Dear Professor and Vice-Chancellor Gale:

For over two years, I have been following the strange events which have happened to your former research officer Dr. D.Rindos. Of course, I am familiar with his research writings, but only know him personally because of his involvment in the creation of the Anthropology gopher.

After reading many publications on the Internet, I (as, I suggest, very many others) now know that he was denied his tenure for reasons that are not related to his scientific qualification.

On this I have to note first that in my opinion Dr. D.Rindos is an original and very qualified scientist, and it has been a pleasure to discuss with him different evolutionary problems via Internet. I am sure I am not the only person saying such views on the qualifications of Dr.Rindos. Thus, on the basis of all of the information given on the Internet it is clear that Dr. D.Rindos was not denied tenure for reasons of poor performance.

Second, and please believe me, it is very sad, and upsetting, to read some of the justifications from UWA about a scientist, and to read that he was harmed because he is gay (note, apropos, I have two children), that some official papers on his activities in UWA were lost, etc. etc. These are most unpersuasive stories. Unfortunately, it reminds me far too much of the history of my own country in the past. I could add also that in modern Russia which is attempting now to come along the way of democracy, sexism (as, apropos, any "-ism") isn't supported by the general part of society.

Hence, a single question arises (forgive me my hard style): why do you decide the questions of tenures not on the ground of criterion of scientific qualification? And how could you take gossip and use that to harm a person? Why did you do this? It is not justice or fair.

Of course, I can understand it possible that some individual traits of Dr. D.Rindos may provoke antipathy from someone. But, and again I am sorry, these are common problems, and it is the the role of administration of any organization to wind up conflicts between academicians in a fair way. This is because proper science and good scholarship must be the priority. In other words, I want to say that your position on this so-called "conflict" doesn't look convincing at all.

Forgive me if I am not right, but if I am not right, then it is your duty to tell me where I am wrong. If you cannot, you harm your university even more.

Dr. Vladimir F.Levchenko

Inst. of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry of Russian Acad.Sci., Toreza av. 44, St.Petersburg, 194223 Russia