Censorship is a serious matter – explains Professor Keith Benn

Professor Keith Benn (Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa) has recently joined Professor Jeremy Kerr (Biology, University of Ottawa; see PREVIOUS POST) in attempting to protect the University of Ottawa from out-of-control radical professor Denis Rancourt (Physics, University of Ottawa).

Benn “take(s) serious offence” at Rancourt’s November 30th 2007 email accusation of censorship practiced in the Faculty of Science. Dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde immediately responded in accordance with the responsibility of his position by initiating yet another formal disciplinary investigation of Rancourt in this serious matter. (We’ve lost count of the number, but it’s well over a dozen.)

All relevant documents (Dean’s initiation of discipline, Benn’s formal letter of complaint, Rancourt’s November 30th email, and the censored document) are posted HERE or HERE.
.

Highlights of the Benn complaint are as follows.
.
“I take serious offence to the accusation of censorship that is contained in the following passage […]”

.

“Rancourt must know that the term ‘censorship’ is a highly charged one that carries some awful baggage in the public psyche. Tossing about accusations of administrative censorship in widely circulated emails [to members of the Faculty Council] […] is reckless and reprehensible, and shows a profound lack of respect for our institution and for our colleagues. It is especially troubling that such an accusation should be made within our University [Canada’s University] and it is unacceptable that it go unchallenged. If such an accusation should go unchallenged then the clear message […] is that the accusation has merit, i.e., that discussion of important issues facing our Faculty and our University are being suppressed.”

Benn continues: “Rancourt’s accusation of censorship, if unchallenged, could do long-term damage to the reputation of our institution.”

“[…] if the accusation were found to be unjustified, then Rancourt should apologize to his victims. […] At the very least, an apology from Rancourt should be forthcoming and recorded in the public record.”

UofOWatch vows to record any such apology when it is forthcoming, to help rectify this violation of the public trust.

UofOWatch trusts that the Dean’s investigation will be thorough and professional, will leave no stone unturned, and will establish whether or not censorship was indeed practiced in the Faculty of Science, as brazenly reported by Rancourt.

Censor n. 2. official with power to suppress whole or parts of records/documents on ground of obscenity, seditiousness, etc. 6. v.t. act as censor (sense 2) of; make deletions or changes in. (Concise Oxford, Seventh Edition)

RELATED LINKS

52 profs complain about Rancourt

Kerr defends the U of O

Faculty Council cancelled by dean four times

Professor Jeremy T. Kerr defends the University of Ottawa

While some have complained that tenured university professors too rarely speak out to correct injustices in our society, Professor Jeremy T. Kerr (Biology, University of Ottawa) has recently provided a striking counter example.

Professor Kerr has written a strong formal letter of complaint against radical professor Denis G. Rancourt (Physics, University of Ottawa) to the dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde.

The dean, in turn, has used the letter to open a formal disciplinary investigation of Rancourt, thereby assuming the responsibility of his position in protecting the University.

If such a category existed, Rancourt would certainly hold the Guinness World Record for the most disciplinary investigations against a tenured university professor. This alone demonstrates the degree to which Rancourt is a menace to society.

Kerr’s letter, the dean’s letter initiating the investigation, and the main exhibit are posted HERE.

.

Highlights of the Kerr letter are as follows.
.

Kerr considers Rancourt’s recent open letter to President Gilles Patry (emailed to all professors; pages 3-4 HERE) entitled ‘Executive-ordered campus arrests of community members’ to be a “form of harassment” (against Kerr).

Kerr is concerned that Rancourt’s mailing appears “to waste university network resources”. (Especially if everyone were to print it out, we guess.)

Kerr states “[…] Furthermore, the dripping contempt to which he (Rancourt) routinely exposes his colleagues seems to be irreconcilable with the provisions of the Collective Agreement […]”

Kerr continues, “Professor Rancourt’s routine misrepresentation of events cannot be viewed as consistent with any commonly accepted norm of fairness or ethical behaviour. Certainly, his constant disruption of even the most routine matters is beginning to make it difficult to function at the University of Ottawa and I worry this may diminish my capacity to fulfill my workload responsibilities.”

Professor Kerr is clearly doing everything he can to ensure that university resources are spent to optimally benefit society. It is comforting to see that the university administration is enthusiastically taking up the challenge proposed by Kerr. When activist professors and the university leadership work together in this way, one can be confident that results will follow.

We trust that the dean’s investigation will corroborate all of Professor Kerr’s statements and help to relieve the professor of the strenuous conditions to which he has been subjected.

RELATED LINKS

52 profs complain against Rancourt

Psychological evaluations on-the-fly

Petition against UofO executives

.

MEDIA RESONSE TO THIS POST

La Rotonde editorial response of February 25 2008 (in French)

.

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]

Responsible Intervention versus Executive Incompetence in the Faculty of Science

Fifty-two of the 150 or so professors in the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa have taken things into their own hands and signed a letter to the dean signalling alleged abuses of professional behaviour perpetrated by professor of physics Denis Rancourt, such as:

-“harassing his colleagues with unsolicited open letters,”
-“undermining [the] climate of freedom, responsibility and mutual respect […] of the university […] for nearly two years,”
-“being counterproductive ‘in promoting and enhancing the University’,”
-“hindering and impeding the proper democratic functioning of the Faculty,”
-“constantly distorting the facts when he presents them,”
-“knowingly turning [assigned courses] into courses which do not accomplish their initially intended functions,” and
-“[showing] no regard for the academic freedom of others, as he deliberately defies the measures adopted democratically by his peers.”

The original letter of complaint is posted HERE. (It’s worth the read.)

The Dean of the Faculty of Science, André Lalonde, promptly initiated a formal disciplinary investigation, since he is bound by duty to do so when presented with such compelling evidence of wrong doing.

Obvious questions arise.

Why did the dean not notice these grave breaches in professional behaviour, occurring during two years, until one third of the professorial staff needed to risk speaking out and spell them out in writing? What of the harm done to students in that period?

What about the other two thirds? Were they not harassed by the open letters? Have they not been reading the CANWEST editorials? Are they being so irresponsible as to not take action to preserve the ‘academic integrity’ of their Faculty?

Why did these 52 colleagues of Rancourt write this letter anonymously and under the cover of a formal complaint? Is tenure not enough protection to express one’s criticisms directly? Should additional safeguards be developed?

The dean feels compelled to preserve the identities of the 52 professors making their legitimate effort to improve the functioning of the university. How can the community celebrate the contributions of these brave professors to protecting student welfare if these professors are not identified?

U of O Watch will report the evolution of this dossier, using advanced investigative techniques, and will continue to attempt to answer these questions…

End note: The students who suffered Prof. Rancourt’s “courses which do not accomplish their initially intended functions” had THIS TO SAY, AND THIS, AND THIS, AND THIS.