.
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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 264 of 264I would argue most people do.
You did argue. You provided fictional historical examples though. Incredibly, you did this in the same post you asked for 'concrete examples' from others.
I wish you would STOP arguing and would read a book. Seriously, ignorant and verbose is a terrible combination and absolutely no way to go through life.
Events that go directly against the rest of your points are well documented on this blog and elsewhere, so I think I'll end here.
Aruguing on the internet is like the special Olympics...win or lose, at the end of the day, everyone is...special.
you should have more respect for the paralympics.
Hi,
Briefly coming out of my "blogging retirement" to remind everyone to keep it civil, to encourage people to avoid anonymity if they have something to say, and (as a past volunteer at Defi-Sportif in Montreal) to realize that the Special Olympics and the Paralympics are two totally different things, with each deserving our utmost respect.
(And BTW though I am in no ways personally intimidated by DGR and his supporters, I do know that their idiotic behavior did cause many members of the University community to be concerned for their own safety over the past few years....DGR's supporters can belittle this all they want but it just shows them to be incredibly careless individuals...in short, please stop).
Back to my blogging retirement and enjoying a much healthier work environment on campus.
DGR Watch can prove in a court of law that all communications posted on dgrwatch.blogspot.com to be existent communications.
dgrwatch.blogspot.com has been taken down. It has served its purpose.
Blast, it was a lot better than this propaganda site.
"DGR Watch can prove in a court of law that all communications posted on dgrwatch.blogspot.com to be existent communications."
of course! you were so confident that your claims were true that you had to remove them from the web in a hurry!
More name calling. Typical Rancourt cult comment. I would love to see more of those emails . Much more real than dgr's sociopathic propaganda.
you're right.
"sociopath" and "narcissistic" are typical examples of name calling.
Descriptive, not name-calling.
Is sarcasm all you have? No wonder DGR is getting fired.
"of course! you were so confident that your claims were true that you had to remove them from the web in a hurry!"
Fuck with me, and I bring all of you down. Every single one of you. Names, dates, e-mails, audio recordings. Everything and everyone.
You know, things like throwing chairs through the Dean's window...
I just wish DGRWatch was back up. Rancourt's actual messages need to be in public, not just his propagandistic blog articles. Actual communications.
"Is sarcasm all you have?"
it's all that your posts deserve as a response.
"Fuck with me, and I bring all of you down. Every single one of you. Names, dates, e-mails, audio recordings. Everything and everyone."
haha so who is making threats now? it's good that we're not all as paranoid as some profs and administrators or we'd be locking ourselves in our offices.
Not once has a single Rancourt cultist ever been able to respond to the massive pile of factual evidence that justified firing Rancourt. Not once has anyone even tried. On this site, someone sent out a huge list of abuses Rancourt not only admits to having committed but brags about. No response from the cult. Why defend the indefensible?
For that reason, I wouldn't try to defend the threatening remark made previously.
Note the following truth about people: if you work hard enough for long enough to really push someone, you might succeed in your objective. I am not surprised that has happened here - Rancourt and cult have this objective as a declared mission.
In any event, the Rancourt cult is now officially extinct, and Rancourt is as good as fired, which is a prodigious accomplishment for him. It is truly difficult to be fired with cause as a professor, but kudos to Rancourt, he managed it. Marc Kelly is going to meet some people in jail he probably won't enjoy sharing a cell with, and will have a criminal record for his assinine behaviour. He earned it. Severin has consigned himself to academic oblivion. He earned this too. Rancourt's very few allies can probably see the freight train coming pretty clearly now. If they don't, no one will even notice the smack.
So, the news? Irrelevance. The rest of us can just enjoy the silence and get on with whatever we are actually supposed to be doing.
"On this site, someone sent out a huge list of abuses Rancourt not only admits to having committed but brags about."
Not a bad tactic. If in all your posts you keep referring to some evidence "previously presented", maybe some people will believe you actually presented any evidence in the first place.
Too bad there was no such previously presented evidence, too bad that your logic is like a "bridge from nowhere".
duh... that's why Rancourt is being fired with cause. No evidence.
Enjoy your fantasy.
hey, let's keep it to the precise point of YOUR personal inability to come with any evidence to support your statement...
like this one:
"On this site, someone sent out a huge list of abuses Rancourt not only admits to having committed but brags about."
which list, again?
You seem to be entirely willing to ignore what is plainly in front of your nose. At least try to read before admitting defeat. Each of the following is a specific mention of a well-documented issue that counts against Rancourt (by Rancourt himself - if you can't find the incidents in question, read his propaganda sites). Some of these will contribute to the apparently huge case the university has accumulated to justify firing him. These items are from page 1 of this post. Try other posts and see if you can detect that there might possibly be a massive list of concrete examples of egregiously unprofessional, uncollegial, unethical behaviour. Enough to make a pattern conclusive and justify the end of a tenured professor's employment. Remember, it is virtually impossible to even suspend someone with tenure. But the university's legal case is now strong enough that they think they will win the inevitable lawsuits that are coming or are underway. It's not a conspiracy. It's a case.
"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. "
"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."
"ut 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."
"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."
"Anyone going to comment on the fact that DGR's open letter starts with a threat?"
which threat?
"He is going to publicly abuse any individual or entity that finds against him, regardless of merits. "
opinion, no fact.
"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."
how does that have anything to do here?
"ut 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."
claims of falsification, but no proof.
"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."
if, true, it only shows people are afraid. doesn't show fear is justified. hey, I could claim I'm afraid from the Dean and meet with Protection.
"Because, let's be clear AND honest, the only really crazy shit around here emanates from DGR and his merry band of paranoiac sycophants."
opinion, no fact.
"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."
ok, maybe he's arrogant. what does it have to do with the issue at hand?
feel free to try again.
You're right. There's no evidence of any kind. My mistake.
I guess there is a conspiracy that involves everyone except the cult members. I see the truth now.
I hope Marc is out of jail now.
sorry if I hurt your ego by pointing out the lack of backing for your own claims (other peoples' claims are something else...)
"Note the following truth about people: if you work hard enough for long enough to really push someone, you might succeed in your objective."
And I note that if the presence of one agitator is all it takes to make a whole Faculty of Science lose its ability to behave rationally, then that reason rests on very shaky grounds indeed.
"I guess there is a conspiracy that involves everyone except the cult members."
By Occam's razor I believe that your lack of knowledge of the whole situation is a more reasonable hypothesis.
Bad is good. Up is down. Rancourt's persistent abuse is "positive".
And none of this matters, because he it out. With cause. Exhaustively documented cause. By all means, scream about this, protest against it, whatever. Or you could try being a real activist and try to improve something. Being constructive is not traditionally a core strength of the Rancourt crowd but hope springs eternal.
once again...
"Exhaustively documented cause."
yet you can't point out to any documentation outside personal opinions of Rancourt opponents.
People seem upset here. Perhaps Rancourt deserved what he got, perhaps not, but he's done and insults will not save him. He's a presence on campus now only in the past tense.
There's good reason to try to salvage something from this awful mess. Why not figure out how it all ended this way? Is there a chance that Rancourt's tactics were not sound? That his claims were not entirely true? That may be one of the reasons why an external arbitrator ruled against him, for instance, or that that other student who got arrested at the Senate meeting is in trouble with the police, not with the university.
Where is reason and sense in this horrible mess?
It was just too fun to feed the troll.
But yes, it would be important to take a step back and retrace what happened. It is interesting to note that more than a year ago, the student newspaper (The Fulcrum) was already calling for an external mediator/arbitrator/ombudsman to bring a new look at the whole conflict.
Everyone is anonymous here. Maybe the only person using the site is the troll with a multiple personality disorder.
I would encourage people with an interest in Rancourt to examine why he is being fired with a certain merciless, personal honesty. I have tried to do so for my own part. My view, after working through this as carefully as I could, is that he might actually deserve to be terminated. I am not completely certain of this but I can see why someone in the much-maligned Faculty of Science would think so.
Something that does worry me is the appearance of an ethics-exclusion zone around some of Rancourt's most ardent supporters. Some have called this "situational ethics", where the rules shift around to meet their needs of the moment. They seem to say that their actions are utterly pure, while the actions of their antagonists (who seem to be very many) are utterly impure. This perspective is surely unreasonable and madly polarizing. The endpoint of such polarization may have been the exponentially escalating tactics through the autumn, culminating in perhaps the only possible conclusion: the end of Rancourt's career. Or so I speculate. He had responsibilities too, as well as rights, as an employee. No?
At this point, however, what matters is the future. Rancourt is probably not part of that future, as far as life on campus goes.
That's more than my $0.02, worth possibly much less. I don't like debates with "true believers", with whom discussion quickly descends into diatribe, so comments like that will be ignored.
Rancourt is on record stating:
"The University invoked a rule that allows dispensing with due process in dealing with a tenured professor in the case of a clear and present danger..."
He is trying to publicly portray himself as a martyr for academic freedom and his style of pedagogy, yet he himself admits to being banned from campus as a result of perceived (by the administration) possible violent disruption.
It's pretty hard for the admin to miss this one when Rancourt interviews with much enthusiasm on his radio show the author of "How Non-Violence Protects the State" (Peter Gelderloos).
"... Severin has consigned himself to academic oblivion. He earned this too ..."
Hey, come on. Leave me alone. Be nice.
"He is trying to publicly portray himself as a martyr for academic freedom and his style of pedagogy, yet he himself admits to being banned from campus as a result of perceived (by the administration) possible violent disruption."
As much as some people want to think we're still in the 1960s, violent disruption on some activism matter is very implausible. If anything the dismissal will have given more public attention to Rancourt and risks creating a larger backlash (if any).
So far what's on the record (unless anyone has proof of the contrary) is that Rancourt was suspended (and recommended for dismissal) due to giving A+'s to everyone in a class. Might be cause for discipline, but certainly not a threat of violence.
Perhaps more public attention, but why backlash?
The assumption that the public supports Rancourt is fundamentally flawed. People have come to see for what Rancourt truly stands for: himself.
Cinema Politica = inflame the crowd with provocative movies, and then sway them to disgustingly identify his own idiotic cause with that of the Palestinians, Burmese, Native Americans, etc., the real people suffering oppression.
It's very easy for Rancourt to fight when he hides behind tenure, a Collective Agreement, the CURIE policy (prevents profs from libel and slander lawsuits), lawyers, students, etc.
As for Rancourt being banned from campus... who said it had anything to do with A+'s? Is this what Rancourt told you? I find it very very difficult to believe that Rancourt would be escorted on/off campus by Protection Services for giving A+'s!!! Do you honestly believe Rancourt's fight is over academic freedom??? A+'s???
The man is sick, stupid, or both. Did you read his recent Jan 5 letter to the Chair of the Board of Governors?:
Rancourt: I'm going to sue you.
Rancourt: I'd like you to help me sue you and also legitimize my insanity, therefore, I will be scheduling appointments to meet with you.
Rancourt: I am Socrates, corrupter of the minds of the youth.
Rancourt, if you think you are Socrates, why not drink the poison hemlock already? The public that you hold (read: manipulate) so dearly will, in the end, be your downfall. As you say in your letter, you are concerned about your career and personal losses:
"it appears that the university's true objective, and a direct consequence of its recent actions, in suspending me for motives based in bad faith, is to end not only my employment, but also my career, thereby causing me considerable personal losses in addition to dissolution of my research group."
If your actions themselves are not done in bad faith, then how come your research group that you value so dearly isn't running to save you? It is because you are not worth saving.
In the words of Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed), of which you hold so dearly:
"Fear of freedom, of which its possessor is not necessarily aware, makes him see ghosts. Such an individual is actually taking refuge in an attempt to achieve security, which he or she prefers to the risks of liberty."
But what is liberty and who are the oppressors?
You are the cause of your own downfall. You have become your own oppressor.
It could be said that activists in the 1960s, effective or not, in those days at least had dreams. Rancourt, perhaps delusions.
There are many matters here which do not admit to easy analysis in the public arena.
The university has, I assume on legal advice and because public disclosure of private information is actually against the law (see FIPPA, for those with an interest), issued NO public comment on these matters. Rancourt has issued a great many, on the other hand.
I have witnessed a few events about which Rancourt later issued public statements: the public statements and the actual events are not always very similar. I make no judgement about this - Rancourt has the right to portray his case however he wishes - but when bystanders witness, umm, rhetorical exaggeration, it damages your cause.
The upshot is that those of us on the outside have basically no concrete information to go on. A few of Rancourt's recent, extravagant claims require a bit too massive a suspension of disbelief. There is basically no way, for example, that the university banned Rancourt because he gave A+'s to everyone. Their case is far more substantial than that, I have no doubt. Setting up a straw man absurdity of this nature does not advance his cause either.
So, what's going on here? I don't really know. I suspect many commenters here are also challenged to really say. What seems certain is the vehemence of the reaction against Rancourt. He has apparently REALLY earned the dislike of his colleagues across the entire Faculty of Science and at least a large number of students (by no means all). His arguments that this is because of some hidden class or philosophical struggle just sounds like sophistry. So the question of how he managed to alienate so many so quickly is only partially a matter of public record. Whether he will eventually win any of the lawsuits he has threatened or launched is similarly uncertain. My money is on the university winning this one, though: they have excellent legal counsel and won't have acted in a way that could easily be construed as illegal or against the collective agreement.
That's why I previously suggested I believed Rancourt's presence on campus was now a thing of the past.
I hope the people who placed their faith in him are able to achieve constructive things in a way that Rancourt has not, to my knowledge, ever managed. What matters for them, and me and I suspect and believe the entire Faculty, now is the future, not the past. My feeling is that Rancourt has damned himself to permanent, empty, irrelevance.
During the Rancourt Arbitration hearings (reported on this blog), David Noble wrote an article (which Rancourt endorses) suggesting that the Dean's intrusion into Rancourt's class was due to the Israeli lobby (apparently, it's the Israeli's who are destroying Rancourt's career. Also, check out this week's La Rotonde).
Well, here is the side of the story of the person supposedly working for the Israeli's...
Still think the Rancourt saga is about A+'s???
The University cannot divulgate any private matter, but it has all right to confirm or deny a public statement. If they believed (and had proof) that any public comment made by Rancourt is false, they could simply say that.
No. I'm sorry, but this is not really true. The University would be very unlikely to tip its hand in the way. "Normal" legal advice in the case of a dispute like this is to say nothing whatsoever but to quietly collect a very, very extensive dossier of concrete violations of "acceptable" practices. The University's silence couldn't possibly be taken to mean they have nothing. Instead, they are just letting Rancourt measure out the rope they will hang him with. What's baffling to me, for such a smart professor, is that he keeps doing the same old thing.
I am more interested to see if Rancourt's supporters can suggest a creative way forward. I hope so. Nothing has yet been proposed, however.
I also hope that Rancourt is not a closet anti-Semite. Many at York have argued that Rancourt's ally, Noble, is. I don't know if that is correct or not. Like charges of "systemic racism", once that mud is flung, it covers everyone, whether they are guilty or not.
It's hard to say that David Noble is anti-Semitic. He is, after all, Jewish. The closest thing would be self-hating and/or Israeli threatening. He is on the S.H.I.T. list.
As for Rancourt's supporters. There aren't many of them left...
I think that it is true that there are few Rancourt supporters.
Rancourt's actions, and those of at least a few of his supporters, have been disproportionately damaging and the basis for that damage seems self-serving. So, I have been trying to think of a way to turn as many of these negative consequences into something positive, using the "if life serves you lemons, make lemonade" principle. I haven't been able to do so: it's hard to make something good out of the ruins of a reputation.
What I find actually disarming is that no Rancourt supporter has stepped forward to offer any indication that a positive outcome was ever even contemplated. That suggests further that the initial intentions were self-serving.
"matters of harassment or libel or slander? no. prove the contrary if you can."
Rancourt has been threatened with a libel and slander lawsuit with regards to the contents of his blog.
The lawfirm is Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG). The solicitor is J. Bruce Carr-Harris, (613) 787-3505,bcarr-harris@blgcanada.com. The file number is 338764-000002. His services were retained by the University's Vice-President Resources, Mr. Victor Simon. Notice was served to Rancourt at his workplace, in his office.
Go ahead and ask Rancourt yourself. Also ask Rancourt why he hasn't blogged about it.
"I think that it is true that there are few Rancourt supporters."
I think is important to remember that there always were only a few Rancourt "supporters." Now there are just even fewer. Perhaps just one, Marc Kelly.
Since Rancourt is no longer in a position to abuse power over students in his research group, it's hard to imagine why anyone would "support" him. But there will always will be some sort of token support simply because Rancourt is an excellent manipulator - he only shows the side of the story that helps him, i.e. he will prepare and compile all of the necessary documentation for you. Ask him for just all the raw uncensored data in order to draw your own conclusions and you will meet with vehement opposition.
Thank you for that. That was a useful perspective.
Perhaps none of Rancourt's supporters have been able to provide suggestions that a positive outcome for them is possible because there are none and I have been asking an empty chorus to sing.
My mistake. If you are right - as seems likely - then Rancourt's significance has never been much and it is utterly gone now except as a footnote to what self-delusion can do to a career. Maybe no lessons should be drawn from the Rancourt saga. If that is true, he is a mere time waster.
Either way, it appears the matter is concluded positively.
As for the matter of whether Rancourt is formally accused of the abuses of libel and/or slander, I guess that previous comment puts that issue to rest also. He will be hauled into court on this matter too as a defendant. His web postings enjoy no special protections.
BLG is a pretty high-end law firm. Knowing that firm a little, it is most unlikely that one of their lawyers is representing Monsieur Simon without having prima facie evidence. Basically, that means Rancourt is in deep trouble on this case.
You never know what will happen when you bring a matter to court, but if they have a prima facie case, he could be on the hook for costs even if damages are nominal (assuming Rancourt loses, which he may not). Costs will certainly not be nominal with a BLG lawyer. Something like $400/hour, probably not less than around $10k if he's lucky. Ouch.
Just to clear up the facts, a lawyer from BLG indeed served a libel notice to Rancourt over this blog. This was mentioned in La Rotonde (actually La Rotonde also received a similar label notice for publishing an article about the conflict, just ask them about it).
A libel notice, like the previous commenter pointed out, is a "threat" of lawsuit, and not a lawsuit per se. It usually means that you will be sued if you don't retract.
But in the end, neither La Rotonde nor Rancourt retracted and yet, neither was sued. Which makes the whole thing appear as an empty threat (this is not uncommon either, that people would try to get retractions even if they don't have a strong libel case).
I find the fact that Rancourt goes on and on and on about the University copyright image thing and ridicules the University's (well-founded) concern for his mental stability, yet not a word of mention regarding the libel lawsuit threat a bit out of character for him. On the face of it, the fact that he's been so quiet about it, as well as having filed for CURIE policy protection, does suggest that there is some legitimacy to him libeling and slandering.
Also, La Rotonde was not served with Notice because they actually published something, but rather in anticipation of publishing something.
It is damned strange that no Rancourt supporter has stepped forward with any kind of comment that indicates evidence of strategic thinking to generate a positive change around any topic. Some time back, I solicited such comments, and then repeated my request a few times.
The only intended changes seem to concern Rancourt and Rancourt only - they address his self-asserted right to pursue various matters in a way that escapes the employer's agreement. I see nothing tangible to suggest anything more than this least flattering portrayal of what Rancourt ironically labels "activism".
When confronted by assertions from (apparently) members of the community that Rancourt's actions have been blatantly abusive, contravene the Collective Agreement, and so on, the response is nihilistic: "that's opinion, not fact". In other words, deny, deny, deny, and then insult the commenter gratuitously. This approach accomplishes nothing except to justify the marginalization of the Rancourt supporter engaging in that action in the eyes of the broader community. A lot of people are angry at the way they feel Rancourt has abused them. Making those people feel that their anger was insufficient to address the problem is the act of a moron. And now Rancourt is out.
In the utter absence of any evidence to the contrary, I now feel wholly satisfied in my decision that Rancourt is, at most, a distracting irrelevance. I conclude (rather than just suspecting) that his self-appointed activist role was never anything better than that. Judging by the resounding absence of any sort of decipherable evidence to the contrary, I suppose everyone else essentially agrees with this view. Those who do not appear to have an abundance of outrage but a poverty of sense. I would prefer to think the routine nastiness of Rancourt's supporters was backed up by an effective intellect and was not merely evidence of a personality disorder. There appear to be no takers for this minimal challenge.
And that's about the end of that. I won't miss the distraction.
"When confronted by assertions from (apparently) members of the community that Rancourt's actions have been blatantly abusive, contravene the Collective Agreement, and so on, the response is nihilistic: "that's opinion, not fact". In other words, deny, deny, deny, and then insult the commenter gratuitously. This approach accomplishes nothing except to justify the marginalization of the Rancourt supporter engaging in that action in the eyes of the broader community. A lot of people are angry at the way they feel Rancourt has abused them. Making those people feel that their anger was insufficient to address the problem is the act of a moron. And now Rancourt is out."
Interesting how this paragraph applies to the actions of some administrators, like, "Dean Lalonde", as much as it applies to Rancourt.
Of course, feel free to deny that too.
I'm just looking for evidence of something more than a tendency to be abusive. I would appreciate reading something substantive, not just another "turn it around and attack the administration" rhetorical comment. That response is of the usual sort and therefore is wholly uninteresting. I would value your opinion if you could clarify it so it could be evaluated.
The tone of your comment is very negative when all I was doing was attempting to make the basis for my conclusion clear. More broadly, I have been looking for, futilely so far, evidence of attempts to contribute constructively to this situation. People can differ honestly on whether a contribution is constructive, but my opinion is that your response was not.
Claims that the university's administrators are themselves guilty of abuse are not easy for the rest of us to evaluate because of Rancourt's tendency for, how to put this delicately, highly selective dissemination of information. And because the legal position of the university certainly prevents them from airing dirty laundry in public.
"Claims that the university's administrators are themselves guilty of abuse are not easy for the rest of us to evaluate because of Rancourt's tendency for, how to put this delicately, highly selective dissemination of information."
Because the university is NOT selective in its dissemination of information?
Are you setting a double standard?
From your comments it appears that pointing out that one party is allegedly guitly of abuse is constructive and interesting, while pointing out that the other party has been allegedly accused of the same thing is unconstructive and uninteresting.
The tone of my comments are just as negative as yours, just directed towards a different target.
The university doesn't talk about this issue in public, for a bunch of very obvious reasons. So, they're totally non-selective. They discuss nothing in public, the answer to your apparently rhetorical question.
Look, I am interested in a way forward. I have honestly tried to bring my perspective to the table here and explain that I believe Rancourt has marginalized himself into irrelevance. It is a considered opinion.
I recognize, and am sorry to find, that you are angry. I hope that will be resolved.
I am asking for anyone who supports Rancourt (and I just don't know if any such person exists) to suggest a constructive way forward. The rest is in the past and, given Rancourt's ever-diminishing relevance to campus, likely to stay there.
That is precisely the point. If Rancourt is off campus, he can't possibly be abusive to anyone.
The Dean of Science, however, remains in position.
The way forward, simply, is to allow pedagogical innovation and diversity in the Faculty of Science and in the University of Ottawa in general. That what the message of the students supported Rancourt in 2005 and 2006, and who are (admittedly) less vocal now because the "activism course" has been cancelled for so long. (Of course, nobody finds bureaucratic battles very interesting to comment.)
The Science in Society class, in itself was a great idea, as it was even conceded by many Rancourt opponents. The fact that all talk of giving this course (by anyone) has been shut down by the Faculty (primarily, Dean Lalonde) is only one example of the inability of the current administration's to achieve something constructive out of that "mess", as you call it.
The other fact that in his process, students who politely asked for a discussion in the Faculty of Science about the pertinence of keeping SCI1101/1501 were intimidated by professors-administrators, that Dean Lalonde knew this and did nothing, is an even more worrying example (just see the reports in the student newspapers of the last two years about Mr. Prévost's and Mr. Marchand's case). It shows that the "might is right" tactic is used by the Faculty against people who simply politely disagree on an academic question.
Of course, the students that have been on the receiving end of this behavior were all associated (academically) with Professor Rancourt. But this blanket rejection of a number of students who are simply "guilty by association" only further shows the inability of the Lalonde-led Faculty of Science to move forward constructively on this.
Many students also don't understand why the university, in their opposition of Rancourt, restricted the use of the Satisfactory/Non-satisfactory grading system for all professors, even if the external arbitrator (in Rancourt's case) ruled that using this grading system is within the professor's academic freedom. Even if many universities (one example was presented earlier on this blog) allow students to choose themselves to take a substantial number of classes in a S/NS basis.
Undergraduate students complain all the time about the dullness of classes (in science or elsewhere), the memorization by rote of a variety of information that is forgot after the exam, the fact that too many classes are little more than a verbatim of the textbook, that teaching is almost left out when evaluating professors in science (where research output is the overwhelmingly dominant criteria).
There is a lot of worries that the admin is using Rancourt as a "scapegoat" to avoid dealing with real unsatisfaction by students (and then claim that the low reputation scores in national university rankings are only a "marketing problem"). The reality is that many students have supported Rancourt's pedagogical initiatives even if they disagree with him on numerous points, simply because he is one of the rare (and only) profs who has shown a will to improve the relevance of classes for students.
This doesn't mean that the Faculty of Science will be unable to achieve this "alternative way of teaching" if Rancourt leaves. But as an observer of the whole story since it began in 2005, I am at least convinced that some people within the Faculty (Dean Lalonde as the first) are part of the problem more than they are part of the solution.
I would be of course interested in your ideas of positive change in the university. So far you seem to defend the statu quo and little more.
Thank you for those comments. I can see your perspective on the teaching part of the "mess" more clearly.
I have some reactions/responses to what you wrote. I hope you will take these as my honest view on your thoughts, not as a blanket judgement about anything or that I am being pejorative. Of course, I interpret your remarks based on my own experiences and perspectives, but you already know that. My first reaction is that your comments do not outline a way forward clearly, but are much clearer about the nature of your dissatisfaction with the administration.
At the outset, you argue that you'd like to see the University allow "pedagogical innovation and diversity" within Science and more broadly. Of course, that's totally legitimate and I doubt anyone would argue against it. My reaction: I hope you are taking a broad view of this, and do not mean that the Rancourt approach is the only way to achieve the "innovation and diversity" that we both agree should continue. My feeling and experience on this is that such goals can be readily achieved in many ways. Rancourt's approach seemed (to me) to come with a lot of collateral damage and also to commonly sacrifice the "Science" part of "Science and Society".
I agree that a "Science and Society" course is a good idea. The Faculty did too, or it would not have allowed Rancourt to start teaching it. This point is often selectively forgotten: the University was behind the idea too. I don't think it's useful to rake over the still-glowing rubble from all that then followed. Everyone I know as a prof in the Faculty views this disaster as a consequence of Rancourt's apparent desire to behave viciously and unaccountably in his teaching responsibility. That's not just my view, but I have communicated it in a way that reflects only my personal conclusion.
I have not seen anyone attempt to adopt a "guilty by association" view. I have seen, however, quite a lot of professors and administrators become very worried about their interactions with at least some of those associated with Rancourt. I have been too. This is based on direct, personal experience with behaviour that seems actually insane. I had to meet with Protection, like a number of others, and my family was worried. I have been informed that those concerns are unlikely to lead to physical confrontation but no one seemed totally confident that this was the true. Paranthetically, the only response I have yet witnessed among vocal Rancourt supporters to these claims is to heap abuse upon the person expressing concern for her/his safety. Such inhumanity does them no credit and strengthens the likelihood that a forceful university response will be supported by all.
I don't have much to say about the S/NS grading system. Rancourt advocated for it, obviously. The university is responsible for this issue and is within its rights to require a particular standard. My personal view is that Rancourt poisoned this well for quite some time.
Your final comment suggests that you view the Rancourt approach as the standard we should strive for. If that is your view, I do not share it. Excellent teaching has, in my view, virtually nothing to do with grading schemes.
If you are interested in achieving teaching innovation in the Faculty of Science, I'd look to those instructors and professors who are widely recognized (by students and the administration) for their constructive contributions to that cause. We have many such passionate and dedicated professors here. What can we learn from those who are nearly universally recognized as the very best? How can we bring those best practices into more of our Faculty of Science classrooms? But Rancourt paints all those dedicated people with the same, dark brush, and that seems to me to be another disgrace to his discredit.
Just my views, verbosely expressed. I offer these comments honestly and with the intention to return your compliment of giving you my unvarnished perspective. I believe Rancourt is finished at the University of Ottawa and that we must find a way to learn from these events and keep evolving toward a better ideal.
"The Science in Society class, in itself was a great idea, as it was even conceded by many Rancourt opponents. The fact that all talk of giving this course (by anyone) has been shut down by the Faculty (primarily, Dean Lalonde) is only one example of the inability of the current administration's to achieve something constructive out of that "mess", as you call it."
It's not true that offering the course again has been shut down by the faculty (or Dean Lalonde), it has more to do with the fact that no other prof is willing to go anywhere near the course and teach it.
Now that it seems like the discussion is turning somewhat productive, I'll weigh in ...
Here's my concern with S/NS. Unless I was worried about passing the course, or that course happened to be my main passion in life, I'd never do any work in the course at all. It's not that I'm unmotivated - I'm just interested in a number of things, and grades are the thing that keep me focused.
I think it's legitatimate for the university to demand that I take courses outside my interests - I think I'd be a pretty poor science student if I hadn't taken some nonscience electives, for example, to say nothing of taking a couple of service courses outside my specific field. And it's also legitatemate to expect that take in some of the information. And in the case of calculus, I can promise that only the threat of a bad grade made me learn information that I've since used and applied.
Even if S/NS as applied to interesting courses only, the problem still occurs that I'd completely neglect the more interesting course in favour of the more GPA-affecting course.
How do you have S/NS without this problem?
For most students, you probably just don't. The S/NS standard has the critical weakness of providing no motivation, especially in the Rancourt courses, where you always get an S. No doubt, the normal grading system is imperfect, but it certainly can be motivating.
Now this is something interesting to discuss...
I want to quickly weigh in as a graduate student. Graduate school is totally different in the sense that you have to be internally motivated (i.e. actually care, not just want the grades), else you'll likely drop out. Also a graduate thesis is Pass/Fail, not graded alphanumerically. Not that all undergraduates want to go on to graduate school, but those who do should be aware of that.
Additionally, a recent article in Maclean's pointed out how grades are poorly correlated with professional success. This is not incredibly surprising, especially for science programs that are totally disconnected from "real life" skills. In real life you have to solve complex problems that are not black and white and there is no "textbook" with all the knowledge to do your work.
I personally did not mind being graded while I was an undergrad, but looking back I realize grades were not as important to actual success outside school as they were touted to be.
More on Dean Gary Slater's academic values...
You are assuming that the press release you link to on academicfreedom.ca reflects accurately the events it portrays.
It is better to reserve judgment until the lawsuit is settled.
The Kelly/Hickey/Dang lawsuit against the University and Deans Slater and Lalonde:
"You are assuming that the press release you link to on academicfreedom.ca reflects accurately the events it portrays.
It is better to reserve judgment until the lawsuit is settled."Looks like it's over...
Post a Comment