At 19:59 27/04/98 +1000, Bill Mitchell wrote:
>Dear pen-l
>
>Today I emailed Micheal and asked for a particular person to be removed from
>pen-l. It is not an action that I took without thought.
>
>The person has seen fit to send email that I have sent to pen-l in the past
>(Feb 1997)
>and also another list (pkt) to senior staff in my university as a part of a
>campaign
>to cause me maximum personal damage. The email was sent out of context and
>without
>explanation other than some annotations placed by the person. There was no
>attempt
>to provide the whole debate or to explain the philosophy of our list etc.
>
>I am not concerned at all that the bosses have the data. Not in the least.
>I am
>concerned that this person has breached the trust of our list and used our
>discussions
>in a completely partial way to further his aims in the workplace. The
>personal nature
>of the attack is also disturbing and indicative of a lack of substance.
>
>But I have asked Michael to act because I do not believe this person has
>acted in
>the spirit of the list. While we can have fierce disputes and use whatever
>language
>we like within pen-l, it is reprehensible to use selected email input in
>another struggle
>and pass it on to senior university staff.
>
>This is not an act of censorship but one of trust and the breach of it.
>
>I have told michael that if he cannot accede to my request then I will
>leave the list.
>I don't see a place on the list for someone who misuses our dialogue in
>this way.
>
>kind regards
>bill
> #### ## William F. Mitchell
> ####### #### Head of Economics Department
> ################# University of Newcastle
> #################### New South Wales, Australia
> ###################* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ################### Phone: +61 49 215065
> ##### ## ### Fax: +61 49 216919
> Mobile: 0419 422 410
> ##
>
>WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
>
____________________
Since there aren't thousands of economics members from Newcastle on pen-l,
I assume that "the person" in Mr. Mitchell's remark above is non other than
myself. So let me tell you the stroy--the context he wants, doesn't he? I
don't think you would want to miss this story.
About two and a half years ago I was having a debate on pkt with Professor
Paul davidson on his latest book. Mr. Mitchell intervened in this debate
with a long-winded and arrogant post saying things like his second year
student could explain the whole thing better than i could. To which I
responded very briefly showing it to the world that Mr. mitchell had not
even understood the terms of the debate (please check the pkt archive for
30 November 1995). Instead of responding to my post on pkt, Mr. Mitchell
(who happens to be the head of department) summoned me to his office and
told me in no uncertain terms: "You should look for a job somewhere else.
You have no future in this department." This was berely six months since I
had arrived here in this country and to my new job.
Since I was on a three years contract position, and here you are supposed
to be on probation for the first year, Mr. Mitchell in the strongest words
possible recommended that my contract should not be confirmed. In the
meanwhile he had started to harass me on consistent basis, and I had
written a letter to the vice-chancellor detailing his harassment. The case
of victimization was so obvious that the Human Resource Department took no
account of his recommendation and I continued in my job.
Then Mr. Mitchell tried another tactic. He withdrew me from all teaching
duties on the ground that I was a lousy teacher (as a matter of fact all
his listing of complaints pertained to tutorials rather than lectures) and
as head of department it was his duty to protect students from such
teachers as I'm. Mind you no students complaints was ever shown to me, nor
even a question asked of me before he took this decision. This prompted my
second letter to the vice-chancellor. The Dean ordered him to give me
teaching duties. To prove to the university that this man has no
credibility, i agreed to put myself for a review of my teaching performance
directly under the Dean (in Newcastle the official teaching evaluation is
only of subjects and not the lecturers like the American system). My
student evaluation came out like this. On the scale of 1 to 5, one being
lowest and five being highest:
(1) This lecturer explains things clearly.-- 3.8
(2) This lecturer seems to be well-prepared for each session.-- 3.7
(3) If needed, I feel I can discuss my problem with this lecturer.-- 3.6
(4) This lecturer structures and sequences the material clearly.-- 3.6
(5) This lecturer introduces new concepts at a rate that allows me to
understand them.-- 3.6
(6) The lecturer is available to students for consultation out of class.-- 3.9
(7) The lecturer invites students opinion.--4.2
(8) The lecturer is willing to assist me.--3.8
(9) The lecturer treats students with respect.--3.8
(10)This lecturer has explained relationships between topics within this
subject.-3.7
(11)The lecturer makes good use of example and illustrations.--3.9
(12)The lecturer makes me think about the subject.--3.6
(13)This lecturer summarises the material well. 3.7
(14)The lecturer has shown broad issues associated with the subject. 3.5
(15)The lecturer stresses important points.--3.8
(16)The lecturer speaks clearly.--3.4
(17)The tutorial topics are well-related to lecture topics.--4.1
(18)The tutorials help me learn the subject material. 3.9
(20)This tutor is well prepared for each session. 3.9
(21)If needed, I feel I can discuss my subject problems with this tutor. 4.0
(22)This tutor encourages me to participate in class discussion. 4.4
My lecture was also observed by an expert from Center for learning and
development program. She wrote a rave review of my lecture with comments
like "Very good contact with students. GREAT DIALOGUE." Also the only
professor in the department observed the lecture and gave a rave review. So
now you know where Mr. Mitchell stands. Anyway, lets continue:
During the 1996-97 summer period (summer for Australia, winter for
America), I was presenting a paper at the RETHINKING MARXISM conference and
chairing the panel as well. This conference was from 5-8 of December, 1996.
Then from 3-5 of January, New Orleans was hosting ASSA annual meetings. I
was presenting two papers and discussing another panel at this conference.
Then I was invited to present a seminar at SUNY-Buffalo in mid December,
and was also invited by a Research Institute in India to give a series of
lectures during late January-early February period. To cover all these
activities, I planned to leave Australia on 2nd of December and come back
by the middle of February. I managed to get my TVL for $2,000 signed by Dr.
Martin Watts, who was the acting head in Mr. Mitchell's absence. When Mr.
Mitchell learnt about it, he immediately sent me a letter informing me that
he has withdrawn my TVL since my quotation for air fare was from some other
travel agent and not JAYES(the travel agent university deals with). On his
advise, I immediately changed my travel agent and got my tickets booked
with JAYES. Then Mr. Mitchell argued that I could not leave Newcastle on
2nd of December because department's examination board meeting was
scheduled for 4th of December--this when it was well known that the meeting
would be adjourned without conducting any business about examination since
union (by the way, Mr. Mitchell is perhaps the only member of the
department who does not belong to the union) had called for 'work ban', and
that I was not even a coordinator for any course and was finished with all
grading duties, in other words I had nothing to do in that meeting).
Moreover, he also argued that I could not stay away from Newcastle for that
long since I must take annual leave to cover for the time period between
these activities--mind you, this is Christmas and summer vacation period
here, the new semester begins from 1st of March. After haggling and
negotiations with the dean, the dean gave me written permission to leave
from 5th of December to 12th of January inclusive--this meant that I would
miss first two days of RETHINKING MARXISM conference as well as lecture
series in India. But I complied and immediately got my itinerart
readjusted. Then Mr. Mitchell argued that I could not leave Australia on
the 5th of December either because the new vice-chancellor was making a
visit to the department on the 5th. I wrote to him that this would mean
that I would even miss my paper at the U. Mass. conference and since I was
chairing the panel, the whole panel would go down as well. I also informed
him that I had written permission from the dean to leave, and that JAYES
had my TVL# on which $2,000 was originally sactioned, and then left.
When I came back I received a communication from the Finance Department
informing me that there was an unauthorized withdrawal of the sum of $1995
made by JAYES, and I was threatened of legal action if I failed to return
the money soon. When I sent all the information regarding the this affair,
everything became quiet for a long time. Then I got a letter from Dr. Don
Reeves (Director, Human Resources), dated July 17, 1997, stating that "The
background to the concerns expressed by the Head of Department regarding
both the procedures essential to purchasing airline tickets to attend an
overseas conference and the requirement to attend a Department planning
meeting on 4 December 1996 have been explored. Having given due
consideration to all aspects, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor has determined
that no further action be taken. Accordingly, the formal request of you to
repay the $2,000 travel allowance is revoked: no repayment is required."
I might add that I had also applied for an RMC Conference Travel Grant
(which has nothing to do with department's money) to cover for my
additional travel expenses. This was the response I got from Mr. P. H.
Farley, Director Research Branch, "Your application for funding support did
not have the endorsement of the Head of your Department and I have to
advise that the RMC will not provide a grant in aid for these conference
attendances."
Now some recent episodes:
After receiving an invitation from Cambridge University to visit for three
months as a visiting scholar, I applied for a three months of study leave.
I have already worked here for three years, and one is intitled to six
months of study leave after three years of work. Mr. Mitchell wrote a very
nasty recommendation on my application, mainly arguing that I am incapable
of doing research, I have a few papers published in some SMALL journals,
and that my contract will not be renewed after the end of this year so
university could better spend the money somewhere else. I refuted his
recommendation with detailed documentation. When my application got to the
dean, she kept it for a long time. After about one and a half months, I
found my application back in my mail box with a memo from Mr. Mitchell
saying "Annette [the Dean} has written to me after consultation with Don
Reeves and the DVC. She has made two recommendations one pertaining to me
(which i have taken) and one relation (sic) to you. The recommendation
pertaining to you is: 'I also recommend that Dr. Sinha withdraws his
attachments of comments and other documents.'" The upshot of this was that
Mr. Mitchell was finally asked to withdraw most of his comments (some of
which might have gotten him in serious legal problem), though he maintained
his negative recommendation without any decent reason. So I changed my
response accordingly. The Dean's recommendation said: "Dr. Sinha meets the
requirements for OSPRO and I believe would make good use of his time spent
at Cambridge. He is a committed scholar." The study leave committee also
recommended my application favorably. Inspite of this, the vice-chancellor
declined my application on one and the sole ground that: "It is clear from
the advice of HOD that the OSPRO detachment would be disadvantageous to
students." You should know that in his written recommendation Mr. Mitchell
had said that department will have no problem in accomodating my absence.
His negative recommendation was based on one and the sole ground that I was
a lousy researcher. I have appealed the vice-chancellor's decision, and we
might end up in court on this one.
But this is not the end of the story. While I was writing my appeal, I got
a phone call from a graduate student of mine, Tony Atley, who informed me
that he just received a letter from Mr. Mitchell stating "After discussion
with Research Branch it has been decided that Dr. Bruce McFarlin will be
appointed as your new supervisor for the completion of your Masters
Degree." Tony had been working on his Masters thesis under the supervision
of Professor Bruce McFarlane (note the difference in the last names of the
two Bruces), who recently took early retirement from the University.
Professor McFarlane had personally asked me to take the responsibility of
supervising Tony's Masters, and had also stronly recommended my name to
Tony for his new supervisor. The theoretical structure of Tony's work is
based on Piero Sraffa and Maurice Dobb's theories. I can safely say that I
am probably the only person in this department who is knowledgable in this
area. After discussing Tony's thesis with him and taking a commitment from
him that he would finish his thesis in ten weeks, I accepted to be his
supervisor and signed all the appropriate papers about a month ago, and
started to behave as James Mill to David Ricardo. Now Tony is told that he
has to accept a supervisor he does not want. Mr. Mitchell has not even
shown the decency of contacting me on this issue, nither his letter to Tony
says anything about why Ajit Sinha is unacceptable supervisor. This is a
direct attack on academic freedom and freedom of research by Mr. Mitchell,
and therefore, the administration. This issue probably will go to media and
court as well.
This post has become too long for daily harassment to be listed here and
his injustice in giving teaching allocations etc. I'm not his only victim,
by the way. Apart from select few, most of the people are pissed him. When
I came here this department was 33 persons strong. Right now we are only 15
left--and all this has happened under Mr. Mitchell's reign. Many solid
socialists such as Bruce McFarlane, who was known around Australia as the
only socialist professor in the country, took early retirement, only two to
three years after coming here. Roy Green, Ph.D. from Cambridge under M. M.
postan and John Eatwell took transfer to Management Department, the list
can go on.
Sometime ago, Mr. mitchell's newly found "Mate", Louis Proyet, went on an
attack on my character on 'Marxism' list--a list I have never subscribed
to. He wrote two three posts against me, and when I was informed about it,
I couldn't understand what was going on since i have never met Louis proyet
in my life. Then in one of the post he went on to say things like "It is
really a terrible shame that you [Paul Zarembka] and your mandarin of a
co-editor [ajit sinha] have gathered any prestige from the publication of
that journal you preside over. Those poor professors everywhere, trying to
get published by the likes of you, are like dogs begging from scraps from
the table. You know the reason your co-editor [ajit sinha] keeps bouncing
from job to job by the way. He is the most arrogant man on the planet and
his students, to an individual, hate his guts." This is a man I have never
met, and I'm sure he has never met one student of mine in his life. It does
not take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out whose bidding Mr. Proyet is doing
here.
Now, to the e-mail Mitchell talks about above. In a conversation with a
colleague here I was talking about my Australian experience. In this
context I said that I have lived and worked in four countries by now
(India, USA, Canada, Australia) but I have never even met a human being who
is so obsessed with destroying another human being's life and career. In
this context I alluded to his e-mail where he talks about "their [people
who send there children to private school] actions always lead me to think
they would be the first people i would shoot come the revolution. so i
agree....before we get there there is so much to do - in the coomunity, on
the land, getting little things sorted out and in control. come the
revolution, these bastards and their basterd kids (all with big educations)
will probably take over and be as fucked as the incumbents. take control
now....in little ways....that is my approach and maybe, some time down the
road, the revolution might come and we will have some consistent practice
already in place." This reveals Mr. Mitchell's psychological state of mind
very well. And since then many colleagues have asked me for a copy of this
e-mail. Now it might be circulating all around. The problem for Mr.
Mitchell is that it is signed as Head of Economics Department, University
of Newcastle. You may notice that Mr. Mitchell is the only one on pen-l and
pkt who signs his administrative position all the time. My guess is that he
wants people to think that he is a professor. However, the fact of the
matter is that he is just a senior lecturer with no more than a Masters
degree from some Australian University. He is registered as a Ph.D student
in our department. In anycase, his e-mail is in public domain and he has to
be responsible for what he writes. I do intend to use this in future to
highlight the psychological make up of this man, so that his behavior
toward me can be understood in the right context. Cheers, ajit sinha
