Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 36: QUT and the Abuser They Once Had
How many?
How could a university frame this as a “personal matter” when there is clear documentation of coercion, identity misuse, and reputational risk?
– “Personal matter.”
— QUT’s formal response to a complaint involving harassment and unethical conduct by former psychology professor Patrick James Johnston.
QUT and the academic with a TPO filed by his ex-wife.
QUT and the man who harassed me for over 4 months with threats, coercion, and literary revenge disguised as poetry.
QUT and the man who used his underage daughter to demand $360 from me, or else he would expose my sexual history to my parents.
QUT and the man who published sexualized poems about me — despite being told repeatedly that I never consented to be written about.
QUT and the man who insulted my parents and wrote a racialized piece about my father, simply because I refused to return to his toxic relationship.
QUT and the man who threatened to destroy my future in Australia — explicitly stating that he submitted complaints to AFP and Immigration because I dared to speak up.
QUT and the man whose counter-complaint to the police was dismissed, with this line:
“Only offence identified is his use of telecommunication service to threaten, intimidate or harass… JOHNSTON should cease any/all contact.”QUT and the man who continued implying my name, language, and city — even after police told him to stop.
QUT and the man who filed a DMCA claim trying to erase evidence already submitted to police as part of an abuse report.
QUT and the man who created a clone account to fabricate tax evasion allegations and publicly doxx my home address — yet never directly refuted these specific accusations, choosing instead to speak around them for weeks in a calculated evasion that only further validates the evidence.
QUT and the man who claimed he still cared about me, yet threatened that no university would accept me simply because I exposed how abusive, deceptive, manipulative, and irresponsible he truly is.
QUT and the man who mocked, “You think anybody cares? This shit ain’t on the syllabus” — unaware that my series was quietly shared across over 200 faculties and nearly 1,000 academics in the UK, Australia, the US, and Canada, drawing over 25,000 engaged reads and counting.
QUT and the man who, rather than addressing the accusations directly, offered inheritance shares and birthday gifts as emotional currency — a manipulative strategy carefully designed to mimic bribery without explicit conditions, thus preserving plausible deniability and desperately attempting to overshadow months of abuse and coercion.
Publications for reference:
- Entry 8: What Makes a Scholar Dangerous
- Entry 9: Fragment of Life, Fragment of Accountability
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
- Entry 19: The Coward Behind the Clone
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 30: Don’t Just Threaten My Future. Because I’m Going To Archive Your Present
- Entry 31: Open Letter to the Person Who Tried to Break Me with Defamation
Primary evidence: unsolicited email from Johnston confirming the timeline.
Email sent on 22 June 2025 – Day 119 of documented harassment
Given the repeated patterns of coercion, defamation, and manipulative tactics documented in this series, several critical questions arise for QUT regarding their former academic associate:
How many students or colleagues might have been subjected to similar harassment, threats, or retaliatory tactics under his influence?
What internal safeguards existed (or failed) to detect patterns of racialized mockery and family-based intimidation, as demonstrated in the racialized piece targeting my father?
What measures did QUT have in place to prevent an academic from using their institutional credibility to extort, emotionally coerce, or publicly defame individuals?
Did QUT ever receive complaints from students, staff, or external collaborators regarding manipulative or retaliatory behaviors by this individual? If so, how were these addressed?
How does QUT ensure that former academics do not misuse past institutional affiliations to lend false credibility to personal smear campaigns or harassing narratives?
What specific protocols does QUT currently enforce to protect international students and early-career researchers from similar dynamics of narrative weaponization and reputation sabotage?
In light of these documented behaviors — ranging from literary revenge disguised as poetry to DMCA misuse and doxxing — does QUT plan to publicly clarify its disassociation and commitment to safeguarding academic integrity?
These questions are not simply rhetorical. They are critical to understanding whether QUT’s governance structures can adequately protect students and uphold the ethical standards it publicly promotes.
Given the documented patterns of coercion, reputational sabotage, and narrative weaponization involving a former academic, the following questions are critical for TEQSA as a national higher education regulator:
How does TEQSA monitor and address cases where former academics continue to leverage prior institutional affiliations to legitimize personal harassment or defamatory campaigns?
What mechanisms does TEQSA have in place to prevent the misuse of academic credibility to intimidate, emotionally manipulate, or retaliate against current or former students and collaborators?
How does TEQSA enforce standards ensuring that institutions promptly dissociate from individuals who engage in severe personal misconduct that poses reputational risks to Australia’s higher education sector?
What guidelines does TEQSA provide to universities regarding the handling of alumni or former staff who weaponize literary or academic output for personal retaliation?
In cases involving international students or overseas victims, what protocols ensure cross-border protection and accountability when misconduct extends beyond national jurisdiction?
Does TEQSA require universities to publicly clarify their position when former staff engage in activities that contradict the institution’s stated values of integrity and inclusivity?
How does TEQSA evaluate institutional responses that dismiss clear evidence of harassment or coercion as “personal matters,” and what corrective measures are taken to uphold systemic accountability?
Given the documented misconduct and institutional responses in this case, several critical questions arise for the Australian Department of Education:
How does the Department ensure that higher education providers uphold the National Code obligations to protect international students from coercion, harassment, or reputational intimidation by current or former staff?
What measures are in place to prevent the misuse of prior academic affiliations by individuals to launch personal smear campaigns, especially against overseas students?
How does the Department hold institutions accountable when complaints involving international students are dismissed as “personal matters,” potentially undermining student safety and trust in Australia’s education system?
What safeguards exist to address cross-border harassment cases that may impact Australia’s reputation as a safe and ethical education destination?
In situations involving repeated threats and defamation by former academics, what role does the Department play in encouraging institutions to issue public clarifications or dissociate to protect student and public interest?
How does the Department oversee compliance to ensure universities respond transparently and promptly to serious allegations, rather than relying on minimal internal disclaimers?
Given Australia’s strategic focus on attracting and retaining international students, what systemic reforms are being considered to prevent the erosion of trust caused by such misconduct?
Given the cross-sectoral implications of the documented misconduct and institutional responses, several accountability questions arise for the Australian Senate (Education and Employment References Committee):
How does the Senate evaluate university governance frameworks in addressing repeated coercive or defamatory conduct by academics, especially when involving overseas students?
What mechanisms exist to ensure that universities do not dismiss serious misconduct allegations as “personal matters,” thereby circumventing systemic accountability?
In light of Australia’s dependence on international students, how does the Senate ensure that educational institutions uphold transparency, integrity, and safe learning environments?
What oversight processes does the Senate have to review university actions when complaints involve potential breaches of the National Code or reputational sabotage?
How does the Senate intend to safeguard students and whistleblowers from retaliatory tactics by individuals misusing past academic titles or affiliations?
Should the Senate consider strengthening legislative frameworks to mandate public disclosures or clarifications from universities when incidents involve cross-border harassment and defamation?
What further legislative or policy reforms might be introduced to deter narrative weaponization and protect Australia’s reputation as a safe, ethical education destination?
Given the documented patterns of coercion, defamation, racialized narrative abuse, and the misuse of academic affiliations outlined in this series, several critical questions arise for UNESCO as the global guardian of educational integrity and cultural respect:
How does UNESCO ensure that member states uphold narrative integrity and protect international students from symbolic violence and cross-border narrative retaliation?
What mechanisms exist to monitor and prevent the misuse of academic titles and affiliations in personal smear or coercion campaigns, especially when these acts impact international students’ safety and dignity?
How can UNESCO encourage member states to adopt binding safeguards to protect students and scholars from narrative weaponization, including threats involving family, racial mockery, or doxxing?
What accountability frameworks does UNESCO envision for cases where national education agencies or universities fail to adequately address reported misconduct by former or current academic staff?
How does UNESCO support survivors who employ creative, reflective, or public narrative approaches (such as satirical or forensic analysis) to document and resist abuse, without fear of institutional retaliation or reputational sabotage?
In light of Australia’s positioning as a leading destination for international education, what steps can UNESCO take to reinforce and publicly advocate for stronger protections against narrative and symbolic abuses targeting international students?
These questions are not merely rhetorical; they aim to catalyze global dialogue on the ethics of narrative power, institutional complicity, and the urgent need for stronger cross-border protections for students and early-career researchers.
Note on Naming:
The subject of these verses is identified by name due to the severity of the public threats made during that period.
Naming is not intended to humiliate, but to preserve the integrity of the record and reflect the seriousness of the documented behavior.
While the individual has since responded publicly, the response has not addressed the core evidence. In such cases, visibility remains necessary. Selective rebuttal is not accountability.
Full evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC, and Ethics Australia: View here.
Disclaimer:
All related behavior has been reported to QPS and TEQSA under documented case files.
This work is protected under survivor expression and fair commentary provisions.
The use of QUT’s name and public materials is protected under Fair Dealing provisions (Copyright Act 1968 – Sections 41 & 42), used here for the purpose of public interest commentary and critical review.
References to QUT reflect the subject’s previously disclosed academic affiliation, which was publicly visible during the relevant timeline. No implication is made about their current employment unless verifiably documented.
All related behaviors have been reported to QPS and TEQSA and documented under formal submission (Case reference: CMP140XXXX and QPS Ref: QP250074XXXX). Case ID withheld for privacy — available upon formal request by media or oversight body.
Read the full series
- Entry 1: The Man Who Taught Me Ethics by Failing All of Them
- Entry 2: The Disappearance of the Public Poet
- Entry 3: The Hanging Tree Case Study
- Entry 4: Hidden Like Accountability
- Entry 5: The Collapse of Assumptions
- Entry 6: The Ethics of a Tinder Bio
- Entry 7: How He Ate Told Me Everything
- Entry 8: What Makes a Scholar Dangerous
- Entry 9: Fragment of Life, Fragment of Accountability
- Entry 10: Anatomy of Disappointment
- Entry 11: Legal Defense Challenges: A Framing Statement
- Entry 12: Six Years After Ronell – What Academia Still Doesn’t Get
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
- Entry 14: Why Sarcasm Toward Institutions Can Backfire
- Entry 15: P*ssy or Toxic Masculinity?
- Entry 16: Who is Your Favorite Comedian?
- Entry 17: And What is Your Favorite Song?
- Entry 18: Grant Proposal — Narrative Ethics as Survivor-Led Forensics
- Entry 19: The Coward Behind the Clone
- Entry 20: [URGENT HIRE] CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
- Entry 21: [URGENT] Legal Counsel Needed for Complex Reputation Rehabilitation
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 23: Seeking Counsel for a Fallen Academic
- Entry 24: Internal Legal-PR Briefing
- Entry 25: For Journalists – Legal & Ethical Clearance Summary
- Entry 26: Symbolic Prostitution, Transactional Intimacy, or Just a “Loan”?
- Entry 28: Why He Simply Cannot Shut Up
- Entry 29: Forensic Commentary on “LARGE Language Muddle”
- Entry 30: Don’t Just Threaten My Future. Because I’m Going To Archive Your Present
- Entry 31: Open Letter to the Person Who Tried to Break Me with Defamation
- Entry 32: Defamation, Harassment, Doxxing Class 101
- Entry 33: Confidential Crisis Recovery Proposal
- Entry 34: Forensic Behavioral-Somatic Report
- Entry 35: Forensic Commentary on the Tattoos
- Entry 36: QUT and the Abuser They Once Had (you are here)
- Entry 38: When Poetry Becomes Revenge Porn
- Entry 40: A Man Built for Applause, Not Accountability
- Entry 41: Neurobehavioral Addendum
- Entry 43: Why Does It Sound Like a War Metaphor?
- Entry 44: Forensic Commentary on Racialized and Fetishizing Language in “Hidden Like Rice”
- Entry 45: Public Misuse of Former Academic Affiliation
- Entry 46: The Two Things That Didn’t Leave a Bad Impression
- Reflection: The Miscalculation
(More entries coming soon)
→ [Back to Start: Introducing Mr. J, a Former Professor Series]
© 2025 Linh Ng. All rights reserved.
This publication is intended for educational and reflective purposes only.
Sharing the original link is welcomed and encouraged.
Please do not reproduce, redistribute, or translate this content — in whole or in part — without written permission.
This piece reflects both lived experience and critical analysis. It is not meant to be detached from its author or reframed without context.
Misuse or decontextualization may lead to formal clarification or takedown requests.
This work has been reviewed and quietly followed by scholars, educators, and ethics professionals across multiple sectors.
If your institution is engaging in critical discourse around narrative justice, symbolic coercion, or representational ethics, feel free to connect via Substack DMs or formal channels.
A regulatory case regarding this matter has already been classified under a protected status within national education integrity systems.
Should any reputational countermeasures or distortions arise, I reserve the right to publish the documented timeline, behavioral patterns, and contextual metadata.
All relevant documentation has been submitted through formal legal and regulatory pathways.