A Case Study in Zionist Methodology & Academic Corruption

The Hans Kupka Affair

In the case of Hans Kupka – a German student who sought to undertake his doctorate on the contribution of German language in New Zealand, but who allegedly had right-wing connections (Republican Party) in Germany – pressure was applied on Waikato University when material first appeared in the student newspaper Nexus. Of this Professor Middleton in a “strictly confidential memo” to the Post-Graduate Studies Committee (PGSC) stated:

On April 11 the story broke in Nexus in an article full of inaccuracies. These inaccuracies result from the fact that the article is based on the same package of materials that was circulated by Dov Bing to all PGSC members and members of the University Council on or around the same day as the Nexus article appeared. I sent an e-mail round the PGSC members cautioning that the materials contained a large number of distortions and inaccuracies and that it was unwise to discuss this matter on e-mail.

During March and April, some of those charged with ensuring that due process is followed have been subjected to harassment and threats and have had to seek support of various kinds. I am prepared to speak only for myself, to whom the damage has been comparatively very minor. You will note that, despite my requests to Dov [Bing] that his correspondence and queries be directed to the Chair (the usual convention), correspondence on this matter continued to be addressed to me – with the result that inaccuracies and distortions of the facts have been attributed to me and circulated to the University Council and the media. My name has therefore been published in Nexus (April 11) and circulated round Council.[13]

Kupka, the target not only of media attention, and the machinations going on within the University administration and faculty, but even of street protests from student and Jewish groups, duly left New Zealand.

Malcolm Evans

In addition to the Hayward and Kupka sagas, Bing was also involved in lobbying against Auckland Herald political cartoonist Malcolm Evans in 2003. Evans has been president of the NZ Cartoonists’ Association, and has won several awards. His cartoons had included criticism of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. The predictable allegations of anti-Semitism arose, and Zionist and Jewish interests lobbied for a year to have Evans sacked from the Herald. The editor succumbed to the pressure. However, the sacking was reportedly not sufficient for Bing or for Geoff Levy, head of the Auckland Jewish Council, who both “urged further punitive action against Evans, claiming he had intended to ‘incite racial hatred’, which was illegal under New Zealand law.”[14]

Bing, Green and a Fraudulent Thesis

In 2008 this writer by coincidence happened to find a thesis that had been written under the auspices of Waikato University’s Department of Religious Studies. It is fraudulently contrived from start to finish. As stated, the thesis credits Dennis Green for the idea, and is co-supervised by Dov Bing.

My complaint to Waikato University regarding the thesis, and my request for an enquiry in regard to revoking the Masterate, which had received First Cass Honors, resulted in a three year saga, during which I was lied to, lied about, stonewalled, and misinformed by the University administration, headed up by a craven Vice Chancellor, Dr Roy Crawford.

Crawford established an enquiry under the direction of an academic of integrity, Deputy Vice Chancellor Doug Sutton (who has since resigned from Waikato University, and does not wish to discuss the matter). The terms of reference for the enquiry included: (3. a) “Whether or not regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines were adhered to in regard to the thesis.” If these were adhered to (3. b) “Can the University be confident that the thesis was in fact of an adequate standard to be passed.”[15]

Over half a year later, Crawford’s “report” comprised a one-page letter stating that “after careful consideration” the thesis had been found to be worthy. “Of particular note” was that the thesis had been examined by “two well qualified academics.”[16] Nicola Brennan of the Waikato Times, the only journalist whose articles on the subject were of any value, stated that Crawford had told her “it is important to understand that it [the enquiry] wasn’t a reassessment of the thesis. It was to check that the processes around it were correct.” When asked about the “inaccuracies”[17] that both myself and another complainant, Mr Graeme Wilson, had raised, Crawford stated that “we didn’t go through each of those into detail.”[18] What transpired, and somewhat to the surprise of Nicola Brennan,[19] Crawford had reneged on the primary aspects of his own terms of reference in regard to the standard of the thesis.

Both Mr Wilson[20] and myself separately complained to the Ombudsman in regard to the failure of the University to properly deal with the matter. More months followed while Dr Crawford was tardy in replying to the Ombudsman. Eventually, Crawford issued what was supposed to be a “report,” which is nothing but a series of generalized statements on processes, covering three and a half pages.[21] Crawford here claimed that the decision had been based “largely” on the recommendations of Dr Sutton’s enquiry. In fact, Sutton recommended the thesis mark be “downgraded” and considered that both Dov Bing and Van Leeuwen were biased. Sutton’s opinion was, it should be noted, formed despite not having looked at the hundreds of pages of evidence submitted by both Mr Wilson and myself proving that Van Leeuwen was a liar.

Crawford also stated, “the University must defer to people qualified to assess the thesis from an academic view point.”[22] Yet in my complaint to Victoria University, Wellington, regarding Dr Jim Veitch, external examiner of the thesis, the reply was that “an external examiner does not have any decision-making authority.”[23] The buck stops with Roy Crawford. The reader might note the very different ways by which the complaints of Wilson and myself in regard to Van Leeuwen, and the complaints of Dov Bing and the NZ Jewish Council in regard to Hayward, were treated. With the Van Leeuwen matter no external enquiry was held, no bulky report of evidence issued. The news media was critical of my complaint against Van Leeuwen, yet supportive of Bing’s and the Jewish Council’s against Hayward.

Threats

In reality, what happened in regard to the Van Leeuwen affair was that the entire cabal of those associated with the thesis, including Dov Bing; W R Van Leeuwen; Marg Coldham Fussell (Van Leeuwen’s tutor); Jim Veitch; and Douglas Pratt, head of the religious studies department at Waikato University, slithered off to the Tertiary Education Union, and the TEU threatened the University. It is strange how Crawford makes no mention of the TEU threats in his supposed “report” of December 8, 2010.

The TEU boasted to its members on the TEU website of its disgraceful conduct, stating that the TEU national secretary Sharn Rigg “played a role,” and that she had warned Crawford:

It is possible, too, that academics in other New Zealand and overseas institutions may refuse to examine theses from the University of Waikato, or to co-operate on research generally, because of your institution’s heavy-handed response to the examination process undertaken by two eminent external scholars.[24]

Rigg had also expressed concern that Sutton’s enquiry (the findings of which have never been released) had concluded that Bing was biased. If one goes to the TEU’s posting on its website it states that there were “no responses” to the item. More lies… I had immediately responded to the report with a detailed synopsis of the matter, but the TEU had refused to post it. The TEU, et al, had falsely portrayed this as a matter of “academic freedom,” when in fact it is a matter of academic integrity, and all those involved are in breach of the Education Act, and University and TEU charters, which are supposed to guarantee public accountability and the maintenance of scholarly standards.

…And Legal Threats

Apparently not leaving anything to chance, it addition to the plea to the TEU, information reached this writer on July 4, 2009 that according to a senior source at Waikato University, Bing had “frightened the Uni with significant legal threats.”

Previously Bing at an early stage of the enquiry had sought to set this writer up for legal threats in a bizarre effort to wreck the complaint. Bing adopted a very strange tactic indeed. He asked this writer about a website I had created in order to bypass the misinformation being conveyed by the news media.

Presumably, according to the plan, if Bing could trick me into admitting that I had posted material about himself and others he could threaten me with a libel suit, unless I published a retraction that would repudiate my own complaint. If I did not buckle, I would be bankrupted. Bing had taken offense at my having posted material on his role in the Hayward and Kupka disputes, as well as his role as co-supervisor of the fraudulent Van Leeuwen thesis. I naively fell into the Baldrikesque “cunning plan” and admitted to a matter that had never been hidden. Yes, I had posted the material; there was no secret about it. The e-mails Bing posted to me, with the purpose of “entrapment,” follow:

On 25 September 2008 you received a letter from Norris Ward McKinnon about your complaint to the University. I have received a copy of this letter from the University. The Vice Chancellors’ Office also tells me that the University’s lawyers asked you to delete three pages from your website and that you agreed to do this. The pages were: ‘Zionist smear-mongering Posing as ‘Scholarship’… Waikato’s [sic] university’s Subb [sic] -Standards (2 pages) and ‘Waikato’s Germanophobia’ (1 page) It would be appreciated if you could let me know if this information is correct.[25]

I duly informed Bing that the information was not correct, replying to him:

1. The pages you refer to were taken down awhile back (possibly a week or two ago), on the basis of ‘less is more’, and on further reflection. I deleted the material on my own volition. 2. However I am not aware of receiving any letter from the University’s lawyers asking me to do this. I will forward this response and your e-mail to the lawyers for clarification.[26]

One would think that any rational mind would pause when I stated that the matter would be raised with Gillian Spry of Norris Ward McKinnon, presumably the lawyer Bing was lying about; but no. Bing was set on his course, presumably confident that nobody at the law firm or the University would dare confront him. Bing responded with more lies:

Thank you for your prompt reply. The request from the University was not in writing but per telephone according to the Assistant of the Vice Chancellor. Surely the Assistant would not make up this information. I have been advised that the information contained on the three pages was defamatory in the extreme and you will be hearing shortly from my lawyer. You will appreciate to hear that I downloaded the three pages when they appeared on your website. At least you don’t mince words and are very clear about your views and unfounded accusations.[27]

A third e-mail from Bing arrived, which made less sense than the first two, and does not seem to refer to any matter in the real world:

I am just checking with you if it is correct that you have closed down both your websites? I wonder what your reason for this action is? Cheers, Dov Bing[28]

Bing proceeded to threaten me with litigation for $300,000 with a quip from his lawyer about not selling the family home. The demand was that I publish an apology in the major newspapers and in the NZ Jewish Chronicle. The nature of the retraction was intended to undermine the basis of my complaint concerning the Van Leeuwen thesis. On November 7, 2008 Bing’s solicitor, Stephen Williams, Hamilton, wrote to this writer that the learned professor had “merely guided the student in the structure of the thesis.”[29] He sought to minimize Bing’s role in regard not only to the Van Leeuwen thesis, but also in regard to the Hayward and Kupka matters. I was supposed to publish a retraction in the press by November 21, or face court action for “at least $300,000.”

In the retraction I was to “unreservedly” and “sincerely” apologize for supposedly having referred to Bing as an incompetent bigot with a political agenda. I was also supposed to state that Bing had supervised the thesis in “a most professional manner.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 View All