The claim of mistake rather than misconduct — ignorance rather than intent — has become a regular refrain of some universities to explain management conduct, in rebutting workers' claims of the resulting psychological injuries. It's become common enough for it to be given a nickname: "The 'stupid' defence" — although it doesn't look like this is the first coining of the phrase. (We'll leave for another day a discussion of the quirks of Queensland's worker's injury insurance scheme that seems to prompt the tactic.)
You might think that some sense of shame (or even some expression of regret) might attend the making of such claims, but I haven't been seeing either.
But more to my point for today, how do we deal with ignorance (whether claimed or real)? Well, it's a university. What could be more appropriate than a bit of education?
The "stupid" defense works when those who are affected, wrongly assume that the actions speak for themselves. But, as we've seen, often they don't. Those affected (or the union) need to make the injurious effects clear at the time. An email, for example, could say:
My doctor has told me that I'm under unusual stress and that it appears to arise from your recent, negative characterisations of my work in open staff meetings.
Of course, such advice might be an adjunct to a bullying complaint.
In skating over thin ice our safety is our speed.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
