11 - The Word Is ‘Offensive’ — Except When We Use It: Inside Bury College’s Disciplinary Hypocrisy

During a recent employment tribunal, Bury College insisted that the term “retard” was offensive, unacceptable, and grounds for dismissal. But the hearing revealed a striking contradiction: the same word was used repeatedly by College staff, including senior managers, during meetings, correspondence, and even in witness statements, without consequence.

The teacher at the centre of the case was dismissed for allegedly repeating the word in a classroom setting. College witnesses described the word as “humiliating,” “derogatory,” and “contrary to College policy,” citing its violation of safeguarding obligations and the Code of Conduct.

However, the word “retard” appeared numerous times in documents prepared by the College itself, including disciplinary letters, tribunal submissions, and even witness statements. One such document, issued to formally invite the Claimant to a disciplinary hearing, used the word explicitly.

What’s more, during the disciplinary process, multiple College staff repeated the word to the Claimant without quotation marks or context disclaimers. Yet none of these uses were treated as problematic.

The contradiction became even more glaring when Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead, admitted under cross-examination that she repeated the word directly to a vulnerable student. She accepted it could cause harm and yet, no action was taken against her.

The Claimant’s representative says that this selective standard reflects institutional hypocrisy: “If the College truly believes the word is offensive and unacceptable, then no one, including the DSL and senior managers, should be using it. Either the standard applies to everyone, or it’s not a real standard.”

The College’s justification? Context. They argued that their staff were using the word for investigative purposes, or in reference to the allegation. But critics say that’s not good enough. “If context matters,” one observer noted, “then it also matters for the Claimant, who was repeating what a student had said.”

The Tribunal must consider whether the College’s position was consistent, or whether it selectively enforced its language standards in order to justify a dismissal it had already decided upon.

Even the College’s solicitor appeared to blur the distinction, at one point stating that “using the word” and “calling someone the word” was “splitting hairs” despite College witnesses earlier acknowledging the difference between the two.

Ultimately, this issue isn’t just about one word, it’s about whether rules are applied evenly or weaponised selectively. When institutions fail to live by the standards they enforce, trust and fairness are the first casualties.

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