{"id":391183,"date":"2010-03-04T14:10:47","date_gmt":"2010-03-04T19:10:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu\/nll\/?p=2158"},"modified":"2010-03-04T14:10:47","modified_gmt":"2010-03-04T19:10:47","slug":"update-on-the-annihilation-of-computational-linguistics-at-kcl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/391183","title":{"rendered":"Update on the annihilation of Computational Linguistics at KCL"},"content":{"rendered":"

[What follows is a guest post from Robin Cooper, Professor of Computational Linguistics, Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, and Director of the Graduate School of Language Technology, University of Gothenburg. He reports on the ill-considered and appallingly executed destruction of the Computational Linguistics group at King’s College London. — David Beaver]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The crisis at King’s College, London and in particular the targeting\u00a0for redundancy of its computational linguists and logicians has\u00a0stirred significant international protest\u00a0(see http:\/\/sites.google.com\/site\/kclgllcmeltdown\/<\/a>). Many hundreds of\u00a0highly distinguished scholars from around the world have organized\u00a0letters of protest querying the rationale behind these moves, which\u00a0have happened at the same time as the College invested more than \u00a320\u00a0million in acquiring Somerset House, a prime piece of central London\u00a0real estate. Moreover, in contrast to universities that have undergone\u00a0similar budgetary pressures in the US (e.g. in the UC system where\u00a0senior faculty have been asked to take pay cuts in order to preserve\u00a0jobs), at KCL moves towards firing permanent staff has been the first\u00a0resort.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

As discussed previously in Language Log<\/a>,\u00a0in December Jonathan\u00a0Ginzburg was informed that a panel comprised of Professors from the\u00a0School of Physical Sciences and Engineering (PSE), including a number\u00a0of Computer Scientists, as well as some external members, had decided\u00a0not to select him for membership of the new department. \u00a0This panel is\u00a0referred to in the documents cited below as “the School panel”. \u00a0He\u00a0was told that the reason for the non-selection had nothing to do with\u00a0the quality of his research, which the School panel acknowledged to be\u00a0of high international standard. The grounds for non-selection were\u00a0alleged lack of “research fit” with the plans the administration drew\u00a0up for the new department. \u00a0Here is a relevant quote from these plans\u00a0for the new department of Applied Logic and Theory of Computation (ALTC):<\/p>\n

The focus of ALTC should be on the following domains: The general\u00a0theory of applied logical systems, with a particular emphasis on applications in Artificial Intelligence and in Agents and Intelligent Systems. Of key importance will be logics for spatial and temporal reasoning, for reasoning about beliefs, belief revision and defeasibility, and for reasoning about actions, intentions, preferences and norms.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ginzburg lodged an appeal (for which there was a hearing on 25th\u00a0January), based on two main points:<\/p>\n

A. There was noone on either the departmental or school panels who is\u00a0familiar with work in the areas he specializes in and who could\u00a0properly evaluate its fitting with the specification of the ALTC. In\u00a0particular, the external member of the panel who decided not to select\u00a0him for the new department, Prof Paul Layzell (University of Sussex),\u00a0is a software engineer whose specific areas of research are remote\u00a0from logic and artificial intelligence oriented aspects of computer\u00a0science. There is also public evidence that Layzell has a history of\u00a0collaborating with members of another research group in the dept of\u00a0computer science, Software Engineering, all of whom were selected for\u00a0membership in the department. Layzell is also the Pro-Vice Chancellor\u00a0of Sussex University, whose treatment of its own academic staff\u00a0(detailed e.g. in the Times\u00a0here<\/a>, and\u00a0here<\/a>, and on the web here<\/a>) is not unlike\u00a0the KCL administration’s actions.<\/p>\n

B. Ginzburg’s work covers the areas outlined in the specification of\u00a0the restructured department. Ginzburg argued this case by pointing to\u00a0various of his articles that directly addressed the departmental\u00a0specification, as well as pointing to his other professional\u00a0activities. \u00a0Three internationally renowned experts in the area of\u00a0Logic and AI wrote detailed and highly cogent letters arguing that\u00a0Ginzburg’s work fit the specification.<\/p>\n

The appeal panel consisted of Prof Keith Hoggart (dept.\u00a0of Geography, KCL), Prof. Simon Howells (Biomedical Science, KCL), and\u00a0Ms Claire Harrington (an independent legal adviser). The specification\u00a0of the terms of reference of the appeal panel indicated the following:<\/p>\n

The decision of School panel has been reached following due consideration and having made an informed judgement and the appeal\u00a0\u00a0 panel will not change the decision of the School Panel unless it can be demonstrated that there was not due consideration or an informed judgement had not been made in which circumstances it will be remitted back to School panel for review on the specific point(s) of appeal identified by the Appeal Panel. <\/span><\/p>\n

This sentence appears to assert part of what the appeal panel is meant\u00a0to determine (whether the decision had been reached following due\u00a0consideration and on the basis of an informed judgement). \u00a0Furthermore\u00a0it appears that the appeal panel is only empowered to hand back the\u00a0case to the School panel (i.e. the people who made the original\u00a0decision) for review if problems should be discovered.<\/p>\n

Concerns about the composition of the appeal panel and its terms of\u00a0reference were raised in a letter to the principal of KCL, Professor\u00a0Rick Trainor, by myself and Professor Ruth Kempson. That letter was\u00a0answered by Mr Brent Dempster, the KCL director of Human Resources, on\u00a0Professor Trainor’s behalf. \u00a0We were assured that<\/p>\n

Dr Ginzberg (sic) has had an opportunity to present his case and\u00a0\u00a0full and appropriate consideration will be given to his submission. \u00a0The College is confident that the appeal process is both robust and fair and that the correct decision will be reached\u00a0\u00a0following these proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n

(The misspelling of Ginzburg’s name appeared twice in the email we\u00a0received, suggesting that it was not simply a typing error…)<\/p>\n

The panel took a considerable amount of time to come up with their\u00a0verdict. It was announced on February 19, some 10 working days later\u00a0than the KCL statutory deadline and a considerable amount of time\u00a0after the date stipulated in the terms of reference: 29th January.\u00a0Hence, the decision could not be deemed to be a rushed\u00a0decision. But despite their claims to have considered Ginzburg’s\u00a0evidence carefully, the panel did not address any of the points he or\u00a0the three experts who wrote for him raised beyond saying that he had\u00a0not made his case. \u00a0Nor did they indicate any response by\u00a0the school panel, to whom they indicated they had passed on the\u00a0material. \u00a0In part the letter Ginzburg received read:<\/p>\n

By means of background to your appeal, the New Departmental Panel\u00a0considered that, while your research was considered to be of a very high standard, your case was not made on grounds of research fit and this recommendation was agreed by the school panel, as detailed in\u00a0the letter from Chris Mottershead dated 18th December 2009…. <\/span><\/p>\n

Following consideration of the feedback on the additional information,\u00a0it is with regret that the Appeal Panel concluded not to uphold your appeal i.e. the original rejection remains.<\/span><\/p>\n

A final piece of evidence that procedures concerning restructuring\u00a0decisions at KCL are not all they should be is given by the experience\u00a0of one of the academics who wrote on Ginzburg’s behalf on 10th\u00a0December, the day that he was handed his letter stating that he was at\u00a0risk by Chris Mottershead, Vice Principal (Research and Innovation).\u00a0A few hours after Ginzburg’s supporter had emailed the principal with a cc\u00a0to Mr Mottershead he received a reply from Mottershead:<\/p>\n

Rick<\/span><\/p>\n

Problems always occur where you least expect them! I have spoken on a one-to-one basis to most people in PSE in the last two days, and everybody who is at risk – expect Jonathan, who has been away. I am due to see him at 2:30 today.<\/span><\/p>\n

I am concerned how he and others have found out what we decided before I give him his letter today. As background – we would agree with these comments. \u00a0The issue is that we still have too many theoretical computer scientists, although far fewer than before – and Jonathan’s work does not relate to the other activities of the Department, and is at the periphery of computer science.<\/span><\/p>\n

The decision about Jonathan was strongly supported by our external advisor on computer science – Paul Lyzell – who is PVC for research at Sussex and was on the CS RAE Panel. <\/span><\/p>\n

Chris Mottershead <\/span><\/p>\n

It is unclear why Mr Mottershead sent this letter to Ginzburg’s\u00a0supporter (who is not named Rick). Perhaps it was inadvertent and\u00a0meant for the Principal of KCL who is so named. Interestingly, this\u00a0letter appears to indicate that the case against Ginzburg and his\u00a0logician colleagues was quite different from what had been stated\u00a0publicly and that the real motivation was to reduce the number of\u00a0“theoretical computer scientists”, an issue that was never raised in\u00a0the restructuring plan of the department or mentioned to Ginzburg in\u00a0connection with his redundancy risk or appeal.<\/p>\n

A further point of concern, which could have legal consequences, relates to discrimination. Ginzburg, as well as the other two people who were identified for redundancy in the Computer Science Department, and\u00a0the three people selected for termination of employment in the Philosophy Department are all foreign born and raised. There is a clear matter for concern that the College may be discriminating against them on the basis of national origin. While this may not have been an explicit criterion for selecting employees for dismissal, it is clear that whatever criteria have been used have given rise to adverse discrimination by virtue of national origin.<\/p>\n

It is indeed worrying to see an institution of the stature of KCL not\u00a0only make foolish decisions to make some of its leading world-class\u00a0scholars redundant but also pursue these decisions with what appears\u00a0to be administrative ineptitude of sitcom proportions. \u00a0It would\u00a0almost have been funny if it had not involved our valued colleagues.<\/p>\n

[Guest post from Robin Cooper.]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[What follows is a guest post from Robin Cooper, Professor of Computational Linguistics, Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, and Director of the Graduate School of Language Technology, University of Gothenburg. He reports on the ill-considered and appallingly executed destruction of the Computational Linguistics group at King’s College London. — David Beaver] The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4147,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-391183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391183","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4147"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=391183"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391183\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=391183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=391183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=391183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}