Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 45: Public Misuse of Former Academic Affiliation
Reputational Risk
The following forensic observation points are presented as a concise abstract to guide readers through the narrative and ethical analysis that follows.
Forensic Observation Points
Diagnostic Label Misuse
• The subject casually labeled the survivor with “BPD” post-breakup.
• No clinical context, consent, or diagnostic basis was provided.
• Suggests potential misuse of clinical terminology as a tool of personal retaliation.Weaponization of Narrative Content
• The subject created and distributed a poem with explicit references to private events.
• Survivor had explicitly requested no further contact prior to this.
• Raises concerns of non-consensual narrative exposure (“literary revenge porn”).Public Reframing Through Stylization
• The poem was later published using orientalist and racialized tropes.
• Suggests attempts to aestheticize harm and deflect accountability under the guise of “artistic freedom.”Strategic Content Deletion & Takedown Attempts
• The subject consistently deletes content when confronted.
• Filed DMCA takedown requests targeting survivor-led public evidence, rather than private versions submitted to authorities.
• Indicates possible pattern of obstructing visibility rather than genuine copyright protection.Potential Spillover Into Professional Contexts
• The subject’s expertise in psychology and neuroscience implies familiarity with power dynamics and emotional manipulation.
• Raises the question: could similar coercive framing occur with students, colleagues, or research participants?Survivor-Led Documentation as Systemic Lens
• The case invites scrutiny beyond individual accountability.
• Highlights gaps in safeguarding emotional neutrality, informed consent, and narrative ethics within academic and research settings.
These points are presented as an ethical and forensic analysis, not as a clinical or legal diagnosis.
Over recent months, I have systematically documented a sustained pattern of symbolic and reputational coercion by Patrick James Johnston — a former academic specializing in psychology and neuroscience with over two decades of teaching and research experience.
Initially intended as personal, survivor-led documentation, this work has since engaged thousands of readers across ethics, trauma studies, and narrative analysis. This emerging public interest underscores a broader, collective question:
If an individual employs manipulative or coercive tactics in private contexts, what safeguards exist to ensure these tactics do not manifest in their professional or academic conduct?
⸻
Weaponization of diagnostic language
Following the termination of personal contact, Johnston described me as having “BPD” — a psychiatric label applied without consent, diagnosis, or appropriate context.
In forensic behavioral analysis, the casual or strategic use of psychiatric terminology to discredit an interlocutor is a known tactic of coercive control. When performed by an individual with advanced training in psychology, this raises serious concerns:
Does this indicate a willingness to misuse clinical frameworks beyond personal relationships?
How robust are the institutional checks that prevent such rhetorical weaponization in pedagogical or research settings?
⸻
Literary retaliation and non-consensual narrative exposure
Subsequently, Johnston distributed a poem containing explicit references to identifiable personal events — after I had explicitly refused further contact. The poem was later published publicly in a racialized, orientalist style, blurring the line between personal exposure and performative self-stylization.
From a forensic perspective, this constitutes non-consensual narrative exposure — a form of symbolic aggression often designed to provoke, humiliate, and exert reputational pressure on a survivor.
His later DMCA takedown requests targeted public-facing survivor documentation rather than the original private file submitted to authorities, suggesting an intent to obstruct scrutiny rather than a genuine claim of authorship.
⸻
Implications for academic and professional ethics
This behavioral pattern raises a critical systemic question:
If a researcher perceives no ethical violation in repurposing private narratives without consent for retaliatory or symbolic gain, what measures prevent similar dynamics from occurring within student supervision, co-authorship, or institutional collaborations?
What safeguards exist to ensure that consent, emotional neutrality, and power balance are upheld, especially in academic contexts that depend on these values?
⸻
A structured invitation to inquiry
This reflection is not intended as an accusation against colleagues or institutions but as an evidence-informed provocation:
How do we delineate personal misconduct from professional integrity when the two spheres demonstrably overlap?
How do we protect survivor-led documentation from narrative suppression disguised as academic “defense”?
The patterns observed here are not isolated anecdotes. They represent a convergence of symbolic violence, rhetorical weaponization, and institutional vulnerability — all critical points for any ethical discourse on research integrity and professional boundary maintenance.
⸻
Conclusion
When personal tactics reveal a disregard for consent and narrative integrity, it is reasonable — and necessary — to ask whether similar tactics might emerge in professional or academic ecosystems. This is not merely a private concern; it is a systemic risk requiring explicit, transparent safeguards.
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.
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 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
- 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 (you are here)
- Entry 46: The Two Things That Didn’t Leave a Bad Impression
- Entry 47: When Affection is Just an Alibi (A Bundy-Inspired Reflection)
- Entry 48: Humbert, Lolita, and the Fetish of Fragility
- Entry 49: The Fetish of Smallness as Symbolic Violence
- Entry 50: Motif Risk Analysis
- Entry 52: Can an Abuser Be a Good Father?
- Entry 53: Who Protects the Children?
- Entry 54: From Blackmail to Children
- 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.
Photo cover by Anita Monteiro via Unsplash