Skorupski's Law

"Pathologies" in the University of St Andrews: background to the Corner/Esler report

On 28 September 2001, Mr David Corner (then Secretary and Registrar at the University of St Andrews) and Professor Philip Esler (then Provost) submitted a report to the Principal & Vice Chancellor (Dr Brian Lang). The report listed a number of what it called "pathologies" in the Department of Social Anthropology and said there was "persuasive evidence... documented and on file" which allowed the authors of the report to attach a name or names to each of the pathologies in question. The report clearly stated that the evidence was being held on file in the event that there was any repetition of unacceptable behaviour by the individuals concerned and further action should be required. It implied that all members of the Department were guilty of pathological behaviour but did not name names. Some members of the Department were deeply unhappy about this since they believed that their own behaviour was for the most part beyond reproach while the behaviour of some of their "colleagues" was so frequently and profoundly unacceptable that it was causing serious harm to both the Department as a unit and to some of the individuals with in it.

On 17 December 2001 I sent an e-mail to the Principal (Dr Lang) in which I raised a number of concerns in relation to the Corner/Esler report. I copied this e-mail to the Acting Director of Personnel Services. Among other issues, I asked for clarification of what Mr Corner and Professor Esler described as the “persuasive evidence... documented and on file” relating to the “pathologies” that they claimed to have uncovered in the course of their investigation. The Principal declined to respond to any of my concerns in spite of the fact that some of these raised serious issues which clearly might result in legal proceedings.

Since I could not get a response to my questions from the Principal, I then e-mailed the Acting Director of Personnel Services directly on 24 January 2002 about the particular issue of the “persuasive evidence... documented and on file”. She sent back a very surprising reply: the Secretary to the University, Mr Corner, had decided that the only document that would be retained from the investigation was the one page report he had co-authored. Put differently, Mr Corner had apparently destroyed all of the allegedly persuasive evidence of pathological behaviour that he and Professor Esler had uncovered.

Under cross-examination in the employment tribunal Mr Corner stated that he had destroyed this evidence without any consultation with anyone so that there could be a "fresh start". He stated that he had not conferred with the co-author of the report — Professor Esler — with whom he had jointly run the preceding investigation. Nor, he claimed, had he consulted the Principal (Dr Lang) who had commissioned the report. Given that the report had been submitted to the Principal and that the evidence supporting the report was, at this stage, the property of the University, why would Mr Corner destroy all of this evidence without consulting anyone?

Mr Corner testified to the employment tribunal that one of my former colleagues, Dr David Riches, had expressed concerns about what evidence was "on file" concerning him. Corner testified that he had told Dr Riches that there was nothing of any consequence on file in relation to him, and that Dr Riches was a deeply honourable man — an opinion that is very widely held by Dr Riches' colleagues both within and outwith the University of St Andrews. Mr Corner further testified that he had made an agreement with Dr Riches to destroy all of the "persuasive evidence" so that there would be a "fresh start". Dr Riches testified emphatically to the employment tribunal that this was false. He had not requested that any evidence be destroyed and had not agreed that Mr Corner should destroy anything. Clearly one of them was not telling the truth to the employment tribunal.

It is not difficult to see that there is no logic to Mr Corner's "fresh start" claim. Since there was no incriminating evidence in relation to Dr Riches, there was no need to have a "fresh start" on his account. If Dr Riches was not guilty of any serious wrongdoing, however, this implied that the "persuasive evidence" of "pathologies" related to one or more of Dr Riches' colleagues. Yet none of these had been named in the report; none of them had asked Mr Corner about the nature of the evidence on file and how it applied to them; and none of them had asked for anything to be destroyed.

On 17 December 2001 I sent an e-mail to the Principal (Dr Lang) asking for clarification as to what was on file but I received no answer to this question (or a number of other questions). Mr Corner testified to the employment tribunal that he had not had any discussions with Dr Lang about this. Less than three months earlier he had written to Dr Lang urging him to issue a general admonishment to all Social Anthropology staff, saying that persuasive evidence was on file lest there should be any repetition of unacceptable behaviour. Yet, a month after I wrote to Dr Lang, Mr Corner unilaterally decided that all of the evidence in relation to the Corner/Esler investigation should be destroyed. This does not add up.

The possibility that Dr Lang did not know that Mr Corner was about to destroy evidence that might be used in internal or legal proceedings is so remote as to be unbelievable. And, of course, it is also unlikely that other members of the Executive were unaware of this course of action — particularly Professor Esler (the co-author of the report) and Professor Vincent (then Deputy Principal and the person who originally advised that a high-level investigation would take place).

What is one to do when a person swears under oath that he is telling the truth and yet what he is saying does not make any sense? Clearly either Mr Corner or Dr Riches lied to the employment tribunal. Since Mr Corner himself described Dr Riches as deeply honourable, the reader will have to draw his or her own conclusions.

The author

**********

Skorupski's Law: "The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality"