The mathematics of vaccination and hospitalization

 Vaccination and hospitalization :

a mathematical study

 

Suppose that with the Healthy (H), the probability of being vaccinated is 0.65, and the vaccine is 0.9 effective against hospitalization.

Suppose that with the Weak (W), i.e. those with serious health and immunological issues, the probability of being vaccinated is 0.95, and the vaccine is 0.77 effective against hospitalization.

Suppose that, without the vaccine, 1000 healthy people (H) and 4000 weak people (W) would have been hospitalized.

The table below shows the prob (columns 2,3) and numbers (columns 4,5) of H and W that are unvaccinated, effectively and ineffectively vaccinated, and hospitalized, given the vaccine.

The last row in the table is the prob and numbers of people being hospitalized, being the sum of those unvaccinated and those ineffectively vaccinated.

	Prob with the  Healthy (f)	Prob with the Weak (g)	1000 × f	4000 x g
Unvaccinated (~v)	0.35	0.05	350	200
Vaccine effective (v,e)	0.65 × 0.9 = 0.585	0.95 × 0.77 = 0.7315	585	2926
Vaccine ineffective (v,~e)	0.65 × 0.1 = 0.065	0.95 × 0.23 = 0.2185	65	874
Hospitalized  = (~v) + (v,~e)	0.415	0.2685	415	1074

The total number hospitalized (H)

= 415 + 1074

= 1489

The total number of vaccinated hospitalized (VH)

= 65 + 874

= 939

VH ÷ H = 939 ÷ 1489 = 63.06 %

63 % of the hospitalized were vaccinated.

To generalize, let

R  = (N, the number of weak people hospitalized without vaccine) 

÷ (M, the number of healthy people hospitalized without vaccine)

In the previous example,

R  = 4000 ÷ 1000 = 4

VH ÷ H =  (0.065 + 4 x 0.2185)

                   ÷ (0.415 + 4 x 0.2685)

             = 0.939 ÷ 1.489

             = 0.6306

In general, 

Z  = VH ÷ H =  (0.065 + R x 0.2185)

                   ÷ (0.415 + R x 0.2685)

 R can assume any non-negative real value, from 0 (when N = 0), to

∞ (when M = 0)

The value of Z monotonically increases from 0.157 (= 0.065/0.415) when R=0  to 0.814 (= 0.2185/0.2685) when R=∞.

Therefore, Z, the percentage of the vaccinated among the hospitalized can vary from 15.7 % to 81.4 %, depending on the ratio of N to M.

To further generalize,  0.157 (0.814 resp.) is the percentage of the vaccinated among the healthy (weak resp.) hospitalized.

Therefore, Z, the percentage of the vaccinated among the hospitalized can take on any value between

• the percentage of the vaccinated among the healthy hospitalized

and 

• the percentage of the vaccinated among the weak hospitalized, 

depending on the ratio of N to M.

Finally, we generalize Y, the percentage of the vaccinated among the healthy/weak hospitalized.

Let us consider the healthy hospitalized. (The case of the weak hospitalized is identical.)

Let v

= probability of a healthy person being vaccinated

= proportion of the vaccinated among the healthy

= vaccination rate among the healthy

Let k = prob of the vaccine being ineffective with a healthy person

Y = ( v x k ) ÷ ((1- v ) + v x k )

In the example above, 

v = 0.65, k = 0.1, 

Y = 0.065 ÷ (0.35 + 0.065)

[1] Y as a function of v

Given a fixed k , Y monotonically increases (as v increases) from 0 (when v =0) to 1 (when v =1).

Given any vaccine efficacy, the proportion of the vaccinated among the hospitalized can be any value between 0% and 100%, depending on the proportion of the vaccinated among the general population in question.

[2] Y as a function of k

Given a fixed v , Y monotonically increases (as k increases) from 0 (when k =0) to v (when k =1).

Given any vaccination rate v, the proportion of the vaccinated among the hospitalized can be any value between 0% and v, depending on the vaccine efficacy.

□♡♤

Tan Wah Piow: The real reason behind the Internet crackdown in Singapore

by Tan Wah Piow, Singaporean political exile in London

(source)

Lee Hsien Loong in his first national day speech in 2004 as Prime Minister invoked Chairman Mao’s “let the hundred flowers bloom”. He added “… we are going to do is to open up the Speakers’ Corner where you can go and make any speech you like and we are going to say, ‘Well, if you want to go there and have... an exhibition, go ahead.”

And now, less than a decade after his speech, not just a hundred flowers have blossomed, cyberspace and Hong Lim Park have merged into one gigantic political force never seen before in Singapore’s history. This certainly was not what he anticipated.

If Lee Hsien Loong’s 2004 speech was a branding exercise to distinguish himself from his father’s knuckle-duster politics, the latest regulatory framework to control news websites signals the end of the liberal pretence.

In essence, independent bloggers carrying news on Singapore can be required to put up a bond of $50,000 if so required by the government when they pass the threshold of readership. The new regulation would empower the government to impose a fine of S$200,000 or imprisonment of up to 3 years against those who fail to remove offending articles within 24 hours of being ordered to do so.

If there is an example of social control by stealth, this is one. The new framework was presented as an innocuous piece of regulation ostensibly to equalize the playing field between online and offline news. Of the 10 web-based media notified by the MDA as falling within their criteria for control, ironically nine of the ten are government-friendly, owned by Singapore Press Holdings, and Media Corp. The exception is Yahoo Sg.

Although the “usual suspects”, namely sites such as Temasek Review Emeritus (TRE), The OnLine Citizen (TOC), Public House sg and many others which provide alternative news forum are not immediately named by the MDA as falling within the ambit of their control, they are anxious that these new regulations would eventually threaten their very survival, and financial viability. They are also concerned that it could curb “fellow Singaporeans’ ability to receive diverse news information”.

The 21 leading bloggers and websites of Singapore were right when they pointed out in their joint statement that “These new regulations significantly impact Singaporeans’ constitutionally protected right to free speech, and they should not be introduced without the most rigorous public debate and discussion.”

This latest regulation attracted instant and universal rejection by netizens. But is this simply a stupid decision on the part of a single Minister or someone at the MDA? Or is it a case that the PAP has not learnt the errors of their way by misjudging the mood of the population?

I believe the answer is “No” to both questions. There are just a thousand days between now and the 2016 general elections. With the way the public has responded to issues such as AIM, and the Population White Paper, there is no reason for the PAP to feel confident that they could do better in 2016 than in 2011; and the outcome of the by-elections at Punggol East was most worrying for them.

The erosion of public trusts in the PAP, and their elites does not come from any of the opposition parties, or the opposition MPs. A new potent political force has emerged which is unprecedented in Singapore history. This force is far more radical, dynamic, reflective of the people’s mood, and certainly more threatening to the PAP than all the opposition parties combined. For want of a better expression, I will call this force the “Virtual Movement for Democracy in Cyberspace (VMD)”

It is a movement without leaders, organisation, or membership. Yet it has a capacity to grow, and is already setting the political demands for change. The power of this virtual movement lies in its ability to synergise the individual desires for democratic changes in Singapore into real collective political actions. The energy within this virtual movement comes from the decades of pent up frustrations, as well as the feeling of betrayal of the Singapore cause by the PAP elites who have, over the decades, evolved into a self-serving bureaucratic capitalist class. All of us are now part of this VMD.

It is this VMD which is now setting the political agenda in Singapore. The avalanche of criticisms against AIM, the Population White Paper, and now the control of the Internet are not led by any of the opposition party, but by the uncoordinated collective efforts of individuals in cyberspace. They include those who write articles, bloggers, those who make comments, those who distribute articles through facebook and social media. The VMD would not be a potent political force without a buoyant cyberspace. At the same time, the cyberspace in Singapore would be sterile without the VMD.

It is this symbiotic relationship between the VMD and cyberspace that triggered the need for control, hence the MDA’s new regulatory regime.

In the times before 2011, the government could look at those in cyberspace as irritating but tolerable armchair critics. After all, up to the 2011 elections, cyberspace and netizens do not reflect electoral intentions. By the time of the Punggol East by-elections, cyberspace becomes the mirror of the people’s mood for change.

Over the Population White Paper, the government not just lost their ability to set the news agenda, it could no longer control the contents. It was the various websites and the traffic in cyberspace that eventually brought the thousands to rally against the government’s 6.9m population policy at Hong Lim Park.

It is instructive to note how Cheong Yip Seng, the former Chief Editor of The Straits Times describes the government obsession over the control of the media: “The government sees this in terms of what it calls “setting the agenda”. It wants to ensure that at all times, it… not anyone else… controls the agenda.” [pg 427 OB Markers] And now they have lost that power.

To continue its position as a dominant party, it is crucial for the PAP to retain The Straits Times as the dominant paper. Yet the paper is increasingly referred to in cyberspace as “The S***ing Times”, while many are relying on alternative news websites to follow political events in Singapore. So long as The Straits Times continue to be the mouthpiece of the government, its relevance as a newspaper will decline. Equalizing the playing field in this context would simply mean that the government wants to put independent news media under such pressure of control that they would toe the line as The Straits Times does for commercial survival.

The government is certainly aware that this new regulation will incur the wrath of netizens. That, to them, is a smaller price to pay than to allow the VMD to grow unchecked as that certainly could threaten the PAP electoral fortunes by 2016.

Ultimately, the final solution is to vote out the PAP so that we can have the political space to restore our democratic constitutional rights. (see my Critique on Tharman’s Pap as a Dominant Party in TRE and Public House sg,). During the interim, we need more guerrilla-type bloggers and cyber-warriors to counter the current set of regulations. Each time we forward an article we like in cyberspace to our friends and acquaintances, we are actively undermining the legitimacy and dominance of the PAP. 


Meanwhile, may the VMD grow and grow.

 
*********************************

Related

Is the PAP government going back to its old ways? Dr Wong Wee Nam (here)


******************

The Cherian George gate: La trahison des clercs at NTU?

In the following message from the organizers of the petition concerning NTU's unfair evaluation of Cherian's George's quality of scholarship and teaching, and its unjustified denial of tenure to George, it is clear that George's professional colleagues at the School of Communication and Information value his research and teaching at the school, and endorsed his tenure.

However, for some non-academic reasons (political pressure?), either the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences or NTU refused George his tenure, and thus terminating his services at NTU.

What a disgraceful and despicable act of betrayal of academic integrity (la trahison des clercs) if indeed NTU had kowtowed to Singapore's political masters.

We demand that NTU, which is a public institution and accountable to the Singapore public, be transparent and reveal the exact areas in teaching, research and publication where George is considered deficient, and the relevant supporting evidence.

We will then judge whether Cardiff University professor Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, who has reviewed George's teaching and scholarship as part of the tenure process, is right to be outraged by NTU's denial of George's tenure.



Background: here

NTU professor denied tenure may have to leave job, Yahoo!News (here)

NTU rejects outspoken professor's tenure appeal, Yahoo!News, April 30, 2013 (here)


*************

Message from Petition organizers to the signatories
 
Dear Signatories,
 

The petition, signatures and comments were delivered to four key professors yesterday. The organisers of the petition today (February 28, 2013) met with Dr Benjamin Hill Detenber, chair of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI), as well as Dr Mark Cenite, assistant chair of the school. Dr Alan Chan Kam-Leung, the dean of the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS), was unable to attend the meeting because he was travelling overseas.

 

The objective of the meeting was for us to reiterate the key limbs of the petition, which are as follows:

 

- WKWSCI and HASS have to join the signatories in publicly affirming the stellar teaching credentials of Dr Cherian George


 

- Given claims by Dr Karin Wahl-Jorgensen on February 23, 2013 that the denial of a tenure contract could have been politically motivated, as well as members of the WKWSCI community and the public echoing similar sentiments, NTU is obliged to provide categorical assurances that there is no policy of curtailment of academic freedom or political discrimination in the university.

 

We also conveyed to the two professors that the petition is wholly organised by students, and does not involve any faculty member, including Dr Cherian George. In addition, we made clear that what was said in the meeting was to be on the record. Dr Detenber told us that Dr Chan and the NTU provost and deputy president Dr Freddy Boey were best placed to comment on the issue of academic freedom in the university. He assured us that the two of them would meet us at a later date.

Dr Detenber then provided us with a brief outline of how the tenure application process works in NTU, and in particular, in WKWSCI. He emphasised that the process does not involve self-nomination or seniority. Instead, it is kick-started by an internal promotions and tenure committee in WKWSCI, who select candidates based on merit. The nominations are then sent to the chair, who eventually decides on who to endorse, with the help of a separate advisory committee.

 

The endorsed nominations are then sent to the dean of the college of HASS and his own advisory committee, and later to a university-level promotions and tenure review committee. The final approving body for tenure applications in NTU is the Academic Affairs Council, which is a subset of the university’s board of trustees.

Dr Detenber said at the school level, WKWSCI had endorsed Dr George as a nominee for a tenure contract on both occasions, adding that he was making this clarification with the approval of Dr Boey. He said he was unable to comment on whether the nominations on both occasions had been cleared at the subsequent levels. Dr Detenber also said that the school had nominated Dr George to be reappointed as the head of the division of journalism and publishing in 2010, but the university turned this down.

 
*3+3+1 road to a tenure contract
*

A tenure contract in NTU refers to a full-time permanent faculty position with no periodic contract reappointments until retirement. Dr Detenber said tenure-track professors employed in NTU first get a three-year contract before they are put up for consideration for a tenure contract. If they fail to get a tenure contract at the first attempt, they would then be granted another three-year contract. If they fail at the second attempt, they would be then allowed to stay in the university for another year, before being asked to leave. This policy essentially means that Dr Cherian George will leave NTU within the next year.
 
*Teaching credentials
*
 
Dr Detenber also affirmed Dr George’s teaching credentials. He said WKWSCI fully recognised Dr George’s quality, and that this was validated by the fact that it nominated him for a teaching award in 2009, which he won (ed. NTU news here). Dr Cenite also pointed out Dr George’s distinction in pioneering the annual Going Overseas for Advanced Reporting (GO-FAR) programme as well as in helming the Asian Journalism Fellowship.

*Further action
*

We will further apprise signatories on new developments and plans after our meetings with Dr Chan and Dr Boey. Dr Detenber also said he was considering the best way to engage the WKWSCI community on this issue.
 
Yours sincerely,
Bhavan Jaipragas
Eve Yeo Yu Ping
Mark Tay Hiok Leng
Jasmine Ng Zi Ting

_______________________
 

This message is from Bhavan Jaipragas who started the petition "Tenure contract for Dr Cherian George"

***********************

Dons alleged bias in NTU tenure process in 2009

The Straits Times, Feb 22, 2009 (source)

A GROUP of professors from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has raised a protest to varsity heads over the process of awarding tenure.

Unhappy about what they call a 'non-transparent' process, the group of about 10 has sent e-mail messages to the heads of their respective schools as well as to NTU provost Bertil Andersson, who has said the claims are baseless.

The group has also sought help from the Education Services Union (ESU), a body affiliated to the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) which was set up to promote good relations between employees of private education institutions and their employers.

However, the group was turned away because ESU can represent only bargainable employees, and university faculty members are considered non-bargainable staff. Instead, the ESU has referred the case to the Ministry of Manpower.

At the centre of the professors' complaint is something called the T65 contract, which guarantees them a place on the teaching staff till they hit the age of 65. It is the most coveted contract among professors.

More than a dozen professors have claimed that the selection process for the contract is 'biased and undemocratic'. Last year, 640 of NTU's 1,500 faculty members applied for the T65 contract. Of these, 55 per cent, or 352 professors, were awarded the contract.

Some of those who missed out are now claiming that they deserved it too as they had more publications to their names or were rated higher on student feedback forms than some professors who received the coveted tenure.

However, the university's administration has defended the integrity of its review process.

Professor Andersson said that since 2007, the process has involved internal committees and external referees assessing T65 applicants on the merit of their research, teaching and service to the university.

He added that members of the Academic Research Council, set up by the Ministry of Education to oversee national research and development efforts, had commented that NTU's 55 per cent tenure success rate squared with international standards.

Prof Andersson also said the unhappy professors were in the minority. Only 5 per cent of the 288 unsuccessful T65 applicants had sent in appeals.

However, 15 or so professors who spoke or wrote to The Straits Times insist they have a case.

Associate Professor Michael Heng, from NTU's School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, is among them.

He wrote to the newspaper last month, alleging 'serious lapses' in the process. He said that in internal school meetings, faculty members were told by their Chairs that only research counted in the tenure review. They were told teaching and service to the university were not important, he said.

He added: 'This is taxpayers' money we are talking about, so this is of public interest.'

The other professors, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they agreed with him. They said they had tried in the past to get their views aired, but without success.

After being turned away by the ESU, they attempted to set up their own union, and went as far as drawing up a draft Constitution. But NTUC advised them against doing this because unions should represent all employees in a organisation, not just its executive-level ones.

When contacted for comment, a Ministry of Manpower spokesman said: 'MOM encourages employers and employees to engage in constructive dialogue through established internal grievance management procedures. MOM will render assistance where necessary.'

Tenure review processes at the National University of Singapore and Singapore Management University are similar to those at NTU.

NUS and SMU spokesmen said multiple layers of checks were in place to ensure transparency, and that tenure review is an accepted practice at the universities.


*****************************************

Cherian George denied tenure at NTU: political masters at work?

Cherian George

Outspoken Singapore journalism professor denied tenure, sparking debate over academic freedom

By Faris Mokhtar, The Associated Press, Feb 27, 2013 (source: Calgary Herald)

SINGAPORE - A Singapore journalism professor who has written extensively about the lack of media freedom in the city-state has been denied tenure a second time, and hundreds of his supporters at home and abroad are demanding to know why.

Supporters of Cherian George, an associate professor in journalism studies at the Nanyang Technological University's School of Communication and Information, contend that his credentials are so strong that politics must be behind the university's unwillingness to give him a permanent faculty position. His first application for tenure was rejected in 2009.

Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, a professor from Wales' Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, said she was one of the outside experts who reviewed George's case for tenure. She called him one of the "foremost public intellectuals in Singapore," and called the rejection "incomprehensible and plainly absurd."

"I can only speculate about the reasons for this decision not to grant tenure to someone known for being critical of the government but it does not make NTU or Singapore look good in the eyes of the international academic community, and raises serious questions about academic freedom," Wahl-Jorgensen said in an email to The Associated Press.

The Southeast Asian country, known for its groomed image of efficient governance and political stability, has long been criticized by human-rights groups for using measures such as criminal and civil defamation to stifle opposition voices critical of the government and its leaders. The People's Action Party has ruled since 1959 but has seen support drop in recent years as discontent grows over the high cost of living, an influx of foreigners and rising income inequality.

A former journalist, George holds degrees from Cambridge and Columbia University and obtained his doctorate from Stanford University. He is known for his books such as "Freedom From The Press," which assessed the state of media and politics in Singapore.

Nanyang Technological University did not respond directly to queries from the Associated Press. In a media statement Tuesday evening, the public university said it has a "rigorous tenure process" in place but added that "as all employment matters are confidential, NTU will not comment on any specific cases."

George said he learned of the rejection last week, but he declined to comment further. A former student of his, Bhavan Jaipragas, began a petition demanding that the university disclose reasons behind its decision to deny George tenure, along with details on how it assesses the teaching quality of faculty members seeking tenure.

The petition had received about 800 signatories by Wednesday. Bhavan said copies were to be delivered later that day to NTU's president and other key university leaders.

"There are complaints of curtailment of academic freedom and we want the university to categorically assure the student body there is no policy of curtailment and political discrimination," said Bhavan. "We don't want them to just say it but to prove it to us."

The issue has reignited debate over freedom of thought in Singapore's universities, a debate that also has brought attention to a joint venture between Yale University and the National University of Singapore to open a liberal arts college in the city-state. Enrollment begins in July this year.

Some Yale academics have criticized the move, accusing the university of compromising its values for being involved in a country where freedom of assembly is restricted and homosexual activity banned. The president of Yale-NUS, Pericles Lewis, has said the college has received guarantees that academic freedom will be protected.


**************************************************

Yahoo!News, Feb 26, 2013 (source)


An outspoken associate professor for journalism in Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has been denied tenure, sparking an outcry and raising questions over academic freedom in Singapore.

Cardiff University professor Karin Wahl-Jorgensen tweeted Saturday morning that Cherian George, associate professor at NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI), was denied tenure “on the grounds of quality of teaching and research”.

In subsequent tweets, Wahl-Jorgensen, who revealed that she was one of the reviewers for George’s case, said she was “outraged” at the decision not to grant him tenure, and that it could have been “because he sometimes expressed political opinions”.

An adjunct senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies and former journalist with The Straits Times, George has spoken out against media control and has been critical of the ruling People’s Action Party. He joined NTU in 2004.

Wahl-Jorgensen alluded to NTU’s decision being detrimental “for academic freedom” and said it raised “big question marks about international collaborations” with Singapore and NTU.

She said also said George’s application was “watertight” and believed the board’s decision “made no sense on grounds of research and teaching”.

Tenure would give him the contractual right not to have his position terminated without just cause. George was previously denied tenure once in 2009 when he was promoted to the position of associate professor. Typically, academic promotions are accompanied by tenures.

Petition Started

In reaction to the news, an online petition was set up by final-year WKWSCI student Bhavan Jaipragas to urge the NTU board to “affirm (George’s) stellar teaching credentials and disclose the reasons behind the decision to deny his tenure”.

A day after the petition was initiated, the number of signatories have more than doubled to 686 signatories as of press time.

“We felt it was very important any impression that Dr George's teaching skills were sub-par had to be quickly demolished. We also want the school and university to… categorically dispel claims of curtailment of academic freedom in NTU,” said Bhavan to Yahoo! Singapore.

Bhavan said he heard of the news from several sources over the weekend, before such tipoffs were confirmed by Wahl-Jorgensen’s tweets. He said he will deliver hard copies of the petition with the list of signatories to four key members of the NTU leadership, including NTU president Bertil Andersson.

In one of the petition’s comments, associate professor William Ray Lengenbach, head of media at Sunway University College, said, “Cherian George is a significant regional intellectual and his views on Singapore politics should have no bearing on his tenure. If there indeed is government pressure on the university's decisions, it is time for academic staff and administration to stand up against such pressures.”

Among several high-profile signatories who have come forward include Lai Ah Eng, senior research fellow at the Asian Research Institute at the National University of Singapore.

She said, "Our local intellectual resources are already so limited and seem to be declining with academic globalisation. We need people who have both global and local knowledge, and Cherian has it. If we do not hire the likes of him, then who do we hire?"

Among the students who have spoken out against the alleged grounds, alumnus Johnson Zhang commended George for being friendly and knowledgeable. “To say that the quality of Dr George's teaching was 'sub-par' would be an insult to us graduates who had the honour of learning from him,” said Zhang.

“As someone who has worked with Dr George for close to two decades, I am dumbfounded by the news. I don't know of many professors in NTU who give as much to the students, even fewer who have clear vision of how a great journalism department in an university can be and should be,” said WKWSCI photojournalism lecturer Tay Kay Chin in a post on Facebook.

George declined comment when approached by Yahoo! Singapore.

NTU statement

In a statement issued Tuesday night, an NTU spokesperson wrote:"NTU has a rigorous tenure process. All NTU faculty seeking tenure go through the same process. More than 1,000 faculty have gone through this process at NTU in the last six years and so far, more than 55% have been granted tenure."

"The tenure review process is purely a peer-driven academic exercise comprising internal and external reviewers. The two equally important criteria are distinction in research and scholarship, and high quality teaching. Service and other contributions to the university, profession, or community are also taken into consideration."

"As all employment matters are confidential, NTU will not comment on any specific cases."

Last year, the issue of academic freedom was raised in relation to the launch of the Yale-NUS College, a partnership with Yale University and the National University of Singapore (NUS). Yale members passed a resolution expressing their concern restriction of civil liberties in Singapore.

*****************************

A Protest against NTU's denial of tenure to Cherian George

by Terence Lee (source)

Thanks but no thanks, NTU

I felt compelled to do this after the whole Cherian George debacle erupted. It might make me seem a little opportunistic, but I hope the larger point I'm making wins out. Anyway, here's the background: In January, NTU sent me a congratulatory letter (see photo) about my recent appointment as editor of SGE. It's a nice gesture no doubt, but after what has played out recently, I feel like I can no longer accept the content of the letter.

After all, I owe a lot of what I am today to the journalism faculty at WKWSCI, of which Cherian George played a major role in shaping.

So, I've decided to send the letter back to NTU to protest their decision not to grant Cherian George tenure. Here's my reply to them:

 

Dear Director of the Alumni Affairs,

first of all, I would like to thank you for sending out the congratulatory letter to me about my recent promotion. It came as a pleasant surprise, and I deeply appreciate the gesture.

However, after the recent debacle in which an esteemed journalism prof was denied tenure for dubious reasons, I feel compelled to reject the letter. Please don't take this personally, as faculty affairs certainly isn't under your purview. So if for any reason you are inconvenienced, please accept my sincerest apologies.

But do hear me out. I don't think I can accept praise from the university when the person that inspired me and many others isn't given due credit and recognition. I echo others in saying that Cherian George is one of the most engaging instructors in NTU, and his example has certainly inspired me to pursue my current career path.

So, I am sending the letter back to the university as a form of protest. Please show my note to your colleagues, and you may send it back to me when he is finally given due credit.

Cheers,

Terence


***********************************