No Timeframe

It now seems that there is no longer a timeframe for the release of the Vice Chancellor's recommendations, the original  intention being that the VC's report would be out early February.

One of the problems dealing with the University lawyers Norris Ward McKinnon is the lack of exactitude  in referencing, in this instance correspondence.  Over a month ago I received a letter from the law firm's Gillian Spry simply headed Privacy Complaint and generally commenting that it wil be dealt with in due course. I replied by asking what specifically this is referring to, as there are a number of unresolved matters related to my original complaint; such as the Dov Bing antics.

A month to the day - 20 April - I received an e-mail from Gillian Spry stating that the letter headed Privacy Complaint was supposed to refer to all my complaints. It reads as follows:

It seems that originally Van Leeuwen had been informed the Waikato University enquiry into my complaint re. his thesis Dreamers of the Dark would only take around two weeks, but the matter was more complex than anticipated. The enquiry seems to have taken around four to five months.

Again, the Vice Chancellor's response to the report, which seems to have been completed late January and was expected out within the first few weeks of February is itself weeks overdue.

Meantime, Van Leeuwen has again waxed indignant that the whole process is taking so long, and in further comments to the Waikato Times has mentioned he has sought a legal opinion as  the process has put a cloud over his doctoral studies.

VAN LEEUWEN INDIGNANT

A recent article in the Waikato Times reported on the length of time the Waikato University enquiry has taken regarding the Van Leeuwen thesis. Because the news media has not been willing or capable of focusing on the central issue of the scandalous nature of University standards as indicated by the Van Leeuwen thesis, it is doubtful whether I will be making any comments to the media regardless of the outcome. The media and academe should have been at least as concerned regarding educational decline as myself, yet could only prattle about 'neo-nazism and occultism' and 'academic freedom' respectively.

This was never about 'academic freedom' but about deeply flawed 'scholarship' that could be not only passed but granted 'honours' by two supposedly eminent scholars, who remain anonymous under the protection of the Privacy Act.  This means that apart from those involved at Waikato, there are academics at two further universities who are so incompetent as to accord 'honours' to Van Leeuwen yet are presumably lecturing and examining theses. God knows what sub-standards they are responsible for.

Note that in the Waikato Times article reproduced below Van Leeuwen acts indignant and insists on the large amount of work he put into his thesis (one hundred pages double spaced plus internet downloads). At no time does he admit he just might have blundered, have produced faulty research, used flawed methodology, not to mention - as I contend - having been not quite truthful with his claims and references, to say the least.

A letter from the University lawyers Norris Ward McKinnon (29 Jan.) states that the report has been completed and the Vice Chancellor will now be considering what action to take, 'if any'. The letter states that the 'investigation has been much more complex than anticipated.'

I am now of the opinion that the report will not be a 'whitewash', as the evidence amassed by myself and others has been too compelling to dismiss as minor. What I cannot predict is the nature of the recommendations by the Vice Chancellor.

Apparently I am not supposed to have the right to defend myself against a hundred pages of defamation, etc in ref. to the thesis Dreamers of the Dark without incurring the threat of vexatious litigation against me for the sum of "at least $300,000", with even the family home being threatened. Therefore I'm deleting all the material, the documents, statement of complaint to Waikato University, etc. I'm deleting the synoposis of my objections to the thesis assembled so that "even journalists can understand"; because, let's face it, journalists cannot or will not understand no matter how easily the matter is explained.

I am given the choice of 'retracting' my objections about the defamatory thesis and publishing the retraction in major NZ dailies; or being brought to court under the threat of financially ruining my family and myself.  A forced retraction of the type demanded reminds me of confessions, retractions and recantations demanded at Stalinist show trials.

Anyone who might  be interested can  go to the website Satanism in New Zealand which seems to have the intention of analysing the thesis page by page. (I have to wonder about those who have suggested that the website was set up or instigated by me - I suppose it's based on  the type of "writing style comparisons" used in the thesis to confuse me with at least half a dozen individuals, and to attribute to me a long list of essays I didn't write and some of which I still haven't been able to locate?).

I've wasted hours of my time over the course of over two months on this nonsense... This has placed me and my whole family under continual daily stress, as the aggrieved party, and has been detrimental to my health, which I assume will give pleasure to some. If the outcome is anything other than a whitewash I'll be surprised.

:

Letter from Stephen Peter Williams, Barrister & Solicitor, Hamilton

18 November 2008

Dear Mr Bolton

RE: YOUR PUBLICATION TITLED ‘DREAMERS OF THE DARK – EXPOSED’

We refer to our letter of 7 November 08 and yours in reply of 12 November 08 recently received.

We realise that you have made a complaint to the Waikato University. In dealing with your complaint the University has set up a two person committee who are looking into your complaint – as part of that investigative process our client has been interviewed.

The point is that you have published defamatory material about our client on the internet which is available for public viewing – it matters not that your website averages only two visits daily – the internet and your website are available for access and viewing by the general public.

We therefore reject your suggestion that our letter of 7 November was an attempt at intimidation and to undermine your complaint or the complaints of others independent of your own – the two person committee above referred to will make a decision on your complaint.

Given that you have referred to your lawyer we have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to him by facsimile transmission.

We therefore require you to publish the retraction sent in our letter of 7 November 08 in the publications referred to in our letter of 7 November 08.

Failure to do so will mean that our client will instruct us to issue a writ for defamation seeking all of the remedies set out in our letter of 7 November 08.

We are aware that you own a property or have an interest in a property situate in Paraparaumu/Raumati area and any attempt to dispose of your interest in that property before this matter is finally concluded will mean that our client will reserve the right to take whatever action is appropriate according to the law.

We await your advice accordingly.

Yours faithfully

SP Williams

RETRACTION TO BE PUBLISHED

Williams in his letter on behalf of Bing outlines a number of points that supposedly appeared on this website which are supposedly defamatory towards Bing. The points include the transcribing of Bing’s name where his name did not previously exist, and references such as “clearly refers to”, etc. None of the points raised are verbatim transcriptions from anything ever included on this website. It is therefore contended by me that the threat of a defamation suit of “at least $300,000” is vexatious and spurious.

In particular the “Retraction to be published” relates entirely to my complaint to Waikato University regarding the Van Leeuwen thesis, and bares scant relationship to the points of supposed defamation outlined by Williams in his 7 November letter. This will be apparent by reading the “Retraction to be published” which follows, and which was supposed to have been published by me in (a) The NZ Jewish Chronicle, (b) The NZ Herald, (c) The Waikato Times, (d) The Dominion [sic], (e) The Press in Christchurch, (f) Your two websites [sic], by 21 November 08, on threat of defamation proceedings for “at least $300,000”.

The “Retraction to be published” is included here so that the reader might discern the nature of these matters relating to my complaint regarding the Van Leeuwen thesis, without in any way my conceding anything whatever in the following so-called “Retraction”:

“Retraction to be published”

I Kerry Bolton state:

1. Recently I created a special website entitled “Dreamers of the Dark – Exposed.”
2. The website was posted on the web from on or about 22 August to on or about 14 October 08.
3. In this special website I accused Professor Dov Bing of the University of Waikato of bigotry, academic incompetence and personal political agendas.
4. I retract these remarks unreservedly and apologise most sincerely to Professor Bing.
5. I further accept that Professor Bing supervised Mr van Leeuwen’s MA Thesis entitled “Dreamers of the Dark; Kerry Bolton and the Order of the Left Hand Path”, a case study of a Satanic/Neo-Nazi Synthesis, in a most professional manner. I further accept that Mr van Leeuwen wrote a thesis on an extreme right wing organisation and its ideology as evidenced in documentation that is publicly available.
6. I further accept that Mr Van Leeuwen was perfectly entitled to write a thesis on this topic, even though I Kerry Bolton do not agree with some of Mr van Leeuwen’s interpretations and conclusions.

[End of “Retraction to be published”]

I must admit to being confused as to how the last sentence of point 5 and the entirety of point 6 can be claimed to be relevant to a supposed “retraction” of allegedly defamatory material concerning Bing. Hence my contention that the purpose of the threat of litigation is vexatious, spurious and an attempt to pre-empt the findings of the University enquiry, despite Mr Williams’ claim that the demanded “Retraction” (sic) and the enquiry are in no way related.

BOLLOCKS

For some perplexing reason Dov Bing found it necessary to e-mail me with the claim that the University’s lawyers had phoned me and asked that certain material be removed from this website. Bing states that I had agreed to this, and that this had been told to him by the Vice Chancellor’s Officer and specifically by the Assistant to the Vice Chancellor. The e-mails follow, in addition to a third e-mail from Bing which is total nonsense:

Wednesday, 29 October 2008 10:21 a.m

dovbing@waikato.ac.nz

Dear Mr.Bolton,

On 25 September 2008 you received a letter from Norris Ward McKinnon about your complaint

to the University. I have received a copy of this letter from the University. The Vice Chancellors’ Office

also tells  me that the University’s lawyers asked you  to delete three pages from your website and that

you agreed to do this.

The pages were: ‘Zionist smear-mongering Posing as ‘Scholarship’… Waikato’s university’s Subb-Standards ( 2 pages )

and ‘Waikato’s Germanophobia’ ( 1 page)

It would be appreciated if you could let me know if this information is correct.

Sincerely yours,

Dov Bing

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1752 - Release Date: 10/28/2008 10:04 AM

Wednesday, 29 October 2008 6:37 p.m.

dovbing@waikato.ac.nz

    Dear Mr.Bolton,

    Thank you for your prompt reply. The request from the University was not in writing but per telephone
    according to the Assistant of the Vice Chancellor. Surely the Assistant would not  make up this information.

    I have been advised that the information contained on the three pages was defamatory in the extreme and
    you will be hearing shortly from my lawyer. You will appreciate to hear that I downloaded the three pages
    when they appeared on your website. At least you don't mince words and are very clear about your
    views and unfounded accusations.

   Sincerely yours,

   Dov Bing
   

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1753 - Release Date: 10/28/2008 9:20 PM

Monday, 3 November 2008 6:42 p.m

dovbing@waikato.ac.nz

      Dear Mr.Bolten,

     I am just checking with you if it is correct that you have closed down
     both your websites?  I wonder what your reason for this action is?

    Cheers,

    Dov Bing

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1763 - Release Date: 11/2/2008 7:08 PM

[End of Bing's e-mails]

I did the obvious and made enquiries regarding this supposed phone call with the University and the University’s lawyers, via the latter’s Gillian Spry.

I asked for answers to a couple of simple questions: 1. An affidavit from Gillian Spry affirming what had supposedly been said between her and myself in this phone call, 2. A copy of the firm’s phone record showing when this call was made to me, 3. An affidavit from the Assistant to the Vice Chancellor affirming what had been supposedly said by her to Dov Bing regarding this phone call.

I emphasised the urgency of my request because of the threats of litigation from Bing, and that it had caused my family and me much stress. However, in order to extract the information it took 6 requests from me in both hard copy letters, e-mails and a phone message to Gillian Spry, plus TWO requests from the Office of the Ombudsmen. Despite an initial promise to the Ombudsmen’s Office that the information would be forthcoming shortly, nothing transpired until a SECOND request from the Office.

Gillian Spry in a letter marked “private and confidential” affirmed that no such phone call had taken place with me by any employee at Norris Ward McKinnon Lawyers, and that the Assistant to the Vice Chancellor had not had any conversation with Bing in regard to any supposed phone call or my agreeing to delete information.

BING & KUPKA

Much in Williams’ letter of 7 November 08 deals with the Hans Kupka affair, where a German PhD candidate was pushed out of Waikato through a barrage of pressure. Although Bing was not identified on this website as the instigator of this pressure, Williams claims that a reference to ‘the Waikato powers that be’ ‘clearly refers to Professor Bing’. This is the nature of Williams’ letter for much of the time.

Further light appears to have been shed on Bing’s role in the Kupka affair by documents recently posted on the internet by Waikato University. Here is Appendix Q of what is presumably the Working Party Report on the Kupka affair which goes back to 1999-2000.

Appendix Q

Professor Middleton's confidential memorandum

of 1 May 2000 to members of the

Postgraduate Studies Committee

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Department of Education Studies

The University of Waikato

Private Bag 3105

Hamilton, New Zealand

Telephone 64 7-856 2889

Facsimile 647-838 4434

University

ofWaikato

Te Whaie Wânanga

o Waikato

CONFIDENTIAL PART B AGENDA ITEM

This memo is for PGSC members and the Vice Chancellor's Office only.

TO: POSTGRADUATE STUDIES COMMITTEE

FROM: SUE MIDDLETON

DATE: MAY 1, 2000

This memo addresses two issues concerning the Kupka PhD saga:

1. The chronology of events from November 1999.to the end of April 2000 from

the point of view of the PGSC Executive.

2. An analysis of the degree of accuracy of the documents circulated by

community organisations and university staff around PGSC members,

University Council and the mass media.

1. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:

December 1999:

Late in November 19991 received a phone call or an e-mail (I forget which) from

Professor Dov Bing asking how he could get access to a PhD student's research proposal.

I asked him if he was the supervisor and he said he was not. I asked if he was the COD

and he said he was not. I asked if the student was already enrolled and Dov informed me

that he or she was. I informed him that once a proposal came to the PGSC it became a

Part B agenda item and was therefore confidential to those immediately concerned with

this student. However, who had access to proposals within a School or a department was

a matter of School or department policy. The way to inquire about a proposal was to

approach the COD or the School's PGSC representative. The matter was somewhat

mysterious to me since Dov did not tell me who the student was, why he was concerned

with this student, or what issues concerned him. I informed Dov that any concerns over a

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

student in his own School or department should be addressed to the FASS representative

on the PGSC.

Some weeks later - after the final PGSC meeting for the year and a day or so

before I left for a conference overseas - I received a package from Dov in the internal

mail. It consisted of some Internet postings by Mr Kupka, some submissions from

prominent Jewish academics to the effect that these Internet postings were anti-Semitic,

and a covering letter that basically demanded that we unenrol this student. You have

recently all received copies of this original package (plus some more recent letters from

Dov and others). I read this material carefully and took it to the final 1999 meeting of the

PGSC Executive Actions group.

Because nothing on the enclosed Internet postings identified Mr Kupka with the

university (it was. a private web site), the Executive referred the package to the Vice

Chancellor's office for investigation as a possible disciplinary matter. From there it went

to the Mediator, the Race Relations Conciliator, and the Human Rights Commission.

In the final week of the 1999 academic year, Dov contacted me by phone. He

explained what his concerns were. His reasoning was:

• That the internet postings showed that the student was anti-Semitic and had neo-Nazi

sympathies

• that the research topic on the history of the German language in NZ could not be

studied without contacting the Jewish Community, many of whom were Holocaust

survivors or their direct descendants, and all of whom would be deeply disturbed by

contact with anyone with the attitudes the submissions alleged Mr Kupka to have.

• That there was therefore a question of cultural safety to address.

I informed Dov on the phone of the following:

• that I took this matter very seriously, believed that it should be investigated, and that

steps had been taken by the University to do so.

• that questions of cultural safety were addressed by ethics committees; that the PGSC

did not have the mandate to address questions of ethics and methodology in depth and

that these were handled by expert groups within Schools and, if problematic, by the

University Ethics Committee.

• that the question of the Internet postings had been referred to the VC's Office and that

he should address any further inquiries about these to Jeremy Callaghan.

• that Professor Michael Selby was Chair of the PGSC and that correspondence to the

PGSC was more appropriately sent to the Chair than the Deputy Chair.

January - March 2000:

Consideration of a student's continuing enrolment in a PhD is contingent on: adequate

and appropriate supervision; the development of an appropriate methodology; satisfying

the university's ethics requirements; carrying out the research in a scholarly manner;

writing a document in a format that meets the requirements for a PhD and that satisfies a

panel of examiners. Termination of enrolment can come about only when a student fails

to meet any of these requirements, when the university is unable to continue to resource a

student because of staffing issues, or on disciplinary grounds. The PGSC executive had

sent the documents forward to be checked against the disciplinary regulations. Early in

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

the year 2000, the Race Relations Office and the Human Rights Commission both ruled

in favour of the student's rights to express his personal political views.

The matter was not placed on the PGSC agenda for the March 10 meeting because

at that time the matter rested with the VC s Office and, furthermore, the PGSC had not

received any expressions of concern from the supervisors, the COD or the PGSC

representative. The matter was being dealt with by the appropriate groups. We could act

only on the basis of progress reports, requests for changes of supervisors, or expressions

of concern over the project itself, which would come in the usual way via the FASS

PGSC representative. The research had not reached the field work stage because it was

still being modified in the light of comments from the FASS Ethics Committee over

questions of methodology.

At the PGSC meeting of March 10, Bill Bolstad raised this matter in the open

forum section at the end of our meeting. I responded with an oral report on the events

described above. The Committee requested a full report from Mary Foster, the FASS

representative for our next meeting.

April 2000.

On April 11 the story broke in Nexus in an article full of inaccuracies. These

inaccuracies result from the fact that the article is based on the same package of materials

that was circulated by Dov Bing to all PGSC members and members of the University

Council on or around the same day as the Nexus article appeared. I sent an e-mail round

the PGSC members cautioning that the materials contained a large number of distortions

and inaccuracies and that it was unwise to discuss this matter on e-mail.

During March and April, some of those charged with ensuring that due process is

followed have been subjected to harassment and threats and have had to seek support of

various kinds. I am prepared to speak only for myself, to whom the damage has been

comparatively very minor. You will note that, despite my requests to Dov that his

correspondence and queries be directed to the Chair (the usual convention),

correspondence on this matter continued to be addressed to me - with the result that

inaccuracies and distortions of the facts have been attributed to me and circulated to the

University Council and the media. My name has therefore been published in Nexus

(April 11) and circulated round Council.

The Vice Chancellor's Memorandum (dated April 10) to the Council and to the

PGSC resulted from an urgent request from myself and others targeted that he do some

immediate damage control since the Council was meeting the next day. I regarded this

package as defamatory to myself, to Anna Green, chair of the FASS Ethics Committee, to

the Mediator Bethea Weir and some of the others named in it. Because of the resulting

publicity in the newspapers, on TV, and on commercial radio talkback, the safety of

people named and their families have been endangered. The work of key personnel -

supervisors, committee members and chairs - has been carried out under great duress and

the integrity of the academic processes compromised.

Chairing School and University-wide committees is difficult at the best of times.

However, if Chairs and members of such committees do not feel supported by senior

management few will be prepared to take on such positions. This case has resulted in key

staff and their families being subjected to bullying. Such tactics - subverting the

academic and ethical processes that govern academic research - can only backfire and

7 STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

create a plethora of grievance claims from those whose work and reputations are affected.

It is particularly distressing when the perpetrators of such tactics are ones own academic

colleagues.

2. INACCURACIES IN THE MATERIALS CIRCULATED,

1. The Memo of April 4

This memo is addressed to all members of the PGSC. On the letterhead the memo is said

to be from the Waikato/BOP Jewish Association and a Waikato University Jewish

Student. Some of those named on the letterhead are, I understand, employed within the

university in comparatively junior positions. One senior member of the academic staff,

Professor Dov Bing, is also one of signatories, but his name does not appear on the

letterhead. Professor Bing has a long involvement in, and one would assume a

knowledge of, this campus's academic, administrative, and professional structures and

protocols. However, despite the input of such a senior academic, this memo repeats the

inaccuracies of the group's earlier and concurrent submissions - all of which were

enclosed with the memorandum. The inaccuracies are as follows:

• The memo is addressed to the Postgraduate Research Committee (PGRC). The

correct terminology is the Postgraduate Studies Committee (PGSC). This may seem a

minor semantic slip. However, it is a slip that carries with it major implications. The

PGSC is not a 'research committee.' It does not oversee a student's actual 'research'

- this is the job of the supervisors and the School. Professor Bing seems unaware, that

there is a structure and a handbook which would have corrected his

misunderstandings of our processes and systems.

• The PGSC Executive is accused of 'with-holding correspondence' from the

Committee. We have never accepted submissions from the general public about

individual students.

• Mr Kupka's thesis is not "about the Holocaust survivors"; The submissions make a

case that the study of the history of the German language requires contact with

holocaust survivors. This is the issue currently being addressed by the supervisors and

the Ethics Committee.

• The student was not " enrolled by our committee", but under the old Higher Degrees

Committee system when Professor Douglas Bridges was the Chair. At this time the

full HDC considered all proposals. Since academic records are always attached to

applications, the entire HDC had seen the academic records of this student.

• Concerns about the assessment of a masters project in the German Department, for a

degree awarded some years ago, do not concern the PGSC.

• The PGSC has not 'been procrastinating' but in fact the matter was immediately

(within hours of it being raised) referred to the Vice Chancellor's office as a matter

of urgency.

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Letter addressed to Professor Middleton, April 2:

• This letter should have been addressed to the Chair. Why target the Deputy Chair and

circulate her name round the Council and to the media?

• Para 2: The phrase "falls through the cracks procedurally" is extracted from a

personal e-mail I sent to Dov Bing in response to a phone message from him (copy

attached). Note that my comment has, in this letter of Dov's, been attributed to "the

FASS Human Ethics Committee; the University's Ethics Committee and The

Postgraduate Research Committee" (this error is repeated by Nexus).

• The statement (para 2) about the reactions of the Deputy VC are inaccurate

• Para 3:1 checked this somewhat bizarre account with Bethea Weir and it is all untrue.

She was somewhat surprised that she was assumed to have the power to instruct the

PGRC (sic) to table the letter.

• "Professor Bing was informed by members of the PGRC" ... This means that a

member (or members) of the PGSC are alleged to have discussed items from the

confidential part of our agenda with Dov Bing. If this is true, this means that our Part

B agenda is no longer confidential and has been seen to be so by the Council and the

media.

• The FASS Ethics Committee was already attempting to deal with this project, albeit

under great duress because of harassment of members.

• Page 2, para 1: 'the PGRC were not informed about the concerns...' It was theHDC,

which accepted (as was the practice of the time) a brief proposal at enrolment. This,

as with all students, was always on the understanding that the relevant ethical

approval process would be followed when the time was right - normally some

months into the project.

• Final two paras on page 2: The question of the student's academic records at

undergraduate and masters levels is a clear violation of the student's privacy. This,

note, has been circulated to the media. The full HDC, and the supervisors, read the

records since they were attached to the proposal to enrol.

• Page 3 para 2: The second supervisor was a signatory to the application to enrol,

which always includes a student's record.

• Page 3 para 4: The Executive has not approved any changes of supervisors. Professor

Knuferman and Dr Ray Harlow remain supervisors and no requests for changes in

this arrangement have been received by the Committee.

• Paragraph A, page 3: again, there is no PGRC; the Executive has not handled the

enrolment, or any requests for a change in supervision. It did not consider the original

package of Internet postings on a private web site to be appropriate matters for the

agenda. The Human Rights Commission and the Race Relations Office didn't either.

• Paragraph B: The PGSC is being requested to reassess the student's masters work.

This is plainly out of order.

• Paragraph C: The experts' reports were considered by the Race Relations and Human

Rights Offices.

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Letter addressed to FASS Human Ethics Committee, November 29.

• Page 1 : 'The then Postgraduate Research Committee' was the Higher Degrees

Committee. The student was considered late in 1997 and enrolled early in 1998.

• Page 2 Para 1: 'Professor Bing was refused access to this proposal by.... Professor

Middleton'. This is true for reasons explained above. Professor Bing's 'ethnic

background' does not give him access to a student's records as he claims.

• Page 2 Para 1 : "The library ... always has the synopses available for all Doctoral

proposals". This is a blatant lie. Proposals have NEVER been made available in the

library. "It seems that somebody has gone to considerable length to withold Mr

Kupka's doctoral proposal." This 'conspiracy theory' was, as a result of this letter

being forwarded to the media, printed in Nexus and elsewhere.

• Page 2 Para 2: Reservations were not submitted to the Ethics Committee at the time

of enrolment - normally Ethics proposals are addressed some months into a project -

after a literature search and before any field work takes place.

• The remainder of this letter addresses Mr Kupka' s project specifically. The letter

raises serious issues. All of these matters are being addressed by the FASS Ethics

Committee.

Nexus, April 11.

• Editorial (page 2). "Kupka has been cleared by all on-campus ethics committees who

have been asked to investigate him." His ethics proposal is only now being

considered in FASS because it received it comparatively recently.

» Page 7, blue column. "Unusually Kupka's thesis proposal was not available in the

library at that time." This repeats the inaccurate information in the letter of November

29 above.

• Page 10. Note the quote from Dov's letter of April 2 appropriating my e-mailed

comment (a personal opinion) that the matter "falls through the cracks procedurally".

In Nexus this has become: "the FASS Human Ethics Committee; the University's

Ethics Committee and The Postgraduate Research Committee have all argued that the

matter which we raise falls between the cracks procedurally" then (page 11) it

becomes "one complaint by unnamed staff members is that the Kupka case 'falls

between the cracks.'" Because this is a quote from an e-mail I sent, and is identified

. as such by Dov Bing in the covering memo of April 4 (sent to Council, media and

PGSC members) it could be inferred that I was this 'unnamed staff member." I am

not. It is obvious who the 'unnamed staff members" are, since Nexus is basing its

articles on the same package of information circulated to Council, PGSC and the

media.

• Page 11. "Nexus Publications Ltd will not under any circumstances reveal the identity

of any confidential informants, contributors or sources." Anyone in receipt of this

bundle of materials knows who they are. The main instigator, Professor Bing, has

gone overseas on study leave, leaving his largely junior colleagues to take the

consequences.

10 STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Page 11: "All facts are one hundred per cent verified by numerous other, qualified

sources." They may be 'verified' but they are not accurate.

Page 11 : "The unnamed source is in danger of censure or serious threat if their

identity was to be made known." It is actually the 'named' people who bear

responsibility for administering university processes who are endangered by these

tactics.