Waikato University : the Culture of Dysfunction

Some Unpalatable Truth About New Zealand Tertiary

Education

K R Bolton

Preamble

The following is a letter sent to associate ministers of education in

an effort to bring Waikato University et al to account for dubious
practices in the awarding of a Masterate. I have spent nearly three
years (since August 2008) trying to have this matter dealt with: I
have made representations to Waikato University Vice Chancellor
Roy Crawford; Minister of Education, Anne Tolley; The Office of the
Ombudsmen; the Privacy Commission; The Vice Chancellors’
Committee; University Audit Unit; and the Commerce Commission –
to no avail. The Education Act states that tertiary institutions must
be open to public scrutiny to assure quality education; yet in
practise this means nothing.

The reader is asked to spread this far and wide, as public exposure
of these people and their institution is the only option that seems to
be left.

P O Box 1627
Paraparaumu Beach 5252

7 May 2011

Hon. Dr Pita Sharples

Hon. Steven Joyce
Assoc. Ministers of Education
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6161

Dear Dr Sharples and Mr Joyce

University Dysfunction

[1] I’m writing in an attempt to resolve a matter that has taken up

much of my time, caused my family and myself much stress, to the
point of having a negative impact on my health, has cost me
financially, and after nearly three years has still left me running
around in circles. I have been lied to, lied about and threatened, and
have got precisely nowhere.
[2] I addressed this matter to Anne Tolley nearly three years ago,
and was fobbed off with a reply that indicated she had either not
read my letter or did not understand what was involved. I would like
some straight answers from somewhere…

[3] In August 2008 I accidentally found on a database a thesis,

Dreamers of the Dark, by Roel van Leeuwen, which had gained
him an MA Hons. from Waikato University. I was surprised and
perplexed to see that the thesis was largely about myself, and I was
therefore from my first-hand knowledge about …. me …. quickly
able to see that the thesis was from beginning to end of a
fraudulent, dishonest nature, and largely comprised faked and
distorted references, and fictional scenarios. In brief, Van Leeuwen
cheated… he was dishonest.

[4] Apart from this first-hand knowledge, I also have extensive

experience at both having academic papers published in scholarly
and other media, and in assisting with the reviewing of academic
papers. I have for example been published by Moscow State
University; Ankara University; and Trinity College, Dublin. I have had
papers published by leading academic journals such as World
Affairs; India Quarterly; Journal of Social Economics; Antrocom
Anthropology Journal; Geopolitika; Journal of Russian Studies;
Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, etc. I have been
published by the Russian Ministry of Defence, Radio Free Asia, and
many others.

[5] My papers have been featured or cited by scholars such as:

Andreas Umland, Harvard, Hoover Inst., etc.; Prof. Jacques Maitre of
the National Center for Scientific Research, France; Hamid Dabashi,
Columbia University; John Brown, ex-US diplomat, Georgetown
University; Dr. Kiyul Chung, Tsinghua University, Beijing; Vladimir
Ovchinskii, Center for the Study of Organized Crime and Corruption
in Russia, former head of Russian Interpol and Constitutional Court
adviser, et al.

[6] I am a ‘contributing writer’ for The Foreign Policy Journal, have

had three books commercially published in the USA and Britain, and
have contributed chapters to three academic books. I have been
translated into Vietnamese, Russian, Farsi, Czech, German, Latvian,
Ukrainian, Italian, French, and Portuguese. In other words: I know
something about scholarly research.

[7] In New Zealand, on the other hand, the budding ‘scholar’ Van
Leeuwen, states that I ‘never finished secondary school’ (sic). This is
typical of the smears and red herrings I have confronted by those
responsible for the fraudulent thesis. Even if I had ‘not finished
secondary school’, as a member of the public I am entitled
under the Education Act to present my concerns and expect
them to be treated in a responsible manner, presumably
without having to endure abuse and threats. But this did not
transpire.

2008 Pseudo-enquiry

[8] In 2008 Roy Crawford, Vice Chancellor of Waikato University,

instituted an enquiry into my complaint against Van Leeuwen. The
enquiry, under Dr Doug Sutton, was to examine whether processes
for the awarding of the thesis had been followed correctly, and if
they had, whether the University could nonetheless be sure
that the thesis was meritous. On that basis Mr Graeme Wilson of
Dunedin and myself separately filed hundreds of documents with
the University lawyer, Gillian Spry, proving that the thesis was
fraudulently contrived. After nearly a year, Crawford responded with
a one-page letter saying that the enquiry was concluded, the
procedures were sound and the matter was closed.

[9] What had transpired in the meantime was that:

(a) Those involved, including one of the two outside examiners

(Jim Veitch), department heads, Van Leeuwen, and thesis
supervisors Dov Bing and Marg Coldham-Fussell, had gone
whining to the Tertiary Education Union, and TEU secretary
Sharn Rigg had threatened action unless the matter was
dropped. The TEU boasted on their website of their
intervention. When I attempted to bring the facts to the TEU
membership by submitting a letter to their website, this was
not published.

(b) Dov Bing, thesis co-supervisor, threatened me with legal

action for $300,000 (with a quip from his lawyer, Steven
Williams, not to sell the family home) unless I scuttled my own
complaint and published an apology in all the main news
media, plus – for some reason – The NZ Jewish Chronicle. The
idiotic apology I was expected to publish was to concede that
Bing had ‘supervised the thesis in a most professional
manner’ (ha!) and that Van Leeuwen was just fine, too. In the
process of contriving this half-cocked legal threat, Bing for
some queer reason found it necessary to lie to me about the
University lawyer, Gillian Spry, and the ‘Assistant to the Vice
Chancellor’ (sic) presumably as part of an odd scheme to
‘entrap’ me. My complaint against Bing was met with silence,
and after nearly three years Crawford recently wrote to me
and mentioned in passing he had ‘reminded’ Bing not to use
University internet facilities ‘inappropriately’. Bing’s antics
caused my family and myself much stress at the time, and
resulted in my paying for legal advice. So it is presumably
 acceptable that a member of the public trying to bring
a matter of concern to a university as provided for by
the Education Act can be threatened, and that in the
process even university staff can be lied about and
implicated, and nobody is held accountable?

[10] You might recall that Bing launched a widely-publicised

crusade against Dr Joel Hayward of Massey University about ten
years ago, during which Dr Hayward had a nervous breakdown
and became unemployable in New Zealand. Dr Hayward now has
an excellent academic position in the UK; New Zealand
education’s loss, while Bing remains ensconced. Coincidentally, it
so happens that not only was Bing Van Leeuwen’s co-supervisor,
but that his initial adviser was David Green, another individual
who had been prominently involved in the actions against his
former friend Dr Joel Hayward. When I mentioned whether this
contributed to bias and a sudden and unexplained change of
direction of the thesis, Van Leeuwen used it as a red-herring to
claim via the news media that I was saying it was all a ‘Zionist
conspiracy’ (sic) against me. These are the types of ad hominem
attacks that Van Leeuwen et al have used to deflect the real
issue.

[11] When Crawford issued his one page conclusion regarding

the enquiry I complained to the Ombudsman. Ms Wakem took the
matter up. My main contention was that Crawford had totally
neglected the matter of his own terms of reference for the
enquiry; namely that even if procedures were followed, was
the thesis nonetheless adequate? He now weirdly denies he
made any such terms of reference, yet I of course have it in
writing.

The Nonsensical Offer

[12] The Ombudsman, Ms Wakem, for her part, after about 6

months of delay from Crawford, reached a settlement she
thought I should accept: that I submit corrections for what I
consider to be ‘errors’ (sic) in the thesis and if Van Leeuwen so
chooses he might attach an addendum to the hardcopy of the
thesis. In order to accept this ‘settlement’ I would be
acknowledging that Van Leeuwen made nothing more than a few
‘errors’ of the type that one would expect in a thesis; that
nothing would be done about the thesis online, and that
everything would be up to Van Leeuwen. I regard the offer as
nonsense. Ms Wakem stated she was willing to undertake an
enquiry but when asked some basic questions she, like Crawford,
states the matter is now closed, and it is purely an academic
concern despite my having shown that Crawford failed to
undertake the type of enquiry he had promised, which she
claimed she was going to consider. Another blockage.

[13] My contention, and that of Mr Wilson, is that Van Leeuwen

lied, faked references, and invented scenarios throughout the
entirety of his thesis. It should be explained that Van Leeuwen
acknowledges Mr Wilson, whom both Van Leeuwen and myself
know on a personal basis, for his help with the thesis, and
Crawford calls Mr Wilson a ‘knowledgeable expert’. Yet Mr Wilson
was appalled, when I directed him to the finished thesis, that his
name had been associated with such a dishonest document. Mr
Wilson consequently also presented hundreds of pages of
documentation proving the thesis was fraudulent, in the belief
that Crawford would honour his undertakings. None of it was
read. Likewise, despite being acknowledged as an ‘expert’ on
the subject, Mr Wilson has also been fobbed off.

Thesis garbage

[14] As to the thesis itself, to indicate its nature: I am cited as

the author of many references that I had not authored, many of
which I had not even heard of until seeing them cited and quoted
in the thesis, and some of which I have still not been able to
locate to read. Mr Wilson had been given three of the first draft
chapters of the thesis by Van Leeuwen for his opinions, before
Van Leeuwen discontinued communication with Mr Wilson. What
these three chapters show is that Van Leeuwen correctly cited
the authorship of documents, which were subsequently falsely
ascribed in the final version of the thesis. In other words, Mr
Wilson and myself can prove that Van Leeuwen lied about
authorship of many key documents. It is also notable that in
a letter to Mr Wilson responding to a comment that he had been
incorrectly ascribed authorship of a document, Ms Spry, lawyer,
mentioned that this is minor in comparison ‘to the much more
serious issue of the many misattributions’ listed by me.
However, no mention has ever been made of the findings of Ms
Spry, which I assume would be damaging to the University.

[15] Van Leeuwen invents scenarios by claiming me as author of

sundry works on the basis of ‘writing style comparisons’ (sic)
which identify me as at least five very different people,
and the author of material the writing style of which is widely
diverse, from intellectual to poorly educated, as indicated by
syntax. He then places me in situations of which I was not
a part; situations moreover which are quite silly, but they
allow Van Leeuwen to expand – and spice up - his thesis by
further pages of rubbish.
 [16] Van Leeuwen claims that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints did not allow Maori or Polynesians into the priesthood
until ‘after 1978’. This is nonsense. For his reference, Van
Leeuwen falsely cites The Encyclopaedia of Mormonism. I
provided documentation on the Maori relationship to NZ
Mormonism since colonial times, showing that Van Leeuwen is
writing nonsense. It took me about ten minutes to repudiate Van
Leeuwen’s revisionist history of Mormonism; he had several
years to research his bilge. Why I regard this matter of
Mormonism as significant is because:

(a) Waikato University exists in the heart of NZ Mormonism.

(b)The Van Leeuwen thesis was undertaken as a degree in

religion, under the auspices of the department of religious
studies. The co-supervisor was religious studies lecturer Marg
Coldham-Fussell. The thesis outside examiner, Jim Veitch of
Victoria University, is supposed to be a religious studies
‘scholar’. The rubbish about Mormonism in the thesis
comprises about two pages.

[17] Why was it not questioned at any time by these ‘scholars’ (sic)?
It is one of many indications that the thesis was rubber-stamped and
no references were checked. Indeed, many of the references are
footnoted vaguely as ‘archives’ (sic) with no other identification.
This is not acceptable scholarship at any level let alone for a
Masterate with Honours. It would not be acceptable referencing for
a first year secondary school assignment. But it is ‘sound
scholarship’ (Bing) in the NZ tertiary system.

[18] A quick phone call to the Mormon Temple would have given
Van Leeuwen the correct information, but then that would not have
accorded with his aims. Why were Veitch and Coldham-Fussell too
stupid or too lazy to question this nonsense about Mormons, even if
Bing as a political science lecturer was ignorant of the subject? How
can a religious studies tutor live in Hamilton and yet be
ignorant about such subjects, even if Veitch is too addled to
pick them up?

[19] I was in communication with several representatives of the LDS

Church in the USA and Australia and they were very concerned
about this misrepresentation of their religion, but seemed too
intimidated to take up the matter, one stating that it is sometimes
best ‘not to put one’s hand into the hive’. Why should such fraud
be maintained behind a shield of bullying, threats, lies and
smear-mongering? How is that serving scholarship or
maintaining the quality of education?
No independent enquiry or reports

[20] When Bing went whining about Dr Joel Hayward of Massey

University and the Waikato University student Hans Kupka, outside
enquiries were initiated and they produced publicly available,
bulky reports detailing these enquiries, which included all of the
documentation. Nothing of the type was ever undertaken with the
complaints of Mr Wilson and myself. After my complaint to the
Ombudsman I eventually got a report of several pages from Mr
Crawford that vaguely outlined the supposed enquiry into University
procedure. It means nothing. It reads like a form letter with no
specifics. Nothing is said in the report about Bing’s antics, the
threats of Sharn Rigg and the TEU, nor about the findings of Ms Spry
who received all the documentation filed by Mr Wilson and myself.
Additionally, Dr Sutton, head of the enquiry, reportedly
made a comment that the thesis should be ‘downgraded’,
and this when he didn’t even read the hundreds of pages of
documentation of Mr Wilson and myself. Clearly he saw,
even on a superficial level, that something was amiss, yet
nothing of the type is indicated in Crawford’s ‘report’. (It
should be added, moreover, that even Dr Sutton was ridiculed for
just this recommendation of ‘downgrading’). Yet Ms Wakem informs
me that Crawford has done all that he needs to from her viewpoint,
and not to bother her again.

Fraudulence in the guise of ‘academic freedom’

[21] Bing has stated that the thesis is ‘sound scholarship’ (sic) and
whines that academic freedom was under assault. This is nonsense.
It was the rationalisation for Sharn Rigg of the TEU chiming in, and
academe closing ranks to protect its self-interest. This was a
complaint about dishonesty and incompetence. In fact, on a
website on which Van Leeuwen had posted, he quipped that
the subject of the thesis was so obscure that if he runs out
of time, he can just ‘bullshit’ (sic) his way through and
nobody will know. This is what he did. This material was made
available to the enquiry before Van Leeuwen had time to take it
down. He also mirthfully commented that Bing didn’t know ‘what
the f… he was talking about’ (and I can at least concur with Van
Leeuwen on that point) and that Bing had never even read the
thesis when it was supposedly being discussed between them; and
that Coldham-Fussell was a ‘laid back hippie type’.

Education Act inoperative

[22] Under the terms of the Education Act universities are

supposed to be open to public scrutiny to assure quality. Yet there
is not even anything in place to facilitate this, and when I did
call these individuals to account, I was lied to, lied about,
threatened, the union threatened action, matters were
whitewashed, stonewalled…

[23] Anne Tolley states that the Government cannot get involved.
Universities are public institutions funded by the taxpayer, and the
taxpayer subsidizes the likes of Van Leeuwen. The Education Act
states that the Minister is responsible for upholding the provisions of
the Act. Unless action is taken at governmental level, these
characters will get away with the practices that I feel are
detrimental of public education. According to the findings of the
enquiry into the complaint of Bing et al against Dr Joel Hayward –
which was unjustified in this instance – a university can revoke a
degree on the grounds of dishonesty. Van Leeuwen has been
dishonest, I believe, and those associated with the degree have in
my view shown themselves to be inept at best. Yet there is no
public recourse to deal with such matters, despite the
rhetoric of the Act. Meanwhile Crawford touts his University to
potential students from overseas as being concerned about
academic excellence. Humbug. Crawford is, I feel, in breach of the
Fair Trading Act, yet the Commerce Commission advises that,
although I seem to have justifiable concerns, I should take the
matter up as a private legal action, seemingly oblivious to the far-
reaching implications this matter has on education. Again I struck a
dead-end.

Finger pointing?

[24] When I made enquiries with Victoria University as to Jim

Veitch’s competence as a supposedly ‘eminent scholar’ whom I
think I can show had blundered in regard to his review of the thesis,
I was told that it is up to Waikato University, and specifically to
Crawford, to accept or reject the outside examiners’
recommendations.

[25] On the other hand, Crawford claims that he is obliged to accept

the recommendations of the outside examiners. This is the type of
garbage that I have had to deal with for almost three years.

[26] I hope that you can be of some assistance, as my avenues have

become exhausted. Tertiary education in at least several
universities in several departments is operating in a dysfunctional
manner to the public detriment. Alternatively, can you please
explain to me why this pack should get away with their
shenanigans?

Sincerely
K R Bolton