gnometorule

There's more. Stanford wouldn't refer to itself as "The" Stanford University (and if with a "The,' it's "The Leland Stanford Junior University"), and whatever degree wouldn't be awarded by their "religious community." Additionally, in the past and other departments and for actual Ph.D.s, the font used was a pretty, archaic one, the certificate is signed by the chair of the board of trustees, you get reference to "the Rights, Privileges, Honors, and Responsibilities thereunto pertaining," etc., etc. It's a bad fake.

Google "Fluechtlingshilfe in Deutschland" to find Rechtsberatung as a first step. Given the circumstances, I personally think you qualify for that term. The problem with Germany since the war is that the country that used to be treated with Kollektivschuld for what happened under Hitler, now decided to turn around and treat Russians in Germany the same way (e.g., boycotting Russian owned businesses). Good luck.

@Tom: “it would indicate that potentially I couldn’t handle my own grievances.” It is only natural to speak with your PI/Co-PI first. Taking matters into your own hands by confronting other PIs without letting your own boss know strikes me as a bad cowboy idea. I’d consider next steps after having a calm chat with your boss first.

Yeah, that’s the one, and that’s the field he works in. I don’t remember though if he was his advisee.

The downvote is probably because this site has a crowd of people disliking to state one thing or another is “better,” instead of taking a postmodern view of things. This is describing the situation of your field well, except that there are and were definitely cases of Germans going out of a German “Doktor” to top U.S. programs (a friend almost 30 years back to Princeton, but his alma mater had long adopted a more U.S. style doctoral program; and another one a few years later also to Princeton). You are also downvoted if you answer in spirit, but not in letter, by a crowd devoted to this.

Let’s assume you are right the journal is predatory, and let’s further assume your colleague is aware of that. Telling them would be rather awkward.

@wrz: Oh yeah, I agree. And the instructor's reaction after strikes me as hypocritical as well.

The question stands by itself of course, but the case that prompted this has important additional points: the instructor was tipped off to cheating, and had actual chains of emails documenting cheating (students bragging about it) sent to him. It's a dirty, muddy case though, if only as he said he'd write his own questions, to then rely on book-publisher provided questions that students (illegally) accessed too.

As a foreigner in the U.S., I would appreciate (e.g., when I studied in France, I noticed that my professors wrote the 'x' not as two straight lines, but as two parts of circles meeting (this might not be common French custom), and adopted it). One reason is that it helps in everyday life, such as when applying for a driver's license, where you'd rather not have to explain later that this is really you. It also makes your life probably easier when grading any written exams.

@canary_wharf: It's an alternate (earlier) version of a Grimm's tale. This is SO going way overboard. I too agree that including the version as is was not a good idea; but to jump to saying that the professor "pushes the idea that we should accept rape* is obnoxious and deeply ideological.

As to your last 2 sentences, I don't see how that relates to my comment that anti-discrimination protection in the US isn't clear cut - see only FaithGuard auto. Finally, sorry for the unnecessarily sharp "overly, extremely." Considering that in the US (per an NSF study) atheists enjoy about the same regard as rapists (no hyperbole; in the survey), anything religious discrimination rubs me the wrong way, and always faintly smells hypocritical. Still, +1. :)

This is interesting, and good to hear. However, going through the actual published decision, per the text of the decision, the offer had a strong pro-Christian ("churchgoers") bias, which I have less trouble believing is deemed discrimination. Also, note that Guideone, to this day, offers Faithguard auto, so the case at hand is linked to specific homeowner rules.

@March; You might have googled it. It's in the Oxford Dictionary too, of some authority for British English to the best of my knowledge.

It is overly, extremely simplistic to claim that a person who hasn't identified as being religious at all (per OP) is protected in the US under religious anti-discrimination laws. There are 7 states which (per their constitution) restrict atheists' access to public office, and congress has one atheist which is more than it used to have. To face a religious fanatic is hard in the U.S. as they inevitably play their discrimination card against you (see, eg, here). OP hails from Australia, but your evidence (link) was for the US.

Why was my comment deleted? Because Ebenezer is a moderator, and can? Could you explain to me what, other than questioning you motives, made the comment unfit to stay on this site? It strikes me as abuse of power; nothing else. I flagged in protest; if nothing happens (and this vanishes too), I will likely open a meta thread as a moderator should have higher standards as it appears to be the case here.