Posted by alexandra_k on April 17, 2022, at 0:14:25
all the little students complain directly to the new zealand vice chancellor's committee.
after they have exhausted the internal complaints resolution of their own universities (designed to have them waste close to a year of time. you know how it is. you complain to x. they have up to 3 weeks -- but they run over-time. you complain to x+1 position on the hierarchy. they have up to 3 weeks -- but they run over-time. you complain to x+2 position on the hierarchy. they have up to 3 weeks -- but they run over-time.
the higher up says 'nah nah nah nah nah we can't hear you. unless and until you get a response from the appropriately positioned person or people nah nah nah nah nah'.
and once the complaints have been received by the chief executive of the new zealand vice chancellors committee...
he just squashes them. puts them in a drawer or something. burns them. and that's an end to them.
which is for the good, obviously. because the only alternative would be for him to arranage for you tobe unlawfully detained and tortured, for having complained, i suppose.
the courts of new zealand have established a precedent whereby they will acknowledge that the chief exective did not do what he was required to do. they will say that it doesn't matter because being chief exective means you get to write the policy. so you don't actually have to follow the policy you wrote because you can always change it retrospecctively. see? see how the law fails to work in new zealand??
the judge also says that the chief executive with the statutory function of upholding the quality and integrity of nz university degrees and, particularly, ensuring that the complaints resolution practice complies with our international obligations to protect (and not target and destroy) whistleblowers...
he claims that it is not his statutory responsibility to get students or faculties complaints to a meeting of the new zealand vice chancellors committee (where the person can personally bring thier allegations before the committee for hteir consideration) or get complaints to police.
in fact, justice isac (hauled out of retirement for precisely this occasion) thoguht that it would be violating the statutory laws of new zealand if chris whelan in his capaciaty as CE of the NZVCC with statutory function of upholding quality and integrity of NZ university qualifications were to get the evidence of wrongdoing to a meeting of the NZVCC and / or forward evidence to the police.
if he were to do anything other than quash the complaint / attmept to silence / ignore the complainant / arrange to persecute or blacklist he complaintant.. then he would be violating the statutory law of nz. interfering with the academic or intellectual or operational freedom of the public universities of new zealand to do whatever they want whenever they want because they want.
when what they want is for the studnets to pay the university, pay the university, pay the university, pay the university, keep 'working' for the university. keep handing the 'university' 'work' and paying the university. keeping doing 'work experience' for no credit while paying the university.
anything other than this would undermine or interfere with the qualiaty and integrity of our qualifications.
because, clearly, the main aim or goal or purpose or point is to comletetely and utterly undermine any perception of quality or integrity of our 'education' system.
also our judiciary.
the 'judiciary'.
thanks. jsutice isac. for your retirement volunteeringn judgment. or whatever that was supopsed to be...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1119390
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20220213/msgs/1119390.html