(The name of the writer of this edited account has been withheld)
A woman senior lecturer had an excellent record of peer-reviewed research grants, of presentation of papers at national and international conferences and in publishing of papers. She had taught students ranging from diploma to postgraduate levels with above average student assessment of her teaching. She had served on Faculty and University committees and held high office in her professional association at state and national levels. She was also the only female academic staff member in her department.
Early in 1996, after six years in her post, four as a tenured senior lecturer, she was encouraged by male colleagues from other departments to apply for promotion and prepared an application. Her head of department's attitude was negative even before seeing the application and at the departmental promotion interview indicated the department would not support her application. In her opinion, his detailed report was basically negative and seemed to overlook strong points of the application. She discussed parts of the report with him, pointing out where she felt his report lacked balance or was inaccurate. The department head modified the report three times but added further negative comments. The effect of this experience on her health led the woman to withdraw her application.
Over the next year she paid special attention to areas which had previously concerned her department head, and then reapplied. Before her performance review interview he advised that there had been improvements in both research and teaching but that he did not want 'a rerun of last year' in any attempt to negotiate changes to his report. At the promotion review interview, however, he expressed concern about the woman's research, suggesting it was too applied and ignoring her long record of research grants.
The applicant was given no verbal indication of the level of support she would receive. It was only when she read his report a week later that she knew that the department was again refusing to support her application in spite of her knowledge that she should have been informed at the time of interview. Some aspects of her application which were covered in the Head's report had not been discussed with the applicant and so could not be addressed in her response.
The applicant was away from home for a few days and so made no attempt to seek any discussion or modification of the report. On her return, however, she found a message advising her that the report had been modified. More than 10 alterations had been made, without any reasons being given, and the overall tone of the report had been made more negative.
The applicant thought that the Head might have been influenced by a separate incident in the department but this was cleared up at a subsequent meeting during which some changes in favour of the applicant were negotiated though the report was still substantially negative.
The woman expressed her anger at the lack of support to a senior male colleague and also discussed the matter with university officers and other colleagues before leaving for overseas where she also spoke with senior colleagues in her field, some of whom commented on the apparent lack of professionalism in the process.
Shortly after her return she had an informal interview with the Chair of the University Promotion Committee. After some discussion he indicated that he would advise the interviewing committee that there could be some bias in her Head's report. Soon after, she received a copy of the Faculty Dean's report indicating that her application deserved support.
The applicant found the promotion interview later in the year tough but fair and was delighted and relieved to hear later in the year of her promotion. She was, however, too mentally and physically exhausted to appreciate her considerable success. The victory felt hollow.
She was left with the strong belief that there had been unreasonable departmental bias against her and that there were procedural irregularities in the process and errors and inconsistencies in the department reports made in relation to her application. She also suspected that some of the strategies used against her had been designed to unnerve her. She was, however, surprised that the departmental colleagues involved in her assessment seemed unable to recognise that she would receive strong support elsewhere within the university and form her profession, and that their lack of benchmarking abilities would ultimately be highlighted.
She offers the following advice to others who might find themselves in similar circumstances.
Do not criticise the department in your interviews. Stick to the facts and let them speak for themselves. Act professionally at all times. Point out any errors but do not make a big issue of them. Discuss your report with as many senior colleagues as possible and distil their combined wisdom. Keep your equity officer informed of developments. Keep a record of all discussions, phone calls, memos, etc whether negative or positive. Put your feelings in writing to get things out of your system but then destroy the writing. Seek counselling or medical assistance if necessary. After the event, do not look back, except in a positive way. Laugh off the discrimination or harrassment so that you do not become bitter. Be generous in victory.
Back to Issue 48 Contents page