Committee Members Committed to Academic Values

December 9, 2008
.

TO: (Members of the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies; EC-FGPS)
.

- Gary Slater

- Irena Makaryk

- Christian Blanchette

- Paul Merkley

- Barbara Vanderhyden
.

CC: made public
.

RE: My membership to the FGPS
.

Dear colleagues,
.

Your membership on the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies shows that you are committed to upholding the academic values that sustain freedom of inquiry, freedom of expression, and professional independence in the academic environment. Your presumed commitment will soon be tested.
.

You are being asked to take part in an egregious, unprecedented, and indefensible violation of these academic values. How you proceed will indelibly, and publicly, reflect upon not only your committee but upon each one of you as individuals.
.

You will soon be evaluating my supervisory skills for the direction of graduate theses in my discipline.
.

Your evaluation is proceeding in the absence of any student complaints about my supervisory skills and in the face of unanimous student testimony to the contrary; in the context of a recognized and productive multi-disciplinary NSERC-funded scientific research group.
.

The exercise of the present review has been an egregious violation of academic norms and an indefensible attack against academic freedom.
.

Since your committee is the final authority in the matter of my membership review, I ask that you answer these simple procedural questions:
.

(1) What are the criteria for evaluating the supervisory skills of a full professor and active researcher with several graduate students?
.

(2) What are the criteria for involuntary termination of such a professor’s privilege to supervise graduate students?
.

(3) What are the precedents, if any, of active full professors being terminated on the basis of insufficient supervisory skills?
.

(4) Which of the criteria obtained in the precedent cases, if any?
.

These are the relevant questions in a fair and transparent process.
.

I ask to be heard at your committee meeting and I suggest that you enquire about all the documents that have been excluded from consideration in the previous committee despite my requests.
.
Sincerely,

Denis Rancourt

(Professor)

.

[Photo credits: University of Ottawa]

Rock Administration Prefers to Confuse “Independent” with “Internal” Rather Than Address Systemic Racism

The Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO) released its second annual report, entitled “Mistreatment of Students, Unfair Practices and Systemic Racism at the University of Ottawa”, in November 2008.
.
The SAC report is a moving testimony based on the Centre’s work representing students, with supporting statistics and illustrative case studies. See Report HERE (alternate LINK).
.

The SAC 2008 Report sounds the alarm at the U of O by suggesting that the institutional treatment of academic fraud cases appears to suffer from systemic racism. More than two thirds of the 48 students who consulted the centre on academic fraud charges in the report period were visible minorities (Arab, Asian, and black men and women).
.

The SAC 2008 Report also exposes bias in practice and attitudes among members of the institution’s relevant decisional bodies, such as with the Senate Appeals Committee which at the time of the SAC 2007 Report still had the practice of refusing that its members be identified to the defendant students and their representatives.
.

To this day, the University of Ottawa does not post Senate committee memberships on its web site – this at “Canada’s university” which claims in its Vision 2010 strategic plan that “Collegiality, transparency and accountability are the principles that guide our university governance.”
.

The SAC 2008 Report attracted much radio, TV, and print media attention. This normally should have catalyzed a positive response, with the University launching a self-examination exercise in view of repairing the situation.
.

Instead, the Rock administration launched a campaign of deep denial.
.

At the November 17th Board of Governors meeting Allan Rock stated “I know enough about the work that’s been done to date to tell you that we’re going to disagree very strongly that there’s any evidence to support the allegations that have been made,” in reference to the University’s evaluation of the SAC report.
.

On November 24th VP-Academic and Provost Robert Major referred to the University’s evaluation as a soon to be released “public […] evaluation[,] by an independent assessor, of the report [of the SAC]”.
.

The University’s “Evaluation Report of Student Appeal Centre 2008 Annual Report” (alternate LINK) by service intellectual Assistant Professor Joanne St. Lewis, dated November 15th, was released on November 25th (see University press release HERE). The professor herself calls it “an independent evaluation” in the first line of her report.
.

Students who would attempt to pass an internal report as an independent report would probably be accused of academic fraud but such intellectual dishonesty appears to be acceptable to the institution for a report denouncing a student association “allegation” of racism in treating academic fraud cases.
.

Rather than being an independent report, and far from being of professional caliber, the St. Lewis evaluation is prima facie intended to diffuse a media and public relations image management liability for the University. The University appears to be far more concerned with casting doubt on the conclusions of the SAC report than on an independent examination of the issue or on implementing any preventative measures.
.

The St. Lewis report has an unprofessional tone throughout. It states “very unprofessional” rather than “unprofessional”; “totally unsubstantiated” rather than “unsubstantiated”; “complete failure to” rather than “failure to”; “does not provide any assistance” rather than “does not provide enough assistance”; “clearly intended” instead of “intended”; etc. A language that is not characteristic of objectivity...
.

St. Lewis stressed that the SAC data on student complaints relates to only “1% of the total university population.” Many published medical clinical trials and studies are based on similar-size and smaller samples. You use what you have. If only 0.1% of students were murdered every year on campus would we wait for a statistically significant sample to perform a detailed correlations analysis of likely causes before sounding the alarm and seeking concrete remedies? Would the University put out a report criticizing the legitimacy of the data and the fact that error analysis was not performed? (The nature of the St. Lewis report suggests it might…)
.

More important are some gross elements of the St. Lewis report.
.

RELIEVING EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

In arguing that University executives cannot and should not be asked to intervene in student appeal cases, St. Lewis confuses a system that is ideal when the individuals running it are ideal with the breakdown that occurs when the individuals act with racial prejudice and class bias. St. Lewis takes the position that the approved process cannot be sabotaged by discrimination, racism, and bias, and removes the legal responsibility of University executives to intervene in such circumstances of breakdown. Her position is the absurd one where the system works by definition such that the responsible executives cannot legitimately intervene. It appears that the responsible executives in question are happy to agree with St. Lewis.
.

EVIDENCE FOR SYSTEMIC RACISM.

Another gross element of the St. Lewis report actually substantiates the SAC conclusion of systemic racism. In her report St. Lewis writes: “The International Office currently provides international students with information regarding the academic expectations […] including our (sic) policy on plagiarism […] They are informed of the consequences of plagiarism […] It is a well known adage that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’.”
.

Such disregard for cultural differences regarding copyright etiquette and academic “norms” is in itself systemic racism, at an institution that prides itself in celebrating Canada’s multi-culturalism. St. Lewis’ position of the supremacy of western academic practice, while being insensitive to cultural diversity among international students, is a window into a root cause of the problem that the SAC has identified.
.

A rigid and zealous “academic fraud” program, incapable of critical self-examination is also paternalistic and at odds with some of the richest intellectual property movements in our globalized world: Copyright-alternative movements and the copyleft concept of participatory creativity.
.

MAIN RECOMMENDATION IS TO ACCESS SAC DATA….

Finally, to name only one of the many other major problems contained in the St. Lewis report, let us address its “principal recommendation that an independent assessment to evaluate the Academic Fraud files identified by the Student Appeal Centre be conducted […] to ensure that there is indeed no systemic racism in the Academic Fraud process.”
.

And restated as St. Lewis’ Recommendation 1: “That SAC cooperate with the University in allowing it to undertake an independent analysis of the Academic Fraud data […]”
.

We thinks it might be good for St. Lewis to define “independent” here… Let’s see… St. Lewis’ main recommendation is for the University to access and evaluate the SAC data that students have provided the SAC. Wow! And this would not “have a chilling effect on students’ willingness to pursue their legitimate claims” as St. Lewis suggests is the effect of the SAC Report?
.

So after all this, according to St. Lewis, the best thing to do now, since it’s obvious that there cannot possibly be systemic racism at “our” U of O, is to get that SAC data and shred it so it can’t hurt us any more. Brilliant.
.

I predict that St. Lewis is in line for a promotion to Associate Professor soon.

.

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; Joanne St. Lewis]

Code of Conduct Needed at U of O

.
Student activism crushed the Administration’s recent attempt to install a Student Code of Conduct: SEE LINK (video).
.
At that time, some argued that an Executive Code of Conduct was needed because of the potential for abuse of power: SEE LINK.
.
Recent and ongoing unethical abuse of power by U of O President Allan Rock is reported HERE (video).
.
The aggressive and abusive treatment by a seasoned executive officer and former federal minister of a mild-mannered undergraduate student is inexcusable. Mr. Allan Rock appeared to have the clear intent to intimidate, with disproportionate use of force.
.
In his “apology”, Rock went on to defame and blame the student: SEE LINK. The “apology” describes an event that is in sharp contrast to the voice recording.
.
Bring on The Code!
.
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]
.
Context of Thuggery:
.
Thuggery in the Upper Administration
Thuggery in Physics
Department of Physics DTPC - video

Thuggery in the Upper Administration

The Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO) has just released a public letter addressed to U of O President Allan Rock. The letter is entitled “Flagrant Mistreatment of Students and Disregard of SFUO Nomination Rights”.
.

The letter demands that Rock redress two recent and most blatant abuses of power practiced by the university against its students. The letter describes the cases of international student Ting Ting Wang and physics student Marc Kelly.
.

The SFUO also demands that the U of O administration accept the SFUO’s nomination of Mark Kelly to the Senate Appeals Committee.
.

The Senate Appeals Committee is the committee whose members refused to identify themselves to grieving students, until the SFUO pressured the University administration by public exposure.
.

The SFUO letter makes public that VP-Academic Robert Major illegitimately interfered with Kelly’s nomination to the Senate Appeal’s Committee. The letter states that Major practiced a defamatory character assessment of Kelly, which Major is alleged to have communicated to an SFUO representative in an effort to discredit Kelly’s nomination.
.

VP-Academic Major is alleged to have advanced that student Kelly is mentally unstable, in supporting the VP’s rejection of Kelly’s nomination to the Senate Appeals Committee. This is the same VP-Academic Major whose views on gender equity and representative democracy are well known.
.

On a sane campus, in a sane world, and on any other campus in North America I would advance, the Board of Governors (BOG) would (would have already) promptly extract(ed) Robert Major’s resignation.
.

Is Canada’s university sane? Will it be fixed? The answer is in the hands of the BOG, while the President appears to be watching from the sidelines of international development.
.

President Allan Rock was repeatedly questioned by students and professors about the Kelly nomination at his October 24, 2008, address in the Agora, but he did not budge from his position that “we are entitled to have concerns”.
.

In addressing the students, Rock appeared to be oblivious to the asymmetry in the fact that students are not entitled to have concerns regarding the nominations of professors and executives to the Senate Appeals Committee.
.

[Photo credits: University of Ottawa; Allan Rock, Robert Major.]

Thuggery in Physics

Physics undergraduate student Marc Kelly was expelled by the U of O Faculty of Science from his B.Sc. project course (PHY 4006) before the official student drop date for the course on the basis of behind-closed-door decisions by enlightened physics professors (members of the Departmental Teaching Personnel Committee and the physics chairman) who judged the project to not be physics, in the absence of any investigation beyond reading an announcement for the project topic.
.
PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY
.

Details are given HERE.
.

A first draft report of the student’s PHY 4006 project is given HERE.
.

It appears the high priests of the physics department are protecting the purity of physics, while refusing to give a definition of physics. Hooray for disciplinal divisions and professionalism!

.
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; Dr. Bela Joos, Chairman of Physics]

For all and more recent posts about student Marc Kelly CLICK HERE.

A New Perspective on the Activism Course

by Philippe Marchand
.

To understand what some student journalists are now calling "the Rancourt saga", we need to remember where the whole debate started: the creation of the controversial "Science, activism and society" course (SCI1101) in 2006. The course was given once in Fall 2006, with prof. Denis Rancourt as a facilitator and coordinator. It was an elective course graded S/NS (satisfactory/non-satisfactory), not counting towards the specific requirements of any university program or towards the students' grade point average. Over 100 students were registered and some guest lectures attracted more than 400 participants.
.

Having attended the various 2006 committee meetings dealing with the approval of SCI1101/1501, I have witnessed many objections to both the proposed content and pedagogy of the class. Many professors opposed the idea that students could decide the content of the class. Others pointed out that an "A+" student might be disadvantaged by an "S" grade on his/her report. Some used a slippery slope argument: "What would happen if all classes were like this?" On June 11, 2007, the University of Ottawa Senate ruled that only the Senate - rather than a professor, department or Faculty - could allow a class to be graded S/NS.
.

I am now a first-year doctoral student at the University of California - Berkeley. As I learned more about my new campus, I found a completely different approach, on the issues discussed above, than the one prevailing at the University of Ottawa.
.

In the early 1980s, Berkeley introduced the DeCal system ("De" stands for Democratic Education). DeCal courses are facilitated by undergraduate and graduate students. They allow students to go outside the bounds of traditional courses and offer more "practical" or "current" content. Of a total undergraduate population of 25 000, over 4000 students are enrolled in around 150 DeCal classes every semester. Current DeCals include: "Batman as American Mythology", "The Life and Legacy of Tupac Amaru Shakur", "Student Power: Organizing and Activism", and a journalism class offered by editors of the student newspaper.
.

Any student can start a DeCal course. All they need is a professor to sponsor the course and the authorization of this professor's department. DeCal courses are worth 1 to 3 credits and undergraduate students are allowed to take up to 16 credits of DeCal as part of their electives. All the DeCal courses are graded pass / not pass (P/NP), which is exactly equivalent to S/NS at U of O. At Berkeley, undergraduate students have the option to take up to one-third of their total units as P/NP grades.
.

After decades under that system, the catastrophe imagined by some University of Ottawa administrators did not happen. Berkeley has maintained a high reputation among public universities in North America and internationally. I am not arguing that any university should copy the DeCal model, but rather this shows that there is no contradiction between providing high quality education and giving flexibility for students to take a more active role in their education and go outside the traditional classroom box.
.

Philippe Marchand

U of O alumni in Physics

Graduate student in Environmental Science, Policy and Management, UC Berkeley
.
Editor’s note: In particular, Professor Tito Scaiano (Chemistry), in a letter to The Ottawa Citizen, mused that society would fall apart if we allowed the S/NS grading system. By contrast, labour law Arbitrator Michel G. Picher ruled that the choice of the S/NS grading system was within the purview of a professor’s academic freedom. The new U of O Senate rule on S/NS was passed in secret (under the pretext of clarifying an old text) while a policy grievance on the matter was being arbitrated. The professor’s union complained in writing about the underhanded passing of the new rule.
.

[URL links were inserted by UofOWatch.]

[Photo credit: Pawel Dwulit; April 18, 2006, Faculty Council scenes and President’s closed door reception aftermath.]

Reparation is due at U of O - Grievance filed

October 7, 2008

.
Louise Pagé-Valin

Associate Vice-President

Human Resources Services

University of Ottawa

Tabaret Hall

550 Cumberland Street

(delivered by hand)
.

Re: Grievance G-19 (my code) – EBOG UofOWatch decision.

.

Dear Mrs. Pagé-Valin:

.

This is to grieve the September 11th decision of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) regarding my UofOWatch.blogspot.com blog.
.

The Dean admitted in writing that if my articles had not been critical of the University, then I would not have been punished. This is a blatant violation of academic freedom. It also represents undue interference with my work.

.

In addition, in an email to Secretary of the University Pamela Harrod dated September 28, 2008, I expressed concerns about significant procedural anomalies in the EBOG’s September 11th decision. I have not yet received a response. I ask that you immediately provide written clarifications regarding my concerns expressed in my September 28, 2008, email to Pamela Harrod and immediately provide a copy of the (appropriately severed) minutes of the September 11th EBOG meeting, showing which EBOG members were present.
.
I ask that the discipline be reversed and that reparation be made, with interest. I want a written apology co-signed by all members of the EBOG which were present at the September 11th EBOG meeting. I want a written apology from the Dean. I ask that a new text of the policy for University copyrighted images be adopted which explicitly permits criticism of and/or fair (legal) commentary about the University in the use of University web images by professors, media, and students in any academic or journalistic work.

.
Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

(Professor)
.

Cc: Posted to UofOWatch blog, BOG, APUO, Dean of Science..

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; Louise Page-Valin, Dean Andre E. Lalonde]

It’s Unanimous! The University’s Intellectual Property Must Be Protected

In a letter dated September 23, 2008, the dean of the Faculty of Science, André E. Lalonde, informed Professor Denis G. Rancourt of the September 11, 2008, decision of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) in the matter of discipline for having robed the University’s intellectual property.

.
See uTube video HERE.

.

The dean proudly announced “The Executive of the Board of Governors accepted the Dean’s recommendation [to discipline Rancourt]. The decision was unanimous.”

.

Bloggers and news media beware: The University of Ottawa will take whatever means necessary to bar the use of its pictures that it makes public on its web site.

.

In this case, it has disciplined one of its own professors with an unpaid suspension for having posted properly-credited uOttawa.ca images on his (this) blog (UofOWatch), even though the blog is part of the professor’s work for the University.

.

Just think of what the University will do if you are not one of its professors using the images for University work…

.

If the blog were not part of the professor’s work, then the University could not have disciplined the professor using labour law but would have needed to sue the professor under copyright law.

But wait. All the pictures are still up on the blog? The University has not protected its intellectual property. By its own logic, the University has no choice but to discipline Rancourt further and more severely for continuing to rob the University’s intellectual property. But is the University willing to push its insanity further…?

The University had given Rancourt permission to use its copyrighted images “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa” but then agued that UofOWatch is not “positive.” (LINK) Rancourt explained that the best way to make-positive negatives (such as VPs and deans lying or falsifying documents: LINK, LINK, LINK) is to report the mistakes, and to criticize, so that those who need to learn from their mistakes do. Rancourt explained that criticism is positive, as is being seen to allow criticism, and that, therefore, the images are being used “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.”

In addition, the UofOWatch blog itself is a positive activity of the University of Ottawa and the pictures positively promote the UofOWatch blog.

Hello… The University is adopting a copyright practice regarding its web pictures that is straight out of Orwell’s 1984. “Canada’s university,” that bastion of freedom of expression, intellectual inquiry, and critical discourse, is limiting its copyrighted resources to those who can wear plastic smiles and who are willing to serve its Communications Office.

For some reason, the student and mainstream media have not caught on to these subtleties in their coverage of Rancourt’s EBOG adventure. (LINK) To be fair, these subtleties also unanimously escaped the EBOG members, the Dean, and the University Legal Counsel, to name a few.

The unanimity of thought within the University administration suggests that only individuals that are capable of incisive analyses in complex cases attain the higher positions within the institutional hierarchy. (LINK) Not.

The Dean’s letter [POSTED HERE] made no mention of which of the twelve EBOG members were present at the September 11th meeting or whether President Allan Rock (Vice-Chair, EBOG) was in the room or how many of the members were present in addition to Secretary Pamela Harrod.

.

The public was banned from attending the EBOG September 11th meeting and Rancourt was not allowed to address the committee, not even to obtain clarification of his procedural concerns. The letter and email exchange between Rancourt and EBOG Secretary Pamela Harrod is POSTED HERE.

Security guards and locked doors were used to keep Rancourt and the public from entering the board room: See a report and a video HERE.
***

U of O EBOG Members:

Yves Tremblay, Chair
Allan Rock, Vice-Chair
Pamela Harrod, Secretary (non-member)
Jeffrey M. Dale
Ruth Freiman
Abdo Georges Ghié
V. Peter Harder
Marc Jolicoeur
Richard L’Abbé
Louise Lemyre
Julia Morris
Louise Tardif
Carmen Prévost Vierula

.
[photo credit: University of Ottawa]

LINKS to media:

Ottawa Sun feature 2008
La Rotonde news article
Ottawa Sun feature 2007
Ottawa Xpress feature 2006

UofOWatch Blog Too Much for UofO – Board to Decide on Suspension of Professor

This very blog, which should be celebrated by the University of Ottawa as an example of open self-criticism and vibrant discourse (e.g., see Professor St-Amant’s many contributed comments to the previous post), has in fact been threatened with legal action on two counts and its creator, Professor Denis Rancourt, has been disciplined and is now under review for suspension.
.
Professor Rancourt’s final supplementary brief (posted HERE) in the matter of his suspension for the blog was deposited today. The Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa has 40 working days to provide its decision and its reasons therefor. BOG meetings are public.
.

A brief history of the University’s reactions to the UofOWatch blog is as follows.
.
First, on August 20, 2007, University of Ottawa’s VP-Resources Victor Simon initiated a “private” action against Rancourt using the third largest national law firm in Canada, Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG), which is known to specialize in libel and defamation cases. The Chairman of the BOG of the University of Ottawa is a Partner in BLG.
.

The BLG letter of threat “Notice under the Libel and Slander Act” is posted HERE. It is signed by BLG Partner J. Bruce Carr-Harris who has been involved in high-profile fund raising activities for the University.
.

The letter states:
.

“Mr. Simon hereby demands that you immediately remove the two blogs [THIS ONE and THIS ONE] … from your U of O Watch blog, failing which we expect to receive instructions to commence the requisite legal proceedings to do so.
.

In addition, we require a full, absolute, and unequivocal and fair apology and retraction of all defamatory statements…”
.

Similar letters of threat of legal action, in this matter of Victor Simon and UofOWatch, were sent to graduate students Jean-Paul Prévost and Severin Stojanovic (for allegedly providing material support) and to three (student) staff members (Editor-in-Chief, Director General, and the journalist covering the Victor Simon matter) of the student newspaper La Rotonde (presumably to intimidate the paper away from publishing on the matter).
.

La Rotonde bravely published a full spread on September 10, 2007, with copies of some of the BLG letters. Rancourt did not budge, trusting truth as the ultimate defence. The lawsuits never materialized.
.

Next, on August 28, 2007, came a letter from the University of Ottawa’s Legal Counsel (Michelle Flaherty). This letter is posted HERE and states: “the University of Ottawa hereby requires that you immediately remove the images of Tabaret Hall, of the President of the University of Ottawa with Mr. Telfer and of the President of the University of Ottawa and Mr. Lau from the U of O Watch blog site … If you fail to remove these images by August 31, 2007, the University of Ottawa may take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its intellectual property rights.”
.

The Flaherty letter explained that it is University policy that the images “may be used by faculty, staff, students, and the news media solely for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.”
.

Having been informed of the University policy, Rancourt responded by making more widespread use of copyrighted University images, which greatly enhanced the blog.
.

The Dean of the Faculty of Science, André E. Lalonde, next enthusiastically took on the job of “protect[ing] [the University’s] intellectual property rights.” The Dean initiated his own investigation on November 23, 2007 (see letter posted HERE). In his letter, the Dean explained “I am concerned that your refusal to remove the copyrighted images from the U of O Watch website constitutes insubordination.”
.

What followed was a long series of meetings, exchanges of letters, and procedures (see Rancourt’s brief HERE for a summary) in which Rancourt tried to explain to the dean that both criticism and allowing criticism were positive and that, consequently, the University policy was not being violated.
.

The Dean disciplined Rancourt and warned of more discipline if the images were not removed. The Dean then appealed to the good judgement of VP-Academic Robert Major to ask that Major schedule the continuation of the investigation in order to pursue a suspension of Rancourt. Major obliged – leading to the present evaluation by the Board.
.

The Executive Summary of Rancourt’s BRIEF to the Board reads as follows.
.

The University of Ottawa has a stated policy of allowing professors to use its copyrighted images from its web site “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.” (See Legal Counsel’s letter to Denis Rancourt dated August 28, 2007.)
.

Denis Rancourt uses credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site in the UofOWatch blog that he manages (see attached item-1).
.

The UofOWatch blog features commentary and critical articles about activities of the University of Ottawa (see attached item-1).
.

The credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site significantly enhance the UofOWatch blog (a picture is worth a thousand words) and show a positive image of a university open to self-criticism.
.

University professors have academic freedom in their research and communications, including in criticisms of the university itself. The university has a duty to support the work of its professors, within the usual limits of resource constraints.
.

The University has disciplined Professor Denis Rancourt (Letter of Reprimand dated February 5, 2008) for not removing the copyrighted images from the UofOWatch blog.
.

Dean André E. Lalonde presently seeks further discipline (a one-day suspension) to be approved by the Board, before a grievance (filed on February 24, 2008) against the first discipline has been heard.
.

The University’s discipline and the on-going attempt to further discipline are not legitimate and appear to constitute attempts at ideological (political) censorship. The actions of the dean (and of Legal Counsel) appear to be petty and contrary to fostering a vibrant and critical university intellectual environment in a free and democratic society.
.

In addition, there are many procedural anomalies that point to serious problems in ethical and responsible management. These include illegal gathering and use of personal information and unwarranted legal threats.
.

In wrapping up his BRIEF, Rancourt states:
.

“Criticism is positive, healthy, and necessary to produce change. Congratulatory niceties only support the status quo. Not exposing known problems encourages their continuation. Criticism is vital work that needs to be encouraged rather than censored and attacked.”
.

Let us hope that the Board, in its collective wisdom and mandated fairness, will find a way to celebrate freedom of expression and inquiry at the University of Ottawa.
.

[Photo Credit: University of Ottawa. Mr. Marc Jolicoeur, BLG Partner and Chairman of the University’s Board of Governors.]

Arbitration Ruling Makes Academic Squatting Legal in Canada

On June 25, 2008, Arbitrator Michel G. Picher released his 65-page ruling in the matter of the University of Ottawa vs. the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) regarding Professor Denis Rancourt’s discipline grievance related to the Fall 2005 offering of the course PHY 1703 “Physics and the Environment” (Physique et environnement), popularly known as the Activism Course.
.
The University had taken disciplinary action against Professor Rancourt charging that he had misrepresented his course in a detailed web posting, in such a way as to have described a dramatically different course not compatible with the official course description. The Arbitrator rejected the University’s charges, finding that the described course was within the purview of academic freedom.
.

The then dean of the Faculty of Science, chemistry professor Christian Detellier, had barged into the classroom on September 21, 2005, to suspend the course, causing a strong student reaction that was amply reported in the media. The University has since apologized for the Dean’s in-class intervention: LINK.
.

The public arbitration hearings were held in Ottawa on November 5, 8, 14, and 26, 2007. The Arbitrator refers to the Activism Course in his decision as having been made “something of a ‘cause célèbre’” (p.27 of the June 25th decision).
.

The ruling is a landmark award that strengthens and broadens the scope of academic freedom in Canada. The full text of the Award is available HERE.
.

The ruling establishes that pedagogical innovation and implementation are fully protected under the academic freedom enjoyed by a professor, including the choice of grading system – considered an integral part of the pedagogical method.
.

In the specific case, the protected pedagogical innovations included:
.

(a) A large fraction of the class time used to present societal and political material – in a physics course intended to deliver fundamental physics concepts as the only required physics course in an environmental studies program – as a way to motivate student learning and to position the science in the broad societal context. This was achieved using invited scientist and non-scientist speakers that included activists, politicians, community workers, etc. The ruling clarifies that no “exception [was] taken to the use of activism and social and political issues as catalysts to learning.”
.

(b) Parallel student workgroups with evolving themes and freely changing student memberships and town-hall-style whole-class discussions instead of traditional lectures delivered by the professor.
.

(c) An open invitation to all community members to freely and fully participate in the class, without necessarily officially registering and paying tuition, as a way to bring in the community to enrich class discussions and strengthen relevance and community connections. This brought in a variety of perspectives and expertises that would otherwise not have been available.
.

(d) Large latitude in individual student decision making regarding: order in which to learn things (e.g., workgroup membership and topic), depth of treatment, method of study, method of reporting progress, degree of cooperative work, etc. (Sharing was not considered cheating.)
.

(e) A satisfactory/non-satisfactory (S/NS) grading system rather than the traditional letter grade system (used in all other science courses given that term).
.

Having examined the long list of University complaints about how Professor Rancourt had, in his web communications (see ruling), subverted the “spirit, content, and function” (translated from French) of the course, the Arbitrator found that “that position cannot be sustained by the Arbitrator” and that all the innovations communicated and implemented by Professor Rancourt fell within his rights under academic freedom.
.

The ruling therefore again puts to rest the backward notions that hard sciences must be studied in isolation and that tunnel-vision specialization is the only acceptable way.
.

The Arbitrator added: “… the major change being with respect to the pedagogical innovation of independent group studies, the involvement of the students themselves in identifying areas of interest and the introduction of the satisfactory/not-satisfactory grading system. The Arbitrator is satisfied that those pedagogical initiatives were legitimately within the purview of the academic freedom enjoyed by Professor Rancourt …”
.

The ruling therefore also lays to rest the doctrinal view that only grades can motivate students in the hard sciences and that students must be “forced to learn”, least our technological society fall in ruin. LINK. (If that is true, then Canada’s new academic freedom is indeed a dangerous freedom.)
.

In addition, the Arbitrator’s award also affirms that (consistent with actual practice) a course can, through a process of pedagogical choices, be significantly different in its use of class time and in topics covered than a literal and restrictive reading of the official (Senate-approved) course description would suggest: How much class time a professor chooses to use on what is a matter of pedagogical freedom, in the professor’s attempt to achieve the best possible end results; keeping in mind a professor’s right to be political in the classroom, as already well established in Collective Agreements across the country and in past rulings.
.

In the words of the Arbitrator, “The assertion … to the effect that the publicized descriptions of the course contained a ‘radically different content’ as compared to what was contemplated in the official description of the course cannot be sustained by the Arbitrator” and “there is simply no equitable basis upon which the University, or Dean Detellier, could assert … that Professor Rancourt ‘…brought major changes to the content of his courses…’ (Arbitrator’s translation) … the evidence before this tribunal confirms that … [the changes] fell legitimately within the scope of his academic freedom in pursuing a different pedagogical approach …” (p.60-61 of the decision).
.

The Arbitrator’s ruling is in sharp contrast to Professor (on leave) Christian Detellier’s hearing statement that “‘squatting’ is not an appropriate means to implement curriculum change within a university” (p.19 of the decision).
.

Professor Rancourt won the decision on every major point. Even on the minor point of the course title, the ruling explicitly established that a professor can describe his course with a dramatically different title: “Activism Course: Understanding Power and its Contexts” (web call-out) versus “Physique et environnement” (official Senate-approved title).
.

If your conclusion is “In the classroom, the students and professor rule!”, then you get an S for satisfactory, and you deserve an A+. Let’s make our education…
.

Epilogue: Legal Counsel for the University, Michelle Flaherty, apparently quit or was fired some months after the hearings, leaving her voice-mail greeting on the University phone for a week or so after she left; and without any official announcement of thanks or recognition or acknowledgement of departure from the University, leaving the position vacant to this day. Legal defence for the APUO was assumed by labour lawyer Sean T. McGee of Nelligan O'Brien Payne, who built the case around the principle of academic freedom. Christian Detellier went on academic leave for two years in 2006 before going back to being a regular professor in the Department of Chemistry. The Faculty of Science is on its fourth dean or interim-dean since 2005 (one died of cancer). Dean André E. Lalonde is presently the University’s defender of academic freedom in that faculty and is actively pursuing Professor Rancourt for alleged departures from the official course description in SCI 1101, Science in Society, Fall 2006, and for the professor’s teaching methods and grading practices in PHY 4385 and PHY 5100, Solid State Physics, Winter 2008.

.

LINKS

CAUT Policy Statement on Academic Freedom

Academic Squatting

Ottawa Xpress feature article

Ottawa Sun feature article

Discrimination at York University

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has recently completed its Case Analysis Report, in the case of Professor David F. Noble versus York University and Robert Drummond, Lorna Marsden, and Patricia Bradshaw, in the matter of "the respondents afford[ing] privileged accommodation to Jewish students at the respondent university (York) with regard to observance of religious holidays."

The Report's conclusion is unambiguous: "The university's practice of not scheduling classes on Jewish high holy days clearly results in differential treatment on the basis of creed, in that individuals in one group (those of Jewish faith) are given preferential treatment over others."

The full report is available HERE.

Oli Cosgrove to Minister of Education - UofO Campus Arrests

January 10, 2008

The Hon. John Molloy,

Minister, Training, Colleges & Universities,

900 Bay Street,

3rd Floor,

Mowat Building,

Toronto, ON M7A lL2.

.

Dear Mr. Molloy,

.

I’m writing to express to you my worry and disgust at attitudes and actions on the part of the University of Ottawa’s Executive that have recently come to my attention.
.

Firstly, at the Executive’s instigation, police arrested three Ottawa residents on the university’s campus early last December. The two women and one man had attended a public Faculty of Science Council meeting there last May in support of a second year for an activism course. The university allowed the course’s first year only after nine months of intensive lobbying. After the May meeting, the three were served with trespass notices. That alone was an insolent act. However, it was unenforced until one of the three submitted an agenda item to the Faculty Council for a December meeting.

.

The women were arrested on campus on December 6. The man was arrested on December 8, told he was trespassing on private property, and was escorted off campus in his wheelchair by three City of Ottawa police officers and several University security guards. He had offered to leave before the police arrived but was restrained so police could serve him with a summons. He is to appear in court on January 31. At least one of the women has vowed to take the matter to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
.

The attached article provides further details on this matter. [See LINKS below.]

.

Since when, Mr. Molloy, are universities, supported by public funds, private property? And, if public meetings are held on campus, how is a member of the public to know whether they are or are not allowed to attend them; whether they will or won’t be served with trespass notices should they attend them?
.

Furthermore, these arrests blatantly contravene the University’s “Vision 2010 Academic Strategic Plan.” In ‘Our Vision” under that plan, the University states that it is “an integral part of its community, open to the world, and distinguished by … its high-quality learning environment, its passion for knowledge and innovation …. its openness to diversity ….”

.

My second concern: the University’s Executive seems determined to eliminate Ottawa Cinema Politica (OCP), a Friday evening film course open to the public, given by Professor Denis Rancourt. I attend as many of these evenings as possible, there is seldom an empty seat, and sometimes there is standing room only. The Executive has tried before on false pretexts to put a stop to them. It is trying again, this year by claiming that the sessions are not part of Prof. Rancourt’s workload.

Either the Executive can’t read, has no memory, or has ulterior motives for its actions because these sessions have been repeatedly included as part of his workload in Prof. Rancourt’s annual reports and in other official past records. Additionally, it is part of a professor’s responsibility to provide community service, and Prof. Rancourt is committed to these sessions.

Up to now, the University has always provided an auditorium and projection equipment for these sessions. Now, however, it has made the auditorium difficult to book, and has refused to provide sign language access for the deaf community members, contravening the Ontario Human Rights Code.

This second heavy-handed action on the part of the University Executive again contravenes the University’s Vision 2010. In “Our Values” under the plan, the University states that it “values its community … encourages freedom of expression in an atmosphere of open dialogue, enabling critical thought, supported by intellectual integrity and ethical judgment.”

It is my observation, Mr. Malloy, that University President Gilles Patry and his Executive are trying to dictate which courses can and cannot be offered, and who can and cannot attend them. These actions of theirs make a mockery not only of the University’s Vision 2010, but also of the whole purpose of a university. It appears to me that the President and Executive are, therefore, unfit to head up any academic institution, particularly one supported by tax dollars.

I hope, Mr. Minister, that you will investigate these occurrences at the University of Ottawa. I know only of the incidents which I’ve mentioned here, but there may be others like them. We cannot allow leaders of our academic institutions to practice even the slightest repression of academic and civic freedoms. Apart from the repression, what sort of example does it set for our youth? Do we want them graduating with the impression that repression and dictatorship are acceptable?

Yours sincerely,
_____________

Oli Cosgrove

cc: Mme. Madeleine Meilleur

Prof. Denis Rancourt

The Ottawa Citizen

The Ottawa Sun

LaPress

editor@thefulcrum.ca
actualites@larotonde.ca

Enc: letter to President Patry

article by Prof. Rancourt

LINKS

Supporting document and follow up

Rancourt article on rabble.ca

UofOWatch report on arrests and Faculty Council

Open letter to UofO President Gilles Patry

OCP is part of Rancourt's workload, UofOWatch

.

[Photo credit: From Minister's government web page.]

Dean Gary Slater Reads Contempt

March 13, 2008

Gary Slater
Dean
Faculty of Graduate Studies
University of Ottawa

Re: Your letter about me to Dean André Lalonde dated January 29, 2008.

Dear Dr. Slater,

In your letter of January 29th to the dean of the Faculty of Science you complained about my late cancellation in serving as a thesis examiner on a student’s MSc thesis.

These were exceptional circumstances. I explained the circumstances to those making the thesis defence arrangements and the defence proceeded without negative consequences to the student.

It is your duty to act in such a way as to ensure optimal functioning of graduate programs, however, in your letter you allowed yourself to gratuitously conclude that “This behaviour [of my having to cancel an engagement due to unforeseen circumstances] shows contempt for the rights of students”.

That is an unacceptable statement from you about my character; that is not based on the facts of the matter and that is inconsistent with my professional ethics of the last 22 years.

I find your communication to the dean of Science in this regard to be unprofessional and unethical, unless you have discovered a magical gift for extrapolating into the heart of a person using only circumstantial administrative events.

I ask that you apologize to me and that you rectify your letter to the dean of Science by March 20th. I make my request public in an effort to discourage the use of such internal administrative documents such as your letter that gratuitously disparages a member of the university community.

Sincerely,

Denis Rancourt
Professor of Physics

cc: APUO
cc: dean of Science
cc: made public, media

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa.]

Censorship is a serious matter – explains Professor Keith Benn

Professor Keith Benn (Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa) has recently joined Professor Jeremy Kerr (Biology, University of Ottawa; see PREVIOUS POST) in attempting to protect the University of Ottawa from out-of-control radical professor Denis Rancourt (Physics, University of Ottawa).

Benn “take(s) serious offence” at Rancourt’s November 30th 2007 email accusation of censorship practiced in the Faculty of Science. Dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde immediately responded in accordance with the responsibility of his position by initiating yet another formal disciplinary investigation of Rancourt in this serious matter. (We’ve lost count of the number, but it’s well over a dozen.)

All relevant documents (Dean’s initiation of discipline, Benn’s formal letter of complaint, Rancourt’s November 30th email, and the censored document) are posted HERE or HERE.
.

Highlights of the Benn complaint are as follows.
.
“I take serious offence to the accusation of censorship that is contained in the following passage […]”

.

“Rancourt must know that the term ‘censorship’ is a highly charged one that carries some awful baggage in the public psyche. Tossing about accusations of administrative censorship in widely circulated emails [to members of the Faculty Council] […] is reckless and reprehensible, and shows a profound lack of respect for our institution and for our colleagues. It is especially troubling that such an accusation should be made within our University [Canada’s University] and it is unacceptable that it go unchallenged. If such an accusation should go unchallenged then the clear message […] is that the accusation has merit, i.e., that discussion of important issues facing our Faculty and our University are being suppressed.”

Benn continues: “Rancourt’s accusation of censorship, if unchallenged, could do long-term damage to the reputation of our institution.”

“[…] if the accusation were found to be unjustified, then Rancourt should apologize to his victims. […] At the very least, an apology from Rancourt should be forthcoming and recorded in the public record.”

UofOWatch vows to record any such apology when it is forthcoming, to help rectify this violation of the public trust.

UofOWatch trusts that the Dean’s investigation will be thorough and professional, will leave no stone unturned, and will establish whether or not censorship was indeed practiced in the Faculty of Science, as brazenly reported by Rancourt.

Censor n. 2. official with power to suppress whole or parts of records/documents on ground of obscenity, seditiousness, etc. 6. v.t. act as censor (sense 2) of; make deletions or changes in. (Concise Oxford, Seventh Edition)

RELATED LINKS

52 profs complain about Rancourt

Kerr defends the U of O

Faculty Council cancelled by dean four times

Professor Jeremy T. Kerr defends the University of Ottawa

While some have complained that tenured university professors too rarely speak out to correct injustices in our society, Professor Jeremy T. Kerr (Biology, University of Ottawa) has recently provided a striking counter example.

Professor Kerr has written a strong formal letter of complaint against radical professor Denis G. Rancourt (Physics, University of Ottawa) to the dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde.

The dean, in turn, has used the letter to open a formal disciplinary investigation of Rancourt, thereby assuming the responsibility of his position in protecting the University.

If such a category existed, Rancourt would certainly hold the Guinness World Record for the most disciplinary investigations against a tenured university professor. This alone demonstrates the degree to which Rancourt is a menace to society.

Kerr’s letter, the dean’s letter initiating the investigation, and the main exhibit are posted HERE.

.

Highlights of the Kerr letter are as follows.
.

Kerr considers Rancourt’s recent open letter to President Gilles Patry (emailed to all professors; pages 3-4 HERE) entitled ‘Executive-ordered campus arrests of community members’ to be a “form of harassment” (against Kerr).

Kerr is concerned that Rancourt’s mailing appears “to waste university network resources”. (Especially if everyone were to print it out, we guess.)

Kerr states “[…] Furthermore, the dripping contempt to which he (Rancourt) routinely exposes his colleagues seems to be irreconcilable with the provisions of the Collective Agreement […]”

Kerr continues, “Professor Rancourt’s routine misrepresentation of events cannot be viewed as consistent with any commonly accepted norm of fairness or ethical behaviour. Certainly, his constant disruption of even the most routine matters is beginning to make it difficult to function at the University of Ottawa and I worry this may diminish my capacity to fulfill my workload responsibilities.”

Professor Kerr is clearly doing everything he can to ensure that university resources are spent to optimally benefit society. It is comforting to see that the university administration is enthusiastically taking up the challenge proposed by Kerr. When activist professors and the university leadership work together in this way, one can be confident that results will follow.

We trust that the dean’s investigation will corroborate all of Professor Kerr’s statements and help to relieve the professor of the strenuous conditions to which he has been subjected.

RELATED LINKS

52 profs complain against Rancourt

Psychological evaluations on-the-fly

Petition against UofO executives

.

MEDIA RESONSE TO THIS POST

La Rotonde editorial response of February 25 2008 (in French)

.

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]

Christian values do not apply to the Deaf, decide U of O executives

THE ACT AND HUMAN RIGHTS VERSUS REALITY


The University of Ottawa Act 1965 states that “The objects and purposes of the University are, to promote the advancement of learning and the dissemination of knowledge … in accordance with Christian principles … and to promote the betterment of society …”

It is of interest to compare these legal and moral obligations to actual decisions made by the University’s Executive. In some cases the obligations of the Act are augmented by explicit requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Let us take the recent example of a denial of access to the Deaf community that was reported in the media HERE (in English) and HERE (in French).

The event in question is a weekly documentary film and discussion series organized and moderated by physics professor Denis Rancourt that has operated continuously during the academic year since September 2005. (See schedules posted HERE and HERE.)

THE FILM SERIES IS A UNIVERSITY-SPONSORED EVENT

The campus auditoriums for the film and discussion series and the projection equipment have always been provided by the University, free of charge, including for the present winter 2008 season. Outside groups and official student clubs and associations, by comparison and without exception, must all pay significant fees to reserve rooms and use the projection equipment for non-University-sponsored events (e.g., HERE).

The film and discussion series has always been part of professor Rancourt’s yearly reports and has always been part of his official workload, under the universally recognized and established work category “community service”. Rancourt’s yearly reports have always been approved, in all his years at the University since 1987.

The valid work categories for professors include: research, teaching, administration, and community service. Academic freedom, which is protected by law, gives professors the right to freely choose which research and community service they do. For examples of sponsored research and community service activities see Rancourt’s official university web page: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~dgr/.

Professors are entitled to request redistributions of their work among the different work categories. In winter 2006 Rancourt asked that his significant involvement with the film and discussion series be considered in possibly reducing his formal teaching duties. See the text of his application HERE.

All such requests, every year, follow strict procedures enforced by the Collective Agreement between the University and the professors’ union. Following established procedures in his department (the Physics Department, in the Faculty of Science), therefore, Rancourt’s request was first studied by the Departmental Teaching Personnel Committee (DTPC). Formal minutes record all DTPC meetings; that are chaired by the chairperson of the department. The chairperson forwards the DTPC recommendations to the dean of the faculty and adds the chairperson’s own recommendations. Then the dean makes the final decision about the professor’s workload for the upcoming academic year, without interference from the upper administration.

All usual records show that the required process was followed in winter 2006. Rancourt’s request to have a reduced formal teaching load was denied. The dean of the time, Christian Detellier, later confirmed in writing that, nonetheless, the film and discussion series remained part of Rancourt’s official workload under “community service”. See Detellier’s letter HERE.

Given the above described record and established and binding administrative procedures, there can be no doubt that the film and discussion series was and is an integral part of Rancourt’s official university workload and that it is a University-sponsored event, paid for and organized by the University, on its campus.

DEAN AND PRESIDENT CANNOT REDEFINE WHAT IS AND IS NOT

The Dean cannot unilaterally decide on a whim to suddenly change a professor’s workload, except under special resource-management emergency conditions and following special procedures. Likewise, a member of the upper executive, such as the President of the University, cannot intervene in defining a professor’s workload. (See Collective Agreement, section 22.)

Yet as early as 2007 the new dean of the Faculty of Science, André Lalonde, instructed the University computer services director that Rancourt should not be given electronic listserve messaging services for the film series because the dean did not consider the series to be a valid Faculty of Science offering. This type of petty in-fighting was only a precursor of what was to come.

When member of the Deaf community Genevieve Deguire asked the Access Service of the University for access (i.e., sign language interpretation services) to attend the film and discussion series she could not have expected the degree of resistance that she was to experience.

The university Access Service office directed Deguire to ask the professor in charge (Rancourt) to secure a memo from his dean that the series was indeed a Faculty-sponsored event. The Dean refused and it was claimed in writing that the film and discussion series was not part of Rancourt’s workload. Access Service is under the Student Academic Success Service (SASS). The director of SASS of the time, Serge Blais, sided with dean Lalonde in denying access, despite Rancourt’s clear explanations of the situation. See exchanges of emails HERE.

Deguire wrote to President Gilles Patry to ask that he repair the situation and provide access. Patry refused, citing Blais’ decision letter. See exchanges HERE.

At about this time the Access Service office booked a sign language interpreter by “mistake,” as they normally would have done without the dean’s negative response. As a result, Deguire and another member of the deaf community enjoyed one film and discussion event that was a great success. This confirmed to those in attendance that deaf community access was a benefit to all, including the hearing community.

Deguire therefore wrote the president a second time asking him to reconsider his decision. The President refused again. See exchanges HERE.

When the university called a December 2007 town hall meeting with its executive, Deguire asked to attend and was provided access to the meeting. At that town hall meeting Patry publicly stated that access to the film series would not be granted because the series was sponsored by a separate organization and was not affiliated with the University. He stated as “proof” that if an auditorium had not been available for the series then it could have been given off campus.

DEGUIRE GOES PUBLIC AND THE UNIVERSITY SPELLS IT OUT

Deguire held a well organized press conference on January 14, 2008, with virtually every major Deaf community association present in support, and with two sign language interpreters on hand, provided by Deaf community associations. The press conference was held in the lobby of the campus building (MacDonald Hall) where the film series has most often been hosted. Deguire filed THIS Ontario Human Rights Commission complaint.

The University made its position public. It put out THIS press advisory stating that the film and discussion series “is in no way related to any academic or other activity at the University of Ottawa.” Someone should inform the many professors who regularly attend and who recommend it to their students…

University Legal Counsel, Michelle Flaherty, is quoted by the media as stating that the film and discussion series, that has recently called itself the Ottawa Cinema Politica (OCP) series, is sponsored by Cinema Politica. That it is therefore not a University-sponsored community service and that, therefore, the University has no human rights legal obligation to provide access.

The university position, in the opinion of UofOWatch, is more tenuous than if it were to say, for example, that the U of O business school calls itself the Telfer School of Management and the university has received $25 million from Telfer towards the school’s new building so the university has no liability insurance responsibilities towards students of the school.

Cinema Politica is a shoestring-budget student network that started at Concordia University in Montreal and that provides a web site for promotion of film events put on by its independent name-affiliated members. It makes itself available as a free resource to organizers, including university professors, and it mostly serves university venues.

The University’s position is ludicrous and appears to be a device intended to deny access. The university pays for the auditorium, the projection equipment, the insurance coverage, security, after-hours auditorium wheelchair access via a lift operated by security personnel, and Rancourt’s salary. The university has given continuous public access to the weekly academic-year event since September 2005 and has never required that an external fee be paid by anyone.

To use such a device to deflect a modest request for access to a valued community educational experience is, in the opinion of UofOWatch, a violation of the historic principles guiding public academic institutions in Canada. This from a public institution that in the last fiscal year had a surplus of $67 million dollars and in the last year or so has received “no-strings-attached” private gifts of over $40 million dollars.

In the opinion of UofOWatch, if this is not the result of gross institutional incompetence, then it points to malfeasance of office by several University executives and their professional agents, including the president.

The University’s decision to deny access is contrary to “promot(ing) the betterment of society” “in accordance with Christian principles.” (University of Ottawa Act, 1965) Something is amiss.
.

***

.
[Note-1: “In the opinion of UofOWatch” means “In the opinion of its editor and manager Professor Denis G. Rancourt”, as always in this blog.]

[Note-2: Interestingly, the University formally admits that this UofOWatch blog is part of Rancourt’s official university workload, since it is using labour law and internal discipline to attempt censorship, yet it has now arbitrarily declared the OCP film series that it houses and finances as not part of Rancourt’s university workload… How convenient.]

[Photo Credit: The Fulcrum.]