Numerous allegations made against the Residential Life Team
Serious allegations have been made against the Residential Life Team (RLT), corroborated by sources both within, and outside the organisation.
The Boar have also been shown finalised meeting minutes, emails and photos.
The initial allegations began after the RLT handling of the Easter banana incident.
The full list, however, covers a range of material, such as: lack of communication and transparency from senior RLT members, including recruitment processes, and certain RLT staff being allowed to remain in roles despite not fulfilling the criteria to do so.
Named examples were provided to the Boar, but for the sake of staff protection, none of the names of individuals involved are being reported, be they stating the allegations or on the receiving end.
These allegations span months and even years in some areas: one such example are the calls for a review into RLT, which according to minutes from a recent meeting, have been ongoing for up to two years.
The allegations* in full are as follows:
(*For the allegations the university have responded to, their comment has been included)
1. A Prevent training session was approved and given to the RLT that seemed to endorse ethnic profiling months before the university held an official stance on the changes to Prevent.
2. Problems raised during the session regarding racist language and stereotypes were ignored (breaching the Dignity at Warwick policy).
3. A complaint into the Prevent training session was looked into and concluded by the person that heads the Prevent working group, lacking impartiality.
4. A failure to take seriously allegations of racism and failure to update the RLT on the severity of the Easter incident.
5. Despite a social budget existing for university-wide RLT events, only one event was held last year and no major events so far this year, and the social committee is now allegedly not operating.
6. Certain members abuse the system for free accommodation and do not adequately perform their role in the RLT – staying out for nights at a time and not being present at incidents (or turning up drunk).
7. Certain staff being allowed to stay on in their RLT role despite not holding an official position on the university payroll, no longer being a postgraduate student, or becoming pregnant and being on maternity leave. The university stated: “Each of those allegations is without any foundation.”
8. Lack of open and transparent recruitment systems in the RLT; senior management roles at times internally chosen without any public recruitment or advertisement. The university commented: “Their previous roles already encompassed significant elements of the range of duties that they have now been charged with”
9. Senior management ignoring concerns raised by staff, and not pursuing an independent review that staff have called for.
10. The current student support services review has met with senior RLT only once and has never met with wider RLT members, raising issues of representation.
11. Staff being discouraged from providing complaint pathways for students and no training on the pathway being provided for RLT members. The university stated: “The complaint pathways for students are all online.”
12. Failure to alert students to relevant incidents such as burglaries, and ignoring security suggestions and improvements (i.e. accessibility of windows).
13. Lack of systems in place to quickly and effectively deal with welfare issues.
14. I Heart Consent training session delivered to RLT staff (despite it being designed to be given by students and for students) and deemed compulsory.
If you wish to speak to confidentially on any of the above, please contact news@theboar.org
Comments (7)
So you have a current article about armchair experts…https://theboar.org/2016/06/news-and-social-media-armchair-expert/
Do this article on RLT or your updates on the matter on twitter represent balanced, well written journalism? I think not.
Perhaps you might like to look at your own practises when writing about ‘armchair experts’? Balanced journalism in this article about RLT? I think not.
Armchair experts…https://theboar.org/2016/06/news-and-social-media-armchair-expert/
What is Brexit if Britain left the EU and what would happen?It will not only be a historic success for Eurosceptics iF Brexit is voted for by the people of Britain but it is going to
transform this country forever. But what would occur? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all folks you actually know what you’re talking approximately!
Bookmarked. Kindly additionally discuss with my website =).
We may have a hyperlink change agreement between us
I once heard someone say that some people writing for the Boar just make stuff up. I was shown emails and photos. I even met someone that worked for the Boar once! They should probably suspend publication to give the contributors an opportunity to find a real story to write about.
This article is vague and without verifiable facts. I like the sensational headline trying to stir up a frenzy but then it all comes apart with the actual reporting. Or lack of. There’s certainly no critical investigation to see here.
It almost reads as if the journalists have been mugged by someone with a personal vendetta. Just endless bullet points of accusations with out dates, examples or evidence. The journalists themselves have unwittingly written at the beginning “none of the names of individuals involved are being reported, be they stating the allegations or on the receiving end.” It’s a poor choice of words but it definitely sounds like a vendetta.
There then follows a long list of extremely vague bullet points that are badly written and with nothing backing them up.
I’m very surprised by the allegations of racism at such a University as Warwick that is international and inclusive and has always been progressive. I have never encountered racism and I’m Irish, there are plenty of thick paddy jokes out there believe me (yeah, racism includes that too, but the Boar doesn’t make it clear what racism they are talking about) The reader can’t conclude anything from this article other than someone has a lot of complaining to do. Point 6 jumped out for being particularly spiteful. Point 14 just sounds absurd.
I’d love to know who your Deepthroat Source is? Did The Boar meet them in an underground car park late at night to receive the mysterious package of emails and photos? Should The Boar be following the money? Can the Boar clarify if these allegations are part of an official University investigation or from one individual?
Cheers
Can you clarify point 7 in the list of allegations? Currently it has semi-colons in it, which presumably should be commas, but the main problem is that it can be read in multiple ways. In one way, it reads as though being pregnant or on maternity leave is considered to be fine for someone in the RLT, while the other way reads as a complaint that someone who is pregnant or on maternity leave could be in the RLT.