Read Allan Rock's mail to Stephane Emard-Chabot -- access to information documents made public

Student's Eye-View has published a large cache of University of Ottawa emails between president Allan Rock and his then chief-of-staff Stephane Emard-Chabot: LINK.

The university vigorously opposed transparency. The disclosure follows two Orders of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario in an on-going appeal (link).

Here are snippets from the 318 pages that were ordered disclosed to date:

"I was wondering whether you might be in a position to contribute a modest sum from your 'secret fund' to our extended international human rights series."
--Roland Paris (research chair, and "Global Ethics Fellow") to Allan Rock (record 192)

In this email to Allan Rock, then VP-Academic Francois Houle is pissed at Rock for not trusting his capacity in his functions as VP-Academic:

"Allan, ce mémo détaillé (avec des CC a tous les membres du CA), tout comme celui sur le VRA international, et le fait que tu penses qu'il était important pour toi de communiquer avec Britta apres qu'elle eu décliné l'offre que je lui avait faite m'amenent a m'interroger sur ton niveau de confiance envers mes capacites a remplir le poste de vice-recteur aux études. On devrait en reparler a ton retour de vacances. Francois" (record 87)

(That provides some insight into possibly the true reason that Houle suddenly resigned using a rather unbelievable pretext -- Rock did not trust his ability further than he could throw an overweight dean. Ann Coulter fallout?)

This is how Allan Rock explains to his chief-of-staff why he wants a 10-minute meeting with the Chair of the Board of Governors:

"It is to bring him into the picture about the CAPEA project. [...] We won't commit to that of course without Board approval. But in the meantime, we are spending $585,000 in incremental costs up to September 1 to prepare plans for 5 stories instead of 3 stories. It is that expense that we are incurring as a matter of management authority, but for my own comfort I want the Board Chair to be aware. If we find the $19 million in additional financing, of course, the $585,000 will have been well spent and not a penny wasted." (record 257)

(Sounds like rubber-stamping heaven to me -- Management authority to spend more than half a million to study a project that has not been considered or approved by the Board...?)

Christian Detellier suddenly departs after a single term as second boss man at U of O

The July 8, 2015, uOttawa Gazette announced after-the-fact that Christian Detellier's mandate as VP-Academic (second in command below Allan Rock) ended on June 30, 2015: LINK.

Allan Rock will have seen four (4) different second boss mans during his watch: Robert Major, Francois Houle, Christian Detellier, and whoever Rock will name next.

This is the second unannounced sudden departure of a VP-Academic under Rock. Houle was suddenly paid out in mid-mandate over a dispute about the institution's bilingualism, and following the Ann Coulter media fiasco in which Rock hid the truth that he had asked Houle to write the controversial letter of threat to Coulter, until everything was disclosed via access to information as reported by the National Post.

The VP-Academic position tends to be the only position in which Rock can't simply parachute someone in from outside the institution, as he has hand picked everyone.

Detellier's sudden departure, without a search for a new VP-Academic having been announced prior to the departure, follows a June 9th CBC News report that Christian Detellier may have been unfair to students: LINK.

Detellier said: "I have research grants and contracts, including an NSERC Discovery grant, until July 2017, when I will retire." (Gazette)

In any case, word in the halls has it that Detellier was not particularly on top of things, and that the real doer was his chief of staff Ms. Rachel Ouellette.

Waaaa -- Habitual dishonesty -- Turns out Allan Rock did it again -- based on the Globe & Mail article of today

With the hockey team distributed-discipline machination this time...

Remember when Allan Rock let VP-Academic Francois Houle take all the heat for a letter he instructed Houle to write to Ann Coulter (LINK)? That was something. Took him weeks to come out and admit it, after it was disclosed through access to information...

Well now the national media are reporting that Rock's "independent report" about the hockey team was (not just a disingenuous public-image maneuver as students claimed but) actually a covert preemptive tactic against anticipated lawsuits.

There you have it. Hockey team members participated in good faith in what they thought was an independent investigation, which was actually the work of Rock's hired lawyers preempting any legitimate legal action that those same hockey players might need to take to repair the damages caused by Rock.

Then that so-called "independent investigation" was used to punish the entire team but without disclosing the report to them. That's a good educational example to give: "Take that and now go and ponder why I punished you!"

The Globe & Mail reported today -- "University of Ottawa hockey team probe was part of legal strategy":

Last June, university president Allan Rock told a news conference that independent investigator Steven Gaon had delivered a report. Rock said the university fired hockey coach Real Paiement based on the finding he did not inform school officials about the Thunder Bay incident.

In a subsequent letter to The Globe and Mail, Rock said the investigation also “disclosed widespread behaviour that was disreputable and unbecoming of representatives of uOttawa and suggested an unhealthy climate surrounding the team.”

Gaon was actually hired and directed by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, which in turn had been retained by the university.

“Norton Rose Fulbright … retained an independent investigator to probe the facts underlying the allegations, in order to be in a position to give legal advice to the university on potential legal claims arising from the men’s hockey team matter,” the firm said in a submission to Ontario’s Information Commissioner in December.

The Canadian Press lodged a complaint with the commissioner’s office after the university refused to release any part of the investigation’s findings under the province’s freedom of information law.

In May, Gaon delivered not one, but two reports – one about allegations of sexual misconduct and the other on excessive drinking. Those reports were also prepared “for use in giving legal advice,” according to university lawyer David Bolger.

The university said in a June press release that Gaon’s findings would not be published “to avoid any interference with the ongoing police investigation and out of respect for the university’s privacy obligations.”

But in its submissions to the information commissioner, the university cites as its primary concern the fact that the records are considered legal advice.

Disclaimer: The statements herein about Allan Rock's "habitual dishonesty" are not statements of fact. The said Allan Rock's dishonesty has never been proven and is solely my opinion. These are my opinions based on the cited media and blog reports, and the public knowledge reported therein.

Carleton University and the University of Ottawa are the worst universities in Canada for free expression -- JCCF 2013 Report

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) released its annual report "The State of campus Free Speech in 2013" (the "2013 Report") on September 24, 2013. JCCF President John Carpay presented the report and its key findings at a public press conference held in Ottawa last night, at the National Archives of Canada building on Wellington Street.

Out of 45 public universities in Canada studied, Carleton University and the University of Ottawa stand out in the 2013 Report as the two worst universities in Canada for free expression (see JCCF News Release).

The individual assessment about the University of Ottawa is on pages 173-180 of the 251-page 2013 Report. The main incidents described in the 2013 Report and which led to the U of O's failing grade (F) for its practices relevant to free expression are:

• the 2010 Ann Coulter fiasco managed behind the scenes by Allan Rock (link) (link)
• the 2009 banning by the Rock administration of a student Israeli Apartheid Week poster (link)
• the 2008 Rock administration's refusal to continue hosting Cinema Politica on campus (link)
• the 2007 administration's interferences with Canadian Friends of Burma campus event (link)

The grading criteria used were objective and are explained in the 2013 Report.

The 2013 Report also points to a plethora of regressive U of O university policies affecting free expression, for which a grade of "D" was attributed.

The student union at U of O (the SFUO) obtained a grade of "D" but was not cited as one of the worst student unions in Canada.

U of O "2 for 1 law degrees" scam was not approved by university Senate

THIS press release was posted today by the University of Ottawa.

Highlights are as follows:

"... students will receive two Masters in Laws degrees ... This exciting dual degree program provides students with the rare opportunity to obtain two distinct LL.M. degrees after only one year of studies ... The University Ottawa - University of Haifa program is generously supported by the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation ... Additionally, the program affords students unfamiliar with Israel an opportunity to experience the country first-hand ..." (emphasis added)

As historic background, readers of UofOWatch will recall:

"In July 2008 the media reported that Allan Rock participated in a trip to Israel “partly financed by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA)”, along with five other Canadian university presidents. The media reported that Mr. Rock’s visit “yielded immediate results” as “the University of Ottawa agreed to launch an exchange program in law.” After a few months in office, President Allan Rock announced his plan in October 2008 for the University of Ottawa. This plan included what he calls putting “Canada’s University in the service of the World”. In explaining it to students on October 24, 2008, he talked about exchange programs. When one student asked if Palestinian students would be allowed to participate in the exchange programs with Israel, Mr. Rock stated that he could not answer that." [see Endnote-3 HERE]

Today's U of O press release is entitled "U of O - U of Haifa New Joint Masters in Law Program".

All new academic programs and all changes to existing academic programs are required by law (University of Ottawa Act, 1965) to be approved by the university Senate, the highest university governing body on all academic matters.

Today at university Senate, student Senate member Joseph Hickey pointed out that this new 2 for 1 masters in law program has never been discussed or approved by Senate.

Senators refused to second his motion to add this urgent matter to the agenda, despite Hickey's explanation that the authority of Senate in academic matters was being circumvented and that the public was being misinformed.

[Student applications for the funded 2 for 1 deal ($10 thousand bursary per student) are only being received until March 1st (before the next Senate meeting), to start in September 2011.]

President Allan Rock stated "No one knows what you are talking about Mr. Hickey."

Later in the Senate meeting, dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Gary Slater clarified that the new joint venture announced in the press release was "not an [academic] program".

In addition, the reported Schwartz-Reisman Foundation "generous support" is the second significant private donation disclosed by the university since in 2009 Allan Rock promised a university policy of "donor recognition" before any more donations were accepted and then never produced a policy... [see HERE and HERE]

On Ann Coulter [see background HERE], Rock "clarified" today at Senate that his statements were "not a commitment".

I guess this means that his show panels on corporatization and his 2009 statements that a donor policy would be immediately developed were also "not a commitment". Fluff? Noise? Smoke and mirrors?

Most importantly, the authority of the university Senate to approve and legally certify academic programs has been at best circumvented in this special case and at worst rendered meaningless.

Like the proverbial boiling frog, only one Senator noticed.

This raises many unanswered questions:

• Who will be the first students to benefit from this unprecedented "2 for 1" degrees deal, and get paid doing it?

• Will they view Israel in a positive light? [HERE, HERE, HERE] Will their required research papers address Israel's ongoing Geneva Conventions violations?
  

• If university Senate doesn't need to approve such scams, then who guarantees academic standards?

• Did Haifa's university Senate discuss and approve this venture?

• Will Ontario's Ministry of Education allow this?

• Will Senator Joseph Hickey seek a judicial review?

UPDATES

Feb.8-2011:

• The university has changed the application deadline from March 1st to May 1st: HERE.
• The university has removed the media release from its list: HERE.
• yayaCanada reports: "U of O hijacked by Israel"

Feb.11-2011:

• University changes its posted press release to remove the word "program" in the title and in six places including in quoted statements by dean Bruce Feldthusen and by research chair Michael Geist. No mention is made of the change.
  

Found hiding under a Rock::: More on Coulter saga -- from Student's Eye View

.

Heeey Missster Rock, if you saaaaays tings at Senate den dat means you gotta do it...

Dear President Allan Rock,

You made a commitment at the April 12, 2010 meeting of the Senate to initiate a broad community discussion on freedom of expression, following the controversy arising from your letter of March 2010 to American political commentator Ann Coulter.

In your words:

“As we look forward, one such alternative is for us to engage our university community in an open discussion of these matters to work toward a consensus of our shared expectations when it comes to Freedom of Expression, and how to communicate those expectations to people visiting our university … If we can agree that there is a collective view at the University of Ottawa about the principles and responsibilities that underlie free speech, we can, for example, explore the creation of a statement of principles that we can all adopt by consensus, and that might reflect what we believe.”

After eight months of inaction on this commitment, I motioned this week to bring the matter before the University of Ottawa Senate at the upcoming meeting on February 7. On February 3, you responded (below) that it is your position now that the matter was closed and completed as of the May 2010 meeting.

Mr. Rock, the antithesis between your statements and your actions since then is remarkable:

• When did you and the Senate “engage our university community in an open discussion of these matters”?

• When and how did “we” “work toward a consensus of our shared expectations when it comes to Freedom of Expression”?

• What did “we” decide about “how to communicate those expectations to people visiting our university”?

• What are the “expectations”?

• What progress has been made on our “statement of principles that we can all adopt by consensus”?

Your detailed proposal at Senate was accepted by consensus on April 12, 2010 (you have explained the meaning of “consensus” in Senate procedure). Either the Senate follows through to instruct the administration on actuation of this item, or tables and adopts a motion to remove the item, or the Senate has been degraded to a meaningless shadow of its statutory self.

A cynic might complain that one can expect to see these sorts of empty promises in federal politics, but even a cynic would agree that university Senate is not intended to be a political instrument – it is by law the highest authority on academic matters at the university.

I fear that if we do not act, there is a significant risk that the University of Ottawa Senate will become no more than a shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the academic world.

Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey

B.Sc. (Hon., Summa Cum Laude), University of Ottawa
M.Sc. candidate, University of Ottawa
Elected representative for graduate students in the Sciences and Engineering, University of Ottawa Senate

[Source: A Student's-Eye View.]

See all posts about the U of O Ann Coulter - Allan Rock saga: HERE.

Allan Rock on Ann Coulter - New access to information report released

.

A new report based on 138 emails via University of Ottawa president Allan Rock's office about Ann Coulter has been released HERE.

The report suggests that former Liberal heavyweight Loyd Axworthy may have played a significant role in the U of O Rock-Coulter affair.

The text of the second letter that Allan Rock wanted to send to Coulter is revealed in the report and it is shown that Rock was motivated to write the second letter by a desire to minimize his legal liability following an email from associate professor of law Amir Attaran.

The preamble of the report states:

This blow by blow account provides an incisive picture of the executive crew of a modern Canadian university which will be of interest to all stakeholders that must deal with these institutions of "higher learning."

A student reviewer of the report said:

"The prez is more concerned with covering his ass and controlling his playground than he is about principles or education etc. It cuts Rock down to size from superstar to petty, mean-spirited, and panicking. It vaporizes his rhetoric. He looks totally out of place in academia. Profs have been sacked for the kind of academic fraud he's up to. The report contrasts what the University is meant to be to show how Rock doesn't have a clue."

RELATED POSTS:
URL of the new report: Allan Rock on Ann Coulter
All UofOWatch articles about the Ann Coulter affair
UofOWatch "list of Allan Rock lies"
"Ethically challenged" Allan Rock U of O mistake was avoidable

Allan Rock leadership questioned - National Post

"For a former head of the Law Society of Upper Canada to have such a false concept of fundamental political rights is appalling. Indeed, it casts doubt on his ability to lead a university."
-- National Post, July 2, 2010.

RELATED POSTS:
UofOWatch list of Allan Rock lies
Short history of ethically challenged Allan Rock

Background articles on Rock-Houle-Coulter U of O fiasco

Allan Rock is a moose - National Post

"Worse yet is that Mr. Rock fudged when initially questioned about the letter. He stated that “it was sent with my knowledge” – when the truth is it was sent at his instigation. When it blew up into a controversy, he let Mr. Houle take the brunt of the heat. Talk about the boss hiding behind his staff."
--National Post

Part of a pattern when one is "ethically challenged" (LINK).

True face of the Rock administration - Ann Coulter ATI fallout hits the news

UofOWatch readers will recall that we followed the March 2010 U of O Rock-Houle-Coulter fiasco in some detail: See THIS series of posts.

Well the Canadian media made an access to information (ATI) request under the Ontario FIPPA legislation and the results hit the news today: HERE and HERE.

Here is an example of Mr. Allan Rock in action, leading "Canada's university". Rock to VP-Academic Francois Houle on March 18th:

"Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon... She is 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind'."

"She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times."

Oh la la, nice example of respectful and measured administrative conduct for our students. According to his own account, Rock affirms all of this to be based only on a quick web search, having had no previous knowledge of Coulter (see Senate video).

It appears Mr. Rock is a quick and self-assured judge of character (and intelligence) and that he has extraordinary faith in the web as an unsubstantiated source of information. No verification was needed. (We note that dean of science Andre E. Lalonde has similar abilities for psychological evaluations on the fly, LINK, LINK.)

Rock casts Coulter in this light (presumably because Houle can't use Google or make up his own mind?) in instructing Houle to write their idiotic letter.

"You, Francois, as Provost, should write immediately to Coulter informing her of our domestic laws. ... You should urge her to respect that Canadian tradition as she enjoys the privilege of her visit."

A sure way to protect freedom of speech... In this light, the now famous resulting letter is no longer surprising.

What is most surprising on the face of it, however, is that Rock, an experienced statesman and lawyer, approved the letter and found it "excellent":

"Quel excellent message! Merci et felicitations. I am sure she has never been dressed down so elegantly in her life!"

It's like Rock wanted to jab Coulter. He seems to know a lot about Coulter's life for having only briefly visited her on the web. Also, this account is contrary to Rock's claim at Senate that he "recognized when he approved the letter that such a letter sent only to certain speakers could represent discrimination and could have a chilling effect on a potential speaker" (see HERE).

The letter ended up being the University of Ottawa's worst image and reputation catastrophe in its history, with print, radio and TV echos on several continents (LINK).

All too reminiscent of the string of blunders that ended Rock's political career - see short history HERE.

It is also revealed that Rock hid out from the media and from his public responsibilities using the communication director's advice as an excuse:

"I think that you should stay under the radar for the next weeks especially attending events where there is media."

"I am going to follow Andree's advice," explained Rock.

Yet another blunder. The media rightfully blasted Rock for "crawl[ing] under one" (LINK).

In conclusion, the U of O Rock-Houle-Coulter fiasco now appears to primarily have been of Rock's making.

What emerges is an unflattering picture of a failed and ethically challenged politician (LINK) who appears to have used Houle as a cover to send a bomb of a letter to a speaker he decided he despised and then to have used his communication director's advice as a pretext to hide from the mess.
.

Coulter aftermath: Allan Rock "comes clean" three weeks later

THIS video and THIS media report establish the official blame sharing scheme worked out at the University of Ottawa some three weeks after the canceled Ann Coulter event:

1. Allan Rock alleges to have pre-approved the boobanesque Francois Houle letter to Coulter, as the official institutional response to her planned visit.
2. Allan Rock alleges to have recognized when he approved the letter that such a letter sent only to certain speakers could represent discrimination and could have a chilling effect on a potential speaker.
3. Allan Rock alleges that he refused to accept the student union request to ban the Coulter talk from campus based entirely on his responsibility to defend free speech.
4. Allan Rock continues to allege that the University of Ottawa has always been and without exception a vigorous defender of free speech.
5. Allan Rock proposes that the U of O now needs to develop a consensus policy of freedom of expression?
   

[We are not making this shit up. He wants an institutional consensus view about freedom of expression. Watch the VIDEO.]

There you have it, in five-point format. No sophistry or contradictions in them there words. That should wrap it up nicely. Try taking me to the human rights tribunal now. Took away your bang didn't I? "I did it." "The institution is wise and pure." "I did it." "You have to go after me, not just Franky."

Meanwhile, Franky Houle sat beside his boss and did not utter a peep (see VIDEO). Now we know what it means when a VP signs a letter at the U of O.

Rock's CEO career ambitions and professional reputation are over if he continues to take U of O down the tubes as he is doing, so it was time for him to take some hits in an attempt to salvage the wreckage. Historians are already penning the sequence of consecutive professional fiascoes:

• Gun registry cost overshoot by $1B
• $2M of taxpayer cash paid to Brian Mulroney for no known reason
• Tainted blood victim discrimination
• Canadian UN position on Israel
• Intimidation of student politicians, banning of student poster
  
• Police-state style persecution of student Marc Kelly
• Cover up of an extensive on-campus covert surveillance campaign
• Trashing of a major school's reputation internationally
  

Maybe some people just aren't meant to have responsibilities beyond student government?

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock lied about freedom of expression at U of O
All UofOWatch posts about Ann Coulter matter
All UofOWatch posts about Marc Kelly
All UofOWatch posts about covert surveillance and cover up
Rock corporatization of U of O (in a bad way)

Canadian Civil Liberties Association chief Nathalie Des Rosiers will not bite the hand that feeds her

There you have it! (Alternative LINK to VIDEO) (Video also available on youTube LINK)

Canadian Civil Liberties Association chief Nathalie Des Rosiers responds to the Ann Coulter fiasco at the University of Ottawa:

She excuses the university administration by suggesting that Coulter's crew needlessly canceled the Ottawa event to generate publicity and then suggests that the obvious answer to these freedom of expression student demonstrations of differing opinions on campuses is MORE POLICE.

We kid you not - watch the video!

With civil liberties bosses like that you don't need authoritarian university presidents or anything. Just increase the police budgets and take on more insurance policies.

Maybe it's just us but we feel that there is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest when the chief of a national civil liberties association has her salary paid by a major university and allows herself to make media commentary on an international freedom of expression scandal involving the said university and its chief administrators...

And when that civil liberties association decides to not formally reprimand the university administration as it has done in writing in the recent past in a less high-profile case under the previous chief whose salary was not paid by the said university...

Maybe its just us?

Because despite a media frenzy like Canadian academia has not previously seen no journalist has pointed to the surprisingly weak and apologetic public musings of the chief of the Canadian Cicil Liberties Association (CCLA) regarding the University of Ottawa Allan Rock administration's violations of a university's defining principle of free speech (HERE).

No journalists have been struck by this anomaly enough to "follow the money" and ask who pays Nathalie Des Rosiers' salary?

After all, the Rock administration has been rightly and formally severely criticized for its behaviour in this matter by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) (HERE) and was severely and formally criticized by Des Rosiers' predecessor concerning its last (2009) media-reported violation of civil liberties on campus (HERE).

Even Rock's traditional Ottawa media ally (The Ottawa Citizen) has laid the blame squarely at president Allan Rock's feet in rather unflattering terms (HERE and HERE). But the CCLA has seen no reason to write to Rock to come to the defense of academic freedom and civil rights in the highest profile case of this nature in recent Canadian academic history?

Nathalie Des Rosiers retained her Full Professorship at the University of Ottawa and her University of Ottawa salary (at $173,583.36 per year, 2008 salary) when she accepted the position as head of the CCLA in July 2009.

Rex Murphy tears the U of O a new asshole

Yup, here is the video clip from CBC's The National: LINK-TO-VIDEO.

What could the Allan Rock administration do for the U of O that is worse than degrading the school's reputation to this degree across all print, radio, and TV media in the country?

From gun registry accounting, to tainted blood reparations, to giving Brian Mulroney two million dollars of taxpayer money, to reversing Canada's position on Palestine at the UN... and now this wholesale destruction at "Canada's university"...

Time for the Board of Governors to consider letting Allan Rock go?

Time to go again? It's in the hands of the Board.

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock's direct involvement in the Coulter matter
All posts about Ann Coulter at the U of O

All posts about Allan Rock's work at the U of O

CAUT to U of O: Franky is a boob - Rock administration needs to apologize

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has written THIS LETTER to University of Ottawa Vice-President Academic Francois Houle, in the matter of the Coulter scandal at the U of O.

In a PREVIOUS POST we suggested that the U of O's VP-Academic was a genius for intervening to protect decency on campus. This suggestion has been unambiguously contradicted by freedom of expression lawyer Douglas Christie (HERE), by the General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) (HERE), and now, we discover, by the CAUT also (HERE).


Looks like only President Allan Rock does not agree that Houle's move was a violation of the fundamental mission of a university - but we have established that Rock was being a spat disingenuous (HERE).

Funny how the CCLA has not written Rock a formal letter about this matter asking him to do better than his shameful press release...? Could THIS be the reason?

Barring Rock, therefore, the right, the left, and the center, agree: Franky is a boob, judging from his first considered public intervention in his new functions as VP-Academic. Only the brightest and fittest serve in the newly formed Rock executive team?

The CAUT has asked for reparation:

"We feel you owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the University strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values."

Will the Rock administration do the right thing? Or will it stick to its shameful and disingenuous press release? (SEE HERE)

How much longer do U of O students need to wait before the administration stops acting like an image-managing political party and starts spontaneously and authentically recognizing and repairing its mistakes? How much longer does the reputation of the University of Ottawa need to be dragged in the mud by an autocratic and detached administration?

The right is racist, the left is stupid, and Allan Rock lied

Ann Coulter madness brings out the truth in people

Following the Ann Coulter fiasco at the University of Ottawa (see extensive national and local media coverage) the institution stooped into damage control mode by practicing the opposite of open discourse and transparency: It put out a PRESS RELEASE that ends

"Please note that this is the University of Ottawa’s official statement and no further comments will be issued."

In the press release President Allan Rock is quoted as:

“Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University.

So Allan Rock said that the university has always promoted freedom of expression.

Let us examine if this is true.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is of the firm professional opinion that this is not true.

In fact, the CCLA wrote directly to Allan Rock on February 26, 2009, to EXPRESS "deep concern" that the University of Ottawa had actuated "a radical departure from the traditional mission of the university" by banning a student poster and asked Allan Rock that this "be rectified:"

"Specifically, we urge you to reverse the ban of the poster, as well as issue a public statement reassuring students that they will not face official sanction or discipline for expressing highly controvertial political views."

Allan Rock did not comply with the request.

Fast forward to the present. On March 24th the new General Counsel of the same CCLA (and Full Professor at the University of Ottawa) Nathalie Des Rosiers is quoted in the Globe and Mail as making these statements in response to the Rock administration's LETTER to Coulter from VP-Academic Francois Houle:

Civil libertarians decried the University of Ottawa’s treatment of Ms. Coulter, saying it’s out of line for an educational institution to be telling people to watch their words.
“It could be interpreted as an attempt to curtail speech,” said Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Des Rosiers (unless misquoted) went on to defame Coulter:

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to warn speakers. Regardless of how bigoted and terrible a speaker she is, she’s entitled to freedom of expression and Canadians have a right to hear her views.”

Now on the question of who is more able to recognize a breach in promoting free expression, we can safely go with a national civil liberties association rather than with a former politician who was not known for his good judgment. We conclude that the University of Ottawa has NOT always promoted freedom of expression.

Furthermore, since the CCLA letter of 2009 was addressed directly to Mr. Rock and since Mr. Rock's communication department reads every major media article about the U of O and promptly informs Mr. Rock, we must conclude that Mr. Rock knew that the the University of Ottawa has NOT always promoted freedom of expression.

Since, lying involves both falsehood and intent, and since it is generally known and accepted that Mr. Rock does not suffer from dementia, we can conclude that Mr. Rock lied when he said "Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted."

We conclude that Allan Rock lied.

The next logical question is the question of motive. It would appear that Mr. Rock sees his job as protecting the reputation of the University of Ottawa, and therefore his own reputation, even if this involves lying.

This example suggests that it is not illogical to ask how often University of Ottawa press releases contain lies and what those lies are meant to accomplish.

Breaking UPDATE: Houle - Genius or idiocy at U of O?

Contrary to the PREVIOUS POST suggesting genius, freedom of expression lawyer Douglas Christie suggests that

"stupidity ... is well underway at the University of Ottawa."

In his own words:



and some vintage material (from the Canadian TV show Crossfire) on this "complex" question of freedom of speech:



In any case, it seems the concept of freedom of speech is also too complex for the highly educated administration of the University of Ottawa and for the University's elected student representatives...

It's Oooooofficial: The new VP-Academic at U of O is a genius!

You thought the last one was a number huh: LINK-1, LINK-2, LINK-3.

That was former University of Ottawa VP-Academic Robert Major.

Meet the new University of Ottawa VP-Academic named under President Allan Rock: His name is Francois Houle and he is a genius.

Here is the proof.

VP-Academic Francois Houle sent THIS EMAIL to Ann Coulter; basically threatening Coulter with criminal charges for a speech she has not yet given. Coulter will deliver a talk at "Canada's university" tomorrow, Tuesday March 23rd.

This is perfect. That way Coulter is informed about Canadian law and the benefits of freedom of speech all in one tactful message.

And as a side bonus, "Canada's university" gets loads of free media publicity:

National Post
Ottawa Citizen
Globe and Mail
National Post again
CBC...

Nice job Rock team!

[Note that Houle's boss may well have encouraged the youngin on this brilliant path to censorship: LINK?]