In the Dark

About a year ago, I posted an item about a change to Employment Law in Ireland that effectively bans the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in situations involving allegations of discrimination, victimisation, harassment and sexual harassment. When I posted this, the change had not come into force, but it has now. I think this is a very good move.

There aren’t many reasons to praise the current UK Government, but it seems they are proposing something similar, through an Amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, although the change has not yet come into effect and will not do so until the Bill becomes an Act.

The legislation will state that an employer shall not enter an NDA with an employee where the employee has made allegations of discrimination, harassment or sexual harassment. In my experience, NDAs are currently the default in such cases. I know of many examples in the UK where such legal instruments have been used to prevent victims of harassment from speaking publicly about their experiences, thus enabling harassers to move elsewhere without anyone knowing what they had done. This ploy is also seen by Management as a way of preventing reputational damage, although it does not seem to me to be a good way of doing that, as the truth has a way of coming out anyway and the effect of hiding the misconduct when it does causes more reputational damage than the harassment itself.

This reminds me of things I wrote a while ago in connection with a case at Leiden University where the Management decided not to name a professor involved in such a case (who was subsequently identified as Tim de Zeeuw). I thought this was a nonsense, for at least two reasons. The first is that I think people who have behaved in such a way should be named as a matter of principle, so that potential collaborators and future employers know what they have done. In previous posts on this topic I had defended confidentiality (e.g. here) during an investigation, but I still think that once it has been decided that a disciplinary offences have been committed there should be full disclosure.

The second is that failing to identify the individual concerned led to a proliferation of rumours inside and outside Leiden (none of which I am prepared to repeat here). As a result, the finger of suspicion was pointed at the wrong people until the name of the abusive Professor was revealed. That made for a very difficult working environment for everyone concerned.

Of course the new law, when passed, will only apply to cases in the United Kingdom. In Astronomy, as in many other parts of academia, there is a great deal of international mobility. The new legislation would not prevent someone who has engaged in such misconduct in, for example, The Netherlands, applying for a job in the UK without this coming to light. One could hope that other countries follow suit, but the wheels of the legislature are not known to turn quickly in any country that I know of.

I can sense many Human Resources departments getting very nervous, as the proposed change will render a major component of their modus operandi unlawful. Who knows, it may even encourage them to start tackling the culture of harassment that they have so far been content to hide.

Finally, I think it’s an important question whether or not this legislation is retroactive. If it is, and past NDAs are declared null and void then it will blow open many cases. I can imagine rather a lot of institutions and individuals getting rather nervous at the prospect of their previously concealed misconduct coming out in the open.

P.S. In related news, online voting for the Chancellorship of Cambridge University opened last week. It’s a transferable vote system. I put my first choice for Wyn Evans.