13 - A Culture of Silence: When Staff Concerns About Discrimination Are Ignored

A troubling pattern emerged during the employment tribunal involving Bury College, one that raises serious questions about how the institution handles claims of discrimination, particularly when they come from staff rather than students.

While the College acted swiftly to investigate a student’s allegation that a teacher used offensive language, it did little, if anything, to address discriminatory remarks made against the teacher by that same student.

During the hearing, it was revealed that Student B had made comments about the teacher’s appearance, health, and mental state, remarks that the College accepted were discriminatory. Yet these remarks were never discussed with the teacher at the time, and no support was offered. The College merely confirmed that the student had been “spoken to.”

Even more concerning was the College’s response when the teacher raised his own concerns that he was being discriminated against. Rather than investigate, the College simply dismissed the issue, claiming there was no evidence of bias in the process.

This contrast, between the handling of complaints by students versus those by staff , suggests a culture of silence when it comes to supporting employees.

The tribunal heard that while the College repeatedly referenced its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy to justify dismissal, it did not apply the same policy when staff raised concerns about being treated unfairly. The Claimant, who reported inconsistent treatment, found his concerns ignored or minimised.

According to Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023, educational institutions have a duty not only to protect students, but also to foster a safe and respectful working environment for staff. Failing to address discrimination towards teachers undermines that responsibility.

The Claimant’s representative says that this silence was not accidental. “The College was happy to cite policy when it suited them, but when the same policy would have required them to defend the teacher from discrimination, they chose not to act,” they said.

Critics say this imbalance is not just unfair, it’s dangerous. Teachers must be able to raise concerns about their treatment without fear of being ignored or retaliated against. When their concerns are dismissed, especially in cases involving discrimination, it signals that safeguarding and equality policies are not truly for everyone.

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

08 - Safeguarding Lead at Bury College Repeated Harmful Language to Student, Tribunal Hears

The Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bury College admitted to repeating a derogatory slur to a vulnerable student, despite knowing it could cause harm, according to evidence heard at a recent employment tribunal. Sarah Walton, the College's safeguarding lead, made the admission under cross-examination while giving evidence in a three-day hearing concerning the dismissal of a former staff member. The former employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly using the word "retard" in a classroom context. Ms Walton told the tribunal that she repeated the slur during a phone call with Student A, a student with a recognised learning disability, so the student would "know exactly what word" she was referring to. When pressed, she accepted that her use of the word could cause the same harm as when the dismissed teacher had used it. However, unlike the Claimant, no disciplinary action was taken against Ms Walton. Her conduct was not investigated, cri...
Read more