Whistleblower: Oxford glossed ruling of inquiry, says lawyer

An Oxford legal don has said that the university was wrong to suggest in a public statement that it had been vindicated by a special inquiry into the forced ejection of an international scholar. John Eekelaar, a barrister and fellow of Pembroke College, said the university has published only its own edited summary of the findings, but even it shows the university was "condemned" on a number of "grave counts".

The inquiry, by Sir Oliver Popplewell, was set up last year after The THES reported that Denis Galligan, a law professor, had ordered the ejection of a junior ethnic-minority colleague, who has asked not to be named.

Sir Oliver found that Professor Galligan had reasonable grounds for ordering the ejection and that there was no evidence of malice or discrimination. He found that procedures had been followed correctly. Oxford announced that Sir Oliver "confirmed the appropriateness of the procedures".

But in a letter to Oxford registrar David Holmes, Mr Eekelaar said: "The university seems to believe that it has been exonerated by the report. On the basis of the university's summary, that is not so. On the contrary, the university stands condemned."

Oxford said that Sir Oliver criticised the university for failing to "set out... at an early stage greater details of the evidence relied on to warrant the exclusion".

"Since this is what (the scholar) had been requesting, in letter after letter, all of which were rebuffed, this must be regarded as a serious criticism," Mr Eekelaar said.

Eight months after the exclusion, which the university has accepted left the scholar "distressed and humiliated", the university told the scholar in a letter that the ground for his ejection was the "fear of physical violence to members of staff". However, Sir Oliver said the actual ground for the exclusion was the fear that he might "cause inconvenience" to other members of staff.

"There is a chasm between fear of violence and fear of inconvenience," Mr Eekelaar said. "The fact that an allegation which has caused (the scholar) immense distress and humiliation, not to mention possible career prejudice, has been found not to be substantiated is extremely grave."

Oxford's summary also reports that Sir Oliver found that "given the alterations to the statutes, the particular problem was unlikely to be repeated".

"This directly links 'the problem'... not to (the scholar), not to Professor Galligan, but to the university's statutes," Mr Eekelaar said. "All this builds an overwhelming case for the university to recognise that this whole sorry story has followed from major deficiencies in its statutory procedures."

The spokeswoman for the university said Mr Eekelaar's comments were not a "fair and accurate reflection of the university's actions and Sir Oliver's conclusions". "The university is satisfied that the matter has been properly considered and does not consider that there is any public interest in yet further-re-examination of the minutiae," she said.

Mr Eekelaar declined to comment, saying his letter was meant for internal discussion.