Monday, 3 March 2008

Griffithgate: the second confrontation

When I arrived there this morning at the Vice Chancellor's office the door was locked and a security guard was waiting, asking my name and informing me I was not allowed in. He happened to be there by sheer coincidence, so I am informed. Asked if I would leave the premises and answering with "no" the police was called. So all of us (by now there were three guards in attendance) marched to their office and less than an hour later the officers were there.

Both, the guards and the police officers were at pains to point out that arresting me would end up as a criminal matter, whereas my problem with the university would have to be dealt with in a civil court. The officers didn't want to make an arrest but drove me (in the back of their police van) to a nearby shopping centre where I was ‘released’.

Great. All had been quite friendly, but the point is this. An honours thesis was examined by two individuals whose sheer incompetence prevented them from understanding anything about the subject matter but they went ahead with their judgment anyway, destroying a career in the process. This idiocy is being continued by throwing up a protective barrier around it, and even Ian O'Connor, the university's vice chancellor, perpetuates the cover-up. He prefers to have me taken away by the police rather than allow the matter to come to light.

What was so wrong with the honours thesis? A 150 plus page document contains references from several fields of science, pertinent to the subject under focus. It contains a computer program that employs a rather sophisticated data structure (double-linked lists with the strands woven together akin to a three-dimensional fabric) which is traversed in a complex manner to store and retrieve information. Every single step of the program's processes is explained in greatest detail (print-outs, test runs, accompanying texts, etc etc). Included is another program which sets up and fine-tunes two types of artificial neural networks in under a second upon presentation of differing inputs (nowhere in all the literature on networks is such a method to be found despite the fact that the setting-up process consumes 60-70 percent of running such networks - and I went through all the available literature on artificial neural networks at the Griffith library). Oh, and it contains a reference to evolution (hear hear!).

I know this is quite technical but there it is.

According to my supervisor at the time, Grigoris Antoniou, the lecturer Terry Dartnall would have been the only one at Griffith to examine my thesis. Given there were two examiners, who then was the other? And if Terry Dartnall was removed from that role because I was not to know the names of the judges (namely his), who then did go through my work? In this case both would have been incompetent to deal with a text of that nature.

What a mess. Terry Dartnall doesn't say a word although he must have known what went on. Peter Bernus, the deputy head of the school, doesn't say anything because he wants to protect the reputation of the School of Information & Communication Technology, and Ian O'Connor is only too happy with the one-sided explanation he gets from those who are intent upon saving their own hides.

Meanwhile further research work that would open the door to solutions to many grave problems in Australia and overseas is allowed to whither because of the imposed professional and social exile such stupidity has caused.

Nobody wants to touch the case, nobody wants to stand up against a big player.

This is how things are done around here.

One of the police officers said to me, "You'll end up as a guy with a criminal record".

Well, so did Gandhi.

No comments: