Denis Rancourt's letter to president Jacques Fremont of the University of Ottawa, Canada

This is about my own case of the University of Ottawa's egregious violations of my academic-freedom, civil and Charter rights, over many years. One rarely has the evidence of how far they can go.

This post is from my main blog, here: http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2018/02/denis-rancourts-letter-to-president.html

Academic supression in the U of O Faculty of Law: Zabo v. University of Ottawa

Zeph Zabo (left), Denis Rancourt (right), with M. Zabo's new book about his ordeal

M. Zabo was subjected to an egregious case of suppression of his academic freedom. Two external thesis evaluators accepted his PhD thesis for defence but two internal U of O law professors wanted him to write a different thesis, one about economic rather than legal analysis. Then "our" Canadian courts refused to recognize that he had a contract with the university that had formally accepted his originally planned thesis topic. Despicable case of academic abuse and legal discrimination.

I support M. Zabo's vehement quest for reparation and justice. Enough is enough. The U of O must be accountable.

Related post: Book.

Court decisions are here.

New president named to fill Allan Rock's shoes: Speech-regulation-law administrator Jacques Frémont

The next president will be: Jacques Frémont. From Allan Rock's overt Zionism to a new social engineering for speech regulation. Progress never ends.

The U of O put out its announcement today: HERE.

The media are invited to attend a ceremony on Friday: LINK.

Mr. Jacques Frémont's official U of O bio is HERE.


At first sight, the new direction could signal a coming SPEECH CODE (code of conduct) for campus...? Mr. Frémont is a champion of expressly victimless "hate speech" provisions in provincial human rights codes:

Interviewer: "Imagine the situation where... a young man who is intimidated by his classmates because he's Muslim, for example, in what way will the addition you are making to the Quebec Charter of Rights help him, will protect him?"

JF: "Technically, if it's one young man who gets intimidated because he's Muslim, that's already covered by the Charter -- you are quite right. It's when we have general statements -- general, hateful statements, inciting hatred, etc. -- where there is no particular, individual victim -- it's the group in general that is the victim -- that's what we're targeting with this addition."

National Post View: Quebec hate speech bill would re-establish bureaucratic despotism:::

The bill takes its inspiration from recommendations made public by the QHRC in November 2014. Jacques Frémont, the commission’s president, explained that he planned to use the requested powers to sue those critical of certain ideas, “people who would write against … the Islamic religion … on a website or on a Facebook page.”

Frémont is an unabashed legal activist, who sees the QHRC’s mandate as “provoking a social change” and “making the law.” ...

The details of Bill 59 are chilling. Article 6 would “give the QHRC the power to initiate legal proceedings before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal without having to wait for complaints from the public.” Article 3 allows members of an identifiable group as well as people outside the group to make complaints triggering suits for hate speech before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal.

Canada: The Spanish Inquisition Makes a Comeback:::

• Some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists were hauled before the farcical "Human Rights Commissions" of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act.
• The Commission is allowed to head out all by itself and search for things that are offensive. One must wonder whether it may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?
• The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of "hate speech" — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words.
• I am sure that Monsieur Fremont will agree that the safest thing to do is either not to report an attack on the Canadian Parliament or to ensure that all papers or individuals who mention such an attack are immediately fined $10,000 and put on the Hate-Speech-offenders list for doing so.
• The Human Rights Tribunal will be able to decide on each occasion how much money it wants. Might it not in fact be more convenient for the Tribunals if they simply put all writers on a system of direct-debit and levy the fine on absolutely everyone after any terrorist attack?
• We had hoped that the country had learned that for most of the civilized world, blasphemy laws are meant to be a thing of the past. But after the latest events in Quebec, we will no longer be fooled. The whole world will be able to see that in Canada blasphemy laws are a thing of the future.

Routine intimidation of student TAs denounced at the University of Ottawa -- media reports

Des étudiants dénoncent le harcèlement à l’Université d’Ottawa (LINK)

Students speak out about U of O ‘intimidation’ practices (LINK)

TA says she was fired for failing students (LINK)

Arbitrator Claude Foisy rules that the University of Ottawa was justified in dismissing tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt

Denis Rancourt on campus in 2007-2008, file photo: La Rotonde

The University of Ottawa's 2009 dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt has been upheld in a binding labour arbitration award released to the parties on January 28, 2014.

The full text of the 32-page decision is posted HERE (direct link to PDF file HERE).

A final paragraph in the arbitration award reads:

[105] Finally I want to note that I am in no way passing judgment on the value of Professor Rancourt’s teaching method, which calls for removing a student's stress by not grading. It may very well be that such a method of teaching results in improved learning for the Physics students. A number of researchers have written books on this teaching approach applied by Professor Rancourt. The University, however, has the right to decide and manage its institution in a manner in which students are objectively evaluated and graded comparatively one against the other. It has the right to determine that the grading method applied by its professors must conform to the general practice of universities which is the benchmark for determining the students' progression in their studies and for the attribution of bursaries and grants.

The first media report about the arbitration award is this one: Arbitrator upholds University of Ottawa’s firing of tenured professor -- Ottawa Citizen

The following report was written about the conflict by academic workplace mobbing expert Kenneth Westhues in 2009: Ottawa's dismissal of Denis Rancourt

Rancourt's 2011 description of the broader conflict is here: This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like in Canada

TV-Ontario 2009 interview with Denis Rancourt about his teaching method and grading:

 

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.

OCLA calls on U of O to end its financing of a private defamation lawsuit

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has posted a position statement on its website, entitled:

Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics
University of Ottawa must end its financing of a private defamation lawsuit  (LINK)

As part of its campaign, OCLA has written to Allan Rock (link), and to Nathalie Des Rosiers (link).

Allan Rock refuses to pay legal fees to protect academic freedom, while funding a controversial defamation lawsuit against a critic of the university

The arbitrary nature of Allan Rock's decisions regarding using the University's public moneys to fund lawsuits is highlighted by two recent cases:

(1) Search warrants against criminology university professors: LINK

(2) St. Lewis "private" defamation lawsuit against Rancourt: LINK

In addition, Rock is refusing to answer student Hazel Gashoka on whether the University will fund a new defamation lawsuit against her: LINK.

En Francais::: L'Association des libertés civiles de l'Ontario et le cas St. Lewis v. Rancourt -- reportage Radio Canada

Reportage sur le lancement d'OCLA (Association des libertés civiles de l'Ontario / Ontario Civil Liberties Association) et entrevue avec son Directeur exécutif, Joseph Hickey.

Diffusé à 12h30 jeudi, le 24 janvier, 2013 sur "Le midi trente Ontario" de Radio-Canada.

OCLA.ca

Transparency and academic freedom co-degraded at U of O -- IPC Order sets bad precedent

A recent (November 7, 2011) Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) rulings on an access request at the University of Ottawa fails on transparency and misuses academic freedom.

The ruling is critiqued HERE.

.

Canada's university presidents discover a new variety of academic freedom

Well there you have it.

The geniuses that administer our public universities have decided to re-define academic freedom without reference to the last hundred years of jurisprudence and academic workplace practice.

Why not. What the hell. Let's just make it up.

They have done this via their association -- the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). Whereas their last (1988) statement on academic freedom was palatable and consistent with reality, the new and improved version launched in 2011 is a manifesto to eliminate the concept altogether.

It is a an excretion of administratium aimed at arming executives against their critics and all those students and professors who may wish to entertain notions of collegial governance, professional independence, and intra-institutional critique.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has rightly seen fit to condemn the new AUCC policy document in an open letter, thanks to an institutional memory that goes beyond the last few years.

It's all very telling.

This means at least two things:

(1) Our "leaders" loathe academics who cherish critical scholarship and fear communities of independent thinkers; and

(2) Our "leaders" correctly judge that they can pollute the policy environment with such rubbish without risking ridicule and significant backlash, showing that academic freedom truly has been eroded.

Sad, sad, sad.

Integrating Empire relies on us being brain-dead and the educational system is the best way to achieve intellectual mindocide (ref). The presidents are just doing their job. And they will continue to do their job as long as we continue to sleep through it all.

FAIR examples of academia in trouble in our troubled times

York University fires whistleblower

York University has fired one of its key investigators who turned into a whistleblower of possible fraud at the school that eventually led to a police investigation.

Code of Silence: legal threats silence Canadians

In 2008, Les Éditions Écosociété, a tiny Montreal publishing house, released a 348-page treatise on human rights and environmental violations by Canadian mining companies overseas.

Global News Reporter's File::: State of academic freedom in Canada's capital -- video

The Press-TV Global News report of September 8, 2011 (4:30pm GMT) contained this segment about the state academic freedom in Canada, and in Canada's capital Ottawa in particular.

The Press TV video report features:

• James Turk (Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers),
• Yavar Hameed (human rights lawyer),
• Joseph Hickey (student representative on the Senate, University of Ottawa),
• Ian Bron (Managing Director, Canadians for Accountability),
• Denis Rancourt (wrongfully dismissed Full Professor with tenure, University of Ottawa), and
• activist students being wrongfully arrested for free expression on the campus of Carleton University (Ottawa).

Labour law tribunal hearings into the wrongful dismissal of Denis Rancourt are on-going and can be followed HERE.

Original Link:
Press TV Global News Reporter's File of September 8, 2011

Related posts:
Israel lobby influence at the University of Ottawa (all UofOWatch posts)

Related analysis:
The Canadian Zionism Question
All "Israel" posts at Activist Teacher blog

Natural justice as foreign concept::: U of O's dismissal of Denis Rancourt (Video)

"The employer will be relying upon post-dismissal conduct and events... first of all to support the decision to dismiss..."
-- Lynn Harnden, hired lawyer for U of O

"The state will be relying upon post-incarceration conduct of the prisoner... first of all to support the sentence of guilty..."
-- Crown prosecutor on appeal, Fascist dystopia

You decide.

This is a video extract from the first day (May 2, 2011) of binding arbitration hearings in the academic freedom case of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa, Canada.

The hearing dates are scheduled well into 2012.

Links to key relevant background are HERE.

Read THIS chronology!
.

U of O institutional independence for sale to the Israel lobby

Canadian universities have institutional independence guaranteed by a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. This independence from governments and corporations was explicitly granted to universities in order to protect the academic freedoms of its professors and students.

At the University of Ottawa this established institutional independence is used to subvert lawsuits from mistreated students, and to shield the university from sanctions related to its own violations of its professors' academic freedoms. Such is the perversion of legalese in the service of unprincipled administrations.

In addition, observers have been concerned about the influence of private corporate donations; which are never made transparently and which go into the protected slush fund known as "University of Ottawa Foundation".

This becomes of direct concern when the private donations are overtly tied to specific research chairs, to new research themes, or to newly tailored academic programs.

This is why university senate (the highest institutional authority on all academic matters) recently questioned the university administration's unilateral campaign to create a two-for-one graduate degree in law (LL.M.) and exchange program with the University of Haifa, Israel. (See all posts on this matter HERE.)

In addition to being an obvious degree inflation scheme ("two distinct LL.M. degrees after only one year of studies") -- which is becoming too common as a marketing device at the university -- the Haifa deal came with a tied scholarship thanks to "generous support" from the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation.

It was therefore the duty of senate to examine any conditions tied to the Schwartz-Reisman scholarship that might harm academic integrity and institutional independence in view of any risks to academic freedom.

The only senator to act dutifully in this matter was student senator Joseph Hickey. His senate blog posts about the administration's Haifa campaign are HERE.

Hickey's research revealed that the Haifa two-for-one degree scheme was not born of an academic need expressed by students and professors via the university's collegial governance process. Instead, it was the result of an Israel Lobby organized and funded university president's trip to Israel in 2008 (June 24th to July 1st). President Allan Rock appears to have attempted to conceal this fact by vehemently and repeatedly stating "I was not in Israel in 2008 and I have never been to Haifa, Mr. Hickey". (LINK)

Hickey today (June 17th) made public his access to information (ATI) results (LINK) showing that former president Gilles Patry was the U of O president who went to Israel in 2008 and committed to the Haifa academic program long before it could be studied by senate.

More disturbingly, after much work at senate, Hickey has obtained the Terms of Reference for the Schwartz-Reisman "generous support". Hickey has posted the document HERE.

Although the document is written in legalese, it is clear that the Schwartz-Reisman Foundation has not provided an endowment but instead has only agreed to providing year to year payments of the scholarships, that can be stopped after any given year, subject to candidate approval by the Foundation, and that in a given year must be spent such as to "adhere as closely as possible to the [unstated] spirit of the fund and to the [again unstated] Schwartz/Reisman Foundation original intent."

Hickey continues to seek the denied ATI records that would clarify "the spirit of the fund" and the "original intent" but the university seems committed to preventing this transparency. (See index of almost eighty denied ATI records HERE.)

So there you have it. It seems unlikely (guaranteed) that many Palestinian students or any students critical of Israeli policies will be found qualified to receive this scholarship. This is an overt violation of student academic freedom.

Regarding the Haifa academic program scholarship, the university administration has effectively sold its statutory responsibility (University of Ottawa Act, 1965):

"[...] to further, in accordance with Christian principles, the intellectual, spiritual, moral, physical and social development of, as well as a community spirit among its undergraduates, graduates and teaching staff, and to promote the betterment of society [...]"

"The management, discipline and control of the University shall be free from the restrictions and control of any outside body [...] shall be based upon Christian principles."

to the Schwartz-Reisman Foundation. It is difficult to see how the Foundation can be expected to administer its scholarship year to year "in accordance with Christian principles". Although I am not a scholar of Christianity, I venture that Jesus would not substantively support a state that practices economic and physical apartheid and frequently militarily slaughters unarmed civilians.

What is needed maybe is a statutory challenge. The university executives do not have the authority to subvert the University of Ottawa Act, 1965. Indeed, the executives have a duty and a responsibility to uphold the Act. Does the former Minister of Justice agree?

U of O media relations manager on academic freedom in national press

The National Post has recently quoted the new University of Ottawa manager of media relations Vincent Lamontagne at length regarding Lamontagne's vacuous views on academic freedom.

The NP article (HERE) ends this way:

University of Ottawa spokesman Vincent Lamontagne defended the school, saying the “quality of the student experience” is its No. 1 concern.

“The University of Ottawa strongly believes in academic freedom and is proud of the practical knowledge given to its students by its outstanding professors and researchers,” he wrote in an email to Postmedia News.

He said the university has established itself as a “well-renowned centre for international relations studies.

“Our professors are proven experts in international politics and encourage in-class discussions of actual political situations from all around the world.”

By "our professors" does Lamontagne mean the part-time professors that teach 60% of the courses and that the university has recently threatened with lock out (HERE)?

At the University of Ottawa it appears that the message is highly managed and that the visible expert on academic freedom is the media relations manager.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Author Jeff Schmidt on academic freedom
All UofOWatch articles on academic freedom (label = academic freedom)
UofOWatch on student satisfaction ratings (label = Macleans rating)
Part-time professors threatened with lock out

Rancourt case goes to binding arbitration on Monday May 2nd

The Allan Rock administration of the University of Ottawa fired tenured physics professor of 23 years Denis Rancourt in 2009. (LINK)

The dismissal is a major academic freedom case in Canada and is being investigated by an Independent Committee of Inquiry (ICOI) of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).

The conflict has been covered in the national (Globe and Mail, National Post, Macleans), international (New York Times) and regional media: LINK.

The University has only now accepted scheduling a binding arbitration process, following an unfair labour practice complaint by Rancourt to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). The latter OLRB action and its outcome are fully disclosed by Rancourt HERE.

The first hearing day (full day) will be Monday May 2nd (9:30 am, 130 Albert Street, Varette Board Room, Level B1).

Arbitrator: Claude H. Foisy (based in Montreal)
Union Lead Lawyer: Sean McGee, of Nelligan O'Brian Payne LLP
University Lead lawyer: Lynn Harnden, of Emond Harnden LLP
Grievor: Denis G. Rancourt

Fifteen days of hearings are foreseen, extending into 2012. The hearings are expected to be open to the public and the media.

The hearing will likely be an intense battle and it is believed that the university's first priority is that the grievor never be allowed to be reinstated.

There is a clear and unanimous commitment from the union (APUO) for Rancourt to be reinstated.

Rancourt's position is that the dismissal was unjustified, that the grading question was used as a pretext for the dismissal and that there is evidence of employer bad faith.

Rancourt will be the main witness on the union side.

For more information please contact the chair of Rancourt's support committee Professor Claude Lamontagne at claude.cde (at) gmail.com. Extensive background information is provided HERE.

Reality Check::: In the Ukraine they ELECT university presidents

It is a well kept secret in North America that in most of the rest of the world students and/or staff elect their university presidents.

In most of the rest of the world, university presidents are elected not selected.

For example, in the Ukraine the news is not that there are elections for university president but rather that the elections are alleged to have been interfered with by the government: HERE and HERE.

In Canada, not only has the problem of elections been solved (where such a concept is not even on the radar) but also the problem of institutional independence is being solved by simply naming politicians as presidents.

By comparison, virtually all of Latin America and most of Europe have elected university presidents (and also deans of faculties) and only the least democratic countries on the planet have outside politicians named to these positions.

In Canada, not only are outside former politicians installed as presidents but the university administrations do this themselves without being explicitly directed; thereby showing the highest possible level of deference to corporate influence and of disregard for institutional independence and academic freedom.

At "Canada's university" (aka University of Ottawa) this is how the president is selected: HERE.

RELATED POST:
Allan Rock's record on professional ethics

Video of president Allan Rock at work

Rock admin trashes another voice for social justice - Dr. Agnes Whitfield canned

The Rock administration of the University of Ottawa has collaborated with Carleton University in deposing the endowed Joint Chair in Women's Studies Dr. Agnes Whitfield after only one year of the position.

Dr. Whitfield had been critical of both administrations concerning how the chair was being badly administered and had asked to see the financial record of the chairship.

U of O's VP-Academic Francois Houle (of Ann Coulter fame) stated to the student newspaper (Fulcrum, September 23, 2010, issue) "The problem is that the endowment is not rich enough and the rate of interest now is so low that it cannot [properly] finance the chair."

Whose interest?

So these universities turf inconveniently outspoken professors when interest rates on endowments go down while spending hundreds of thousands collecting information to have activist students jailed and to block access to information requests using teams of corporate lawyers...

Nice.

Why not free up one campus police agent on each campus and keep the Chair in women's studies? Is that a fair question?

(U of O campus police showcasing their skills.)

Court-ordered released document shows University of Ottawa suppressing critical global climate research

(Photo: Dean of Science Dr. Andre E. Lalonde sends vehement email to quash research of AGW critic, collateral damage student. Credit: University of Ottawa.)

The University of Ottawa has a notorious record regarding access to information and protection of personal information: LINK-1, LINK-2, LINK-3, LINK-4, LINK-5, LINK-6, LINK-7, LINK-8.

In a recent access to information (ATI) case in which a graduate student sought access to his personal information, the University made sustained but failed attempts over a period of two years to subvert the ATI law of Ontario.

In the end, on August 27, 2010, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Adjudicator Diane Smith ordered the University to immediately release the last contested document (IPC Order PO-2909-I).

The student, scholarship physics graduate student and elected University Senate member Joseph Hickey, has made the entire ordeal public on the web: HERE.

The released document shows that the University had no reasonable standing to argue that the document could not be released to the claimant. The University’s efforts in this direction appear to constitute either obstruction of justice or incompetence. Two lawyers were directly involved in this apparent cover up by making formal submissions to the IPC: Former VP-Governance Pamela Harrod and present University Legal Counsel Kathryn Prud’homme.

Indeed, to block the release of the document was to hide a gross (and illegal under labour law) violation of academic freedom, a foundational principle of universities in free and democratic societies.

Under academic freedom a university administration can in no way interfere with university research. Yet the document shows the dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde sending an email to the dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Gary Slater, to two University-hired corporate lawyers Andre Champagne and Lynn Harnden, and to the then VP-Governance Pamela Harrod stating (LINK):

“Gary, Andre, Lynn, Pamela,

The Chair of Physics [Bela Joos] has evidence that is not reproduced below that indicates the student wishes to research global climate change with Professor Rancourt. The professor has no scientific expertise in this scientific field whatsoever. I am strongly opposed to letting this student initiate such a study with Professor Rancourt.

Andre”

The email also has VP-Academic Robert Major, the human resources boss Louise Page-Valin, and others in cc.

Note that Harrod was involved in BOTH the violation of academic freedom (and the student’s right to fair process without discrimination) AND the apparent attempted cover up with the IPC.

Such an intervention was unprecedented in physics professor Rancourt’s twenty-two-year academic career since:

(1) Rancourt was known for successfully changing scientific fields several times in his research career and was certified to supervise graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in both the Department of Physics and the Department of Earth Sciences.

(2) Rancourt had published (and been an invited conference speaker) in areas as diverse as nuclear spectroscopy, materials science, organic chemistry, soil science, metallurgy, magnetism, marine science, aquatic geochemistry, environmental nanoparticles, X-ray diffraction, and measurement theory, as both a theorist and a measurement scientist.

(3) Thanks to his scientific record, in 2000 Rancourt was awarded the largest Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Strategic Project Grant ever awarded at the University of Ottawa to lead a five-year project in lake environmental geochemistry and to supervise dozens of research students in the project, whereas he had never previously published in this area.

(4) Similarly, Rancourt had supervised a physics graduate research student in the area of “physics education”, having never at the time published in a peer-reviewed education journal. The physics student took courses out of faculty.

Rancourt had in February 2007 self-published (posted to the web) a damning scientific and societal/political critique of global warming science. The essay received some attention and criticism in the left media soon after its posting. His article has since catalyzed other studies and has been used in university courses.

Following this, Rancourt continued to research global warming science on his own and it was known that he had started conceiving graduate student research projects that would examine at the root the fundamental physical mechanisms behind such phenomena as an atmospheric greenhouse effect, radiative sublimation or melting of snow and ice, particulate effects on snow and ice radiation absorption, and the statistical and physical meaning of mean global temperature. (Recent articles HERE, HERE, HERE; and video interview HERE.)

In 2008 Rancourt discussed potential graduate student research projects with then undergraduate student Joseph Hickey. They agreed to work together and Mr. Hickey submitted his application accordingly, following established application procedures.

It appears that the dean’s October 2008 vehement intervention was aimed at squashing Rancourt’s research plans in the area of global climate science by barring supervisions in this area. NSERC research funds are tied to supervisions of students.

Rancourt was then in December 2008 suspended from all his supervisory duties, trespassed from campus and handcuffed and arrested while still a Full tenured professor, and ultimately fired in April 2009 under the false pretext of having arbitrarily attributed high grades in one advanced physics course in the winter semester of 2008. (LINK-1, LINK-2)

Yesterday (September 21, 2010) Rancourt sued by filing a labour law grievance against the University of Ottawa and those involved: HERE.

In a recent labour arbitration (Professor David F. Noble vs. York University, Arbitrator Russell Goodfellow, 2007) the plaintiff was awarded $2,500. for a far more tenuous and minor violation of his academic freedom: The University had emitted a press release that did not name or defame the plaintiff (according to the ruling) and that only distanced the University from certain views that the plaintiff held. In the latter case, there was no direct assault on research freedom or harm to a student.