39 - Inconsistent Standards: Bury College’s Unequal Treatment of Staff Who Used the Word “Retard”

Educational institutions rely on clear and consistent disciplinary standards to maintain professionalism, fairness, and trust among staff and students. When similar conduct occurs, staff should reasonably expect similar scrutiny and accountability. The events surrounding the dismissal of a maths lecturer raise significant concerns about whether Bury College applied its disciplinary policies consistently when two members of staff used the same derogatory word toward the same student but were treated very differently.

The tribunal judgment confirms that the maths lecturer was dismissed after allegations that he used the word “retard” during a classroom interaction with a student in September 2023. The college treated the matter as gross misconduct and ultimately dismissed him without notice.

According to the tribunal findings, the maths lecturer explained that the word arose during an exchange with a student who had used the term himself. The maths lecturer stated that he asked the student “what would your friends say?”, to which the student responded using the word. The maths lecturer then repeated the phrase. He maintained that he had not intended to insult the student and that the word was repeated in response to the student’s own statement rather than used as a deliberate insult.

Despite this explanation, the college concluded that the maths lecturer had used the word toward the student and that this conduct breached the institution’s professional standards. The dismissal letter stated that the behaviour amounted to breaches of the college’s Code of Conduct and Prevention of Harassment and Bullying Policy, which require staff to treat students with dignity and avoid comments that demean or humiliate them.

However, the tribunal evidence also shows that the same word was used by another member of staff during the investigation into the incident. That individual was Sarah Walton, the college’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), who conducted the investigation into the complaint against the maths lecturer.

Unlike the maths lecturer, Walton was not subject to disciplinary proceedings, investigation, or criticism for using the same word in relation to the same student. This creates a clear disparity in how the college responded to the use of the language.

The contrast between the two situations is striking. One member of staff used the word in a spontaneous classroom exchange, in circumstances where he repeated a term first spoken by the student. The other used the word deliberately during the investigation process despite acknowledging the harmful nature of the term. Yet only one individual was suspended, investigated, and ultimately dismissed.

Even more significantly, the very policies relied upon by the college to justify the maths lecturer’s dismissal do not appear to have been applied to Sarah Walton in the same way. The dismissal letter relied on alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct and the Prevention of Harassment and Bullying Policy, both of which prohibit offensive remarks about disability and require staff to maintain the highest standards of professional behaviour toward students.

If those same policies had been applied to Walton in the same manner that they were applied to the maths lecturer, the logical consequence would have been that her conduct would also have been investigated under the disciplinary process and potentially treated as gross misconduct. However, no such action appears to have been taken.

The tribunal itself identified numerous weaknesses in the college’s investigation process. These included failures to properly explore conflicting witness accounts, inconsistencies in the students’ descriptions of events, and reliance on disputed records of investigation meetings.

Because of these flaws, the tribunal concluded that the investigation fell outside the range of reasonable responses expected of an employer and ruled that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.

Nevertheless, the tribunal also concluded that a fair process might still have resulted in dismissal, leading to a significant reduction in compensation. The legal ruling therefore focused primarily on procedural fairness rather than the broader issue of comparative treatment between different staff members.

Yet the inconsistency remains evident. When two members of staff use the same derogatory word toward the same student, fairness and transparency would normally require both instances to be examined under the same disciplinary standards. In this case, however, one individual faced suspension, investigation, and dismissal, while the other appears not to have faced any formal scrutiny.

Such disparities risk undermining confidence in disciplinary processes within educational institutions. Staff must be able to trust that workplace policies will be applied consistently and that similar conduct will lead to similar levels of accountability.

Educational organisations carry a responsibility not only to safeguard students but also to ensure that disciplinary policies are enforced fairly and consistently. When identical language directed toward the same student results in radically different outcomes for two members of staff, it raises legitimate questions about whether institutional standards have been applied equally and whether justice has truly been served.