/nginx/o/2014/01/29/2783000t1h9305.jpg)
May 9th of last year proved a bad day for Laine Randjärv, formerly minister of culture and now vice speaker of Riigikogu: following a smooth defence, for a moment she held the long desired Doctoral level degree – till, all of a sudden, another voting slip appeared. The fact is known to very few. The no-vote, emerging ever so strangely, proved fatal.
Long before the defence day, the media had – at times, with glee – kept its eye on Ms Randjärv’s doings in the field of science. Kaarel Tarand, the Estonian Students Society guy, wrote in Sirp, the culture paper, of how Ms Randjärv as doctoral student was discrediting the system and environment where she had planned herself a post-politician future. «It’s no secret that, for Laine Randjärv, a doctoral degree is only needed to soften the landing after her political career soon flops to its end as willed by party leadership and electorate,» knew Mr Tarand.
In his opinion, «despite of efforts by supervisor at the seven years long shaping of her macrology into dissertation, no miracle happened». He asked if the supervisor Aadu Must would have agreed to add his name as co-author to research by Ms Randjärv (the word, by Mr Tarand, was equipped with quotation marks). «Hardly,» he answered his own question. «Thus, the university’s reputation being endangered, the Rector must have his say. Firstly, of course, by passing a stinging judgement on academic conformism.»
The thesis by Ms Randjärv (Reform Party) was disparaged from Sirp to Õhtuleht. «I wasn’t knocked over by that,» Ms Randjärv told a women’s magazine, last summer. «Those who took delight in making a big thing of it, in the media, did not really know what actually took place.»
She was right. A tiny coterie knew what actually happened. Summing it up, shortly: an unrestrained string of mistakes, by the university. Postimees holds a report, compiled for University of Tartu rector Volli Kalm regarding legality of Ms Randjärv’s doctoral thesis defence. The committee, composed of five, was tasked to find out how the defence transpired, on May 9th 2013, what preceded it, and whether the necessary procedures were performed pursuant to requirements. The committee finished its work in midsummer of 2013, the results not gladdening the heart of Rector.
Turned out, reviewer Karsten Brüggemann had been negatively tuned, beforehand, having been invited to review the work in a manner showing the defender in negative light clearly contradicting good academic practice. It also turned out, that some necessary meetings did not happen at all. Minutes do indeed exist about a meeting of UofT Institute of History and Archaeology council meeting, whither the thesis was sent to be defended; even so, the meeting never took place.
The opponents were informed in a faulty way; a wrong person was appointed as head of Ms Randjärv’s defence meeting; the meeting lacked essential discussion. Following the defence by Ms Randjärv, a voting procedure took place, crossing all allowable error limits. It was never checked, if the envelope into which the voting slips were to be stuck, was empty to start with.
The ballot was secret; the envelope contained five votes for and four against. For a couple of minutes, Ms Randjärv held her doctorate. Only after the positive decision by council – the degree was awarded – another slip was discovered in the envelope! Against.
The degree, obtained after seven years of effort, evaporated in the blink of an eye. The new situation: five for, five against. «The situation demands repeat vote,» said professor Aadu Must, Ms Randjärv’s supervisor without the right to vote himself; his call was unheeded. The new decision was formulated: not to issue the degree.
The committee reporting to Rector Kalm did not detect falsification of voting results, but the proceeding seemed suspicious and set a question mark over reliability.
After hocus-pocus like this, one will not wonder how the negative decision was never even explained. This, in its report, the committee lists as one of the errors. It is also no secret that the defence was preceded by lively media interest; the committee concluded this could have affected the council to develop a more critical attitude towards the thesis, and its author.
Thus, for instance, on May 7th i.e. two days before the defence, the council members got a letter by Marek Strandberg, science editor at Sirp, which, by its contents, could be treated as an attempt to affect then to vote against awarding Doctoral degree to Ms Randjärv. To Postimees’ knowledge, in his «referral», Mr Strandberg passed an altogether destructive judgement on the thesis and, threateningly, admonished the council members that they were about to take on a tremendous responsibility by letting Ms Randjärv’s thesis pass.
Summing up the report: rules of procedure were violated essentially. To such an extent and weight, actually, as to provide basis to annul the committee decision. After the report was read, the Ms Randjärv thesis issue was discussed at institute of history and Senate. Due to errors and contradictions with legislation, Dean of philosophy faculty Margit Sutrop has issued an order that the committee’s decision, regarding allowing Ms Randjärv to defend and issuance of scientific degree, be annulled.
Today, almost a year later, Laine Randjärv’s voice still sounds weary of the entire experience; and, despite not having failed, as affirmed by the report, and not needing to rewrite her thesis rather just submit it again – she still remains wary. «I’m acquainted with the report and I’m moving towards submitting the thesis again, to the committee,» is her only comment.
Ms Randjärv’s supervisor, professor and Centre Party member Aadu Must, is also searching for words. «Before something’s about to make a bang, the tension must be big. Should this again be turned into a big scandal... [hard to tell], but, broadly speaking the report is correct, of course. It’s another matter if they are trying, there, to smooth something over... there are the tendencies; but the report is the result of hard work,» said Prof Must, satisfied.
Committee behind report
• Elsa Leiten, internal audit manager (head of committee)
• Margit Sutrop, philosophy faculty dean
• Aliis Liin, legal adviser
• Siret Rutiku, Office of Academic Affairs head
• Irene Kull, disputes committee head
COMMENT
Anti Selart, History and Archaeology Institute head, chairman of defence meeting for Laine Randjärv’s Doctoral level thesis, and member of committee
The committee investigated adherence to formal rules regarding defence of Doctoral thesis and stated that History and Archaeology Institute had not aligned its inner organisation of work with pan-university legislation. The admission to defend having not been legal, the result of the defence could not be regarded. To avoid such situations in the future, the university has, by now, instituted new roles for defence of Doctoral thesis, specifying the unclear places in regulations. The new order for defence will substantially increase the importance of allowing persons to defend. Thus, the committee’s criticism can hardly be considered «exaggerated», as it was purely based on inspection of adherence to formal rules.
/nginx/o/2013/07/05/1875298t1hd624.jpg)