Professor Alain St-Amant, Chairman, Department of Chemistry, University of Ottawa, is a well know and dedicated contributor to this blog. He has been candidate for Dean of the Faculty of Science and is a dedicated teacher with high student evaluations in his large chemistry courses.
.
.
This recent email exchange (below) suggests that Professor St-Amant has inside information about the University’s plan (see LINK) to dismiss Denis Rancourt.
.
.
Professor St-Amant’s position (below) is aligned with the University Administration’s position regarding public discourse and accountability.
.
.
QUESTION:
From: Denis Rancourt (Professor, Physics)
Sent: February 27, 2009 6:02 PM
To: Alain St-Amant (Chairman, Chemistry)
Cc: Andre E. Lalonde (Dean, Science); Allan Rock (President); Vice-recteur Etudes (VP-Academic); Nathalie Des Rosiers (VP-Governance)
Subject: Public discourse and academic freedom
.
.
February 27, 2009
.
.
Alain St-Amant
Chairman
Department of Chemistry
University of Ottawa
.
.
Re: Public discourse and academic freedom
.
.
Dear Professor St-Amant,
.
.
You were scheduled to debate me on Rogers TV (Talk Ottawa) Thursday February 26 2009. But then I was informed that you cancelled at the last minute because of internal university pressure.
.
.
This is very unfortunate. You have been outspoken on my blog UofOWatch.blogspot.com but a TV audience would be more beneficial.
.
.
You have publicly stated that you recommend that our university colleagues contribute to the public discourse about my activities and contribute to setting the record straight, yet you refused to participate in the Rogers TV interview.
.
.
I don't understand? You have academic freedom. You have tenure. You have opinions that you believe would benefit society, yet you accept to be muzzled by administrative or peer pressure?
.
.
Please clarify. Why deprive the public of your insights and knowledge? Or, have you decided to spend the time instead increasing your scientific impact factor (h-index)?
.
.
I am putting the administration in cc so that it can be alerted to this potential threat to academic freedom.
.
.
Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt
.
.
ANSWER:
Subject: RE: Public discourse and academic freedom
From: Alain St-Amant (Chairman, Chemistry)
Date: Sat, 28 February, 2009 12:35 am
To: Denis Rancourt (Professor, Physics)
Cc: Andre E. Lalonde (Dean, Science); Allan Rock (President); Vice-recteur Etudes (VP-Academic); Nathalie Des Rosiers (VP-Governance)
.
.
Dennis,
.
.
I refuse to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
.
.
(But for the record, there was zero pressure from Tabaret and it ultimately came down to me taking the advice of my trusted circle of colleagues, first and foremost my wife)
.
.
This will be the last you will hear from me on this matter.
.
.
Enjoy the paycheques while they last,
.
.
Professor Alain St-Amant
Chair, Department of Chemistry
University of Ottawa
(613) 562-5769
.
.
.
[Note: Tabaret Hall is the central administration building, U of O]
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]
103 comments:
That's interesting. A few days ago, when I heard that St-Amant backed off first I thought of message control from above. And then I thought I was probably more likely his wife...
So, are you his wife or are you his colleague? And is his wife a colleague?
When we grew up and went to school,
There were certain teachers,
Who would hurt the children in any way they could,
By pouring their derision,
Upon anything we did,
Exposing every weakness,
However carefully hidden by the kids.
But in the town it was well known,
When they got home at night,
Their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them,
Within inches of their lives.
if ASA is retiring from the public debate on the Rancourt case, now which brave bilingual soul will step forward to defend the UofO?
I nominate Allan Rock.
DGR vs. The Rock... this will certainly beat audience records for community TV.
"I am putting the administration in cc so that it can be alerted to this potential threat to academic freedom."
Oh, Rancourt, so you do acknowledge that you are a threat? I was beginning to think that self-reflection for you was looking in the mirror...
But seriously, last Thursday on what used to be your radio show, you called St-Amant a "chicken" for not debating you.
Wake up Rancourt!!! Anyone who takes the time to analyze your case and thoroughly decipher the documents knows that you have lost, continue to lose, and will always lose. In other words, if it weren't for the comedic value, you would be a pure waste of time.
There's no point in debating with you. You do a marvelous job of ruining your own self.
Honestly, I find it very pathetic (and disturbing) that the only friends (read: cultists) Rancourt, a 52 year old man, is able to get are impressionable teenagers.
Rancourt has done more to threaten free speech than I ever thought possible. Say anything against him, or even just fail to agree publicly with him, and you get pilloried.
Disgraceful. But fading fast.
"Say anything against him, or even just fail to agree publicly with him, and you get pilloried"
What? If the big, mean Denis tells you you are stupid, you tell him right back, or prove him wrong! How the fuck does his opinion and right to free speech "threaten free speech" for others?
If we really believe in free speech, we should understand that this right applies no matter how stupid we thing a statement might be. There is no such thing as a "right not to be offensed". Maybe the people who censored the Israeli Apartheid Week posters should think about it...
I want some of what you have been smoking on this blog. Seriously, this place is a class act. No really. A place where ideas and people are attacked vigorously.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Where's my surfboard?
"A place where ideas and people are attacked vigorously."
and your point is?
http://amateurgalore.net
I think I saw Denis on that last link. Just another amateur effort of his, I guess.
Hey, there's this new blog that I think is asking a lot of powerful questions regarding the Rancourt controversy.
http://rockourtwatch.blogspot.com
that radio spot didn't do you any favours denis. I guess that's why you avoided mentioning it anywhere.
I sincerely hope you are dismissed. You earned it.
Hey Rancourt,
Page 5 of This week's edition of The Fulcrum has you quoted as saying:
"[The university] basically said, 'we will mediate, but under these very strict conditions,'"
What are these conditions? You spoke at length about final exams in a physics course, but note that "conditions" is in the plural. Come on, this can't be selective transparency. Tell us everything. Tell us ALL the conditions.
"The ball's in [your] court."
"internationally renowned physicist [sic] and self-declared expert on academic freedom"
Heh. Have fun in Guelph. No need to return.
So, Rancourt has accepted to negotiate with the administration in secret!
Way to stand up for something you believe in! Yourself.
When push comes to shove, we can always count on Rancourt to run away like the coward he is.
I won't miss him when he's gone. He has succeeded in degrading the educational experience of massive numbers of students. The contradictions and situational ethics he brings to every single interaction make him utterly untrustworthy.
I only hope he successfully martyrs himself for the only cause he has patently ever cared about: Denis Rancourt. It's a win-win scenario - he gets what he wants, the university community gets what it wants.
I frankly don't see how campus can continue to function at anything like a high level if he continues here. His continued presence is a great incentive for some of our best teaching and research talent to leave or not come in the first place.
ITT: Niggers.
Sure, whatever. If you pre-define anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "nigger", and that is taken to mean someone who opposes Rancourt's gross excesses, then, yes, I am a nigger. And proud of it.
Enjoy your guru's imminent retirement.
http://rancourtwatch.blogspot.com/
In the days of Slavery, the white man called the black man "nigger."
In the days of Slavery, the white man raped black women because they were "niggers."
In the days of Slavery, the white man hung the black man with a noose because he was a "nigger."
In the days of Slavery, the white man used the "nigger" to fight his wars.
The Student As Nigger.
It is the white man that created "nigger" because the white man hates himself.
Sloganeering'r'us!
Wow, until I read that essay I had no idea that white suburban youth who voluntarily paid fees to a university institution were, in fact, synonymous with Africans who were forcibly removed from their villages, sold, shackled as freight to the Americas, sold, whipped, abused, broken apart, raped, hung, and worked to death.
The similarities are astounding.
Yes. The similarities are indeed astounding. Not to mention that the enslavement and murder of Africans by the white man was/is part of the Israeli/Zionist lobby/conspiracy...
ATTENTION:
"white suburban youth" are the only kind of people who attend University.
More material for your media links Denis:
http://www.thefulcrum.ca/node/2691
Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity!
It is official: Rancourt = Fired.
Victory Asshole. VICTORY!
Rancourt has also been removed from the Department of Physics' Professor Directory> and the University of Ottawa's main directory for profs and personnel.
Where is this excellent news posted?
I have seen nothing anywhere. Is it just that he's out of the professors' directory?
Sweet!! I win the office pool as to whose picture would be at the top of the uofowatch web page when the dismissal would finally occur.
No No. Rancourt has officially been fired. His removal from the directories and associated web pages necessarily follow.
I don't know of any official University of Ottawa postings announcing this (yet), but the information comes via very reliable sources and firsthand observations.
The University of Ottawa administration has given explicit directives to remove Rancourt's name from what-used-to-be Rancourt's office, which, I might add, has been dutifully and beautifully carried out.
ENJOY!
Good old history cleaning...
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html
"The historical reason for this alteration is that Stalin eventually began to see Trotsky as a threat and labeled him an "enemy of the people". After he was deported from the Soviet Union in 1929, Trotsky critisized Stalin's leadership, arguing that the dictatorship Stalin exercised was based on his own interests, rather than those of the people. This contributed substantially to Trotsky's removal from photographs and history."
Of course white suburban youth are not the only people who attend university, but white suburban youth who do attend university are among the most absurd people to compare to the experience of enslaved Africans. It's ridiculous to compare the experience of all contemporary students to the experiences of pre-segregation African-Americans, but especially ridiculous for white students to try to compare their very mild injustices to the vast injustices that African-American peoples have experienced.
I'd also like to point out the obvious absurdity of comparing Stalin's penchant for trying to erase the history of his perceived enemies with removing a fired professor from the school directory and web pages. If the university tried to remove all record of Rancourt ever having worked at the university the comparison might be apt. As it is, these middle class anarchists really have to work hard to find ways to feel oppressed.
*pre-segregation should read segregated
So, you have read an entire essay about the obedience of students and you dismiss it as ridiculous instead of addressing the points made by the author. Why is it ridiculous, and why is it your instinct to order injustices in a hierarchy?
The points made in the essay would be more meaningful if the comparison was not so offensive and absurd. Why is the essay ridiculous? It's ridiculous because the comparison between the student-professor relationship and the African-American-white oppressor relationship is heavy-handed and drowns any valid points in the complete offensiveness of the metaphor.
There are levels of injustice. Are you suggesting otherwise?
I propose that people who spend their saturday nights patrolling their enemy's blog comments are, themselves, absurd.
"I propose that people who spend their saturday nights patrolling their enemy's blog comments are, themselves, absurd."
Interesting. I don't consider Denis Rancourt an enemy and I merely checked the comments here a few times while I was doing other work.
You may consider me absurd, but my question about levels of injustice remains unanswered.
I learned to make inappropriate Stalin references from Earth Science Pr. Keith Benn.
"I propose that people who spend their saturday nights patrolling their enemy's blog comments are, themselves, absurd."
This blog has a feature that lets you subscribe to the blog such that whenever a new blog entry or comment appears, you get notified - it appears in an inbox style format. It is called an RSS Feed. You can even respond with a comment without even navigating to the blog site.
As for what is absurd... claiming to be a victim after willingly and needlessly throwing yourself into harm.
Rancourt,
Come on, do you have to be reminded all the time? This is not selective transparency. Show us the dismissal letter that was couriered to your home. We deserve to see your humiliation in all its glory.
So let me get this straight... Any school, organization, company, etc., that removes from public display material relating to an individual that is no longer an employee of that institution is analogous to what Stalin did with Trotsky? Really?
White suburban youths attending university are niggers, the removal from public display material regarding a former EMPLOYEE is akin to a dictatorship that caused the murder of millions of people, Rancourt giving A+'s because he cares about education, the Israeli lobby firing Rancourt, Rancourt is Socrates...
Yeah, Rancourt, you have us all fooled - really, you are mentally stable and this is all about A+'s.
anyone read 1984?
don't all the comments here remind you of the "two minutes of hate" against public enemy Rancourt?
oh, now that Rancourt is gone, who will be the receptacle of your collective outburst of anger and frustration?
only time will tell...
maybe now would be a good moment to thank all those brave members of the Board of Governors Executive Committee who met behind close doors to unanimously dismiss Pr. Rancourt.
Marc Jolicoeur: mjolicoeur@blgcanada.com
Yves Tremblay: yt@purple-angel.com
Jeffrey M. Dale: jdale@ocri.ca
Ruth Freiman: rfreiman@howo.com
Abdou G. Ghié: aghie@uottawa.ca
V. Peter Harder: peter.harder@fmc-law.com
Richard L'Abbé: labbe@allenvanguard.com
Louise Lemyre: louise.lemyre@uottawa.ca
Julia E. Morris: jmorr031@uottawa.ca
Allan Rock: allan.rock@uottawa.ca
Louise Tardif: ltardif@bnc.ca
Carmen Prévost Vierula: cprevost@banqueducanada.ca
^^^^^^^^
Yes, thank you all for a job well done! It was about time. I personally have great satisfaction knowing it's over. Or is it? I sure hope so...
"...the Board of Governors Executive Committee who met behind close doors to unanimously dismiss Pr. Rancourt."
How about the fact that Rancourt himself stated that he would not attend the EBOG meeting and submit his brief to the EBOG?
How about the fact that Rancourt waited until one week before getting fired to offer mediation instead of 3 months ago, when he was notified of pending dismissal?
How about Rancourt boorishly ridiculing, humiliating, and insulting everyone who does not agree with him, including students, professors, deans, and presidents, for the last 4 years?
Where is Rancourt's support if his cause is so noble and legitimate? A university drop out running around with a box on his head.
Yes. The members of the EBOG are brave. People have started to stand up and fight back against Rancourt and his lunacy.
And yes, we have read 1984. But have you read it? How does the book end? You have to read the whole book, not just what you like.
And what about the portion of "A Pedagogy for Liberation" with Ira Shore and Paulo Freire on page 24 (section Student Responses: Resistance and Support), advertised on denisrancourt.tv. Did you read the following section (emphasis added)?:
"Still others [students] were actively hostile, challenging me in ways to stop the critical thrust of the class. [...] I CAN'T IMPOSE LIBERATORY PEDAGOGY AGAINST ANYBODY'S WILL TO RECEIVE IT."
So stop masquerading around as if you people are Messiahs. We are not in need of Redemption.
You know how 1984 ends.
The totalitarian dictatorship wins. The guy who wanted to be independent gives up under pressure from the state.
Are you trying to make a parallel?
2 + 2 = 5
Rancourt + Truth = Sanity
U of O Statement regarding the dismissal of Denis Rancourt.
"You know how 1984 ends.
The totalitarian dictatorship wins. The guy who wanted to be independent gives up under pressure from the state.
Are you trying to make a parallel?"
Why not let Rancourt make that parallel himself? Will Grade for Food.
Rancourt calls his students "indoctrinated zombies."
Yet, Rancourt gives these zombies A+'s. Why?
Could it be that when Rancourt gets into trouble, he hopes that these zombies will come to his defense because he improved their GPA?
Does Rancourt really care about education or is he on a recruitment campaign?
You see, not grading means NOT GRADING. It means you do not attribute A+, F, Satisfactory, Non-Satisfactory. It means you DO NOT GRADE.
Surely there is a difference between handing the Dean:
(i) a class list with all A+'s;
(ii) a class list with all Satisfactories; and
(iii) a class list with nothing indicated.
You tell me which one comes closest to NOT GRADING.
So, is this really about "education"?
*****
Subject: university plan to fire DGR, over A+s in PHY4385-5100
January 13, 2009
Dear students of PHY4385-5100 winter-2008,
As you may know, the university plans to fire me for having attributed all
A+s in the course.
As you can imagine, there is some media interest in this development.
Therefore, the media may contact you for an interview or opinion.
In order to inform you, I send you these links about the background of
this case:
(1) I suggest you read this first:
http://www.archive.org/details/Jan52009LetterToBogOnRancourtDismissal
(click “PDF” in left column)
(2) Website of support group:
http://cdecde.blogspot.com/
(3) Background on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt
(4) Some media articles:
http://rabble.ca/news/dismissing-critical-pedagogy-denis-rancourt-vs-university-ottawa
http://larotonde.ca/2009/01/denis-la-mitraille/
http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/6463-u-ottawa-suspends-rogue-prof-
(5) A TV interview (one-hour in nine segments) from November 12th:
http://uofofreedom.blogspot.com/
If you would like to help or support me in any way, please feel free to
contact me.
dgr
Severin: this is not the military, calm down.
As usual, only the self-serving media links make it to Rancourt's blog. The guy is a psychopath.
Here's just one more:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Tenured+radicals/1471287/story.html
How many democratic votes does the idiot have to lose before admitting that democracy has consistently worked successfully to eliminate his idiocy. Yes, the university IS run on democratic principles - and that democratic process has not favoured DGR much at all, even when everyone tried hard to find a way to accommodate what eventually could only be viewed as lunacy.
The BOG vote is the just the latest vote in a long, long series. But it should be the last.
Goodbye.
Please do not lump me in with Rancourt...I find that offensive.
Thank You,
Psychopath
Denis, here is another media link. You know, for the transparency thingy...
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2009/04/06/controversial-physics-prof-rancourt-fired/
Note to previous commenter:
A vote by a committee is only democratic as much as the members of the committee are democratically elected.
Otherwise you would call former Iraq a democracy simply because Saddam Hussein and his aides sometimes voted among themselves to decide what to do?
Silly.
Which is part of the problem.
Go somewhere controversial and see if you truly still believe the absurd comparison you make is apt. I have been to Iraq and seen those lives, among other places. Believe, there is nothing like that here. Your complaint smacks of privilege bitching, and nothing more.
HAHA, 63 comments and still going! That's amazing! By the way, to ye who began his post with "silly" I must tell you that your post smacks of personal attack that doesn't address the argument of your opponent. It is your opinion and nothing more.
oh, please relax.
remove the Iraq reference if it offenses you... wouldn't you still agree with:
"A vote by a committee is only democratic as much as the members of the committee are democratically elected."
Sure, invent another conspiracy theory. This place is full of them.
Are you seriously arguing that Rancourt has ever won any of these arguments? He loses every one, but usually goes after the individual these days without even trying to challenge the ideas.
It's really a shame he's gone and won't be coming back. I know I, for one, will REALLY miss his personal attacks.
<
In order to produce weblinks,
1. Write the text that will provide the link;
2. Surround 1 with <a href="http://www...."> </a>
For example,
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunacy">Lunacy </a> produces Lunacy.
Ok, let's do it another time...
Please read this:
"A vote by a committee is only democratic as much as the members of the committee are democratically elected."
Where is the conspiracy there? Doesn't that make sense?
"A vote by a committee is only democratic as much as the members of the committee are democratically elected."
Look, quit with the cliches. It's clear from the University of Ottawa Act, 1965, that the University is a corporation, with a CEO, and an Executive Board of Governors. But that's not the point.
The point is should the University be governed "democratically" or not?
Those who maintain the status quo say no. While those who want to establish "democracy" want to change the status quo, BUT MAINTAIN THEIR PRIVILEGES, i.e. $120,000 a year + tenure. But why does Rancourt want to establish "democracy"?
Simple. Power and Greed. The Power to manipulate and influence, to do as he pleases, and benefit as much as possible.
Rancourt has clearly discredited himself, so this is not about creating "democracy." If it was, why did Rancourt back down completely? Will Grade for Food.
Now, returning to the original statement about democratic committees. One cannot analyze the situation in black and white, absolute terms. The context of who is positing the question and why they are positing the question is essential to the discussion.
A monarchy's conception of "democracy" differs quite remarkably to the anarchist conception.
In anarchy, for example, "democracy" has the flavour of "participation by everyone ALL THE TIME" and "consensus," rather than "majority rules".
In a monarchy, however, democracy is only a narrow band of what is acceptable by the sovereign so long as it does not threaten the monarch's sovereignty.
The question then is what is the purpose of the University? and not what is and is not "democratic"?
Is the purpose of universities to exclusively educate or to exclusively maintain society? If it is to educate, then who decides who and what is to educate?
However, it cannot be denied the instrumental role that universities play in shaping society. So who decides HOW universities contribute to society? The lunatic fringe?
Democracy: consensus or majority? Irrelevant.
Hey, I'm not the one who said:
"the university IS run on democratic principles"
I agree with you that it isn't.
Tell the other anonymous guy about it.
Missed the point. That seems unlikely to change. But that doesn't matter either.
The matter is decidedly closed.
of course that's besides the point.
also besides the point is that University of Ottawa spokesperson Andrée Dumoulon repeatedly lied to the media, in claiming the university was open to "further meetings" for mediation in the Rancourt case.
but of course, why would honesty matter, if you're fighting the great evil Rancourt?
Whatever.
Enjoy exile. You earned it.
which exile?
Anyone, we don't care, as long as it's far away...
I listened to The Train yesterday. Rancourt lies through his teeth that no amount of toothpaste will help. It is no different from the administration. I guess the ends do justify the means.
As for the derogatory remarks on the blog, they serve a purpose: to accentuate Rancourt's humiliation. It is a way of publicly saying that people have lost all respect for Rancourt, at a personal level. It means that Rancourt is not part of society.
Humiliation is a great psychological weapon. Let him taste what he does to other people.
Rancourt, reductio ad absurdum will only take you so far in your activism before the Peter principle kicks in. Sadly, in this tragic comedy you are on the superhighway.
As for the comment:
"Hey, I'm not the one who said:
'the university IS run on democratic principles'
I agree with you that it isn't.
Tell the other anonymous guy about it."
Actually, logically, you ARE implicitly saying that the university is run on democratic principles. You referenced the committee as being democratic (or lack thereof) - you attributed "democratic" to the committee.
The logical argument that proceeds, then, is what is the degree of democracy in the committee? If there is no democracy, your logic still implies that democracy can be injected. Hence, the committee is as democratic as its democratically elected members. You are simply using circular argumentation to prove an impossible contradictory point premised, that is in the end, simply irrelevant.
"It means that Rancourt is not part of society."
Oh great Internet decider of who is part of society, I bow before your immense power!
"
Actually, logically, you ARE implicitly saying that the university is run on democratic principles. You referenced the committee as being democratic (or lack thereof) - you attributed "democratic" to the committee.
The logical argument that proceeds, then, is what is the degree of democracy in the committee? If there is no democracy, your logic still implies that democracy can be injected. Hence, the committee is as democratic as its democratically elected members. You are simply using circular argumentation to prove an impossible contradictory point premised, that is in the end, simply irrelevant."
Wow, talk about bad faith!
Look, I think the other person made their point clear. This particular committee is largely (though not entirely) composed of appointees that were not elected by any segment of the university committee. You can agree or disagree that this makes the committee less (or not) democratic. But it's not circular.
Nota bene: Your "logical argument" makes no sense. Not that it matters, because this is about subjective value, not pure mathematical logic.
For those trying to kick the addiction to this site, believe, life is better when you stop coming. Discussion with the Rancourt rank and file has never yet proven productive, better to let them sort themselves out:
Fix the problem!
Be assured that we support you in your self-help program.
And I support Rancourt in his.
"It means that Rancourt is not part of society."
Oh great Internet decider of who is part of society, I bow before your immense power!
There is no need to bow before my immense power, I am not Rancourt.
But I do find it satisfying that (as arrogant as it may sound), while I logically dismantle all of your arguments that are pro-Rancourt (which you end up merely relegating away by conveniently invoking subjectivity and relativism), you have yet to address some of my key points that are at the root of the whole Rancourt saga. For example:
1. The concept of NO GRADING (A+/F, S/NS, Nothing at all), and Rancourt's purpose for attributing A+'s;
2. Rancourt rolling out the red carpet of hypocrisy, Will Grade for Food.
Instead, you choose to ignore these crucial questions by invoking 1984. Yes Marc, you were arrested by the Ottawa Police Services on the urgings of the administration, and you will be given your opportunity to address this in court.
But your emotions to identify logically with Rancourt's self-serving ambitions (since we all know that he isn't an altruistic person. He said so himself), cloud your judgment, handicap your logic, and limit your potential to make meaningful changes to eliminate thuggery against students from university administrators.
haha as if Marc Kelly was posting here.
"He will discuss the events surrounding his battle with the University of Ottawa [...] and the role of violence in activism."
Click here for more info. And the rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper...
The bit of this situation that has improved is that almost everyone has crawled out of the hole Rancourt is digging. He can do whatever he wants down there and probably will. The workplace is a lot less nasty and lot more democratic without him and his mob, although the GSAED meeting last night showed clearly that not quite all the mob has not yet left the building.
What happened at the GSAED meeting???
Marc Kelly harangued everyone for a while but members of the board were not permitted to speak freely. The science students' associations were furious with GSAED for wading into the Rancourt bullshit with that goofy letter from the executive and wanted it retracted and an apology issued. Very much the usual thing, when it comes to Rancourt, in other words: suppress everyone except people who agree with you. We'll see what happens next. I expect there will be a bit of sunlight opening up between GSAED and the science-based grad students.
Are you referring to the GSAED letter on academicfreedom.ca? I think that letter was signed by only one executive member of the GSAED. Word has it that it was signed without consulting other GSAED executives.
What??? Marc Kelly isn't even a student, let alone a grad. student! Isn't he banned from campus???
"What??? Marc Kelly isn't even a student, let alone a grad. student! Isn't he banned from campus???"
What??? you don't know shit about anything?
The SSA is a bunch of whiners and the GSAED is a self-serving toy government. Maybe students aren't responsible enough to study without the reward of grades or money...
The SSA are also undergrads...
I have no idea why Marc was allowed to disrupt the meeting. It is certainly bizarre that he could speak but directors had trouble doing so.
The science students associations: I meant the departmental grad students' associations, not the undergrad SSA. Sorry. The departmental grad students associations seem furious about this issue and to have had their voice so horribly misrepresented unilaterally by GSAED.
Yes, the letter from GSAED was written by one executive member without authorization, but he signed it as an executive member and made it as a result a GSAED communication. He clearly overstepped and will not take responsibility for his error, not even to clarify that we was acting individually not as a representative.
bizarre or messianic?
There's a new one out there: rancourt.academicfreedom.ca. I guess academicfreedom.ca wasn't enough.
So how many are we up to?
-rancourt.academicfreedom.ca
-academicfreedom.ca
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt
-denisrancourt.blogspot.com
-www.denisrancourt.tv
-activistteacher.blogspot.com
-climateguy.blogspot.com
and of course,
-uofowatch.blogspot.com
Did I miss any?
Psychopaths crave attention.
This blog seems like an attracting point for psychopaths posting as "anonymous". Unfortunately they won't get professional help for their condition...
Now for something completely different, it seems Brian Campbell signed the petition at academicfreedom.ca . Do you think the Blackhawks can still beat the Flames in 7? Well, I do. Go Brian!
Well said Anonymous, fellow psychopath.
At least not all of us are taking themselves seriously...
I don't think any one posting here takes themselves seriously.
But that doesn't mean that what is being said is untrue. On both sides of the aisle...
Of course there's a lot of very personal opinions that are neither true nor false.
woohoo, fellow anons, we broke 100!
Yes, psychopathic math is fun!
Talk about an identity disorder!!!
http://www.marckelly.tv/
Post a Comment