Whistleblowers: Student anger at Sems

Students have joined staff in raising the alarm about problems at Surrey University's European Management School.

The THES reported last year that Sems staff were concerned about a management culture typified by the case of lecturer Geoffrey Darnton, whose promised lecturing work at Sems dried up rapidly after he wrote to the vice-chancellor criticising management practices and warning of low morale at the school. In November, The THES resisted a threatened injunction by Sems to publish extracts from a memo to Mr Darnton from his boss, Paul Gamble, in which he is criticised for having "a strong need for all procedures to be set out in writing".

Professor Gamble told Mr Darnton not to "advance open criticisms to me and to my colleagues", under threat of losing his job.

Mr Darnton's employment tribunal against Sems, in which he is claiming that he has been victimised for raising concerns under the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, was due to begin this week.

It is understood that Darnton's case is not the only employment dispute faced by Sems.

The low morale of staff and the school's apparent unwillingness to listen to criticism appears to be affecting the students, who have high expectations of the postgraduate courses, for which they pay £8,000. Angry at what they perceive to be low-quality tuition and bad management, but frustrated by a perceived failure by managers to listen to their concerns, the enterprising students have set up their own website.

Called "Sems Sucks", the site invited contributions on a number of topics, and hopes to organise group complaints to overseas students' consulates and to university regulators.

Surrey University declined to comment.

The site is at: www.sems-sucks.co.uk

Luton's managers "remote" from staff

Inspectors from the "Investors in People" kitemarking scheme have offered some helpful guidance to Luton University.

An IiP "feedback report" for the university makes a number of recommendations to sharpen management practices. Under the category "management effectiveness", after a list of seven "strengths", the IiP inspector lists nine "areas for development".

Senior managers are seen as remote, said the November 2000 report, with one pro vice-chancellor "conspicuous by his absence".

People who highlighted health and safety issues to line managers, the report continues, "said that little action, if any, is taken". In one case, "faulty locks on doors have been identified particularly in one building in an area of Luton where some vicious attacks on women have occurred", but little had been done.

"Management (should) encourage an ethos whereby people who recognise health and safety hazards are rewarded and acknowledged, not ignored," the IiP inspector suggests. This recommendation came in the same month that Luton was finally given the all clear by the Health and Safety Executive, which had earlier issued three formal "improvement orders" over the university's handling of occupational health and stress.

The inspector's report goes on: "The grievance policy needs to be unpicked and developed as a matter of urgency. I came across one instance where there appears to be a distinct lack of purpose on the part of the line manager to resolve a grievance issue quickly and fairly."

The report was written after a five-day visit to the university late last year at a cost to Luton of £3,850. It identified 25 "strengths" against weaknesses, but concluded that Luton was entitled to keep its IiP accreditation.

The university said it was one of the first to achieve IiP status and had now been reaccredited twice. "We take a proactive approach in seeking the views of all colleagues and we take all issues seriously," said a spokesman.

• Want to blow the whistle?

Contact Phil Baty on 020 7782 3298 or email him .