Cherian George
Prof Cherian George

Former Nanyang Technological University (NTU) professor Cherian George revealed in a blog post that his denial of tenure at the university in 2013 could have been politically motivated, when he found it necessary to respond to remarks made recently by university president Bertil Andersson that could potentially hurt his academic standing.

In an interview with Times Higher Education, Prof Andersson said, “Dr George “was subjected to the same scrutiny as everyone else” in the institution’s tenure process. He added that “one can have different opinions if that academic decision [by] our tenure committee was right or not. That is an academic decision. But the decision was not political.”

Writing in his blog post, Prof George had asked Prof Andersson to retract his statement, to which he eventually issued a clarification that “there was no intention to lower the reputation or standing of Dr George in his field of work”.

“This fails to reduce the sting of his published remarks,” wrote Prof George. “They amount to a statement by the NTU president that the reason I was forced to leave his university was that I was unable to meet its academic standards required for tenure.”

The issue here does not boil down to “different opinions”, as he suggests, but the following objective facts that contradict his quotes. First, I was assessed to have met the university’s academic criteria for promotion and tenure in 2009. Second, NTU withheld tenure nonetheless. And third, it gave only political and not academic reasons for its decision…

The positive academic assessment of the Provost’s committee materialised in my promotion to Associate Professor in 2009. However, the other half of the recommendation – to grant me tenure – was set aside.

Only political and no academic grounds were ever cited by the university leadership for this 2009 decision. I was told of a “perception” that my critical writing could pose a “reputational risk” to the university in the future.

My subsequent annual performance reviews from 2009-2012 never highlighted any deficiency in research, teaching or service that I was required to address in order to secure tenure. Instead, the only remedial actions discussed with me by any level of the university during that period were that I could perhaps try reaching out to the government, or moving to a role within the university that might be less politically sensitive than journalism education.

Prof George also revealed that NTU had earlier assured him that he would not need to reapply for tenure, as he had already met all the necessary academic criteria. The university was supposed to have reconsidered his case at the right time, but did not do so.

I accepted my school’s decision to renominate me as a way for the university to review and correct the anomaly of 2009. Instead, willful blindness set in – aided by the removal from my tenure application of six pages containing background information about the earlier round. This redaction was done without my consent or knowledge, before internal and external reviewers received my dossier.

Consequently, Prof George felt that Prof Andersson’s remarks were “incorrect, insensitive and injurious to the reputation of a Singaporean forced to reestablish his career outside his home country by his employer’s failure to treat him like other academics.” He is currently teaching at the Hong Kong Baptist University.

Prof George also indicated that he is prepared to waive his rights for personnel confidentiality, and invited Prof Andersson to stand by his interview statements by disclosing the minutes of NTU’s tenure committee in 2009, the reasons given for withholding his tenure in 2010, and his annual appraisals between his first and second tenure applications.

When Prof George was denied tenure a second time in 2013, his students started a petition against the decision that garnered over 1000 signatures, with several of Prof George’s colleagues writing letters of support for his tenure.

While at NTU, Prof George had been a critical voice speaking up publicly on media freedom and Singapore politics

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

明晚需停业,夜店办“告别”派对? 旅游局提醒警将到场监督

新加坡旅游局、企业发展局以及警方发出联合文告,提醒在26日晚之前,夜店业者仍需遵守目前的措施,包括禁250人以上的活动、确保参与者保持安全距离、避免聚集等。 “对于未能遵守措施者我们将毫不手软采取行动。” 跨政府部门抗疫工作小组是在昨日宣布一系列新措施,包括所有娱乐场所:戏院、酒吧、夜总会、夜店、剧院和卡拉OK等将从26日晚起需停业,预计禁令将维持至下月30日。若疫情仍未好转将可能延长实施期限。 不过,文告中提及,当局发现有一些夜店经营者,打算在今晚(25日)举办“告别”活动,这可能吸引大量人群聚集。 为此,文告强调上述政府举措的用意,就是要减少形成本地感染群的风险。 当局提醒从现在起至26日晚上11时59分期间,夜店业者受促保持严谨社交距离措施,也禁止超过250人的活动。 “即时少于250人,也应落实所有预防措施,包括保持至少一米距离,也减少参与者聚集一起。” 当局提醒,当局可执法确保业者遵守上述安全措施,政府部门官员包括警方未来两天都会到场监督。交警也会全岛执法,打击酒驾行为。 当局也呼吁,希望国人作出理智判断和尽社会责任,确保国人在全球疫情危机下度过难关。 截至昨日,本地累计确诊病558例,死亡病例两例。

Hong Kong Journalists Association lodges complaints to independent watchdog against police treatment of media during protest; Would Singapore journalists have the same means?

As journalists do their best to cover the historic extradition bill protests…

58-year-old man claims threats of arrest and violence by police

[vimeo id=”132998075″ align=”center” mode=”normal”] An elderly Singaporean claims that he was wrongly…

Court hearing to determine on the specification of first Elected Presidency term set for 29 June

Dr Tan Cheng Bock announces that the High Court hearing to determine whether…