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.”
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”.
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.
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?
Donate!
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!
€5.00
For Better Science 
Thanks to Mr Schneider, now one can only thank the rector for discrediting in my opinion, LTU’s officials and heads including the rector, in each paragraph of her answer/non-answer:
I. Remark on rector’s claim: “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 most remarkable is the phrase “scientific dishonesty”, used by the rector. It would be interesting to see “the University’s guidelines for dealing with scientific dishonesty” mentioned by the rector. It is interesting how “scientific dishonesty” is defined there.
Thus, the mentioned “three separate groups (the department, the faculty and the juridical team)” find the following as “scientific honesty”, according to “the University’s guidelines”:
that Chair W having love relations with PhD student B, together with B convinced Prefect to change the main supervisor S who set all the scientific problems for B’s thesis and studied them by finding and using own methods, in order to nominate himself as main supervisor in the topics where both W and new second supervisor are not experts at all, and to prolong B’s position in LTU, by such way. Note that the position was given with violation of the recruitment rules, in 2016.
The “honest”, according to the mentioned by the rector “the University’s guidelines”, idea to change supervisors appeared in schemes of W-B after S told to B that she, S, will not work as a slave for them anymore and tried to stop the illegal according to the Swedish rules way to prolong B’s contract;
that Chair W is co-author in a number of papers where he did nothing, which was mentioned by S in the open letter to the department professors and the rector;
that Chair W nominated himself as main supervisor for a number of PhD students in the topics where he did not set any research question and is not expert at all;
*** that, …, that etc, I just don’t want to spend time and space here to mention more nonsense regarding as “scientific honest” from point of view of “the University’s guidelines” mentioned by the rector.
II. Remark on rector’s “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”:
Yes, the employee S sent her resignation in protest, in 28/08/2018, where was clearly written that it was a protest and that the motivation in details will be presented on the next day. Here is an extract from that “document”:
The following is an extract from the letter with motivation, sent by S to the prefect, early morning of 29/08/2018:
…
???: May I kindly ask the rector: were those “an initial investigation” results sent to S? If not, then why?
Moreover, why all documents related to S’s resignation were there put under “sekretess” in LTU, even without answering?
Why up to now there is no any official reaction of the rector on alienating of what was done by S as the real supervisor and giving it to others who did nothing? In my opinion this was a shameless robbing done by W-B-Prefect.
*** S doesn’t hide anything and even sent these documents in her open letters to the department and Swedish high authorities. She doesn’t hide them. But why LTU hides even what is available for anyone who wants to see it?!
???: Did you invite INDEPENDENT lawyers, psychologists and experts, in such situation when the PhD student threatened to commit suicide and used knife while requiring something from her lover, i.e. Chair W whom the prefect finally nominated as B’s main supervisor? I mean INDEPENDENT lawyers, psychologists and experts, not those from LTU.
*** One more important question: what W did in B’s apartment that she used knife and threatened to commit suicide?
Maybe in such case it would be important to contact the corresponding services in Russia where she came from, in order to get information about her family? Who knows which traditions they had there in her family and what one can expect from her?
LikeLike
Thanks to Mr Schneider for the last updating! It shows the situation as even more sad one.
In my vision (my subjective opinion) it looks like a kind of northern Swedish version of “Cosa Nostra” with Kassfeldt as “godfather”.
In 2016, Kassfeldt gave contract to B, without opening position, which was a heavy violation of Swedish recruitment rules. Directly B became lover of Chair W.
Note that in the less aggravated case there was strict punishment of Professor in Upssala. I cited that case in my comment on August 15, see it on the page 9 in: http://regler.uu.se/digitalAssets/16/c_16493-l_3-k_javsregler4uppl-2018.pdf
In 2018 when it was one year left to the end of the contract of B (that contract which was done with violation of rules, and which is provided by Mr Schneider, here), W and B started to prepare the next step in order to arrange a teaching position for B in LTU. They tried to convince S to help them but S did not agree with their illegal schemes and promised a help in developing career of B only by honest way. S also declared that she will not work as a slave for them, any more.
After that the couple (W and B) decided to show who is “stronger” (who has more power) there in LTU, liars and users W and B, or S who worked producing research papers and teaching B to learn them.
Using again skills of the prefect Kassfeldt in governing by violating rules, they created new scheme which includes:
Removing S as supervisor, since they need not S anymore after she produced enough papers for B’s thesis.
Nominating W as supervisor for his lover B.
Including a non-compulsory course and another course similar to that which B passed several times while being PhD student in Russia, into the study plan of B.
Forcing in fact (after S) two other employees to resign from their positions, in order to guarantee a teaching position for B.
The scheme worked without problems.
Finally, the employment of B was prolonged and B is involved into the teaching process now.
This shows that dishonesty and violation of rules, supported by the rector, university “juridical people” and other university authorities, are winners in LTU.
Such facts as violation of recruitment rules, alienation of what was done by the one and transporting the intellectual ownership on that to others, defamation etc and such methods as bullying, humiliation, blackmailing by “juridical people” and other shameful actions of LTU’s authorities, should be, in my opinion, evaluated by academic syndicate (SULF) and by Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ).
BUT getting all the information about the case in LTU, ÜKA’s lawyer just suggested to apply to ” Diskrimineringsombudsmannen”, “Arbetsmiljöverket “, “Riksrevisionen”, while SULF’s ombudsman answered in fact that SULF’s lawyers did not find any problem on such governing in LTU.
I changed my previous opinion that Sweden is one of the less corrupted countries. Now observing the case in LTU and reaction of SULF and ÜKA and some other high authorities on the case, I can regard it as just a myth, the myth which is broken in my vision.
It seems to me that it makes no sense to expect justice also from other authorities in Sweden, in treating this case. It seems that this case should be considered at the level of the relevant structures in the United Nations, so that this case would become an example of how there should not be in the whole civilized society.
LikeLike
NMS,
In you list:
“Removing S as supervisor, since they need not S anymore after she produced enough papers for B’s thesis.
Nominating W as supervisor for his lover B.
Including a non-compulsory course and another course similar to that which B passed several times while being PhD student in Russia, into the study plan of B.
Forcing in fact (after S) two other employees to resign from their positions, in order to guarantee a teaching position for B.
The scheme worked without problems.
Finally, the employment of B was prolonged and B is involved into the teaching process now.”
There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, no proof has been presented supporting that the couple E were in any way forced to resign. Also, no proof that S was removed because of what you claim. Changing supervisor is a right of the student, by law.
The final point is laughable. Teaching duties are normal in most PhD programs. B does NOT have a teaching position, she is still a PhD student.
The other points in your list are irellevant, since nothing of this is against any rules or any law.
Maybe the legal people looked into it properly, but since they understand the law, they see what I see (lack of evidence).
I agree that, IF B and W are in a relationship, which is in itself not illegal, it would be wrong to make W the supervisor.
LikeLike
Come on, Robin. You are master in juggling facts, like B in juggling knife in order to get what she wanted from her lover W.
In my vision it just confirms that you know that you defend corrupt schemes used there in LTU for the employment B.
Let me turn you to the document concerning B’s contract posted by Mr Schneider.
Additionally to being given with violation of the Swedish recruitment rules, the contract given to B in 2016, expired in July of 2019.
Look at the underlined condition from this official document. There is written that it was for
“MAXIMUM THREE YEARS”, hence it expired and COULD NOT BE PROLONGED!
You, who know everything, find it “laughable” that B got new contract and again without announcing an open position by LTU.
How again it was motivated to give new contract for PhD position to B? Maybe the reason was that W wanted that B continue to be available for his sexual satisfaction, and also B asked the same, masking that under “changing supervisor”? If so then you are right, it is “laughable” maybe for corrupt institution.
About resignation of the couple E:
S’s lawyers have complete information from E and confirmation that both Es will formally testify at a formal trial in this case.
On your:
“Maybe the legal people looked into it properly, but since they understand the law, … ”
“Legal people” who “properly” “understand the law” would never agree with some actions that run in LTU. Look at information presented by Mr Schneider, which he officially got from LTU.
LikeLike
A PhD student contract in Sweden is four years but teaching and other tasks can result in extension. The letter you posted means LTU does not HAVE to extend beyond three years. In no way does it mean LTU is not allowed to. For a normal time limited contract you would be correct, but in this case you are not. Check the higher education ordinance if you want to read up on employment as PhD student.
I am not jggling facts, I am asking you and Mr. Schneider to present them. The accusations are serious, and so should be your burden of proof. I can not stress tjis enough. The burden of proof is on the accusers which is you and Mr Schneider.
As of the couplse E, exactly what will they testify about? They were not fired, they resigned. Or you have evidence they did not?
O am not defending LTU, I am asking you to present solid evidence. I left long ago, partly because I do not particularly like prefect Kassfeldt. That dos not mean we I accept this type of garbage.
LikeLike
“COULD NOT BE PROLONGED” Where it says it could not be prolonged? It’s not in the document that you provided. You are just speculating…
LikeLike
Thank you, Mike, maybe I was wrong but so I interpreted “The position is renewed every year for a total of maximum three years”, written in the contract.
LikeLike
You, Robin, as you say, “left long ago” LTU, however you are aware in all details of all things happened last years with everybody in the department. Ok.
You ask proof saying “The accusations are serious, and so should be your burden of proof”.
The principal action of violation of recruitment rules by LTU was in 2016, when B got the contract. There was no open position, no competition, no selection. But according to the Swedish rules, there should be open position.
Proof of the fact that the contract given to B in 2016, was given with violation of rules contains in the “higher education ordinance” you refer to.
On your: “A PhD student contract in Sweden is four years”
Yes, but PhD student contract must be given following the rules, which are clearly written in the “ordinance” you turn us to, https://www.uhr.se/en/start/laws-and-regulations/Laws-and-regulations/The-Higher-Education-Ordinance/
From “Chapter 5 Employment of doctoral students etc” Section 5:
“The higher education institution shall provide information about vacant positions in the form of advertising or some equivalent procedure so that those who are interested in appointment to a doctoral studentship may notify the higher education institution of their interest within a stipulated period. Information need only be provided, however, if appointment to a doctoral studentship is to be made in connection with admission to a study programme and if, pursuant to Section 37 of Chapter 7, information shall be provided in connection with admission. Ordinance (2017:284).”
From “Chapter 7 Section 37”:
When a higher education institution intends to admit one or several third-cycle students, information shall be provided by the higher education institution through advertising or some equivalent method. Information need not, however, be provided:
about the admission of a third-cycle student who is to complete the course or study programme within the framework of employment by an employer other than the higher education institution,
about the admission of a third-cycle student who has previously begun third-cycle studies at another higher education institution, or
if there are similar special grounds. Ordinance (2006:1053).
See also Swedish version, https://www.uhr.se/en/start/laws-and-regulations/Laws-and-regulations/The-Higher-Education-Ordinance/
In 2015, B got “admission of a third-cycle student who is to complete the course or study programme within the framework of employment by an employer other than the higher education institution”, that time she worked in some school in Russia, after finishing her PhD study there WITHOUT success to do thesis. So for that “admission” according to the point 1 above “Information need not, however, be provided”.
In 2016, as you WELL know, W initiated procedure to convert that “admission” of 2015 into “fulltime Third cycle” contract which is posted by Mr Schneider and copied by me. That was juggling with the documents and rules.
The contract of 2016 could not be just a prolongation of that “admission” of 2015, because there are completely different conditions. For the contract of 2016 it was required opening position. The case of B, in 2016, was not a kind of a case described in points 1-3 of “Chapter 7 Section 37” presented above, since in 2016, the case of contracting B as full time PhD student was neither corresponding to “2. student who has previously begun third-cycle studies at another higher education institution” nor “3. if there are similar special grounds”.
Moreover, directly after the contract was got, B accepted love relations with W, and you, Robin, who knows everything about B, W and S, know it very well.
Look at the case of Professor from Upssala, in my comment of Aug 15. He was heavily punished for being involved into evaluation of applications when one of the applicant was his lover whom he supported. While W, additionally to support B in order to get her in love relations, INITIATED the position for her WITHOUT “providing information about vacant positions in the form of advertising or some equivalent procedure” as it is REQUIRED for such kind of contracts, according to Chapter 5 “Employment of doctoral students etc” Section 5, of the “Ordinance” you refer to. Please read at least what you yourself refer to.
On your: “As of the couple E, exactly what will they testify about?”
They will testify what they know about corruption in LTU, as they wrote in their open letters and resignation in protest.
LikeLike
Robin, since you know everything there, could you be so kind to say what was the reason of changing supervisor of B? As you say, B asked to change supervisor just using her right for that.
It seems that the reason was to prolong the PhD position for B as it finally happened.
According to the document which Mr Schneider officially got from LTU, the lover of B is her new supervisor and he deals with her study plans now.
Why in the last academic year of her PhD contract of 2016, after changing her supervisor, B did non-compulsory course instead of doing research with new supervisors?
It seems that it was done in order to delay with the research and ask to prolong the PhD position.
Why B is teaching now instead of doing research with new supervisors after prolongation of her PhD position?
It seems that the prolongation was not aimed to give additional time to B for doing research as the main duty of PhD student.
What will be if B will not be ready with thesis again, being occupied with teaching and satisfying her supervisor W in love relations? Will her contract be prolonged again?
How many times PhD student may change supervisor?
It seems that it is possible to be long time PhD student in Sweden, up to becoming pensioner. The way is very easy: ask to change supervisor and prolong PhD position, be involved in “teaching and other tasks”, do non-compulsory courses, then so repeat it again and again.
For instance B is PhD student from year 2010, and her new contract is to the end of 2020, but in Sweden she can use again her right to change supervisor without any motivation.
Maybe it would be reasonable to arrange “permanent PhD position” for such “outstanding” students as B. Why not, in Sweden PhD student has pretty good salary, about 3.800 US dollars per month, which is increasing each year. It is not bad. No obligations, only rights.
LikeLike
Robin, who “left long ago, partly because you do not particularly like prefect Kassfeldt”.
Proofs please! – I am kidding, don’t worry.
Don’t worry so much about the documents. All the necessary and sufficient documents concerning the case are ok. There is even a document issued by LTU, in which B, with help of her Russian boyfriend, forged the signature of her former supervisor from Russia. Also there are more interesting documents for B and of course some “gifts” for W. They will appear in a proper place in a proper time. Then prefect Kassfeldt will maybe better understand that my letter to her, of 02/07/2018, had a strong reason.
What about prefect Kassfeldt, I would say that I would rather support and defend her instead of blaming, even if she was not correct with me. I know that she was cheated by the couple W-B who are rare highly talented liars and manipulators. I should take off my hat in front of such their talent, maybe.
Oh well, future will judge.
LikeLike
To S:
I hope you understand that “There is even a document issued by LTU, in which B, with help of her Russian boyfriend, forged the signature of her former supervisor from Russia.” is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this story. I mean whatever B did in her personal life is her responsibility and if it is something wrong, it’s not your or any other people business to bring it up except relevant authorities and involved parties (relevant authorities: e.g. authorities in Russia to investigate if she and her BF really falsified her former adviser’s signature or not and involved parties: e.g. B’s former adviser). So, please just talk about the things that is related and happened to YOURSELF directly and not other people.
By the way, it’s not my business or other people to ask you in order to show your evidences here, but I hope you have them ready instead of just hollow threatening here and playing with words such as: “Also there are more interesting documents for B and of course some “gifts” for W. They will appear in a proper place in a proper time.”. I’m not sure that I got your purpose correctly or not but I feel you want to show for example how powerful and smart you are maybe?!
Because you brought such a serious accusation and already publicized it, that combines sexual and academic misconducts together, you need to proof every word you claimed here or anywhere else in the court. So, tough luck!
LikeLike
Thank you, Mike! I understand your message, it is helpful indeed, and I agree completely with you.
Yes, I know my responsibility, and I have proofs of all my claims in all my official statements and public letters.
Your message pleasantly returned me to some conversation with my father, when I was early teenager, he was a lawyer. I asked him: “HOW could they do this?! It’s not fair”. Father’s answer was: “Your question is pointless and worthless, since you clearly see HOW they could do it. Ask yourself the right questions if you want to understand/solve essentially something.
LikeLike
1) Having been a PhD student in another country or not is completly irrelevant for the rights here.
2) We agree that being admitted to the programme and having an employment are two different things.
3) An employment as PhD student should, in principle, always be advertised. there are, however, exceptions. I tried to point tjis out in an email to Mr Schneider but I have not seen any further comments on this. But, dpending on how the first year, 2015-2016, was funded, it could even be that LTU had to offer a contract. This is the case with, for example, scholarships. To prove that the contract violated the law, you need to show that these exceptions do not apply. I honestly don’t know, but again, I am not the one making accusations.
4) There is a difference in the law between hiw long a sudent MUST be given and how long a student CAN be given. This is also in the HEO (the odinace).
5) non-mandatory courses, what is it even? The course wrok in a phd is often at least partly individually set up. The main supervisor could add any course to the curriculum.
6) Teaching for phd student is limited to 20%, often as an average over the (then) five years in total.
7) By law, there is no limit to how many times a student can change supervisor. Also, the law does not require a motivation.
8) Regardless of who is the supervisor, neither the supervisor nor the prefect can terminate a contract. Only rektor can do that.
LikeLike