Talk:Simon Lee (academic)

POV
The large recent addition is unencylopedic in style, with phrases such as "Anyone wishing to judge his record" and "Tellingly" which are inappropriate. The lack of sources suggests that the entire text has been contributed by a friend and supporter of the subject. It needs major work to become suitable for an encyclopedia. PamD (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article accurately reflects the work of Professor Lee. The editing to remove the offending words raised by POV addresses the comments made. References can be supplied. The original content was certainly contentious and the additional material balances this. Why is it a problem for someone who might know Professor Lee to contribute? Surely they are in a position to know facts, rather than rumours or supposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Hamilton00 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * SeeWP:NPOV and WP:NOR for two of Wikipedia's core policies. (And please indent and sign any comments on talk pages). Thanks. PamD (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've removed my two examples, but they were only examples. The text is still unreferenced, too much of a hagiography, over-long, lacking in links, and generally far from being a good Wikipedia article. You say "references can be supplied": then do so. That's Wikipedia's requirement - information from verifiable sources, not "Original Research" from someone "in a position to know". PamD (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an accurate portrayal of the Lee years at both Hope and Leeds Met. Markhamian (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Ian Markham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhamian (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It hides so much more than it reveals. For example, the new Rose Bowl looks lovely from the outside but is designed according to open space principles which is highly unsuited for the purpose of academic staff and their work. Staff work in offices of 18 as though it were an insurance company. Now Lee may have departed before it opened but anyone who told him that open space does not work for academic staff were basically ignored.

What is clear fron outside is that like some other Presidents/Vice Chancellors of Universities Professor Lee has a divisive reputation. His bio here should reflect that. Yes, he has a number of people who have owed him strong personal loyality, but others who revile him, In particular there are concerns about his spending policies which have affected both Liverpool Hope and Leeds Met where the profile was raised, but at very high cost and which have been subsequently undone. --Registrarmike (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Although a Newspaper doesn't exactly count as neutral, there's a counter story about the 'high impact' bit at http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Leeds-Met-39lost-10m-through.5675492.jp where it's clear that Lee's successor doesn't agree with the guff that's been put out on wikipedia about Lee's success at Leeds Met... --Registrarmike (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comment and observation from Reistrarmike, who in view of his/her post within an academic institution would know better. The policy of a university may be directed by a President/Vice-Chancellor but requires many others to both make policy and implement it. Governors, senior managers, and committee strutures all play a role, this is the role and function of governance and accountability, surely a Registrar or Director of Finance, and audit committee or finance committee might have some say in decision making. Sebastian Newdigate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian Newdigate (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's one of the things that marks out Simon Lee's work: he certainly had a clear imagination and vision, and drove that - while it was possible to disagree, once the course was set it was hard to change. That must have been a contributory factor to his departure at Leeds Met - the Low Fee High Impact slogan was so embedded that it was too hard for him to u-turn, even if the governors wanted him to. Someone does need to have a go at this entry though - signed personal tributes do not make an encyclopedia... --Registrarmike (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And now more challenges to the hagiographical page that is presented here - http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Exclusive-How-Leeds-Met-broke.5842929.jp - even if you ignore the breach of tendering rules; the claim that Simon changed the Leeds Met world without advertising is rather underminded by the £1.5M spent on event branding. --Registrarmike (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This whole article is so unencyclopedic in tone and lacking in references that it's difficult to know where to start in rendering it appropriate for Wikipedia. But I've started by excising a large chunk of first person reminiscence/praise, and requesting sources for some of the more controversial sections. PamD (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed some more self-promoting chunks of NPOV guff and fixed some of the references. I think it is gradually getting better, but more remains to be done. -- Alarics (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That Professor Simon Lee was forced to resign over allegations of bullying is a matter of public record. What is less well known is that he, his wife and a small 'select' group of cronies embedded within the academic structure of Leeds Met had during the time of his tenure maintained power by the ruthless suppression of any internal dissent. It was the experience of many who used the internal complaints procedure for example, that this process was used to identify and discredit anyone who dared to go on record with any implied criticism of the status quo. A case in point can be found with the exasperated statement delivered to Parliament on the 21st July 2004 by Leeds MP Fabian Hamilton (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040721/halltext/40721h04.htm) on the 'disturbing' practices which were endured by staff and students who had cause to resort to the internal complaints procedure (see Hansard). In 2009 the satirical magazine Private Eye published details of an 'etiquette guide' to staff by Simon Lees wife, Patricia, not actually a paid employee of the University, advising prospective staff to 'wear clean undies' as well as a myriad of other useful advice. Patricia had good reason to be in high spirits given that during her time at Leeds Metropolitan as wife to the Vice-Chancellor she was the beneficiary of no less than five holidays on the company credit card to such exotic locations as Thailand and Bavaria, including one on which she is quoted by the Yorkshire Post as describing as 'the holiday of a lifetime'. A Simon Lee innovation to the Leeds Met accounting system was the introduction of an unusually lax rule which meant that purchases made with the Leeds Metropolitan University credit card did not come under the normal restrictions, allowing favoured staff to be the recipients of luxury cars, crates of champagne and yes exotic holidays. I was a student during this time and we couldn't even get working printers, but there we go, such are the injustices of a system that incorporates cronyism and nepotism. And nepotism there was. It was not unknown for favoured staff to employ their children as quasi-Lecturers after graduating them from their academic concerns with a first class degree. Simon Lee knew about this behavior because he was tasked with overseeing specific complaints against it. During my time there (2002 - 2005) I met with a number of students and staff who came forward with allegations that relatively senior members of staff had used their positions to obtain or attempt to obtain sexual favours, but these staff and students were too afraid for their jobs or grades to take make any complaint. Academic standards were open to abuse, rewarding those who had earned the favour of those in power - often by their actions; briefing against a dissenting member of staff perhaps. Checks and balances were non-existent the Lecturer Satisfaction Surveys commonplace in most universities were not employed. Student Representatives were appointed so as to give the right sort of feedback. Corruption was endemic, and a quiet sense of fear permeated the various academic departments. Students who had complained were threatened and even assaulted. I can go into specifics but chose not to at this time. Please feel free to challenge me and I will provide specific names and examples. Professor Lees tenure has left a financially crippled university: ruinous property deals, millions spent on self-promoting advertising over any real academic substance or content, 5 million wasted alone on the company credit card, and a legacy of dodgy management practice to say the least. He was actually paying himself twenty thousand pounds per year more than the serving Prime Minister of the day. My take on Professor Simon Lee is that if white collar crime was taken seriously in Britain then he would currently be behind bars. Christopher John Dearden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Key23 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this article is very pro the subject, also one contributor above Markhamian, who claims this is an accurate portrayal of Simon Lee's time at Hope and Leeds Metropolitan University is I believe Ian Markham (author of 'Do Morals Matter?'), who was a friend and associate of Simon Lee. Impartiality is certainly a concern of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartmoss (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Article is an advertisement
The article is far too promotional in tone. I have trimmed some of the excesses, and marked other claims as needing citations. I have also removed many inappropriate external links. It is surprising to find no mention of the widely-publicised more controversial aspects of his career. DuncanHill (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)