ways in which the campaign has brought the name of the University into disrepute, is something which we will watch with interest: again, we suspect that under the circumstances the University's managers will take the view that open debate, and academic freedom, is the most important principle, even if, with many of us, they share the disappointment at the behaviour of many colleagues.
Dr Sean Matthews (School of English)
Dr Macdonald Daly (School of Modern Languages and Cultures)
The authors both contributed to the drafting of the UCU Motion in support of Mr Yezza which was unanimously carried at the annual conference last week.
worker
Comments
Display the following 9 comments