Dear Dean,

Dear colleagues,

I would like to sincerely thank the Dean for sharing her response. As each situation differs, I felt it would be more appropriate to reply with an individual email, appreciating the opportunity for a respectful exchange.

At the outset, I would like to point out that my doubts and formal concerns regarding the management of the situation by the Masaryk University leadership date back to my email of 20 October addressed directly to the Dean and some members of the Department, in which I wrote:

“I must express my deep concern regarding the current absence of clear guidance and practical support for PhD students, as well as the lack of indications on how to manage our professional relationship with Professor Foletti during this period – a situation that I am certain will also prompt further correspondence from my colleagues. Quite frankly, I feel left to navigate this situation on my own: I do not know whether I will be able to rely on Professor Foletti – the person who has most closely supervised my work with such care and expertise – for my state examination and thesis defense, both in terms of scheduling and academic support. I am also uncertain whether he will be able to assist with the necessary corrections to my thesis.

While I fully respect the measures taken, without being aware of the specific accusations made against him, I trust that you can appreciate the significant impact his suspension has on my academic progress and on my future more broadly, as well as on that of my fellow colleagues – an impact further compounded by the uncertainty surrounding the possible duration of this process. I would therefore like to stress the urgency of identifying appropriate measures and providing clear guidance for affected PhD students, in order to ensure that our studies can continue without undue disruption.”

This email was followed by a reply asking me for patience. While it may be argued that my message was sent shortly after Prof. Foletti’s official suspension, the investigation had already been ongoing for several months, and I would have expected at least some degree of preparation in anticipation of such a measure. Instead, the official statement only informed us about the professor’s suspension, without any concrete explanation or effective support.

On 27 October, I was approached by Mgr. Lucie Machalová from the Office for Studies, who asked about my intended timeline for submitting my dissertation. I replied that Professor Foletti’s suspension had unfortunately created uncertainty – reiterating the same concerns expressed above, while adding that:

“This situation has created additional complications (beyond the obvious ones): to begin with, I have been left to manage the situation with my second university and my second supervisor on my own. I hope you agree that it should not be my responsibility to communicate such a delicate matter, particularly given the limited information I currently possess. I also have no information regarding a more precise timeline for resolving the ongoing investigation to provide them, which is why I have refrained from taking any action.

Directly connected to this point, I am also concerned about potential administrative or bureaucratic consequences at my second university, where I am enrolled under a contract co-signed by Prof. Foletti (recently extended for an additional academic year) and have paid tuition. I trust that this process can be managed directly by your office without any further action required on my part or, of course, negative impact.”

Despite my expressed concerns, no formal communication was established with the University of Fribourg or my co-supervisor, Prof. Michele Bacci. On 11 November, in fact, I received from Fribourg the cotutelle agreement extension requiring Prof. Foletti’s signature. In this regard, although in my previous email I had referred to the agreement as already finalized – since Prof. Bacci had confirmed his approval for its formalization – I had not fully taken into account that the agreement still required formal countersignature by the relevant authorities at Masaryk University.
Only at that point, and once again on my own initiative, did Masaryk University finally establish contact with Fribourg to explain the situation.

Similar concerns about MU’s management of the situation on my part were subsequently reiterated during the meeting with Prof. XXXXX referenced in our last letter and, of course, in the collective letter from PhD candidates addressed also to the Dean and sent on 12 February.

Given my very concrete need to complete my degree as soon as possible, I was the one to propose that Dr. XXXXX serve as a substitute supervisor. This choice was consistent with my academic path, as he has followed my work from the beginning as a subject expert and consultant. Only at that stage, on 17 December, did I learn that Professor XXXXX had been appointed Chair of the Doctoral Board (this was never formally communicated to me before) and that he was open to considering this solution.

I would like to state this very clearly: my request was motivated solely by the concrete need to complete my studies and to ensure that they were properly supervised by an expert in the field aware of my research progress. At that stage, I believed that the best possible outcome for me was to acknowledge Prof. Foletti’s essential contribution as my supervisor on the cover of the thesis and to ensure that it was properly recorded in the Masaryk information system – something on which I found opposition from part of MU (as clearly stated during the meeting of 4 February convened by the Dean). Given that Dr. XXXXX has followed my work from the outset, I was open to the idea of having three supervisors formally recognized, with two of them remaining active.

Only on 2 March, I was informed that Dr. XXXXX was expected to be accepted as my substitute supervisor, subject to approval by both the Doctoral Board and the Scientific Committee, as he is not habilitated. Shortly thereafter, however, Prof. XXXXX informed us of the Doctoral Board’s vote to reinstate Prof. Foletti as supervisor. This decision has, of course, reopened the situation. On the one hand, it has further delayed the formal appointment of my supervisor; on the other hand, it has reopened the possibility that I most strongly preferred, for the reasons outlined in previous communications. In any case, as of today, I am still without an official supervisor from MU.

I am, of course, able to provide screenshots of the email exchanges referenced in this message. For discussions that took place during online meetings, I can only rely on the testimony of the other participants involved.

While I fully understand and empathize with the difficulty of managing an unprecedented situation, I do not feel that my legitimate interests have been safeguarded as they should have been – at least insofar. I therefore reiterate my concern regarding the handling of communication and, in particular, the prolonged lack of willingness to involve my colleagues and me in a dialogue – even simply to listen to our needs and find a proper solution.

Respectfully,

Ruben Campini