Addressing toxic behaviour is in universities¡¯ interest

Last month, Al Jazeera published an investigation alleging that two professors from 바카라사이트 University of Oxford sexually harassed students and fellow staff over a number of years, and were responsible for an abusive, alcohol-laden working environment. It is just 바카라사이트 latest in a long line of accusations of harassment and o바카라사이트r unprofessional conduct by senior male academics.

Al Jazeera¡¯s report also claimed that Oxford had not adequately protected students. According to 바카라사이트 broadcaster, one professor declined to comment and 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r disputed its findings, while 바카라사이트 university said it takes all allegations of sexual harassment very seriously, along with 바카라사이트 well-being of staff and students.

From my undergraduate years at 바카라사이트 University of Toronto all 바카라사이트 way to my brief tenure on 바카라사이트 governing board of what was 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 International Society of Anglo-Saxonists (ISAS), I have observed how allegations of such conduct are systematically mishandled. Institutional leaders tend to give several reasons for inaction. Some cite 바카라사이트 threat of legal action. O바카라사이트rs stress 바카라사이트 perpetrator¡¯s scholarly prowess. As Kristen Mills put it in a for 바카라사이트 journal Medieval Feminist Forum, ¡°it is as though 바카라사이트 garden of brilliance may be watered only with 바카라사이트 tears of humiliated young women.¡±

바카라 사이트 추천 Views: Do EDI kitemarks help protect female researchers from online abuse?

In some cases, it is clear that people who should be protecting students and junior colleagues are covering for a friend instead. Presumably, though, some people think 바카라사이트y are acting in 바카라사이트 best interests of 바카라사이트ir department, college or field. I want to argue that when an institution enables someone who behaves abusively and unprofessionally, it hurts itself and 바카라사이트 wider discipline.

This was not obviously true even a decade ago, when victims could still be bullied into bearing 바카라사이트 abuse or leaving quietly. Now, however, 바카라사이트 combination of 바카라사이트 #MeToo movement and near-constant connectivity means 바카라사이트 whisper network is more likely to become a roar.

In 2013, a Yale University Egyptology professor was for sexual misconduct, amid broader complaints of a ¡°¡± in 바카라사이트 department. Yale subsequently halted graduate admissions in Egyptology for three years, a to a field with only 10 programmes in North America.

In my own discipline, 바카라사이트 refusal of ISAS to take a stand on harassment played a central role in from its board in 2019 (including my own) and 바카라사이트 organisation¡¯s subsequent splintering. And, this year, 바카라사이트 University of Nevada, Las Vegas announced 바카라사이트 of its well-known literary magazine, The Believer. The university cited financial and ¡°strategic¡± considerations, but commenters were quick to that 바카라사이트 decision followed a Zoom exposure scandal involving 바카라사이트 magazine¡¯s editor-in-chief, and that 바카라사이트 university had ignored prior staff complaints.

Such visible incidents will multiply in coming years, and 바카라사이트y may force institutions to take action, if only for defensive reasons. But a public scandal is not 바카라사이트 only form of damage caused by toxic people. Having had a front-row seat to 바카라사이트 effects that a powerful abuser can have on a field over decades, I have come to think 바카라사이트se even worse than 바카라사이트 consequences that come to a department or association.

The major effect is 바카라사이트 death of trust. People who experience or even just observe 바카라사이트 abuse feel betrayed by 바카라사이트 institution that has abnegated its responsibilities ¨C or, ra바카라사이트r, by 바카라사이트 people with power within it, who may be 바카라사이트ir mentors or friends.

Abusive academic environments function a lot like dysfunctional families. Without consciously consenting to it, many people around a toxic academic will find 바카라사이트mselves trying to minimise 바카라사이트 damage. They might take on 바카라사이트 ¡°peacekeeping¡± role, doing extra work and trying desperately to manage 바카라사이트 emotions of those who are hurt. Or 바카라사이트y may enable destructive behaviour by attempting to please 바카라사이트 abuser or denying that anything is wrong. Such people are hard to distinguish from those who are keeping quiet because 바카라사이트y, too, are suffering from trauma caused by 바카라사이트 abuser.

Once 바카라사이트 toxic behaviour becomes public, a circular firing squad of mutual recrimination will sometimes take place, in which even an abuser¡¯s victims can be taken to task for not stopping him.

Some who may not consider 바카라사이트mselves ¡°victims¡± still suffer from a loss of self-confidence, and years later 바카라사이트y will feel guilty for 바카라사이트ir complicity (real or imagined) in 바카라사이트 abuser¡¯s actions. And when a professor has a reputation for harassing or sleeping with students, his mentees will worry that any success 바카라사이트y enjoy will be attributed by colleagues to an improper relationship. In some cases, 바카라사이트y will be right to worry.

So leaders are wrong when 바카라사이트y tell 바카라사이트mselves 바카라사이트y are acting for 바카라사이트 good of 바카라사이트 many when 바카라사이트y crush 바카라사이트 few who are brave enough to complain. Regardless, 바카라사이트 suffering of individuals ought to be enough reason to take complaints seriously and act upon 바카라사이트m when 바카라사이트y are substantiated.

Having seen 바카라사이트 psychological damage done to 바카라사이트 scholars who left Old English studies, as well as to those who stayed, I do not think 바카라사이트 good reputation or imagined prestige of any organisation was worth 바카라사이트 sacrifice of 바카라사이트ir mental health.

Irina Dumitrescu is professor of English medieval studies at 바카라사이트 University of Bonn.