For the general view, see the opposition.
The examiners' reports from hell in detail!
Griffithgate: mirror of decay - why it matters to You.
The dispute is described in the Diary.

Final conclusion :
During August/September 2011 the case has been presented to a barrister to advise on the legal standing of my complaints. According to his - well referenced - opinion it would be difficult to bring it to court to begin with and even then a successful outcome is not at all assured. It appears there is the crux of the matter: my thesis broke the rules on form although valid on substance. The examiners' reports followed the form but lacked in substance. Under the law the latter wins.

Social experiments are tricky business.

When processes need to be observed and analysed the usual preference is for a closed environment where factors can be selected, influences precisely measured and the results are confined to a rigorous set of parameters.

For better or worse, wider reality decides otherwise. Here we have a multitude of factors, their number more likely influenced by convenience rather than importance, the dynamics are chaotic, and the outcome of any series of events more often than not reflects the priorities of the system and not the intent of the observer.

Social experiments fall into this category. For that reason their ultimate information value is limited to the same level of generality as determined by the scope of the initial setup.

In this case there was Griffith University, a body featuring problematic aspects along procedural and ethical lines, surrounding entities directly or indirectly connected with education inside the overall societal framework, and myself, an individual not associated with any of the above yet being a stakeholder nevertheless.

The details of the dispute can be found on the following pages: the opposition and links, Griffithgate: mirror of decay and links, various blogs under Dispute with Griffith University, and of course the diary directly under this page. The dispute started with a remarkably questionable evaluation of an honours thesis, then spread across its inevitable consequences not helped by the university's blatant refusal to address a single point in the appeal, and involved other issues such as the destruction of records and a strange episode about the approach by someone who may or may not have been a student at Griffith's school of journalism depending on who can be believed. And then there was vice-chancellor Ian O'Connor's secret attempt to allow Saudi Arabia establish a foothold on his campus. The latter failed only because the affair was made public.

From the perspective of human activity systems there were three main clusters: the university itself (represented by a handful of players only - the case had nothing to do with the rest), the set of individuals approached during the entire episode which has lasted over ten years, and my own person together with a few others who were contacted intermittently.

Each one of those clusters had its own role, connections and dependencies across wider society. Inevitably, there would have been overlaps, which, so one would have to assume, performed within their own domains.

The experiment consisted in ascertaining to what extent a university with its specific economic mass can be challenged by a single person, the former being situated within a framework of societal and political networks in their own right for which the latter was never more than a passive recipient.

The long list of interactions over the past decade finally ended in court where I received a 12-month good behaviour bond with no conviction. A jail sentence could have been on the cards had it not been for the extenuating circumstances brought to the court's attention mostly through the detailed charge sheet provided by the police. Altogether that document ran to over three pages and included details such as the following quote from a letter to the chancellor, "Going by your responses so far that either has not been the case or the matter was considered too trivial to be paid much attention. Whatever the reason, it does not help. I am beginning to wonder therefore whether my approach has been wrong. I am drawn to see a parallel with refugees who enroll the help of people smugglers, in other words engaging the assistance of criminals to achieve what was not possible using legal channels. In most cases they get what they wanted. Should I employ similar tactics? Perhaps finding someone from the underbelly of society who is willing to apply some persuasive pressure on certain individuals would not only bring me further to my goal but would also earn me the respect from those who do not respond to facts alone. What would you do in such a situation - merely check your locks and windows and hope the whole matter would just go away?"

And so to Saudi Arabia. What brings a vice-chancellor, arguably the main persona of an institution that constitutes a major element in Western society over the centuries, to enter into a state of dependency with a regime beset with one of the worst human rights records on this planet? Furthermore, the abuses perpetrated under the directives of Islam place that nation under a particular cloud in the current context of Muslim confrontation with the rest of the world*).

As the events over those ten years showed, Australian universities are autonomous and exist in a checks-and-balance vacuum to a significant degree. Yet as the trial demonstrated, a forensic examination also reveals the presence of standards which somewhat limit the potential of an otherwise unfettered system. Still, extreme circumstances had to prevail on my side because my own status does not possess sufficient impact to create similar conditions for the other.

This social experiment demonstrated how a series of human activity systems do and do not perform within their respective scopes. For example, had similar actions involving misrepresentation and the destruction of records occurred somewhere else the guilty parties would be jailed. As far as secretly inviting an adverse power is concerned, there are countries where such subterfuge is considered an act of treason and the perpetrator executed.

Entities such as education departments, ombudsman offices and last but not least representative members of parliament do not have the will, the courage or the clout to address a scenario demonstrably undermining the very framework on which they, after all, depend one way or another. Similarly, academics who should have an even more direct interest in the integrity of their institution are not roused either.

Once a society features members who do not understand their responsibility towards their own system a state of decay has been entered.

Brisbane, 6 March 2011.

*) It takes an undercover investigation to reveal what goes on behind the public facade. A video of UK's Channel 4 documentary (see above "Regular 'undercover' listening to the teaching in mosques is essential") brought the influence of Saudi Arabia in many British mosques to light.

PS:

An interesting scenario developed over the last couple of weeks - if you are interested in social dynamics, that is.

It started with the ABC screening a documentary about how cattle exported by Australian breeders is slaughtered in Indonesia (ABC TV Four Corners, 30 May 11, "A Bloody Business"). Under Islamic law the animals' throats need to be cut and the footage showed how they were dragged by their legs, kicked in the head until they lost their eyes, with blood gushing everywhere. Within hours there was an outcry around the nation and eventually the federal government put a ban on live exports to that country (The Age, 9 Jun 11, "Indonesia, Coalition cry foul over live cattle ban").

On the other hand, Indonesian slaughter practices are nothing new. People in the Australian cattle industry knew about it for years, some travellers who dared venture beyond their comfortable hotels knew about it, but nothing was done because the politicians had not been exposed to a pressure they would take seriously. And in any case, words loose their impact for many if the mind is unable to distil the meaning behind them. But confront them with pictures and suddenly the penny drops.

To understand the cruelty within Indonesian culture it is not necessary to visit abattoirs. Richard Lloyd Parry discovered this when he was there and saw the sheer violence that rushes to the surface at any given moment - scenes he so amply describes in his book "In the Time of Madness". Unfortunately, his book does not have pictures.

Now imagine if similarly enterprising reporters went to a country like Saudi Arabia and managed to film the executions taking place there when a prisoner's head is sliced off with a sword, or female migrant workers are bashed beyond recognition because they didn't follow their masters' orders. Imagine what the average Australian citizen would make of that.

Imagine further if at that point Griffith University's vice-chancellor Ian O'Connor had been discovered inviting Saudi Arabia to establish a foothold on his campus. He was and he did of course, but the affair died down within a matter of days because, well, the pictures were missing.

Since they were, I faced jail because I stood up to that rogue. Such is life.

Diary