Did you read the resignation letter? I thought it was pretty obvious that corruption - maybe in a less sinister form - was the underlying reason for the issues he brought up.

Given how wrapped the letter is in one-sided rhetoric and how full it is of sweeping, dismissive accusations such as "we all knew the mendacious reasons had nothing to do with academic standards"... how exactly do extract an "obvious" takeaway about the underlying events?

He spoke about Palestine and not getting enough condolences for his mother's death. Neither of those subjects jump out as "corruption".

Apathy and politicaly-motivated administration is corruption of a collegial environment and academic responsibilities.

Did you even read the HckrNews rules?

“Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."”

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html