Cardiff University academic who objected to cuts robbed of title through ‘spite’

Martin Shipton

A distinguished archaeologist and academic who publicly opposed Cardiff University’s cuts programme has been “spitefully” denied a status often given to retired professors.

James Whitley joined the university as a tutorial fellow in 1990. Three years later he was made a permanent lecturer, being promoted to senior lecturer in around 2000.

Between 2002 and 2007 he was on secondment as Director of the British School at Athens, during which time he became a Reader. He was made a Professor of Mediterranean Archaeology in September 2008 and has many academic publications to his name.

As part of its current round of cuts, the university decided to close the School of Ancient History.

In May Mr Whitley accepted voluntary redundancy.

Professor Emeritus

It is usual for long-serving professors to be granted the title Professor Emeritus when they retire, but in Mr Whitley’s case this has been refused.

In an email to Nation.Cymru, Mr Whitley stated: “Before I took voluntary severance, my Head of School applied on my behalf for me to have emeritus status before I left. This has been denied me. No grounds for this decision were made — and procedure may not have been followed.

“It is not normal for a professor to be denied this status, and it may well be worth asking what proportion of professors eligible for the status of emeritus are denied it through a freedom of information request.

“I hope my case is of some interest. I regard it as a new form of ‘cancellation’ of academics in universities prepared to speak out against the prevailing culture of managerialism. Managerialism is destroying Britain’s universities, and needs to be opposed.“

‘Disappointing’

An email sent to Mr Whitley by Professor Urfan Khaliq, the university’s Pro Vice Chancellor and Head of the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Cardiff University stated: “I am writing to you further to your application to be awarded an emeritus title. Having considered the case carefully, and especially in light of this being an honorary title, I have determined that this title will not be awarded to you. I appreciate this will be disappointing to you. Your named email account and access to the library and other facilities will shortly be withdrawn. If there is anything you still wish to retrieve from your email account, please do so as a matter of urgency. I wish you well in your retirement.“

Because the email account was closed down, Mr Whitley didn’t find out about the decision until June 23.

The decision was conveyed to Mr Whitley directly by Prof Khali and not the HR department, as it should have been.

‘Spiteful’

A Cardiff University source said: “James Whitley has been treated disgracefully by the university after many years of distinguished service. The decision not to accord him Emeritus status is simply spiteful.”

A Cardiff University spokesperson said no comment could be made on individual cases, adding: “An emeritus title is an honorific awarded at the discretion of a University.

“There is no entitlement to it upon retirement and each case is considered on its merits.“

In his letter to the University Council in which he denounced the cuts, Mr Whitley said: “Clearly, Cardiff University needs to save money and to operate more effectively. I just think that a managerialist approach to these matters is bound to backfire. Once subjects are lost they are lost forever, and this will have a long-term and entirely negative impact on the people of Cardiff and south Wales. Cuts on the other hand can be made to any part of the organisation – buildings and bureaucracy in particular – without long-term negative effects.

“My other grounds for opposition is that universities ought to be true to their founding principles. As set out by Viriamu Jones, the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire (of which Cardiff University is the heir) had the Classics at its heart. It also very much valued what we now call outreach – it was not simply there to serve those who excel academically but also those who had an interest in human history and culture, broadly understood. This outreach function is now well served by ContinuingEducation (about which the proposals are silent) and by the ‘Exploring the Past’ programme within the School of History, Archaeology and Religion (SHARE), the School on which the cuts will fall most heavily if the proposals put forward by the UEB are to be approved.

“The proposal you have before you modifies the original proposal somewhat. Some languages (eg Spanish) will be retained, as will Music. All will be part of the new ‘School of Global Humanities’. BA/BSc degrees in ‘Global Humanities’ will replace those in History, Archaeology, Ancient History, Religion and Theology and so forth. The ancient world will neither be studied nor taught, and ‘religion’ will be excluded from any understanding of the world as it is (rather than as metropolitan secularists would like it to be).

“There seems to be a widespread belief amongst the UEB that the Globe will in the future be English-speaking, and will not be religious, and that the major civilisations and cultures of the modern world need not pay any regard to the wisdom or heritage of the ancient world.

“The language remains managerial and instrumental, and the word ‘academic’ appears only once. It assumes that a university is primarily a business not a charity – it treats students as ‘customers’ and pays no regard to where they might be coming from (such as south Wales).

“The argument is that subjects must be lost so that money must be saved. It also assumes that subjects are only valuable insofar as they are useful – useful to tackle climate change, or somehow to ‘fix’ social problems (the current vice chancellor is very invested in the idea that social sciences can be applied to ‘fix’ things). There can be no discussion about ends – only about means.

“This vision for a post-academic university – which ought to be an oxymoron, but for the managerial elite clearly is not. This view is I think both profoundly wrong and deeply unrealistic. What it is not is an academic vision – that is, a vision that pays any respect to the founding principles of the institution, nor to the tradition of enquiry that the word ‘academic’ represents. It is written by those who have forgotten the meaning of the word.”