(Revised 21 July 2019)

11-minute read

Dermot Feenan

LLB MA LLM Barrister-at-Law FRSA

.

It often takes clarity, courage and determination for an academic to start legal proceedings against a university. I know. I’ve twice needed to initiate legal proceedings against universities: most recently against a former employer for victimisation, unfair dismissal, and discrimination, which I brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Academia is a small world. Some academics like to keep their heads down, to not rock the boat in the face of poor standards, abuse, and even illegality. Fear of being seen as a troublemaker, with the associated risk of losing symbolic and material benefits such as status and promotion opportunities is enough to silence many.

This is partly why I identify with, and support, Dr. Vishal Vora’s determined effort to first secure compensation from SOAS for inadequacies in supervision of his PhD, and to now seek an apology for the distress and inconvenience caused. I’ve also acted as supervisor to several students who successfully completed their doctoral research, so am clear on what’s required for successful completion. I have also seen, though, how some academics’ approaches to doctoral students borders on negligence. The problems that Vishal and other doctoral students face seems to be part of the broader context of regulation and governance of the contemporary university that causes deep and widespread problems in education and research.

Problems encountered by Dr. Vora

Vishal Vora started his PhD at SOAS in September 2010 on a part-time basis.

In 2011, he encountered problems in the process of upgrading from a MPhil to PhD. He lodged a complaint, which was upheld.

He then experienced problems with SOAS’ regulations and their lack of a paternity policy when he and his wife had a child, which was going to force him to pay more fees rather than allow him to take a break to care for his child without needing to continue to pay fees. He rightly complained, including with reference to how the university’s Academic Registry handled the matter. The investigator of his complaint found in October 2015 that his matter had been “very badly handled” and partially upheld his complaint. The investigator acknowledged that while it was difficult to retrospectively adjust his enrolment status, there should be an extension on the period for submission of his dissertation during which period his fees should be waived.

Throughout the remainder of his PhD, he was continuously let down by a lack of supervision. Again, he understandably complained. A second investigator found that “many staff members went to lengths to not take responsibility and to be unhelpful.”

Vishal’s complaint led to the investigator also recommending that SOAS adopt a “unified and clear parental leave policy” and “make clearer who students can turn to – should difficulties arise”. That investigator also noted that Vishal had four supervisors in four years – a frequency that I, as a supervisor of doctoral students, finds alarming. The investigator concluded that this, too, “should have actually been picked up and acted upon.”

Vishal continued, however, to experience problems during his PhD; principally, with inadequate supervision. It led to Vishal lodging a third complaint. 

A new investigator found that “[i]nteractions with the doctoral school and registry were always slow. Their correspondence and decisions were ‘officious and condescending’ in the words of one academic involved.”

In addition, the investigator found that “the relevant department chairs also failed to prioritize the needs of PhD students.” And, two academics at SOAS independently acknowledged that Vishal’s supervision had been inadequate.

The investigator said of the effect on Vishal: “The distress and inconvenience is severe”. That investigator recommended that he receive an apology from the Director of SOAS. 

The investigator did not uphold Vishal’s request for refund of his fees. In February 2016, Vishal had graduated, notwithstanding the problems with lack of supervision. His nominal supervisor did not read his final dissertation, and he had to submit the thesis, as he put it, “blindly and hope for the best”. The investigator, reporting in autumn 2017, noted that the fact that Vishal did succeed in earning a PhD and was now working as a postdoctoral research fellow “suggests that his training at SOAS was not entirely a failure.” The investigator recommended maximum compensation of £5,000 for distress and inconvenience. 

Vishal fought on. I sympathise. He’d been let down. A monetary payment up to a statutory limit is one thing, but he had truly been messed around by repeated failings at SOAS which damaged his doctoral studies. If involved, I would likely have advised SOAS to reimburse some of his fees. When he had given SOAS every opportunity to resolve matters and they were unable to do so to his satisfaction, he complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) – which was designated under the Higher Education Act 2004 to review student complaints.  

Vishal found the OIA’s involvement unhelpful. Having read the Complaint Outcome from the OIA, I agree. It is a lacklustre, rigidly formulaic report whose approach to evidence in the complaint shows little appreciation of the needs of students and the challenges they face. It would give most, if not all students, little or no confidence in the rigour of the office’s independent adjudication.

The OIA has come under increasing criticism elsewhere. Matthew Wyard, a barrister specialising in education law, says that “the OIA is not feared by universities, particularly in relation to the remedies it imposes.” He adds: “universities are well aware of the tentativeness of the OIA’s remedies, an adverse finding represents nothing more than an annoying waste of their administrative time.” 

Other students have written of the problems they encountered with the OIA, which, in some cases, led to judicial review of the decisions of the OIA (e.g. Tiago Cardao-Pito (2016) ‘Assisting the High Administrative Court in Restricting Too Broad a Concept of Academic Judgment’, Accountability in Research 23(1): 53-62).

Vishal understandably initiated legal proceedings against the University. He claimed that SOAS breached section 49(1) of the Consumer Contracts Act 2015. This states that “every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill.” He argued that SOAS should have performed the service (the provision of tuition and support, both academic and pastoral) with reasonable care and skill. Vishal referred to the lack of supervision. 

Boldly, he claimed full refund of his fees plus the £5,000 for distress and inconvenience, plus costs and interest. The University settled the claim. They paid £20,000 earlier this year. But they did not apologise, nor did they insist on a settlement that would have hushed up the payment or closed off any further claim.

I took the opportunity to contact Vishal, alongside reading all the documentation in his case. He told me that his motivation has been not only to secure the apology for himself but because it might help others. He had previously published an article ‘How to deal with inadequate PhD supervision’ in Times Higher Education. Such pro-social, solidaristic action is creditable. 

Vishal said that he had felt threatened throughout the period he pursued his complaints. “I was asked by a member of staff why I didn’t just leave”, he told me.

Vishal says that the complaints and claim “took a great emotional toll”. I relate to that. Vishal and I are both legal academics and non-practising barristers, but, even so, fighting for justice for oneself isn’t easy.

Thankfully, Vishal and his family are now happily settled in Berlin; where he is a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. He is undertaking important work on international family law, marriage law, social regulation of families with special reference to ‘British South Asians’, ethnic identity, diversity and belonging, and the concept of Britishness. 

Academia in neoliberal times

Dr. Vora’s campaign is also especially important in view of the profound changes affecting the University sector in the United Kingdom; with increasing privatization and marketization, authoritarian managerialism, and threats to the freedoms, pay and conditions of academic staff. The logic of the market and associated external regulatory measures such as the Research Excellence Framework and the Teaching Excellence Framework have contributed to corrosion of values such as collegiality and kindness, but the stresses they also place on staff perversely adversely impact on aspects of research and education. It’s no wonder then that students such as Vishal suffer.

Traces of this corrosiveness is evident in the way that SOAS treated Vishal. The investigator of the first complaint regarding SOAS’s approach to the paternity matter noted “an underlying distrust on the side of Registry that the student may not have a genuine concern”. The introduction of metrics and the logic of productivity means that managers do not recognise and adjust for other labour-intensive tasks such as PhD supervision, so fewer academics are willing to take on the burden. This was evident in Vishal’s case. Academic staff were not receiving credit for supervision in their workload allocations. 

Dr. Vora’s persistence is admirable. It is a reminder that self-respect matters. It insists on recognition of the humanity of the student, which goes beyond any monetary compensation for inadequate supervision. And, it shows that behind the PhD itself, and the boxes that will inevitably be ticked by the university to show the number of doctorates awarded and by supervisors seeking promotion by evidencing their supervisorial status, is a person who matters. Indeed, Dr. Vora notes that other students have since come forward with alarmingly similar complaints from across departments at SOAS. This raises broader issues of accountability. 

Matthew Wyard, quoted earlier, says of the student complaints process generally: “internal complaints are fiercely defended and students are often blamed for their problems without any proper investigation of the underlying issues; this continues at the OIA stage of the proceedings.” 

These problems with the universities’ approaches to student complaints are also driven by a need to protect institutional reputation in a context in which they are increasingly competing with each other.

The need for apology

The failure by SOAS to apologise reflects badly on the University, and especially on its current Director. 

This is regrettable. SOAS has an international reputation for outstanding work. I’ve worked with current and former staff in their School of Law. 

A straightforward apology, without any admission of liability, would not only bring closure to the matter for Dr. Vora but would show that SOAS recognises and atones for the injury caused. It would also communicate to current and prospective students, and potential donors and allies, that SOAS takes its responsibility for academic standards seriously. This is why I signed Dr. Vora’s petition requesting an apology. In the absence of that apology, I am also inclined not to engage in any work with SOAS. 

It is to be hoped that the Director of SOAS will now reconsider the decision not to provide an apology. 

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator should also reconsider the matter, not least in light of the extent of student complaints, and, if appropriate, assist Dr. Vora in securing his apology. In that way, students would also have confidence in the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. 

___________________ 

In autumn 2018, Dr. Vora created an online petition asking the Director of SOAS to apologise for the lack of supervision during his PhD research at SOAS. I would kindly ask you to join me in signing the petition, linked here. 

.

© Dermot Feenan 2019