Siddhartha Harsh Wardhan I believe institutional silence in this case suggests that the university might be avoiding responsibility or simply turning a blind eye to the violations. By failing to respond, the institution risks enabling unethical behavior, which not only undermines its own policies but also weakens trust in its commitment to uphold both internal and national education standards. I think it points to a bigger issue of accountability, where the university either doesn't want to get involved or doesn't have a clear process to handle such matters.

Thank you again for your valuable insight. You’ve hit on the exact systemic problem I’ve encountered—institutional silence masking accountability failure.

To expand on what you noted:

Despite reaching out to university officials at least four to five times in July, including to the Vice Rector, the Equal Opportunity Coordinator, and the Rector’s Office, I received no response—not even an acknowledgment—until after my case was escalated to the Hungarian Administrative Court (Case No. 7. Kpk.750.239/2025/2) and the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (Case No. EBF–AJBH–309–2025). That response came only on July 14, and it was vague, non-substantive, and is now archived as Appendix F.

What makes this more revealing is that multiple Semmelweis faculty have since read the published case files, including:

These are fully cited, DOI-linked publications—with redacted evidence, not accusations—yet still, the university has offered no formal explanation, no data transparency, and no response to the basic procedural questions I submitted.

This led me to treat the entire process as a de facto FOI (Freedom of Information) pursuit—even though I’m a student, not a journalist. I had to petition multiple legal entities to ask questions that should’ve been answered internally, like:

• What policy supports the revocation of a previously earned signature?
• Why are international students under FM/CV status treated inconsistently across departments?
• Where is the retention/attrition data by nationality, required under transparency law?

Their refusal to answer directly, while simultaneously reading the published materials, reveals what I believe you accurately described: a bureaucratic evasion strategy, where silence is weaponized to avoid accountability, but also silence that confirms recognition.

In short, they didn’t reply to me as a student, but they do read me as a researcher.

And that contradiction says everything.

More power to you.

Thanks, appreciate your support -

Institutional silence often translates into:

Implicit tolerance or complicity, whether deliberate or due to internal or external political considerations

Deterioration of educational and research quality, increased stress levels among faculty and staff, and breakdowns in communication between administration and academic staff

Erosion of institutional trust and a perception of the absence of legal or academic protection, particularly in cases of harassment or unprofessional conduct

Conclusion: Institutional silence is an indicator of deep systemic dysfunction and serves as an obstacle to reform and development.

Institutional silence is almost the default position for many universities, who claim that secrecy and commercial interests are a necessity in university research.

While occasionally that is true it is usually just a convenient hiding place where every kind of failing can be out of of sight.

That is why whistleblowers are so crucial to maintaining any standards at all. Certainly we should never be fooled by solemn pledges of ethical codes.

Oh, and let's not forget, institutional silence and 'cover-up' are very close cousins. Cover-ups are corruption plain and simple.

Thank you for your response. This information was conveyed to me by another researcher, indicating that the institutions employed these tactics to avoid self-incrimination, legal accountability, and responsibility. The university officials did not respond to my emails sent between June 26, 2025, and June 30, 2025 (including twice on the same date), as well as on July 5, 2025. On July 8, the Hungarian Administrative Court initiated a case to investigate violations of Articles 5, 11, 13, 29, and 45 concerning the Head of Anatomy (Dr. Szekely) at Semmelweis University. Dr. Szekely, in Appendix C of my legal case studies, stated that I must revoke my signature as an FM1 student for the course Macroscopic Anatomy and Embryology II and re-earn it. This precondition is not supported by any article or clause from the internal policies of Semmelweis University, as outlined in the Study Regulations and Examinations Manual. Dr. Szekely lacked a legal basis to impose this precondition, as the statements in Appendix C (Email Response) lack backing from any relevant article or clause within the university's internal policies.

On February 9, 2025, Dr. Szekely denied me access to study the anatomy specimen for the final examination in the course Macroscopic Anatomy and Embryology II. Consequently, I lacked the necessary skills to recognize the specimens of the body systems tested during the practical portion of the final examination on June 26, 2025. I became aware of the severity of the situation upon reviewing the internal policy manual. I identified the articles that had been violated on June 30, 2025. The personal challenge I faced compelled me to publicly share my evidence-based citations of policies that had been breached, including concerns regarding Dr. Szekely's quality of specimens, the university's inconsistent enforcement of policies across departments, and the vague, reflective response provided by Dr. Alan Alpar.

On July 14, 2025, I received a correspondence from the Vice Rector, Dr. Alan Alpar, of the International Medicine Studies Program. The tone of the letter was vague and contemplative. The letter did not address the violations of Articles 5, 11, 13, 29, and 45 from the internal policies of Semmelweis University. Instead, the Vice Rector, Dr. Alan Alpar, attempted to invoke Article 57, which states that matters should have been resolved internally within the institution before escalating to the Hungarian Administrative Court and the Hungarian Commissioner for Human Rights and Equal Treatment.

Siddartha

I have many years experience in dealing with this sort of behaviour, especially in medical, nursing schools etc. If I can be of any help contact me by private message.

Regards

Barry

Institutional silence in such a context suggests several possible implications, all of which carry negative connotations from a governance and accountability perspective: collusion or implicit approval, lack of transparency and weak accountability mechanisms, and fear of consequences or conflicts of interest.

I believe institutional silence in this case suggests that the university might be avoiding responsibility or simply turning a blind eye to the violations. By failing to respond, the institution risks enabling unethical behavior, which not only undermines its own policies but also weakens trust in its commitment to uphold both internal and national education standards. I think it points to a bigger issue of accountability, where the university either doesn't want to get involved or doesn't have a clear process to handle such matters. Institutional silence in such a context suggests several possible implications, all of which carry negative connotations from a governance and accountability perspective: collusion or implicit approval, lack of transparency and weak accountability mechanisms, and fear of consequences or conflicts of interest.

Appreciate your insight, Dr. Kannaujia. To prevent “silence” from substituting for accountability, I escalated the matter through lawful channels: a protected disclosure to the Ombudsman (EBF–AJBH–309–2025, Act XXV/2023) and a court petition (7.Kpk.750.239/2025/2). The filings document how the denial of lab access conflicts with the SZMSZ (Articles 5, 11, 13, 29, 45) and provide a complete evidence trail (Appendices A–I). Constructive peer scrutiny is welcome—this is about restoring compliance and trust in standards, nothing else.

Appreciate your insight, Dr. Kannaujia. To prevent “silence” from substituting for accountability, I escalated the matter through lawful channels: a protected disclosure to the Ombudsman (EBF–AJBH–309–2025, Act XXV/2023) and a court petition (7.Kpk. 750. 239/2025/2). The filings document how the denial of lab access conflicts with the SZMSZ (Articles 5, 11, 13, 29, 45) and provide a complete evidence trail (Appendices A–F). Constructive peer scrutiny is welcome—this is about restoring compliance and trust in standards, nothing else. The institutional faculty are also aware of the situation because seventy professors from the Anatomy Department of the Semmelweis University are monitoring my research. I have invited the faculity of Semmelweis University to rebut my research. I am still a full time active student at the university as a registered whistleblower