My name is Sanaz Raji, and until recently, I was a PhD candidate at the School of Media and Commuication, formerly the Institute of Communications Studies (ICS), University of Leeds, UK. I was awarded in September 2009 a 3 year full tuition fees and maintenance scholarship from the ICS. My scholarship was wrongfully revoked by the ICS on the 15 August 2011, without the ICS following rules and regulations set forth in the University of Leeds Research Student Handbook. This was done only TWO WEEKS before the start of enrollment for the 2011-2012 academic year, effectively preventing me from being able to continue my PhD research as I had no financial means to afford the steep £13,700 tuition fee along with supporting myself for another year. The ICS took away my scholarship without following their own rules and procedures as set forth both in the Research Student Handbook and other protocols for scholarship students. For more than 2 years, I have been embroiled in a dispute with the ICS, University of Leeds that has prevented me from completing my PhD research.
In short, the message that the ICS, University of Leeds sends to international students is that their education, their well-being, even their health is of lesser importance than that of home students.
Please sign this petition and join us in fighting this outrageous decision collectively. Let us make sure that the ICS, University of Leeds is held accountable for their wrongdoings.
1. My PhD supervisors at the ICS, University of Leeds failed to provide for two consecutive years the minimum required 10 supervision meetings as indicated in the Research Student Handbook
2. I was repeatedly denied on 3 occasions a change of supervisors, and bullied by the Postgraduate Research Tutor to continue with an unworkable supervisory arrangement. This violates the rules and procedures set forth in the Research Student Handbook.
3. I was not provided sick leave from the ICS when I suffered a broken right ankle. The ICS failed to meet their required pastoral role in this matter.
4. I was racially discriminated at a supervision meeting on the 23 March 2011, when my co-supervisor asked if English was my first language. I was perplexed why I was asked such a question given that English is my native language. Likewise, this co-supervisor had never taken issue with my writing style before this date or when I contributed a chapter for her co-edited book. None of my other PhD colleagues who come from South America, North America, Europe or Asia were asked about their English language capabilities. This ridiculous question was brought up in order to undermine my confidence and make me feel incompetence because I am a minority student in this country.
5. The ICS Research Scholarship (fees plus maintenance) was withdrawn without the ICS abiding by the rule and procedures set forth in the Research Student Handbook. Specifically, the Research Student Handbook states:
"It is essential that the student should be given clear information in writing on the assessment of progress. Where progress is deemed to be unsatisfactory, the student should be interviewed by the Postgraduate Research Tutor and the supervisor and specific instructions and objectives given. The student should be advised that failure to meet those requirements may lead to a recommendation for the termination of the candidature.” (2009/2010: 74).
In fact, my supervisory meeting notes from 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 do not indicate any issue with my progress.
6. The committee overseeing my appeal against the ICS has conducted a kangaroo court by not allowing a proper hearing between myself and the ICS. On the 12th October 2012, I was informed via e-mail by the Secretariat, Mr. David Wardle that I would by denied a hearing with the committee overseeing my appeal because the evidence I had sent was deemed "comprehensive" and therefore I would not be needed to make any additional comments. This violates my human rights and the law of the land. I am entitled to a hearing in order to (a) present my evidence, (b) hear what evidence the contra-party, i.e. the ICS has presented to appeals committee and (c) be able to defend myself against any accusations.
After much delay, on the 16th April 2013, I received a final decision from the university, which was negative and did not address the finer points of the arguments I have made. Despite the ample evidence that I have provided, the University of Leeds does not wish to remedy the situation at hand, but rather exhaust me out to such a manner that I am forced to leave academia altogether and give up the research and teaching that I enjoy.
Let us teach the ICS, University of Leeds, that they are not a law onto themselves. They must respect the rules and regulations indicated in the Research Student Handbook as well as the law of this country.
For a detailed summary of my dispute against the ICS, University of Leeds, please click here.