Whistleblowers: Don fights racial case

Why were so many spurious disciplinary charges brought against Southampton University lecturer Yoosef Maghsoodi?

An employment tribunal will decide later this year if the failed disciplinary action amounted to victimisation and represented an attempt to discredit Dr Maghsoodi and his complaints against his managers in the maths department.

After more than 14 years at Southampton, Dr Maghsoodi complained in July 1999 that despite being an acknowledged international specialist in his field, his career progression had been unfairly blocked.

Three weeks later, on August 17, the then dean of mathematical sciences, Ronald King, wrote to Dr Maghsoodi raising "concerns regarding your performance in connection with examination duties... this failure to carry out such duties is a disciplinary matter". A number of the concerns raised by Professor King related to incident months earlier.

In December 1999, Dr Maghsoodi complained to his trade union that his teaching loads were disproportionately high compared with white colleagues.

Later that month, on December 21, Professor King, now deputy dean, wrote to the new dean, Adam Wheeler: "As requested, I have gathered together a sequence of statements regarding what might be regarded as inadequate performance and inappropriate behaviour by Dr Maghsoodi."

In early 2000, Professor Wheeler confirmed to Dr Maghsoodi: "I... continue to have numerous concerns regarding the manner in which you have been conducting yourself and performing your professional duties." These concerns now reached back as far as "summer '98".

By April 2000, Professor Wheeler confirmed that two of the original complaints against Dr Maghsoodi had been dropped, but "evidence collected" with regard to other allegations, "suggests that a disciplinary hearing should be held". In May, another of the allegations had been dropped, but it was confirmed that the disciplinary would go ahead.

Dr Maghsoodi was formally accused of "inappropriate conduct" during a period "from December 1998 to March 1999". Although he denied the allegations, Dr Maghsoodi's friends also point out that they related to supposed incidents which were by that stage some 17 months old, and were first raised with him formally some seven months after the events. These charges appeared to be in breach of the university's disciplinary procedures, which require prompt action and "rapid turnaround" in investigating complaints.

His "performance in relation to examination duties" about a year earlier "between April 1999 and June 1999" was also raised, again in apparent breach of the procedures requiring prompt action.

Most of the charges related to the failure to submit exam marks on time during early June 1999. At the time, lecturers were taking part in an industrial action campaign short of a strike, which specifically included non-marking. The period between the sequence of national action days was also fully covered by medical certificates, confirming that Dr Maghsoodi had been ill at the time.

Some 18 of Dr Maghsoodi's colleagues signed a petition alleging that he had been victimised. Three other charges of "dilatory and uncooperative behaviour" were raised.

In October 2000, the whole case against Dr Maghsoodi was thrown out by deputy vice-chancellor Kathleen McLuskie. She acknowledged that disciplinary procedures had been breached and said that a lack of evidence had left her with "no alternative but to dismiss the case". Despite the failure to prove any of the allegations, she said: "It would appear to me that you have failed to reach the standards expected in the university."

A spokeswoman said the university could not comment as the case will be heard at a tribunal. The university is denying racial discrimination.