CORRUPTING HIGHER EDUCATION

In the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, corruption is defined as “dishonest or illegal behaviour”. To be corrupt means “willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain”. Willingness means to act in defence of dishonest behaviour. The desire for personal gain can be fed by jealousies or animosity towards another, which is in and of itself wrong, but corrupt behaviour would be considered to be a character flaw.

A normal assumption to make, when a student is accepted into a doctoral program, is that the school is committed to training students to become career academics. Naturally, the training would involve directing the PhD thesis at each stage of the program towards meeting the standards of the university so that the student advances towards candidacy. The incentive for universities to ensure students succeed through the PhD program is to prove their training capacities, which is evidenced by students’ publications once they have achieved the status of academic.

The assumption that the academic training institutions will respect and create a positive and productive learning environment is normal if not mandated. The Auckland University student charter makes known that it has “a special responsibility to foster and preserve scholarly values; support the search for truth and curiosity-led investigation; maintain intellectual integrity; encourage critical appraisal; and to nurture these values in their students” (1.1). The Charter further acknowledges that it holds the university accountable for “providing (sic) an academic environment in which students can be stimulated to reach a high level of intellectual attainment” (2.5) These standards have not been fulfilled with respect to my case. Rather, the feedback on my written work has ranged from suggesting that I write to the level of a 12 year old in light of the complexity of resilience theory to adding extraneous information to the research proposal that is better left expounded in the literature review chapter, to failing to understand the manageability of my research. Doing field observations of the food systems to two composite cities (small ones), coupled with collecting survey and interview data, over a period of six to eight months is more than manageable, and is certainly do-able. In addition, I have been discouraged from using resilience theory in my study rather than being encouraged and supporting my research interest in resilient food systems even after I had explained the importance of this study and the need to it in Bukidnon Province, an agricultural centre of the Philippines.

The lack of encouragement has been made worse by the veiled threats of failure in my provisional year despite the progress I have made in my thesis. As I told one supervisor, I have exceeded the minimal requirements (the literature review and a full research proposal) in the provisional year. My achievements have included these two milestones as well as the background and methodology chapters, and survey and interview questions. I have also developed my itinerary for my fieldwork as well as the table of contents, complete with summaries about the content of the remaining chapters. Essentially, I have completed almost fifty percent of my PhD thesis; the remaining chapters can be written only after I complete the fieldwork. This second stage of my thesis, primary data collection, meets the originality requirement expected of all PhD theses. As so, the fieldwork becomes inevitable and cannot be avoided. My doctorate work (under "Camille Tuason Mata's Projects") speaks for itself.

In a phone call, upon learning about my situation, one European professor opined that “they (my committee, possibly the university) are taking advantage of you”. Another professor, from Canada, upon hearing my concerns regarding the conduct of key university personnel, expressed the view that they were bullying me. I concur with him. One committee member displayed a lack of confidence in my ability to do the fieldwork, who expressed in August (2013) that he will not release me for the fieldwork if I was not clear on the methodology and research objective. Since he made that statement to me, I have made both clear and have elucidated both in the research proposal, but I still have not been cleared for the fieldwork. Yet, the Student Charter makes explicit the importance of “providing (sic) an environment free from harassment and discrimination, consistent with the Human Rights Act 1993 and University’s Harassment Policy” (2.10).

As anyone interested in succeeding in the provisional year would do, especially in light of the expensive costs of studying, I approached the student advocacy office. Apart from the e-mail from one advocate informing me of the breaches in policy of one supervisor’s attitude, I have not been aided adequately. I have requested new supervisors, but the graduate centre has ignored these requests. I have also sought help from entities outside of the university, such as the different Citizens Advice Bureaus, and contacted attorney offices that can refer me to lawyers, who can advise me properly. I have spent time seeking out legal advice because the entities at Auckland responsible for ensuring that student rights are respected and “endeavour to act in the best interests of students through wide consultation” (3.1), but with little help in referring me to anyone who may know education law. I have not had a lot of success either from the Head of School, who has not acted in the interest of my academic success.

What is the incentive to create obstacles for me? Returning to the Oxford Dictionary, corrupt conduct for personal gain can also be fuelled by racist sentiments towards a group or individual perceived as not belonging, and can manifest in the misuse or abuse of power. One legal advisor at one of the Citizens Advice Bureaus even informed me that retaliation may be part of the system. Failing to hold systems accountable for corrupt behaviour can acculturate corruption into social systems, making it a normal feature of everyday operations. This appears to be the situation at Auckland, evidenced in the circuitousness and sluggishness of the pace of feedback, and the failure to give me the proper representation and advocacy I need.