- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Academic with a lot to say gets shut down


Alt Tv/Fleet FM Breakfast News
Academic with a lot to say gets shut down
Sacked Auckland University lecturer Paul Buchanan has attacked the "poor quality" of overseas students being accepted for post-graduate courses - sometimes with no background in the subject they are studying. Dr Buchanan, a widely quoted expert on international security, has been sacked after sending an email to a student from the United Arab Emirates telling her that she was "under-performing and under-qualified" and was "preying on some sort of Western liberal guilt" by seeking an extension for an overdue essay after her father died. Now Paul shouldn’t have said that, it was out of line and not fair, and certainly worth a written warning of some description from Auckland University, but seeing as the University makes over $160 million per year from foreign paying students and that the student in question is a well connected middle Eastern family with friends in high places, one can’t help but wonder if Pauls very well articulated opposition to America and America’s oil buddies in Iraq has more to do with this Character Assassination of a sacking. Funny how the University can continue to hire a climate denier like Chris de Freitas, yet one who criticizes American Foreign policy will find himself without a job for any fault. Obviously the word University at Auckland is purely for cosmetic purposes.

23 Comments:

At 8/8/07 8:52 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, let's get this straight. A student sought an extension on a paper because her father died and it's OKAY for this lecturer to have been insensative and bigotted because YOU subsribe to his political views? Oh right. That's AWESOME.
"Good on ya Bomber"

 
At 8/8/07 9:03 am, Blogger Bomber said...

...
Sigh - Anon I've clearly stated that Paul was out of line for those comments, what I question is the haste with which Auckland University sacked Paul, and I ask if his opinions are the reason for that sacking and the Universitys main concern for profitable overseas students.

 
At 8/8/07 9:17 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I am interested in though, Bomber, is the question... if he were sacked but you didnt personally subscribe to his political views would you make it a story? I suspect not.

Or if he simply got a wrap on the knuckles - as you suggest would be more appropriate - BUT he wasnt an open critic of university policy woulkd you care?

Telling someone who has just lost their father that their are preying on liberal guilt is prety fascist isnt it? I mean, really! C'mon....

I just get the feeling you TWIST every story you write to validate your own politics and then have the audacity to call it "news" on Alt Tv / Fleet Fm.

 
At 8/8/07 9:37 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Political views are by the by anon. No doubt Bomber has his views on such things, but I'd personally go into bat for any lecturer in this situation, irrespective, as there are far bigger issues at hand.

Its a damn regrettable comment no doubt about that, and it warranted discipline action. But it apparently brought an apology the next day as it became clear, probably in the cold light of day, that a line had been over stepped. HOWEVER...to then have an out and out sacking of a very able lecturer, with all due process out the window!?!? Stinks BIG time!Personal scores are settled, bend to possible outside influence...all to placate a small group of people the result being that future students of the department suffer!?!?

It takes a lot for the University to break from "due process" A LOT!!! Begs the question what was deemed so vital doesn't it?!?!

 
At 8/8/07 10:01 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets get some facts:

The extension request came a day after the assignment was due. Paul wrote the email, and then apologised for it the very next day. The apology was unprompted, and accepted by the student.

The fact that the guy put his hand up, apologised for a mistake needs to be considered here.

JR is absolutely right - there was no due process, considering that 36 hours after the sacking a replacement was found in an incredibly specialised area.

There is much more to this...

 
At 8/8/07 10:05 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is bullshit, I don't know how many of you have ever had to fire someone - I have - you can't simply say "you're fired" Trump style. You need documented and signed evidence of verbal and written warnings before you arehole someone out the door or you run the very big risk of getting taken to the cleaners by the fired employee.

 
At 8/8/07 10:05 am, Blogger Bomber said...

...
Jr brings up some great points anonymous poster

 
At 8/8/07 10:46 am, Blogger Bomber said...

...
Agree, agree, agree - you can't just fire someone and we all admit he was out of line with what he said, but sdm is right he immediatly put his hand up and said 'I was wrong' - look I've seen Paul in action with his teaching and he is an incredible teacher, and I've had the good fortune to interview him, he is an amazing thinker - yes what he sadi was out of line - but my God we all have our bad days. In a climate where dissident opinion is now suddenly a reason to be snooped on, I also think there is a hell of a lot more going on here.

 
At 8/8/07 11:18 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Years ago (about 10 of them, around when he arrived in Auckland) a flatmate of mine took some of his classes. I remember her saying he was extremely strict but very fair. She also said he pushed the boundaries and didn't suffer fools lightly. Subsequently I met Dr. Buchanan and found him charming and articulate, in addition; the phrase "mind like a steel trap" came to mind.

What Dr. Buchanan said was well over the line, however; he apologised AND accepted the assignment and graded it. I teach and I DO NOT accept late assignments with the exception of serious are rare circumstances - that said, death of a father definitely counts in my "serious and rare" category.

One other point in Dr. Buchanan's defense: I teach a 1 semester class that regularly has 200 students in it (200-level). You would (or maybe not) be *amazed* how many grandparents pass away during my class, I must be a curse on my students. This is said only slightly tongue in cheek, after the third year of having up to 6-8 dead grandparents per semester, I too started insisting on an obit.

This aside, there are clearly bigger issues here:

1) What due process???? My God, small companies in NZ cannot fire administrators for arriving late (or not at all) and passing on offensive e-mails. This after SEVERAL verbal and written warnings (see NZH about a month ago, the company concerned had to pay out to the worker that appealed). What the heck is going on here that UoA can do this "summarily". Summary dismissal for conduct is usually for sex-offense type stuff!

2) Hmmm, in NZs tiny academic theatre a qualified lecturer with a stunningly similar specialization on a weeks notice is, well; rather convenient.

3) Why is an institution of higher learning accepting under-qualified post-graduate students? Undergrads perhaps, they can be bought up to speed. But post-grads??

Finallt, it might pay to remember the remarks of Wallace Sayre the *political science* professor from Columbia University: Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low. (No, Kissinger didn't say it first).

Cheerio

 
At 8/8/07 11:53 am, Blogger Anti-Flag said...

Hold on there people. I've read the entire email trail, and Paul's aplology was no apology. It was condscending and said in passing. It's laughable in fact. I'm pretty disappointed with you bomber that you don't recognise the ACTUAL issue here, and dramatising it into something that's completely irrelevant. This isn't an issue of the establishment versus the poor victimised individual. This an issue of a racist/offensive email written by a lecturer, that was sent to an international student after she asked for an extension because her dad was dying/and died in the process of this request. At the time, he was happy to give out extensions to people for the most mundane excuses. One person in particular didn't even get a time-limit on theirs.

What did she get instead? An email that was exceedingly racist and a personal attack on her. The girl is DEEPLY traumatised by the entire thing. He insulted her academic performance, her morals, and then topped it off with a racist dig at her culture/race. To make matters worse, Paul's gone to the media about it and has in the process discussed her academic performance- which by the way he lied about. She WASN'T failing any of her papers. Additionally, he failed to mention in the VERY unbalanced article in Scoop the racist remark that he made and the personal dig at a fellow colleage. Now i'm not a fan of Hoadley myself, but to make a dig like that about him to a student is completely unprofessional. Not to mention his disparaging remarks towards her were UNPROFESSIONAL, insensitive, inhumane and disgusting. No apology is going to make up for that. No one like that deserves to teach, and those so called 'lefties' who have come to Paul's defence need to get their priorities straight. By defending him, you're saying it's okay for him to continue to teach and hold these racist views. They certainly didn't come out of no where.

 
At 8/8/07 12:44 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How PB can be crudely labelled as anti-Islamic or rascist, when he goes in to bat for Ahmed Zaoui (a high profile victim of anti-Islamic fever) is beyond me?!

Anti-flag, I heard on the radio that apparently PB and Hoadley had an argument that day about SH's "Post Graduate Prep Classes" which apparently in PBs view were no where near enough prep for Post Grad. In this context the Hoadley reference is less outright snide (as I presumed at first) and more factual (with a snide angle to it).

The University may have made a rod for their own back here..yet clearly judge it as preferable to keeping PB on the staff...suggests real influence elsewhere.

If the email was the basis of the sacking, a bit of due process would not have gone amiss surely. CLEARLY there is something else going on here.

 
At 8/8/07 2:55 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Greetings from far away. Someone just emailed me the good news.

This is a cut and paste of exerpts from Buchanan's email. The Herald states that the text is unedited.

"I have been too nice and given you too high marks all along (at C+). I do not anticipate that you will do better in the final exercise. You are already a day late.

The extension is meaningless because you have not attended the last few classes and are the worse performer in the class.

But as it stands, you will flunk since your are already a day+ late, and you trrack record is poor.

By the way-are you a Hoadley student? That would explain a lot of things.

In a word: NO-I do not accept your extensuon request."


Now the spelling mistakes and the assault on grammar and syntax provide reason enough for the sacking of this nasty little man but look a little further.

Note the reference to Hoadley. What is that doing in there? Slight attack of psychosis? A little paranoid delusion?

Further note this , also from the Herald:

"A former student of Dr Buchanan, Scott Mansell, said Dr Buchanan apologised to the student less than a day after sending the email and then marked and passed her work."

So after telling this student she was bound to fail in the most insulting language, as soon as his ass was in a sling, he passed her! How's that for integrity!

Sorry Bomber. Can't go with you on this one and I cannot wish Scotty luck with his campaign to have this covert Israel apologist reinstated. No doubt the University has been waiting for him to trip himself up since they reached the same conclusions I warned about a year ago.

 
At 8/8/07 3:22 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How PB can be crudely labelled as anti-Islamic or rascist, when he goes in to bat for Ahmed Zaoui"

Thats the problem with lefties JR, unless you are as extreme in your views as they are, you are the enemy.

Anti Flag said "An email that was exceedingly racist"
Come on Anti flag! Rude, arrogant, over the top, yes all of those things but "exceedingly racist" is a ridiculous accusation.
Calling every rude remark "racist' just depowers the term.

 
At 8/8/07 3:48 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Brewerstroupe just made an *excellent* comment .... th one where he said

So after telling this student she was bound to fail in the most insulting language, as soon as his ass was in a sling, he passed her! How's that for integrity!

Brewers, I'm a product of UoA (not political studies) and have been Lecturing in the US for the last several years. Trust me, Dr. Buchanan in all likliness did *not* want to hand out that C- pass. He will have given here a D+ adn it will have been "upgraded after further consideration". That upgrade is a policy wonk decision NOT the academic decision. Foreign student pay too much.

Another, much older, solid example: When I was studying we had 2 foreing MS students from the same country, one male one female. We (mself and another PhD student) walked in one day to find the guy standing over the female literally screaming at her. Her with large red mark on face (like a slap).

We all stormed into the HOD's office and complained. My friend was partick. upset since she came from an abusive background.

HOD and Supervisor's thoughts "well this is a delicate situation, perhaps we'll talk to them about it" (They never did). Turns out the guy was full fee paying AND on some sort of paid (money to study) scholarship from home country. His Supervisor passed him with all C+ and a bit later confided that had it been a Kiwi kid he wouldve been in D-F situation.When supervisor was confronted about lac of integrity he said something like "Admin makes me pass the odd mediocre student but in so doing can continue to teach the great ones. I'll give up this gig when the crap studetns outnumber the good ones and I can't look at myelf in the mirror anymore and/or my reputation is so shot I can't get work elsewhere"

 
At 8/8/07 4:39 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus wept what a predicament.

I mean his liberal credentials outweigh her wealth, but her middle-easterness outweighs his Americanness. As does her femaleness over his maleness.

Whose side do I take?

 
At 8/8/07 4:46 pm, Blogger Rich said...

I couldn't find anything racist in that email. The closest was:
"You are close to failing in any event, so these sort of excuses-culturally driven and preying on some sort of Western liberal guilt-are simply lame."

Dickheads come from all lands and cultures. Alleging that a whole race has a fault is racist - calling out *one* person isn't.

I don't think most jobs would fire you for a single instance of an email to a customer that should never have been sent. The University sector, being more or less a monopoly employer, is under even more of an obligation to show fairness and balance.

 
At 8/8/07 5:11 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Sahar reads that as racist then she obviously doesn't have the comprehension skills needed for university.

 
At 8/8/07 5:18 pm, Blogger Rich said...

Hey I've just found this email advice that's been circulated to all lecturers.

 
At 8/8/07 9:45 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: If making a derogatory remark about a different cultural group, in this case, applying a particular negative characteristic to Arab/Muslim and distinguishing them negatively doesn't constitute as racist, then you have a funny understanding of racism.

... "so these sort of excuses-culturally driven and preying on some sort of Western liberal guilt-are simply lame." These sorts of excuses? Here, he's showing a negative characteristic/behaivour (exploitative types etc) and attaching them to a culture (Arab/Muslim). That is by definition racist. So I suggest you check YOUR reading comprehension.

It's ironic that Buchanan is using the excuse that he had health problems at the time in order to explain his reaction, but certainly did not accept any excuse from the student when she had the most legitimate excuse of all.

And as for the attention to her academic performance, which I know for a fact has been completely exaggerated, it's a distraction from the real issue. Her academic performance is totally irrelevant. His behaivour and this email is what's the real issue here.

-Anti-Flag.

 
At 8/8/07 10:55 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sahar: His comment was a reflection on western liberalism, and the (academic) culture of accepting excuses without proof. Its not racist. If anything it was a slight on westernism. And lets not forget her request for more time came one day after the assignment was due. In no way did this deserve dismisal, and I hope the university is taken to the cleaners, along with all of those involved in this.

 
At 9/8/07 1:09 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With respect Anti-flag; her academic performance may actually be the key to this issue and far from " ...a distraction..." or " ...totally irrelevant..." but more like "the whole point"!!! [last quote is my edit/opinion]

Here's a thought: for a Senior Lecturer of esteemed reputation with current and former students, the journalistic community (although several political commentators differ on their opinions) and many international associates and alumni, well; what could make him snap like this?

Presumably, (always dangerous,) Dr. Buchanan got into this gig for the mental stimulaton provided by both research AND teaching. To send an intemperate and insensitive e-mail was inadvisable and perhaps a reprimandable offense, however; in response to the firestorm of "Dr. Buchanan - evil or sane??" I would raise the following points and suggest that the answers given in d) onwards are the most likely:

Why was the e-mail sent?

a)bigotry

b)personal stress

c)a misunderstanding

d)consistent student abuse of internal procedure to "grade-grub" (regardless of race or nationality, as I know heaps of kiwis that try for this one with varying success you know them too ... " but caaaan I juuust have twooo mooore perceeeent???? pLEEASSSE (ANSWER"NO"))

e)consistent and repeated harrassment of Dr. Buchanan by students with "excuses" e.g. "I just need A's or B's to pass my course since Mum/Dad/the Ministry back home/my Scholarship etc are paying for it and otherwise I'll be in so much trouble/cut off.

f) What? That? Oh no excuse really its late (I spend my free time at the Viaduct and frankly; even though I'm failing; its none of your business as a simple lecturer (Paid help), Now; where's my B, I paid my fees?

g)pressure from the bean-counters for a top class academic to accept/mentor/pass crap students because who cares how they do academically since they pay $$$ that the govt/alumni/private sponsors/student's parents WONT SHELL OUT

H) consistent harrassment by students that "just need to get into optometry/audiology/pharmacy/med school" Clue: If you canot get B's in basic Physiology, what on earth makes you feel like a competitive candidate for med school????

Excuses I have personally heard/been given for (d-h) include

"I may have a problem since i play my Nintendo when I should be studying, cany you refer me to a psychologist/psychiatrist for this so I can get a pass?"

"But even though my grades show I'm failing I *know* I'm really smart and deserve a place in the XX prigram"

"My Mum is a powerful diplomat from X - you wouldn't want to disappoint her would you? I mean think about what it might do to you international prospects."

"My Grandfather died” Then 2 weeks later "My grandmother died" (hideous but not unheard of, I was compassionate) then 2 weeks after the assignment was due: “but my brother is in hospital". Concurrently to the last claim, one of the other students in the class expressed concern that said student had requested *all her notes for the semester* and a [language] translation.

Please note that many of these incidences (but not all) may not specifically relate to UoA - I'm simply trying to inform the lay public of the ridiculousness of the current system [at times].

Are there any other ex UoA students like me out there that were scholarship/student loans ... i.e.40-50K+ and caught by Lockwood Smith's 3% to 9.5 % o/night and compounded daily (thanks) etc that can see a problem here. I came originally from a town the equivalent of Murupara (possibly worse) and now have a successful career, and shrinking student loan. For me as a Kiwi from a small town with a shi*ty local high school (clue: in 1st year chem when they say "Oh we're not going over this in depth since you had it last year" and you go " WHAAAAAT???? It’s all Greek to me") Despite this sort of stuff, if I failed my papers, it was my problem, let alone if they let me into any sort of restricted course 3rd year major. But then I was never a full, 18K/year fee paying student. Like I said I was a shi**ty local kid from some crap town very much like Murupara (but my home town rep is worse).

I'm NZ born and educated and I knew jack sh** of the "currulum" when I got to Uni for some subjects despite earning A Bursary etc. When I arrived at UoA, with my [abysmal] level of knowledge the profs were LOOKING to flunk me which would've been fair. However, I put in 60-80 hr weeks to get B's as an undergrad. I feel that my "upskilling" i.e. making up for below-standard education in highschool, can be seen in my "B" average as an undegrad (i.e. 3 years to catch up to Grammar/Kings etc stdents) then my A+ recor as a post-grad.

By time I was a grad student in 97 or so - it was almost like "weeeell, you know they're foreign and I know we hold you to higher standards than that but it’s not fair on them since they're foreign [and besides they pay]." Hearing this sort of stuff I was (and am) a) totally disillusioned and b) livid.

Hence, given my background and the currently publicised issues with the "$ for diplomas" attitude of current UoA administration (i.e. fire a lecturer, keep a C- graduate student from UAE), I am appalled. I remember when fellow Kiwis were discouraged from even *applying* for graduate study since they did not have the aptitude! I guess now it's all on whether they have the bank account.

Dr. Buchanan has opened a can of worms that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with tall poppy syndrome and keeping everyone at the same level of mediocrity since the benefit-bludgers cannot keep up but the paying foreigners can.

And by the way - what Kiwi family is in "hardship" on 200-300/week benefits when there are students in NZ from Asia (and NZ) that are supported by Mums on far less than NZ minimum wage? Oh wait, we only give consideration to the rich and fortunate!
Two words:
Brain Drain

 
At 9/8/07 2:20 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feel better?

For a supposed educated man, you come across as a whining working class schmuck pissed off at peoples better upbringing.

You can take the kid out of small town NZ, but you can't take small town NZ out of the kid.

 
At 11/8/07 1:41 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

To the anonymous poster above. When I was University student, faculty were known and respected for standing up for principle before acceding to the directives of "policy wonks".

It would seem that Buchanan is not of this calibre.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home