Who Is Really "Bullying?" - Academic Leaders and the Stifling of Critics of Conflicts of Interests

Universities, which are supposed to discover and disseminate knowledge, ought to be the foremost defenders of free speech and a free press.  However, in the past decades, university executives have become notorious for trying to control speech that offends their political sensibilities (for numerous examples, see the FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education web-site.) 

It seems that academic leaders get even more upset when their or their faculties' conflicts of interest are criticized, as demonstrated by updates about two important cases we have discussed.

Columbia University

We recently posted about reactions at the university to revelations in the movie "Inside Job" that the Dean of the Business School and one of its prominent professors failed to disclose pay they received that might have motivated their enthusiastic promotion of economic policies that helped contribute to the Great Recession. 

These reactions occurred six months after the movie came out.  A Columbia Spectator student columnist asked why it took so long:

Why have students waited until April to address the consequences of “Inside Job” when the film was released in October? Why has our reaction been delayed by seven months?

Her postulated answer:

Why should Columbia need an outside documentary to point out its ethical failures?

Embedded in the Spectator news article about the film—published April 15— is a quote from University Senator Liya Yu that offers a frightening answer to our question about the delayed student reaction. 'I think people in the Business School haven’t responded because they are afraid,' Yu was quoted saying. 'If you are the dean of a school, obviously all the students are going to be dependent on you for their careers and futures. It’s hard for them to do anything.' I think this explanation extends to students beyond those currently enrolled in the Business School. In fact, its implications pose a threat to student journalism as a whole. For the first time in history, everything that a student journalist writes during his or her time in college is published on the Internet. This is a good thing for many reasons: It increases readership, allows writers to cross-reference easily, etc. But it also creates a permanent, compromising memory that is available forever to anyone who seeks it.

From the moment the college application process began, we were told that the content of our Facebook profiles could be used against us in admissions. We have learned to censor our traceable online behavior so as not to compromise our professional or educational prospects. Unfortunately, this has led to journalistic over-caution. We fear that anything we say now will be used against us later. And maybe it’s true. After all, not enough time has passed for us to take a careful account of the degree to which students’ first publications can affect their futures. Even editors have advised me to mitigate the strongest claims in my columns for fear of consequences to come. Perhaps they are right. But the most insidious kind of censorship—the hardest to recognize, the hardest to combat—is self-censorship, the persistent imaginative failure that prevents us from even recognizing what we should be writing about.

In the Internet age, bravery in student journalism is not trailing a military unit on the Iraqi front lines. Rather, it is the willingness to address controversial issues as they surface, not once these points of view have become popular. Our brand of fear—which is frankly selfish—censors our thoughts almost unnoticed. Next time, let’s skip the delayed reaction. I for one hope to do better.

So students may fear challenging conflicted faculty or administrators for fear of immediate academic punishment and future harm to career prospects in a society in which criticism of acquisitive leaders is decreasingly tolerated.

University of Minnesota

Earlier this year we posted about the troubling case of the death of an ostensibly voluntary participant in a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota years ago.  A particular concern was whether the money they received from the trial's sponsor influenced faculty and university leaders to overlook problems that might have put patients at risk in a trial whose main goal was marketing, not science.

The case got recent attention in an article by Dr Carl Elliott, a university professor of bioethics, and a letter he signed with other faculty requesting a new university inquiry into the case.  Not only did the university administration rebuff this request, but it now seems to be looking for ways to deter any future criticism of the institution's human research.  As reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education,

At the prompting of the University of Minnesota's general counsel, a committee of the University Senate has taken up the question of how faculty should collectively respond to "factually incorrect attacks" on particular faculty research.

Some faculty members say that direct appeal from the general counsel, Mark B. Rotenberg, is an attempt to quiet some faculty members' criticism of drug trials conducted at the university, including one seven years ago in which a participant, Dan Markingson, committed suicide. Before they took up the general counsel's question at a meeting this month, members of the university's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee were provided with copies of material related to that case, including a letter sent by eight bioethicists to the Board of Regents last fall, asking it to appoint a panel of outside experts to examine the ethical issues raised by the death.

Committee members discussed with two administrators who attended that meeting, on April 8, whether faculty members have a responsibility to respond to attacks on fellow faculty members, according to minutes from the meeting; failure to do so, one professor said, could be seen as parallel to 'bullying.'

Professor Carl Elliott, who wrote the Mother Jones article that brought the recent unpleasantness of the Markingson case back into the public view, was concerned:

In an interview, Mr. Elliott said the general counsel's actions are troubling. Instead of fostering an open discussion about research practices, Mr. Rotenberg, and by extension the university administration, is attempting to use the faculty senate as a 'stalking horse' for intimidation and punitive action, Mr. Elliott said.

It defies common sense that Dr Elliott, representing only his own intellect and knowledge of ethics, was the "bully" in this case, while Mr Rotenberg, representing the university hierarchy, and the faculty members who ran the trial in which Mr Markingson died were the victims. As University of Minnesota faculty member Karen-Sue Taussig, a medical anthropologist, said per the Bioethics Forum:

I was worried the committee might be being used to intimidate a member of the faculty who was critical of the University. It seemed to me that there was a logical inconsistency in the University counsel's position: he did not provide any evidence that any individual faculty member felt chilled by Carl's work, yet his bringing up the issue clearly posed the threat of chilling Carl's speech. . . . In short, I was concerned about the possibility of an Orwellian attempt to invoke academic freedom in order to chill academic freedom.

By the way, there is also nothing to suggest that Dr Elliott's work was "factually incorrect."  Per the Bioethics Forum:

Philosopher and historian of science Ken Waters, who also attended the second meeting, was just as concerned. 'The University's general council planted a false question, the implicature of which [the committee] seemed to be uncritically accepting (that Carl was advancing factually incorrect claims),' he wrote to me in an e-mail. 'And in planting the question, the counsel was trying to turn the tables and squelch my colleagues' academic freedom by somehow suggesting that they were impinging upon the academic freedom of others.'

In the 1980s and 1990s, university administrators tended to attack speech they felt was hurtful to minorities and women, using speech codes (again as has been amply demonstrated by FIRE). Now they seem most sensitive to speech critical of their own exercise of power, and of the cozy financial relationships that generate conflicts of interest and threaten the academic mission.  Furthermore, now that it has become fashionable to decry "bullying," "anti-bullying" initiatives may become the chief way to quell criticism that make academic leaders uncomfortable.

Summary

At one time, university administrators and favored faculty justified attacks on free enquiry, a crucial part of the academic, by claiming a higher political or social purpose.  Now they seem to be willing to trash the core values of academia to stifle critics of their own actions, especially those involving lucrative conflicts of interest.   Such actions may be a major cause of the anechoic effect.
Increasingly, academic institutuions seem to be run more for the personal benefit of their leaders and their cronies than to discover and disseminate knowledge.  True health care reform would return academic medicine to its fundamental purpose, and return its leadership to those who would uphold the mission rather than fill their pockets.  

Hat tip to Ed Silverman in the PharmaLot blog re the University of Minnesota case.  See also comments by Prof William Gleason in the Periodic Table blog, e.g., here and here, and by Gary Schwitzer in the HealthNewsReview blog.

American Medical Schools Are "Only In It for the Money" Say Their Faculty

We recently discussed the plight of young medical faculty.  It appears that their plight is even worse than we imagined.

Last month, an abstract was presented at the Annual  Conference on Research in Medical Education at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges, in a session entitled "Your Career is More than Your Specialty."  The citation would be: Pololi L, Ash A, Krupat E.  Faculty Values in the Culture of Academic Medicine: Findings of a National Faculty Survey.

The authors described a large survey, of over 5000 faculty at 26 US nationally representative medical schools, done as part of the National Initiative on Gender, Culture, and Leadership in Medicine (known as C ‐ Change) project.  The overall response rate was good (53%).   Here are the striking results:

51% agreed that 'the administration is only interested in me for the revenue I generate'; 31%; that 'the culture of my institution discourages altruism'; 31%, that other people have taken credit for my work'; and 30% that 'I am reluctant to express my opinion for fear of negative consequences.' Half perceived that the institution does not value teaching and 27% that it does not reward clinical excellence; Over half disagreed with the statement that their own values are aligned with those of the institution. Also, 30% had seriously considered leaving academic medicine and 46% their own institution, both in the prior year.

These results show that US medical education is in moral crisis, and probably close to catastrophe.  These results should provoke shame and outrage, and cause widespread discussion. On the other hand, it is remarkable that they were allowed to see the light of day at all, given the persistent strength of the anechoic effect.  Pololi and colleagues obviously never got the message that one is never ever supposed to discuss such things in public.

Instead of being about discovery and dissemination of knowledge, the fundamental mission of education, a majority of large sample of faculty surveyed says American medical schools are about making money.  Instead of putting teaching first, half of the faculty said their institutions explicitly do not value teaching. Instead of supporting free speech, free enquiry, and academic, a significant minority of faculty say that are afraid to speak out.

It is no wonder that nearly half of the faculty are considering leaving.

On Health Care Renewal, we have discussed evidence, mostly anecdotal, about the rot within the foundations of medicine and health care.  (Note, posts on conflicts of interest, often affecting medical school faculty and leadership, are here; we have posted about how academic medicine has often allowed suppression and manipulation of research;  posts on excessive compensation of health care executives, including those of academic institutions, not based on upholding the academic mission are here.)  Now it appears that the rot is so severe that the whole edifice is about to fall down.

Our foolish transformation of the calling and profession of medicine into a business (see posts here and here)  at a time when businesses were taken over by the arrogance, greed, unscrupulousness, and amorality that lead to the global financial collapse will surely also lead to a global health care collapse if something is not done very soon.

We need a new effort much bigger than but at least as influential as the Flexner Report to re-imagine academic medicine again as valuing teaching, learning, research and patient care, while regarding its financing only as the means to reach those ends.

The Carnegie Foundation sponsored the original Flexner Report, and the Rockefeller Foundation then hired Dr Flexner to reform medical education (see Mitka M.  he Flexner Report at the century mark:  a wake-up call for reforming medical education .  JAMA 2010; 303(15):1465-1466. Link here.) Will anyone or any organization have the courage to sponsor a new, bigger, and likely much more contentious effort?

Meanwhile, the academic leaders who have personally profited from and colluded with the transformation of the system into one that is only in it for the money should resign. The few remaining leaders will need to draw upon all their honesty, integrity, knowledge, and determination to rebuild the system.

Finally, shame on all of us for letting us get to this place.

With apologies to the late Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention.

A Confidentiality Clause or an Oath of Fealty?

The advancement of modern scientific medicine depends on the search for and dissemination of truth. Academic medicine, like the rest of academia, ought to be based on openness, transparency, and academic freedom. The 1940 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure opened with:

The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.

Yet we have written about dark clouds of secrecy spreading over medicine and health care. The increasingly powerful leaders of health care increasingly use opacity and secrecy to keep what they are doing out of the public eye. We have frequently discussed the anechoic effect, how it is just not done to discuss certain topics, particularly those related to the adverse effects of bad (ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or corrupt) leadership and bad (opaque, unaccountable, mission-hostile, unethical) governance of health care organizations.  People may feel it is unseemly to speak badly of renowned institutions such as hospitals and universities.  People with conflicts of interest may not be inclined to criticize those who pay them.  Now people employed by contemporary health care organizations may have to pledge theri silence to keep their jobs.

The latest story in this regard comes from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), which includes VCU Health Systems, and MCV Hospital and Physicians.  (Full disclosure: I was a VCU full-time faculty member from 1987-1994, and still am on the adjunct faculty.)  In 2008, the VCU President resigned after the university's secret research contract with a tobacco company, and the President's own position on the board of directors of another tobacco company were revealed (see blog post here and others here).

Michael Rao, the President since 2008, is now under outside review after it was revealed that he required his staff to sign a secrecy pledge.  The story appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Virginia Commonwealth University President Michael Rao asks employees who work in his office to sign an unusual confidentiality agreement that bars them from talking about what they observe about him or his family.

The prohibition goes beyond the standard agreement that university employees sign acknowledging that they can't disclose personal or proprietary information.

The agreement, a copy of which was obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, covers interactions at Rao's office and at his residence. It bars disclosure not just to the news media, family or friends, but also to colleagues, 'clergy and attorneys, or to any other person not otherwise identified.'

'I agree that any such disclosure in violation of this nondisclosure agreement could result in irreparable damage and harm to VCU, President Rao, and/or his family'" the agreement states. 'Any such violation or anticipated violation' would entitle Rao to seek 'injunctive relief' in Richmond or Henrico County circuit courts.

VCU spokeswoman Pam Lepley said she could not comment immediately yesterday.

Several current or former employees of the president's office confirmed that they had been asked to sign the agreement, including Kimberley Busch, Rao's former scheduler.

She described it as a 'what happens in the president's office stays in the president's office' agreement.

The newly uncovered confidentiality clause provoked strong criticism:

Raymond D. Cotton, a Washington attorney who specializes in higher-education governance, said such a confidentiality agreement is highly unusual and goes against the culture of openness and transparency in higher education.

'There is this concept of academic freedom that is broader than the First Amendment,' he said.

In fact, since Virginia Commonwealth University is a state-supported institution, the confidentiality clause may be unconstitutional, as reported by WTVR:

Kent Willis with the Virginia American Civil Liberties Union said the agreement doesn't pass constitutional muster.

'A public employee, no matter where they are in the government, has a right to speak out on matters of public concern,' Willis said. 'That's a U.S. Supreme Court case, it's guaranteed to every public employee by the First Amendment to the Constitution.'

Willis said there are numerous legal issues raised by the contract. But, he said, the bottom line problem with the contract 'is the attitude. This is a contract that says 'I'm not transparent. I don't want you to know what is going on. I'm running a closed shop.''

Times-Dispatch columnist Michael Paul Williams wrote:

VCU, we have a problem. This confidentiality agreement does not inspire confidence. The lack of transparency only gives the appearance that someone's hiding something.

He also further quoted Kent Willis:

Rao's contract 'fails to address this whistle-blower right and could create conflicts for employees, who are silenced by the employment contract,' yet have a constitutional right to speak out on some matters, Willis said.

And as Willis points out, even if a person's constitutional right trumps the contract, how many employees are willing to take that risk?

'Particularly disturbing is the prohibition against talking to an attorney,' he said. 'If an employee believes something illegal is going on at work, an attorney is precisely the person he or she should be talking with.'

We just posted about how a pharmaceutical company included a confidentiality clause in a consulting contract, suggesting the deliberate creation of a conflict of interest in order to prevent criticism of the company's products or practices. 

However, in several ways, the present example is more insidious.  First, it involves a university, whose mission is to discover and disseminate the truth.  Thus, as noted above, the confidentiality agreement subverts the university's core mission.  Second, it was required of full-time employees who wanted to keep  their jobs, making choose between secrecy and unemployment.  Third, it was particularly harsh, addressing incipient as well as actual disclosure, and including injunctive relief as well as the threat of  termination.  Fourth, it protected not just the organization and its products, but personally protected the organization's leader and his family.  It was not just a contract, but an oath of fealty, as if the CEO were nobility, or even royalty.

The good news is that this confidentiality agreement now sits in the glare of sunlight.  One does wonder, however, how many other such agreements are already in force so that the would be nobility who now run too much of health care to avoid any embarassing revelations about what their leadership really is about.

We are a long way from the transparency that true health care reform requires.