The Bartlett report was flawed and risks undermining academic freedom, to the detriment of all

A number of academics, practitioners and commentators, myself included, recently signed a letter critical of the Howlett Brown report on the Bartlett School of Architecture (BSA). There have been a number of criticisms of its intent and hopefully this article can set the record straight.

The Howlett Brown consultancy spent six months or so trawling through 40 years – yes, 40 years - of testimony and has documented allegations of a “toxic learning and teaching culture” at the BSA. The Student Union is appalled and insists that “The safety of students from harm is the first responsibility of those leading and delivering education at UCL.” Is it? Surely the first duty is to educate.

While some of the alleged perpetrators are presumably long-dead, that doesn’t stop them being referenced. It is a very inclusive report in that way: everyone is anonymous so everyone is equally suspect.

当然，如果最严重的“性别歧视和种族主义言论……反犹太主义……身体暴力……和不当接触”的指控被发现是真实的，大学有权解雇行为严重不当和违反信任，或任何其他写在他们的合同中。但在得出更广泛的结论之前，请考虑以下几点。

Being named (via nudge, nudge, wink, wink clues) and shamed can be enough to destroy reputations

Thankfully, the report identifies very few specific cases of such behaviour. These serious allegations need to be proven before action – potentially justifiable action – is taken. We also need to ask whether these are examples of a toxic culture, or mercifully rare examples of egregious behaviour by a handful of individuals?

Secondly the accusers are anonymous and the staff members – as far as we are aware – have not been told of specific complaints against them. The distinction between an accusation, evidence, proof and guilt (which has tended to be a foundational process of natural justice and employment law) has been conflated. After all, the Howlett Brown report states; “the remit of our investigation was not to investigate and determine the merits of every allegation raised during our investigation.” But the inference of a widespread presumption of guilt is clear. Being named (via nudge, nudge, wink, wink clues) and shamed can be enough to destroy reputations, even if innocence is subsequently established.

Indeed, the report is actually an exercise in public shaming: calling out people (by hint rather than name) and with little regard for due process. I spoke to one staff member who wanted to leave for unrelated professional reasons but was now worried that it might be seen as an (untrue) admission of guilt. Another thought that they knew who was being described in the report and was therefore keeping their distance. Colleagues became suspects overnight.

The consequence of anonymised accusations, unsubstantiated grudges, decades old grievances, personal animosity, and professional resentment is not the right atmosphere to engender in any workplace, let alone within university departments that rely on creative tensions. Will there be pressure on the BSA to reject some of the names that have previously stood as a source of inspiration for the department on the grounds of unsubstantiated allegations alone?

Finally, there is a conflation of violent abusive relationships with the stressful rigour of an architectural crit. Five years ago, in an Architecture Foundation discussion on the value of architectural crits, Ellis Woodman quoted the distinguished Modernist, Isi Metzstein who “concluded one presentation at the University of Edinburgh with the words: ‘You’re crying? I’m the Head of School, I should be crying!’” Would this now be seen as an example of bullying, or of a compassionate professor trying to make a student smile?

And there’s the rub, anyone feeling hard done by, feeling insulted, has been givencarte blancheto complain of harassment

The Howlett Brown report cites a former student complaining that their tutor had told them that they had “‘barely passed at the end of fourth year’ and that ‘[they] should quit and take a year out because [they] didn’t understand how buildings worked.’” This might be good advice for all we know, but in the Howlett Brown report it masquerades as abuse. And there’s the rub, anyone feeling hard done by, feeling insulted, has been givencarte blancheto complain of harassment.

当然，很多人不会这么做，因为学生、教职员工和大学院系都是非常学院化的地方，人们普遍都很友好，相互尊重。同样地，大多数暴击都是紧张但有趣的环境。但是，一位评论员抓住这份报告的机会宣称，虐待文化的存在范围远比巴特利特文化更广，因此，毒性很可能被认为是一切事物的根本。

In fact, the conflation of a harsh comment from a tutor in a crit, with grotesque racist taunts and physical abuse is one of the most insulting aspects of this report and of the response to it. Anyone who has had to endure racism and xenophobia, for example, will rightly be concerned that hatred, physical abuse and social ostracization is being likened to ill-judged comments about a student’s performance in a crit.

除了将建筑批评与虐待关系进行比较(这显然是不正确的)之外，有些人似乎陶醉于发现到处都是“毒性”。“这份报告的发现适用于如此多的建筑学院，”一位评论人士说。“描述的大多数行为都可以在建筑学界找到，”另一个人说。寻找和发现有毒的关系现在将成为一个优先事项:就像清理爱琴海的马厩一样。但是对部门同事的评价是多么低啊。