Some people are trying to argue that Cofnas wás suspended for whistleblowing. Why don't you check for yourself? @mboudry, who also signed the petition by @sapinker and others, shared the letter the @UGent-rector sent to Cofnas: xitter.cf/mboudry/status/2090742… I will not try to defend that letter, as I personally find it indefensible. But it is bad enough as it is: it is defamatory to misrepresent it as the petition does, claiming that the university's motivation was that Cofnas was a whistleblower against Arday. That was not the motivation, not even partially. As you can read for yourself, the motivation consisted of the following main allegations: * Breach of contract. * Racist or discriminatory public statements. * Disparaging statements toward other academics. [Only this part refers to Arday, as Cofnas called him "mentally disabled" and "a worthless scholar". The complaint is nót that Cofnas pointed out misconduct or fraud.] * Harm to staff and student well-being (amounting to a heckler's veto). * Reputational harm to the university. In my view, none of these constitute a valid reason to suspend Cofnas' academic freedom, not even close. Yet, however strongly I may feel this way, I can accept that reasonable people can disagree on this. The motivation has *some* merit. What reasonable people will never disagree on is that one may (or even should) flag academic misconduct whenever one encounters it, without being punished for it. For this reason, I urge the petitioners to withdraw the petition and launch it again with accurate framing and an apology to @UGent for misrepresenting its motivation in a defamatory manner. I will then happily sign it, like I did with the previous petition in support of @nathancofnas' academic freedom.