The University of Ottawa’s Allan Rock administration has sent out this (below) remarkable memo to all U of O staff, conveniently at a time when students are off working.
..
In the face of decades of legal precedent-setting decisions that have established the collegial governance principles that apply to North American universities, it has done this without any of the required department-faculty-and-senate consultations and evaluations.
..
The memo (below) describes the immediate implementation of a new surveillance and reporting managerial system in which all university members are required to participate.
..
The system is akin to the reporting protocols systematically implemented at community levels in totalitarian states. History shows that such systems have a chilling effect on dissidence and reinforce a culture of deference to authority that is antithetical to academic freedom.
..
Barely a year after the university’s failed attempt to install a “student code of conduct,” “Canada’s university” becomes possibly the first academic institution in North America to implement such a policy.
..
The memo (below) has a distinct 1984 feel and substance and is signed by the Rock administration’s VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers who, in what can only be interpreted as exceptional circumstances of irony, is the designated General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
..
In the new system, anonymous “disclosures” of “any incidents of wrongdoing” are sent “directly to the Office of the VP-Governance” and “it is the duty of each employee to immediately report any incidents.” The note (below) states “we are all responsible for promoting ethical behaviour…”
..
Strange, when, on this blog, I reported with documentary evidence various university executives lying, fabricating student complaints, falsifying documents, supporting state war crimes, and protecting those who committed these wrongdoings, I was threatened with a lawsuit by the university, disciplined for using the university images of the executives (see VIDEO), and ultimately fired.
..
It seems to me, that if the University of Ottawa were serious about “provid[ing] the tools” to “encouge[] ethical behaviour in all [its] spheres of activity,” it would, for example:
..
- encourage informed and signed whistleblowing, supported with strong whistleblower protection for all its staff and students,
- post its CURIE insurance policy on the web and make the additionally insured fully informed of their coverage, e.g. regarding SLAPP suits,
- make representations to have Ontario universities fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Ombudsman and voluntarily submit itself to this jurisdiction,
- follow the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than regularly have requests appealed, Orders emitted against it, and Complaints filed and retained,
- disclose all of the financial and administrative reports of the University of Ottawa Foundation and host a public forum on the Foundation’s mandate,
- make all of its corporate and private contracts public, including those with donors involving building names and other exchanges,
- not name buildings after CEO’s who have participated in any questionable corporate behaviours at home or in other jurisdictions, and publicly review building name attributions in the light of any public disclosures of such questionable activities,
- make all research grants and contracts public
- install a strict policy disallowing all non-token gifts to executives, such as “cultural” trips to explore potential exchange programs with states involved in on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions and persistent disregard for UN resolutions,
- install a Board of Governors membership policy that disallows media bosses and all private sector leaders that could be perceived to represent potentials for conflicts of interest in a democratic society with a free press,
- have all its appointments of top officers and full professors be subjected to public scrutiny and approval by referendum of the entire university community,
- have all its faculty deans be assigned by elections, with 50% student voices, as is done in many countries,
- pay all student representatives on all committees and councils the same average wage value as the professors for their work on these governance bodies,
- immediately disclose its contracts and agreements with the developers and owners of the surveillance software ClearView Connects™ (see below).
MEMO:
From: UOStaff-l en francais on behalf of Communications uOttawa
To: UOPERS-L@LISTSERV.UOTTAWA.CA
Sent: Tue 6/9/2009 10:49 AM
Subject: Règlement 92 sur la fraude et la divulgation d'actes fautifs / Policy 92 on Fraud and Safe Disclosure
..
Honesty, integrity and transparency are the values that inspire confidence and the constituents of good governance.
In keeping with best practices in place at public sector organizations, an institution of the scope of the University of Ottawa must provide the tools the University and its employees need to respect these values, maintain the quality of the work environment and protect the University’s resources.
As employees of the University, we are all responsible for promoting ethical behaviour and for respecting for the laws, regulations, polices and procedures necessary for the proper functioning of our institution.
With this in mind, the Board of Governors has approved Policy 92, Policy on Fraud and Safe Disclosure. This policy is to be administered by the Office of the Vice-President, Governance and applies to all University employees, including members of the Board of Governors and persons acting on behalf of the University.
Under Policy 92, it is the duty of each employee to immediately report any incidents of wrongdoing related to University activities. To assist with reporting, we have introduced ClearView ConnectsTM, a tool that allows employees to report quickly, anonymously and in complete confidence any incidents of theft, misappropriation of funds, falsification of documents, vandalism, unethical behaviour, etc.
ClearView ConnectsTM is available 24/7 online or by phone. The system forwards the disclosure directly to the Office of the Vice-President, Governance, which will deal with it as soon as possible and in accordance with Policy 92.
To obtain more information on the reasons behind Policy 92, its scope, the responsibilities of members of the University community, reporting procedures, investigation procedures, ClearView ConnectsTM or any other related matter, please visit www.uOttawa.ca/disclosure.
Your cooperation is essential in order to maintain an organizational climate that encourages ethical behaviour in all our spheres of activity. We are fortunate to work in an exceptional environment, and, with your help, the University of Ottawa can continue to experience the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Acting Vice-President, Governance
..
..
LINK TO FIRST MEDIA REPORT:
..
Ottawa Citizen - Academics blast university snitch line
27 comments:
it is the sign of a very pathological society when you need proprietary software to allow people to blow the whistle on unethical behavior without (so they claim) the risk of retaliation.
wat
Hello Denis,
You make some points that, if implemented, would lead to a more democratic and transparent functioning of the university. However, it is difficult to evaluate many statements you make in your post.
You do not provide sufficient documentation, many links you provide to substantiate your claims are to your own blog, often there is no sufficient context to substantiate your points, and some points, on the surface at least, seem to be wrong.
For example, what are you getting at and how do you substantiate your references to CURIE and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Information Act (the latter reference is actually wrong. It should be the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act)?
Also, regarding the Ombudsman, the "Creation of an Ombudsperson Position" was point 8 of the agenda of the most recent meeting of the Board of Governors.
I think your conclusion of 1984 is a bit premature. I'm not sure what the physics department is like where you were at, nor your university in general, but some universities are home to serious criminal activities. Often, these acts are from professors and even administrators towards students. It is already difficult enough for victims to address and seek help against serious harm. Therefore, any new avenue that would help in this regard would be welcomed by those suffering harm.
"the "Creation of an Ombudsperson Position" was point 8 of the agenda of the most recent meeting of the Board of Governors"
You confuse a not yet existent and SFUO-driven push for an internal ombudsperson with the external Ontario Ombudsman (link was provided).
On your point of helping victims, even publicly SFUO-supported and media-reported student complaints get sidetracked by the administration, as have many GSAED-supported and media-reported Policy 110 complaints, so it is difficult to see how anonymous reporting would help victims under this administration. How would this work exactly?
Personally, I find the links to the many supporting documents on the blog posts more than sufficient to support Denis' commentary in this post.
-Biased Observer
this is what campus activism is all about - exposing double-standards and injustice. what do you think of this rockourtwatch? are you going mock and make sarcastic jokes about this to, while denis is trying to make a difference? the admin is out of control.
-pm
"It is already difficult enough for victims to address and seek help against serious harm. Therefore, any new avenue that would help in this regard would be welcomed by those suffering harm."
As another commenter pointed out, the university is already sidetracking complaints made under existing policies. New avenues don't matter if they fall in the same dead end: the desk of administrators who don't care, or worse, actively contribute to humiliating students.
"You confuse a not yet existent and SFUO-driven push for an internal ombudsperson with the external Ontario Ombudsman (link was provided)."
Thank you for this information. A web search for SFUO gives me the "Student Federation of the University of Ottawa." I assume this is what you are referring to (please correct me if I am wrong). By establishing an intenal ombudsperson, do you mean that this person will be reporting to someone in the administration as an employee? For example, will the ombudsperson be under the jurisdiction of the president, vice-president academic, etc.? Or will the ombudsperson actually be from an external agency, but granted access to the university campus? And what would the role of the ombudsperson be? For example, will this role be strictly related to academic matters?
"this is what campus activism is all about - exposing double-standards and injustice. what do you think of this rockourtwatch? are you going mock and make sarcastic jokes about this to, while denis is trying to make a difference? the admin is out of control."
My understanding of rockourtwatch is not that it's sole purpose is to mock and make sarcastic jokes. Rather, I see rockourtwatch portraying Rancourt's activism motivations and methods as fundamentally indistinguishable from Rock's institutional totalitarianism, hence the Rockourt singularity.
In his post "Interpreting Means and Freire: One Revolution" on http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/, Denis' first entry in his list of reference books is Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology." Anyone who has read this book knows of the lengthy discussion advocating for activists to start using the Master's tools in order to demolish the Master's house.
This is not Orwellian in any way. This is about honesty, integrity, truth and justice at the University of Ottawa. Don't you understand that these policies are trying to help people?
Diagnostic criteria for 301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder
A. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
(1) suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
(2) is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
(3) is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
(4) reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events
(5) persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
(6) perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
(7) has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner
B. Does not occur exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia, a Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features, or another Psychotic Disorder and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.
Note: If criteria are met prior to the onset of Schizophrenia, add "Premorbid," e.g., "Paranoid Personality Disorder (Premorbid)."
"This is not Orwellian in any way. This is about honesty, integrity, truth and justice at the University of Ottawa. Don't you understand that these policies are trying to help people?"
Oops, now I get it. The university just wants everybody's good. There is no need to oversee the university's actions in any way because its motives are pure. Sorry, just needed you to straighten that out.
So there is a bit of money involved and real estate and corporate public images, etc., but no worries. Got it.
All negative media reports about the university are misguided and a waste of societal resources.
And it should not even be subjected to FIPPA, like in the good old days. OK.
Got it. Thanks.
"Anyone who has read this book knows of the lengthy discussion advocating for activists to start using the Master's tools in order to demolish the Master's house."
I resent the ideas that 'tools' belong to anyone. The Internet, for example, can be used both for hegemonic and counter-hegemonic purposes.
"Rancourt's activism motivations and methods as fundamentally indistinguishable from Rock's institutional totalitarianism"
Hellllo. If Rancourt were using the "same methods" as Rock, he would lock Rock out of his office, have him arrested for trespassing when Rock comes on campus to give his inaugural talk in the President's Lecture Series, use a team of corporate lawyers to examine all of Rock's activities (that would be interesting!), and fire him after 23 years of service for holding consultation meetings with the deans.
Or did you mean something else by "methods"?
We don't need Rancourt to gripe about this policy, which comes across to me as a badly misguided effort to accomplish something helpful. Quite a lot of professors are already working on this one (me included) and it is very unlikely to proceed. The APUO is also acting forcefully to stop it.
I wonder if Rancourt will claim to have exposed this problem even though so many of us are already working on it and the APUO responded by sending a highly unusual letter to all members directly? It's not like we didn't know about this already, Denis. Every professor in the university was contacted directly by APUO already. And a whole lot of us contacted them, our dept chairs, the Deans, etc.
Based on his past, I believe instead that Denis does this so he can persuade people who are not aware of the situation that he is taking the lead to "fight injustice". I find it ironic that in this case I agree with Denis to the extent that the policy is dreadful. There is a first time for everything. But I doubt his motives, having been burned by him so many times in the past.
More irony is that Denis, the reality-denier extraordinaire ("climate change is a conspiracy") is bitching about a BoG member having done some lobby work in the past that may have run contrary to sensible environmental conservation efforts. I guess opportunism knocked again.
"Or did you mean something else by "methods"?"
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en
/LHC/LHC-en.html
Published October 29, 2007
http://web5.uottawa.ca/admingov/policy_92.html
"Quite a lot of professors are already working on this one (me included) and it is very unlikely to proceed. The APUO is also acting forcefully to stop it."
Well that's great. You profs are really on top of things. Too late to stop however cause it already passed at the Board. It's the law... What now? Is the Board gonna amend it so its better for yous guys? What exactly are yous gonna do? What is the APUO gonna do: Write another strong letter?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/News/Academics+blast+university+snitch+line/1683275/story.html
ATTENTION PROFESSORS: you fight this policy for your own self-serving interests. You don't give a shit about students.
ATTENTION STUDENT ACTIVISTS: stop your bitching and fight back. Create your own anonymous reporting tool and start holding the executives and administrators accountable.
You want meaningful change? Fuck the SFUO and GSAED self-serving toy governments. Use student funds for one and only one purpose: a legal team. If any student gets mistreated by a prof, administrator, or executive, then sue their ass.
"You want meaningful change? Fuck the SFUO and GSAED self-serving toy governments. Use student funds for one and only one purpose: a legal team. If any student gets mistreated by a prof, administrator, or executive, then sue their ass."
There are some real geniuses out there! If only the students in the sixties had figured this out then we wouldn't be in this mess. Too bad we can't go back in time.
"ATTENTION PROFESSORS: you fight this policy for your own self-serving interests. You don't give a shit about students.
ATTENTION STUDENT ACTIVISTS: stop your bitching and fight back. Create your own anonymous reporting tool and start holding the executives and administrators accountable.
You want meaningful change? Fuck the SFUO and GSAED self-serving toy governments. Use student funds for one and only one purpose: a legal team. If any student gets mistreated by a prof, administrator, or executive, then sue their ass."
I will print this and post it on campus.
"I will print this and post it on campus."
Tidy up the grammar a bit...
...but keep the profanity...
Hey pm, it turns out rockourtwatch will mock and make sarcastic jokes about this article. They just posted a response. I kind of like the Pied Piper analogy.
http://fedforthought.blogspot.com/2009/06/im-tellen-on-yuuu.html
best suggestion of the day:
"This fun is already in place. If you're a troublemaker, go to ClearView Connects™, type in University of Ottawa as your company, and lodge a complaint of unethical behaviour about, say, acting VP Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers. Her because she's the one pimping the system to the media. I was unable to find who brought it to the BOG in the first place."
you want a example of his methods for you to compare ok lets see:
- he forcefully took a female student by her harm 3 years ago to take her out of his office.
- she filled a complaint to the union
- he never showed up. (you can check that out with the access to information act of you want)
now lets see:
he took his student of quantum mechanics and solid state class as hostages and openly admitted to try brainwashing them. By forcing them to attend class by taking attendance.
Ridiculed people with different point of views in class, in front of the others.
Told them that the complaints the student made would not do anything because he was protected.
Sued the university countless times.
and the list goes on!
so please tell me where the methods differ?
"you want a example of his methods for you to compare ok lets see:
- he forcefully took a female student by her harm 3 years ago to take her out of his office.
- she filled a complaint to the union
- he never showed up. (you can check that out with the access to information act of you want)"
Wow, that is serious. Please inform the victim that she must complain, not to the union, but to the professor's dean, or using the new snitch line. In either case, there will be a thorough investigation and lynching, guaranteed. By the way, anything you get through access of information can be made public. So please do.
"now lets see:
he took his student of quantum mechanics and solid state class as hostages and openly admitted to try brainwashing them. By forcing them to attend class by taking attendance.
Ridiculed people with different point of views in class, in front of the others.
Told them that the complaints the student made would not do anything because he was protected."
Very good but the detailed student complaints made public mostly don't really mention these things? Be specific: Student said "blah blah", prof replied "blah blah". And file a complaint, you know how bad they want to get Rancourt... so build the case and nail him. Don't be afraid.
"Sued the university countless times."
I think you mean "grieved against alleged university violations of the rules"? In that case, let the judge decide.
"and the list goes on!"
Well then, please go on. You know how much a lot of people are interested in this. Don't hold back.
"now lets see:
he took his student of quantum mechanics and solid state class as hostages and openly admitted to try brainwashing them. By forcing them to attend class by taking attendance."
That's very terrible. I hear some profs enforce attendance with grades. I hear the university regulation is 80% attendance or you cannot get your credits (it's on the web). Enforced attendance is very bad. All profs who break this rule should be celebrated and the ones who follow it and force attendance should be fired.
I hear some profs use grades to force you to do their assignments and to repeat their wisdom on exams. Now that is bad. Well at least they're not admitting to attempted brainwashing. What were his exact words? "Look into my eyes..."? or "I will brainwash you all, ha ha ha"? Please share your knowledge.
Rancourt, did you take down your online petition from academicfreedom.ca? I smell censorship...
Post a Comment