New Zealand Academia:
Studies in Corruption, Part 3

5,318 words

Part 3 of 3

In my last installment ^[2] I told of my discovery of R. W. Van Leeuwen’s Thesis “Dreamers of the Dark,” written for the Department of Religious Studies at Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand, for which the author received a MA degree with First Class Honors in 2008. The thesis purports to document and analyze a “satanic-nazi” conspiracy in New Zealand centered around yours truly. I also described how Van Leeuwen’s thesis is a tissue of pure (and impure) inventions. Another individual, Graeme Wilson, was also slandered in the thesis.

Naturally both Wilson and I demanded that the University investigate our claims that the thesis was fraudulent and slanderous and revoke Van Leeuwen’s MA. Instead of coming clean, however, the University responded with stonewalling and coverups. There was also a coordinated smear campaign against this author in the press.

But it gets worse. While the university played defense, the entire cabal associated with the thesis went on the offensive, including Dov Bing, Van Leeuwen, Marg Coldham Fussell (Van Leeuwen’s tutor), Jim Veitch, and Douglas Pratt, head of the Religious Studies Department at Waikato University. They slithered off to the Tertiary Education Union (TEU), which then threatened the University. (It is strange how Vice Chancellor Dr. Roy Crawford makes no mention of the TEU threats in his supposed “report” of December 8, 2010.)

The TEU boasted to its members on its website of its disgraceful conduct, stating that its national secretary, Sharn Rigg “played a role,” and that she had warned Crawford:

It is possible, too, that academics in other New Zealand and overseas institutions may refuse to examine theses from the University of Waikato, or to co-operate on research generally, because of your institution’s heavy-handed response to the examination process undertaken by two eminent external scholars.[1]

Rigg had also expressed concern that Sutton’s inquiry had concluded that Bing was biased. So it is evident that the TEU was also given a copy of the supposedly “confidential” Sutton report. If one goes to the TEU’s posting on its website it states that there were “no responses” to the item. More lies. I had immediately responded to the report with a detailed synopsis of the matter, but the TEU had refused to post it.

The TEU had falsely portrayed this as a matter of “academic freedom,” when in fact it is a matter of academic integrity, and all those involved are in breach of the New Zealand Education Act, and University and TEU charters, which are supposed to guarantee public accountability and the maintenance of scholarly standards.

Legal Threats

Bing at an early stage of the inquiry had sought to set me up for legal threats in a bizarre effort to stymie the complaint. Bing adopted a very strange tactic indeed. He asked me about a website I had created in order to bypass the misinformation being conveyed by the news media.

Presumably, according to the plan, if Bing could trick me into admitting that I had posted material about himself and others he could threaten me with a libel suit, unless I published a retraction that would repudiate my own complaint. If I did not buckle, I would be bankrupted. Bing had supposedly taken offense at my having posted material on his role in the Hayward and Kupka disputes, as well as his role as co-supervisor of the fraudulent Van Leeuwen thesis. I freely stated to Bing that I had posted the material; there was no secret about it.

Bing proceeded to threaten me with litigation with a quip from his lawyer about not selling the family home. The demand was that I publish an apology in the major newspapers and in the NZ Jewish Chronicle, presumably the latter so that he could posture as a crusader against “anti-Semitism” before his comrades, as he had been doing for years regarding the Hayward affair. The nature of the retraction was intended to undermine the basis of my complaint concerning the Van Leeuwen thesis. On November 7, 2008, Bing’s solicitor, Stephen Williams, Hamilton, wrote to this writer that the learned professor had “merely guided the student in the structure of the thesis.”[2] He sought to minimize Bing’s role in regard not only to the Van Leeuwen thesis, but also in regard to the Hayward and Kupka matters. I was supposed to publish a retraction in the press by November 21, or face court action for “at least $300,000.”

In the retraction I was to “unreservedly” and “sincerely” apologise for having referred to Bing as an incompetent bigot with a political agenda. I was also supposed to state that Bing had supervised the thesis in “a most professional manner.” I assume that the last comment was added to bring a touch of humour (?) to the matter.

Bing’s Lies

In his strange contrivance of a vexatious legal threat against me, Bing quipped that the “Assistant of the Vice Chancellor” (Sarah Knox) “surely would not lie” in regard to claims that I had been requested to delete allegedly defamatory material from a website. Of course she wouldn’t; but Bing would . . . and did. After months of continually requesting from the University lawyer, Gillian Spry, information pertaining to this delusional telephone conversation with me, I finally received a reply, and only because the Assistant Ombudsman, Richard Fisher, had asked on my behalf – twice – for a response. Spry replied in a letter that was marked “private and confidential,” as follows:

Further to you letter dated 30 October 2008 and your e-mail of 16 December 2008,[3] I can confirm that no employee of Norris Ward McKinnon has held a telephone conversation with you in which you have been requested to remove three pages from your website. As such, I believe that providing you with Norris Ward McKinnon’s phone records will not be necessary.

I also believe that a sworn statement from me outlining what was supposedly said in the alleged conversation between yourself and Norris Ward McKinnon will not be necessary at this time. If you subsequently require such a statement as evidence in any future legal action, then I will be able to provide you with an affidavit at such time.

I can also confirm that the Assistant to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Waikato did not have a conversation with Professor Dov Bing in which Professor Bing was told that a telephone conversation between yourself and Norris Ward McKinnon had taken place. The Assistant to the Vice Chancellor is also willing to provide an affidavit outlining this if you are subsequently involved in any legal action.[4]

It is difficult to understand what the mental state of Bing was when he decided to try to entrap this writer into admitting making statements that I openly acknowledged anyway. Was it just a matter of pure chutzpah? What is involved here is Bing lying about the University law firm–namely, Gillian Spry–and the “Assistant to the Chancellor,” Sarah Knox, as part of some hare-brained ploy. If the matter had gone to Court, did Bing assume that I would not be calling Sarah Knox or Gillian Spry to testify? This is yet another supposed “eminent scholar.”

In January 2009, I filed a complaint against Bing on multiple grounds of misconduct, including not only lying about others, but misusing his university e-mail account in breach of University regulations, and bringing the University into disrepute. In March 2011, two years after filing the complaint, and on repeated inquiry, I received the following from the gutless liar, Vice Chancellor Crawford:

With respect to your previous complaint regarding Professor Dov Bing, this matter was considered by the University and as a result, Professor Bing was reminded that staff must not use the University’s email system inappropriately.[5]

The little matter of Bing lying about others, including Crawford’s own Assistant, Sarah Knox, which could have embroiled her in a Court proceeding, was not mentioned. I would be surprised if Crawford even bothered mentioning the matter to Bing.

Bing’s Role in the Thesis

While solicitor Stephen Williams claimed that Bing had only supervised the thesis in regard to “structure,” to his colleagues in the New Zealand Zionist Federation, Bing was posturing as the “senior adviser,” and presenting himself as the champion of freedom of scholarly inquiry. The NZ Zionist Federation stated of a Bing presentation that he was indeed the “senior supervisor,” contradicting the previous nonsense by his lawyer that he only played a minor role; and that, “In the end, the Vice Chancellor saved the reputation of the University and rejected the findings of the three investigators, stating that the external examiners and the supervisors had done a sound job.”[6]

“Unease” with Bing as a Supervisor

Ironically Bing’s blue-eyed boy and media darling, Van Leeuwen, when first being told that his co-supervisor would be Professor Bing, felt “unease.” Mr. Wilson and myself had received information that Van Leeuwen had created a web “live journal” recording his feelings in the course of contriving his thesis. It had been a heavy burden on his social life, despite having several years to trot out a scant one hundred pages of double spaced diatribe that was largely the product of his imagination, or what Bing called “sound scholarship,” and what the “eminent scholar,” Jim Veitch, recommended as worthy of Honors. Van Leeuwen’s “live journal” contained some embarrassing remarks that were deleted as soon as he realized he had exposed himself. Now the inquirer will only find where this “live journal” had existed:

Error, This journal has been deleted and purged.[7]

The Waikato Times and Alf’s Blog, the latter, a community internet newsletter servicing the Ekatahune rural back blocks, were the only media that referred to these postings.

The postings reveal that it was with trepidation that Van Leeuwen found he was stuck with Dov Bing as a co-supervisor after a prolonged period of trying to find anyone who would work with him. Bing had become proactive in defending Van Leeuwen’s thesis when Mr. Wilson and myself exposed its fraudulent nature, and Van Leeuwen became a cause célèbre at The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle. One wonders what they now really think of their goy? In the following entry Van Leeuwen expressed his worry over Bing and comments on the “hysteria” and “unfairness” that had surrounded the Hayward and Kupka issues. Van Leeuwen had written:

About six years ago Universities in NZ were hit by two ‘scandals’ which were tarred broadly with the brush of ‘holocaust denial’—Dr. Joel Hayward was taken to task over his Masters thesis in which he said that there were problems with the standard and accepted version of the holocaust. He is not a holocaust denier, but a historian looking at a highly emotive topic. The second was Hans Joachim Kupka, who was a Ph.D. candidate in German language here at Waikato. Kupka isa holocaust denier and neo-Nazi, but its important to note that he was enrolled in a language Ph.D., not in politics or history. To cut a long story short, both investigations had something of a hysterical air about them and I don’t believe that either investigation was conducted in an atmosphere of fairness and impartiality. Judge for yourself. Hayward’s perspective can be found at http://www.joelhayward.com ^[3] and the official Waikato Uni report on the Kupka Case can be found at http://unipr.waikato.ac.nz/news/kupka_report/pdf/kupka-report.pdf ^[4].

My issue with Kupka is that he was enrolled in a language degree — fair enough if he was enrolled in history, politics, religion etc. We do have academic freedom and freedom of thought in this country — it is specifically enshrined in law (one of the few countries to have academic freedom legally protected — thanks Geoff Palmer!) so it’s a bugger to see it run roughshod over.

Both these experiences have made the NZ academic community a little bit sensitive, particularly at Waikato, about the topic. Last night I received an e-mail from my senior supervisor [Marg Coldham Fussell] suggesting that I take onboard a supervisor who had specialist knowledge ‘in this area’. The person suggested was a member of staff who was instrumental in the Hayward case and central in the Kupka case and is (or was) a senior member of the NZJC.[8] Why am I feeling a degree of unease? Lol In reply I offered two other suggestions for a fourth (!) supervisor. Its not a matter of having anything to hide, just that I think there was a degree of gross unfairness in the above cases and I don’t particularly want to be in a position of having to look over my shoulder and modify my research because of paranoia that may or may not be groundless. Anyway, it will be interesting to see where this leads. I am prob making a mountain of a molehill and all that, but still . . .[9]

When I had written something similar in regard to Bing he threatened me with a vexatious libel suit. Additionally, Van Leeuwen continuously called this writer a “holocaust denier” for having expressed similar opinions as himself in regard to the need for tolerance and freedom of inquiry. It is a red herring that Van Leeuwen relies upon to smear this writer and deflect attention away from himself. The final news media report on the matter appeared in 2009, and ends with Van Leeuwen trying to make the entire matter of his fraud one of this writer being a “holocaust denier”:

I certainly don’t regret this coming out. As part of ongoing public awareness, the New Zealand public has to know about holocaust denial. I am quite happy it has come up.[10]

But the Van Leeuwen thesis does not have anything to do with “holocaust denial.” Van Leeuwen, was the only individual incessantly referring to this writer as a “holocaust denier,” as well as being a “neo-Nazi” and an “anti-Semite,” in order to deflect attention away from his own dishonesty. His own statements above would normally be sufficient to have him marked as a “holocaust denier” by Bing et al. But Bing had already shot his bolt and come out in defence of Van Leeuwen, and he could hardly backtrack. It is also notable that Van Leeuwen refers to the university reports on the Hayward and the Kupka matters as having been made public, yet when it comes to the complaints by Mr. Wilson and myself regarding Van Leeuwen and his mentors, Bing, et al., it suddenly becomes a “privacy issue.”

Van Leeuwen continues:

Well, yesterday I had a meeting with my second supervisor, one I have to say I was somewhat dreading. Marg, my primary supervisor, is cool. She knows me and knows how I work and does little more than ask the occasional question along the lines of “everything going well?” and leaves it at that. Maybe its because she is a laid back quasi-hippy still working on her own PhD.

Dov, on the other hand, is a professor of political science from the old school –but a cool guy. However, I haven’t had anything to show him, nor have I been in contact with him for months so when I bumped into him in the men’s toilets and he said he wanted to see me, I thought “gads, time to harden my buttocks and prepare for an arse kicking” So, at the appointed hour, I rock around to his office and with some degree of trepidation, knock and enter. We spent the next 1hr 28 mins in discussion, during which my thesis and its progress was raised on two occasions for a total of four minutes — and which he said things were going really well and he is very happy and well impressed with what I am doing. I’m sitting there thinking “What the fuck? How would you know how it’s going? I haven’t shown you anything fer Christ’s sake!” I confess I was somewhat confused and wondered if he had confused me with someone else. I can only assume he has been talking to other people and been getting a second hand opinion, but I did say I would send him through my conference papers and seminar notes so he should have some idea where I am heading with it all.

What did we spend the other 1 hr 24mins talking about, do I hear you ask? Well, we discussed Iran’s relationship with the UN, Iran’s relationship to Iraq, Iraq’s relationship to Israel, Israel’s relationship to just about everyone else, US domestic and foreign policy, holocaust deniers we had met, Jews in China, his great great grandfather in Japan, the Dutch military in Indonesia during WW2, his uncle who was in the Dutch military in Indonesia in WW2, a guy he met who knew his uncle who was in the Dutch military in WW2, the Dutch War records office and corrupt historians and bureaucrats, my father who was in Indonesia after WW2, my grandmother and her resistance work, Dutch civil honours, N Korea’s relationship to Iran, Israel and the bomb, Israel’s relationship to Palestine, the use of deterrent force and how the West never got the hang on it, justifiable massacre and just war theory. I am sure I missed some bits of the conversation out, but you get the picture.[11]

In the above passages Van Leeuwen shows that while his trepidation about Bing had disappeared, both of his supervisors come across as anything but “most professional.” Van Leeuwen in a further entry laments the way in which the thesis is interfering with his social life and other interests, such as his involvement with the occult.[12]

Working at the bottle-store has kept me busy over the last couple of months, much to the detriment of everything else – but I have finally put my foot down and reduced my hours to something more manageable as so I can focus attention on what it is I should be attending to, namely my thesis.

So, my thesis. Well . . . I have a busy next few months ahead of me.

As it currently stands, I have written about 9,000 first-draft words out of 35,000 I need and I am supposed to submit it on the last day of Feb. Hands up if you think I can make it? Nah, I don’t think so either which is why I have asked for an extension. E-mailed my supervisor about it and she said she already had the forms there as she was expecting such a request. At least this time I have a legit reason since it took 2-3 months to get supervisors actually sorted out and topic agreed on, due to the controversial nature of the thesis. In that time I had between one and four supervisors assigned, and changed supervisory teams about half a dozen times. Needless to say the supervisors I ended up with are not the ones I started off with. Sooooo, anyhoo, I can look forward to handing it in end of Aprilish. This leaves me three months for 30,000 words. 10,000 a month. 3500 words a week, you might say…a walk in the proverbial park, you might say…but it aint quite that simple, because over the next three months I have other things looming on my horizon. Namely: Still working at the bottlestore. Training for part-time work being part of the University promotions staff (and possibly work there over the next few months) Tutoring a Religious Studies paper (and prepping for that) Teaching a Social and Moral Philosophy paper to senior high school kids (and having to get prepped for that). Starting my MPhil in Defence and Strategic studies and I will have one or two essays due in during those first couple of months (but fortunately, since its at another university, I’ll not have to work too hard since I am not anal about keeping my marks high and am more than happy to settle for B+s).

Head off to Magick Earth festival at the other end of this half of the country. See Evanescence in concert (and maybe Weird Al as well) Start the paper-chase to enrol in my PhD at the University of Queensland so I can start that in semester 2. Oh, and also get my management cert from the Liquor Licensing folk. On top of that I want to Start at the gym Return to martial arts training Start up a regular role-playing game evening and Learn the flute. Sleep? Bah, who needs it? Sleep is over rated. All hail the gods of tea, No Doze and Jump! … Oh Shit, which reminds me, I was supposed to go off jet-skiing with the boss this morning and I plumb fergot. Toodle pip[13]

Van Leeuwen next relates that if he ran out of time and was having problems with the thesis he could just make it up, and nobody would know, which is precisely what he did, despite later protestations to the contrary.

THESIS WATCH

Sorry to spam you guys, but I am finding this thesis watch thingy to be a great deal of help in keeping me focussed and achieving those little weekly achievements which are so good for keeping morale up. Thank you for your patience. Total words for thesis: 35,000 Due date: Being negotiated (April 30?) Chapter/sub-chapters completed in draft form: 3 Had a meeting with my supervisors last Wednesday, which was fine and cool, but as an upshot I had a distressing thought.

Up until then I had the idea that what I am writing about is so obscure and the source material is difficult to get hold of that if needed to, I could make shit up and bullshit my way through difficult bits and no one would be any the wiser. Morally bankrupt I know, but it was a comforter knowing I could pull that particular trick out of my hat if I needed to. However, then the thought poked me…that my thesis will be deposited in the library and (because our university is hooked up to a thesis-share system) it will also be electronically available from something like 30 universities. Geep

I don’t want to be known for dodgy bollocky thesis! Its okay to bluff my way past a couple of markers, but to have utter shite on permanent record at an institution of higher learning (or Waikato University) is tres unkewl. So, *sigh* I guess I will actually have to do the work. But not tonight. Heroes is on in about half an hour. Woot.[14]

From the above it appears that Van Leeuwen was still not going well with his thesis. He was a very busy chap, with intrusions such as watching the television series Heroes, and many other interferences in his scholarly routine. As was subsequently proven by both Mr. Wilson and myself he did resort to “utter shite.” Other entries include banter with his cyber-friends on the “geekiness” of his best student[15] (while he was a tutor at Waikato), the geeky girls being the filthiest, and fantasies about the breasts of his female students, whom he wanted to touch-up.[16]

Be Kwiet

Nexus, the student newspaper of Waikato University, was kept informed of the inquiry by an inside source at the University. Editor Joshua Drummond could be relied upon and resort to childish smears, for which he was given a journalism award. It was via Nexus[17] that I heard of an intercession by Konrad Kwiet, Professor of Holocaust Studies, Sydney University. However, it was only in 2010 that I got to read Kwiet’s “Comment” and “Personal Opinion” sent to Crawford, aping Bing’s view that the Van Leeuwen thesis is laudable scholarship.

Kwiet had supposedly been approached by Van Leeuwen, during Dr. Sutton’s inquiry, for an outside assessment of his thesis. Given that Kwiet had also interceded in the Kupka matter several years previously, along with other Zionist academics, this seems to have been just another jack-up between Bing and Kwiet. In the Kupka affair, as with his opinions on the Van Leeuwen thesis, Kwiet offered nothing of a scholarly nature; just ad hominem quips and presumptions.

Kwiet had described Kupka’s views, allegedly expressed on the internet, as “garbage” and “cyber space junk.” He stated that Kupka is “pleased” to present himself as an “anti-Semite,” a “holocaust denier,” and a “racist.” Kupka’s views are described by Kwiet as “stupid” and “arrogant.” Comparing Kwiet’s statements about Kupka with his statements about myself, he was merely offering a standardized retort.[18]

The introductory statement prefacing the four “scholarly opinions” on Kupka sates that the opinions were “obtained by Dr. Douglas Pratt, Chairperson Department of Religious Studies and by Professor Dov Bing, Department of Political Science and Public Policy,” Waikato University.[19] It might be noted that Pratt was one of those involved in the Van Leeuwen fiasco as head of the religious studies department; and was among the gaggle that crawled off to the TEU. It might be asked how the Kupka matter was of any relevance to Pratt in his professional capacity as head of religious studies at Waikato?

After having read the opinions that Kwiet had sent to Dr. Crawford on the Van Leeuwen thesis, I wrote to the learned “professor of holocaust studies” to try and get some sense out of him, as I had also tried with Professor Veitch, the external examiner, and others. No hope, of course. Some of the questions I posed included:

1. You state that you had been asked by W. R. Van Leeuwen to comment on his thesis. Would it be fair to say that this was more a jack-up (if you’ll excuse the colloquialism) between thesis co-supervisor Dov Bing and yourself?
2. You acknowledge in your first paragraph that the working party inquiry recommended the “downgrading” of the thesis, and that the reasons for this are unknown to you.

(a) Did it occur to you that the working party under Deputy Vice Chancellor Dr. Doug Sutton might have found material in the thesis, or might have been in possession of evidence that proved the thesis did not – at the very least –merit first class honours?

(b) Did you make any effort to read the thesis with a critical approach as to why there might have been allegations that it might be fraudulent?

(c) Would it be fair to say that you had a preconception in favour of Van Leeuwen and bias against myself that formed the basis of your judgement, rather than that judgement being informed by a scholarly reading of the thesis?

3. You commend Van Leeuwen for his “extensive” use of literature, including a “plethora” of documents distributed that are in the public domain, and in e-mail communications. You commend Van Leeuwen for making “effective use” of the material in presenting “empirical evidence.”

(a) Could you please provide me with any examples of the sources Van Leeuwen used, that you personally verified?

(b) Do you, as someone who is engaged in examining and advising on academic dissertations, regard references that identify material as nothing more than “archives” as legitimate methodology? How did you verify any of these nebulous “archives,” given that I had difficulty locating the material cited, including that credited to myself, and have still not been able to locate some items?

(c) Are you aware that the e-mail communications you refer to are those of Mr. Graeme Wilson, who is acknowledged for his assistance by his former friend Van Leeuwen in the thesis (and is described by Vice Chancellor Crawford as “a knowledgeable expert”), and that Mr. Wilson also lodged a complaint against Van Leeuwen, and unequivocally called Van Leeuwen a liar? . . .

Of a general nature:

1. Given that the NZ Education Act is supposed to provide for “public scrutiny” to ensure quality of scholarship, why should Mr. Wilson and myself be denied that opportunity when we both reached the same conclusions, independently, as to the dishonesty of the thesis?
2. Do you regard threats from the Tertiary Education Union as an appropriate means of deciding the scholarly merits of a thesis?
3. Given that Van Leeuwen expressed in his “live journal” disquiet at having Dov Bing as a supervisor, on the grounds that Bing:

(a) “Didn’t known what the f. . . . he was talking about” when supposedly discussing the thesis with Van Leeuwen, and

(b) Had harassed Joel Hayward, who was denied scholarly freedom, and Hans Kupka,

(c) Do you regard Van Leeuwen as an “anti-Semite” and a “holocaust denier”?

1. When Van Leeuwen stated on his “live journal” that if he ran out of time for writing the thesis, which was clearly interrupting his social agenda, he could simply “make b.s. up” and nobody would be the wiser because of the “obscurity of the subjects,” did you at any time give pause for thought that just maybe he is a charlatan? . . .[20]

Naturally, my questions remain unanswered, and Kwiet can rationalize that he “does not debate with anti-Semites and holocaust deniers.”

After months of confabulation between the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem, and Roy Crawford, they came up with a “solution” that they hoped both Mr. Wilson and myself would accept: Crawford stated that “errors” might have been made in the thesis, but there is nothing unusual about this. Wilson and myself were given the opportunity to submit corrections to these “errors” to Van Leeuwen, and – if he chose – he might include an addendum in the hard copy version of the thesis deposited at the University library.[21] These proposals were rejected because acceptance would mean conceding that Van Leeuwen had made a few “errors” whereas the contention is that he is a liar and a fraud and his Masterate needs to be revoked on the grounds of dishonesty. The Ombudsman, Ms. Wakem, refused to reopen her inquiry into the University’s antics. She would not or could not respond to my repeatedly having pointed out that Crawford had stated that the University would investigate whether the thesis was of adequate standard, but did not do so.

Going on four years, as matters stand, I recently asked for a copy of the Sutton report via the Privacy Commission under the Official Information Act, having received from the University two blacked out pages, and a claim by Crawford that the release of the report would be a breach of privacy for those faculty involved. As Crawford knows, the report had already been given to Nexus, TEU, and Kwiet. On advice from the Privacy Commission I have asked for the intercession of the Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem. I have also asked for an inquiry as to who gave the supposedly “confidential” Sutton report to Nexus, Kwiet and the TEU. I predict that again Crawford will lie and obfuscate his way out, and Dame Beverley will reactively accept his statements, while Bing, Pratt, Veitch, and Coldham-Fussell remain untouched and Van Leeuwen continues to proceed with his academic career.

Notes