U of O Watch mission, in the words of Foucault...

"One knows … that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class. … It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them." -- Foucault, debating Chomsky, 1971.

U of O Watch mission, in the words of Socrates...

"An education obtained with money is worse than no education at all." -- Socrates

video of president allan rock at work

Friday, June 26, 2009

U of O's Policy 92 ensures the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency for all its executives and officers


June 26, 2009
..
Nathalie Des Rosiers
VP-Governance
University of Ottawa
..
..
Re: Policy 92 disclosure of wrongdoing, university’s surveillance of professor
..
..
Dear Nathalie Des Rosiers,
..
University Policy 92 states that the VP-Governance, your office, will thoroughly investigate all allegations of wrongdoing. In this policy, “wrongdoing” means any act that is “dishonest, inappropriate or illegal.”
..
I hereby report wrongdoing by VP-Academic Robert Major. Other University officers and staff are also involved. Paragraph-16 of Policy 92 foresees that the written report of your investigation will be provided to the Board of Governors.
..
..
WRONGDOING
..
VP-Academic Robert Major and other University officers and staff practiced surveillance of two of my invited talks at other academic institutions in 2007 and 2008, while I was a full and tenured professor at the University of Ottawa. A description of evidence is given below.
..
As the officer responsible for Policy 92 investigations, you will recognise that such covert surveillance by the university is contrary to the “the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency in all of [the university’s] activities.”
..
As the designated General Counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), you will recognize that such surveillance by a corporation of one of its employees is contrary to responsible behaviour in a free and democratic society.
..
As an academic, you will recognize that such behaviour by a university is a violation of the legally established principle of academic freedom.
..
As a lawyer, you will recognize that this type of personal information gathering and use is against the law. Specifically, it is against the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) of Ontario to which universities in Ontario are bound and against the Employment Standards Act of Ontario.
..
..
ADDITIONAL WRONGDOING
..
In addition to the surveillance itself, there has been an attempt by VP-Academic Major and other officers of the University to avoid the issue. The VP-Academic and the University have not acknowledged my direct enquiries of October 16, 2008 (with the President, Secretary, and APUO in cc), and December 9, 2008 (with the President, Dean of the Faculty of Science, the APUO, the Head of Human Resources, and yourself in cc) in this matter.
..
..
EVIDENCE
..
Using Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) requests, such as my request dated August 7, 2008, I have established that the University, via Mr. Major and other offices, has used the services of a private reporter to monitor an invited academic talk I gave at the Studies in National and International Development (SNID) group at Queen’s University, some 200 km from Ottawa, on October 18, 2007.
..
The respondent FIPPA records are unambiguous regarding the act of surveillance of me.
..
The University used a private reporter a second time to monitor my invited contribution at the Association Canadienne Française pour L’Avancement des Sciences (ACFAS) conference in Quebec City, some 450 km from Ottawa, on May 7, 2008. See my FIPPA request dated May 8, 2009 (addressed to you) and the related Appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) dated June 10, 2009.
..
You have my permission to use the relevant FIPPA records respondent to my FIPPA requests and my requests in your investigation. These records are available in the office of the University’s FIPPA Coordinator.
..
..
NEED TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
..
According to my FIPPA inquiries, in the past, the email records of leaving university officials (e.g. VP David Mitchell) have not been preserved. Since VP-Academic Major is leaving the University at the end of the month and since your investigation may take some time, I ask that all of Dr. Major’s records relevant to this matter be preserved.
..

Please acknowledge receipt of the present disclosure of wrongdoing. Please confirm that your office will investigate.
..
..
Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt
..
Cc: Marc Jolicoeur, Allan Rock, Robert Major, Andre E. Lalonde, Louise Page-Valin, APUO, CAUT, CUPE 2626, SFUO, GSAED, CCLA, made public.
..
RELATED POST: 1984 coming to a campus near you
..
[photo credit: University of Ottawa; VP-Academic Robert Major]

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

* Read the policy carefully, not just the sections you like:

"13. The Vice-President, Governance, will conduct the investigation as he or she sees fit in light of the circumstances."

In other words, don't tell her how to do her job.


"9. Except as provided for under Article 11, any University staff member who becomes aware of wrongdoing..."

You are not a University staff member and cannot be subject to disciplinary action per paragraph 11:

"11. Anyone who fails to disclose wrongdoing in accordance with this Policy may be subject to disciplinary action."

So, you cannot invoke the policy. In other words, go away.


* In my opinion, surveillance of Rancourt ensures the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency.

But, if you feel otherwise, try the criminal code:


Criminal harassment

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

Punishment

(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Factors to be considered

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened

(a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or

(b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance made or entered into under the common law or a provision of this or any other Act of Parliament or of a province that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a).

Reasons

(5) Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision.


* They wont keep all of Major's records because you asked them to.

Make a (formal) FIPPA request for the records and then they have to keep them by law.

You don't learn well, do you? And you wonder why you got fired...

Anonymous said...

Do you remember the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

Anonymous said...

it is obvious to anyone who reads Policy 92 that it doesn't allow impartial (read, external) investigations of upper management of U of O.

Anonymous said...

"Read the policy carefully, not just the sections you like"

Civil liberties only for the individuals we like. Good plan legal expert. You are destined to become someone. Your hard work can only pay off.

i'm no big lawyer expert like you, but i think the policy and recent memo say the U must investigate all wrongdoing, even when the source is anonymous.

For a confirmation, see today's Fulcrum.

-notanexpert

Anonymous said...

"it is obvious to anyone who reads Policy 92 that it doesn't allow impartial (read, external) investigations of upper management of U of O."

it's obvious if you don't read it. if you read, the opposite is true.

Anonymous said...

"it is obvious to anyone who reads Policy 92 that it doesn't allow impartial (read, external) investigations of upper management of U of O."


This is correct:

"10. If the situation involves a member of the University Administrative Committee or Board of Governors, the employee who becomes aware of the wrongdoing must report it to the Disclosure Support Service."

The Administrative Committee is the President and the 5 Vice-Presidents and the Disclosure Support Service "means a third party hired by the University to receive disclosures made about any wrongdoing, as identified on the University's Website: www.uOttawa.ca/disclosure."


If you want this changed, then feel free to use Administrative Procedure 20-1 - Requests to the Board of Governors.

http://web5.uottawa.ca/admingov/procedure_20-1.html

There are civilized ways to address these things.

Anonymous said...

"Civil liberties only for the individuals we like. Good plan legal expert. You are destined to become someone. Your hard work can only pay off."

Rancourt may file a grievance, call the police, blog, etc. Where's the violation of his civil liberties?


"i'm no big lawyer expert like you, but i think the policy and recent memo say the U must investigate all wrongdoing, even when the source is anonymous.

That's right, keep commenting on legal matters without any legal knowledge.


"For a confirmation, see today's Fulcrum."

Why would I read the Fulcrum?

Rockourt Watcher said...

Rockourt, how can you do this to someone you've worked so closely with? As Allan Rock, Robert Major was your closest ally when you became university president, and this is how you repay him? These histrionics aren't fooling anyone; we all know that Denis Rancourt and Allan Rock are literally the same person.

Why do you keep hurting the people who are closest to you?

Anonymous said...

"Where's the violation of his civil liberties?"

i don't know the legal language but here goes:

surveillance of individual by employer/government/institution = breach of individual's civil rights and liberties

(fairly basic premise in a free and democratic society)

if i accept that you are contributing in good faith legal expert, then i must conclude that you are an idiot.

-notanexpert

Anonymous said...

Anonymous idiots are the worst, because there's little chance of fixing the gene pool.

Anonymous said...

"Why do you keep hurting the people who are closest to you?"

I don't think he is hurting them. I think he is helping them to grow. He wants to help those closest to him most.

http://www.changestartsathome.com/

He can't help you if your anonymous.

*lovesyouforwhoyouare

Anonymous said...

some biology profs have too much free time to waste.

Anonymous said...

"i don't know the legal language but here goes:

surveillance of individual by employer/government/institution = breach of individual's civil rights and liberties"


You have no idea what the criminal code is nor what its purpose is, do you?

Rancourt interviews, attends presentations of, and references literature of people who advocate violent activism. For example, Derrick Jensen, Ward Churchill, Errico Malatesta, Peter Gelderloos. Rancourt advocates and supports defacing property, engaging in riotous behaviours, and forcefully occupying offices.

I feel that surveillance of people like Rancourt preserves my safety to contribute to a free, democratic, and civilized society. Some might read 'service intellectual'...

The majority of people will find it hard to believe and accept as sincere the invocation of civil rights and liberties by Rancourt when he himself attacks the civil rights and liberties of those who disagree and oppose him.

You always have the opportunity to present your ideas and engage in discussion in a civilized manner. But you should also remember that in a free, democratic, and civilized society we have the right to reject your ideas and that there is a fairly basic civil right and liberty that you cannot force us to engage with you when we do not want to do so. If you do, then I have the right to invoke the criminal code against you for infringement of my civil liberty.

The criminal code, therefore, provides mechanisms by which surveillance of Rancourt is lawful.

Anonymous said...

There's few things as funny as pseudo-legal arguments of the type posted above.

But laws are not written with specific cases in mind, and they should not discriminate based on the personal beliefs of whoever they apply too.

That is, if the University could lawfully apply any surveillance to one of their employees - say, tapping their phone, not that it was necessarily done in this case - they could lawfully apply it to any other employee.

Anonymous said...

"But laws are not written with specific cases in mind,"

You ever hear of common law?


"and they should not discriminate based on the personal beliefs of whoever they apply too."

Criminal law requires two specific criteria to be met before it can be applied:

1. actus reus (the particular action citeable as a criminal offence), and

2. mens rea (the person's intention / mental element).

The law is SPECIFICALLY formulated to "discriminate based on the personal beliefs of whoever they apply too"!!! HELLO???


I'm starting to understand the motivation of the no-grades movement... I'm torn between laughing and crying.

Anonymous said...

there is a difference between belief (be it religious or political) and specific intention to commit a specific crime.

but if you can't see even those very coarse nuances there is not much hope there...

Anonymous said...

and besides, this is not even relevant.

If the university has the right to practice certain surveillance on one employee, it has the right to practice is on all employees.

Police forces can probably get mandates to exercise surveillance in specific cases. But the university is not a police force.

Anonymous said...

and besides, this is not even relevant.

If the university has the right to practice certain surveillance on one employee, it has the right to practice is on all employees.

Police forces can probably get mandates to exercise surveillance in specific cases. But the university is not a police force.

Anonymous said...

wooah, legal expert: Has you been graded in the course of developing your phenomenal knowledge of the law? (yes or no?)

I think the Latin words are frustrating your ability to think.

intentions/beliefs vs criminal acts... intent in a criminal act vs intent/opinion alone...

Try these Latin words: headus intra rectus.

Cry, laugh, whatever, but find someone to grade you urgently.

Anonymous said...

"there is a difference between belief (be it religious or political) and specific intention to commit a specific crime."

Example: the SFUO has a BBQ to protest tuition payments. Rancourt advocates and encourages, on the radio, that as part of the protest the protesters should occupy the office of a particular administrator.

Now, how serious can Rancourt's statements be taken and to what extent is he liable? Was he joking when he made those statements? Highly unlikely when you take into consideration his political beliefs that he openly admits are influenced by violent individuals.

You cannot a priori rule out the connection between a particular belief (be it religious or political) and specific intentions to commit a specific crime. What about certain religious denominations that believe in marrying and having sexual intercourse with children? What about someone who defaces a synagogue and has a swastika tattooed over his heart?

Anonymous said...

"intentions/beliefs vs criminal acts... intent in a criminal act vs intent/opinion alone..."

Canada, Ontario, Ottawa, University of Ottawa, Board of Governors, Senate, Allan Rock, Policy 92, 1984, coming to a campus near you.

Somebody definitely has headus intra rectus.

Anonymous said...

yes or no legal expert?

Anonymous said...

Do you honestly, honestly believe that Rancourt's firing or surveillance is solely due to what he may believe?

Anonymous said...

"yes or no legal expert?"

Yes.

Anonymous said...

""yes or no legal expert?"
Yes."

Please name the law school that we may spare our children and loved ones.

Anonymous said...

Don't you find it funny and amusing watching pro-Rancourt argumentations fail and then a reversion to insults and the invocation of 1984 and Zionist conspiracies and absurdities?

Should we make the game a bit more interesting and actually start quoting case law?

What if I was to tell you that I have an interest in Rancourt's case because it actually forms part of my dissertation?

Anonymous said...

Why does the "pro-Rancourt" side repeatedly engage in advancing claims with ridiculous conclusions and insinuations when it repeatedly demonstrates to the whole world unfamiliarity with intricacies of Rancourt's case and even the basic premises on which the Canadian law system operates?

Is it not possible for you to consider the "anti-Rancourt" arguments on this blog as a form of self-criticism rather than an attack?

Is the pro-Rancourt side as seen on this blog really any better than the 1984 it claims to fight?

Anonymous said...

Please name the law school that we may spare our children and loved ones.

Anonymous said...

Last time I checked anonymous blog comments do not constitute valid references for a thesis.

And most of us aren't being very serious here anyway.

Anonymous said...

"Please name the law school that we may spare our children and loved ones."

Prove yourself worthy of this knowledge.

Anonymous said...

"And most of us aren't being very serious here anyway."

Probably not. 1984 is quite a stretch...

Anonymous said...

Say an employee is sitting at their office desk not doing their job and their boss happens to walk by and see the employee not doing their job. The employee cannot be disciplined because they were "under surveillance" by their boss? yeah, right... An office space (aka a university or an open lecture) is public, there is no guise of privacy, anyone can be there to do whatever they want.
e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biNBoN2k3bU

Anonymous said...

Well, then you would have no problem if the university would put cameras/mics in all profs' offices?

Anonymous said...

"An office space is public"

yeah, unless you're president Allan Rock, and you think you can just yell "GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!" ad nauseam.

Anonymous said...

""An office space is public"

yeah, unless you're president Allan Rock, and you think you can just yell "GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!" ad nauseam."

You think anyone can just walk into say the office of the president of a bank without notice? No. However, you can have a walk-in meeting in a bank employee's public office, e.g. the bank teller. And guess what? This meeting would be "under video surveillance"! Do you object to this or the ATM cameras when you do your banking transactions? Do you think the bank employees should object to working while they are "under surveillance"?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps, the Senate objected to performing their duties under surveillance.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps, the Senate objected to performing their duties under surveillance."

No they didn't. The Senate and the Board of Governors passed policies that would video record their meetings and then those videos would be made publicly available. Full transparency.

Rancourt, how's that on-line petition working out for you? Do we still need to send an e-mail to claude.cde@gmail.com for you to censor names?

Anonymous said...

Oh, we're SOOO sorry that Rancourt is infringing your right to sign a petition under a fake name.

Maybe you should file a compaint to the human rights commission?

Anonymous said...

"No they didn't. The Senate and the Board of Governors passed policies that would video record their meetings and then those videos would be made publicly available."

A policy passed by senate does not reflect the actual views of the Senators. Besides two or three of the students, I do not think that there are any senators who wanted to be filmed.

The lack of debate during both senate and BOG meetings also indicates a detachment of belief from action on the part of the members.

Myra Hindley said...

I signed the petition but my name was removed for some reason! So did many of my friends! What gives? Do you not want our support, Rancourt?! We consider you a kindred spirit!

Anonymous said...

Myra,

I also support Rancourt.

Good for expressing your support in this way, and not waiting for the update to the petition names.

In fact, I notice this blog has more space and visibility than the petition so let loose darling.

It's good to express yourself and this is just another way that former Professor Rancourt is continuing to help the U of O community.

Every academic institution should have such a forum to allow expression of the full array of emotions related to academic matters. This prevents unhealthy buildup.

I'm certain, for example, that Professor Allain St-Amant benefited a lot from his many past contributions, as we all did. And we can all appreciate how much better it is for you when it is not anonymous.

Emotions and owning them are so important.

-happythatsomanyarebenefiting

Anonymous said...

Names were not removed (unless maybe obviously fake ones like those on RockourtWatch). They were just taken offline.

Anonymous said...

"It's good to express yourself and this is just another way that former Professor Rancourt is continuing to help the U of O community."

"Dr. Rancourt" or just "Rancourt," but not "Professor."

Out of curiosity, what percentage of the U of O community has signed the petition? You have ~1500 professors and personnel and ~40,000 students. I'm concerned that the Good News may not be reaching many of them.

Anonymous said...

Rancourt, why did you post a picture of Major in particular to accompany your reporting of Policy 92?

Anonymous said...

Robert Major is a pretty cool guy, he talks down to women and doesn't afraid of anything.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, talks down to women eh? Then he's not as bad a Denis Rancourt / Rockourt, who beats women.

Read about it here

Anonymous said...

cool story bro.

Anonymous said...

Q.: How do you verify anonymous accusations?

A.: You can't.

Adolph Eichmann said...

Ja! Ja! You can verify anonymously issued accusations. Perhaps you meant to state that one cannot prove a negative, hmmmm? Or perhaps you meant to discredit those who post anonymously through illogic I think. Hmmmmm? Of course, we do want ze names of those COWARDS who post nameless! They are zee vermin and we shall crush them under our heels! Herr Rancourt will find victory!

Vanessa said...

I used to support Denis Rancourt, but this stuff about violence towards women really turns me off. I think dragging a student from your office is totally unacceptable. If it it's not true, I'd like to hear Denis deny it, or at least give his side of the story.

If this is true, I want to take my name off his petition.

Thomas Smells said...

Emotions and owning them are so important.
Emotions and owning them are so important.
Emotions and owning them are so important.
Emotions and owning them are so important.
Emotions and owning them are so important.
Emotions and owning them are so important.

fart

Anonymous said...

You can't start an inquiry without a minimum of details, such as the time/place of the incident, inevitably disclosing, at least to the accused, who was involved.

And then the burden of the proof falls on the accuser, since as you thoughtfully point out, you can't prove a negative.

Vanessa said...

"the burden of the proof falls on the accuser."

AAAH! How many times have we heard that defense when women are abused or harassed by men who have power over them? All Denis has to say is that he didn't forcefully remove a woman from his office and I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

What's wrong with you uottawa activists? Your answer to someone saying the Denis Rancourt beats women is to say you can't prove it?

Anonymous said...

A moment of silence please. Marc Kelly just blew his brains out in a hotel room in Hull. Rest in peace, sweet prince. The world was never meant for one as beautiful as you.

Anonymous said...

Ok, suppose it's not Denis Rancourt, since he's so controversial and that blurs the essentials of the case.

Imagine it's your favorite prof X. Someone says on a blog that he has forcefully thrown a student out of his office 4 years ago. You have no idea of the identity of the student... do you have any means of verifying that claim?

Anonymous said...

"Your answer to someone saying the Denis Rancourt beats women is to say you can't prove it?"

no, the answer is that based on that blog post alone, we have no clue to determine whether it's true or not.

and I like how you generalize to "Denis Rancourt beats women", quite a stretch from what even the anonymous blog entry says.

Anonymous said...

"A moment of silence please. Marc Kelly just blew his brains out in a hotel room in Hull. Rest in peace, sweet prince. The world was never meant for one as beautiful as you."

The hate speech on this blog is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

"in a hotel room in Hull"

Marc cannot afford a hotel room in Hull. Stop lying.

Vanessa said...

"no, the answer is that based on that blog post alone, we have no clue to determine whether it's true or not."

OMG! You're totally missing the point. We don't have to determine whether or not it's true based on that blog post alone. Here's an easy way to determine whether or not it's true:

A hypothetical exchange.

Q: Denis, did you really drag a student out of your office by her arm?

A: No, it's a vicious lie.

I for one would take Denis's word for it, if he was only willing to address it. He's been very articulate about defending himself from all the other accusations against him. What gives?

I for one would expect my favorite professor to care enough to deny this kind of accusation. BTW, my favorite professor is a SHE not a HE, and would never drag a student out of her office by her arm.

Women everyone have to know that no man has a right to control them using force. Zero tolerance!

Anonymous said...

Well someone should ask him and post the response. DGR never answers comments on this blog, as you probably realized by now.

Anonymous said...

DGR doesn't respond to posts because he's scared to get into arguments he can't win. Since he's dumber than everyone who's against him!

true

Ian Brady said...

"The hate speech on this blog is disgusting."

BWAHAHAHAHA delicious isn't it? I find it delightful. And to know that the weak, such as yourself, have such low thresholds for disgust really makes me laugh. Now please, choke on something.

Anonymous said...

"The hate speech on this blog is disgusting."

Anarchy 101. It's for everyone, not just the intellectuals.

Anonymous said...

Please answer my question, what percentage of the U of O community has signed the petition to reinstate Rancourt?

Anonymous said...

There is no "strength" in publishing death threats on the Internet under a pseudonym.

Indeed, people who are of a strong enough character would not need rules and, even under a hypothetical state of anarchy, would not resort to these kinds of comments.

Anonymous said...

There's no death threats in any of the comments, dipshit.

Anonymous said...

"Please answer my question, what percentage of the U of O community has signed the petition to reinstate Rancourt?"

- Just before the on-line petition was taken off-line, it appeared that the number of signatures plateaued around 1200. But let's assume that people then began e-mailing claude.cde@gmail.com to add their names to the petition, so that the number of on-line signatures is actually about 3000.

- Now, let us estimate the pen-and-paper petitions gathered at events to be approximately 3000 (the actual number of signatures scanned and posted on academicfreedom.ca number 420. I'll give Rancourt the benefit of the doubt that he's really busy to scan in the rest of the signatures.).

- Then, let us give all the advantage possible to Rancourt and say that there is a total of 35,000 students + professors + personnel.

- Let us also assume that all signatures collected were from the U of O community.

- Then, the upper limit for the percentage of the U of O community that signed the petition to reinstate Rancourt is about 6000/35000*100 = 17%.

Certainly a tenured professor of 22 years can get more than 17% support from his own community in a clear-cut case of a politically-motivated firing?!?!?!

But, unfortunately for him, the real number of U of O supporters may only be about 1%. But, some may argue that in His days, Jesus wasn't quite that popular either.

Anonymous said...

"Indeed, people who are of a strong enough character would not need rules and, even under a hypothetical state of anarchy, would not resort to these kinds of comments."

You didn't finish the sentence!:

"because those who have strong enough character would subdue those who have weak character from making such comments." --Anarchy101

Anonymous said...

"Certainly a tenured professor of 22 years can get more than 17% support from his own community in a clear-cut case of a politically-motivated firing?!?!?!"

hm, can you give, say, one example where 17% of a community supported the reinstatement of a fired professor?

just one...

Clyde said...

What would it matter either way, the petition was open to everyone in the world with internet access, not just U of O people. Given such parameters, Rancor should have to collect an astronomical number of names for his stupid petition to be taken seriously.

I suspect the number of proud losers (i.e., avowed anti-semites like Arthur Topham, and 21st century IWW members) who signed the petition outnumbers signees from Rancourt's actual community.