Misuse of power in academic institutions is pervasive. Most of the competent, skilled, and foreign-qualified faculty members face this issue as they try to serve in our institutes of higher education. Sadly, their complaints to address these unwanted issues go unheard. Highly-spirited new faculty entrants—after having completed their doctoral studies at foreign universities, presenting their academic works at some of the renowned platforms of their disciplines, and publishing their research works in reputed international journals—return to Pakistan to play their role in the advancement of academics. However, over time, their experiences develop into grievances concerning the allocation of MPhil and PhD supervisors, the formation of admission committees for these programmes, allocation of BS/MPhil/PhD courses, access to official communication, faculty office/sitting places, and administrative assistance by the officials of their respective departments. First, a majority of such faculty members are not allocated supervision of the theses of MPhil and PhD students despite that these teachers meet all the requirements prescribed by the universities and the Higher Education Commission (HEC). Thesis supervision is a crucial enterprise for them not only because it is helpful in the transformation of foreign knowledge, skills, and abilities that stand out in highly ranked international universities to the younger generations but depriving an otherwise eligible and competent faculty member of such opportunities systemically suppresses the chances of their personal and professional growth. Second, the recruitment of new research students is problematic. In advanced countries and highly ranked universities within the country, only those faculty members with in-depth research experience and holding doctoral degrees are responsible for screening, testing, and interviewing the new MPhil and PhD students. Sadly, the departmental admission committees in the universities are filled with those teachers who have no research experience. Some of the visiting faculty members, having neither academic nor administrative background, are the expert members of the PhD selection boards. This calls into question the quality and quantity of PhDs produced on the basis of favourtism and nepotism. In short, we are strengthening a culture of corruption by admitting only those students having links with elites in the universities, bureaucracy and politics. Rather than serving the nation, we are feeding and fostering a civic culture of corruption that swirls up to the other institutions such incompetent students get the positions because of their links. Thus, ignoring the foreign faculty is resulting a huge social cost besides costing major chunk of resource of universities that are already facing resources shortage. Third, foreign qualified faculty members are discriminated again during the allocation of the courses. It is a routine that HoDs and their aides teach MPhil and PhD courses and influence the students’ choice of doctoral research topics and supervision. Sometimes, students have to face dire consequences (e.g. they fail in the courses) if they do not align with the wishes of their teachers. It denies these students to benefit from the experiences and skills of foreign qualified faculty members; thus, dampening the spirit and diminishing the energies of the latter. In the end, it obstructs the development of an atmosphere of research and academic competition in the departments in particular and in the universities in general. Fifth, almost all the faculty members share the feeling that their departments are understaffed and under-resourced, and they have to live with whatever is available to them. In contrast to non-PhD and visiting teachers, experienced and PhD faculty members have more workloads, have their own research agenda, have to prepare to secure external research funding, and so on. Such a diverse range of activities require deep concentration and a comfortable working environment, including working space. Contrary, some of the non-PhD and visiting teachers are given separate spacious offices, and senior, foreign PhD degree holders, and regular faculty members are compelled to share small offices, which hinders their efficiency and effectiveness. Lastly, many of the departments of public sector universities are facing some logistical problems as well. For instance, clerical staff refuses to cooperate with the faculty members by referring to the HoDs. Clerical offices are central to communication and logistical support, including access to computers, printers, and daily mail registers. What could be the purpose behind this move? The possible reason could be that HoDs and their senior aides in the departments want to keep the maximum information in strict secrecy. Additionally, through their aides—visiting female teachers, could spy on the activities of the young faculty members. The writer has a PhD in history from Shanghai University and is a lecturer at GCU, Faisalabad. He can be contacted at mazharabbasgondal87@gmail.com. He tweets at @MazharGondal87