Newsletter

January 2011

Manitoba – PhD ‘Diploma Mill’

Carson Jerema

October 28, 2010

Prof suspended after taking
university to court over waiving academic requirements for doctoral student

Earlier this month Gabor Lukacs received two letters from University of Manitoba
president David Barnard. One invited the assistant professor of mathematics to a
dinner in acknowledgement of his teaching excellence award. The other informed
him that he was being suspended without pay.

Lukacs is accused of violating the university’s privacy regulations with respect
to the identity of a PhD student who had been asked to withdraw from the program
after twice failing a comprehensive exam. The student later successfully
appealed that decision to the Dean of Graduate Studies, John Doering, who, in
fall 2009, waived the requirement that the student take the exam at all. The
student is said to suffer from “extreme exam anxiety.”

After months of attempting to use university channels to have Doering’s decision
reversed, Lukacs filed an application in late September at Manitoba Court of
Queen’s Bench. The application calls for Doering’s decision to be quashed and
for an affirmation that the dean had no authority to resolve the issue without
consulting an appeal committee of academics. Lukacs alleges that Doering
violated Faculty of Graduate Studies regulations and the University of
Manitoba Act.

Although the student’s identity was included in Lukacs original court
application, at a hearing Thursday morning a judge ordered a publication ban on
the name.

When outlining the reasons for Lukacs’ suspension, Barnard cites the court
application directly in his letter, a copy of which has been obtained by
Maclean’s. “These documents include unauthorized reference to a student’s
personal and personal health information,” Barnard wrote. The university
president calls Lukacs “insubordinate” and further accuses him of “having
engaged in a pattern of behaviour with regard to [the] student which the
university considers to be harassment.”

Several people contacted for this story, including Dean Doering and certain
professors in the Department of Mathematics, either declined to speak to the
matter, did not respond to a request to be interviewed, or redirected
Maclean’s to the university’s Director of Public Affairs, John Danakas.
Danakas declined to speak to the specifics of the case, citing “personnel” and
“privacy” issues, but agreed to address university policy in general terms.

In
a written response, Danakas stated that all university employees are bound by
the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the
Personal Health Information Act. “In general personal information about a
student, with or without the name attached, may only be disclosed to other
university employees who absolutely need to know the information for the
purposes of performing other duties,” he wrote.

As
for the powers of the dean, Danakas stated that “It is university practice to
attempt to resolve appeals at the lowest possible level. This could include a
dean achieving an informal resolution with a student after a broad
consultation.”

Lukacs,
who says he did not meet the student in person until he served the student with
court papers, says he is motivated by a desire to protect academic standards. “I
have a personal interest in protecting the integrity of the PhD program in
Mathematics, because it affects my reputation whether I am a member of a
respectable department or a diploma-mill,” he stated via email.

When
asked to respond to allegations that he violated the student’s privacy, Lukacs
defended himself: “The right for privacy cannot trump the need for review of
decisions made without jurisdiction, or decisions that are patently
unreasonable.”

According to emails and other documents included with an affidavit filed by
Lukacs, the dispute began in March 2009 when the student failed for the second
time a comprehensive exam in analysis. Under regulations outlined by the Faculty
of Graduate Studies the student was required to withdraw from the PhD program.

In
July, after an unsuccessful appeal to an associate dean, the student appealed
the withdrawal to Dean Doering on the basis of suffering from “extreme exam
anxiety.” Doering reinstated the student and requested that the Graduate Studies
Committee in the Department of Mathematics devise an alternate examination
option.

The
committee, after consulting with disability services, agreed to allow the
student to retake the exam with more time and relaxed conditions.

In
late August 2009, Doering rejected that proposal and requested that the student
be given an oral exam. When the graduate studies committee did not agree to
those terms, Doering waived the exam requirement altogether.

Lukacs first became involved with the case in October 2009, after he was elected
to replace a member of the graduate studies committee who had resigned,
allegedly in protest of the dean’s decision.

Lukacs was briefed on the case and was informed that the department was awaiting
written confirmation from Doering that the exam requirement was indeed waived
for the student. Lukacs then took it upon himself to investigate the matter
further and, in an email dated October 30 2009, requested that Doering affirm
his decision.

Lukacs also challenged the dean’s authority to settle academic appeals, writing:
“my understanding is that the Dean has no jurisdiction to determine academic
appeals at all—that power is reserved for the Appeal Committee of the [Faculty
of Graduate Studies].”

In
an email response, a copy of which has been filed in court, Doering confirmed
that he waived the exam requirement and disputed the claim that he did not have
the authority to do so. “I heard that appeal and rendered a decision, i.e., I
reinstated the student and waived any requirement to sit another comprehensive
exam,” the dean wrote. “Moreover, I would note many of the things a dean can do
are not written down.”

When Lukacs persisted, Doering referred him to the university’s legal counsel,
who affirmed the assertion that the dean acted within his powers. Lukacs
subsequently contacted the university secretary, as well as the vice-president
academic. Each time he was told either that Doering acted correctly or was
referred elsewhere.

On
December 2, 2009, Lukacs called a meeting of the mathematics department council
to discuss taking the case directly to the university’s senate. In the notice
sent to the department, some details of the case were revealed but the student’s
name was not given.

As
a result, Mark Whitmore, Dean of the Faculty of Science reprimanded Lukacs,
arguing that “this disclosure has exposed the university to a potential
complaint by the student” in relation to a breach of “privacy.” Lukacs was
advised to consider the matter closed and warned that further disciplinary
action could be taken.

Several faculty members of the math department signed a letter in protest of the
reprimand.

One
of those colleagues was George Gratzer, a distinguished professor of mathematics
who told Maclean’s that while a dean has authority to decide if a
student appeal has merit and may try to mediate a resolution, an appeal
committee of academics has to be called if conciliation is not possible. “In
this case the dean decides he had powers not written down, and that counter the
published regulations of the faculty of graduate studies,” Gratzer said. “This
strikes me as something as incredibly inappropriate.” Gratzer has filed his own
affidavit in court in support of Lukacs. On two separate occasions Lukacs
requested the senate’s own appeal committee hear the case, and both times was
told that the case was outside the senate committee’s jurisdiction.

It
was after his second appeal to the senate was denied that Lukacs filed his court
application. In addition to arguing that Doering acted outside of his authority,
the application also alleges that the student “abused” the appeal process by
waiting until twice failing an exam before claiming exam anxiety.

Additionally in August of this year, it was discovered that the student was
short one course to complete the doctoral program. Doering decided to allow the
student, who was scheduled to graduate this month, to elevate a fourth-year
course to the level of a graduate course. Lukacs is also applying for that
decision to be reversed.

A
court hearing is scheduled for Nov 30, and counsel for the University of
Manitoba will file notice that it will contest the case by Nov 5.

Lukacs is grieving his suspension through the faculty union and his students
have circulated a petition advocating his reinstatement.

MacLean’s, October 28, 2010.