Dylan Evans award makes a mockery of UCC

“The award to Dylan Evans of an award for innovative teaching is a very questionable decision from the college …” (more)

[Laura Mulcahy, Cork Student News, 9 November]


5 Responses to “Dylan Evans award makes a mockery of UCC”

  1. I do not believe that the award (for teaching quality and innovation) should have been affected by the conviction (guilty of sexual harassment).

    Who says sexual harassers are unable to teach?

  2. It is funny that Dylan Evans leaked the full text of a letter from the President, and now he doesn’t want anyone to see it any more:

    23rd March, 2010.

    Strictly Private & Confidential
    Addressee Only

    Dr. Dylan Evans,
    Lecturer in Behavioural Science,
    School of Medicine,
    University College,

    Dear Dr. Evans,

    Reference is made to your letter of 25 February.

    I cannot agree with the assertion in your letter that “the investigators have not upheld the complaint of sexual harassment”.

    The Report addresses two allegations of sexual harassment which were complained of by [the complainant]. On the first of the matters, interactions between you and [the complainant] up to 2 November 2009, the Report concluded that you:

    “did not ever intend to cause offence to [the complainant]. He was not aware that he may have been causing offence by visiting her office and [the complainant] admit that she was not sufficiently assertive in making clear her displeasure at his visits to her office or other behaviour. We cannot therefore find that any of the actions of Dr. Evans up to 2 November 2009 constituted sexual harassment and do not therefore uphold those complaints. It is clear however that those complaints are not malicious.”

    On the second of those matters, namely the showing by you to [the complainant] of an academic which [the complainant] claims was inappropriate and offensive and which made her feel hurt and disgusted, the Report concludes as follows:

    “The question for us is whether Dr. Evans’s action can reasonably be regarded as sexually offensive, humiliating or intimidating to [the complainant]. We find the action was a joke with sexual innuendo and it was reasonable for [the complainant] to be offended by being presented with it in her office alone. We therefore find that the complaint on this action is upheld, although it was not Dr. Evans’s intention to cause offence.”

    In these circumstances, I am surprised that you should now contend that the investigators have not upheld the complaint of sexual harassment. It is clear that the sexual harassment complaint in respect of the second matter was indeed upheld.

    I cannot accept your contention that the manner in which [the complainant’s] complaint was dealt with by the University was inappropriate. [The complainant] chose to make a formal complaint of sexual harassment against you. I am satisfied that it was appropriate for the University to deal with such a formal complaint under the Formal Procedure set out in the Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity Policy. I am satisfied that the Policy does not prevent any member of staff from making a formal complaint of sexual harassment should they choose to do so and I am further satisfied that the Policy does not require a complainant to attempt to resolve their concerns using informal means.

    The investigators have upheld one of [the complainant’s] complaints and have not upheld the other complaint. With reference to the complaint which was not upheld, the Report concludes that “it is clear, however, that these complaints are not malicious”. I note that you challenge the finding that the complaint was not malicious. However, in circumstances where one allegation was upheld, I see no reason why I should not accept the investigators’ conclusion that the complaint was not made maliciously.

    As a complaint of sexual harassment against you has been upheld, it is now for me to decide whether to invoke the Disciplinary Procedures against you, as contemplated in paragraph 35 of the Policy, or to proceed in accordance with paragraph 36 of the Policy. In view of the finding in relation to the allegation that was upheld that “it was not [your] intention to cause offence”, I have decided, in the particular circumstances of this case, not to invoke the University’s Disciplinary Procedure as contemplated in paragraph 35 of the Policy but, instead, to invoke paragraph 36 of the Policy. Accordingly, I am requesting you to engage in training and counselling and to complete a period of monitoring and appraisal. Behaviour of this type is utterly unacceptable within the University and, should any further complaint of sexual harassment against you be upheld in the future, I will have no hesitation in invoking the University’s Disciplinary Procedures.

    The details of the training and counselling will be sent to you in due course.

    With reference to the monitoring and appraisal, I believe that it is appropriate that your behaviour in this regard should be monitored and appraised over a two-year period, commencing on 1 April 2010. That monitoring/appraisal will be conducted by your Head of School and I propose to ask the Head of School to let me have a short report every six months during that time. Needless to say, I must strongly encourage you to behave in an appropriate manner and in strict compliance with the University’s Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity Policy.

    Yours sincerely,

    Michael B. Murphy,

  3. More Mockery Says:

    It would be interesting to know who mocked UCC on May 15th under the names “grania.0” and “dutchdoc” by posting all these documents. We can already see that the document conversion was authored by a “Dylan Evans”: http://universitydiary.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/the-complexity-of-academic-freedom/#comment-10593

    “However, he has been very open and has posted the original official complaint & several other relevant documents in full on his Facebook page” grania.0 May 15, 2010 11:47 AM

    “After some poking around I can now make that information available (thanks: ). You can find it here: link http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/ May this help us all to come to a more informed conclusion. Now that I have received (WAY) more information, I think I have a good case for signing that petition.” dutchdoc May 15, 2010 3:46 PM http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/bat_sex_is_not_protected_by_ac.php#comment-2515657

  4. Evans wins court review quashing sanctions, but loses on overturning the finding of sexual harassment, and loses on UCC’s further disciplinary action for breach of confidence.


    UCC welcomes the decision of the High Court that its investigation into the complaint of sexual harassment under University procedures, which concluded that Dylan Evans was guilty of sexual harassment, stands, and that Dr Evans’ challenge to the findings of the investigation was rejected.

    UCC notes and will give further consideration to the High Court decision with regard to the request that Dr Evans undergo counselling and training and a two year period of monitoring and appraisal and notes the decision of the High Court with regard to the University’s establishment process.

    UCC’s decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of alleged breaches of confidentiality by Dr Evans also stands and will now proceed.

  5. There is a good summary of the Dylan Evans case in the Times Higher Education http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=414495

    Maybe that puts #Fruitbatgate to bed now that the court confirms a sexual harassment finding against Dylan Evans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: