.
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,
.
Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt
(Professor)
.
[Photo credits: University of Ottawa]
264 comments:
1 – 200 of 264 Newer› Newest»Doesn't Marc Kelly's storming into the president's office qualify as a complaint?
Isn't it your job as a supervisor to make sure that research projects are defensible, and of reasonable scope for completion?
So you're basically lying in your letter right. The fact that Marc doesn't blame you directly is not the same as saying there are no complaints with your work as a supervisor.
Marc Kelly is an undergraduate student.
Dean Gary Slater claims that Denis did not supervise graduate students properly.
Also, Dean Slater initiated this over the summer, before the Kelly controversy.
At the time, all of DGR's graduate students signed a letter saying they had no complaint about their supervision. Many of them are in fact worried about potentially having to change supervisor in the middle of their degree.
Maybe the FGPS is not doing this for DGR's graduate students. Maybe they don't care about using these students as collateral damage.
But if the FGPS is doing this for the good of the students, you have to wonder why they didn't back down after all DGR's grad students complained about the procedures (even though no student complained about DGR's supervision in the first place).
Or is the FGPS using a paternalistic stance towards the graduate students: "we know what's good for you, you don't"?
Or is the FGPS using a paternalistic stance towards the graduate students: "we know what's good for you, you don't"?
This is the point I think. And it's valid, as shown in the work of Kelly, Marchand (who apparently has now withdrawn his statements of having an article in press for 'Nature') and probably many others.
Kelly is certainly an undergraduate, but it's confirmatory evidence. Unless you believe that graduate work is supposed to be less trivial than undergraduate.
Further, the FGPS and University must protect all those other students who ARE doing good work and research that might lose out by association if the Dept of Physics and Faculty of Science continues to suffer the defamatory effects of a tenured prof touting unpublishable work in the media.
M. Rancourt,
j'ai adressé aujourd'hui même un mail à M. Slater afin de lui demander les raisons de cette mise en cause de votre statut de directeur de recherche, ainsi que la nature des critères de cette évaluation.
J'ai insisté sur le caractère improbable d'une telle démarche, en l'absence de plaintes de la part de vos étudiants.
Je suis également prête à demander votre participation en co-tutelle de thèse de doctorat (ne riez pas, la littérature mène à tout!) si cela peut avoir une incidence dans le processus de d'examen de votre cas.
Je me demandais en effet, si l'université pouvait opposer au souhait des étudiants qui voudraient travailler avec vous, votre "incapacité à diriger des thèses" puisque c'est l'étudiant qui paie ses droits de scolarité. (Il a bien le droit de vouloir travailler avec "un incapable", quand même... c'est même logique puisque l'étudiant est ce benêt qui n'est pas capable de voir si son professeur est incapable!)
Cordialement,
Marie Galophe
How did the rumor start?
The fact that literature students are requesting supervision by Rancourt speaks volumes about the kind of work he's doing.
Which would be great if he was just teaching. But that's not the case. Instead he's a guy with no credentials in the humanities supervising social science, philosophy and possibly literature now.
The result is work that's certainly not novel, certainly not physics and certainly not graduate-level.
(no matter what is bragged over coffee and beer to colleagues about submission to Science, Nature or any other goddamn thing)
Fair enough. But somebody, maybe not you directly, clearly conveyed that impression to your peers, since they were touting it in the post to which you link.
It's not gratuitous, and it's not an attack. It's precisely on point of someone's credentials as a supervisor (internal review, really) if the greatest products of graduate research are rumoured contributions to periodicals that never materialize.
If colleagues, internally or externally, are so misled (and clearly one has been) then that speaks volumes too.
I applaud you for correcting the record on here. It dismays me that you had to to begin with, possibly through no fault of your own, I concede.
Unfortunately, your former supervisor has chosen to put his supervisory track record, and by extension your work as an academic, into public play on a blog.
It's absolutely fair game to question the merits of it in that context. It sucks for you, and it will suck for Rancourt's next graduate students if he does the same to them.
I suggest you take the matter up with him.
You're accountable for your own actions.
You can pick and choose -what- you get to discuss, but once you start discussing them (or tacitly allow others to) you have no legitmate grievance about -which- opinions are expressed.
Rancourt has seen fit to discuss his supervisory track record here, in an attempt to embarass the University. I don't personally feel that is fair to you, his peers, or the Unviversity. I also feel it violates the sacred trust of the supervisory role he is arguing for, and is perhaps one of the strongest arguments against his competence.
Nevertheless, this is the battleground he chooses.
What do you feel is unfair? Why should politics come in it at all? Has anyone but you mentioned politics?
What's more likely her -- a vast conspiracy of political persecution or people finding issue with the quality of your supervisor's work.
Publication does matter, as it is an objective external indicator of merit, to some extent at least. Promotion of publication which may or may not ever exist in public or pseudo-public forums by his students, or even just his fans (not you here, understand) is a telling and relevant problem.
Best of luck to you in your future/current studies though.
I'd recommending asking your current supervisor if he would ever air an inquiry into the quality of your work on his blog.
Anyone going to comment on the fact that DGR's open letter starts with a threat? He is going to publicly abuse any individual or entity that finds against him, regardless of merits.
This is utterly typical behaviour from this thug.
To Anonymous, re. the Nature and Science thing: this was a rumour that had nothing to with Philippe, it was actually started by Severin Stojanovic in another post. Philippe really did correct it there right away and nothing in this rumour originates publicly with him. I agree, however, that DGR's publication record is very relevant, so the issue is germaine.
Philippe's response is excessively prickly, IMHO.
Comments about the existence of class warfare and political conspiracies are simply absurd and should be avoided. Conspiracies have to be small or they can't be conspiracies anymore.
In this case, it's not a conspiracy that argues that DGR is a disgrace. Or that some of his acolytes place themselves in the same category.
It's a CONSENSUS. And it's not a secret one.
A conscensus of anonymous voices.
None of the people mentioned that letter are anonymous.
I suggest you take that class again, Philippe.
Ad hominem attack is "Philippe Marchand, you're wrong because you're Philippe Marchand."
There's nothing ad hominem about mentioning previous acts, previous posts, previous problems with article citation and your thesis, and previous corrections made by yourself.
The reason "we" are anonymous here should be damned obvious, even to the most partisan. DGR began his most recent post with another, stock threat: publicly rake any non-follower over the coals.
He does not participate in reasonable discourse.
So kindly recognize this reality.
Anyway, as my anonymous colleague remarked, nothing here has yet been ad hominem. And your posts often seem excessively prickly to me.
Are you going to argue that I am wrong to make this comment? Or that the comment is wrong? Note also that there is a distinction between the alternatives and, if you want to respond, actually respond to this specific thing without referring to any political climate that only you and a select few others can perceive.
I suppose the definition of "prickly" is probably to think that even a justifiable comment is an ad hominem attack.
I like it!
But the DGR posse created this problem, Philippe, by mounting vicious, usually falsified, public relations attacks on anyone they can attach a name to and for whom they can steal a photograph.
When idiotic things like that happen, it causes a lot of problems for people, who end up meeting with Protection Services staff, lawyers, and the like, to get safety assessments done. It isn't funny and tends to frighten family members.
Because, let's be clear AND honest, the only really crazy shit around here emanates from DGR and his merry band of paranoiac sycophants.
So attack the argument then, like the anonymous commenters are.
You're the one who's caught up on perceiving which points have merit and who is right or wrong on who says it.
I mean this is almost cult-like.
Prickly!
Send your criticisms of DGR directly to him, it's his responsibility, not mine, to defend his words and actions.
I'd urge you to do the same. And you can cc the Faulty of Science, FGPS and the University President when asking DGR to please cease and desist open letters which invoke your work and 'unanimous student testimony', leaving you defending them.
Rancourt has no business supervising graduate students. Just as he has no longer got any business teaching undergraduates.
What DOES he do?
He proclaims himself an expert on something new every week, writes abusive emails, and elicits hate speech against anyone he disagrees with! Well, at least he's good entertainment if he can't be a good professor, decent teacher, acceptable mentor, etc.
Haven't seen him around lately though. Where could he be?
I saw him yesterday walking up the stairs of Tabaret, he can't be very far. He was probably paying up a vist to his good friend Rock. I also heard rumors that DGR was suspended for a few months and that he was locked out of his office and research lab. Any truth to this?
To the guy who wrote this: "The result is work that's certainly not novel, certainly not physics and certainly not graduate-level."
My question is: how do you know? Are you a fortune teller? You don't know me: how can you judge what can i do or write?
Give me your name and some informations about you and you will see how talented I could be.
best regards,
(maybe we can find a deal about copyrights)
Hard to take this too seriously. Was that a threat, Marie? More of the same, in other words?
have to stop seeing threats everywhere...
Wake up, M. Green...
The point is: challenge me if you want to have an idea of what I want, what i able to do. Is not a treat, it's a proposition...
Here's a challenge: if you want to get a graduate degree in literature, get a supervisor who knows something about literature.
Your posts, no matter the language, don't pass the snicker test.
There are so many ways to know something... and I don't thing because someone says "I'm phD in literature, that's why i'm the only allow to talk about literature" you have to, first, believe it, and secund, be satisfied.
1) I take what I need where I find it (whatever categories)
2) I hope you don't need a PhD in waste traitment for putting out the garbage...
Fortunatly, we can live and think and be happy without a PhD in all these fields. A sincere desire is better than a paper (cause that IS a PhD)
" Il faut de l'humilité pour apprendre. Mais c'est la vie qui est la grande éducatrice."
Joyce, Ulysse, Première partie, seconde section.
"I'm phD in literature, that's why i'm the only allow to talk about literature
No one's saying this, other than yourself.
Despite how you may rephrase (or reinterpret) it, in some bastardization of the Socratic method, the point is that graduate work needs to be about entitlement, self-belief, and self-gratification. At least when it's done right.
It's about contributing. Knowing what/where/when/how to contribute is an important part of this, and people spend their whole careers trying to stay abreast of developments in even just one field.
If you need to feel better about yourself, get some self-help tapes.
needs to be about more than entitlement, self-belief, and self-gratificatio
I Think it's a good point. You're right. Your message shows us we don't talk about the same thing, between sciences, arts, medecine or literature.
The question of search's actuality seems not really importante in literature, because it's just more informations. My field have concretly no links with the society: everybody doesn't care about knowing if Louise Labé was a man or If Molière really wrote his plays or how he wrote it... Nobody reads our publication, exempt the two other specialists of Montaigne, of Flaubert, of Joyce or whatever.
But I'm agree with you: if one day, literature have a real place in society, it will be important to know who do what/where/how... and at this moment I will need of a literature supervisor... Oh, no, I don't think finally... because the man or the woman who will know that appears to me more like an humanist.
Maybe we have to reconsider the question of fields... mostly in human sciences...
I add one precision: it's not question to obtain the Rancourt's supervision. It's question to obtain the right to associate him, officialy, at my work, whatever the name that's taken.
Ps: Is it my english clear? (it's not ironic, it's just a question)
C'est bon Marie. On peut parler en Francais aussi.
La chose qui importe, c'est precisement la chose dont Joyce parlait -- l'humilite.
Ca importe vraiment de reconnaitre, puis ensuite d'etre pouvoir d'admettre les choses qu'on ne connait pas suffisament pour pouvoir diriger le travail des autres de facon intelligent.
'God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference'
(BTW I think literature and other humanities-type disciplines are at leas as noble as the rest. I see Rancourt in L'Avare and Scapin, be they from Corneille ou Moliere.)
J'aime par dessus tout la Bible, et je suis tentée de répondre à l'approche de Noël de la façon suivante, en paraphrasant un vieux sermon d'un des prêtres de la basilique de Montréal dont j'ignore le nom: nous vivons dans un monde où de nombreuses lumières brillent. La question que chacun doit se poser est de savoir s'il suit la bonne lumière. Certaines brillent avec éclat, d'autres dominent par leur puissance, enfin, quelques unes vivotent, dans l'ombre éclatante des autres. Et, je reprends les mêmes mots que vous:
'God grant me (...) the wisdom to know the difference'
Mais pour distraire les esprits chagrinés par ces propos mystico-gélatineux, j'ajouterais:
"Je ne voudrais pas que ma vie se résume à brûler un cierge" (IAM)
Et si je me trompe, Dieu, dans sa grande charité, me le pardonnera bien.
Non sequitur. Again.
But anyhow... thanks for the monologue.
So... That suggests you might be looking for divine intervention to save dgr? Sounds like another attempt to avoid taking responsibility for your actions, pretty standard for him. Also for you?
With DGR, it's always someone else's fault. But it's his, it's Marc's, it's Philippe's, it sure as hell is Severin's, and maybe yours. For you people to claim otherwise indicates absurdly bad judgement, idiocy, or mental illness. Or combination thereof.
Meanwhile, dgr keeps issuing threats. At least he can't do so in person anymore.
"With DGR, it's always someone else's fault. But it's his, it's Marc's, it's Philippe's, it sure as hell is Severin's, and maybe yours."
why not explain what exactly you're blaming each of these people for? why not make a blog about it?
why not explain what exactly you're blaming each of these people for? why not make a blog about it?
First of all, it takes a special kind of person to start a blog just to complain about somebody else.
Kinda like the guy that started this
one.
Second of all, you've got i t completely backwards. The finger pointing, blame and persecution complex is emanating from DGR and a few other people.
Pointing out that some of the things that happened to them is a direct result of their own actions and failings is an essential part of any rebuttal to such foolery, and certainly in the public interest.
I don't believe it makes sense to start assigning blame based on the information on this blog which is obviously very incomplete.
Takes a special kind of person to waste time haunting someone's blog just to leave hostile, inflammatory and misleading comments.
The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them entirely.
I don't believe it makes sense to start assigning blame based on the information on this blog which is obviously very incomplete.
I agree. Pointing out how incomplete it is does serve a purpose though to those that may be easily disinformed/misled/taken advantage, as a few people mentioned earlier that turn in DGRs circles have been.
See Philippe, calling someone you disagree with a troll and dismissing them for such is a ad homonym attack, in addition to begging the question and being laced with several other logical fallacies anyone with a grade 6 education should be able to avoid.
If DGR and his posse want to have pity parties with themselves over dinner and discuss how everyone else is a troll or a fool for not publishing their work or a pawn of a corrupt system, they are absolutely entitled and even encouraged to do so in peace.
If they instead decide to publish online articles that can, and arguably are designed to, mislead future students with demonstrably false information and allegations, it's the responsibility of anyone with the wherewithal to stand up to do so, lest future graduate students find themselves as taken advantage of.
"is a ad homonym attack, in addition to begging the question and being laced with several other logical fallacies anyone with a grade 6 education should be able to avoid."
is it ad hominem to call someone on their spelling mistakes?
to your defence, "homonym" and "hominem" are (almost) homonyms.
Fact is, DGR is the biggest suck I have ever encountered in adult life. He can dish it out but not take it. His response to anyone who does not agree with him (seemingly nearly everyone) is to subject them to his bizarre brand of public ridicule, post their pictures online (by stealing them from the uOttawa web site, for instance), and write abusive articles about them. Similar tactics are now widely used by the few people he has taken in.
This is not the tactic of a grown-up, but a remarkably puerile ... suck, for lack of a better word. What astonishes me is the capacity of his tiny band of followers to simply switch off their brains and swallow the deceit whole. A couple of microseconds of critical thinking by anyone at all should make it plainly obvious that the whole world is NOT engaged in an anti-DGR conspiracy, that he is not some kind of unappreciated hero, or indeed even a real activist. Unless agitating for selfish gain fits their definition.
Barring mental illness, which would excuse most of this I guess, he has disgraced himself utterly, repeatedly and, now, irredeemably in his current position.
He is well out of it. I do not anticipate having the misfortune of seeing him again. The only question left, as far I care, is what his next career will look like, as he has corrupted the current one beyond all recognition.
I guess Marc Kelly probably made bail after parading around the Senate room last week. I hope he can return to academics and get his degree done successfully after this difficult interlude. It would be a shame if Rancourt encourages his few allies to go down in flames with him. But I guess it's may not be beyond him. His arrogance is formidable, as the arbitrator noted.
you seem really angry. go see a therapist before you hurt someone.
The only one who ever issues threats on his blog is Denis Rancourt. Read his latest.
Which one of his crew was it who said that violence was sometimes justified?
Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
"A couple of microseconds of critical thinking by anyone at all should make it plainly obvious that the whole world is NOT engaged in an anti-DGR conspiracy, that he is not some kind of unappreciated hero, or indeed even a real activist."
Good point: it's not a conspiracy anti-DGR, is a CONSPIRACY ANTI-YOU, ANTI-EVERYONE who wants to express a free opinion. Be very careful now, cause you are on their list, they will find your name behind anonymacy, they will check your medical past, your credit cards movements, know the name of your children... Maybe they will interrupt your internet or listen your phone call...
Are you sure you want to stay on the other side?
Yoda said: Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to .. SUFFERING (accompanied by a cool, Yoda-specific ear gesture).
But he was wrong about that as far as Rancourt goes:
Fear in his case must be for himself, perhaps insecurity arising from a difficult relationship with a relative, causing him to become angry at absolutely everyone who wouldn't agree that he was universally correct. This has led to suffering for everyone, just ask his undergraduate classes who he screwed over or colleagues he publicly ridiculed or sued, but perhaps mostly him.
Yoda (the DGR rendition): Insecurity leads to anger. Anger leads to abusiveness. Abusiveness leads to unemployment (the ear gesture can still happen at this point).
it's strange cause I never see dgr angry until now...
Well, Yoda is not the only path to wisdom. Rancourt's behavioural pathology probably arises because of something more sophisticated than Yoda aphorisms. Yours seems like run-of-the-mill paranoia.
Physicists learn ethics from Star Wars? ... That explains some things.
So, I guess dgr's days are numbered if he can't teach or supervise and his research output is dropping?
Was he suspended or something?
Marie fait attention a ce que tu ecrits parce que je vois clairement que tu ne es aucunement au courant de ce qui se passe dans le departement de physique. Alors avant de d'engager dans des histoires que tu ne sais rien de je te suggere fortement de venir en personne au departement de physique et de rencontrer les eleves gradues et sous-gradues et de mieux t'informer. Car les gens qui prennent la propagande de Rancourt (ce blog par exemple) ne suivent que des messonges et des propos pour lui donner du support.
Et tu seras surpris que les dire de nous est unime et differs beaucoup de ce qu'il racontre sur son site.
Tu crois que les plaintes vient de Slater? tu es vraiment pas informer ce son nous les eleves gradue et sous-gradue qui a ecrit les lettres de plaintes a son egard et pour de bonne raison.
Alors fait ce qu'un VRAI activiste fait avant de chialer informer vous comme il faut! Ce qui semble etre un fondamentale qui manque chez vous les acitiviste! vous chialez sans savoir pourquoi et sans avoir attendu les faits et les dires des personnes qui l'ont vaincu!
Hey Denis! Do you want to chat over a cup of coffee somewhere on campus tomorrow? I just simulated the full-space dimension partial differential equation system for the mechanistic ferrihydrite precipitation model (using the finite element method) and I have some new insights for the biological significance of the equilibrium nano-scale structure.
I also need a ram stick upgrade because I implemented a better meshing algorithm to improve the stability of the solutions around the nondifferentiable boundary segments. Can I go ahead and charge this to your NSERC acount?
Marc
hahaha marc pathetic attempt to make people think thats what your research was about! hahahahah
If this is satire, it's pretty funny.
satire of Philippe's research?
"M.Sc. Thesis Defence: Philippe Marchand
Thursday, December 18, 2008
1:30 p.m. - CAREG 107(20 Marie-Curie)
Thesis Title: Modèle général de la précipitation aqueuse des solides à
surface rugueuse, appliqué à la ferrihydrite"
"tu es vraiment pas informer ce son nous les eleves gradue et sous-gradue qui a ecrit les lettres de plaintes a son egard et pour de bonne raison."
First:
All right: give me an appointment and come with your lettres, your complaints or whatever you have writed about the situation. Or better, publish it online. Create your blog. Do something if you suffer!
Personaly, I used to think it's the most coward way of thinking to say: I want to be inform of everything before judging. We aren't out of the world like a god, knowing and seeing everything. We are in, and it's impossible to understand completly a situation. It's an illusion of understanding. Everything is too complex, among human psychology, circumstances, economic power,luck, informations, etc..
But, maybe I'm wrong, and you can prove me DGR is wrong... Do it!
Secund:
I don't understand your advice... Why do you want I should be careful? What it could happen to me if DGR is a lyer, like you say?
Don't waste your time on this blog to discuss. There are nothing to say: you're the right guy, so smart he realize how stupid DGR is. I'm the wrong girl, the stupid one... You don't know her: you don't matter...
Really,why are you coming here to talk with me? Do you want to save me? Please, let me know!
Wow, tu appelles ca discuter toi reviens sur Terre et sautes pas une coche a chaque fois qu'on te dit de quoi.
Je suis en physique et bien placer pour savoir ce qui se passe j'ai passer 8 ans dans le departement alors si tu veux t'estiner tes deja mal placer.
Si tu crois que j'ai du temps a perdre a ecrire un blog et de m'estiner avec des personne qui on esprit fermer "guess again".
Ce que je voulais dire GENTIMENT c'est que tes informations son erronees et que tu devrais passer voir les gens qui forme le departement et de t'informer!
Si tu crois que cela est une attaque contre toi alors je suis desoler que tu penses comme ca.
Parce que pour moi un activiste est une personne qui etudie le probleme sur tout les angles et que lorsqu'il est temps de faire une accusations ils c'est de quoi qui parle. Et qu'il ne fait pas ces demarche par rapport a tes postes poser par un prof qui effectivement comme tout es biais a son point de vue. Une personne rationel ferais de sorte a voir toutes les informations et ensuite porter jugements. Ce qu'il me semble que n'as pas fait c'est tout.
De plus psychologiquement moi aussi je suis biais par rapport a mon opinion mais je l'admet.
Il ne s'agit pas d'être gentil, je ne suis pas là pour ça, ni pour l'être, ni pour qu'on le soit avec moi. Il s'agit de savoir ce qu'on veut.
C'est pourquoi je réitère ma demande: si tu as des informations que tu veux partager, fais-le. Si tu as quelque chose à dire et que tu estimes que ce n'est pas le lieu approprié ici, dis-le et, on peut se rencontrer sur le campus.
Si tu penses que d'autres personnes ont des informations du même type, donne leur noms et leurs coordonnées, afin que l'on sache qui sont ces bonnes gens.
J'attends par ailleurs toujours une réponse de Gary Slater concernant une demande d'information au sujet de l'évaluation de DGR comme superviseur.
Je serais donc ravie de rencontrer des interlocuteurs un peu plus réactifs.
Enfin, huit années au département de physique de te donne pas une position privilégiée pour juger de ce qui s'y passe car, précisément, le problème ne relève pas seulement de votre département.
La question soulevée par Rancourt englobe celle de la liberté d'expression, -qui te permet, soit dit en passant, de pouvoir aussi t'exprimer ici-, de la liberté académique, de l'interdisciplinarité, de la validité du système éducatif universitaire.
Et encore une fois, la meilleure manière de s'entendre (au sens d'essayer de comprendre), c'est de parler librement.
Je suis ok pour toute discussion un peu plus élaborée que ce bref échange de mails. Je ne pense pas que tu sois un abruti, c'est pourquoi j'aimerais savoir ce que tu as à dire, à nous dire, à tous les étudiants de l'université d'Ottawa, en tant que personne sensée et non en tant que gradué de physique (parce que tu es plus qu'un gradué de physique, tu as eu une vie avant, et tu as une vie après).
J'ajoute que je n'ai ni ipod, ni caméra, ni iphone or whatever. (C'est donc ce qui s'appelle une très honnête proposition de rencontre!)
à bientôt, j'espère alors.
Marie is right on a point...
You're can't just say: "wait, you can't criticize the administration, you don't know what's actually happening" and then refuse to explain what you think is actually happening.
I understand this blog is biased, and I'd like to know more about the situation on campus right now, but most people who criticize the posts here don't give any facts from the other side, they just complain about the character and personality of Rancourt and his students.
Probably a lot of people who comment anonymously here never had Rancourt as a supervisor, or are not aware of the physics and geochemistry research his group does. Could their comments be just as uninformed?
Probably a lot of people who comment anonymously here never had Rancourt as a supervisor, or are not aware of the physics and geochemistry research his group does. Could their comments be just as uninformed?
What are you basing THIS uninformed opinion on?
Also, who made you adjudicator of right and wrong. Most of the anonymous posters have provided far more context and background to this point than e.g. Philippe or Marie -- which have resorted, in a manner akin to Rancourt, to denial and stonewalling followed swiftly by accusation of unfairness.
When people pull back and try and soften, the whiner then becomes aggressive again.
You're not helping your cause by attacking those who are on the fence.
I don't know whose right and wrong. What I know is that none of the two sides here bring anything that would convince someone who doesn't agree with them to start with.
Rather than talk in the abstract about denial, stonewalling, etc., give concrete examples and maybe students who are not in physics (i.e. 99% of campus) will start to understand what you're referring to.
"What are you basing THIS uninformed opinion on?
Also, who made you adjudicator of right and wrong."
wow, someone has a short fuse.
it pisses you off so much that other people dare to express a different opinion than yours?
There's nothing wrong with fence-sitting or being new to a long-standing and very bitter feud.
Here's a short summary of what is happening and why most people who Rancourt has attacked in the past several years will not react well to these suggestions that we should all just calm down and speak to each other calmly.
From the perspective of those Rancourt antagonizes (which, it is fair to say, includes almost everyone in the Faculty of Science, at least among professors and administrators), Rancourt is a self-serving propagandist. He's in it for himself and many of us have a long experience of his public statements bearing basically no resemblance to events that we have all witnessed. I cannot possibly go into the encyclopedia of these events - there are too many and there's no point in reiterating all of that again. You can find out for yourself by asking any physics professor, any geology professor, and biology professor, and chemistry professor, any faculty staff member (you might ask them, for example, why they now have security cameras at their front doors and why those doors must now always be locked).
Reason is not Rancourt's strong suit. You cannot reason with someone who twists every single thing you say into something utterly unrecognizable and claims you're then part of a global conspiracy. To suggest otherwise appears to buy into a very unusual view of reality.
So, the many victims of Rancourt's various assaults over the years have now, it seems, decided to stop being victims and stop trying to convince him to be reasonable. Suggestions to just be nice seem like a ruse intended to trap, not a sincere suggestion. In the past, that has always been the case when it comes to Rancourt and his tiny band of paranoid followers.
Rather than talk in the abstract about denial, stonewalling, etc., give concrete examples and maybe students who are not in physics (i.e. 99% of campus) will start to understand what you're referring to.
Two concrete examples were given, in quite some detail, about Kelly and Marchand, two students under Rancourt's supervision, immediately above your post.
Marchand tries to put his side of the story up too, and additional information trickles through the converstion. Rancourt putting his students and their reputations in peril without authorization jumps to mind.
wow, someone has a short fuse.
it pisses you off so much that other people dare to express a different opinion than yours?
You call 83 posts a short fuse? Look at Rancourt's site. Or, even just in this article, look at Marchand's posts. Or look ar Marie's posts... the progression is clear. Make statement (usually false), deny any refutation or counter example (lose), shift to personal attack (lose_, then accuse the person you're disagreeing with of being a troll or unfair or libelous or having a short fuse. If anyone backs off, repeat.
This is sociopathic behaviour, and has nothing to do with reason.
Agreed. I have no idea why anyone could believe that sociopathy is something we should all just agree to allow.
Colleagues of mine have had to meet with Protection Services personnel because no one was quite sure if members of his cult were going to come after them after Rancourt posted abuse about them publicly. His brand of madness goes quite a long way past anything that could be interpreted as legitimate debate.
You know, it is difficult to follow anything any of you "anonymous" people are writing. Fake up an account if you have to, or at least make up a name! That way you won't seem like one person spamming the comments.
Important questions are usually inherently difficult.
Particularly for those who choose to come to a blog after Marchand has 'Comment Deleted' half his allegations/comments/retorts.
Heaven forbid we do something difficult though. We might actually learn something worth knowing.
Marie je dit pas non a se rencontrer apres les fetes mais je suis quand meme septique car la derniere fois que j'ai exprimer mon opinion je me suis fait "shafter" comme on pourrait dire. Marc Kelly avais tout cc a Rancourt et cela pour tout les gens qui fesait partie des classes a ce temps qui lui avais repondu a son spam pour expliquer leur point de vue. Meme apres avoir demander l'anonymas tu peut maintenant comprendre pourquoi les gens ne m'est plus leurs noms au blog. La derniere fois on a ete trahis.
Seulement si je me mis rend ca sera pour discuter on n'ont pour s'estiner je suis ouvert d'esprit mais je maintenant de meme de ta part car sinon je partirai.
Yo, anonymous prior to French anonymous: your "questions" aren't difficult, figuring out who said what is difficult. It's not worth having an exchange with "anonymous" when a huge portion of the comments are from "anonymous"... assuming it's not all the same person. Just make up a name already! I'll make one for you. You be Orko, I'll be Battle Cat.
"Marie je dit pas non a se rencontrer apres les fetes mais je suis quand meme septique car la derniere fois que j'ai exprimer mon opinion je me suis fait "shafter" comme on pourrait dire."
Ok: autres gens, autres moeurs... Laisse moi un message à la rentrée. Tu peux le déposer à mon nom au secrétariat du département de French (simard, 2e étage). Laisse un message sur le blog en me disant que c'est fait et j'irai le récupérer. Ou propose autre chose si tu préfères.
Well, personally, I'm fine people use correct English/French and making rational arguments, even if it's anonymously.
Particularly if the alternative is fake names (textbook sociopathic behaviour, by the way!), name calling and arguments that start with 'yo!'.
It wasn't an argument. I'm asking people to separate their points from the white noise of a billion "anonymous" posts. But hey, doesn't matter I guess. You're obvs not here to say anything valuable... just to throw around accusations about sociopathic behaviour and who knows what else.
calling people sociopath after reading one paragraph they wrote on the internet is not exactly rational either...
calling people sociopath after reading one paragraph they wrote on the internet is not exactly rational either...
I don't believe any one did that, but rather pointed out a persistent pattern of behaviour which is amply documented here and elsewhere. Read the posts above. Heck, read the DSM and then reread this blog.
You're obvs not here to say anything valuable... just to throw around accusations about sociopathic behaviour and who knows what else.
This from the guy who's contribution is 'please make up a name so we can follow easier'.
Names don't matter as much as the point made, and that's the point, Jack. If you can follow an argument where one poster (PM) has removed all his posts, additional made up names are not going to help you in the slightest.
If, instead, you look to weigh the validity of a point based on who is saying it, or need to identify individual targets for attack, that's more a reflection on you than on them.
about 50 of all the posts here are just people arguing that they make better / more rational / less personal arguments than others.
that's kind of funny when you think about it.
and all the other posts are people spouting personal and/or hateful comments, despite what they said about being more rational.
So we're agreed then that all posts, including the parent, is personal and/or hateful and irrational?
And that the parent takes place in a professional context?
Works for me.
Let's go back to the main topic of the post, shall we?
The fact is, some of the best students in the departments of physics and earth sciences have worked in, and graduated from, Rancourt's lab in the past few years.
Yes, as much as we all disagree with Rancourt on so many issues, and as much as some people would like to portray all that he ever did as bad, we have to give credit where credit is due.
I know personally some of the graduate students affected. They are talented people who should be allowed to finish their program with Rancourt, if that is their choice.
The fact is, some of the best students in the departments of physics and earth sciences have worked in, and graduated from, Rancourt's lab in the past few years.
Debatable. But ok.
Yes, as much as we all disagree with Rancourt on so many issues, and as much as some people would like to portray all that he ever did as bad, we have to give credit where credit is due.
Fine. But a common thread of questions emerges (publication being but one objective measure thereof). The question is whether the students under Rancourt are being given a fair chance at a defensible education, quite literally.
That's what they are paying/being paid for after all, and the university has a vested interest in making sure it graduates university-level graduates.
A related question is whether Rancourt takes the supervisory relationship seriously, and hol dhte welfare of his students paramount above his own whims/gratification.
The University should, and must, protect the interest of all current and future students if the answer is in question.
It's worth repeating the above point:
They are talented people who should be allowed to finish their program with Rancourt, if that is their choice.
The previous poster did not say the only option for the current graduate students should be to stay with Rancourt. He/she said it should be one of the options available to them.
Unfortunately, Universities have this thing called accreditation. So what the students want is not the only consideration, nor should it be.
Of course there are also many unaccredited institutes, libraries, and other ways of bettering oneself in whatever fashion one prefers.
Yes but the value of each student's project should be assessed independently, regardless of which lab they are in.
Also if you hoped Philippe failed, it's too late.
anonymous two posts ago:
because obviously, losing one's supervisor in the middle of one's degree is the best way to produce quality research? why not ask YOUR grad students how they would feel about it?
Also if you hoped Philippe failed, it's too late.
Anyone who hopes for others to fail is an idiot. Particularly for a Masters degree in physics.
Will he do as well now as he could've with a different start? Who knows? I hope so.
We're talking about protecting current and future students, even if they are 'in the middle of a degree'.
No one is rooting for failure.
Ok, but then, unless the university is somehow opposed to the research Philippe or other students are doing, the university should help them complete their research and degree in the most efficient way for them.
And if most efficient way is staying with their current supervisor (even if he is disallowed from taking in new graduate students), then so be it.
anonymous a few posts ago:
your comments about accreditation implies that none of these students currently does research worth of a degree when it is completed with this supervisor.
I doubt you're in any position to make such a statement.
I would argue it would be highly disrespectful of those students to make such a statement.
your comments about accreditation implies that none of these students currently does research worth of a degree when it is completed with this supervisor.
It does no such thing. Instead, it calls for defensible work, as assessed by peers outside the immediate circle. This is why science is peer reviewed and why, indeed most communication of results is peer reviewed. This is also why programs are accredited. What we're talking about here is an internal review to assess whether work to this point has been supervised with this and other equally important considerations in mind.
Science without peer review is crockery. Science that hides from peer review is worse still.
then, unless the university is somehow opposed to the research Philippe or other students are doing, the university should help them complete their research and degree in the most efficient way for them
This is exactly the point. Efficiency is NOT the same as faster or easier or smoother though.
Please remember too that the only reason any of this is being discussed in a public forum, or any questions being raised publicly or, potentially any students are being disrespected is because the owner of this blog posted what should've been a confidential memo for all to see/discuss.
The University did not do this.
Do you believe THIS is in the interest of the students DGR has supervised/is supervising? Or is it more a matter of his personal interest?
It does no such thing. Instead, it calls for defensible work, as assessed by peers outside the immediate circle.
Well, let's say we even put aside for a moment the fact that some of these students have already published some of their research in peer-reviewed journals.
Can you tell us when any of these students was given a fair opportunity, or any opportunity, to defend their current research before the university made its decision?
Actually, let me tell you what recently happened: the Dean told these students that since their supervisor was suspended for issues related to his teaching (yes, teaching, not research), they had to change supervisor immediately. Continuing their current work with Rancourt, regardless of the work's merits, was not even an option.
Ironically, the only student who was given the opportunity to defend his research with Rancourt as a supervisor was Philippe Marchand. Wouldn't you allow the others the same basic right that prickly troublemaker Marchand had enjoyed?
Please remember too that the only reason any of this is being discussed in a public forum, or any questions being raised publicly or, potentially any students are being disrespected is because the owner of this blog posted what should've been a confidential memo for all to see/discuss.
Actually, the only students whose research was publicly discussed here were those who personally chose to bring it in the discussion (Kelly, Marchand).
Again you forgot to think of the other, less vocal people.
what the university is doing is forcing students to delay their degrees and then turn around and say: "look what Rancourt did to them".
and one of the anonymous posters here seems quite happy to join in that propaganda.
well, I don't care about the fight between Rancourt and the admin. but students shouldn't be used as pawns. If the Dean doesn't understand that he's no better that the professor he's criticizing and should be fired as well.
Can you tell us when any of these students was given a fair opportunity, or any opportunity, to defend their current research before the university made its decision?
It would help to know which decision you're referring to, I suppose, since so many opportunities are presented literally every day.
what the university is doing is forcing students to delay their degrees and then turn around and say: "look what Rancourt did to them".
You're begging the question. The intent is certainly not to delay students, and this is necessary premise to your whole viewpoint.
It's protecting students, of Rancourt and others, as many have requested, by the way. Look at some of the previous posters on here, or just go to the faculty.
It does nobody any good to get 10 degrees if they are tainted.
Propaganda works both ways. Some posters on here have mentioned previous events that are well documented, in a apparent attempt to contextualize the argument for those people (several on here) who do not know/have not followed everything quite so closely.That may rise to propaganda or it may not. Open letters and some of the previous blog entries certainly qualifies as propaganda, in my opinion, if statements of objective fact do.
It gives one faith in humanity when one observes professors so dedicated to education that they are willing to spend hours nurturing and setting the record straight so that innocent minds do not fall prey to Rancourt's propaganda.
Just when one thought that there was only one such professor in Alain St-Amant (Chairman of Chemistry) there appears another (less brave) in anonymous just in time to cover for St-Amant's mysterious disappearance from this blog.
I feel safe when fate protects the weak in this way. Notheless, I wish the victims of this propaganda would find courage and sue this dangerous fellow for his lies.
It would help to know which decision you're referring to
see above:
the Dean told these students that since their supervisor was suspended for issues related to his teaching (yes, teaching, not research), they had to change supervisor immediately. Continuing their current work with Rancourt, regardless of the work's merits, was not even an option.
It does nobody any good to get 10 degrees if they are tainted.
It is only tainted in the minds of people who keep discrediting the research done by Rancourt's graduate students, even though their claims are unsupported and ignore the fact that most of these students either already defended their thesis successfully or already published part of their research in peer-reviewed journals.
just because you dislike someone's blogs or courses shouldn't mean you should make assumptions about the quality of their research group.
in fact, it would be at least a logical fallacy (but actually much worse, ethically) to do so.
It is only tainted in the minds of people who keep discrediting the research done by Rancourt's graduate students
just because you dislike someone's blogs or courses shouldn't mean you should make assumptions about the quality of their research group.
Talk about logical fallacies.
When someone publishes an article they wrote on the non-existence of climate change 4 separate times on 4 separate non peer-reviewed blogs/magazines, that raises eyebrows. Extraordinary tclaims require extraordinary proof, certainly, but more importantly, who has time to publish/promote the same non-journal 4 times? Who can jeopardize their credibility that readily?
When that person is the one supervising a research group, it raises more still.
When claims from members in that group of forthcoming publications by one or several students in Science and Nature turn out to be all rumour and conjecture, that raises more still.
I don't know the publication record of every member in that group. What I do know, including a couple of papers that have been referenced here, is very troubling.
If you have extensive evidence of substantial peer-review externally, please help us put these questions to rest.
A related question by the way, is whether the research committee and FGPS are doing their part to offer sufficient checks and balance to the role of one supervisor.
If not, why not. And if so, where are these people to stand up and advocate? Why are students being asked by their supervisor to sign 'non-complaint' letters.
That's coercion if their ever was such a thing.
a quick search on Google scholar will suffice to find said peer-reviewed articles, there is no point to repeat that information here.
we could even argue that such a search is easy enough to do by anyone on a university campus that it would be irresponsible to not look the articles up before making assumptions about all members of a research group.
Assumptions? Quit characterizing elements of objective, uncontested fact as speculative, please.
A search using that methods yields only two DGR articles in the last 10 years, one as 3rd author in 2000, one (an apparent review) as 2nd author in 2003.
I am certain there must be others, but I've clearly spent more time on this already than you have.
Since YOUR assumption is that there is ample scientific review and support from the scientific community, one can argue that you are either guilty of the outright speculation you accuse others of, or simply unwilling to test that assumption.
Well, I found more than that, but in general I agree. Citation, index ranking and impact factor could put an end to this matter swiftly.
Assumptions? Quit characterizing elements of objective, uncontested fact as speculative, please.
unfortunately as far as your previous posts can tell, you are making a judgement on everyone who worked with DGR based on just a couple blog posts (about all of them having nothing to do with the research graduate students are doing).
When someone publishes an article they wrote on the non-existence of climate change 4 separate times on 4 separate non peer-reviewed blogs/magazines, that raises eyebrows. Extraordinary tclaims require extraordinary proof, certainly, but more importantly, who has time to publish/promote the same non-journal 4 times? Who can jeopardize their credibility that readily?
When that person is the one supervising a research group, it raises more still.
"raising eyebrows" is not "objective, uncontested fact"
at least if you had the honesty to admit you don't know anything about most of these students and the research they are doing, that would be a start.
Clearly, "anonymous" won that flame war.
Uh, congratulations?
Denis Rancourt is capable of good research. He had a track record in his field and has published lots of papers. This has nothing to do with his suspension. The reasons for his suspension have not been made public and Rancourt's communications about the university are mere propaganda, so you won't find out here. His activities in failing to secure radioactive materials, his refusal to perform his workload activities, and breaches of the collective agreement may have something to do with it. The Dean has very little real power, since the collective agreement is so far-reaching. If Rancourt got suspended, the Dean has finally amassed a sufficiently enormous mountain of evidence to proceed with the advance knowledge that arbitration will not find in Rancourt's favour, just like last time, when the arbitrator upheld the letter of misconduct against him.
No one wants any of his students to fail in their degrees. I bet if they simply asked for guidance and assistance, they'd get it if they're not already.
oh, which collective agreement protects the students, again?
The reasons for his suspension have not been made public and Rancourt's communications about the university are mere propaganda, so you won't find out here. His activities in failing to secure radioactive materials, his refusal to perform his workload activities, and breaches of the collective agreement may have something to do with it.
Interesting. So how did you find out? Did the Dean leak you information should have been confidential?
Interesting. So how did you find out? Did the Dean leak you information should have been confidential?
So facts that 'raise eyebrows' are not facts all of a sudden? Or 'raising eyebrows' is not a fact?
What sort of evidence, other than that presented by DGR of his own accord, which is cited above (and you dispute as being non-fact) are you seeking, exactly?
Have you been to the faculty of science at the UofO, like, ever?
oh, which collective agreement protects the students, again?
Good question. Now consider -- if the university did perceive a potential threat, would it not behoove them to conduct an investigation?
Good question. Now consider -- if the university did perceive a potential threat, would it not behoove them to conduct an investigation?
not if ignoring those few students (five or six over 35,000) costs less.
What sort of evidence, other than that presented by DGR of his own accord, which is cited above (and you dispute as being non-fact) are you seeking, exactly?
read that post again... someone claims that the reasons for the suspension cannot be found here, or in DGR's propaganda. I merely asked where he/she got them from, if not from DGR.
which evidence? very simple.
for any given student, to justify removing their right to finish their degree with the same supervisor, you would have to prove that this particular student is not doing adequate research. to remove that right for all students (as the Dean has decided), you would have to prove that all students are not doing adequate research (even though some of them already published in peer-reviewed journals).
I respectfully submit that no such proof has been provided, and certainly not for each and every student affected.
it's clear that the burden of the proof is on the administrators here, because they are the ones wanting to change the normal course of the students' degrees.
The Dean cannot suspend anyone unless they have breached the collective agreement. Duh. If he tried to do this, university counsel could not support him and he could lose the confidence of the senate. If you prefer the fantasy where the Dean just does stuff because he is infinitely powerful, then you are subscribing to one of Rancourt's global conspiracies again. More duh. The Dean is a virtual figurehead in almost every way. The university is run by professors, not a cabal of unaccountable people hiding in a bunker in Tabaret. The conspiracy is pure fantasy and not very original thinking either.
I'm sorry if you think that a student has an unlimited right to be supervised by whoever s/he wants. Here's one of those places where the diehard Rancourt supporter will find a way to object no matter what. The fact that students are not bound by the collective agreement gives them a lot of freedom. Complain if you want. Then you should welcome a student code of conduct that makes rules explicit and prevents anyone from inadvertently exceeding your rights. Complain about that. Then what? Complain about the complaint centre and make phantom claims about systemic racism that can't be proved but that some refuse to believe can be disproved even by a person whose entire life is dedicated to detecting and resolving human rights abuses. The fantasy is getting dull now. But whatever you do, keep changing the subject so you never have to prove anything or back up a point with evidence.
You know, there's a reason Rancourt is losing his fight with arbitrators as well as the university. It's because he's WRONG. Unless you think he won his recent arbitration just because he said he did. Read the judgement. The arbitration upheld the university's letter of reprimand and suggested that Rancourt was possibly a little, ever so slightly mendacious.
As another poster said, if you are not aware of Rancourt's massive list of abuses, then you are probably a recent undergrad and can be forgiven. Or one of Rancourt's more extremely paranoid followers, in which case I hope you succeed despite that handicap. For everyone else, his crap is pretty hard to miss since he flings it at absolutely everyone who doesn't just get out of his way fast enough.
Check the damned door at the Dean's office/ Faculty of Science. It has a brand new security seal because they no longer feel safe there, so it's always locked. This is pure Rancourt. Does he think this is a constructive move toward a more accountable system, that the administrators have had to make themselves less accessible? How dense would someone have to be to believe that? But this is just one more thing that Rancourt has "accomplished" with his concerted campaign to be allowed to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to do it.
Do you think the university's senate, which consists of a bunch of pretty geeky professors, is going to keep its open door policy after Marc Kelly recently got arrested and charged (I suppose) by the police. Apparently, he resisted, so it could be serious. That is not going to help him. Does Rancourt encourage this possibly career ending behaviour? Again, do you think the Senate is going to keep its open door policy for long in the face of this insanity? Is that a HELPFUL thing, that the Senate might close its doors to the community because they don't have time to sit around for an hour while Protection tries to reason with a visitor to turn off the camera, then asks him to leave, then has to call the police when he won't? I'm sorry for you if you think any of these actions make the university a better place. I wonder about your judgement if you think students' lives are better when the university has to arrange its meetings in secret to avoid having its members being threatened, abused, interrupted, etc.
His radioisotope lab was being accessed by people with no safety training - and this IS from the propaganda site, so the truth could be a lot worse. If the university and affiliated hospitals want to keep their access to radioisotopes (because we need a license, STUPID, and if the university doesn't enforce the license's provisions, the government take it AWAY), this problem had to be fixed STAT. Ever tried to get radiation therapy for aggressive cancer without the radioisotopes? Not likely. But this problem jeopardizes that because the major hospitals in the city are also teaching hospitals attached to the university - we lose our license, they lose their license. Again, this breach was entirely Rancourt - no one made him do this and he knew damned well what his responsibilities were. We're goddamned lucky we didn't have the RCMP on campus over this one. Hell, maybe we did. I don't know.
So, stop clamouring for unlimited personal freedom that destroys other people's simple right to a safe workplace that is free from harrassment. Gimme a break with these nonsensical claims that simple abuse is protected in the workplace. It is not. You will find, after the last of Rancourt's frivolous lawsuits against damned near every administrative officer in the university has fizzled, that the law does not allow this. Rights are never unlimited, especially when they interfere with someone else's.
The only unbelievable thing about any of this is that the university tried so hard for so long to find a way to let Rancourt keep teaching, keep supervising, keep protesting. The university is his employer. Why should the university let him do whatever he wants? Someone mentioned accreditation. The Physics graduate program would be shut down by the province if Rancourt got to do whatever he wanted, or to supervise whatever topic he wanted. For many reasons. Go read about the OCGS if you want to learn more.
Back to my fin du monde. Yum.
"The Dean is a virtual figurehead in almost every way."
i wish I was paid 150,000$ a year to be a figurehead.
maybe, just maybe, there are nuances between being a "virtual figurehead" and "infinitely powerful". your point on this implies a false dilemma. a reasonable individual can believe administrators have some discretionary power. that's not a conspiracy.
it's also sad that the only response you have to critics of the administrators is to attack what Rancourt or anyone else has done.
this appears like a weak attempt at diversion. you can bash Rancourt or Kelly or whoever as much as you want, that won't make the admin. look better (the reverse is true, of course). maybe, just maybe, you should consider the possibility that they both have thinks to make amends for.
Finding issues with someone's salary as an attack on their personal motives is fallacious logic.
Criticize the admin on whatever you want. Provide some objective fact though, please. Criticizing people because 'you wish you made' [their salary] or because you don't like what arbitrators, the law, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commision or the OCGS requires from them is a grave error.
If you're not prepared to concede that, then you honestly don't merit any further consideration.
Permitting anarchy does not protect the students more than protecting a minimum standard of personal freedoms from attacks by others. Reasonable safety from radiological sources or physical assault trumps intellectual disagreements.
so do you agree that a 150,000$ salary implies more than just a "virtual figurehead" role, or not?
I would argue that treating this person as a "figurehead" is being insulting to the requirements of their position.
-----
as for your claim that all nuclear medicine in Ottawa will be shut down because of what happens in MacDonald 113, I'll let other people more qualified discuss it.
I would argue you should've done that in the first place.
Zing! That was pretty funny.
Dgr is paid $130,000/year. And he's not even a figurehead. Now that is a rotten deal for students and taxpayers.
what is the salary of professors who are posting here during work hours?
Ha ha! If you think profs work regular hours, you are never going to be a prof.
Maybe I won't either. Perhaps that is a good thing on both counts.
I was told by a famous one in Harvard that if you worked less than 70 hours a week, you'd never be a good prof. I think we might forgive these poor bastards for being annoyed enough by Rancourt's attempts at wrecking the place they spend so much to offer you these teaching opportunities. If only you seemed like you could learn something.
They work much harder than you.
What I find funny is that some people say ooohhh your stuck in the university's propaganda and so on.
But they themselves cannot figure out that are stuck in the Rancourt propaganda and fail to see it.
Cause the methods used from Rancourt have been no different from the one used by university.
The next moment a hideous, grinding screech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one's teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one's neck. The Hate had started.
As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed onto the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeal of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counterrevolutionary activities, had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared. The program of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity. All subsequence crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters; perhaps even--so it was occasionally rumored--in some hiding place in Oceania itself.
Winston's diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. [...] Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party--an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed--and all this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life.
[...]
Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room [...] the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia of Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day, and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were--in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State.
In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. [...] The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one subject to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston's hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein seemed to him to be true. At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia, and Goldstein, in spite of his isolation, his helplessness, and the doubt that hung about his very existence, seemed like some sinister enchanter, capable by the mere power of his voice of wrecking the structure of civilization.
The Hate rose to its climax. [...] But in the same moment, drawing a deep sigh of relief from everybody, the hostile figure melted into the face of Big Brother, black-haired, black-mustachio'd, full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that is almost filled the screen. Nobody heard what Big Brother was saying. It was merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din of battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence by the fact of being spoken. Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
*
We're all playing our roles. None of this is new. Big Brother is watching you.
Mark, you're such a f***ing idiot. And you scare the crapt out of me; you are dangerous and I hope that the University will do something before it's too late.
Marc seems extraordinarily paranoid.
Aren't conspiracies supposed to be small? In his, and DGR's, version, everyone is in on it. Except him.
I'm pretty sure I'm not part of a conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, however, I'd like to make this public plea to be allowed in. I don't like it out here in the cold.
The alternative is that Marie, Marc, DGR, and the merry band of pricklies are paranoid and/or delusional. Their posts support this view and I guess the complete lack of evidence of any conspiracy makes that possibility somewhat impossible.
In response to Marc's rambling, irrelevant quotations from 1984, I thought something from The Muppets would be about right:
KERMIT
(greeting)
Hi-ho everyone, and welcome again to The Muppet News Show! We’ve got a great show for you tonight and a bunch of news, so it’s time to get things started with our very own correspondents on all things edible, Rizzo the Rat, and all things inedible, The Swedish Chef!
INT. KITCHEN
THE SWEDISH CHEF stands behind one of the counters, rubbing his hands together, and humming along with the opening music.
THE SWEDISH CHEF
(mock Swedish)
Oh, hellu, and velcume-a tu my keetchee! Tudey I’ll be-a cunkeeng up oone-a oof zee huttest noo meels in tudey’s interteenment, Reteteuoollee-a!
INT. NEWS STUDIO
KERMIT is looking up into a picture-in-picture of the kitchen.
KERMIT
Chef? Where’s Rizzo?
INT. KITCHEN
THE SWEDISH CHEF pulls RIZZO the Rat; who is tied up; out from under the counter and sets him down.
THE SWEDISH CHEF
(mock Swedish)
Here-a is zee ret!
THE SWEDISH CHEF sets down a toolbox next to RIZZO.
THE SWEDISH CHEF (CONT’D)
(mock Swedish)
Und here-a are zee tulies!
RIZZO begins to squirm around the counter.
RIZZO
(groans)
Hey, get me outta d’is t’ing! I’ll call my lawyer!
There is ample room for certain attitudes and behaviors to be favored over others without the existence of conspiracy.
Actually, such a phenomenon can occur without any will (see natural selection and evolution).
There is a difference between a widespread culture of conformity and a conspiracy, and the former does not necessitate the latter.
not to mention that shouting "mentally ill" whenever you disagree with someone would not be much more mature than shouting "conspiracy" all the time.
Silly.
You can't be serious. Claims that "big brother" is watching deserve a response including the term "mentally ill" regardless of your pomposity.
And the Muppets put it all in perspective quite nicely.
the point of quoting that part from 1984 had nothing to do with Big Brother...
Or that the entire world is conforming.
If you classify the entire world as, say, "not me, nor agreeing with me", then you have defined them into conformity.
Conspiracies, mental illness, illogic, whatever. It's all just a series of efforts to explain behaviour that could easily be viewed as consistent with paranoia, mental illness, or irrationality. Logic and empiricism are, after all, pretty much the entire arsenal for the academic.
the entire world is larger that u of ottawa
The entire multiverse is larger than the world. And every last quark in it is a conformist. That about right?
And the Muppets clearly have more to do with this blog, and its affiliated cultists, than Orwell ever will.
well maybe you should consider that u of o is not particularly the best place in the world or the most tolerant.
Actually the 1984 excerpt has no mention of conspiracy, and focuses on institutionalized hatred, of which we can witness quite a bit here.
Even though some people try to hide their hatred by faking concern about students (and not extending it to any student who disagrees with them), their visceral reaction here shows otherwise.
So you're shocked that DGR gets more attention that your all-important scientific research?
Grow up.
"I'm pretty sure I'm not part of a conspiracy."
Ignorant AND bitter. This is the propagandists'/DGR cultists' version of ambidexterity.
Can you juggle too? Never mind. I'd settle for a single argument that is not transparently self-serving.
well maybe you should consider that u of o is not particularly the best place in the world or the most tolerant.
And maybe you should consider that the UofO, and Universities in general, are a place where your participation is optional.
Comparing that with Orwellian paradigms misses the point entirely.
Why bother arguing with what apparently are somewhat dimwitted high school students?
"Why bother arguing with what apparently are somewhat dimwitted high school students?"
that is a very good question for yourself, i suppose.
is your scientific work so unfulfilling that you feel the need to prove yourself by winning online debates with people under 20 (an amazing achievement, for sure)...
at least i am not blinded by dozen of years of hyper-reductionist and hyper-specialized. i can see that the majority opinion among your faculty does not necessarily equate the best choice for the broader society.
"But wait, we're Canada's University, so what's best for U of Ottawa is best for Canada!"
right...
It's easy not to be blinded by anything when you know nothing.
This is just like when the Nazis invaded Japan!
Moron.
BTW, interpreting 1984, at least in the fundamental ways you seem incapable of, is well within the capabilities of most 16 year olds.
Hence the previous poster's 'dimwitted' comment.
Ok, everyone, quit picking on the kids just because they've taken up an ill-advised cause.
They don't know. They're not even sure why whoever they perceive as being their enemy today is the enemy. They've probably never even read the books they're citing. They're just trying to keep up.
They'll learn. Hopefully.
Haha, the muppets... That probably stung a bit.
How come these dudes never present any evidence when they bitch about the entire university? It's nothing more than their daily 2 minutes hate, speaking of Orwell. Supposed to be a place for thinkers but maybe not these cultists.
Why are you here? You will not convince any 'cultists' that they're wrong, and from your posts it seems unlikely that you will be convinced of anything but your own superiority. So why are you here? This is not a battle of wits, it's a circle jerk. Remove head (device A) from ass (slot B) and go away. The internet is a very big place, I'm sure there's plenty of room for your idiocy elsewhere. Maybe on 4chan... Try /b/.
The internet is a very big place
Right here, you fail.
Why are you here? You will not convince any 'cultists' that they're wrong, and from your posts it seems unlikely that you will be convinced of anything but your own superiority.
If the cultists are prepared to do their masturbation in private, the rest of us will leave them be.
Until then, we'll continue to offer alternate views to any potential audience. Determining for themselves is these alternate views draw upon a more factual basis than the cultist is an exercise left to the reader.
If they choose to cite books they've never read instead in support of conspiracy theories, that's on them.
"Logic and empiricism are, after all, pretty much the entire arsenal for the academic."
Oh ya?
"La recherche de nouvelles armes se poursuit sans arrêt. Elle est l'une des rares activités restantes dans laquelle le type d'esprit inventif ou spéculatif peut trouver un exutoire. Actuellement, la science, dans le sens ancien du mot, a presque cessé d'exister dans l'Océania. Il n'y a pas de mot pour science en novlangue. La méthode empirique de la pensée sur laquelle sont fondées toutes les réalisations du passé, est opposée aux principes les plus essentiels de l'Angsoc. Les progrès techniques eux-mêmes ne se produisent que lorsqu'ils peuvent, d'une façon quelconque, servir à diminuer la liberté humaine. Dans tous les arts utilitaires, le monde piétine ou recule. Les champs sont cultivés avec des charrues tirées par des chevaux, tandis que les livres sont écrits à la machine. Mais dans les matières d'une importance vitale -ce qui veut dire, en fait, la guerre et l'espionnage policier- l'approche empirique est encore encouragée ou, du moins, tolérée."
1984, trad. d'Amélie Audiberti. Gallimard, 1950.
P.274. Chapitre III du Livre: La Guerre c'est la Paix.
It amazes me that people are so prompt to believe in conspiracy but have no belief in total randomness of events.
I guess people are just afraid of events that they cannot explain and so find comfort in thinking that it was a conspiracy by a higher power.
I like how they can called poeple ignorant when they based themselves on their personal opinion and nothing else.
what do you mean by "random"?
does the University of Ottawa play dice?
If you don't understand what 'random' means in that context, on a physics blog no less, do everyone a favour and read a little before embarrassing yourself.
It's obviously much easier to insult someone than answer a question.
And it's even easier to mock the concepts (dice? really?) that are so well understood and established as to be outlined in every historical and scientific text of the last 25 years at least. You can't read Jared Diamond, Margaret MacMillian, or just about anybody else on the humanities side, never mind the physics/mathematical one, without coming across these concepts.
It's easy to mock foolish people, yes. But it's also far better to make that person read a book if (s)he is going to pretend to engage in intelligent discourse than to provide a synopsis so a severely uneducated person can learn a single concept and then promptly go back to thinking they know everything.
Brutal. She asked for it, I guess.
This blog has never been about reason, evidence, objectivity, or anything else that University of Ottawa (and universities in general) champion.
It's about Rancourt and his tiny cult. Whatever serves their needs is the "truth" and the rest is [fill in the blank with situation-specific descriptor].
Discussion with the cult has never yielded anything - not even once - as the cult is not founded on either reason or empiricism. It is founded on Rancourt's self-serving perversion of simple reality and the paranoia of a susceptible few.
Kicking Rancourt out permanently seems to be a very constructive solution. I support it, having finally lost any residual patience with him or the cult. Can we get on with that solution now, please?
calling for a purge?
Yes, you mindless cultist. A purge. Otherwise known as "Dismissal with cause".
He earned it. It was hard but he was up to the challenge. Too bad he couldn't have tried to do something - anything - constructive.
No one, outside the cult at least, will miss him.
and how do you get rid of the cult?
You don't. You let the cult, the objective facts (the truth), and education take care of that.
If instead they choose further isolation and seclusion around what amount to false idols, you hope they don't become (increasingly) violent or dangerous to those outside their isolated compound.
http://dgrwatch.blogspot.com/
That site is bloody brilliant! Much more than this one.
Narcissistic personality disorder... sounds about right.
at least wait more than half an hour between two posts to make people believe they're from different people.
Must really bother you to know that there are actually quite a lot of people who have decided they will now oppose Rancourt.
There may be a help group for narcissists. You could maybe help him find one.
54-21=33 mins = more than half an hour.
Einstein.
well done waiting 1 1/2 hours this time.
and well done quoting books you didn't read on the dgrwatch blog.
It's probably all just one person posting on both sides of the argument.
Occam's Razor, bitches.
Occam's Razor: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42788379628&ref=mf
It's very good news that the university is planning to dismiss Rancourt. I hope his typically tendentious letter to all and sundry is at least accurate on this point, if no other.
At least, we're not as afraid on campus as we used to be.
Poor boy... he was effraid on campus...
But, ya, i think it's understandable: each time I see the student appeal center's video, i fell affraid too.
Do you think if dgr is dismissed, police stop coming on campus?
Who cares Marie? Your previous comments show you to be a card carrying member of the cult. And paranoid.
You're irrelevant. Rancourt is on his way out. He'll fight his dismissal with cause using his usual tactics: lies, propaganda, and abuse.
But he just doesn't matter anymore. In the present matter, neither do you. Or Severin. Or Phillippe. Marc never mattered but he helped resolve the situation by precipitating a crisis that necessitated immediate action. The cult, as far is its campus existence is concerned, is now dead. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Scream all you want. It's your right. It is a right for the rest of us to completely ignore you and the cult's irrelevant ranting.
A DGR cult cannot exist when there are no adherents.
-1.
Goodbye.
Il ne faut pas vendre la peau de l'ours avant de l'avoir tué. Ton verdict me semble un peu précoce.
Pour le culte, humm... je reste songeuse. J'aurais bien adhéré si le costume avait été sympa, genre une cape, ça m'aurait plu... mais en l'état actuel des choses, non, je n'adhère à rien. Désolée: -1.
I hope it is goodbye, Severin. Nothing would please me more.
As for Marie, well, who cares?
number of profs who were harmed/fired/otherwise concretely damaged for opposing Rancourt: 0
so what's all the fear?
Rancourt sues people who oppose him.
His cultists harrass people who oppose him or the cult.
He slanders and libels people who oppose him.
His cultists are on record saying violence can be justified in some circumstances.
But by all means, please define "concretely" to exclude anything inconvenient to the cult.
Wooowoooowooo I'm a big stupid poopyhead and I super h888888 DGR OMG!!! CULT!!!! CULT!!!! Marie is a pooper! Severin wears poopypants! Marc pooops everywheeeeere! Philipe does poop dances!
Also I am sk4r3d of teh suings! DGR he hurtses me! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH.
Strong point.
"people".
very concrete.
reminds me of the last fake e-mail on DGR Watch
Sent to: "certain individuals"
it's convenient to speak in indefinite terms so you don't have to prove anything.
"Rancourt sues people who oppose him."
of coures suing people is evil... so why do you think courts exist?
"His cultists harrass people who oppose him or the cult."
number of times DGR or any supporter was found guilty of harassment: 0
"He slanders and libels people who oppose him."
number of times DGR was found guilty of slander or libel: 0
"His cultists are on record saying violence can be justified in some circumstances."
"some circumstances". of course. people who fought against dictatorships and totalitarism would say the same thing. so what's the argument?
----
but by all means, continue providing "evidence".
Firstly:
Legal standards are usually the very highest. There are many other standards of decent behaviour, ethical behaviour, and reasonable behaviour.
I presume you mean 'found guilty' legally because as others have noticed, there have been incidents where the University and Protection has found cause for concern at least.
I can shout at anyone in a bar that I will kill them or harass them in a variety of legal ways that are still absolutely unacceptable.
Secondly:
You forgot yet, since I believe several of these matters are being pursued, no?
people who fought against dictatorships and totalitarism would say the same thing. so what's the argument
I've got news for you bub: most dictators and totalitarian regimes have come to power by using fear of some establishment or referencing secret conspiracies to justify their behaviour. If you think you're on the 'right' side, you might be more correct than you know.
Seriously, go read a history book.
stop shifting the subject... you said that some people believe that violence is *sometimes* justified, I would argue most people do.
the disagreements have to do with *when* it's justified (in self-defence, etc.)
that aside...
"I presume you mean 'found guilty' legally because as others have noticed, there have been incidents where the University and Protection has found cause for concern at least."
no, I mean found guilty period. the university didn't even try to pretend this blog was slander. instead they went after the copyrighted images question. if they could prove anything on this blog is false don't you think they would have focused on the content rather than the images?
"You forgot yet, since I believe several of these matters are being pursued, no?"
matters of harassment or libel or slander? no. prove the contrary if you can.
unfortunately, you have failed to show that any professor or administrator has any substantial reason to be afraid.
outside of pure paranoia and imagining the existence of a "cult", that is.
Post a Comment