09 - Bury College Faces Scrutiny Over Double Standards in Use of Offensive Language

Bury College has come under fire after a recent employment tribunal exposed inconsistencies in its treatment of staff around the use of the word "retard", a term it repeatedly condemned as offensive, degrading, and harmful, but which continued to be used internally without consequence.

During the hearing, the College's legal representatives and senior staff asserted that the term was "offensive," "derogatory," "humiliating," and a breach of multiple College policies, including its Code of Conduct, Prevention of Harassment and Bullying Policy, and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy.

The Claimant, a teacher with more than nine years of experience, was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly repeating the word in a classroom setting, a comment he maintains was not directed at any individual but repeated in context after a student had said it.

Yet throughout the disciplinary process, the same word was repeated back to the Claimant by senior staff, including written communications, during the disciplinary hearing, and even in the College's own written statements to the Tribunal. The College's Designated Safeguarding Lead, Sarah Walton, also admitted to repeating the word to the same student during a phone call, an act she acknowledged under cross-examination could cause the same harm for which the Claimant was later dismissed.

Despite this, no action was taken against Ms Walton or other staff who repeated the word. None of those incidents were treated as breaches of policy or a safeguarding concern.

The Claimant's representative says that this selective enforcement reveals a clear double standard.

"You cannot describe a word as offensive, harmful, and a cause for dismissal, then use it freely yourself, even directly to students and staff, without consequence," they said. "Either the word is all of those things, or it isn't. But if it is, then it should never be repeated in any context, least of all by those in leadership."

Observers say the case raises troubling questions about consistency, accountability, and the weaponization of language in disciplinary procedures. While the Claimant's use of the word was framed as a safeguarding breach, other uses were minimised or ignored.

The tribunal's decision is now pending, but regardless of the outcome, the case has already exposed a credibility gap in the College's internal standards and a worrying lack of self-application among those charged with enforcing them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Headlines: What the Tribunal Really Showed About Bury College’s Case

Recent local coverage of the unfair dismissal tribunal involving a Bury College lecturer painted a simplified picture: a teacher used the “R-word” in class, the College acted, and a tribunal found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural flaws. But the deeper reality is more complex and far more troubling for the College’s credibility. [original article here:  Bury Times ]   Shifting Student Accounts The central complaint was not consistent. The initial allegation from Student B was that the maths lecturer had called the entire class “retards.” Later, she changed her account to say he had called just her the word. Still later, the complaint shifted again; now alleging he had called a different student, and then two students. Such shifting accounts should have raised immediate questions about reliability. Instead, the College treated the complaint as fact. Credibility of the Complaint Serious questions also arise about the credibility of the original complaint....
Read more

38 - Bury College Principal Endorses DSL’s Use of the Word “Retard”

Bury College Principal, Charlie Deane, has openly supported the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, after she repeated the word “retard” directly to a student with a learning disability. This position is remarkable given the College’s own characterisation of the word. In formal proceedings, the College has described “retard” as “offensive,” “derogatory,” “inappropriate,” “bullying,” “harassing,” “alienating,” “hateful,” “unacceptable,” “not used in society,” “a hate crime,” “a disgusting word,” and “linked to a protected characteristic.” The College also acknowledged that its use would cause damage to a student. Despite this, when Walton repeated the word to a vulnerable learner, she faced no sanction, no criticism, and was instead fully supported by Deane. By contrast, another member of staff who repeated the word in a classroom context was vilified and dismissed. Deane’s backing of Walton exposes a troubling double standard. If the word is so damaging tha...
Read more

41 - Safeguarding, Accountability, and Leadership at Bury College: Serious Questions Raised by Tribunal Evidence

In the Further Education sector, safeguarding is not simply a policy requirement, it is a core duty. Colleges are entrusted with the welfare of young people, and those in leadership positions carry a heightened responsibility to model and enforce those standards. Recent tribunal evidence involving Bury College raises significant questions about how safeguarding responsibilities are interpreted and applied at a senior level within the institution.   A Case That Goes Beyond One Incident At the centre of the case is a striking inconsistency. A lecturer was dismissed for using a derogatory term toward a student. However, tribunal evidence confirmed that a senior safeguarding leader,  Sarah Walton , Assistant Principal for Personal Development and the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) at the time, also used the same term toward the same student. Critically, it was acknowledged that: she had assessed that using the word could cause harm , yet chose ...
Read more