J*****a A***za

She, who shall not be named, from the School of Public Affairs and Governance, is absolutely the worst; and the story behind her chairmanship is far more complicated than a simple leadership dispute.

She repeatedly clashed with an MBA holder over personal differences, and ultimately positioned herself for the chairmanship after the departure of other figures.

What is particularly troubling are the accounts from students who describe feeling bullied, intimidated, or pressured. If students genuinely felt that they had to stay quiet or were afraid to speak up because of someone’s position or influence, that deserves to be examined seriously. Leadership should never be about making students feel small, threatened, or powerless.

And then there is the question of the distinguished diplomat whose name became entangled in the controversy. If allegations and personal conflicts were allowed to damage the reputation of someone who had built a distinguished career in diplomacy — all in pursuit of a university chairmanship — that raises a much bigger question: How far is someone willing to go for a position of deanship?

This isn’t about attacking someone simply because they wanted to lead. People are entitled to pursue leadership positions. The issue is how they allegedly treated people along the way, what relationships were damaged, and whether other people’s reputations were collateral damage in the process.

For a university organization that is supposed to develop future diplomats and leaders, this should be a wake-up call. Leadership is not just about getting the chair. It’s about how you treat the people beneath you and whose name you are willing to drag through the mud to get there.

There are students and former members who independently experienced intimidation or bullying, and their accounts deserve to be heard rather than dismissed.

A chairmanship is temporary. A person’s reputation can follow them for decades.