Not specifically in that article, but it was understood by her that continued employment was untenable if she actually wanted to keep doing what she was doing,

Not specifically in that article, but it was understood by her that continued employment was untenable if she actually wanted to keep doing what she was doing, which is why she quit. Remember that for some people actual integrity and honesty is simply part of who they are and they won't accept being muzzled. For what it's worth, here's the letter: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/6092/response/16930/attach/html/5/Document%201%20Letter%20to%20Professor%20Glyn%20Davis%20AC%2014%20September%202018%20FOI%201511.pdf.html https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/6092/response/16930/a... I think what's most evident and bizarre is they act like there's actually significant research going on here: the researchers in question just pointed out how easy something was, basically (see https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-simple-process-of-re-identifying-patients-in-public-health-records https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-simple-process-o...), and the university got this letter in response. See https://twitter.com/VTeagueAus/status/1235067612318449664 https://twitter.com/VTeagueAus/status/1235067612318449664 with the indication the reason she resigned was entirely due to all of this plus some other stuff. Fair point if you want to still argue they didn't directly have to fire her, I'll walk that back a bit and say that that was pre-empted and we lack the counterfactual of what the Department of Health would have actually done in terms of pressure had she continued.