Let us try to answer the question. We have to assume that they are rational. If they are to claim that they are not ageist, although they have not been challenged on this issue by anyone in public, they should, in their own minds, be preparing some kind of defense. One can imagine what this is:
1. The current economic situation means that they have to sacrifice older academics because they are more expensive than “young blood”
2. Older staff are less productive than younger
3. We have to manage the age profile of the university
4. It is the decision of heads of department and its nothing to do with them
The first three arguments clearly have an ageist element. The last is just passing the ageism buck.
But there is another and frightening possibility. This is that VCs have simply not internalized the possibility that culling academics who have requested to continue in employment past their default retirement age might have some moral content. That is that they have taken an amoral attitude.
Conclusion: ageist, and therefore immoral, or amoral. Take your pick!
H-2-Z (Hero-to-Zero), Ed
PS: And what about the small army of pro-Vice Chancellors. Are they pro-ageism?
Thanks to readers for describing their feelings as Vice Chancellors jump the gun on the 2010 review. For those forced to retire this month the High Court judge’s strictures that he expects the government to increase the default retirement age (DRA) from 65 as part of the 2010 review of the DRA is TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.
The universities forcing people out now is like hanging innocent people just before the death penalty is abolished: morally reprehensible, cynical and unforgivable. What kind of leadership do we have in universities that will not at least have a stay of execution (for say two years) as the review takes place?
Will any university break ranks TODAY and abolish their DRA?
A key point now is: how will employment tribunals act? Will they finish off the cull for this and previous years or will they at least wait for the review?
Keep the messages coming … use the comment sections below.
Ed
It is now clear that a number of institutions are not bothering to honour even the existing regulations but either have decided or are about to decide that they will have a “blanket cll”, that is NO academics will get a full time extension past the defalt retirement age (DRA). These decisions are being taken before the statory
The good news is that the government has finally abolished the default retirement age (DRA) from 1 Ocober 2011. We should rejoice that progressive forces have won out. It will now will be extremely hard for Universities to get rid of people at 65, although one can expect some to try every trick to do so.
This leaves our vice-chancellors the opportunity for one final cull, and it appears from many messages to the editor that, true to form, they will be wielding their clubs right up to midnight on 31 September 2011.
It has been a constant theme of these pages that not a single vice-chancellor that we know about has taken a progressive line and led the way in abolishing the DRA in their own institution last year or this year, when it was already known the rules would change. This means that the charge of ageism must stick.
These pages will not be taken down. We will continue to fight the cause of those threatened this year, to monitor for attempts by universities to circumvent the new rules and to stamp out ageist discrimination against those in post retirement jobs, such as emeritus staff.
In the many congratulations that I have had for the success of the national campaign to abolish the default retirement age (DRA) one sentiment stands out. It is anger that the vice-chancellors and pro-vice-chancellors, the very same who have been in charge of the 2009 and 2010 culling of 65 year old academics, will now themselves benefit from the change. This makes a martyr of every member of the UKACE committee who has fought for the change while being booted out. I know of no case of a VC or PVC who has spoken up in support of the UKACE campaign or the national “Scrap the DRA” campaign.
As predicted in these pages the VCs will now have to change their regulations, to take into account the abolition of the DRA from 1 October 2011. A new academic year is upon us and they must scurry around to get this job done. There is not much sign of it yet.
On the positive side I see no sign, either, of VCs actively campaigning against the change. This would be the last straw. But these pages will stay open to be on the look out for dilly-dallying and obfuscation.
Ed
