|
|
| AN OPEN LETTER TO ANDREW BREWERTON - Sam Richards |
|
Dear Mr. Brewerton
I, along with thousands of others, regard the plan to close Dartington College of Arts, along with its traditions, social and economic function in South Devon, as an avoidable tragedy. The tragic flaws, in this case, are a collective failure of vision and a lack of ability for the major players to communicate genuinely with each other. Hubris is found in the refusal to see the tragedy for what it really is and the determination to now pursue a universally unpopular grand plan, impressive in outline but flimsy as any kind of replacement or continuation of Dartington College. As you are a major player in this plan, this vision for a new university, it could hardly be expected that I would feel well disposed towards you. For me, over thirty years’ involvement with the College, as student, part-time lecturer and (critical) supporter are about to disappear.
Even so, however much I detest your plans and ideas I would, in extremis, defend to the last your right to them, as well as your right to express them in whatever way you felt appropriate. This is a matter of basic human rights, freedom of expression and democracy. In my many years of teaching at Dartington College and elsewhere I have held these principles as self evident. I have conducted my sessions in such a way that students feel empowered to say and do what they want, whatever I may feel about it.
Like a great many people who have passed through Dartington, I regard myself as in the line of descent from Homer Lane, A.S.Neill, Bertrand Russell, and, of course, Dartington Hall School itself, in which education is an experimental laboratory, a field of discovery in which the true expression of thoughts and feelings is paramount, and the self regulation of all individuals – students and staff - constitutes the highest value. Boundaries, norms and social conventions may (or may not) come into question in this model. Persons in positions of authority must earn respect for legitimate reasons rather than exerting illegitimate authority merely because convention puts power in their hands.
You do not appear to uphold these principles, and seem, therefore, somewhat remote from the progressive ideals so long associated with Dartington. Your response to a satirical article I posted on the Save Dartington College website was to arrange for a Disciplinary Hearing which dismissed me from my part-time teaching at Dartington, and incidentally, got away with this punishment despite many procedural irregularities. (All music staff, including my wife, knew of my suspension before I did. Just before the Hearing, the Disciplinary Panel met, in private, with Vice Principal Mark Taylor who was my “prosecutor”. I was not invited. He claimed that an investigation had taken place yet he never even contacted me. He added, without notification, a charge of “damage to college property” – which, whatever else I did or did not do, was laughable. The charges of “gross misconduct” and “insubordination” were not proven. The Chair of the Hearing began a sentence with “When you take this to Appeal, which I assume you will…” – evidence of a kangaroo court if ever such evidence were needed. And so on leading to my summary dismissal.) Even if I had committed a greater crime than merely poking fun at you, this action was unwarranted and out of proportion. My suspicion is that you instigated it because, unlike the pioneering educationalists mentioned above, you cannot tolerate any challenge to your authority. Further, it seems that in the volatile situation at College, engineered at least in part by yourself, and in face of overwhelming opposition and anger, you needed a scapegoat, someone of whom you could make an example. Perhaps the most ill-advised thing about my satire was that it made me a sitting duck for you to fire at.
You then spread falsehoods about me. On three occasions, once verbally and twice in writing, you informed people who supported me that disciplinary procedures were only used as a last resort when “peer pressure, reason or line management” had failed. I have copies of these letters. They clearly imply that these measures had been taken and that I had ignored them. My guess is that the reason you spread untruths in this way was that the charge of “insubordination” only has validity if an order has been disobeyed and the consequences of that disobedience have been explained. Rather than attempting to smooth things over, therefore, you added more fuel to the fire.
In June the Appeal Panel offered both of us a face-saving formula whereby I could apologise to you in written form and be reinstated. I offered you a spoken apology with the Appeal Panel, College Registrar, and two UCU representatives as witnesses. I recall my words almost verbatim: “I do apologise to you. What I wrote may have been a little over-the-top. There, I have said it - in front of all these people.” I was well aware, as all concerned must have been, that no real “reinstatement” could meaningfully take place. My part-time contract had almost run out for the academic year, and, in the hire-and-fire system part-timers labour under, there is no obligation to re-engage in the next academic year. So the offer was hollow. Despite this I considered the matter carefully and wrote the requested apology mentioning the two points the Appeal Panel asked for, namely the tone of the original article and any offence caused to you.
You refused my considered written apology on the grounds that it was insufficient to satisfy you. Given that I complied with the Appeal Panel’s conditions, I am tempted to ask why you did this. The only answers I can think of are your apparent need to make me grovel, to declare as off-limits all critical thought against you and the plan to “relocate” the un-relocatable, and for me to be publicly humiliated in a state of abject contrition. You also asserted that my apology was insincere. As you do not have a direct line to my thoughts and feelings you have no right to label my action “sincere” or “insincere”. I understand you have now told a journalist from The Independent that my original satire was “vicious”. I sometimes wish it had been. At least it would have been worth getting the sack for.
Did you oppose my freedom of expression because you were personally piqued by my satire which compared you to characters in Alice and Wonderland? (Incidentally, I’m now reminded of the Queen of Hearts who declared “Off with his head” at the slightest provocation.) Freedom of expression involves two key elements which are: first, that no subject matter should be off-limits, and second, that the manner of utterance should likewise be unrestricted, barring illegality such as obscene language, obvious untruths and implications such as “have you stopped beating your wife?” A hot, sensitive subject addressed in satirical form is definitely within the bounds of freedom of expression.
From Ennius and Lucilius in Ancient Rome to “The Office” and “Borat” in the present day, humour (sometimes scathing) and criticism (sometimes harsh) have come together in the literary form of satire. You don’t have to LIKE the humour or AGREE with the criticism. You don’t even have to consider it a good example of its genre. But neither you nor I, Mr. Brewerton, nor the Prime Minister, the Pope nor God Almighty are beyond it.
You, by your actions, have declared war on me. You have made it clear that you have no respect for me despite my many years of devotion to Dartington’s ideals. However, because I assume (I hope rightly) that neither of us desires the unpleasantness that could arise from further action I am willing to put to one side ALL the above history and start again. Will you join me in doing so? The apology I offered was sincere, but I am now prepared to offer the following revised version.
“The article I posted on the Save Dartington College website on February 24th, and which became the cause of disciplinary proceedings against me, was intended as a satire on the situation at the College. As the stocks-in-trade of satire are sarcasm, exaggeration, parody, shock effect, overstated comparison and scurrilous metaphor, it is, of course, possible that my article did contain unfounded or unsupported allegations. If there were any they were not meant to be taken literally, and nor was the article in general. As a result of discussions over the last few months, I do understand that the nature and content of that posting, despite its intention as parody or spoof, could easily be taken as aggressive towards you. However, I can assure you that my basic intention was political rather than personal. I therefore apologise for any offence the article may have caused and for any inaccuracies it may have contained."
I must make the following four points. First, if you cannot accept that my article was intended as a satire no further progress is possible. Please at least acknowledge that this was its intention.
Second, in your email in which you rejected my previous version of the apology you wrote that I had failed to adequately “acknowledge the offence of gross misconduct as proven at your disciplinary hearing and upheld by the Appeal hearing”. I do not, and still cannot in all conscience, acknowledge the accusation of “gross misconduct”. In my recollection, the Appeal Panel did not ask me to do this. Furthermore, it is an inappropriate charge and the findings of both hearings were plain wrong and, in my view, clear evidence of a bias in your favour.
In modern employment practice “gross misconduct” is generally reserved for actions which are against the law – robbery, embezzlement, harassment, violent behaviour, sexual harassment, breaking and entering, and so on. An accusation of “general misconduct”, although perhaps a matter of opinion, would have been hard for me to argue against. As I have written to Mr. Dillon, Chair of the Appeal Panel, under the heading of “general misconduct” you could have accused me of “unsatisfactory performance”. This generally covers issues such as culpable negligence, lack of capability, or persistent lateness, and includes lack of co-operation, impoliteness, insolence and blatant discourtesy. However, the punishment for “general misconduct” falls short of summary dismissal.
It seems ironic for me, of all people, to point this out, but if you had proven a case of “general misconduct” against me, I would have automatically been given a warning, probably a final warning. This could have dissuaded me from further public statements or actions against the Falmouth plan. This would have been a far more effective way of “managing” me.
Third, I am indicating, via this open letter, that I am still ready for reconciliation and have chosen this form because I want this made public. I must stress that the basis for this desire on my part is my genuine regard for Dartington’s students. Morale is very low at the College. Many students speak to me about it. I would like to be able to offer them my skills and knowledge in various aspects of experimental music, improvisation, jazz, popular music and folklore.
Last, but by no means least, just as you require an apology from me I am justified in asking for an apology from you for the smear on my character and reputation. Will you accept my apology (above), and then at least acknowledge that in the rough-and-tumble of the general situation that I, too, have reason to feel aggrieved due to the untruths that you spread about me, the clear victimisation of me (as opposed to other website postings which were far more forthright than mine), my feeling that I have been bullied and mobbed, and the issue of freedom of expression that lies behind the whole case?
I have come more than half way to meet you in offering you firstly an apology, and now a revised apology. Will you do the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|