University Affairs

The darkness of Lulea

Lulea University of Technology is a dark and violent place, according to these victim accounts. Bullying, blackmail, sexual nepotism, robbery and even threats of physical violence and suicide are not unheard of. LTU leadership seems to be part of the problem, and money plays a role.

Luleå University of Technology (LTU) is located in the far north of Sweden, near the Arctic Circle. Light is sparse there, and so is apparently basic human decency. Winters are long, dark and cold, maybe this is what drives some LTU academics to behave like psychopaths. The following story happened at the Department of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics. All names are known to me, I spoke with victims and witnesses, and received a number of documents. The rector Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn and other LTU leaders never replied to my officially delivered emails, which suggests they do not dispute the events described below.

A female associate professor S was coerced under threat of sacking into producing research papers for the PhD student B whom she was supervising. That student was namely having a somewhat violent sexual relationship with the Department’s Chair, Professor W. The student B was allegedly utterly incapable of contributing anything to her own research publications, but she did expect W to give her a faculty job at LTU once she graduates. When S announced to quit slaving for W and B, she was bullied, stripped of her position as thesis supervisor, and then sacked. Two more faculty members were forced to resign, while W has been assigned the supervision of his own lover.

The abuse was supported by the Department’s prefect Elisabet Kassfeldt, who did nothing to help the victims, but apparently a lot to assist the perpetrators.


Here is Dr S’ own summary of the scandal, from the complaint documents I obtained, and which are available in various versions to LTU:

  • “In 2016, Professor W employed a young woman B from Russia, by arranging
    three years contract for her as PhD student, without announcing an open position, i.e. with violation of the recruitment rules. Directly after getting the contract she really became his lover.
  • In 2018, in order to arrange the extension of this lover’s job placement on the department, W supported by the prefect, intensified his policies aimed at worsening conditions for a specially selected group of people, effectively and cynically forcing them to resign from their positions.
  • In order to guarantee that his lover B will get Ph. Degree, W, in fact, exploited me to produce research papers for his lover B. After I had spent a lot of my private time and energy to produce enough papers and teach B to understand what was done in the papers, the couple W-B started to pressure me with respect to the study plan of B, in order that I continue to produce more papers for them.
  • After I had pronounced that I will not work anymore as their “slave” in this way, I was cynically punished. Prefect of the department, influenced by the couple W-B, replaced me with W and another colleague as supervisors for B. All new supervisors are not experts at all in the topics of the papers done by me for B, but W wanted to have those papers included into B’s thesis under their “supervision”.
  • After such blatantly cynical actions against me, I expressed my protest but it was ignored as being a protest, and I was “welcomed” to resign from my employment at LTU.”

It all does sound bizarre and incredible, this was why I contacted some witnesses, who confirmed me that this was exactly what happened. A former colleague, a distinguished 74 year old mathematics professor, describes S in this way:

“[She] is without hesitation an excellent researcher in mathematics and absolutely one of the best female professors Sweden ever have recruited. So it is especially painful that she feels so humiliated and mobbed that she even has been forced to leave her permanent professor position. In my opinion, this is very tragic, not acceptable and a shame for those who are responsible for it.”

This colleague was next to S the second co-supervisor of B (and another victim of B’s bullying), until they both were removed as B’s supervisors by the Prefect Kassfeldt’s decree. It all happened because at some point S had enough of being a paper-writing “slave” for W and his girlfriend. S wrote:

“The situation radically changed for me after B got the employment at the department.
She started to show lack of interest to work, B and W spent a lot of time together, but I felt forced to work for her to produce papers. Thus, having done full time teaching, I worked a lot all evenings, weekends and vacations to get new scientific results and then working with her.
At that time I had no courage to protest, because W threatened that I would be first to be fired, because the department had budget problems. I had to keep it always in mind. I heard also from B that I kept my position due to her. Moreover, emphasizing on her power over Chief, she suggested me a support if I need something from him. I was surprised by such her bragging about intimacy with Chief and influence over him.
I have to concern the questions of their love relationship because these have had a significant impact on the working conditions for me.

They often quarrelled, B often complained that W disturbed her, coming to her whenever he wanted, having key to her apartment, but she could not reject him because she had salary due to him. On the other hand, W complained that she demanded too much from him, for instance, position at the department after her PhD defence.
As I remember, their first heavy conflict was in spring 2017, and he asked me to produce the last papers of planned papers for her thesis, as soon as possible. So I did it.

According to W himself, in August 2017, he and B had such heavy quarrel that she even frightened him with a knife. After that W asked me and another supervisor to hasten the work on her thesis so that she would be ready for PhD defence as soon as possible, maybe in the spring 2018. Then in January-February they had a heavy quarrel again, and W asked us to go to her home because she had frightened him that she will suicide that night. He told that he wanted to help her to defend PhD as soon as possible and asked us to do everything in order that her defence would be held in June 2018.

Depending on state of their relations, i.e. quarrel or “honey moon” W either asked us to hasten with her defence or wanted to delay. She had a complete freedom to do what she wanted, to travel, to cancel planned course, sometimes he travelled to her to Russia or they travelled together, while I had to produce papers for her thesis.”

The knife accident was confirmed by other witnesses who also heard of the story, but it had no consequences whatsoever at the university. S meanwhile was blackmailed into writing papers for B so Professor W’s lover can graduate and join the LTU faculty:

“I had to write articles for her. I had to work all evenings, weekends, holidays and vacation time. I worked to get more and more new scientific results, and then worked with her to teach her to understand what I had done. So, having failed to make an article during 4 years of PhD study in Russia, B became co-author for, in fact, my 6 articles during 2 years. All the work was done by me, she only studied what I did, and according to my recommendations she did some straightforward calculations forher own practice with my help.
The natural question – why I did it? It is well known that the department had problems with the budget. W, Chief of Department, always reminded me that I will be first to lose job, since I was last employed. So I had always to keep this in mind.
I heard many times from this PhD student that I keep my position only due to her and so I must be grateful to her.”

Document proving that Prof W the one who recruited B as his PhD student.

Professor W was apparently a bit inconsistent about the work morale at his department. While he expected from some people (like S) to be in the office from 8:30 till 16:30, he himself allegedly “often spent the “working office hours” with his lover B mostly at her apartment or skiing or somewhere else”. In May 2017, W and B visited Russia, in Rostov they stayed in the small one-bedroom flat with B’s mother. Emails from that time clearly show a vacationing couple, with W enjoying B’s mom’s hospitality with beer and traditional Russian “shashlik” barbecue.

Up until June 2018, all emails B sent to S were grateful and happy. The situation only changed when S decided to quit writing papers for B, after having delivered six, with a seventh in the making. After the associate professor complained to her Department’s Prefect about the situation, Kassfeldt initially announced to interfere and to separate the love relationship from the academic affairs, on 2 July 2018:

“My advice to W is to end his engagement as co-supervisor. I will also try to encourage him to tell B that she can receive professional support to help her in her stressful situation”

But then, things went into another direction, and it was S who was removed as B’s supervisor:

“On 2018-08-28, at 1 pm, Prefect informed me that I am withdrawn as supervisor for this PhD student. Prefect decided that W will be supervisor for B”.

Part of B’s signed official request for change of supervisor. S is removed, W is officially new supervisor of his lover, with LTU’s blessing. According to LTU registrar, no other records, e.g. complaints or requests by B, exist in this regard.

S compiled a protest letter to the department’s prefect, in Swedish, with the help of a translator. She wrote “I cannot work at the department if there are accepted such “feudal-type rules”, but the letter was officially interpreted as resignation from the employment, and S was sacked. Even if she never intended to resign and even sent the next day a new letter, which was simply ignored:

“I asked to annul my letter from 2018-08-28 as written in state of affect and not reflected my real will which was only my protest but not resignation.

I didn’t get any answer from the prefect on my letter of 2018-08-29. The secretary of the prefect confirmed that she delivered my letter to the prefect. Then I sent this letter to University registrator on 2018-09-03. I didn’t get any answer for these my letters. So I didn’t know whether I had my position or not. Finally, I asked Chef HR about my case and he told that I have to leave the university in two months. I didn’t get any document.”

After W succeeded to sack the associate professor S because she refused to work for him and his lover, two more faculty members were forced to resign. This was rather convenient in another respect, as S speculates:

“He needed to fire more people in order to employ B by some cunning way without a fair competition, as I guess, since her three years contract is to summer of 2019.
Inspired by the success in the “victory” over me, W as I can guess started a game to dismiss [the married couple E]. The game consists of an idea to announce a large budget deficit and the need to fire two employees.”

The husband of the E couple who resigned confirmed to me that S described the situation correctly:

“My wife and I have worked at Lulea University of Technology for almost 23 years and we have had many problems there. But the recent events were just too much for us and we could not justify any longer our continuation at this university. The reason that we have stayed so long is mainly due to our children’s school education and because there always was some hope that things could get better. But when we witnessed what was happening to [S] and saw the way that she was treated by [W and the Prefect] in August 2018, my wife and I realized that it was time to quit. The lying and the corruption in this department is just off any scale. We are not willing to work for a university that allows, and even encourages, a Prefekt to rule in this way.”

As it seems, also the couple E were already slotted for forced removal by the Department Prefect, to free up funds. Kassfeldt namely wrote this in a protocol from 18.12.2018, announcing the resignations of E:

” That means the financial situation will change to forecast 1. Negotiations on personnel cuts will not happen.”

A paper with B’s authorship was accepted by Springer in August 2018. But this time, S protested to the publisher that B had “zero contribution” to that study. B was asked by Springer to explain what she thinks she contributed, the student however struggled there and received some help:

“the response to Springer was made not by B, but instead of her, the prefect and the ex-Chair of the faculty board sent their written support for a role of B in the authorship of the article in question, although they were not aware at all of how and when the paper was done.”

The paper was never published. B is still listed as PhD student of LTU. With 3 faculty members removed, there is now enough budget  available for W to employ his knife-wielding lover as assistant professor, should she ever graduate thanks to the papers which S wrote.

B’s employment was supposed to end on 30 June 2019 the latest, according to her recruitment letter above. But she apparently proved herself the best PhD student W ever had, and this is why LTU gave her a new contract as “Doktorand”, employed full-time till 31.12.2020.

The initial version of this article contained a second case of alleged bullying at same department at LTU. However, reader pointed out that a key fact about the fellowship’s nature was wrong, while the credibility of the source became highly questionable for a number of other reasons.

The article was updated on 12.08 and on 28.08.2019 with some additional quotes and a document.

Update 14.08.2019

After many days of total silence, a reply arrived from LTU rector, Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn. Note that the rector does not deny the sexual relationship between W and B, or any other events described, or that LTU faculty members are presently commenting under this article as Robin, Ken or PEL, but declares this:

“We have received your emails between 2019-07-17 and 2019-08-05. If bias arises and is established in a PhD and supervisor relationship the supervisor is replaced. In accordance with the University’s guidelines for dealing with scientific dishonesty, an initial investigation was made by three separate groups (the department, the faculty and the juridical team). They found no ground to proceed with a full investigation. The employee in question resigned, on own initiative, in writing with a signed document August 28, 2018. The prefect granted the notice on the same day.”

Update 21.08.2019

Did the rector make things up? The registrar of LTU, Doris Björnfot, namely declared to me when I requested the 3 investigation reports:

“There are no such documents as requested”

If there are no records of the investigation, it means these never took place. Hence, either the LTU rector knowingly misled the public via a false statement to a journalist, or her university has destroyed all records. Which would be a serious crime under Swedish law, and in fact more evidence points towards it. On 12 September 2018, S was namely interrogated by the head of LTU’s legal department, Jenny Blom. Afterwards, certain university employees started to spread rumours about S that

“there is one story which has prison on the scale of punishment, which the juridical people on university discouraged to report since it could imply that the situation could be aggravated”.

When I requested the record of that meeting from LTU registrar, Björnfot replied with:

” There are no such documents as requested. “

Update 3.09.2019

On 28.08.2019, I requested from LTU registrar “the most recent original work contract of B”. The following document was shared with me the next day, you might notice that it bears the date of 29.08.2019. When I asked LTU to explain, they admitted today that this is indeed the date the employment was officially registered, retrospectively from 1.08.2019. LTU also admitted that no other documents relating to B’s employment at LTU exist sicne her original recruitment as 3-year student in 2016, and certainly no other work contracts.

Update 26.09.2019

Suddenly the mathematics faculty has funds to recruit two new “University Lecturer[s] in Mathematics”, for full-time employment. Pay attention who is in charge on the screenshot below. A PhD is not necessary (eg, this lecturer doesn’t have a PhD and is actually elsewhere listed as student):

“A special qualification is a master’s degree with a specialization in mathematics, mathematical statistics or equivalent. The assessment is made with regard to scientific and pedagogical skills in the subject of mathematics. Particular merit is the doctoral degree and experience in teaching within the subject.”

Incidentally, the student Ms B is already doing the teaching at LTU. Do you think she has a chance with this highly competitive job posting?


If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!


87 comments on “The darkness of Lulea

  1. Hot Russian chick given extra benefits by powerful men in a research institute? Happens here in America as well. Expand that to any very attractive (usually) young woman that finds a good position in academia that is outside of tenure track. That is my opinion, at least. eats popcorn waiting to be accused of being a sexist

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It should be noted that Prof. S shares the same address as the “esteemed retired mathematician” called as witness. Also the professor couple who resigned, did so for completely different reason. True that they were unhappy with some changes, but this story had nothing to do with it. The deptatment has struggled financially for some time, and some were less interested than others in changing the way they work.


    • I also am aware about the situation, I visited the “esteemed retired mathematician” among other his PhD students, colleagues and visitors. His home was open for colleagues and many PhD students including B were happy to live there. Prof. S lives in another European country, so in such situations after living in Sweden, it is natural to use post address of a colleague via c/o.
      “The department has struggled financially for some time” – of course such financial problems inevitably happened when Chair W offered, violating rules, i.e. having no an open position and funds, a PhD position to a young female.

      ???: “but this story had nothing to do with it”

      This story is about the “corruption” and “feudal rules” in LTU.


    • Dear “Robin”, let me sum up.
      You admit you know everyone personally and describe Ms B as ” a very pretty young woman” even if you say there are indeed no pictures of her online.
      You also hide your IP address.
      Now, what were you, Prof W, doing in a small two-room flat of B’s mom in Rostov, in May 2017, staying with B in same bedroom?
      Stop trolling and hiding your identity. Can’t man up outside B’s bedroom, mate?


      • Whatever is going on at LTU, your article and comments are reaching prime yellow press niveau. Congratulations! That is surely going to help any objective account of the incidents. \sarcasmoff

        ps. as a self-acclaimed “science journalist”, what about getting some basic facts straight?
        like “Light is sparse there” – well, no it isn’t. Total yearly daylight times (incl cicil twilight) are longer than those of locations at lower latitudes. It’s just more unequally distributed.
        and like “Winters are long, dark and cold, maybe this is what drives some LTU academics to behave like psychopaths.” – psychopaths make up around 1% of the general population. A single case hardly proves that this number is increased in LTU academics (over the probably higher rate in general academics) or in people living at higher latitudes in general.


      • A personal question: Why you insist that YOU (Leonid Schneider) are ALWAYS right? I mean you are just a human like anybody else in this world, so you could be sometimes right and sometimes wrong. So, again, why?!

        About calling “Robin” a troll because he/she hides his/her identity from you: It’s really complicated, but from the general concept in your blog, I would say: you say the anonymous whistle-blowing is a necessary part of science integrity. Yes? or No? I assume your answer is Yes here. So, if the hiding identity for these regular contributors in your website as: Zebedee, Smut Clyde, TigerBBB or others is just protecting their personal life from their whistle-blowing act, why you accuse “Robin” as a troll and you demand him/her to reveal his/her true identity to you? In fact, why even it matters for you? Why not knowing for example Smut Clyde’s identity does not change his/her claims about whatever paper or scientist? But, particularly, “Robin” should reveal his/her true identity to make you believe his/her claims might be true?! Look, I don’t know the “Robin” or W, B, S, or anybody else and honestly I don’t give a shit to know them. But, just answer this question really clear and without any pre-assumption about me or whoever that talk to you.

        About this post: You wrote such a detail information about B and W relationship, that I’m wondering you or S, which presumably is your source for this post, were present when B and W slept together or whatever they did, which is not my business or anybody else. These claims that are presented here cannot be verified because these are just one-side accusations. They might be true or not, but the most important thing is that you provide them to the public, and public cannot verify these claims. At least, I was not able to verify them. If it might be possible to easily verify them, please tell me how. You suppose to be a scientist or science journalist. So, you work with science. The most important thing that distinguish the scientists from assholes in church or whatever religious leaders, is that scientists just talk based on verifiable facts and bring clear evidences for their claims. So, if you think it’s your responsibility to bring the attention of public to S accusations (which I think personally it’s not your or anybody else responsibility except a neutral court), please provide solid evidences for your or S’s claims, otherwise this post is just a nonsense rant. No matter, how awful was the thing that happened to S, without any verifiable evidence nobody gives a shit to S’s accusations. I hope you answer my questions without any pre-assumptions that I’m W or B or whoever asshole you think, just answer my questions without temper.


      • Damn, I waa hoping for more of your views about why faking science to get promoted is good and right.
        But here the answer to your only reasonable question. A whistleblower by definition has to fear retaliation from those in power. Someone anonymously repeating what the power says is not a whistleblower while attacking those who dare to speak out, is a troll, or actually rather a chicken.


      • So now hiding my identity is “trolling”? I simply do not trust that you as a “journalist” would protect your sources in an adequate way. The nature of tjis case makes me want to hide, yes.

        Also, you seem to have little or no interest in getting the facts straight. I am not Prof. W. I may or may not know everyone involved. A kid could find out their identities given your “masking”, and what you published will cause a lot of harm to everyone involved, regardless of whatvreally hapenwd.

        Here are som facts (verifyable) of the case:
        1) No one was “fired”. Prof. S and the other prof. couple resigned. All of this can be checked from public records,
        2) Prof. S reigned stating mistreatment as a reason. The mistreatment being the factvthat she’d been relieved of her supervisor resonsibility. Change of supervisor is a right, by law, of PhD student, and there is nothing the prfect can do about it.
        3) The accusations came later, after the resignation in an attempt to null the resignation

        I have no idea whether or not W slept with B. It would constitute a conflict of interest and I would also agree it is inapropriate. However, another favt of the case is that Prof S. and the now retired prof were the ones listed in the proposal to hire B, with the prefect signing off on it. W did not do this, although I am sure he was OK with it.

        Your aticle comes out as a fairly one-sided account of what S has told you. The way you respond to questions doesn’t exactly strengthen your credibility as a truth seeking journalist.


      • Why don’t you write to me from your real email address, signed? We all know who you are already, just as you know everyone else. Are you afraid? Of what, and of whom? Of your own university which probably gagged you so you troll here?


      • Hi “Robin” from Lulea.
        Now, your claim “another favt of the case is that Prof S. and the now retired prof were the ones listed in the proposal to hire B, with the prefect signing off on it” is not correct.
        It was actually Prof W listed as contact person. See here:

        Prof S was indeed appointed the supervisor, along with co-supervisors Prof P and Prof W. I have these documents also. You know what else I have? Emails from B to S from 2016 up to June 2018 where she sounds very grateful and happy to have S as her supervisor. Definitely NOT as a student who is desperate to get rid of her supervisor.
        Ask B if I can share those, then I can provide some quotes, in Russian original.


      • I don’t see how “Robin” repeats the things that “power” says? Who is this fucking “power”? W? B? I see “Robin”‘s comments as putting some responsibilities on both sides. I don’t use my true identity here either and I’m not a whistleblower, cause it’s not just about fearing from retaliation. I mean I don’t want to put my true name here or anywhere else cause even if it is not about me, but it would reflect pretty bad on me in the future cause this blog and any other websites similar to this blog is god damn hated among scientists, which is unbelievable.


      • Repeating what Power says, huh?

        In your text, you state that LTU did not respond to your email(s), so how would you know what “Power” claims?

        I don’t. But I see plenty of problems with the allegations you make and I have pointed to some easily verifiable facts and also ask you to provide support for your claims.

        Your response is to accuse me of all sorts of things and accusing ME of trolling.

        Seriously, the way you respond to me should make everyone doubt pretty much everything you have ever written.

        For the record, I am none of those involved, but I know a bit about the problems at the department.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Again, your (lack of) background checking and understanding of LTU suggests you’re not really interested in the truth here….

        1) W is the head of division and as such the one in “the line” responsible for all personnel in the mathematics group. Of course he is the point of contact once the prefect has hired B.

        2) There is bo dispute regarding B’s satisfaction with S, up until som point before the change of supervisors.

        There are (at least) two more documents you should have a look at

        1) Application of admittance to third cycle studies, submitted by S and ret. P prior to the acceptance letter you posted.

        2) All students have an individual study plan. The latest version has some information relevant to the case.

        But then again, you probably don’t care.

        No, I can not ask B about anything because I have no contact with her and honestly I don’t know her that well. For all I know she might be crazy and manipulative as hell. I don’t care. What I care about is that your “scoop” is a onesided rewrite of rhe words of a disgruntled employee who can no longer take credit for supervision of B.


      • Good, so you agree W recruited B, and that B was very happy with S as her supervisor until summer 2018. What happened then? Right, S announced to stop being a “slave” for B and W and to stop writing B’s papers. Hence new study plan, new supervisors etc.
        If you have any documents you want me to see, send them over. Otherwise: Do you notice that your claims are being debunked one by one?
        And no need to hide your IP now, unless you are sitting at LTU work computer?


      • Hooray Leonid! That’s the thing I wanted to see. If you have these evidences, why you just don’t put them here?


      • I don’t knwo who recruited B. The document I am referring to mentions only S, prof. em. P and the authorized signatures (by appointment of the prefect). It could be W who did the initial recruiting, I do not know, but this is not what I said, and it is not what rhe documents said.

        You are the so called independent journalist making claims, you request the documents yourself. If S is unwilling to procvde them, email While at it, you may want to ask if there is any documentation of the recruitment (like an ad, a prior scholarship or a collaboration agreement with another university)

        I do not want to leave a “paper trail”. not here, and not at LTU.

        You try to make this a case of someone recruiting a girlfriend, then firing people “in the way”. I dont know about the recruitment, but when it comes to the rest, you have not proven anything. What it appears to be about to me is one (associate) professor S resigninh in anger because she can no longer take credit for a PhD she supervised. As much as she did supervise and was indeed repsected, somethng apparently happened late 2018. I do not know what and you dont seem to care.

        What claims have I mad and whar have you debunked? I pointed you towards documents preceding the (only) document you posted, which by the way os the standard fprmulation, sent to everyone. The head of department and the closest reposible manager are mentioned. In this case it happens to be W.

        Have you even tried to critically assess the story served to you by S? You claim P as witness (who, by the way is no stranger of power games) and two former profs who complained for years about pretty much everyhthing that meant they couldnt spend their time doing “free, pure mathematical research”.

        When it comes to serious allegations like the ones you make, the burden of proof is on you. I have been trying to highlight gaps in the story, but apparently you are not interested. Not hearing both sides of a story is just shitty journalism.

        Over and out!


      • Thank you for announcing to quit commenting, “Robin”, it was getting bothersome.
        For others, an explanation how journalists obtain information. They get info from either documents, or institutional statements, or named sources (whom they then keep confidential).
        No sane journalist takes information from some utterly anonymous source who is most obviously directly involved and spews open hatred against the whistle-blowers, and most importantly, who refuses to support their claims by objective evidence.
        So far LTU remained utterly silent, all my emails go unanswered (even if I update them about these comments), and yet we already have two different faculty members posting anonymous comments discrediting whistleblowers. I am tempted to believe this happens in agreement with the LTU leadership, because the alternative explanation would be that they all are too drunk to notice what is going on.


  3. Rex Rictor

    @Robin “Also the professor couple who resigned, did so for completely different reason.”

    BS: This is how ‘its done’ they always make up ‘another reason’ for the press release/public. Thats just confirmation of the cover up and what is exposed. I have seen this 10s of times.


    • Well, no. The university has, as far as I am aware of, not responded to any request for comments, which Mr. Schneider interprets as confirmation of the story. An assumption I think is wrong to make.

      The financial problems started years ago, and Chair W. has tried several things, among other things, trying to have the teachers/researchers approach more applied research groups in attempts to participate in other externally funded projects. This is apparently not considered “fine enough” for some. I would not so far as to call it bullying.

      As of the recruitment of Ms. B, I have no insight, but I know for sure the financial problems are not due to one or more PHD students being recruited.

      I call BS on the whole deal. It smells of dsgruntled former employeea trying to get revenge.


      • Robin: “As of the recruitment of Ms. B, I have no insight, but I know for sure the financial problems are not due to one or more PHD students being recruited” – interesting interpretation.

        There are rules for recruitment, which must be followed. According to the Swedish rules there must be open position and the best of applicants should get it. The employing of B was an act of heavy corruption since it was done without opening position and without any competition. Moreover, it was aggravated by the fact that B directly became a lover for Chair W.

        “Chair W. has tried several things … more applied research groups …” – this is not truth.

        Chair W. is known as one who put his name as a co-author in a number of papers in PURE math, where he did nothing and knows nothing. He also is known as one who put his name as the main supervisor for a number of PhD theses in PURE math, where he did not understand anything. Last PhD students even withdrew from LTU, in protest.


      • Rex Rictor

        @Robin: Again, in Scandinavia there is a tendency to expect people to conform and if they don’t they need to be dismissed. Almost always this ‘conformity’ does not follow scientific excellence rather mediocracy. Thus it may well be the disgruntled employe have a reason to be disgruntled, maybe the dark place is a shithole of a place and the institute director a bastard using passive aggressiveness to get rid of people who don’t conform. I have to say it sounds like you are part of the system and part of the problem, which is why you can’t see this from ‘outside’.

        I can tell you we are some who will hunt this kind of shit down, its a disease and attack on SCIENCE itself which will not be tolerated. These people must be brought to justice on the alter of TRUTH and FACTS. Amen! 🙂


  4. I dug around the internet and I think Ive identified the major players. What is interesting to me is that B and S are authors on several papers with B first, S last, in sort of the standard apprentice- master relationship (and order) on the paper. I think its pretty common for a first author to have little intellectual contribution to a paper (at least in the natural sciences) if they are doing the experiments. Maybe its different in math. Of course, the only thing was pretty sordid and it is outrageous what happened to the faculty involved. Chalk another one up to male testosterone and young attractive women from exotic lands.


  5. LiU and LTU are rotten !

    I had some fun investigating the actual names of B, W and S. To my disappointment I could not find pictures of B, to confirm whether she is a Bimbo or not… sigh…


    • I looked too! I Couldn’t find anything…

      In my opinion, at my institution, if some gets a tenure track position outside of the regular national search and due to knowing someone powerful and not having a great publication record, its usually a very attractive woman. Maybe different in other places, of course…


  6. You have not searched well enough, my friend


    • LiU and LTU are rotten !

      Enlighten us then ! 🙂


      • I also faild in finding a picture online, but I can confirm she is a very pretty young woman, not that it has anything to do with what is being discussed here. We should be above that!


      • Right, now you can stop hiding your IP address. And best regards to B.


  7. Also, is there any evidence supporting that the recruitment of Ms B was in violation of the regulations? I know Prof. S. claims it, but how have you verified it?


  8. Mr. Schneider, just out of curiosity, how have you verified that Ms. B and Chair W. even have or have had a relationship, other than a professional?

    Prof. S. is the one making allegations. Your witness, prof. P, is an old friend of prof. S.

    Is the absence of response from the rector your “evidence”?

    Making such serious allegations about corruption and overall inappropriate behaviour, you need to provides some independent sources that can verify these claims.

    Who gains by what you published? What is the motive?


  9. A more general comment: I don’t understand why you changed the names to W, B, S, or whoever asshole here to for example not reveal their identity directly!? I mean just a 5 years old kid that learned how to use Google, could find who is W, B, S just based on the university name and their mathematics department.

    I’m just asking this cause it just made me laugh: “[She] is without hesitation an excellent researcher in mathematics and absolutely one of the best female professors Sweden ever have recruited.” Why an excellent researcher in mathematics and absolutely one of the best female professors in Sweden was so afraid of losing her job that accepted to work as a slave, days and nights, week days and weekends… I’m not a professor or anything else but personally, I would not even work for my mom days and nights, week days and weekends, no matter if I lose that shitty job or not. At least, S, the excellent researcher in mathematics and absolutely one of the best female professor in Sweden, could searching for a plan B or other academic or non-academic jobs to get rid of W and B’s slavery?! I mean why not?! I mean a 5 years old kid again would guess after this harsh abuse, the only thing will remain undone is getting rid of S as soon as possible, no matter how and when. If the excellent researcher in mathematics and absolutely one of the best female professors in Sweden did not see her future like this, I would doubt that she is the excellent researcher in mathematics and absolutely one of the best female professors in Sweden (I’m just keep using this fucking statement to show how ridiculous it looks based on the provided story here and Yes, I’m just seriously ridiculing S).


    • Careful Mike, you went from laughable to abusive. Towards a woman. Last warning, see comment policy.


      • Where I used her female identity to abuse her? Let me be precise, My main purpose is this part: “excellent researcher in mathematics and absolutely one of the best female professors Sweden” You can change that female to male, mike, my uncle, my father, my mother, my sister, my brother, or whoever in this world and it doesn’t matter. So my main purpose is this: “excellent researcher in mathematics and absolutely one of the best [“void”] professors Sweden”. That void could be anyone, just a human, no matter male or female.


      • Rex Rictor

        The comments above from “LiU and LTU are rotten !” are also abusive against women and wrong.

        There are more nepotistic recruitment of men than women by numbers; whatever the background/motivation is for this….is in a way irrelevant there should only be correct/open and gender/whatever neutral recruitment. Here is clear there is somebody who is in power (the chair) who is abusing these powers (illegal under swedish law).


  10. It actually happened similar story (or stories) here in US when my best friend was studying for his biostats MS in a not too bad university in southern part of US. The department chair somehow brought a Russian (or some other east european regions) young lady to the department first as a visiting scholar. Then she decided to stay in US. For her to stay in the university, she needed to have certain credit hours’ of teaching to be appointed to a teaching faculty position. So she started to offer course(s), but no students trusted her enough to sign up. So the chair decided to help, forcing every single student to sign up on her course. Later they two turned to be lovers, extramarital or not, I forgot.

    I believe that in many places in US universities, things like this happened, one way or another. I personally witnessed 2 cases in addition to the above story from my best friend. All these cases involved a male chairperson and a much younger female junior faculty or postdoc wanting to remain in the department. The 2 cases I witnessed involved a young lady from China and another one is a local American. If they really go through the formal selection route, none would have been able to get their positions. The age difference from their male supporters? all 20+.


    • Ok, but because there are 1000 similar true stories, we can’t conclude this one also is the same story here. I mean it’s similar but nobody knows it’s the same story for 100% or not.


      • Did I in any way try to prove the case in Leonid’s article using those cases I described?


      • I do agree with this, Mike, as well as with your “Hooray Leonid! That’s the thing I wanted to see. If you have these evidences, why you just don’t put them here?”

        I think that Mr Schneider, having documents from S, should ask her about a permission to put them here. He can put the mentioned letters B S, in case of S’s permission. As I already mentioned, I know about the situation, and all PhD students from abroad knew about it. The relations between B and W were not a secret, they even didn’t hide their close relations. I think that S should agree to put here everything she has, in order to clarify the situation.

        B was indeed a weak PhD student in Russia, and she finished full time PhD study there without success, she could not produce even one journal paper. In 2015, B’s friend, a PhD student of W, asked S to help B with the thesis and S agreed to do it. That time B worked somewhere in Russia, not at a university. The team W, S and the “retired professor” decided to help her. They arranged an agreement between B’s ex-supervisor from Russia and LTU.
        BUT it was not a contract for a position with salary, it was just “the admission of a third-cycle student who is to complete the course or study program within the framework of employment by an employer other than the higher education institution”. See Chapter 7, Section 37, in
        There in the department were many PhD students from abroad who completed their PhD having such admission.

        From LTU side there were S and the other two mentioned supervisors. All they were friends at that time. Of course W used two others and put his name to their papers as well as to papers of some other their collaborators, doing nothing himself in those papers. I do agree with Mike, they should not do it. But unfortunately, such behavior of Chairs as W is not rare nowadays. Let’s not blame S for being too kind and doing work for others, to the detriment of her own health and comfort. We do not know what drove her to it.

        Then, in 2016, W did a trick and he actually replaced that permission of 2015 by the contract with salary, posted here by Mr Schneider. BUT such contracts, in Sweden, may be got only via open position and competition. Violation of these rules is regarded as an act of a corruption. As a result, B and W became lovers.
        This contract of 2016 was initiated only by W, not by S and other supervisor, “Robin” just tries to mislead us here.

        Of course there must be juridical consideration of the case but it seems that Swedish juridical authorities don’t want to do it. Maybe they will “awaken” with help of journalists. Let’s see.

        To the “Robin”‘s: “What I care about is that your “scoop” is a one-sided rewrite of the words of a disgruntled employee who can no longer take credit for supervision of B.”:

        B was twice full time PhD student, in two countries, i.e. more than 8 years, and up to now she is not PhD. Only papers she has are those which were done by S. I know that S has much better life after she left LTU and she doesn’t miss this university as well as the to work for the lover of Chair. Yes, she was “robbed” by LTU, in the sense that what she did was alienated from her and given to others. But what we can do, there are robberies in life, so one must be careful and not go to those places where the danger of being robbed incites. It seems to me that LTU is one of such places.

        Mr Schneider, please consider the matter of publishing of all materials, try to convince S that it is important.


  11. This is a reply to ‘Mike’. Sadly, you got my name wrong. Need a pair of reading glasses?


  12. I am starting to become quite irritated reading these comments. You (Schneider) are absolutely wrong in your assumptions. It was (and probably still is) professor S (=NMS) and “famous and esteemed” professor P that were banging and it was “famous and esteemed” professor P that did pretty much everything to get his lover (rather mediocre professor S) employed at LTU. It turned out that she (professor S) is pretty much unsuited to work as teacher and PhD supervisor and therefore she started all this mess. You obviously have no idea what was going on at LTU and I really wonder what is driving you? This really smells vendetta long way, everyone that knows professor P knows that he will do everything be can to discredit everyone that did him wrong in his opinion. I can also imagine that you get your information from one Austrian professor, a friend of P and a person that also had his ego diminished in this process.


    • Rex Rictor

      And who are you P E L ? a PAL? no. Seems like you have an interest in trying to cover this stuff up. You shall know that when the lawyers come in you guys will be kicked out most likely, your careers are over…there more you try to discredit the facts the more deep you will sink in your own crap.


      • What facts exactly are you referring to?

        When asked for facts and evidence, Mr. Schneider keeps obsessing over the fact that some commnters have chosen to to protect their identity.

        Still no documentation has been shown.

        Regarding the emails mentioned previously, from S or from B to S, I suspect B wasn’t the one sharing them with Mr. Schneider.


      • For someone keen to be listened to, Ken, it is not appropriate to leave a made-up fake email address.
        I presume you are just Robin in new disguise, after Robin said goodbye. Your posts lack novelty and are just repetitive and content-free, probably like your research papers.
        Come back when you grow some, W.


    • It looks like this university is just a kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. It would be good to make a request to high officials to check also the process of hiring at the end of 2013, when S got her position.

      As far as I know, at that time W was Chair and Chief of Math division.

      In 2013, W announced one open position. CV of S was one of the most advanced and both reviewers put S in first place. BUT W and the prefect employed two applicants, S and J (a friend of W), despite the fact that only one position was opened. Now Robin and PEL, who know everything at the level of all documents, claim that W employed S by some reason related to love relations. Interesting version: corruption, love relations around of the same W – indeed Sodom and Gomorrah look just a standards of high morality, in comparison with LTU.

      At the same time, Robin, who knows everything, claims that financial problems started much earlier than W employed B without funds for that, in 2016. Perhaps the employment of two in one open position caused a financial crisis, in 2013? If so, then it was only W’s fault since he was Chair that time, and it was W who employed S and J.

      Thus, it seems that in 2013, the position was opened specifically in order to employ J, and W used S with her strong CV for this since J could not take first place in ranking, with his CV poor in comparison with some of other applicants. So S was employed with the aim of subsequently firing her since her affiliation was the shortest in the department. Bravo W and Prefect! It seems that S was used twice in the corruption schemes of W and Prefect: first to employ J, i.e. W’s friend, and then to make a thesis for B, i.e. W’s lover.
      It all works out after S has done enough articles for W’s lover, S is no longer needed, and she needs to be fired. But the question is: how to do it?

      W and his lover B found a very simple way: to cheat the Prefect, by lying that S mistreated B and convince Prefect to dismiss S from the supervisor, and then fire. Moreover, they decided to appoint W and his friends as scientific supervisors for B, although all three fake supervisors are not aware at all of the topic of the papers done by S for B’s thesis. But S rebelled and there appeared a scandal instead of quiet cynical vaudeville.

      The last news: I learned that S will publish letters of B to her and her ones to B, by the advice of her lawyer. She must do this in order to protect her name from lies and slanders which B, W and his friends circulate about S. It’s also very interesting that W himself wrote to S in his letter of 02-05-2018:

      The irony is that this was before summer vacations, but directly after the vacations S was dismissed from supervisor.
      So, PEL, something is wrong with your “knowing everything”. Try to train your brain otherwise Alzheimer can totally destroy the remainder of it.


      • First of all, I never claimed S was employed for any other reasons than her mathematics skills.

        Second, and this is important S was NOT fired. S resign, in a perfelty clear resignation letter, in anger over being removed as a supervisor.

        Third, a head of division does not hite anyone, the prefect does. The chair professor, in this case W, should pf course be involved in how the team is built and is therefore naturally a part of the rcruitment team.

        I do not know who J is, but if the masking is done as cleverly as in the original article, thee ar two younger men with first names starting with J. One is a statistician, which means it should be tje other one.

        To clarify, financial issues have been more related to research than to teaching. The division relieas heavily on undergraduate teaching and to do research external money needs to come in.


      • Hi Robin, welcome back. What happened to Ken, and more importantly, PEL?
        Anyway, maybe you missed the update to this article. Your Prefect Kassfeldt said this when announcing resignation of E:
        ”That means the financial situation will change to forecast 1. Negotiations on personnel cuts will not happen.”
        Can you explain what salaries have to do with research budget? And how does teaching work when you lost 3 faculty members? I guess Ms B took over their roles? Well that is clever.
        Another question: Do you dispute that Ms B finished her PhD study course in Russia before starting anew at LTU?


      • Well,

        I don’t know about Ken or PEL. You got it all wrong regarding my identity, but that’s fine, no offense. I’d rather see you focus on what I write than who I might be. I know what I know because I used to work there, lets just leave it at that.

        Now, at LTU, and possibly also other Swediah universities, there is little or no internal money specifically marked for research. (if you google , you can find a post in “Universitetsläraren”, where Mr. E whines about this fact, several years ago). There is a small grant for the chair professor, and the research group gets a small. grant per PhD student and per professor. None of this is anyones personal money, but is fpr the group to share in the best posibel way. When it comes to to teaching most groups do not have classes to teach enough to cover everyones salary completly. Instead most professors as well as lecturers take on other tasks as well to cover their cost. So the total cost for salaries in a group is definitely linked to the ampunt of teaching available, in tje sense that teaching is ONE of the things we can do to cover our cost. Most do not teach OR do research, they do both. The constant struggle of finding money to cover my own salary is part of the reason I no longer work there.

        As swdish legislation goes, it is very difficult to fire a PhD student based on financea, whereas a teacher/researcher can be fired.

        So with the couple E resigning and S resigning, the rest of the group gets to share whatever resources remains, uncluding teaching load. Convenient, yeah I guess. Corrupt or using feudal principles, still see no evidence of that.

        I suppose tjis means the reimaning people will have to teach more and have less time for research. If that still is not enough, maybe they need to hire.

        I do not know of a prvious attempt at a PhD by B. I dont see why that is even important. S and P both signed the admittance papers at LTU, they are fully capabel of judging a candidate.

        What I also do not know is how B was financed when first admitted tothe PhD at LTU, do you?The employment came later, right?


      • Hi “Robin”,
        I suggest you stop inventing alternative identities for yourself because, well, you don’t expect me to believe unverifiable claims made anonymously, right?
        Anyway, have a look at the article, it contains a statement by the rector Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn who does not deny that Prof W indeed has an affair with student B. I also shared a document now (embedded in text) where you can see B requested for S to be replaced with her lover W as supervisor, which was approved by Prefect Kassfeldt (who, as I proved already, knew of the affair between W and his student). I am working to procure more documents.


      • According to the higher education ordinance, a PhD student who requests a change of supervisor shall be allowed to do so. The head of the department then has no choice but to grant the request. This is a verifyable fact.

        The head of department does not, obviously, have to appoint the new supervisor suggested by the syudent, but will have to replace with someone. She chose to appoint W.

        Again, the supposed relationship between B and W is not the point here. The point is that you have claimed that S was fired in order to be able to hire B. You also claimed that W and/or B was bullying others to leave. I still do not see any evidence of that.

        Regarding unverifyable claims, I’m not the one pointing finger so I do not have to prove anytjing. You do. I am not even sure what you mean I am claiming. I am simply explaining why what you have shown so far does not prove what uou claim it does.

        I saw the update, yes, thank you. We are making some progress..

        Regarding identity, I am not hiding it from you only, but I am hiding it nonetheless and will continue yo do so. My current employer may not appreciate me getting myself involved. What LTU thinks does not concern me.


      • Ah, not so fast Robin. Rector says S was found “biased” and was replaced. I’m trying to find any records of these “bias”. Apparently it was not just a whim of bored B which LTU had to follow unquestioned.
        Also, Robin, I warned you to stop inventing identities, or I will moderate your comments. You are hiding from me, not from your employer, who is perfectly aware of what you are doing here.


      • A Swedish academic, who unlike you doesn’t hide and is therefore perfectly trustworthy. You spoke bollocks, Robin.


      • Last news: S with help of a lawyer is preparing publication of letters from B to S and from S to B, from which it will be clear how the papers were done and which “bias arose and were established in a PhD student and supervisor relationship”. I will then give the link to that.

        Robin writes: “S resign, in a perfectly clear resignation letter, in anger over being removed as a supervisor”.

        Yes, it was so and she does’t miss this corrupted university where lying is as natural as, for instance, to have a cup of coffee. There, in LTU, S was robbed in the sense that what was done by S was alienated and given to others who did nothing and even are not aware at all in the topics of the papers done by S.

        What you all smoke there in LTU, to be so shamelessly impudent?!

        S doesn’t struggle for her position in LTU, BUT she will continue to struggle for the truth. Maybe she looks an incorrigible idealist, maybe it is “unfashionable” in “trustable” Sweden. But it’s better to fight windmills like Don Quixote de la Mancha, than to wallow in lies, hypocrisy and corruption like people in LTU. You, with your attitude will never understand it. It just remains to pity all of you from LTU.

        Robin writes: “S and P both signed the admittance papers at LTU”.

        But they signed the “admittance papers” for B, in 2015!!! That admittance followed the rules.
        BUT the contract that W and Kassfeldt gave to B in 2016, would have been regarded as done with violation of the rules, even if His Majesty the King of Sweden would have signed a letter of admission to B.

        You, Robin, should already stop juggling the facts. In my comment above (August 9) I explained that the “full time … contract” of 2016, done as continuation of the “admittance” of 2015 which had absolutely different conditions, was done with violation of the recruitment rules. You refer to higher education ordinance but playing that you do not understand this difference.

        Robin writes: “According to the higher education ordinance, a PhD student who requests a change of supervisor shall be allowed to do so. The head of the department then has no choice but to grant the request. … .Again, the supposed relationship between B and W is not the point here” – Oj-oj, but what is “the point here” if well knowing that W is lover of B, Prefect nominated him as main supervisor for B in order that B defend PhD with papers done by S but with official supervisor W?!

        Rector also refers to higher education ordinance. But there is no written that supervisor must be changed if PhD student asks to do it just because everything for thesis is done by the successful supervisor and the student simply wants to stay longer as PhD student in Sweden.


      • No, I did not speak “bollocks”. The higher education ordinance gives the student the unconditional right to change supervisor.

        Chapter 6:
        “28 § För varje doktorand ska det utses minst två handledare.
        En av dem ska utses till huvudhandledare. Doktoranden har rätt till handledning under utbildningen så länge inte rektor med stöd av 30 § beslutar något annat. En doktorand som begär det ska få byta handledare”

        This is what applied when I asked to change supervisor and my boss at the time tried to say no (not LTU, BTW)

        What it does not, and I never claimed this, is to give the student the rigjt to chose the new supervisor. This is for the university to do.

        (BTW: now using an email which will work and where I can also respond)


      • To Robin and all responsible authorities in LTU, including the rector:

        As you can see in the following, the interpretation of Swedish rules related to supervisorship, sexual relations between Chair-PhD student etc, by the rector and Robin, which seems to be legal in minds of the LTU’s authorities, is wrong. So what the rector of LTU presented in her answer to Mr Schneider, as being investigated by three separate groups (the department, the faculty and the juridical team), which didn’t foind ground to proceed with a full investigation, looks like a nonsense.

        Moreover, it seems that there in LTU is total incompetence in governing the institution.

        From :

        Translated with Google:

        “In a judgment (1998-12-11), Uppsala District Court tried questions about disputes within the university’s area of operation. The target was for a professor who has examined and participated in the handling of employment and funding assignments concerning a doctoral student with whom he had a more than temporary sexual relationship. The district court found that the professor in all of the cases in question was disqualified and sentenced him for service errors to 50 daily fines. In the judgment, the district court stated, inter alia, that the measures taken by the professor, although he was disqualified, could be considered to be the more central expressions of authority in the university’s activities and that they were taken by a person who, through his position as professor, had extensive powers and a large room for action in their decision-making. According to the district court, the violation of the rules of indignation thus appeared to be serious and liable to lead to great detriment to the general public. ”

        The LTU’s case is even more heavy. Тhe employment of B took place there without opening a position, in fact, it was illegally gifted a contract to her, that seems to be extended further.

        There in the document under the above presented link, are other interesting cases in that document. It would be important if LTU’s leaders read something more than just lie created by the couple B-W, whose aim was to arrange a teaching position for B in LTU, using illegal way. It well worked for them with such LTU’s leaders, B got such position. In addition to what I tried to clarify, I just cite Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people a part of the time, or a part of the people all the time; but you can never fool all the people all the time”.


  13. Mr. Schneider,

    Why is it you respond to everyone asking critical questions or suggesting you might have gotten some facts wrong, by being rude?

    I read through all comments above and I can not see that you answered a single question from anyone. Rather, you questioned their reasons for asking or their motives (simply since they wish to stay anonymous).

    Any serious journalist should investigate further, digging deeper, not confronting anyone questioning the story by name calling. It is not the readers’ duty to fact check your story and to provide evidence. When reader point out flaws or questionable claims, it is YOUR responsibility to support your claims. You have done nothing of sorts.

    The comment trace to this post is not going to increase your credibility as an “independent science journalist”.

    Why don’t you take your time to provide some support for your claims, which are borderline slander/defamatory (if not proven to be correct), instead of being rude to commenters who request such evidence?

    Referring to emails from S doesn’t count as evidence, since she’s obviously your primary source. HER claims should be fact checked.


    • Gosh all these fake identities with scrambled IP addresses from behind Tor get annoying. The only message here is that LTU decided to reply by trolling, and delegated someone (maybe W, maybe a colleague) to do the dirty job. Grown up people, professors, behave like stoned teenagers.
      “Ken”, you got your lies wrong. The emails are not “from S”, but to S, from B. And nobody disputed them so far, not even “Robin”. Unless you think you speak better Russian than I do.
      What is potentially very libellous, is the comment by “PEL”. And now it will become legal evidence should UKÄ or any other Swedish authority have enough of this clown show in Lulea.


      • Rex Rictor

        I predict Ken is a native English speaker one can tell from the posting.


  14. Overpaid faculty being irresponsible, doing as much “id/testosterone” driven stuff as they can possibly get away with, and then trying to save their ass when they get caught? I thought this was only in american R1 research universities, and the europeans were above this.

    Some of the blame also goes to the grade student, who in some degree seems to be acting like a prostitute: the offer of sex for money/job security etc. Then again, I guess she could be deeply attracted to Chair W due to his position of authority. My conclusion: you really cant remove basal evolutionary honed mating/pairing instincts from even a high brow place like a academic research institution. Gee, if I could become tenured faculty, I could chase after grad students, as long as I don’t get caught. And quite possibly a “financially vulnerable” grad student will be happy with that!

    Yes, because I see all of the BS that occurs in the upper echelons of academia, I will die a bitter man.


  15. “She didn’t have to agree to the [sex -> paper fraud]; it was her choice to get involved as well as his irresponsibility.” – only slight modification, et voila, applies to S!


  16. Not really B

    How could B describe that story? Just guessing. “I come to LTU in hope to complete my PhD and to learn how to do real science. Instead I was approached by the Head of Department who asked for sexual favours and demanded gratutide for his help. He explained me that women in Science can make a career only if supported by old powerful professor. I tried to find support from supervisor but she was so much afraid to loose her job. She wad ready to do whatever he asked, even to write papers herself instead of teaching me how to do that. What could I do being dependent completely on scared supervisor and Head of Department asking for sexual favours in exchange for PhD degree? Once I even had to take knife to stop his assaults. Nobody helped me anyway when that become known. I come to LTU to learn mathematics but learned that the best way to get job in science for women is to please powerful Profs. Now they call me prostitute….. I only tried to survive in this foreign country and to adapt to their traditions”
    Sounds not quite impossible, isn’t it? B. might need help right now.


    • I guess B has not heard of the ‘just say No” or “me too” movement that is sweeping america. She didn’t have to agree to the sex; it was her choice to get involved as well as his irresponsibility. She should feel guilty, because she is in part.


  17. Not really B

    Oh well. She is “prostitute” and he is only “irresponsible”.
    She is not from USA and in 2016 #meeto was not yet here. But the rules were already written. Even if B “offered” something to head of her department (her co- supervisor by the way) this guy had all the power to reject and to advise student on cultural differences, university rules etc.. He could also resign from his position to continue the love story in accepted practice.
    When supervisor has sexual relation with student he is abuser by definition. Student is victim by definition. Universities in all countries agree on that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This is absolutely delightful: advice to B to throw Chairman W under the bus! Sounds like maybe you are thinking B didn’t really care for W much in the first place. Hence the use of the word “prostitute” and not “partner”.

      I was told by a Russian man to stay “well away” from Russian women. I think I now understand him better.


  18. Rex, Mr Shneider and others,

    How is asking Mr. Shneider to PRESENT evidence in any way an attempt to COVER UP anything? If anything, it would strengthen his story.

    I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying I do not see proof that he is right.

    Instead of providing proof he attacks those who ask for them. Claiming it is inappropriate to use fake emails or hiding the connecting through privacy protecting services, WTF? If anything, it shows we absolutely NEED to.

    How is speculating who we are even relevant, when all we ask is that YOU, Mr. Schneider, show your evidence?


    • I bet you scream at the telly to show you the evidence also. Anyhow, if the events described above were wrong, you wouldn’t be spending your time trolling here, in multiple assumed characters.


  19. As someone who lives in the next town over, I take great offense in this sentence:

    “Light is sparse there, and so is apparently basic human decency”

    It’s never even goes dark here in the summer…


  20. Sad story. Also interesting to see the victim blaming and the truly toxic environments that exists where psychopaths and narcissists thrive. Its funny and sad at the same time to see them (and their flying monkeys) in the comment section here blaming the victim and trying to change the narrative to a disgrunted employee.


    • Yeah sad story, but I bet W will remain at his throne even if all of these stories are true. I mean at the end, what S wants to get out of this drama? Get her job back in LTU? See W is punished by justice? She needs to just hire a really good lawyer, and give her lawyer a lot of money in order to have something to say in front of W or more importantly, LTU leadership, that obviously support W. I mean put yourself in LTU’s leadership shoes, this scandal could be LTU’s last scandal before vanishing from academic history if the chair and prefect of LTU’s mathematical department will be found guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse. So it completely makes sense if LTU’s leadership is denying everything. If S wants to force them to confess, she should give a couple of thousands of bucks to lawyers, in order to force W and Department’s prefect to confess.


      • Reporting a story is the most “bang for the buck”, such that S might get some justice without having to go into debt by paying for lawyers.

        Frankly, I think S did the right thing, so hopefully this very unqualified Russian minx (B, or almost B, or whatever) is stopped in her tracks, and is returned to her, what Trump may call, a “sh@thole.” In my career, I have seen several unqualified yet curvacious women get to good positions in academia and it really makes the context of academic science even more rotten. If you’re going to work for someone as a grad student and post-doc and you have a crappy salary, at least you can hopefully see that the someone deserves their job for skills and not for sexual favors given to upper echelons.


      • Yes Mike, your analysis of the problem looks pretty precise.

        You write: “So it completely makes sense if LTU’s leadership is denying everything”.

        The irony and/or anti-irony of this situation is, that LTU’s leadership does not deny neither the facts of corruption, nor that the relationship W-B is far from a professional level. The LTU’s leadership knows that these facts are available, for instance such facts as that they lived in the same room in a hotel while traveling to Madrid, to the Spainish coast, to Moscow and other places, that W lived with B and B’s mother in a small flat where are only two beds, etc.

        The prefect Kassfeldt, knew that W and B were a couple, and namely for this reason, she appointed W as the main supervisor for B, in order to show to S that she, Kassfeldt is the high force there, and it is she, Kassfeldt, who will do what she wants. Her unique argument to any questions was “I decided!!!”.

        S has consulting lawyers (not Swedish), these lawyers are shockingly “impressed” by all what they see in LTU and how other Swedish juridical authorities including Prosecutor General who are supposed to defend the law, in fact hypocritically ignore the facts of corruption of LTU’s leadership who mired in immoral acts.

        As Mr Schneider mentioned above, the university lawyers invited S to talk. The two university lawyers started blackmailing S and were stopped by Chair of workers community. After that, as Ms Schneider cited above, W and his friends started to spread heavy defamation about S. Moreover, they referred to the lawyers. But to the Mr. Schneider’s request there was just answer that there are no a document about that meeting of the lawyers with S.

        In spite of what is written in the site of Swedish Prosecution Authority,, namely

        “The unit also works to raise awareness and increase knowledge within authorities and within enterprise in order to identify and investigate corruption more efficiently. … The unit has also initiated the foundation of a national network with the purpose of discovering and fighting crimes of corruption”,

        S got “if you regard yourself to be the victim of a criminal act, you should primarily report it to the police” in the answer on the detailed exposition of the case with all documents and evidence S had submitted to the Prosecutor General and to the anti-corruption department:

        What S can expect from Swedish juridical authorities after all this?

        It is clear now that only international platforms such as, for instance, Transparency International can force Swedish lawyers to follow laws.

        Mike reasonably asks: “what S wants to get out of this drama? Get her job back in LTU?”

        No, S does not want to get her job back in LTU. S is from family of a principled lawyer and she cannot, by her nature, stay indifferent to the facts of such an outrageous violation of laws.

        All new documents which Mr Schneider got and/or did not get from LTU just confirm that there was primitive plan created by the couple W-B to arrange a teaching position for B, using illegal corrupt schemes. This is what was written by S from the beginning.
        • The contract which was given to B with HEAVY VIOLATION of the Swedish recruitment rules, in 2016, was an act of a heavy corruption which was clearly analysed in my previous comments. Additionally to being a corrupt one, it expired in July of 2019.
        • During the academic year 2018/2019, B did one non-compulsory course and another course similar to what B did several times while her study in Russia. NOTE, that including of exactly the mentioned above non-compulsory course into B’s study plan was not “appreciated” by S, and this was one of the reasons of starting war against S by the couple W-B.
        • Now B is a teacher, as W promised to her, and as both W and B wanted. On his request of a new B’s contract, Mr Schneider got the document that does not stand up to any criticism, it is simply phantasmagorical. This document is a certificate which confirms that B was a doctoral student from 2016/08/01 to 2020/12/31.

        All this is in a university of the developed European country, in Sweden of 21th century.

        Only questions are still open for me: What the prefect Kassfelt got for this? Why the prefect Kassfeldt did not care on her own reputation and hence reputation of her family? The same about other authorities involved into this story of “the darkness of Lulea”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: