Math prof suspended for opposing Dean's PhD decision - part 2

This letter, dated November 24, 2010, was signed by 86 mathematicians from insititutions in various countries, and addressed to the president of the University of Manitoba, Dr. David T. Barnard:

[url=http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/letter-support-suspended-university-... in support of suspended University of Manitoba professor[/url]

Excerpts:

Quote:

• No qualified mathematician has justified the decision of the administration. On the contrary, several voices within the mathematics department of the University of Manitoba have expressed their concern about its validity; among these are Dr. Gábor Lukács, whose reputation of integrity and sense of justice is well-known among his peers, and Prof. George Grátzer, an internationally renowned and respected mathematician.

• Dr. Gábor Lukács has been suspended for three months without pay for reasons that appear to be secondary to the matter at hand; this inappropriate reprimand unfortunately suggests that the administration is trying to brutally quash dissenting voices. [...]

In solidarity with our colleagues at your institution and in support of future degree holders of the University of Manitoba, we hope that you will take swift action to rectify this situation. We suggest either that you clearly(2) and publicly justify your decision to waive the established academic requirements for this student, or that you correct an error that risks considerable continuing damage to your institution.

[url=http://fairwhistleblower.ca/files/fair/docs/lukacs/003--Affidavit_of_Dr_... is the email where the Dean first responds to the question about his authority to unilaterally alter eligibility criteria for a math PhD. Lukacs had emailed him as follows:

Dr. Lukacs wrote:

A second, more thorny issue is the question of jurisdiction. You  referred in your message to exercising your discretion. However, I  could not find reference to such discretion in the regulations that I  reviewed.

In fact, my understanding is that the Dean has no jurisdiction to  determine academic appeals at all -- that power is reserved for the Appeal Committee of the FGS.

Would you be able to refer me to any document that suggests that you  have the power to adjudicate academic appeals? (You certainly can deal  with certain disciplinary ones, but that is not the issue here.)

Dean Doering wrote:

  [...] I would note many of the  things a dean can do are not written down.  For example, the  requirements for admission to a master’s program state a minimum GPA  of 3.0, yet I get requests for exceptions.  No where is it written that the dean can make exceptions - similarly I am not aware of  anything that says I can’t, and so while not policy, this too has  become practice. 

Caissa, in my world, the functional limitations are known to everyone in the worker's proximity, unless they are so subtle that they're invisible. You can't hide the fact that someone can't work nights, while everyone else (including more senior workers) take their shift rotation in turn. You can't hide the fact that a worker can't do various physical tasks, otherwise conflict and confusion will result when a manager assigns those tasks, or when the manager consistently avoids assigning those tasks while others carry the extra load. No one needs to know what the disability is - but they need to know the functional abilities and restrictions. And privacy commissions [b]do not[/b] in my experience consider such information to be confidential with respect to fellow workers and managers, in the sense that the medical file is.

Likewise, it must be obvious that all kinds of people knew that this student had flunked twice, but was given a waiver - where everyone else is expected to pass or else. What did Lukacs "disclose" that everyone didn't already know? And how did he know it? None of this is clear. In fact, the first disciplinary sanction taken against Lukacs had nothing to do with privacy - it was a reprimand for "harassment". Whom was he harassing - someone he had never met?

This doesn't compute.

Not everyone needs a PhD, Sineed. Not everyone can be a pilot or an air traffic controller. Some disabilities simply exclude you from certain occupations, because accommodation can't be made without undue hardship or waiving inescapable core requirements.

The principal question for me is, who decides the core requirements in all these cases? If pilot instructors say that an individual doesn't have the basic knowledge to proceed to certification, they may be "right" or "wrong" - but I'd be uncomfortable with having their opinion overruled, or simply ignored, by an airline HR person or manager acting on advice of lawyers.

I don't see how further light is shed on the underlying issue by emphasizing how sorry we should feel for the disabled individual, or how Lukacs should have approached the issue, or whether Lukacs has empathy.

Something made me think of this case. Still "conflicted" about the issues involved. Here's what happened after our interesting discussions.

August 26, 2011 - as predicted by babblers, Lukacs lost in court based on a "technicality" (lack of standing) - the court of course never dealt with the substantive matters:

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/u-of-m-prof-loses-round-in-phd-fi... of M prof loses round in PhD fight[/url]

November 10, 2011 - Lukacs's appeal against his 3-month suspension and other disciplinary sanctions was settled in mid-hearing as reflected in the following joint statement:

Quote:

“The administration of the University of Manitoba and Professor G. Lukács have entered into a fair and mutually agreed upon settlement. The University has rescinded all disciplinary actions against Professor Lukács (including reprimand, suspension and denial of increment). All outstanding legal proceedings between the parties are terminated. The parties have also agreed that it is to their mutual benefit to end the employment relationship. The specific terms of the agreement are confidential and will not be disclosed.“

Obviously, this means they reimbursed Lukacs for his three-months off and paid his increment, plus whatever other undisclosed terms. Babblers had also mostly opined that the discipline was very draconian, if deserved at all.

I don't know what aftershocks this caused at U of Manitoba regarding the Dean's apparent self-arrogated unilateral right to make "exceptions" to any and all academic degree requirements, nor do I know (though I think it's less important) where Lukacs's career has led him since leaving.