I have received correspondence from Frances Finnegan in relation to remarks made about her by Niall McElwee on this blog relating to her involvement in highlighting the use of materials by Niall McElwee in Waterford Institute in 1998.
—————————-
‘Niall McElwee repeats his aspersion (first made in his recent statement to the Devine Enquiry) that in 1998 I complained of his use of inappropriate slides at WIT, for personal, rather than professional reasons. To be precise, in order to procure for my daughter, Dr. Rachel Finnegan, a senior position in the College for which he too, had applied.
For the record, and to set this matter straight, I wish to state the following:
In early April 1998 the highly respected part-time Therapy Lecturer in Social Care told me of her concerns regarding inappropriate slides that Niall McElwee was showing to both evening and daytime students. She reported that some of the students were distressed and requiring therapy. Shortly after this discussion, the Education Technician approached me with his own anxieties, being under pressure to facilitate the further, more disturbing use of these slides. Alarmed, and with serious misgivings for my own well-being (I was right to dread the consequences for me) I took these concerns to the College Equality Officer. About a fortnight later I met with her again, and once more she promised to act on the matter. After a further delay, during which time I heard nothing and was most apprehensive, I consulted a senior T.U.I. representative, who recognising the urgency of the case, arranged for our meeting with the College Registrar. This meeting took place on 27th May, and resulted in the immediate discontinuance of the use of the slides.
WIT confirmed last week that the job referred to by Niall McEllwee was first advertised on 29th May – more than a month after I made my initial complaint. At the time I could have known nothing of the future position, nor would I have had much interest in it. I had more important matters on my mind. These dates, easily verified, are on record in the College. Not so easily verified, of course, is the fact that I am neither so devious nor so ambitious as to act as he suggests. But then, what normal person is?
Niall McElwee’s latest allegation comes as a surprise – he having previously attributed my conduct to my being mentally “unwell” and later again, to academic jealousy! Let me now state that I acted as I did out of concern for the students, the reputation of the College (ironic, in the circumstances) and most of all, for the children whose bodies were portrayed in those images. Had I consulted my own interests I would not have acted at all. In the sad tradition of social care in Ireland, I would, knowing that something was wrong, have chosen not to get involved.
As it is, later events, and the revelations in the Devine Report demonstrate that my concerns, and the concerns of others were, even in 1998, amply justified – and more widespread than we thought.
Frances Finnegan.’
————————
Dr. Frances Finnegan was Lecturer in Social History in WIT from 1980-2007.
Her books include Poverty and Prostitution: A Study of Victorian Prostitutes in York (Cambridge University Press, 1979, reprinted 2006) and Do Penance or Perish: Magdalen Asylums in Ireland (Oxford University Press, 2004).
She retired in 2007 and has two daughters and three grandsons.
I am grateful to Dr. Finnegan for taking a personal risk and raising concerns about the use of this material. We might think twice before castigating someone who blows a whistle in academic settings, and we might reflect on the broader issue.
Can someone clarify for me, are slides used to train social workers on issues of child abuse elsewhere? What is the role of social workers in child abuse – are they actually diagnosing it? I googled the title of this set of slides used, and found it is a French published medical publication for use by medical practitioners to diagnose abuse, which suggests to me it is not intended for social workers. Most of the publications I see on the social work/ social studies library shelves at Trinity College, which focuses more on policy and professional practices.
So, I’m not entirely clear about why this manual was used. Moreover, the narrative about the use of the manual is not coherent. It was controversial (in that the WIT had to vet it), yet student attendance was voluntary, and then there’s a student who claims how seeing the slides was formative to her/his career. Furthermore, Niall McElwee wonders why former academics and the media were in a flap over child abuse training materials in an age of anxiety about child abuse; that concerns me – the media cannot be blamed here.
My take on this is relatively simple. Fears expressed about child abuse (by professionals) are taken up by the media and general population, and they are interpreted in a lay perspective. So important issues raise by professionals have become part of the media’s and society’s child abuse consciousness. For instance, it is acknowledged how images of child abuse acts can incite abuse, how people in power can commit sexual acts and how the inertia of social institutions (such as the church) seems to protect the abuser rather than the victims.
The complex issues about the use of some manual or other, whether valid or not, muddies the waters when professional training and ethics should be crystal clear. If an academic like Dr. Finnegan started raising concerns, should that not have been enough to make Niall McElwee think about how to impart abuse training/ best practice, or is that merely academic?
I’m not going to rush into comment on Finnegan’s post but Sean has raised some interesting points. He has, however, missed the fact that it is accepted by Waterford Institute of Technology that I had already ceased using the particular slide package over a year before Dr. Finnegan and the other part-time lecturer mentioned by her made their complaint. Surely that says something in itself.
I stand by what I have already stated – the complaints were made for personal reasons. It is interesting that the entire academic course board, at a specially convened course board meeting, validated the use of the package as a legitimate teaching aid to Waterford students who were all adult learners (I have copies of all relevant documentation). This was a very diverse course board made up of people with backgrounds in therapies, psychology, sociology, anthropology, psychiatric nursing and the arts. Finally, such educational packages are marketed for inter-disciplinary use by interested personnel.
Finally, I had no difficulty with colleagues who raised legitimate concerns (informally or formally) and, as was the case with the slide package over a decade ago, was willing to amend my teaching practices if someone pointed out any pitfalls/inconsistencies etc. I had the interests of student welfare foremost.
Could Niall MacElwee confirm whether or not the slides were shown to ART students at WIT; and if so, why?
Also, why did he wish to view the faces of students (edited for legal reasons) as they viewed the slides?
At the very least, we are discussing highly contentious material shared with students by [someone who later became] a convicted sex offender.
Damien Mulley » Blog Archive » Fluffy Links - Tuesday May 6th 2008 // May 6, 2008 at 05:13
[...] Niall McElwee thing is full of twists isn’t [...]
Just regarding the “WIT confirmed last week that the job referred to by Niall McEllwee was first advertised on 29th May – more than a month after I made my initial complaint.” It is not uncommon from my limited knowledge of how 3rd level institutions operate in Ireland for positions to be known about within the particular department or college long before (several months) they are advertised. And I’m curious but was the College Equality Officer really the appropriate person to take this to? They may have had some other role in WIT but surely if the materials were just simply inappropriate for the couese then how was it an issue for the College Equality Officer?
I would like to know what criteria Dr Finnegan applied to determine that the slides were inappropriate.
Dan is, indeed, correct. Of course such posts are well signed internally before external advertising. Just ask any college lecturer in the system. Thus, it is just incredible that Finnegan would claim she did not know about it and just too convienent that the complaint was made when it was. And, the relevant College authorities have already stated that, to their knowledge, no students required therapy as alleged after exposure to the teaching package that Finnegan herself admits she never even saw – nor asked to. So, what was the real problem? There was another agenda at play and it will be revealed at some stage.
For clarification – neither candidate being referred to was successful in that competition so excuses above/discussion is moot!
Irrespective of whom was or was not successful in securing the appointment, the point was made in the original post to underscore that the person making the complaint had no axe to grind with Dr. Niall McElwee. I think the folks in those legal movies would say “I believe it speaks to motive, your honour”. Dr. Niall McElwee claims she had motive for the complaint other than that which she has outlined and Dr. Frances Finnegan has refuted this and provided dates as evidence of this. I think discussion of the motivation behind the complaint being made goes to the core of whether the events at WIT have any relevance to what occurred later in Dr. Niall McElwee’s career.
I think that discussion of the possible motivations is something that Dr. McElwee would love us to entertain ourselves with to the detriment of the reputation of others and this is a case of what Slugger O’Toole would refer to as playing the woman/man instead of the ball. Not on my pitch.
Mamam Poulet on this blog last summer afforded great room for discussion re the infamous Slide Atlas materials. She then allows Dr. Finnegan more space to refute my claims and then, because I try to set a context, says I would love her to entertain…”with the detriment of the reputation of others…”. Now, to use a sports metaphor -this is playing two sides of the field at once. Surely fairness dictates that I should be allowed room to reply seeing as we are talking about something that the college looked into in 1998/9 and then said I should not use the materials “in case of sensitivities”. The college never said I was wrong to use the materials and had allowed another staff to use them. How does Dr. Finnegan (and Katydid) explain the fact that the entire academic course board validated my use of the materials if they were so inapporpriate?
I have repeatedly apologised for the Amsterdam incident, but there is no connection between it and my use of the educational package nearly a decade before – no matter how hard people such as Dr. Finnegan try to link them.
I will return to this entire story i.e. Waterford and thereafter in another fora where there is a level playing pitch at a later date.
Yet the original poster speaks about their motivation repeatedly, indeed it would seem to be the sum total of the content of their post that they were acting in the interests of the students and the college. Yet the suggestion is that to discuss those motives and how they played out is playing the man not the ball? I’ve not read anything in that post that would lead anyone to believe that what did or did not happen in WIT had any relevance to what happened while Dr. McElwee was at AIT. I’m just like everyone else on the outside trying to sift through the various stories to get some idea of what the truth is here.
The case as outlined appears to be that a complaint was made for some reason (that none of us on the outside can be sure of) about content being inappropriate, on a course that the complainant didn’t see, a year after the content had been used and at a time when the complainant’s daughter was up for a post in competition with the person being complained about. And that the complaint of the material being inappropriate wasn’t upheld. These seem to be things that both sides agree on.
If I’m factually wrong in the last paragraph let me know but if it is as I’ve outlined it then I don’t see what this whole incident has to do with anything.
Dan that’s what some might want people to think that happened, it’s a bit of spin that and it’s flawed and I fear we might enter the realm of legalities or just Obfuscation – however we have the report which highlights that others agreed with the concerns being made – so back to Playing the ball – Read the Devine Report’s findings.
Because it is clear on the matter in terms of the recommendations made by WIT and actions taken by the HSE when they heard that the slides were being used – this is what’s important more than trying to distract on why concerns were raised. The fact is that they were raised – when WIT did something it resulted in ensuring that the slides were not used again. The HSE didn’t support their use either.
12.8.1. That Waterford Institute of Technology carried out an Internal Inquiry into concerns raised by a member of the academic staff about the teaching materials referred to in 12.2.2 above. That the Inquiry concluded with recommendations that the slides in question be returned to their original owner, an Accident and Emergency Consultant, and that the material should not be used in the future. It is also a matter of fact that the Internal WIT Inquiry was carried out in the absence of knowledge of concerns expressed by the South Eastern Health Board.
12.9.2. …. The second recorded concerns which came to the attention of the then South Eastern Health Board pertaining to child protection issues touching on or concerning Dr. A, were raised informally with officers of the SEHB in late 1998. These informal concerns related to the use of materials by Dr. A for teaching purposes within Waterford Institute of Technology. The materials used included medical slides of injuries to children which are consistent with sexual abuse. The Regional Coordinator Child Care Services wrote to Dr. A on 21 December 1998 and expressed concerns about the reported use of materials and advised that these concerns had been discussed with the Regional Child Care Training Officer and the Director of the Community Child Centre in Waterford Regional Hospital. Dr. A responded by stating that the materials had not been used in two years. On the basis of that response no further inquiries were made by the South Eastern Health Board on this matter.
Again I’m relying on what has been posted here but the materials had not in use for a year when the WIT inquiry was made. Was that the case or not? Unless someone comes on to show that wasn’t the case we are left to assume that was the case. The SEHB expressed concerns but never completed their inquiries because the materials were no longer in use (or so they were told). They expressed concerns but didn’t follow it up. Might it be better for all concerned if they had? I think so. I think the only useful thing highlighted by this is what we seem to now call a system’s failure in the SEHB in not following up.
So inquiries were made into the use of something that was no longer being used and because they weren’t used again we should conclude what exactly? Dr. McElwee says the college “said I should not use the materials “in case of sensitivities?.” which would seem to be consistent with the Devine report but there again I have only his word on here that this is what the (the college) said. But since what he says and what the report says don’t clash why should we make the leap to the idea the college stated the use of the materials was wrong? Approaches may be taken in all kinds of jobs and they are discontinued or replaced by other approaches, it doesn’t follow that they were wrong or inappropriate.