A “sexist” lecturer found with two suitcases full of porn in a college cupboard has been banned from teaching for two years. Michael Drew, a senior lecturer at the Newtown Campus of Neath Port Talbot Group of Colleges, was found to have stored a “voluminous” collection of pornographic films with titles such as ‘Spring Break’ and ‘Dorm Room Fantasies’ on the campus between 2015 and 2020.
An Education Workforce Council (EWC) hearing on Friday, April 1 found Mr Drew breached professional standards after it was found he had stored two suitcases full of “thousands” of pornographic images on the campus. Mr Drew, who worked in the college electrical department and had a second job as an erotic photographer, was also found to have behaved in an “inappropriate and sexist” manner to both staff and students on several occasions.
The tribunal heard that Mr Drew, who started working in the college in 2011, had made “phwoar” noises towards students and commented on their looks and their breasts. This included one occasion where he said to a colleague “look at the rack on that”, referring to a student at the college.
Read more: Read all the latest stories from the courts in Wales here.
In November 2019, he told one male colleague: “God look at her, what I wouldn’t do for that”, referring to a young female learner who attended an open day at the college, and commented towards a female colleague during a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) session about giving feedback: “Well you know we all know how good your oral skills are.” He was also found to have told another colleague, while referring to a female learner, that he “could not resist a red head”.
Mr Drew was also found to have made a motion with his hand as as if to slap one learner’s bottom when she leaned over a table during a class in 2019 or 2020, as told by witness James Seddon, a colleague who gave evidence to the hearing.
The opening day of the tribunal on Tuesday, March 29 heard the suitcases containing pornographic material were forcibly removed from campus after staff members raised concerns about Mr Drew’s behaviour. After the suitcases were found the college’s deputy principal had to spend more than eight hours watching the explicit films to ensure they did not contain child images, which they did not. Catherine Lewis, the deputy principal for NPTC Group, told the tribunal Mr Drew claimed he was storing the cases for a friend going through a divorce.
On Friday the Fitness to Practise Committee ruled Mr Drew had behaved unacceptably in his role and that his behaviour was sexist, inappropriate, derogatory and offensive. Robert Newsome, Chair of the EWC Fitness to Practise Committee, said there had been “no justification” for Mr Drew’s storing of “highly inappropriate material” on campus, adding: “They simply should not have been kept on the college premises.”
He said Mr Drew’s “objectification of women”, including both female staff and learners, had “no place” in society or in the educational environment in which he worked. Conceding that Mr Drew’s comments were made to colleagues rather than directly to learners, he said this nevertheless applied whether or not the comments had been overheard by the people he was speaking about.
The tribunal also found Mr Drew, who was described as a “large physical man”, displayed intimidating conduct towards colleagues on several occasions. This included shouting aggressively at a fellow staff member and “backing him into a corner” in a 2019 incident, as well as “squaring up to” another colleague and slamming a door in 2018 and driving at excessive speed in an NPTC pool car with colleagues in July 2019.
The committee found that Mr Drew also worked as a photographer without obtaining formal permission from the college, contrary to his terms of employment. But they said his other line of work was “widely known” and not something he deliberately hid, and therefore did not constitute unacceptable professional conduct.
They also dismissed allegations that Mr Drew had made racist and inappropriate comments suggesting a student might have been carrying explosives in his bag and that he failed to maintain an appropriate professional boundary with a student at the college who he was often seen in the staff room with. An allegation that he had displayed intimidating conduct when he allegedly tried to influence an HR investigation into the incident involving backing a colleague into a corner was also thrown out.
Summarising, Mr Newsome from the panel said there had been been a “culture in place” at the Building Engineering Services (BES) department Mr Drew taught at “where his actions were, at the very least, tolerated.” He said however that Mr Drew “was responsible for his own actions” and that some staff had showed “remorse” for not taking action sooner.
“He held a position of trust and responsibility and he had a duty to act as a role model,” he said. “He showed a concerning lack of judgment and fell far below the standard of behaviour required. “
Mr Newsome said Mr Drew was “the main protagonist” in the inappropriate behaviour towards staff and students, which he said happened on a “persistent and ongoing basis, adding that it went went “far beyond his description as banter.” He said Mr Drew’s comments and behaviour had impacted on his male colleagues and that female staff and learners “could have been [impacted] if his actions or comments had been overheard.” He said Mr Drew’s conduct was “not an isolated lapse” but was “protracted misconduct occurring over a period of many years” and showed “misogynistic tendencies.”
Furthermore, he said Mr Drew, who did not attend the hearings, had showed “no regret or remorse” for his actions and that the panels believed he “did not consider that he had done anything wrong.” He said Mr Drew had even, at times, sought to put blame on others and that his actions belied a “deep-seated personality and attitudinal problem.”
Imposing an immediate prohibition order banning Mr Drew from practicing education for two years, Mr Newsome said the panel felt this was “proportionate and appropriate” given the seriousness of his conduct. He said Mr Drew’s “reckless or deliberate disregard” for what he had done meant there was a risk that “similar failings could be repeated”, and that banning him was the only action that would protect learners, retain public confidence and uphold professional standards.
Mr Drew will be eligible to re-apply to be registered after the two-year period has passed. He can appeal the outcome of the tribunal to the High Court within 28 days.
