Or the day when PhD students in Sweden became less protected than berries-pickers
In Sweden the main
law governing universities is the Higher Education Ordinance (HEO). In addition
each university has its own regulations, which are designed to describe in more
detail certain laws. Of course, local regulations must not contradict HEO.
There were
numerous violations of the law and even crimes committed by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) during their
pathetic attempts to hide forgery research that were (and are) going on at the
university. However, it was not possible to bring all cases at once before the
court; at least I didn't know the way to do it. So, the case I brought before
the Uppsala District Court was the termination of my employment as a PhD
student* and the use of me as a shadow work force before appointing as a PhD. I
hoped that during litigation the Uppsala Court would use its authority to initiate
investigations of other crimes committed by SLU.
Briefly: I have
been accepted as a PhD student at SLU in January 2010. The period of PhD
education in Sweden
is 4 years. Nevertheless, in the middle of the January 2012 I found out that it
was the last month when I was going to be paid. No notice, no explanations, not
even a single proof that I failed to “fulfil the requirements specified in the
individual study plan”. I described the situation in details in the previous
posts.
So, let us read
what the Swedish law says about PhD employment:
HEO Chapter 5, Section 1: “Higher education institutions may
establish specific post for third-cycle students to enable them to complete
their third-cycle studies.”
HEO Chapter 5, Section 7: “Appointment to a doctoral
studentship shall apply for an indefinite period, however for no longer than
until a specified date and never for a period extending more than one year
after the award of a PhD of a doctorate in the fine, applied and performing art. A person may be appointed to a
doctoral studentship for a total of eight years. The total employment period
may, however, not exceed the time corresponding to full-time third-cycle
study for four years. The time spent studying by the third-cycle student
while not appointed to a doctoral studentship shall be deducted from these
periods.”
Chapter 6; Section 30; HEO: “If a doctoral student substantially neglects his or her undertakings
in the individual study plan, the vice-chancellor shall decide that the
doctoral student is no longer entitled to supervision and other study
resources. Before such a decision is made, the doctoral student and the
supervisors shall be given an opportunity to make representations. The case
shall be considered on the basis of their reports and any other records
available. The assessment shall take into account whether the higher education
institution has fulfilled its own undertakings in the individual study plan. A
written record of the decision shall be made, which is to include reasons for
the decision. Resources may not be withdrawn for any period in which the
third-cycle student has been appointed to a doctoral studentship or is
receiving a doctoral grant.”
SLU local regulations are even
stricter. According to the
Guidelines for research education in the Faculty of Natural Resources and
Agricultural Sciences: “The department is responsible for providing
the financing necessary for the research education to be carried out. This
applies also in event of the absence of the financing anticipated by the
department at the time of the research student's admission. The financial
responsibility applies as long as the research student fulfills the
requirements specified in the individual study plan.”
Now the quote from the decision of the
Uppsala District Court: “An obligation to have a doctoral student employed
for four years cannot be inferred from the Higher Education Ordinance”
Obs!
 |
| The image was kindly provided by http://www.christart.com/clipart/image/tipped-scales |
The decision made by the Uppsala
District Court is a precedent and it will have the most severe consequences for all PhD students, who work at the Swedish universities. Actually this decision invalidates
HEO in total. Now all guaranties provided by HEO are annulled. The Uppsala
District Court confirmed that university has rights to terminate PhD employment
outside the procedure prescribed by the law, meaning that PhD can be cancelled
at any time on a whim of a supervisor. No more investigations and long
proceedings about whether or not “a doctoral student substantially neglects his or her undertakings in the
individual study plan”. Now scientists who work
for their PhD at the Swedish universities became even less protected then seasonal
berries-pickers. PhD workers became absolutely rightless and fall into total
dependence of their supervisors. This is slavery!
It was too much for the Uppsala
District Court to convict SLU, because then all bad deeds of the university would
come out: forgery, exploitation of foreign scientists, falsification of evidences,
sexual harassment, and abuse of power. The Court did not want to spoil the
image of the national university. The Court preferred to sacrifice the law and put on danger careers of young scientists.
Of course I appealed the decision
of the Uppsala District Court and I am waiting whether or not the appeal will
be granted.
_________________________________________________________________________________
* ”a PhD student” is a very
deceiving term: it misrepresented a scientist who works for his PhD degree as
some sort of a schoolboy, who spends most of his time attending lectures and
doing homework. This perception of a PhD position is nothing but wrong!
Scientists who do research to obtain their PhD degree are working horses. They
together with post-docs are those who sweat in labs, are eaten by gnats on
fieldwork, and go blind staring for hours at computer screens. They are the
true workers of science! And the less protected ones…
