|
In October 2000 I signed, under the exclusive direction of a professor, a thesis contract in quantitative geomorphology in the laboratory “Le Centre Littoral de Geophysique” at the University of La Rochelle. My thesis: analysis, modelling and quantification of the erosion and the networks of littoral drainage, exemple of the catchments and the strands of the Charente region, had been given priority by the university.
Contrary to thesis subjects which usually follow the research done in DEA (Diplome d'étude Approfondi, equivelente to Master), I did not have the benefit of using my DEA research, which focused on a different subject.
It was not possible to prepare my thesis in the 3-year term because of shortcomings in the supervision of my thesis: Non-provision of the equipment necessary to my research, dispersion and loss of time on research other than my thesis, and creation and programming of a numerical model since I did not have access to the numerical model Eros (Crave and Davy), that my director was supposed to get me for my thesis work.
Although not part of my thesis work I had to spend several months of my 3-year PhD to develop my numerical model before I could devote myself to my thesis subject matter. The numerical model, that I had to create and program myself from scratch, belongs to me as I was not an employee of the university.
My copyright in my research work has not been protected by my thesis director since he, among other things, constrained me to teach several of his students, without remuneration, the workings of the original numerical model I had created, and having had to reveal certain parts during these lessons, my model has lost some of its value and is no longer patentable.
Following the delays suffered by my lack of equipment for my research, I had to solicit in June of 2003, an extension for a 4th year, during which I also obtained a post of Temporary Assistant, Teaching and Research, part time for 2003-2004, with the commitment from my director that my thesis would be defended before September 30, 2004.
In spite of his commitment my director neglected to supervise my thesis work, because he spent part of his time to “Sauvons la Recherche”, being the spokesperson for the University of La Rochelle, from January to June 2004. Only in June did he concerne himself with my thesis work. Too late to defend before September 30, 2004, especially since I had health problems, being asthmatic.
The research of a PhD candidate must not be disclosed before the filing of a defense of the thesis manuscript, but in June 2004, I discovered that some of my director students had plagiarized certain parts of my twice-yearly thesis progress reports, and had even been graded on this work. I complained of infringement.
At the beginning of July 2004 I had to seek an extension for a 5th year to prepare my defense before the end of 2004, having had no enough time to complete my manuscript for the filing of defense, before the university closed in late July, for summer holydays.
In September 2004 I could not be reinstated because my director had not signed in July the documents necessary for my reinstatement. He then refused to reinstate me and stopped talking to me. I was thus unable to get my director to explain the plagiarism of my work by his students.
In October 2004, being excluded from the University of La Rochelle because of my director refusal to reinstate me, being no longer a PhD candidate, I found myself without any social status, insurance or financial resources. I had to return to my family.
Following the breakdown of the supervision of my thesis director, I requested a change of thesis director in November 2004, but my director told the president of the university that he would see my work through its end, although no longer talking to me. The leaders of the university then demanded that I bring in early December my manuscript completed during the summer, for evaluation for reinstatement.
Being not reinstated, I had no more access to my laboratory equipment, so I had to print my manuscript at my expense on my own computer equipment, manuscript of more than 300 pages that I had to bring to doctoral school in december 2004. When during the 'Sauvons la recherche” movement, students used abusively the laboratory photocopiers to print political tracts for this movement.
In January 2005, I complained of the refusal of reinstatement to the General Council. The president answered that he was not concerned because the formation depended of the Training Laboratory.
February 2005, I contacted the academic mediator, who was dismissed by the university on the grounds that I had refused to sign a local mediation, which was, in fact, never presented to me.
March 2005, the university had a mediation proposal sent to me, by a mediator of their choice, based in Brest, but coming from La Rochelle, supposedly impartial, but in fact employed by the university since he taught there and supervised some thesis, and furthermore co-authored scientific papers with some members of the university. Although the thesis contract stipulated that the PhD candidates must be an integral part of the Training Laboratory, that mediation proposal imposed upon me abnormal work conditions , to prepare my thesis by correspondence and not at the university, and did not specify where, how and with whom my defense would take place.
April 2005, I challenged the Ministry of Research, asking if the university could inflict upon me such discriminatory conditions of defense.
Without waiting for the response of the Ministry, the president of the university sent me back my manuscript, kept for more than 6 months, without any assessment, together with the cancellation of my thesis contract on June 28, 2005.
The Ministry responded on July 8, 2005, without ruling on the legality of the defense conditions which were imposed upon me by the University of La Rochelle.
The republican principle of equality of opportunity has not been granted to me by the University of La Rochelle. While I was refused a 5th year extension to defend my thesis in late 2004, in my laboratory, during my PhD research and after my exclusion, some doctoral candidates have spent 5, even 6 years to defend and achieve graduation.
During my doctoral training, I have never seen a doctoral candidate having to prepare his defense from home by correspondence.
For an example of inequality, the 2 students who had illegally used some of my work have even obtained a post of Temporary Assistant, teaching and Research, 2 years in a row, without counting their vacancies in addition to their scholarships, which enabled them to support their thesis, one at the end of a 4th year extension, the other at the end of a 5th year extension, without counting one year preceding those 5 years, funded by vacancies, failing a grant he had not obtained. The subject of their thesis was following their Master work.
For my part I could benefit neither a second post ATER, my request having been rejected on the grounds that I no longer had the profile, nor a 5th year extension to prepare my defense, when the thesis contract specifies that working conditions of doctoral candidates must be equal.
The University of La Rochelle has deprived me of the defense of my research and of my degree in 2005 because I did not yield without contestation to its irregular work conditions since the mediator imposed by the university stated in his proposal that “later on the procedure returns to normal”, which clearly shows the abnormality which was being imposed upon me without saying why.
August 2005, following the cancellation of my thesis contract, I initiated a lawsuit against the University of La Rochelle in the Administrative Tribunal of Poitiers. I lost 19 months and the consequent costs of a lawsuit because I was rejected by the Administrative Tribunal on the grounds that my thesis contract was not contractual.
September 2007, I filed a complaint with the HALDE, which claimed not being able to give its opinion since there had been a judgment, and did not even respond to my second complaint in which I referred to the discrimination I have suffered in comparison with other doctoral candidates at the University of La Rochelle.
In March 2009, I asked the General Council what had become of my semi-annual thesis reports , the university claiming not to hold them, and I mentioned the inequality of opportunity that I had suffered. The President responded not being concerned by the inequality of opportunity at the University of La Rochelle, and had my thesis reports sent back to me, stating that my work, although claimed in the scholarship agreement of December 2000, had not been used by the General Council since it had not been made public by my thesis defense.
I have been deprived of the benefit of my research, by the refusal of my thesis defense in normal conditions,so much the more that thesis was already ranked priority in 2000 by the University of La Rochelle, and my research work was adapted to the research objectives of the Institut du Littoral et de l'Environment.
My work research included the erosion and silting of the charentais coastline, with case studies of the bay of Marennes-Oleron and comparison with the bay of L'Aiguillon. Subject made dramatically actual by the consequences of the Xyntia storm of February 28, 2010.
The numerical model to calculate erosion that I had created from scratch at the beginning of my thesis allowed me to simulate and quantify erosion and silting of river catchments and Charente coastline or, on a smaller scale, the evolution of a mudflat, my model being transposable to other areas.
March 2009, I sent an unsolicited job application to the Institut du Littoral linked to the University of La Rochelle, but received no response to my candidacy, though I conducted my doctoral training in quantitative geomorphology with my thesis director who was the director of my laboratory, the Centre Littoral de Geophysique and also the director of the Institut du Littoral et de l'Environment.
The content of my thesis work was not the reason for non presentation to an examiming board, because my director had told the General Council as early as May 2003 that my defense would be at the end of 2003, for very satisfactory work, but he did not keep his word later on, postponing my defense to “the end of 2004 at the latest”. Again, commitment not kept, as also when he had told me that I would defend the same day as his other doctoral candidate, who had a scholarship from the Ministry.
For almost 5 years I have been trying to assert my right to defend my research work after my PhD training which I did until the end of the defense, without any professor agreeing to take on this end of thesis. Training for which I paid tuition each year.
For almost 5 years I have been unable to get a job, receiving only rejections of my many applications in my abilities, despite the high level of my studies.
----
Which web surfur could give me information on thesis contracts and rights of doctoral candidates?
Can a web surfur explain to me why the doctoral candidates having a scholarship from the Ministry can pass in 3 years, when doctoral candidates with other types of scholarships, like from the town or county, or region, can only defend in 4 years minimum as I could ascertain in the laboratory during my thesis? Thank you.
|
