Fictional Case Study Two

Balancing values and ‘bringing authentic self to work’

Background

In 2024 Anyplace University, which offers a remote delivery model, was listed in the ‘Top 100 Best Places to Work in the UK Guide’.

One of the University’s corporate values is ‘collegiality’. A recent internal poll showed staff interpretations of ‘collegiality’ vary from ‘we should be nice to each other and not have disagreements and avoid discussing contentious topics’ to ‘I should work with my colleagues in a professional manner when required’.  

Management training and cultural induction at Anyplace can be inconsistent, but Anyplace’s executive team frequently reminds staff in formal communications that they are expected to demonstrate self-leadership, bring their ‘best selves’ to work and model the desired staff behaviours.

Professor A, one of Anyplace’s most successful research staff members (who has brought in millions in research income in his discipline of quantum physics), recently posted a link to a blog he had written about ‘Israel’s genocide against Palestinians’ in an internal staff online forum.

First update

Professor A argued that Anyplace can more clearly demonstrate its institutional values through activism and action and by standing up to bullying and taking a ‘much needed’ stance against the war. It called for staff to demonstrate ‘authentic collegiality’ and visibly demonstrate their support for and solidarity with Palestine.

Professor A self-funded production of some badges. The slogan on the badges was ‘Stop Genocide in Palestine’. The design included the Palestinian flag and the Anyplace corporate (brand) logo. 

Professor A left a pack of 100 badges in foyer of Anyplace’s main administrative building.

Second update

Within a few weeks, some staff members appeared at online meetings wearing the badges Professor A had paid to produce.

There were some mutterings online within Anyplace about the use of the corporate logo and whether this meant that Anyplace supported the use of the slogan ‘Stop Genocide in Palestine’.

A few academics in the History Department took issue with Professor A’s actions (producing and encouraging people to wear badges) in an online faculty meeting.

Professor A defended his actions by saying that he was bringing his authentic self and values to work and that he was exercising his right to free speech in producing the badges.

He cited Anyplace’s Brand Policy which states:

"Staff and students are free to express their political, religious, social and academic views in private or public provided this is explicitly done in their own name."

Professor A felt that not being proactive in the face of genocide would not be authentic or true to himself.

Third update

A small group of staff and students raise a complaint that staff wearing the badges makes them feel threatened and undermines their sense of collegiality and belonging at Anyplace.

The University Jsoc writes a letter to the local MP, complaining of a culture of fear and institutional complicity in antisemitism at Anyplace.

Some suggested questions to explore

  1. What might be the potential benefits and challenges of Anyplace’s policy on culture and values?
  2. Where are the boundaries between free speech, academic freedom and institutional policy when staff write and comment about issues as a means to share their personal beliefs and opinions rather than academic opinions based on evidence and research?
  3. What do you think about Professor A’s use of the logo – does this seem acceptable?
  4. What do you think of Professor A’s argument that he is exercising his free speech and bringing his authentic self to work?
  5. Do you think Professor A has operated in accordance with the Brand Policy?
  6. What do you think of the concerns of staff and students, or the action by Jsoc to write to the local MP?
  7. Has anyone in this case study violated anyone’s free speech? Has anyone been discriminated against or harassed? Has anyone violated any institutional policies?

Commentary

Interaction Between Values and Free Speech/Academic Freedom

The case study highlights the tension between institutional values and the legal protections for free speech and academic freedom, including the broad presumption in favour of freedom of expression. Under UK law, freedom of expression is a fundamental right protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and more recently the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. Universities are required to secure and promote the rights to free speech and academic freedom, but universities also operate within the context of their own values and policies. Anyplace University’s value of ‘collegiality’ is interpreted differently by staff, leading to conflicts when contentious topics arise. The challenge lies in fostering an environment where diverse views can be expressed respectfully without undermining the institution's values.

Professor A’s actions bring to light the complexities of expressing personal views in a professional setting. While he argues that he is exercising his right to free speech, the use of the corporate logo on the badges blurs the line between personal and institutional endorsement. This raises questions about the appropriateness of using university resources and symbols to promote personal views, which can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts within the workplace.

The varied interpretations of ‘collegiality’ at Anyplace University reflect broader challenges in defining and upholding corporate culture and values. Inconsistent management training and cultural induction contribute to these differing views. The executive team’s emphasis on self-leadership and desired behaviours may not be sufficient to ensure a cohesive understanding of values across the institution. Clear guidelines and consistent training are needed to align staff interpretations with the university’s intended culture.

A tension arises when personal views expressed by academics, such as Professor A, are perceived as representing the institution. This can create conflicts, especially when those views are controversial or politically charged. The university must navigate these tensions carefully to protect both academic freedom and its own reputation.

Professor A’s use of the Anyplace corporate logo on the badges without authorisation is problematic. Trademark laws protect logos as intellectual property, and unauthorised use can lead to legal and reputational consequences. The use of the logo implies institutional endorsement of the message, which may not reflect the university’s official stance. The professor has likely breached university policy. This unauthorised use should be addressed promptly but proportionately (reflecting the importance of free speech) to prevent further misuse and potential legal issues.

The case study illustrates the tension between sharing personal views and being perceived as representing the institution. Professor A’s actions, while intended to express his personal beliefs, have been interpreted by some as an institutional stance due to the use of the corporate logo. This highlights the need for clear policies on how staff can express personal views without implying institutional endorsement.

The conflict between Professor A and the group of staff and students who complained underscores the challenges of interpreting and applying institutional values. While Professor A believes he is upholding the value of ‘authentic collegiality,’ others feel threatened and excluded by his actions.

The University Jsoc's actions in writing to the local MP and raising concerns about antisemitism at Anyplace University are an exercise of their own right to free expression. Students and staff have the right to express their views, even if those views are critical of the institution. Jsoc's actions highlight the importance of allowing all voices to be heard, particularly when addressing issues of discrimination and inclusion.

Universities in the UK are often subject to political and media scrutiny, especially when controversial issues arise. The complaint and the letter to the local MP illustrate the external pressures universities face. Anyplace University must navigate these pressures while upholding its commitment to free speech and academic freedom. This requires a balanced approach that considers the diverse perspectives within the university community and the broader societal context. Anyplace University can take proportionate steps to safeguard its reputation, but courts have been clear in recent judgements that universities are expected to weather criticism arising from the legitimate exercise of free speech and academic freedom.

In this case study, there is no clear evidence of harassment or discrimination. While some colleagues and students may be offended by Professor A’s speech, offense alone does not constitute harassment or discrimination under UK law. Harassment involves unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates a person's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. Discrimination involves treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic. The university must ensure that all parties feel heard and respected while upholding the principles of free speech and academic freedom. The case study highlights the complex interplay between personal views, institutional values, and legal protections for free speech and academic freedom.