26th June 2012, 02:31 PM
A statement from the university dated 18th June can be read here ( http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/iaa/...w-iaa.aspx ) – probably the nearest thing we have to an outline of the official position. It refers to 'misinformation' in the public domain.
A detailed response from Birmingham UCU dated 22[SIZE=2]nd June, [/SIZE] giving interesting background info and a point-by-point critique of the official position, can be found here ( http://birminghamucu.org/ )
It would be good if some of the professorial staff at Birmingham could respond to criticisms made. I would have thought it their role to stand up for the IAA. If they are in favour of its dismantling, however, then perhaps they should put the case to the wider archaeological community, who have expressed such dismay and disquiet over the proposed closure.
The paradox still stands, and needs to be answered. If it's true that the IAA has been failing, why are the senior staff who oversaw the alleged failure all being rewarded with continued job security and promotions, while more junior staff - not responsible for past managerial decisions - face redundancy?
A detailed response from Birmingham UCU dated 22[SIZE=2]nd June, [/SIZE] giving interesting background info and a point-by-point critique of the official position, can be found here ( http://birminghamucu.org/ )
It would be good if some of the professorial staff at Birmingham could respond to criticisms made. I would have thought it their role to stand up for the IAA. If they are in favour of its dismantling, however, then perhaps they should put the case to the wider archaeological community, who have expressed such dismay and disquiet over the proposed closure.
The paradox still stands, and needs to be answered. If it's true that the IAA has been failing, why are the senior staff who oversaw the alleged failure all being rewarded with continued job security and promotions, while more junior staff - not responsible for past managerial decisions - face redundancy?