Lawsuit against OIST detailed in press conference

On Wednesday, 26 June, attorney Chihiro Kawazu held a press conference at the Okinawa prefectural press club to provide details of a lawsuit filed against OIST on behalf of his client, Steven D. Aird, formerly OIST's Technical Editor, and also OFSA Chair. Kawazu addressed the media for about 5 minutes, after which Aird, with the assistance of a professional interpreter, addressed the press for about 20 minutes, providing details about the arguments on both sides.

OIST alleges that the reason for Aird's dismissal is simply that he is over the retirement age of 65, but flaws in OIST's arguments make it clear that the action is in retaliation for his revelations of unethical executive behavior. Aird's remarks at the press conference are provided below.

As Kawazu-sensei has indicated, on 12 June, after nearly seven years as OIST’s Technical Editor, I was terminated by the University. OIST claims that this was because at 67, I am above the retirement age of 65, but that is not the real reason for my dismissal. I caution against focusing too much on the details of my case, which may distract attention from the more important story about institutional culture. My dismissal is but one of a large number of cases of power harassment, bullying, and unjustified termination, enabled by short contracts. Why are these things so common at OIST?

In December, the former Vice President for Human Resources told us that the President had sent a letter to all Vice Presidents mandating an 8% reduction of administrative personnel expenses. She said that the President left it to division heads to determine how this quota would be met. In its first negotiation with the OIST administration, OIST’s labor union, the OIST Faculty and Staff Association (OFSA) requested a copy of the President’s letter, copies of all communications from division heads to management regarding plans to implement this reduction, any letters to employees who had been terminated under this directive, and names of those who have been informed verbally, instead of in writing. The administration refused to explicitly acknowledge or deny the existence of the President’s letter.

When OIST is expanding from its current 60 professors to 100 in the next stage, it is important to ask why it is laying off so many people, including many who have contributed so much to the achievement of OIST’s mission. OIST is suffering no financial crisis. Why is the cost of this apparent mismanagement being borne by those who had no role in creating the problem? What have the executives done to mitigate the effects of their mismanagement on those who did nothing wrong? Given the President’s salary of ¥75 million per year plus other benefits, this is tantamount to exploitation, but exploitation is only one of the problems. OIST runs on fear, created by an autocracy that routinely resorts to intimidation, harassment, and deceit. Allow me to illustrate.

OIST has just concluded a Strategic Planning process to plot its course during the next 10 years. In the first open forum on 14 September, the Senior Advisor to the President for Strategic Planning presented a slide outlining OIST’s “values.” All of the values listed were laudable, but they are principles to which few of OIST’s executives adhere. In other words, it was a cynical facade. When the floor was opened for comments, I could not remain silent. What I needed to say came very forcefully to my mind. I rehearsed it several times in my head, then raised my hand and said, in part,

“…Unfortunately, OIST has established a culture of power harassment that makes a lie of who and what we claim to be. If OIST is to achieve its lofty mandate, this must be rectified. But it cannot happen unless our executive administrators are paragons of ethical behavior.” (Complete statement provided below.)

Section 1.3.2.5 of OIST’s Policies, Rules, and Procedures proclaims, “…employees, irrespective of their job title, are encouraged to discuss issues of concern without fear that those discussions will result in negative treatment or punitive consequences from any other employee of the University.” When told what I had said immediately after the forum, the President became angry. He directed my colleague, Risa Sato, who was then working in his office, “Tell Steve that this isn’t good for him.”

When asked during one of the forums, the Senior Advisor made it clear that the Strategic Planning Process he devised would not include anonymous input. Thus, issues about which many employees were concerned, but dared not discuss in an open forum, were to be avoided. The Senior Advisor reportedly told one colleague, “I am not here to change anything. My job is to give people the feeling that they are being listened to.”

Clearly, something had to be done to find out what employees were thinking, but could not say publicly. To meet that need, colleagues and I carefully crafted a 40-question survey that addressed all of the issues about which OIST employees were voicing concerns. I put the survey online and distributed it anonymously, because at that point, we had no other way to protect ourselves. The administration responded with a coordinated campaign by Email and on the OIST intranet, labeling the survey cover letter a “potential phishing Email.” IT instructed everyone, “please change your OIST Account password immediately.” This duplicitous warning was intended to intimidate OIST employees so that they would not respond to the survey. From this point on, administrators claimed that they were “treating” the email as a phishing scheme. They couldn’t claim that it actually was one, because they knew it was just a survey, but they also knew that after the dire warnings, most people would miss this subtlety of language. Their scheme worked well, both because many were deceived and because many who knew it was a survey were afraid to respond. Five days after I told the Vice President for IT that I was the creator of the survey, he told the managers meeting that the cover letter was a phishing Email, crafted by an outsider acting as an OIST insider.

At the third Strategic Planning forum, one of the participants politely asked the President a couple of questions about the survey. The President became irate, publicly castigating the individual in front of about 100 people, a performance that one attendee labeled “public power harassment.” According to several in the audience, the President then went on a rant in which he inadvertently admitted that he had filled out the survey and that it was “all negative,” contradicting the administration’s story that it was a phishing Email. Thereafter, in Emails distributed to all of OIST, the administration reverted to the phishing Email story.

When survey results were compiled and translated, the Senior Advisor declared that he did not want to see them. The results were shared with two other advisors to the President and with the COO, who sent a one-line Email on 20 January, indicating that he had received them. When no further response from the administration was received, the results were shared with the media in late March.

Angered by revelations of executive misconduct, on 30 May, the President told the Faculty Assembly that OIST is planning to sue the press and that it had sent letters to that effect. By attempting to intimidate the media, the President demonstrated that he does not even have the good judgment to behave well in public, mirroring his comportment inside OIST. While OIST is supposed to contribute to the well-being of Okinawa, OIST’s President is instead attempting to limit freedom of the press, which is essential to democratic governance.

While the President claims that I am being terminated because of my age (don’t ask about his), when he addressed the Faculty Assembly his opening comment charged that I have done great damage to OIST’s reputation by revealing its inner workings. In reality, OIST’s reputation is based on the quality and quantity of its science, a fact reflected in the recently published Nature index, which ranked OIST 10th in the world, based on the impact of its normalized publication output. Contrary to the President’s assertion, I have worked tirelessly to advance that reputation, as most of my clients can attest. If my age really is the issue, then why didn’t the President or anyone else think about a replacement editor until the Faculty Assembly on 30 May, one year after I was given a terminal contract?

I did not learn that I would not receive a new contract until I asked my supervisor on 22 April. Given my job performance, dismissal made no sense and was entirely unexpected. When I asked why, he cited the official excuse, my age. I pointed out that I had already received two contracts after I turned 65, and that my previous one granted me discretionary status and a substantial raise. I asked why age was a problem now, and he had no answer. I then asked if he were under pressure from above, and he said that he did not think he wanted to answer that question. At OIST, even some Deans are intimidated by the executives.

As already illustrated, any employee who speaks up at OIST is threatened by the President or other executives, and because the executives do not abide by OIST’s Policies, Rules, and Procedures, there is no job security for anyone, not even professors. OFSA, which the President has never officially recognized, was established to combat these problems. The President claims that my activity in OFSA is just to protect myself. Initially, that was true. After all, with OIST’s executives, everyone needs protection; however, my focus quickly turned from myself to others as people began coming to us from all over OIST, appealing for help.

As evidenced by the change.org petition of several years ago, harassment has been endemic at OIST for some time. Significantly, the external committee that investigated the tragic diving accident reported that the deceased diver had filed a harassment grievance one year before his death. It sat unattended on the desk of an OIST executive, who never did anything about it. Since then, nothing has changed. OIST now has five mechanisms intended to avert or report harassment, none of which works, as documented by several surveys. The latest of these, much touted by OIST, is an “independent” ombudsman. OIST appointed a professor of good character to serve in this capacity, but in the OIST environment, how can any professor be independent, much less one who is the husband of an executive?

This month, the U.N.’s labor agency, the International Labor Organization, overwhelmingly passed new standards recognizing the right of people throughout the world to work in environments free from violence and harassment. Those standards also include disciplinary measures to be taken against offenders. While OIST touts its status as an international university, its Policies, Rules, and Procedures stipulate no penalties for those who violate them. This invites retaliation against plaintiffs. If OIST is to be recognized as a truly international organization, it needs to abide by international standards.

This culture of power harassment must be expunged in order for OIST to achieve its mission, but all oversight organizations, including the Board of Governors and the Board of Counselors, have repeatedly abdicated their responsibilities, and now signs of trouble are billowing. To mention only several, as of July, three executives will have left and the General Counsel’s position is being advertised on the OIST Careers webpage. Some professors are leaving. Some research units of senior professors are being reduced in size, despite world-class reputations and being among the most productive units at OIST. It appears that some executives are focused on everything except the institutional mission. So why are they paid so much, and why aren’t they as concerned about OIST as rank and file employees?

OIST needs leadership as outstanding as its physical facilities and as dedicated to its mission as many of the people who have been terminated. Specifically it needs executives who live by the principles codified in Section 1.3 of the OIST Policies, Rules and Procedures.

I believe in OIST, in its mission, and in the many fine researchers and administrative staff members I have known there. I hope to be able to contribute once again to that mission as OIST’s Technical Editor, but even though I have been terminated, I am still OFSA’s Chair; and I am going to do everything I can to make OIST the organization it has long claimed to be.

OFSA wants to see OIST’s massive public funding used efficiently to support research. We oppose waste and inappropriate use of taxpayer resources, whether it be for useless capital expenditures, obscene remuneration and perks for executives, or constantly hiring attorneys to defend OIST executives against the consequences of their malfeasance. Okinawa and the Japanese taxpayers deserve better than this. Thank you.

Steven D. Aird

For Information:

Full statement made at the first Strategic Planning Forum on 14 September:

“…I think that the issues raised on your ‘Values’ slide are clearly the most problematic for OIST. During the slightly more than six years that I have been here, I have known many outstanding people, people who are bright, creative, industrious, dedicated, and decent. However, many of them are no longer here, not because they graduated, or because they decided to move on, but because they were harassed, beaten up, and driven out. Unfortunately, OIST has established a culture of power harassment that makes a lie of who and what we claim to be. If OIST is to achieve its lofty mandate, this must be rectified. But it cannot happen unless our executive administrators are paragons of ethical behavior.”

PRP 1.3 CORE VALUES

Integrity, honesty, fairness, respect for others, and dedication to the OIST mission are the values that inform the activities and behaviors of individuals working for, or asserting an affiliation with, the University…

1.3.2 RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE OIST Graduate University Respectful Workplace Policy

The University is committed to providing a work environment that promotes education, research, and productivity through working relationships based on respectful communication. This commitment calls for a workplace where the following core values are upheld:

1. Everyone at OIST without exception has an important contribution to make toward the overall success of the University’s mission.

2. This mission will be carried out in an atmosphere where all employees, in all types of jobs, value each other and treat each other with respect. Communication between employees should be polite at all times. This will be true even in situations of high pressure and urgency.

3. Diversity among employees is celebrated at OIST and employees must at all times exercise tolerance and respect for cultural, gender, ethnic and other differences. Special consideration should be given to those employees with physical or mental impairment.

4. Managers, supervisors and others in positions of authority should consider themselves as role models in the promotion of these core values, without in any way abdicating their responsibility to direct their employees to perform work effectively.

5. In the same spirit, employees, irrespective of their job title, are encouraged to discuss issues of concern without fear that those discussions will result in negative treatment or punitive consequences from any other employee of the University.

6. To promote mutual understanding and avoid unnecessary conflicts, an atmosphere where native English speakers are considerate of non-native speakers, and vice versa, is expected so that no language-related barrier restricts employees from participating in discussions or in asking questions.

7. In response to staff input, the University will make reasonable changes to improve the work environment and productivity at OIST.