GLASGOW University’s head of business has told an employment tribunal a female academic overlooked for promotion was treated unfairly.
Professor John Finch made the admission as he was cross-examined by the economist Jeanette Findlay, who says she faced both direct and indirect sex discrimination after her application to be made a professor was rejected in 2020.
Finch, who was Findlay’s line manager and head of the university’s business school, said he made a “deeply regrettable oversight” by not including details of Findlay’s leadership experience in his first reference statement which was subsequently reviewed by the board who rejected the application.
Findlay said the university’s head of people and development Christine Barr had told her: “People rarely get promoted if they do not have their head of school’s support.”
At Wednesday’s hearing, Finch admitted the chances of becoming a professor were “low” for academics who are not backed by their line managers.
READ MORE: New University of Glasgow students not guaranteed accommodation
Findlay, who was made professor of economics this month, told the tribunal that Finch’s reference statement, which did not include details of her caring responsibilities, “was always going to be damaging to me”.
Finch responded by saying “I was wrong” about leaving out information and told the tribunal he had changed his statement after meeting Findlay and heard her concerns.
The tribunal was told that academics were expected to meet an “esteem criteria” by working more hours, becoming members of recognised societies, publishing work and travelling for research papers, to earn a professorship.
Findlay said these were more likely to be achieved by men who did not have any caring responsibilities.
She suggested men outperformed women by 20% “in relation to publications”.
Findlay said: “Would you agree there is a gender bias in the esteem criteria […] women struggle to match those indicators?”
Finch replied: “Potentially.”
The tribunal was then told how Findlay had asked for a subject-specific mentor to help with her application for a promotion three times in her annual performance and development reviews but claimed Finch had not replied to her requests.
She accused Finch of pairing a male economist who had also applied for a professorship with a “world-class economist” mentor and said, “in my case, I [got] a lawyer, an accountant and now a marketing specialist”.
Findlay argued there was a “significant difference” in the reference statement written by Finch for the male applicant.
She added that he received extra comments despite not meeting the criteria and told the tribunal that following a meeting about the promotion, she “didn’t get any advice” but that Finch suggested she move into learning and teaching.
Findlay asked Finch: “Was it because that is what women do? Did you think, here she is, she fits more into [learning and teaching]?”
READ MORE: St Andrews students told to commute from Dundee amid housing shortage
In her final questions, she said: “I was treated unfairly in respect to mentoring. I was failed [by the statement] in terms of my caring responsibilities.”
Finch agreed and said, “it was unfair” whilst Findlay added: “I don’t think you know the damage this has done to me but I’m glad you told the truth.
The tribunal is expected to last another two weeks.
The University of Glasgow has said it would be inappropriate for them to comment while the hearing is ongoing.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here