College and university board members, presidents, and other representative employees are at a critical juncture of a pervasive and destructive issue: the institutional complicity of workplace abuse, including bullying and mobbing. The recent suicide of Dr. Antoinette "Bonnie" Candia-Bailey at Lincoln University and the blame game departure of Dr. Claudine Gay from Harvard University are sobering reminders of the imbalance of power overlooked in the silent epidemic of workplace abuse.

Dr. Candia-Bailey was the Vice President of Student Affairs at Lincoln University. According to ABC News, her letter to President John Moseley dated Jan. 8 described months of "harassment, bullying, and differential treatment" from Moseley and those who denied her FMLA and feigned responsibility to address personnel issues — a stark reflection for the need for cultural change within academic institutions. These claims were unsubstantiated by recent employer-run investigations.  

Similarly, Dr. Gay's resignation from her position as Harvard's President after only six months, as reported by Forbes, underscores the challenging environment that even the most prestigious employees are not immune to. "If the goal were, in fact, to make campuses free of hate and violence for all students and employees, why then haven’t congresspersons fiercely interrogated, investigated, and held accountable presidents who’ve failed to protect Black people from well-documented, longstanding, and at times fatal encounters with antiblack racist hate on campuses?" asks Forbes reporter Shaun Harper.

The New York Times listed Black Americans as the most frequent victims of hate crimes in schools in 2022. Seventy-four members of Congress called for her resignation after hearings on Capitol Hill; Dr. Gay reported "racial animus" and "racist vitriol" with increased intensity after the hearing, which some call "know-your-place aggression," begging the question: which types of hate crimes are acceptable on campuses and which are not?

Bullying, a form of psychological abuse, has been identified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as a workplace psychosocial hazard. Work-related psychosocial hazards are "aspects of the design and management of work and its social-organizational context" that have the potential to cause physical and psychological harm. Mobbing is an intensified form of workplace bullying, group harassment, that can be more destructive than individual acts of bullying because it represents a collective effort to remove someone from their workplace. U.S. employers are not currently liable for psychologically abusive behavior nor do they want to be. Bullying behavior and subsequent internal complaints of bullying and mobbing are routinely ignored by the majority of employers to avoid liability while exponentially exacerbating the toxicity of the work environment.

The circumstances surrounding these two distinguished individuals highlight the urgent need for systemic reform. Workplace bullying and the institutional complicity that accompanies it (aka mobbing) are characterized by concerted efforts to undermine, isolate, and remove individuals, leading to significant physical, psychological and professional harm. The presence of such a toxic culture not only impacts the individuals directly involved but also tarnishes the reputation and integrity of the entire institution. We are shining a light on the perpetration and the perpetrators.

We're calling for transparency of fair reporting procedures, adequate resources, and fostering a culture of respect, inclusivity, and support.

Created in partnership with the