Workplace bullying policies, higher education and the First Amendment: Building bridges not walls

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that higher education institutions should change their Faculty Codes of Conduct to reflect workplace bullying as a form of harassment that is unacceptable. This paper provides a definition for workplace bullying; secondly, it offers an analysis of how the First Amendment is not an absolute, especially in the workplace; thirdly, it examines the scant legislative and judicial attention that is given to this issue; and finally, an argument is made to show how colleges and universities are not adequately addressing workplace bullying through clear policies and procedures that render due process. Results of a thematic analysis of 276 Faculty Codes of Conduct from a variety of universities and colleges across the United States revealed two primary themes: The Harassment Hang-up and Employee Engagement. Based on this analysis, higher education institutions should change their Faculty Codes of Conduct so bullying is defined as a distinctive form of harassment that is not tolerated, institutions provide faculty and staff clear communications regarding how to define bullying, and instructions are given for what a person can do as a bystander or target.

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

“…Frazier, 2011;Ilongo, 2016;Nelson & Lambert, 2001;Westhues, 2006;Wilkin, 2010) and policy analysis (e.g. Brisebois, 2010;Smith & Coel, 2018), the nature and structure of bullying of marginalized faculty, within specific disciplines and institutions, the (often covert) means by which legitimate institutional structures and policies are subverted and motives hidden and the dramatic impact of institutional restructuring on bullying of faculty are revealed. These studies draw our attention to broader narratives and discourses that support and normalize bullying in academe often by wrapping them in the sacred value of academic freedom (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012;Nelson & Lambert, 2001).…”

Impact of Workplace Bullying on Job Performance and Job Stress

“…It affects the behavioral components such as low morale, negative mood and legal problems which totally indicate that bullying is a stress creator and make employees perfume low at jobs (Chia & Kee, 2018). (Smith & Coel, 2018)clarifies that the number of American employees who are affected by workplace bullying in their organizations is approximately sixty million. According to the authors primary features of workplace bullying are duration, repetition and frequency of miss treatment.…”

Examining university leadership and the increase in workplace hostility through a Bourdieusian lens

“…Researchers have for some time been aware of the shift this has caused to the higher education workplace (Jameson, 2018; Watson, 2000). Smith and Rae Coel's (2018) analysis of institutional bullying highlights that faculties that are now essentially forced to operate on a ‘making the numbers’ approach have inadvertently created environments that encourage aggressiveness, reward competition, and focus on short‐term achievements—aspects that breed hostility (p. 99). In the midst of this turmoil, universities are still places of intellectual debate.…”

“…In the midst of this turmoil, universities are still places of intellectual debate. For those at the top of their field engaged in research, this in itself can be an opportunity to criticise and humiliate those without that knowledge base in what can be viewed as justifiable bullying (Smith & Rae Coel, 2018). This also raises the question of what are the consequences of these interactions when/if the leaders of a faculty do not have the academic grounding to participate or challenge in these academic scenarios.…”