This letter was addressed to the Principal of Edinburgh but he is unable to refute any of the facts listed in this letter up to its date. To verify yourself, please send to Principal@ed.ac.uk and request a response regarding this blog from the University of Edinburgh. You will never have an a response to adequately nullify this case as it did happen at the University of Edinburgh.
Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea
Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh
Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
Oct/6th/2009
Dear Professor O'Shea,
Re: Edinburgh Gate – a developing draft - to be appended for the exclusion of studies representation for the Principal’s kind reconsiderations.
Prologue
In the early 70s President Richard Nixon thought when a president breaks the law; it is not illegal because he is the president. He was aware by a break into the DNC building and covered-up for this operation, a scandal known as Watergate. Although his own benefit from this operation the history remained debatable about, his knowledge by such serious break-in led to his resignation for office; to be the only American president who resigned during his term time. The investigations took very long time, but at the end he was told there is enough majority at the Congress to make a decision to force him leaving office with possibility of legal responsibility. He made a proposal to his Vice President – at its time – Ford to issue him the known general pardon that removed any possibility for legal execution in return for his resignation and nominating Ford as the next President of the United States. Many political analysts think this indecent proposal might have been a main reason for which Ford did not succeed in the following general election; whilst all the publics were made aware by the ongoing investigation of Watergate and its results.
I referred to my case as Edinburgh-gate as it seems many seniors at the University of Edinburgh have misused their authority to break my confidentiality and impose severe sanctions against me, but have some very reasonable explanations to why this happened. It seems, the same assumption that it is fine for senior academics to break the University regulations was made. But, I believe it will not be accepted as it was rejected when the President of the United States of America acted similarly.
As a current student and the person who massively suffered because of their actions, I believe this will never be accepted from the greater good of the University of Edinburgh Community.
In this draft I am urging the Principal to alleviate all the unlawful sanction that has been imposed – as of late - on me immediately without any delay. I propose to move onto a sincerely looking-forward approach to find a fair way to exit the whole background issues which led to the current situation, instead of misusing the University sanctions without any mandate to conceal these issues.
Background
The matter is related to a complaint I have formally submitted to the Head of School Professor David Weller but he failed to apply single role of the University regulations in its course. I can submit elaboration of this, if requested. I believe he and Professor Campbell has misinformed a very respectable senior academic whom I used to respect even without knowing him, who is the Head of college Professor John Savill. My speculations are Professor Weller might have done some indecent deal with Professor Campbell to have some authorship advantage to violate my complaint process in this way. I cannot provide you with this benefit at the moment, but time will prove my speculations. Also, he would be required to provide a reason for his failure to deliver the University regulations in complaint process to me like all other students. He needs to provide a reasonable explanation to this. There will be no reasonable explanation for what he has done other than some advantage he had with Professor Campbell.
I believe I am studying in a University whereas I cannot claim I have suffered discrimination because of being a Muslim or from minority ethnic background. To the opposite, despite my main dispute started with Professor Campbell, I acknowledge he gave me an excellent opportunity to be the first person at the University of Edinburgh to conduct a genome-wide copy number variations study (and among the pioneer of this area in the world). Thus, being a minority was never an obstacle for me to move to the top, based on my hard work and achievements. So, when I find myself have no access to equal opportunity at the University, I should question some benefits others might have in return to the pain and lack of equal chance I had.
Here I am raising reasonable doubt about benefits and conflict of interest all those seniors had to act the way I will describe later. I will try to elaborate my speculations for such a benefit in the place where my current knowledge/speculations are possible and available.
The Head of College made serious violation as he made a decision by not to consider my complaint at his end before he received my points for his consideration April/9th. He also made this decision even prior to me receiving the complaint report. As I used to respect Professor Savill according to his position as the Head of College despite I never knew him before, I believed at its time he was misinformed. I have sent him several emails to explain the truth of the story. However, Professor Savill never revised himself through his new knowledge of all the facts I illustrated to him. Moreover, he never told me what others claim about me to be able to defend myself. He made several implications which I believed they mean malicious rumors have been made about me.
My confidentiality was compromised in different places at the University of Edinburgh with either complete knowledge of Professor Savill or a picture which invites to a reasonable doubt that this was done by his personal instructions. I can briefly outline these places but very ready to elaborate what happened with providing evidence to what I will claim. These places included: 1- College PG office formal paper work; Counseling service; EUSA. The latter two was the most devastating events. I was passing by sever situation and was in deep need to help. However, I found the Counselor aware by things I never told her about. I was experiencing many people spying on me, so I refused to go there again with a polite excuse that I do not like to talk about the problems I have. Certainly, I need to talk about what I was going through. But I needed to be certain what I will say is completely confidential. I have nothing to be afraid of people to know about me in my life. Nevertheless, it is my right to have confidential counseling service. The EUSA advisers (Lynn Allan and Sarah Purves) both deliberately misled me in the complaint process. The first was aware by many things I never told her about. EUSA advisers cannot break student confidentiality without instructions from a very senior staff e.g. Head of College! At the first I thought perhaps Professor Savill is indirectly investigating the issues by this way. But I realized he is not investigating anything, but rather he is trying to make the case as he made the right decision i.e. working out his personal benefit to cover-up for what he violated in the University regulations.
This is not only what happened. I believed my confidentiality was compromised at my GP practice at 10 Minto Street (Southern Medical group) and have evidence to provide about this. Moreover, I have reasonable doubt that the same thing happened with two specialist doctors I have seen during these sever circumstances. I needed access to some medical service which is confidential as for all people, but I never had at its time. Now I am being penalized that I am saying I have some levels of anxiety due to the sever circumstances I have passed by.
I started a public protest in front of the QMRI and food strike for Professor Savill to fairly deliver to me the University regulations, he never did. He was much focused to conceal his mistakes rather than acting on his role towards a PhD student in his College and how she is being affected by his actions. In the middle of this Professor Savill has sent me a letter to state he suspended my complaint on health grounds. I refused his letter. First, he does not have the right to make any judgment on my health or ability to pursue issues. Secondly, he is the one who is making the decision on my complaint. As he did not indicate otherwise, I should assume he was healthy enough to inspect my complaint fairly. Thirdly and most important, when he made this decision my stage-two complaint was already exhausted as this was after his letters of April/9th and 30th. But he used the EUSA advisers to misinform me that stage-two can be extended by some means if the Head of College sees this. However, the Head of College does not make the University regulations, but rather he should only deliver them. This was an attempt to exhaust my time outside a fair chance to review to my complaint process. These are my current speculations.
The serious oscillation in Edinburgh-Gate
As early as I had Professor Savill’s letter to refuse looking into my complaint, I have contacted the Principal’s office to raise the issue that I was denied a stage-two while I never had a complaint report and the possibility to raise my issues to the Head of College. The Principal’s office responded to me that I will have a chance in stage-two and Professor Savill will look into my complaint. Since then I was keen to bring all the incidental issues in my growing problems to the Principal by writing to his policy officer Ms Jane McCloskey. Therefore, the Principal at all the times was aware by growing violations in the University regulations and never interfered to provide me with a fair chance from the University regulations. Moreover, Ms McClosky clearly misinformed me that April/9th will not count as a final decision on my stage-two complaint and I can still have this fair chance. However, in April/30 Professor Savill has sent me a very traumatizing letter to say he already has made his decision on April/9th and this is his final decision. To be misled by the Principal’s policy officer is very unacceptable issue I should question its reason. But this is not the only matter where the University regulations were seriously violated and the Principal of the University of Edinburgh was either aware of this occurring or involved in its execution as will be described later.
In my public protest I started to tell people the truth about my story and what happened in my complaint. Thus I started to form a threat for seniors who are trying to conceal the violations they committed in the regulations. They did not care about my studies and life to be at hold while I am a high achieving student (enclosed to this are two manuscripts both have many novel ideas and work I have done in a cutting- edge research).
I am married and have three children. In the morning of June/25th while I was helping my three children to get ready for school, the University Secretary claimed he has the power to suspend me on urgent basis and made such a decision. I wonder what urgent offence I have committed while just getting my three children to get ready for school and then walk them to school for such a sever decision to be taken against me? As this is submitted to the Principal, I will not elaborate the events as he has complete knowledge of this through various correspondences and his personal affirmation of his awareness by everything happened at its time. However, I should question what urgent thing happened while me getting my children ready for school for any member of the University community to make a decision to prevent me going to my department. Moreover, a very insulting email was circulated by the Head of Department. The email was clearly sent by instructions from Professor Savill to conceal the truth of the story I started to tell and make the case as if the University found something against me to make such a serious decision. I have started to tell the truth about what he and the Head of School have done in my complaint process and had evidence for everything I claimed through formal correspondences. Again Professor Savill acted with all the authority he has against a PhD student who has no authority to defend herself. Moreover, no fair chance is being given me to use the University regulations to defend myself. I was never given any reason with clear grounds from the University regulations to have such a sever penalty.
The alleged suspension of study was staged to force me bringing a letter of wellbeing (I have elaboration to explain how the postman was able to bring a recorded letter sent to a wrong address after several days to my current home address so as why I found the alleged email was sent from the University Secretary mobile email rather than the University account. Perhaps the later can allow manipulating the date backward to stage as if an email was sent, but the truth there was never email to be sent at its day because there have never been any reason to suspend me or exclude me). The alleged suspension, clearly, was staged to force me brining a letter of wellbeing. I have sent the Principal my speculation for what such a letter might be used in. However, I am not a senior academic who is manipulating the University regulations and might make unlawful use by such a letter. First, this is a discriminatory request which I was not prepared to comply with, as there is no single University regulation which entitles any member of the University community to question my ability or any student to study or pursue issues. I never consented (or will ever) for any member of the University community to evaluate my health status and/or my fitness to pursue issues. I should question, why this is requested from me. As I discussed, I would never think I am facing discrimination because of being a minority, but I might face this because of others benefit. Second, I really have some levels of anxiety, but it does not preclude my ability to study. Third, although this is a discriminatory request, there is no medical screening test to define my ability to study other my own judgment. Finally, anxiety is not a case of insanity. In other words, if I have committed any offence, then I should be informed by this and have full responsibility for it. The reason for the alleged suspension leads to reasonable doubt it was a mere blackmailing and pressure game to support professor Savill concealing several serious violations he has committed at the University regulations.
I was saddened to receive a letter from the Principal, personally, in August/6 to affirm his complete knowledge by the events of the unlawful suspension and extending it further four weeks. At this point, I should question what the Principal might have as a benefit from doing this. This as we agreed I cannot believe I will be subject to discrimination in a place as the University of Edinburgh for no reason. I should think of a clear conflict of interest and sadly it is a conflict with the University regulations at the same time!
I am an epidemiologist, my work relies on observing and interpreting the events and I use both skills in my whole life. I studied the University hierarchy to find out the highest legal authority in the University are represented in seven curators of Patronage. I was not surprised to find that Professor Savill is one of them (at the moment there is a vacant position, so only six are nominated). While seeing the Principal of the University of Edinburgh fully aware by my misery since last April and even getting involved in the execution of more grieving situation as for June/25th, I should question if the authority of the Curators of Patronage to nominate the Principal has a clear role to explain his actions through all this period.
Moreover, the Principal has made a decision to exclude a PhD student who developed a novel theory to explain how a genetic marker might predict the risk of worse prognosis among one of leading causes of cancer death at the UK (Colorectal cancer) for this academic year and sent me this decision on Sept/11. The letter did not provide any reasonable cause for such a sever action according to the University regulations. Moreover, the Principal did not implement the University regulations in his decision (in addition there is no logical reason for this decision). This as he did not warn me several times by such a possibility before making such a sever decision. I have assumed he made this decision on urgent basis (clearly there is no reason to have an urgent mandate) so submitted a representation for his review within 5 days as in the University regulations, the Principal did not review it.
The only reasonable thing that remains is the Principal has supported one of the Curators of Patronage in his unequally balanced trials to conceal the violations he committed for personal interest. A PhD student with such achievement should be invited in different places at the University to talk about her work and accomplishment rather than to be excluded for whole academic year. I believe many others will share the same views with me and find neither the letters of alleged suspension nor exclusion of studies have provided a single reason to suspend/exclude me from my studies.
I have provided further speculation to why this is happening in previous letters. But manipulating the University regulations is endless when senior academics think they are above these regulations in the same way Nixon thought in the early 70s. The only proof to show me this is not the case is to find the Principal’s support to resume my studies and be engaged in my work successfully as I should be. I urge the Principal to alleviate from me all the unlawful sanctions I am facing now and with no delay. I cannot find any reason to be prevented to be at the University of Edinburgh other than to satisfy one of the Curators of Patronage (Professor Savill) but against all the University established regulations. Please confirm to me the Principal will amend my case and deliver to me what I deserve from the University regulations by your decision from the University regulations.
Professor Savill is forcing me to work with Professor Harry Campbell to conceal his denial to my right to make harassment complaint against Professor Campbell. I never lied in my harassment complaint. I never said he did anything he did not do. However, he was forcing me into things I did not want or I will be faced to lose my work credit. This is a worst harassment when it comes from a supervisor to his own PhD student. The Principal is aware by this. I should question, why the Principal is not offering me a new supervision arrangement? Professor Campbell has been an extremely polite and respectable person from my personal experience, if ignored my dispute with him as of late. Although he breached the student-supervisor code, I never felt I cannot work with him as a supervisor before the last events lately. However, I was saddened to learn he made about me rumors of such nature. I have spent three years at the PSH department. Not a single person can confirm I can be involved in such rumors by any means. I hope the Principal will confirm to me he is to the side of the University regulations rather than supporting a member of Curators of Patronage by proving me with a new supervision arrangement. As I mentioned before, to acknowledge the support Professor Campbell has provided to me through three years of PhD and the fact he is one who gave me the opportunity in this outstanding PhD project, I do not mind he remains in my supervisor’s list. However, I am hugely uncomfortable for him to remain my sole supervisors afterwards. I request two supervisors; one epidemiologist and the second with genetic background. My problem is I have been in the circle of Professor Campbell’s Colleague, so I do not know other than them. I might suggest Professor Gerry Fowkes as an epidemiologist and an academic I used to respect and believe he was a decent person with me through the three years I have spent at the PSH, if he would accept giving me such a privilege. For the genetic part, I might suggest Professor Alan Right as an excellent geneticist, if he would accept providing me with such a privilege. I would be happy to hear alternative offers from the Principal, these were just some suggestions from the limited academic circle I have been in.
Involvement of other independent bodies in Edinburgh-Gate
I have outlined the involvement of my GP surgery and other two specialist doctors in these events. I can provide evidence of this. The serious thing is the SPSO has violated their established regulations to take my complaint. I think this might be explained by two factors. The first they might have been misinformed by creditable senior academic about the truth of my case. My duty will be to provide them with clear elaboration to what happened here at the University of Edinburgh to exclude this possibility. The other explanation, they might have some under-the-table offer or conflict of interest to delay my complaint at their review by this way. I am certain that they cannot violate the regulations as a high supervising body in Scotland, but it was clear they were manipulating my complaint to aide seniors at the University of Edinburgh concealing their violations. My duty is to fully inform them by the explanation of why what happened has happened and see how they would react. If they do not adhere to their regulations, then they are aware by their involvement in Edinburgh-Gate and I will start searching what benefit they might have to do such unlawful and illegal actions.
Epilogue
I love the University of Edinburgh and being active to prevent Edinburgh-Gate to arrive to its final establishment. Therefore, I am appending this document to the exclusion of studies’ representation for your kind considerations by Oct/8th. This is according to section 5.1.9 which requires the Principal to revise his decision every four weeks (but I very much hope neither the Principal nor someone else will need to revise my representation again for these events).
The only thing that will exclude these ideas from my mind is to find the Principal’s support to exit the current situation, despite Professor Savill is one of the Curators of Patronage. I propose immediate decision to return me to my studies while receiving all the support I should have to pursue my degree as a confirmation of his support to the University regulations rather than a member of the Curators of Patronage.
I propose an urgent looking-forward approach to resolve the whole situation afterwards. Part of this might be to discuss my complaint status and extension for external review as a very viable subject. I do not enjoy complaint or any one do. However, people tend to complain when they have problems and stop complaining when they do not have any problems! The Principal has a clear idea about me, but perhaps not in the best times of my life. Although I seem to be stubborn and insisting on my rights endlessly (and this is true), I am a team player and can always be involved in constructive attitudes to resolve issues. So far the University has been imposing sever sanctions on me to support Professor Savill concealing the violations he and the Head of School have committed. I urge the Principal to try different approach. The Win-lose approach is not a working one as events proved. I am waiting a win-win offer where all the involved parties will be satisfied by what the Principal will offer to exit the current grieving situation. I reconfirm, my complaint at the SPSO is subject to discussion, but what I am proposing cannot be interpreted as complaint mediation by any means. I am requesting from the Principal to deliver to me the rights I own from the University regulations to exclude he had any personal benefits from the misery I am going through. I will not find any reason to keep this exclusion on studies on me other than having Professor Savill as one of the curators of Patronage.
In summary, there is no rational reason to exclude high achieving PhD student while crude discrimination is not a possibility. Then, why this student is not an active and supported PhD student as she was supposed to be? I hope I will not have to ask this question to someone other than yourself.
I have appended the two manuscripts I have accomplished through my PhD project. The first is about the genetic marker (copy number gain) which I explained how it acts to predict the worse prognosis among colorectal cancer and the second is about mapping of copy number variations among two Scottish populations with different demographic history. The second has plenty of novel ideas and work that requires the Principal himself to support such superior accomplishment at his University rather than to exclude the PhD student who has been executing this successful PhD project.
Finally, when I had the dispute with Professor Campbell I started by addressing my problems and thoughts about my problems to him. He did not address a reasonable solution to my problems and we ended to where we are. I trust the Principal’s wisdom will led him to patiently accept my thoughts (about how unfairly I am being treated and my underlying explanation); whilst kindly reconsidering to look into a complete looking-forward approach to exit the current case.
Yours Sincerely,
PhD student experiencing the case of EdinburghGate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment