This site is devoted to transparency at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. UofOWatch exposes institutional behaviour that is not consistent with the public good.
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
THIS Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) Interim Decision shows yet another tribunal case of racism connected with "Canada's university", not previously reported in the media.
Nusrat Saleem
Applicant
-and-
The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Dean Belway, Brian Henley, Debbie Hubble and Jason Kennedy
Respondents
[1] This is an Application filed on May 7, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and creed. [2] The respondents have not filed a Response. By way of a Request for Order During Proceedings, filed July 6, 2010, they seek deferral of the Application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding. This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ Request. more...
PRESS CONFERENCE Friday April 29, 2011 11 AM Entrance rotunda, Tabaret Hall 550 Cumberland
Former School of Nursing students Anne Mpinda and Victor Ndayishimiye have each filed detailed human rights complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) against six teaching and administrative staff members at the school. They are represented by human rights lawyer Yavar Hameed.
The HRTO complaints are about racial discrimination and allege systemic discrimination, reprisals and intimidation; not unlike the recent high-profile cases in the U of O Faculty of Medicine, HERE.
The CEHR also confirms that it has received no less than twenty such similar reports from students in the School of Nursing since the fall of 2009.
The director of the CEHR, Francine Page, had sounded the alarm in 2007 and followed this with an expert report to the University in February 2010. Page was disturbed to find her concerns and report effectively ignored by the University of Ottawa, under its president Allan Rock administration.
The University propaganda touts Rock as a "defender of human rights" "putting the University at the service of the world". It would be better to put itself at the service of its students, especially those being discriminated against.
The CEHR press release comes only weeks after Allan Rock's university senate brazenly repudiated a motion to reaffirm its commitment to a discrimination-free academic environment, in an effort to prevent exactly these types of problems, HERE.
Needless to say, the Student Appeal Centre's (SAC) 2008 public report about systemic racism at the University of Ottawa, that the Rock administration took great pains to deny and defame (HERE), now echos loudly in the hollow halls of this racist institution.
On his next mission abroad, Rock could save a lot of folks a lot of pain by plainly stating: "If you're black or brown avoid applying." Or, he could start actually standing for human rights by ordering immediate reparations where reparations are due rather than fight lengthy and costly denials of the obvious -- as the University shamefully continues to do.
Update: Senate member Joseph Hickey is following up with university senate, HERE. The University of Ottawa ("Canada's university" in its propaganda) is rather unique in Canada for not having a policy against harassment and discrimination. This absence of protection has repeatedly been denounced by the SEHR and SAC of the SFUO.
Systemic racism in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, has been exposed via leaked emails and at a press conference yesterday and is national news today: Globe and Mail.
The press conference was attended by all the major radio, TV and press media in Ottawa and followed THIS press release.
In 2008 when the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the student union first publicly exposed the problem of systemic racism at the University of Ottawa, the university's response was a campaign of denigration and cover up personally managed by president Allan Rock, as seen in access to information documents obtained by the SAC (HERE and HERE and links therein).
At the Wednesday press conference in the rotunda of the central administration building, president Allan Rock - as usual for hot issues of public concern - was nowhere to be found (although he had been invited) but an eight-person university legal and public relations team was buzzing with activity.
Their mission was to develop and deliver the University spin - the optimized tactical message that would minimize the university's responsibility.
Their previous (2008) university reaction (to deny, denigrate, and cover up) was now evidently a failure.
In addition, the University was now exposed to an even greater threat than being shown to be racist: Some of its top officials in the Faculty of Medicine participated in vicious reprisal against at least one talented MD, for filing an internal human rights complaint and as a way to quell possible external complaints. In particular, see THIS leaked email:
Eve [Dr. Eve Tsai],
It is uncertain whether Al-Ghaithy et al. would take this matter further to an external body such as the Human Rights Tribunal. However, I can predict with certainty that fixing Al-Ghaithy would deter the others from doing so. I have had discussions with the Dean and Chief of Surgery and the consensus is that Al-Ghaithy must be removed. Over the last few months I have been working closely with Dr. Worthington and Dr. Bragg, and let me assure you that we are not that far. You have to appreciate here that we are dealing with a strong resident and probably the best we have, at least from an academic perspective. This together with his popularity among the residents made some of the conventional methods unsuccessful.
At the end of the day the University will not sacrifice one of its faculty members for the sake of few disgruntled out-funded residents, and I doubt it very much that the other complainants would prosecute you outside the campus in a process that is naturally protracted and financially draining.
The university's final spin solution was a damage-control compromise: Turn attention away from the grotesque malfeasance of its Faculty of Medicine officials by admitting that the allegations of racist discrimination are "very serious" and by turning attention towards the Human Rights Tribunal process: "The university feels that's the proper forum where we will speak out."
Turn attention away from the illegal reprisals practiced by Moulton and several others (Dean of Medical School, Paul Bragg Associate Dean PGME, Chief of Surgery Eric Paulin, Jim Worthington TOH VP-Medical Affairs) and towards an examination of the allegations of racist discrimination.
Brilliant! But somehow the elephant in the room may confront Allan Rock sooner than he would like. At the moment, Richard Moulton's actions are not even subject to an internal discipline investigation. He would have been in more trouble if he had given high grades to some "out-sourced" medical residents...?
Youtube videos of the press conference and its question period are being uploaded by university senator Joseph Hickey who has taken the matter to university Senate. Here is the presentation by the plaintiffs' spokesperson and co-plaintiff Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail:
Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Ms. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario complaints against the University of Ottawa and several officials.
A joint press conference will be held at 10:30am on Wednesday March 9, 2011, in the entrance rotunda of Tabaret Hall (central administration building), 550 Cumberland Ave., University of Ottawa. [FACEBOOK EVENT LINK]
Discrimination, reprisal, and intimidation are alleged on the basis of evidence filed with the Tribunal.
The evidence for reprisal and targeting is unambiguous in the form of emails between hospital executives, including emails leaked by an inside source and sent to hundreds of faculty and residents.
For example, on July 11, 2009, Chairman of Neurosurgery Richard Moulton wrote to Dr. Paul Bragg (Associate Dean PGME) and Dr. James Worthington (VP Medical Affairs of TOH) about plaintiff Dr. AlGaithy:
“If the [discrimination] complaint against [Dr. Eve Tsai] is dismissed there are going to have to be some significant consequences for the involved parties (dismissal/suspension) or we are going to be facing this ad infinitum.”
AlGaithy was summarily dismissed despite his outstanding academic and professional standing.
The March 9th press conference is organized by the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO), following the SAC’s 2008 report about systemic racism at the University of Ottawa.
- 30 -
For more information about the press conference please contact: Mireille Gervais, LL.L. Director, Student Appeal Centre, SFUO Case.cresac@sfuo.ca
[Photo: Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail and Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy]
This is part of a new video series about individual examples of ethically challenged professionals. It is intended to expose ethically challenged high-ranking officials who participated in the administrative mobbing of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt. (Background HERE.)
This clip features ethically challenged Michelle Flaherty, judge, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).
As Legal Counsel at the University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada), Michelle Flaherty oversaw a broad and illegitimate covert information gathering campaign from 2006 to 2008 against Denis Rancourt and several students, in violation of the principle of academic freedom and of established labour rules in the academic environment.
The campaign also involved student journalist Maureen Robinson, dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde, VP-Academic Robert Major and others. The present Allan Rock administration continues to cover up the campaign.
Extensive information and links to media reports are provided HERE.
Michelle Flaherty then left the University of Ottawa to become a judge at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Canada). She continues to occupy the latter position.
A detailed public report shows that the University of Ottawa practiced extensive covert surveillance against one of its professors and several students between 2006 and 2008 [LINK-Post about Report].
It is a cover up when an institution or organization, over a period of several years:
never acknowledges any of many direct questions and formal queries about the alleged wrongdoing,
continuously refuses to answer any of many questions about the alleged wrongdoing, even when required to do so by the established administrative procedures, rules, and regulations (here the Collective Agreement),
repeatedly refuses to investigate the alleged wrongdoing, despite several informal and formal requests to investigate and despite established administrative procedures, rules, and regulations to do so (here Policy 92),
refuses to accept as “arbitrable” a formal grievance (labour lawsuit) against the alleged wrongdoing and in the face of a union asking that the established grievance procedure be respected (Collective Agreement),
refuses to provide any and all documents about the alleged wrongdoing even when required to do so by access to information law,
arranges to delete or remove a sensitive and incriminating voice recording about the alleged wrongdoing,
contrives elaborate excuses for rapidly disappearing electronic records of all staff who leave the institution or organization so as not to be vulnerable to access to information requests,
contrives elaborate narratives to guard the electronic records of contract staff using the organization’s computers from access to information searches, and
uses contrived narratives in its legal representations to the access to information enforcement agency (Information and Privacy Commissioner) in order to continue denying access to all records about the alleged wrongdoing.
The University of Ottawa has done and continues to do all of the above.
The persons involved in the cover up have included:
André E. Lalonde, Dean of the Faculty of Science
Louise Pagé-Valin, former Director of Human Resources
Robert Major, former VP-Academic
Pamela Harrod, former Secretary of the University and former FIPPA Coordinator
Nathalie Des Rosiers, former acting VP-Governance and director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)
Michelle Flaherty, former Legal Counsel and vice-Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO)
In addition, President Allan Rock was in cc to formal requests for investigation and one would expect him to have been fully briefed about the matter.
Recently (see full emailstring below), science graduate student Wayne Sawtell (a victim of the University’s covert surveillance while an undergraduate) put the matter squarely to Rock and asked for a full investigation. The new VP-Governance Diane Davidson answered for Rock – the usual “no comment”.
This puts Rock and Davidson squarely in the camp of the perpetrators of the cover up.
Will public pressure eventually solve this problem? You would think that the University officials involved would want an independent investigation (including the filed labour law grievance) to clear their names of any wrongdoing and to defend academic freedom in Canada?
[E-MAIL STRING START] [Editor's emphasis in bold]
From: Wayne Sawtell <> Date: 28 January 2010 21:24 Subject: Re: FW: response requested To: "Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance - Vice-President, Governance"
That doesn't give me any reassurance the U of O adminstration isn't still spying on me. I will have graduated by the time this case makes its way through the legal channels. Meanwhile, I have to live with the Rock administration operating in a manner consistent with a corporate security state instead of fostering the kind of independent thinking that breeds true success in life.
Wayne Sawtell
On 27 January 2010 09:25, Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance - Vice-President, Governance wrote:
Dear Mr. Sawtell:
Your e-mail of January 22, 2010 to the President has been forwarded to me for reply.
The matters you raise are subject to ongoing proceedings. Unfortunately, the University cannot comment at this time.
Diane Davidson Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance / Vice-President, Governance Pavillon Tabaret 550 Cumberland (208B) Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Tel: 613-562-5950 Fax: 613-562-5178 Email: vr.gouvernance@uottawa.ca / vp.governance@uottawa.ca
From: Wayne Sawtell [mailto:] Sent: Friday January 22, 2010 10:37 PM To: Allan Rock Subject: response requested
Dear Mr. Rock,
Still awaiting a response, I am writing to remind you of the letter I sent January 6th of this year, bringing to your attention the compelling evidence that the previous administration conducted covert surveillance of a professor and student activists by hiring student Maureen Robinson to spy on them. I am sure that you deplore this kind of repressive behaviour as much as I do and will want to distance your administration from those kinds of practices. A quick and unambiguous denunciation of covert surveillance and suppression of activism would provide a fresh break from the blight these allegations have brought upon the University of Ottawa and help restore some of the damage done to its reputation. However, the international university community will not be fully satisfied until a full, independent investigation is conducted into the affair. Now is your opportunity, Mr. Rock. Do not miss it.
Sincerely yours,
Wayne Sawtell M.Sc. candidate in Biology (xxxxxxx)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wayne Sawtell <> Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:21 AM Subject: Covert surveillance at Ottawa U To: allan.rock@uottawa.ca Cc: Denis Rancourt <>, editor@thefulcrum.ca, Sean Kelly , Fulcrum News Editor , info@gsaed.ca, university@gsaed.ca
Dear Mr. Rock,
Thank you for your Dec. 4 response to my letter of Nov. 16. I appreciate the fact that you are not at liberty to comment on the substance of issues surrounding the dismissal of Denis Rancourt because of the legal implications.
I would however respectfully challenge the notion that all the required procedures were followed in this case. I should say, there was a demonstrable lack of good faith on the part of the administration, and some very dubious procedures were followed by the administration that contravene the university’s constitution and violate the collective agreement with APUO. Specifically, I am personally alarmed by the recent evidence from the university’s files (http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/reportoncovertsurveillance.html) that has come to light showing that the administration conducted covert surveillance of Professor Rancourt and activist groups on campus. There is concrete evidence that the administration engaged a student of Ottawa University to spy on Professor Rancourt and certain student activist groups and to report on her findings to the administration. Science student and then-Fulcrum news editor Maureen Robinson was used by the administration to impersonate someone else and tape record meetings, for example. I like to think that I live in a democratic country where one does not have to worry about the authorities at any level spying on people, that surveillance cameras are used for people’s protection and not to track the activities of people who disagree with corporate control over public institutions like universities. Such actions directly contradict previous statements by the administration that support student activism and even activism courses in certain faculties of the university.
I call on you as President of the university to publicly denounce such tactics and to initiate a full, independent investigation into the actions taken by the previous administration in the years leading up to the decision to dismiss Professor Rancourt. I believe it is also important and of interest to students to make the results of this investigation public.
Yours truly,
Wayne Sawtell M.Sc. candidate in Biology, xxxxxxx
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Office of the President Date: 2009/12/3 Subject: RE: appeal of dismissal To: Wayne Sawtell
Dear Mr. Sawtell,
Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns regarding the dismissal of Professor Denis Rancourt from the University of Ottawa.
While I appreciate the perspective from which you have positioned your arguments, please be assured that the Executive Committee gave careful consideration to Mr. Rancourt’s dossier before recommending dismissal with cause to the Board of Governors. Moreover, all procedures required by the collective agreement with the Association des Professeurs de l'Université d'Ottawa (APUO) were followed.
To respect confidentiality and legal obligations surrounding this matter, I cannot comment further. However, I continue to stand by the dismissal recommendation made previously this year.
Thank you once again for your interest and understanding.
Kind regards,
Allan Rock President and Vice-Chancellor
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wayne Sawtell <> Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:36 PM Subject: appeal of dismissal To: allan.rock@uottawa.ca Cc: Denis Rancourt <>
Dear President Rock,
As a an alumnus and a current graduate student in the Science Faculty at the University of Ottawa, I am writing to ask you to reconsider a major decision that you made this summer: the dismissal of Professor Denis Rancourt of the Physics Department. Dr. Rancourt made unique and valuable contributions to the university not only through teaching Physics for 20 years and performing productive, high-level research, but also through a weekly campus radio show, ‘The Train’, and a weekly documentary film series, ‘Cinema Academica’, both of which are about social and political issues of concern to everyone.
Despite mixed feelings amongst the student body and teaching faculty about the issues championed by Professor Rancourt, I believe that looking at the record from a different perspective would actually strengthen the university. I agree with Dr. Rancourt’s position that criticism of institutional behaviour is healthy and constructive even though it may sound harsh, and there is a striking lack of institutional analysis both at Canadian universities and in society in general. It seems to me that many people in the university administration and teaching staff possibly took too personally comments that Dr. Rancourt made over the past few years for the sake of enhancing learning within the university and for the sake of justice in our broader society. Therefore, the advice that you were given by others in the administration was most likely very biased.
Several initiatives that Dr. Rancourt undertook during his tenure at the University of Ottawa aimed to generate more independent thinking and activism amongst the student body. The pedagogical literature is overwhelming in pointing out that unequal power relations within the classroom pose a sever impediment to learning and critical thinking. The several courses that Professor Rancourt established, all of which were a variation on the theme of activism in work and study, were of enormous importance. As an undergraduate, I witnessed firsthand how the Science in Society course attempted to redefine the classroom setting and to set aside proven ineffective traditional teaching methods in favour of an approach led by the students themselves. SCI1101 broadened my view of the role of science and the scientific method and made me think about the impact that my work as a scientist might have in the future on power relationships among groups in Canada and abroad.
Unfortunately, before the novel approach of SCI1101 had a chance to take hold and have an effect across the entire university, the course was cancelled by the previous administration even before the two-year pilot project was completed. The course was never given a chance to be offered in French after the first year in English. This was extremely unfair to the large Francophone population of students, whom I feel form a crucial part of the university and Canadian society in general.
I also enjoyed the weekly film series, Cinema Academica that Dr. Rancourt started. I attended most weeks and participated in the discussions after the films, which were always more animated and lengthy than any discussion I have witnessed in any lecture course at the university. Furthermore, I developed an appreciation for the unique perspectives brought to the discussions by general members of the community. I feel that I derived a benefit that was more connected to wider Canadian society and that was unavailable in traditional courses at the university. This was important to me because in my program concentration there is no possibility of co-op work terms and I had therefore been lacking a connection with the wider community that teaches students how their studies are related to real-world issues.
The manner in which Professor Rancourt was dismissed also does not sit well with many people in the University of Ottawa community because a spirit of fairness and equity was not followed. Professor Rancourt filed no fewer than 24 formal grievances against the administration for a variety of unfounded actions taken against him. Fewer than one third of these many grievances have been resolved, languishing in the system for an unreasonable amount of time (some since 2007). As a lawyer, Mr. Rock, you are surely aware that the speed at which a process of justice is carried out is a crucial element of justice itself. Furthermore, the larger issue of academic freedom, which Dr. Rancourt has championed tirelessly, is still being investigated by an impartial body of three external professors who will be reporting on whether Dr. Rancourt’s academic freedom was indeed violated by the previous administration. Professor Rancourt was claiming the right of a professor to grade students in the best manner he saw fit. The university has dismissed him for his actions based on this claim, flying in the face of pedagogical research that has discredited the effectiveness of the grading system as a means of teaching students. Therefore, the dismissal of Professor Rancourt before the submission by an independent body of a report on whether his academic freedom as a professor was violated is an act that lacks legitimacy.
The Board of Governors of the university acts on the recommendations that you, Mr. Rock, as President, put on the table. By taking into account the above-mentioned processes of arbitration surrounding Dr. Rancourt’s case as well as the totality of his contributions to the university, I urge you to consider recommending to the Board the re-instatement of Denis Rancourt as a full professor of the university.
I optimistically await your reply at your earliest convenience.
Yours,
Wayne Sawtell M.Sc. candidate in Biology
[E-MAIL STRING END]
[Photo credits: University of Ottawa; Diane Davidson, Allan Rock]
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed in posts and comments are those of the posting authors. Except if otherwise stated, the views and positions of UofOWatch are those of Denis G. Rancourt, former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Obviously, links and references to cited works do not imply agreement with or endorsement of the views expressed or information in the linked postings or cited works.
