Sunday, 4 November 2007

The gloves are off

On the 7 Oct 07 the post Boils and chancres! outlined my position in the affair surrounding Griffith University. In it I asked whether certain players, notably the lecturer Terry Dartnall, the Deputy Head of the School of Information & Communication Technology on Nathan Campus, Peter Bernus, and the University's Vice Chancellor, Ian O'Connor, should not be classified as criminals due to their ongoing refusal to engage with substantial allegations raised against the evaluation of my honours thesis back in 1999.
It prompted an email by Peter Bernus threatening me with court action for bullying and defamation, a response I dealt with in my next post on the 14 Oct (The Empire strikes back!).
It is now three weeks later and the threat did not eventuate. This prompts a certain question. As a reading of the Queensland Defamation Act 2005 will show, for a defamation to be upheld in court the allegation will need to be proven. In other words, unless the facts show that a statement is demonstrably false any threat of court action is a waste of time.
Did Griffith University engage lawyers who, going through the material on record (including of course all the texts on this blog and on the Otoom website, in particular the opposition and The evaluation from hell!), came to a similar conclusion?
Whether such an assessment took place or not, the silence is interesting in any case. With the flawed conclusions in Peter Bernus' reply (including but not limited to, the swipe against the IPSI conferences - see my subsequent post) in addition to the quite strange criticism featured in the evaluation (see The evaluation from hell!) it really does seem as if anything coming from my side is either wilfully misinterpreted or insufficiently understood to begin with.
Do these people really think I would leave myself open to all kinds of attacks by pulling things out of thin air?
Let's not forget that quite apart from the honours thesis the research work that followed is based on detailed observations and analyses which require serious thought on behalf of the reader. The Otoom model of the mind (which, contrary to certain opinions, I have never claimed to be based on the thesis) opens many windows to significant issues affecting us all and therefore needs to be substantiated in so many ways. This places considerable pressure on any material of the challenging type, as researchers in similar situations would know.
Looking at such a wider reference my experience at Griffith should be a cause for concern to anyone who cares about the role of academia in a Western society.
Political tendentiousness, a disregard for potential cases of espionage, the University's tarnished reputation among lawyers, an infatuation with religion, and last but not least causes for dissatisfaction by some staff, they all undermine the role an academic institution ought to play.
Not everyone there should be painted with the same brush, as I have pointed out previously. Nevertheless, although in the current climate of financial pressures, high workloads, and often conflicting standards, any stepping out of line is not to be taken lightly, there comes a time when the need for a profound reassessment of one's direction should be answered. The failure to do so has more damaging consequences overall than the personal fate.

No comments: