[Todos] Fwd: The Argentine chapter of the academic show (Fourth letter)

[fabio vicentini]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: fabio vicentini <fmvicent en gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM
Subject: The Argentine chapter of the academic show (Fourth letter)
To: "presidencia en conicet.gov.ar" <presidencia en conicet.gov.ar>,
FulbrightNEXUS en iie.org, info en fundacionsadosky.org.ar, info en mincyt.gob.ar,
prensa en mincyt.gov.ar


Buenos Aires, June 20, 2012

 Dear Colleague:

 Subject: Character assassination

 Freedom of conscience entails more dangers

than authority and despotism - Michel Foucault


I directed a message on academic corruption to the faculty of my school
(August 2009). This brought about insulting responses from high ranking
officials. The standard bearer of the pack was the chairman of the computer
science dept Hugo Scolnik who declared that “Vicentini is a nazi as it is
clear from his antecedents”. Since he did not tell which antecedent he had
in mind I felt the need to enhance his hypothesis. My mother - I said -
regarded with esteem Benito Mussolini because the Italian railroad system
functioned like a clockwork, and I grew to be an ardent nazi disliking
jews, but - I shamefully confess - jewesses possess 'something' that I
like. Incredibly, this ironic retort to a malicious detractor produced a
series of public mails where I was branded anti-semitic, a creep like SS
captain Erich Priebke, and a derider of jewish women raped by the
Wehrmacht. Then, switching to a different personal trait, the dean of the
school Jorge Aliaga referred to me as mentally ill and demented. This set
off a new series of mails informing the community that I was insane,
lunatic, and delirious. Finally the governing board issued resolution
CD 2188/09
labeling *me* culprit of insulting *them*, and intimating the math dept to
censor the defendant. Obediently, math chairwoman Ursula Molter canceled my
institutional email.

 Let me stress two points: They called me names but none of them gave an
argument against my contention that my colleagues are forced to publish
bullshit papers because of the publish-or-perish command. Also, all the
offensive responses came from big shots: the dean, members of the board and
department chairmen.

 Would have not be civil for the authorities to call me upon to require
what proofs I had of my contentions? Quite on the contrary, they rejected
my direct appeal. Let me expose one such episode.

 Julian T. Bonder was a member of the board. He is a champion in
paper-making. He accused me of stealing my academic salary because I did
consulting jobs for a private firm instead of publishing papers for
academic journals. I challenged him to compare any of his 48 papers versus
one of my technical reports to the firm. He recoiled. Then  I asked the
dean for the comparison to be made, and he ignored my appeal. Then I asked
five members of the National Academy of Exact Sciences to compose a judging
committee, but they played dumb too.

 I denounced corruption, and they reacted by calling me names, and they
refused to see my proofs. What is there to be gathered from all these
facts? They used slander to divert attention from the corruption issue. On
the other side, my colleagues kept their mouth shut, typical behaviour of
the individual in front of the unjust practice of the powers that be.* *

 Fabio Vicentini
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: http://mail.df.uba.ar/pipermail/todos/attachments/20130830/dad9fad9/attachment.html