Allan Rock is lucky to dodge this bullet, for the suspension decision was an unjust and irrational response to the known facts--National Post

FULL COMMENT
Barbara Kay, National Post
July 15, 2015

... As a case in point, you may recall that in 2014, when two players from the University of Ottawa hockey team were charged with one count of sexual assault each while partying during a trip to Thunder Bay, the whole team was suspended and the rest of their season cancelled. Twenty-four team members, who had nothing to do with the incriminating sexual incidents, are seeking a combined $6 million for damage to their reputations.

The U of Ottawa sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, but an Ontario court has just found that the suit’s claims that the school was negligent are admissible for trial, and also found the decision to suspend the hockey team was outside the university’s broad discretion to manage academic affairs.

The proposed suit would have charged U of Ottawa president Allan Rock with malfeasance in public office, but the court ruled the charge was not sustainable. Rock is lucky to dodge this bullet, for the suspension decision is down to him in the end, and it was an unjust and irrational response to the known facts surrounding the sexual incidents. ...

Use the labels below to find all related blogposts.

Alan Rock has had a long career of dodging "ethically challenged" bullets, both in parliament and on campus. See partial and not-up-to-date list HERE.

Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Orders U of O to provide an access decision

In a ruling released on October 22, 2012, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario has ordered the University of Ottawa to provide an access decision, which the University sought to avoid by claiming that the requester of the information was acting maliciously: LINK TO IPC ORDER.

The University had its access to information officer swear an affidavit that she was required to work long hours of overtime because of the requester's many requests over the years. The University also said that one time the requester cancelled a cheque and did not pay the access fee, and that the requester was misrepresenting the IPC in blog articles critical of the IPC, and that the University staff feared for their safety, and so on.

Adjudicator Haly did not accept the University's arguments, and concluded her ruling as follows (below). She also stated that if unspecified "aspects of the appellant's [requester's] behaviour ... were to continue" then this could possibly provide a basis for a future University claim (to avoid access pursuant to the law).

[60] I adopt the approach set out by the Senior Adjudicator for the present appeal. The appellant has provided the purpose behind his request which is the subject of this appeal. I find his reasons to be reasonable and I find that his request is not for a purpose other than to obtain access. Accordingly, I find that the university has not established section 5.1(b).

[61] In summary, I find that section 10(1)(b) of the Act and section 5.1 of Regulation 460 do not apply to the appellant’s request that is the subject of the appeal. While I have found that the university has not, in this appeal, established that the appellant is frivolous and vexatious, I have found that there are aspects of the appellant’s behavior, that if were to continue, could form the basis of another claim by the university.

ORDER:
1. I do not uphold the university’s decision that the appellant’s request is frivolous and vexatious.
2. I order the university to issue an access decision regarding the request, in accordance with sections 26, 28 and 29 of the Act, treating the date of this order as the date of the request, and without recourse to a time extension under section 27.

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.

University Senate member decries alleged malfeasance at the University of Ottawa -- Three latest posts at Student-s-Eye-View

One of the few University of Ottawa senate members to consistently practice collegial governance by opposing the president Allan Rock "executive rule" era is physics graduate student Joseph Hickey.

Hickey documents his efforts to impose ethical behaviour on the Rock administration on his blog about senate: "A Student's-Eye View".

His three latest (September 11, 2011) blog posts are particularly hard hitting:::

• Lawyer Richard Dearden attacks Self-represented Witness: Case of St. Lewis v. Rancourt

• Canada-wide study of Anti-racism policies points finger at university Administration

• Diane Davidson bars student Senator from VP Resources Selection Committee

Executive rule v. collegial governance... It's like there is too much stuff...! More bloggers are needed.

U of O students::: What can you do about this? -- Malfeasance in Medicine

Dear students of the University of Ottawa:

I am in the process of sending the following message to each and every staff member of the University of Ottawa, 5000 professors, administrators, technicians, etc.

I am asking your professors to stand up for what is right when an obvious and serious malfeasance occurs in academia, on our very own campus.

I ask that you also consider what you can do individually or in groups to right this wrong... Ask your professors if they got the email yet and how they are considering responding... Imagine if this happened to you after you graduate.

Let's fix the big obvious things we can.

HERE IS THE MESSAGE I'M SENDING:

Dear colleagues of the University of Ottawa:

Maybe you have seen the recent national and regional news reports about the U of O Faculty of Medicine firings of three talented medical doctors?

Such as this Globe and Mail article:
LINK-G&M

And these two major Ottawa-Citizen stories:
LINK-OC-1
LINK-OC-2

This is a very disturbing situation where administrative malfeasance is apparent in documented emails and where doctors were fired as reprisals for making complaints.

The malfeasance is so evident and so extreme in this case that it damages the public trust.
The specific incidences of malfeasance are also morally condemnable.
And it has produced unacceptable damage to at least three of our colleagues.

I therefore urge you to consider how you can personally contribute to pressuring or convincing the Allan Rock administration to repair the situation immediately rather than to use the protracted tribunal and court cases as a pretext to not act, and thereby effectively condone the administrative actions.

As background, here are critical blog reports (and video reports) that I have posted about this horrific situation:
LINK-blog-1
LINK-blog-2
LINK-blog-3

Some of the leaked emails are posted here:
http://academicfreedom.ca/doctors/

I hope that you will be able to act individually and as groups to pressure the administration of our university, that seems intent on inaction in the face of prima facie malfeasance.

I understand that the academic implications of this matter are going to be discussed at the next meeting of university Senate.

Please contact me if you wish more information or to discuss this situation.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.
University of Ottawa alumnus
Former physics professor, University of Ottawa

Did Allan Rock lie to the Board of Governors on April 27th?

University of Ottawa president Allan Rock has publicly used the recent global financial crisis as an excuse for the administration's initially projected coming yearly deficit of 25M$, while refusing to provide details about its projection.

This was critically challenged in the media on April 15, 2010 (Citizen article HERE).

Only following the latter media report did president Rock respond on April 17th - to the media rather than to the university employee unions and student associations - with a revised deficit projection of 19M$, without any explanation of the 6M$ loss (Citizen response HERE).

Then on April 27, 2010, at a university Board of Governors meeting scheduled to approve a tuition fee increase, Chairman of the Board Marc Jolicoeur introduced Rock as "our Rector" and asked him to provide the context for the tuition fee increases.

In answer, Rock stated the projected deficit of 25M$ as a key element.

That's right. The media gets a revised 19M$ while the Board that rules on approving budgets gets a 25M$ figure as part of the foundational context it receives in order to make an "informed" decision...?

See video of the full April 27, 2010, Board meeting HERE.

This was too much for former Teacher Assistant union (CUPE, Local 2626) president now graduate student association executive Sean Kelly to take. At the break in the April 27th Board meeting, Kelly confronted Rock and explained that the president ("our Rector") had lied. Kelly has since made this public on CHUO 89.1 FM.

Only on return from the break in the April 27th Board meeting and minutes before the final vote did Rock acknowledge Kelly's criticism and correct the projected deficit number, while explaining that "this was not just something that Allan Rock and [VP-Resources] Victor Simon made up".

To lie is to knowingly make a false or deliberately misleading statement.

The U of O president was asked to respond to Mr. Kelly's allegation for the present blog report and did not acknowledge the request.

This Board episode and the entire "financial crisis" fabrication appear to add to the thesis first advanced in the mainstream media that Mr. Rock is "ethically challenged." Something the Board should seriously consider investigating... Some of the background research has already been done (HERE).

Liberal bashing season is on: U of O crimes finally get reported

In choosing its latest president (SEE HERE), the U of O has made itself home to a failed politician who was ethically challenged, who had bungled most major media-reported dossiers to cross his desk, who now appears to be in the pocket of outside interests, and who wants to spend more time out "in the world" than on campus.

That former politician was a Liberal and he has made the school an instrument of Liberal propaganda. As a result, he has exposed the school to severe and sustained conservative media criticism of "Canada's university" - as he likes to call the University of Ottawa.

Ever since the Coulter fiasco for which Allan Rock was responsible (according to his own late admission), CanWest has gone after Mr. Rock and the reputation of the University of Ottawa. This suggests a federal election battle in the near future.

HERE is the latest example in the second national newspaper of corporate Canada. It is a hummer of a well structured beating from hell.

That's bad for Rock but it's good for the university (and it's good for Burma). It's good for the university because the criticism is well deserved and is a criticism of malfeasance by the university's corporate executives. It's good for the university because it's true. It's good for the university because it pushes its bosses to clean up their act.

The Rock administration's response has been to spin and to cover up.

Not good. Allan Rock needs to learn to shorten the time between public exposure and apology, not lengthen it. Beyond that, Allan Rock needs to clean this up: An independent public inquiry into covert surveillance at the U of O is past due, way past due.

Mister Rock needs to stop the cover up. He could start by removing his illegal refusal to receive a labour law grievance about THIS covert surveillance and its cover up.

For all the background in this sordid affair of the Rock administration see HERE.

What was Mr. Rock thinking?

Frank Appleyard and Allan Rock

In the months leading to the University’s political dismissal of former physics professor Denis Rancourt on March 31, 2009, Frank Appleyard was editor of The Fulcrum and he produced an exceedingly negative and contrived editorial report (using student commentary) about Rancourt. This “editorial” was used inappropriately by the University as one of only two negative media pieces linked to one of its press releases about Rancourt (only several weeks later did the University add four more links to media items to its press release originally posted on February 6, 2009).

Following this unethical action by the University, Frank Appleyard had the following email exchange on the matter with a third party in February 2009:

• THIRD PARTY: I just wanted to make sure that you saw the U of O Statement on Rancourt linking to the Fulcrum: [link]. The admin is giving you a big high five!
  

• APPLEYARD: Yeah, I saw that yesterday. I love the fact that my column's presence is incredibly out of context in that piece. I have my own opinions about Rancourt and his struggles, but Im a little disappointed the admin would try to pass off my column as something akin to news coverage of him. Anyway. Unfortunate...
  

• THIRD PARTY: Yeah, unfortunate for sure. And it's also quite a scandal (and irresponsible, and libelous) that the U of O would include your piece in the way they did. Have you considered writing about this? I think its essential and respect that we all have different views on Rancourt. I predict most will agree; the U of O pulling a stunt like this in reaction to a Globe and Mail article is shameful.
  

• APPLEYARD: I contemplated writing about it, but at the end of the day newspapers aren't supposed to write about themselves or the people involved with them. It's kind of a convention among papers, as it comes off looking self-serving and biased. So, I don't think we'll write about it. I would encourage you to tell La Rotonde about it though. I think students should know what they did. But, I am displeased and I'm planning to send a letter to media relations about it. Also, have you seen the New York Times article about Rancourt?
  

• THIRD PARTY: [link to Globe and Mail article] I continue to think that you need to write about how the administration has used your piece. This would not be self serving - it is simply campus news. The Fulcrum is a part of campus - you are obviously an important player. Use that power efficiently.
  

[End of exchange – Appleyard never responded beyond this point]

The Fulcrum editorial also gave Frank Appleyard special status as representing “the other side” as a rare campus member who agreed to speak negatively on the matter: He was interviewed on national radio (CBC’s The Current) to present a critical view of Rancourt (during his term as Fulcrum Editor). All these events occurred in the winter 2009 semester.

The recent FPS-Ombudsman’s interim report (LINK) and subsequent email revelations from Frank Appleyard (LINK, end of file) established that following the winter 2009 semester Frank Appleyard was hired to work in the office of University President Allan Rock for the summer of 2009 while he retained the position of Business Manager of The Fulcrum. The latter is a violation of the FPS Constitution.

Mr. Appleyard does not see a problem with this and feels that he was hired on the basis of “merit”, not as a reward for his “editorial support.”

Surely Allan Rock on the other hand, as a former member of the same Liberal Party of Canada that succumbed to the sponsorship scandal, must recognize that to have hired a student editor under these circumstances can only hurt the public image and reputation of the academic institution that he is charged to protect and guide following the highest principles of ethics and professional conduct?

What was Mr. Rock thinking?



[Note: This is an extract from a recently posted First Supplementary Report about UofOgate.]

RELATED LINKS:
Canadians for Accountability publish report on UofOgate
All the background and recent reports on UofOgate
UofOWatch posts about the cover up

UofOgate: New VP-Governance Diane Davidson and President Allan Rock join in the cover up

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].

The U of O also mounted a cover up which has been strengthened and extended under the Rock administration [LINK-Report] [LINK-Formal request for investigation]. See media reports HERE.

It is a cover up when an institution or organization, over a period of several years:

1. never acknowledges any of many direct questions and formal queries about the alleged wrongdoing,
2. 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),
3. 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),
4. 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),
5. refuses to provide any and all documents about the alleged wrongdoing even when required to do so by access to information law,
6. arranges to delete or remove a sensitive and incriminating voice recording about the alleged wrongdoing,
7. 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,
8. contrives elaborate narratives to guard the electronic records of contract staff using the organization’s computers from access to information searches, and
9. 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 email string 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]

Crown drops criminal charges against student Marc Kelly - University loses face

The power of a public letter - again...

On October 19th 2009 the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO) wrote a public LETTER to former federal Minister of Justice and now university president Allan Rock which in no uncertain terms instructed the University to back off. The SAC asked Rock to instruct University Legal Counsel to petition the Crown in favour of physics-mathematics student Marc Kelly.

The University had urged the Ottawa Police to arrest Kelly at a December 1st 2008 meeting of university Senate because some Senate members did not want to be video taped by Kelly. False charges were laid and the University cooperated with the Crown to prosecute the student to the fullest extent of its power.

An undertaking was imposed under duress that banned the registered student from campus. Breaches of the undertaking when the student participated in his study program and in campus activities (such as registering for courses) were monitored by campus police and sent to Ottawa Police to have the student further arrested and served with seven additional criminal charges. This was seen as a pressure tactic to intimidate Kelly to abandone his right to a trial of the Senate charges.

The SAC letter broke the standoff. The University Legal Counsel Alain Roussy had stated that it would be unethical for him to intervene on behalf of Kelly but it appears that he or his office did just that when instructed to do so by Rock.

As a result the Crown formally dropped the Senate charges today in court explaining, after 12 months of playing hard ball and many court appearances and legal fees, that "since it would take four days of trial to prove [its] case", it decided that "there is no public interest in maintaining the charges". Ahumm?

In addition, the Crown explained that, having been contacted by the University, it was prepared to offer that the seven additional criminal charges also be dropped in exchange for a Peace Bond in which Kelly would sign that he agrees to "keep the peace" for 12 months. Kelly responded that he wished the additional charges to be stayed by the court. Another court date was scheduled for two weeks later.

Also, the Crown immediately dropped the campus restrictions on Kelly who has been allowed back on campus since last Friday. The forcefully imposed undertakings are off.

Kelly has done nothing but keep the peace and be a responsible and politically engaged citizen. It is the University that called the Ottawa Police into its Senate to have Kelly cuffed and dragged off while the student's colleagues vehemently protested.

It's nice to see the University walk away with its tail between its legs in a case such as this one. But it is shameful that it can command this kind of cooperation from Police and Crown in its political repression.


RELATED LINKS
SAC-SFUO letter to Rock
Math student between a Rock and a hard place
Call for the resignation of Nathalie Des Rosiers
Previous public letter result at U of O
University of Ottawa and the courts - political repression (CANWEST article)

Call for the resignation of Nathalie Des Rosiers from the CCLA

RECENT DEVELOPMENT: Des Rosiers' answer in 2010, LINK.


Dear Nathalie Des Rosiers (and CCLA Board members):

I write in a matter of capital importance. I write to ask that you resign from your position as General Counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). Failing that, I hereby ask that the CCLA Board of Directors and its executive investigate this matter in view of requesting your resignation. I am prepared to cooperate with this investigation.

In your recent capacity as VP-Governance/Secretary at the University of Ottawa under the administration of President Allan Rock you participated in and allowed some of the most egregious violations of civil liberties seen in recent decades in the academic context.

Each of the items listed below constitutes a fatal flaw of judgment and action (or inaction) on your part that should preclude your contributions to the respected Canadian organization that is the CCLA. A professional of your calibre and influence cannot on the one hand participate in civil liberties violations in her professional functions and on the other hand occupy a volunteer directorship of a civil rights organization. Otherwise the cause of civil rights and liberties in Canada is harmed and the credibility of the CCLA is diminished.

(1) POLITICAL FIRING OF A TENURED PROFESSOR WITHOUT DUE PROCESS

You participated in person (with the Dean and the VP-Academic), on December 10, 2008, in what amounted to summarily firing a tenured professor without ever being heard by a committee of his peers and without due process. The reason alleged by the university (attributing high grades irrespective of student academic performance), even if it were true (which it is not), is in contravention of the UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel adopted by Canada and established norms in the university workplace.

My dismissal and conflicts with the university are being investigated by an Independent Committee of Inquiry of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT); but your inside knowledge and knowledge of the law are such that you should not required an independent investigation to know that my civil and professional and academic freedom rights were being violated by the Rock administration. My public statement in this regard is posted here:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/component/content/article/25.html

(2) BANNING AND TRESPASSING A TENURED PROFESSOR FROM CAMPUS

You participated in person (with the Dean and the VP-Academic) in the university’s banning of me from campus on December 10, 2008, while I was a full and tenured professor at the university, again in contravention of the UNESCO Recommendation and established norms in the academic environment. You continued to enforce the ban despite my reasoned appeals to you:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/Data/Documents/DGRtoCCLA-2FEB2009-NDR-exchanges-002487.pdf

Among other things, this led to my handcuffing and arrest for trespass when I attended the weekly social issues film and discussion series that I ran for several years. (Those charges were dropped by the Prosecutor in Court.) It also separated me from my six graduate students and barred me from the campus radio station where I have produced and hosted a social justice show for many years, which has been critical of the university administration.

(3) POLITICAL REPRESSION OF A STUDENT

You negotiated an agreement for several months with student Marc Kelly, a known student activist and student politician, only to have the university change the agreement at the last hour before the start of fall 2009 classes to include not previously mentioned clauses that indefinitely trespassed the student from campus and that barred the student from applying to the school for graduate studies or any other program. The University’s mistreatment of and political discrimination against student Marc Kelly, including your contribution, were recently publicly denounced by the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO):
http://uofoappeals.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-and-why-university-of-ottawa-got.html
… as has been reported in the student media (both main newspapers and radio).

(4) POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED CENSORSHIP OF STUDENT POSTER

You allowed the Rock administration to ban a poster about Israeli Apartheid Week, while you were VP-Governance. Surely, a strong voice from a university VP concerned about civil liberties would have been enough for the Rock administration to come to its senses on this high profile question of great public concern? You were a member of the executive that enforced this poster ban which was strongly condemned by the CCLA that you now represent. Did you intervene? Did you resign your post in protest? How can one reconcile your inaction from a position of influence on this issue with the CCLA’s strong stance on the same issue? The CCLA’s public position on this issue is expressed in a public letter to President Rock here:
http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/2009-02-26-letter-to-ottawa1.pdf

(5) IMPLEMENTING A REQUIRED SNITCH-LINE FOR ALL UNIVERSITY STAFF

On June 9, 2009, as VP-Governance, you sent a memo to all University of Ottawa staff informing them that the university was implementing an electronic snitch-line system for required anonymous reporting of “any incidents of wrongdoing,” where these reports would be sent “directly to the Office of the VP-Governance” (your office):
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2009/06/1984-is-coming-to-campus-near-you.html

After staff outcry against and media coverage of such a regressive practice that directly targets civil rights in the academic workplace, you withdrew the implementation of this policy:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/nathalie-des-rosiers-explains-policy-92.html

(6) REFUSAL TO INVESTIGATE OR DENOUNCE THE COVERT SURVEILLANCE OF A PROFESSOR’S POLITICAL AND ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES

On June 26, 2009, I sent you (and posted) an open letter requesting that you follow university Policy 92 that you (as VP-Governance) were responsible to enforce, by investigating, as required by the policy, serious incidents of wrongdoing involving unprecedented university violations of civil liberties on a Canadian campus:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2009/06/u-of-os-policy-92-ensures-highest.html

The incidents were cases where documents obtained by access to information (FIPPA) showed that the university administration has hired reporters to prepare and analyse transcripts of my talks given at other universities.

You never acknowledged or replied to my June 26, 2009, request; nor has the university ever responded to my many questions (supported by documentary evidence) about its extensive surveillance of me. Were you instructed by the President to not respond? Did you investigate the matter? Did you ask to be informed? Why did you not respond to my letter?

(7) IRRESPONSIBILITY OR ETHICAL MISCONDUCT?

On November 26, 2008, you sent me a letter, responding for President Allan Rock, relating to an incident of unannounced lockout from my laboratory, and I responded to President Rock on November 27, 2008. See both communications here:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/Data/Documents/DGRtoAR-NDR-27NOV2008-lies-about-foot-in-door-004141.pdf

In your letter you made false statements and concocted a false accusation against me. The accusation is so absurd (and is contradicted by eye witnesses, police presence, detailed video evidence, and a media report with picture) that at best it leaves one with the impression that you simply wrote what you were told or selected from what you were told (in this case an accusation of criminally doing harm to a person) without questioning the facts or the motives for such a tale. At worst this puts you at the centre of serious ethical misconduct.

(8) PUTTING THE RULING AHEAD OF THE TRIAL

On March 10, 2009, as VP-Governance and speaking for President Allan Rock and the University, you answered the February 24, 2009, letter from the Graduate Student Association of the University of Ottawa (GSAED) protesting the university’s political firing of me. See both letters in this PDF file:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/Data/Documents/NDRtoFedC-10MAR2009-on-DGR-001556.pdf

In your answer, you made claims against me that were more damning then even the Dean’s unjustified allegations against me that were at the time actively under investigation by the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors, including: that I attributed grades irrespective of the value of student work, that I had committed academic fraud, that I practiced a conscious disregard for collegial decision-making, and that I did not treat all students with respect in their quest for knowledge and excellence.

Does it seem to you in standing with civil rights for the University to make such statements to a student association while a formal investigation is underway and before my formal Supplementary Brief in the matter had even been submitted? It appears from your letter that the University made the decision to dismiss me before the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors met to make the decision and before this body had studied all the documents. Why did your concern for civil liberties not prevent you from participating in even the appearance of such a mockery of justice? (Not to mention that the entire matter has both not yet been arbitrated and is under independent inquiry.)



I have previously alerted the CCLA to some of these matters (e.g., email with attachments to former CCLA General Counsel Alan Borovoy dated February 2, 2009, with student media and you in cc):
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/Data/Documents/DGRtoCCLA-2FEB2009-NDR-exchanges-002487.pdf
I did not receive any replies from the CCLA. Please inform me of the fate of my previous communications to the CCLA.

I ask that the CCLA or you inform me about your decision regarding resignation by November 25th.

Sincerely,

Denis Rancourt
(Former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa)

Cc:
Marc Kelly

Cc:
CAUT-ICOI, APUO, SAC-SFUO, GSAED, Democracy Watch, FAIR Canada, media

Cc: All CCLA staff –
Abby Deshman, Graeme Norton, Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Danielle S. McLaughlin, Christian Pearce, Caitlin Smith, Donna Gilmour, Johanna Grönberg, A. Alan Borovoy

Cc: All CCLA-BOD executives and members –
Marsha Hanen, Jamie Cameron, Susan Cooper, Giséle Côté-Harper, Michael de Pencier, Marlys Edwardh, Edward L. Greenspan, Patricia Jackson, John D. McCamus, Delia Opekokew, The Hon. Howard Pawley, Kenneth P. Swan, Dr. Joseph Wong, Sydney Goldenberg, Elaine Slater, Frank Addario, The Hon. Warren Allmand, Bromley Armstrong, The Hon. Ronald Atkey, Frédéric Bachand, Joseph Boyden, The Hon. Edward Broadbent, Leah Casselman, The Hon. Saul Cherniack, Dominique Clément, Jane Cobden, Michael Conner, Dr. Debby Copes, David Cronenberg, Fernand Daoust, Brian A. F. Edy, Susan Eng, Mel Finkelstein, Robert Fulford, Vicki Gabereau, The Hon. Constance R. Glube, Katherine Govier, Louis Greenspan, Hussein Hamdani, Shirley Heafey, Harish Jain, Mahmud Jamal, Janet Keeping, Joy Kogawa, Anne La Forest, Cyril Levitt, Andrew Lokan, A. Wayne Mackay, Ken Mandzuik, Jon Oliver, Penelope Rowe, Paul Schabas, Marvin Schiff, David Schneiderman, Eric L. Teed, Walter Thompson, The Very Rev. Lois Wilson

[photo credit: CCLA; Nathalie Des Rosiers]

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
Author calls on CCLA to repudiate...

On Rock's corporatization of campus governance

The University's President Allan Rock has boasted to student media about his role as CEO of the corporation that is the University of Ottawa. He stated that this was his first posting as CEO of a corporation and that he took setting up his new executive team as an important challenge...

The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in the October 28, 2009, issue of the student newspaper The Fulcrum.


On the important question of corporatization

THE ROCK ADMINISTRATION has initiated and is hosting panel discussions on corporatization of the university, in view of presenting a policy on corporate donors in the coming weeks (HERE!). Free world bosses and their propagandists have learned that it is more effective to give the illusion of an open discussion than to disallow discussion.

What is important about Rock’s corporatization panels is what is not said. The best way to control discussion is to define its terms, by de facto excluding the real questions. What is not said is that the overarching problem of campus corporatization is a university executive that adopts a corporate-style management ethos in which the president is the CEO of Corporate U, the VPs are his executive officers, and the Senate and BOG are manipulated and directed by executive committees that make the meeting agendas, pre-determine priorities, and delimitate the discussions.

The latter is opposite to the text and spirit of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965, in which the executive officers are servants of the Senate (for academic matters) and BOG (for financial and resource matters), named only to provide efficient administration, not direction. Corporate executive takeover is a hijacking – whether it is in a profit-defined corporation which serves its executive class rather than its shareholders or on a campus in a public-service corporation where collegial governance is decapitated.

All the other problems of campus corporatization follow from the latter takeover: Ego service to other corporate executives, using the institution for broader projects (corporate collaborations) than its original mission to serve citizens and community, integration into a corporate-run economy, legitimization of external corporate and geopolitical projects, etc.

Today’s corporatization under the Rock era at U of O is exactly the corporatization that Mario Savio denounced on the Sproul Hall steps at Berkely on December 2, 1964 (Google “Mario Savio YouTube”). This Berkely Free Speech Movement (denounced by the student union of the time) and many movements like it were followed by decades of activism and legal precedents that established the legal principle of collegial governance on North American campuses and led to the United Nations UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, 1997, adopted by Canada.

Now the pendulum is swinging back towards a corporate management world in which students sell their freedom and their souls for a place on the management team. Go team go.

Denis Rancourt
Former U of O physics professor

[photo credit: University of Ottawa; CEO Allan Rock]

Related LINKS:
March 2011 update: "Donor policy" a Rock farce
All UofOWatch articles about corporatization
John McMurtry on university corporatization

The power of a public letter - Feldthusen on rape case

At 11:53AM graduate student in law Mireille Gervais wrote an open letter demanding that former VP and dean of the Faculty of Law (University of Ottawa) Bruce Feldthusen retract his statements recently reported in the media. See Gervais’ email below.
..
At 3:01PM Feldthusen made a public retraction. See Feldthusen’s email below.
..
Feldthusen appears to be claiming that he provided his opinion on current legal practice to a reporter without inquiring or being informed about the context of the reporter’s interest. The reporter would have then concocted the piece that clearly has Feldthusen commenting on the violent rape case in question: LINK to media article.
..
It appears that either Feldhusen is misrepresenting his interview with the reporter or that the reporter (Ottawa Citizen, CanWest) is rather creative in her transmission of the facts: “Much of the university's statement of defence is standard legal language, said Bruce Feldthusen, dean of law at the University of Ottawa …” (LINK to media article.)
..
In the latter case, we can trust that Citizen Publisher Jim Orban (and BOG member, University of Ottawa) will make any needed corrections to in-house journalistic practice and to the public record.
..
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; Bruce Feldthusen.]
..
..
From: Mireille Gervais
Sent: August 12, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Bruce Feldthusen
Cc: roseann_runte[at]carleton.ca; Allan Rock; jorban[at]thecitizen.canwest.com; wrc[at]sfuo.ca; womyns_centre[at]cusaonline.com
..
Subject: Faculty of Law Dean Feldthusen must retract legitimization of rape victim blaming
..
Ottawa
August 12, 2009
..
Bruce Feldthusen
Dean
Faculty of Common Law
University of Ottawa
..
RE: Your Comments In Ottawa Citizen Article on Carleton University Rape Victim Lawsuit
..
Dean Feldthusen,
..
You were cited in a Saturday August 8, 2009, Ottawa Citizen article (Carleton Accused of ‘Victim Blaming’) regarding your opinions on the lawsuit involving the brutal August 2007 campus rape of a female student at Carleton University. Carleton University’s statement of defense claims that the victim failed to keep a ‘proper lookout’ and that the victim did not take sufficient steps to ensure her own safety.
..
You were quoted as saying “pleadings are pleadings, and everybody is obligated to overstate their case at the pleadings stage.” Contrary to your inexcusable position, when a woman is attacked and raped while in her workspace on a university campus, her face smashed to the floor repeatedly necessitating serious medical attention, to blame her for not having kept the ‘proper lookout’ is not to overstate a defense, it is victim blaming in a most vile form and a shameful attempt at making women responsible for rape.
..
You go on to state that “there's a case, I think, where the legal culture is just a little different from what people think.” This type of elitist logic cannot be justified in our legalistic world where so few can afford legal representation. If the legal culture is one where it is legitimate to fabricate arguments in a way that reinforces the worst sexist stereotypes and assigns the blame for violent attacks squarely on the victims, then there is something profoundly wrong with the legal profession as you profess it.
..
As both an alumnus of and a graduate student at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, I am outraged that an official from the University would attempt to pass off Carleton University’s pleadings as normal, healthy, and ethical.
..
In light of the seriousness of the circumstances, I believe that at the very least a retraction of your statements is necessary to show that the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law does not condone Carleton University’s unacceptable position.
..
Mireille Gervais LL.L
Graduate Student in Law (Social Justice Concentration)
..
cc. Roseann O’Reilly Runte, President, Carleton University
Allan Rock, President, University of Ottawa
Jim Orban, Publisher, The Ottawa Citizen
Amy Hammett, Women’s Resource Centre, University of Ottawa
Kandace Price, Womyn’s Centre, Carleton University
Media and made public
..
..
From: Bruce Feldthusen
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Subject: RE: Faculty of Law Dean Feldthusen must retract legitimization of rape victim blaming
To: Mireille Gervais
Cc: roseann_runte[at]carleton.ca, Allan Rock , jorban[at]thecitizen.canwest.com, wrc[at]sfuo.ca, womyns_centre[at]cusaonline.com
..
Dear All,
..
It is true that I was interviewed by a reporter at the Ottawa Citizen and portions of that interview were later quoted in the Citizen on Saturday August 8. During the interview I expressed no opinion whatsoever about a particular sexual assault that had occurred at Carleton University, nor about the lawsuit arising from that sexual assault. I know nothing whatsoever about that case. To her credit, the reporter did not ask me to comment upon a case before the courts Nor did I discuss civil claims and defenses arising from sexual assault in particular. The interview dealt with civil procedure in damage claims generally. I discussed the difference between statements that appear in legal pleadings and statements proven in evidence. I was not asked, and I did not make any comments about the present state of the law as it affects victims of sexual assault. On that subject, my published work speaks for itself.
..
Saturday August 8, 2009, Ottawa Citizen article (Carleton Accused of ‘Victim Blaming’)
..
Bruce Feldthusen
Doyen/Dean Common Law
Faculté de Droit/Faculty of Law
Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa
57 Louis Pasteur
Ottawa ON K1N 6N5
Canada
613-562-5927

U of O’s discovery of instant psychological evaluations: Mineralogist dean wants all the credit

Recall that back in 2007 the University of Ottawa’s dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde, who is a mineralogist by training, made a fundamental advance in labour management by spontaneously developing a capacity for instant psychological evaluations of his academic staff [LINK].
..
Such progress in management methods can only be of use to society at large if it is shared into the public domain so that other managers can learn these skills. Therefore, UofOWatch investigated this development in human knowledge by making an access to information (ATI) request on April 30, 2008, to identify all records (emails, letters, notes, reports, etc.) related in the broad sense to the dean’s September 6, 2007, LETTER [LINK].
..
The University was obliged by law to search for the requested records and to provide them within 30 days. The University replied on May 15, 2008, that “Access is denied to your request since no such records exist.”
..
UofOWatch appealed the University’s denial of access to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario on June 4, 2008. The appeal was accepted and the case went into mediation. Mediation lasted more than one year and was terminated with the Mediation Report. On July 30, 2009, the case was then moved to adjudication.
..
It is the position of UofOWatch that any “mediation privilege” should not be used as a pretext to prevent unethical or illegal behaviours of institutions from being disclosed.
..
As is shown in the Mediator’s Report and supporting documents (available to media and investigators on request), during mediation the University, in the person of Pamela Harrod, first reaffirmed its position that “no records exist.”
..
The University informed the Mediator that the dean had initiated the LETTER on his own initiative and based entirely on informal verbal conversations with one or more colleagues in the hallways or in his office: The dean had no respondent records.
..
At this point, the University also informed the Mediator that it was prepared to ask the dean to state his position in an affidavit.
..
Wow. Taken at face value, this means that the dean had discovered a way to single-handedly perform a psychological evaluation based entirely on hearsay, of sufficient reliability to write a formal letter insinuating a mental health problem. [From a statistical perspective, given the nature of hallway conversations in academia, the dean presumably would have sent out many such letters?]
..
However, it was not that simple.
..
UofOWatch then asked the Mediator to indeed secure the proposed affidavit and to also secure affidavits of non-involvement from those that the dean might have consulted, such as Pamela Harrod (VP-Governance), Legal Counsel, Robert Major (VP-Academic), and Louise Pagé-Valin (Human Resources). The Mediator also transmitted a list of thirteen University offices where respondent records might be found.
..
At this point, the University refused to provide any affidavits and instead provided an index of eleven respondent records that it now mysteriously found, some four months into the process.
..
The University has refused to provide the records themselves but the index shows that the records are emails between the dean, Major, Michelle Flaherty (Legal Counsel), Pagé-Valin, and others, exchanged mainly during June and July 2007, in obvious preparation for the September 6, 2007, LETTER. Several exchanges have the index subject line “A different tact?”
..
Since Legal Counsel Flaherty is involved in virtually all the emails, it is difficult to understand how her immediate supervisor Pamela Harrod could repeatedly report in the name of the University that “no such records exist,” while required by law to search for and produce all records within 30 days.
..
Oh my my, so the dean, although he does not like to admit it, needs at least a lawyer and his immediate supervisor the VP-Academic to accomplish his feat of psychoanalysis? What is most surprising is the length to which the University is prepared to go in order to not disclose its secret of newfound management abilities.
..
It appears that the dean was prepared to lie to cover the whole mess, but that asking everyone involved to lie under oath (in affidavits) was too much.
..
The next questions are:

• Will the University be ordered to perform another search?

• Will the University be ordered to disclose some or all of the found records?

• Will the IPC Adjudicator use her legal powers to get to the bottom of the case?

• Will the records be disclosed by a parallel legal adventure or investigation?

..
And finally, will those involved in subverting the ATI law in Ontario (FIPPA) suffer any consequences?
..
[Photo credits: Andre E. Lalonde, comet; University of Ottawa, Andre E. Lalonde.]

Misfeasance in the department of French literature, or gross incompetence? – Take your pick

This open letter by scholarship graduate student Marie Galophe says it all. It has been sent to all professors at the University of Ottawa and is posted, with supporting document, on the blog of the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO).
..
Dimanche 12 juillet 2009
..

Lettre ouverte concernant l’état de la liberté académique au Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa

..

Du pseudo droit de réponse, de la pseudo interdisciplinarité, de la pseudo liberté académique, de la pseudo réputation de l’Université d’Ottawa

..
Dans le cadre de ma première année de doctorat en création littéraire au Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa, j’ai soumis le 8 avril 2008 un projet de thèse intitulé : « Dialogue(s) avec Paolo Freire : rhétorique et réécriture. » Ce projet en création avait pour ambition de rédiger « un dialogue mettant en scène de façon figurée le dialogisme à l’œuvre dans l’essai de Freire < Pédagogie des Opprimés > ». Il s’agissait donc de faire œuvre de fiction à partir des thèses et des procédés en présence dans l’essai de Paolo Freire, abordés d’un point de vue rhétorique. Ce dialogue fictionnel avait pour but de réactualiser la pensée de Freire en transformant l’essai dans un autre type de discours, assimilé à un genre littéraire.
..
Rappelons que la soumission d’un projet de thèse au Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa suppose le choix d’un directeur de thèse, la recherche d’un sujet pertinent et original, et la rédaction d’une proposition de 10 à 12 pages présentant :
..
« I. Énoncé détaillé du projet
1. Présentation du projet d’écriture (choix et enjeux esthétiques, choix génériques, autres éléments pertinents).
II. Projet de réflexion théorique et critique
1. Énoncé de la problématique et lien avec le projet de création;
2. État de la question (actualité ou tradition de la critique sur le sujet ou le corpus);
3. Objectifs de la réflexion;
4. Bibliographie. »
( Cf. Formulaire de dépôt de sujet de thèse en création littéraire)
..
C’est donc un travail considérable, qui s’effectue durant la première année d’inscription en doctorat, alors même que l’étudiant doit obtenir 12 crédits, ce qui représente 4 séminaires à suivre et à valider.
..
Ainsi, j’ai élaboré ce projet de thèse en création littéraire avec l’aide et le soutien de ma directrice de thèse, Mme Danielle Forget, elle-même écrivain, spécialiste en rhétorique et travaillant actuellement sur « L’interculturel et ses manifestations discursives dans les échanges entre le Canada et l’Amérique latine (Argentine, Brésil, Chili, Mexique) », avec Patrick Imbert, membre du Comité des études supérieures du Département de français. De l’avis de Mme Forget, ce projet était tout à fait pertinent et novateur, notamment dans le choix d’écriture d’un dialogue fictionnel.
..
Dans le cadre de ce processus de dépôt de sujet de thèse, j’ai été amenée à rencontrer les membres du jury de mon examen de synthèse, programmé à l’automne 2009. Ce jury a été choisi en fonction de mon sujet de thèse. Pour ce faire, j’ai envoyé le 2 mars 2009 un résumé de mon projet de thèse à M. Yergeau, président du Comité des études supérieures du Département de français. Ma directrice de thèse, Mme Forget, s’est livrée au même exercice de son côté. De plus, suite à mes inquiétudes concernant la nationalité de Freire, j’avais questionné M.Yergeau sur la recevabilité de mon choix par le Comité. Il a répondu dans un courriel du 31 mars 2009 : « Renseignements pris, vous pouvez choisir cet auteur brésilien. »
..

Mon projet a donc été soumis le mercredi 8 avril 2009 au Comité des études supérieures du Département de français, composé de Mme France Martineau, de M. Patrick Imbert, de M. Kasereka Kavwahirehi, de M. Robert Yergeau (président du Comité) et de Mme Dominique Lafon (directrice du Département). Pourtant, dans une lettre datée du 28 avril 2008, M. Yergeau m’annonçait le refus de mon projet dans les termes suivants :
..
« Madame,
..
Le Comité des études supérieures du Département de français a étudié votre projet de thèse de doctorat.
..
Je dois vous informer qu’il a été refusé, parce qu’il contient deux aspects qui le rendent inadmissible dans le cadre de notre programme en création littéraire :
..
1. Le texte de base de ce projet appartient au domaine de la pédagogie. Le Comité considère qu’il n’a pas sa place dans un département d’études littéraires.
..
2. Cette thèse se veut avant tout un exercice de vulgarisation de la pensée de Paulo Freire. Cette perspective ne relève pas non plus de la création littéraire.
..
Je vous prie d’agréer, Madame, l’expression de mes salutations les meilleures.
..
Le président du Comité des études supérieures, Robert Yergeau »
..
Ce refus de projet de thèse est le premier dans l’histoire du Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa et m’a surprise tout autant que ma directrice par la brutalité de son propos. Alors que les membres du jury demandent le plus souvent des modifications, des réajustements ou des explications supplémentaires, le Comité a choisi dans le ci-présent cas le refus complet, somme toute peu constructif pour moi, voire irrespectueux compte tenu de la somme de travail fourni, d’une part, et de la validation de mon projet par ma directrice de thèse, d’autre part.
..
J’observe donc un manquement à la liberté académique dans le caractère unilatéral de la décision, couplé à son autoritarisme. Les arguments invoqués témoignent, d’une part, d’une condamnation de l’interdisciplinarité et, d’autre part, d’un mépris pour la société civile, visible dans l’emploi du terme de « vulgarisation », extrêmement surprenant compte tenu de la vocation même de l’Université. D’où la publicité mensongère à laquelle se livre l’Université d’Ottawa en se présentant comme un lieu d’enseignement interdisciplinaire, favorisant la recherche et l’innovation.
..

Le Comité des études supérieures du Département de français a autorisé, par ailleurs, une étudiante de maîtrise à travailler sur Elvis Gratton et les scénarios télévisuels dont il est le héros. De même, un colloque a été organisé par un professeur du Département de français sur le personnage de bande dessinée Tintin, abordé dans une perspective sociocritique, dans le cadre de l’ACFAS 2009. Ainsi, il est difficile de comprendre, dès lors, en quoi Paulo Freire ne peut faire l’objet d’une étude littéraire dans le cadre du Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa.
..
Cependant, à la suite de ce refus, j’ai rencontré le président du Comité, M. Yergeau, en compagnie de ma directrice de thèse, Mme Danielle Forget et d’un agent de recours étudiant, travaillant pour le Centre de recours étudiant (CRÉ). M. Yergeau a admis que la raison de ce refus était « soit très superficielle, soit très fondamentale ». Il a cependant affirmé que je pouvais rédiger une lettre de réponse aux membres du Comité, défendant mon point de vue. Lorsque l’agent de recours a demandé si la décision était réversible à la suite à cette réponse, M. Yergeau a répondu : « Je n’ai pas dit ça. »
..
Dans la mesure où cette décision n’était pas réversible, d’une part, et que, d’autre part, je devais soumettre un nouveau sujet de thèse avant la fin du troisième semestre d’inscription, soit l’été 2009, j’ai choisi de m’atteler le plus rapidement possible à un nouveau projet de recherche. Ce nouveau projet m’a demandé deux mois et demi de travail supplémentaire, toujours sous la direction de Mme Forget.
..

Alors que M. Yergeau m’avait affirmé lors de notre rencontre avec ma directrice de thèse et l’agent de recours que je devais soumettre mon nouveau projet avant le 31 août 2009, ce dernier m’a adressé le 25 juin 2009 un courriel me demandant « de déposer une nouvelle version de [mon] projet au plus tard le lundi 20 juillet, date qui correspond au retour de vacances de Madame Gaumond. » Pourquoi cette date ? Aucun règlement écrit n’est disponible au Département de français concernant la reprise d’un projet de thèse refusé et les échéances correspondantes.
..
Je me suis donc présentée au Département de français le jeudi 18 juin, à 10 h, pour remettre mon projet à la secrétaire. Cette dernière m’a mentionné que plusieurs membres du Comité étaient déjà partis en vacances. Seuls M. Yergeau et Mme Lafon, directrice du Département, étaient encore disponibles. Le lendemain, soit le vendredi 18 juin à 11 h, j’ai reçu un courriel émanant de la secrétaire, avec en fichier joint, la lettre d’acceptation de mon nouveau projet, signée par M. Yergeau.
..
Il est difficile, dans ces conditions, de ne pas remettre en doute la validité de l’évaluation du Comité des études supérieures du Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa, autoritaire lors de sa première évaluation et prompt à régler les choses au plus vite lors de sa seconde évaluation. Rappelons, en effet, qu’un second refus de mon projet de thèse aurait entraîné mon éviction du programme et la perte de ma bourse internationale.
..
J’ai donc choisi de dénoncer l’injustice qui m’a été faite, émaillée d’incohérences, inadmissibles dans une institution qui se présente comme l’Université canadienne. En tant qu’étudiante internationale, je suis choquée par les procédés du Département de français. En tant qu’étudiante de Paris IV-Sorbonne en France, j’ai fait part à mon réseau universitaire d’attache de ce refus et n’encourage pas mes compatriotes à venir étudier au Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa.
..
J’espère qu’en exposant ces procédés arbitraires, le Département de français favorisera une meilleure transparence, en accord avec le projet éducatif prôné par l’Université d’Ottawa, afin de rétablir un climat de liberté académique et de saine création littéraire, dégagée de toute tentative de censure.
..

Cependant, je reste préoccupée quant au mobile réel de ce refus. En effet, j’avais mentionné aux membres de mon jury d’examen de synthèse que M. Denis Rancourt, professeur de physique de l’Université d’Ottawa congédié au mois de mars 09, m’avait fait découvrir Paolo Freire, pédagogue dont il s’inspire lui-même. De plus, j’ai pris position publiquement contre son renvoi dans une lettre ouverte, mise en ligne par la suite. Enfin, j’ai déjà été l’objet d’un certain nombre de pressions et d’agressions verbales suite à mon enseignement d’un cours de premier cycle dans lequel j’avais remis en cause les grilles de notation et également informé mes étudiants du cas du professeur Rancourt.
..
À la lumière de ces faits, j’ai donc été amenée à conclure que le refus du Comité était soit le résultat d’une incompétence professionnelle soit le soubresaut d’une affaire politique. Dans tous les cas, je dénonce ce refus et reste ouverte à des explications, des excuses, voire des réparations.
..
Marie Galophe
Candidate au doctorat,
Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
..
Cc. Public
M. Allan Rock, Recteur de l’Université d’Ottawa
M. François Houle, Vice-Recteur aux études
M. Gary Slater, Doyen de la Faculté des études supérieures
M. Antoni Lewkowicz, Doyen de la Faculté des arts
Mme Dominique Lafon, Directrice du Département de français
M. Robert Yergeau, Président du Comité des études supérieures du Département de français
M. Alexandre Gauthier, représentant étudiant au Comité des études supérieures du Département de français
Tous les étudiants diplômés du Département de français
Tous les professeurs du Département de français
Mme Lucie Keech, Directrice par intérim du service du marketing
Mme Andrée Dumulon, Directrice du Bureau des communications
GSAED
CRÉ
Bureau des étudiants internationaux
Peter Biesterfel, documentariste
Professeur Claude Lamontagne, CDE
The Freire Project, Montréal
En ligne sur le blog du Centre de Recours Étudiant (SFUO)
..
[Photo credits: University of Ottawa; Dominique Lafon, Directrice du departement; Robert Yergeau, Président du Comité des études supérieures]