The Rock administration of the University of Ottawa will celebrate the departure of
..
VP-Academic Robert Major (well known on this BLOG)
..
at a garden party in a tent on the lawn of Tabaret Hall on May 19, 2009.
..
The video below is an example of the moving address in all its intellectual depth that Mr. Major is expected to deliver. The video is based on the 2008 such garden party that was held to celebrate the departure of former president Gilles Patry (also known on this blog: LINK1, LINK2).
..
Showing posts with label Gilles Patry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gilles Patry. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Monday, January 28, 2008
Christian values do not apply to the Deaf, decide U of O executives
THE ACT AND HUMAN RIGHTS VERSUS REALITY
The University of Ottawa Act 1965 states that “The objects and purposes of the University are, to promote the advancement of learning and the dissemination of knowledge … in accordance with Christian principles … and to promote the betterment of society …”
It is of interest to compare these legal and moral obligations to actual decisions made by the University’s Executive. In some cases the obligations of the Act are augmented by explicit requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Let us take the recent example of a denial of access to the Deaf community that was reported in the media HERE (in English) and HERE (in French).
The event in question is a weekly documentary film and discussion series organized and moderated by physics professor Denis Rancourt that has operated continuously during the academic year since September 2005. (See schedules posted HERE and HERE.)
THE FILM SERIES IS A UNIVERSITY-SPONSORED EVENT
The campus auditoriums for the film and discussion series and the projection equipment have always been provided by the University, free of charge, including for the present winter 2008 season. Outside groups and official student clubs and associations, by comparison and without exception, must all pay significant fees to reserve rooms and use the projection equipment for non-University-sponsored events (e.g., HERE).
The film and discussion series has always been part of professor Rancourt’s yearly reports and has always been part of his official workload, under the universally recognized and established work category “community service”. Rancourt’s yearly reports have always been approved, in all his years at the University since 1987.
The valid work categories for professors include: research, teaching, administration, and community service. Academic freedom, which is protected by law, gives professors the right to freely choose which research and community service they do. For examples of sponsored research and community service activities see Rancourt’s official university web page: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~dgr/.
Professors are entitled to request redistributions of their work among the different work categories. In winter 2006 Rancourt asked that his significant involvement with the film and discussion series be considered in possibly reducing his formal teaching duties. See the text of his application HERE.
All such requests, every year, follow strict procedures enforced by the Collective Agreement between the University and the professors’ union. Following established procedures in his department (the Physics Department, in the Faculty of Science), therefore, Rancourt’s request was first studied by the Departmental Teaching Personnel Committee (DTPC). Formal minutes record all DTPC meetings; that are chaired by the chairperson of the department. The chairperson forwards the DTPC recommendations to the dean of the faculty and adds the chairperson’s own recommendations. Then the dean makes the final decision about the professor’s workload for the upcoming academic year, without interference from the upper administration.
All usual records show that the required process was followed in winter 2006. Rancourt’s request to have a reduced formal teaching load was denied. The dean of the time, Christian Detellier, later confirmed in writing that, nonetheless, the film and discussion series remained part of Rancourt’s official workload under “community service”. See Detellier’s letter HERE.
Given the above described record and established and binding administrative procedures, there can be no doubt that the film and discussion series was and is an integral part of Rancourt’s official university workload and that it is a University-sponsored event, paid for and organized by the University, on its campus.
DEAN AND PRESIDENT CANNOT REDEFINE WHAT IS AND IS NOT
The Dean cannot unilaterally decide on a whim to suddenly change a professor’s workload, except under special resource-management emergency conditions and following special procedures. Likewise, a member of the upper executive, such as the President of the University, cannot intervene in defining a professor’s workload. (See Collective Agreement, section 22.)
Yet as early as 2007 the new dean of the Faculty of Science, André Lalonde, instructed the University computer services director that Rancourt should not be given electronic listserve messaging services for the film series because the dean did not consider the series to be a valid Faculty of Science offering. This type of petty in-fighting was only a precursor of what was to come.
When member of the Deaf community Genevieve Deguire asked the Access Service of the University for access (i.e., sign language interpretation services) to attend the film and discussion series she could not have expected the degree of resistance that she was to experience.
The university Access Service office directed Deguire to ask the professor in charge (Rancourt) to secure a memo from his dean that the series was indeed a Faculty-sponsored event. The Dean refused and it was claimed in writing that the film and discussion series was not part of Rancourt’s workload. Access Service is under the Student Academic Success Service (SASS). The director of SASS of the time, Serge Blais, sided with dean Lalonde in denying access, despite Rancourt’s clear explanations of the situation. See exchanges of emails HERE.
Deguire wrote to President Gilles Patry to ask that he repair the situation and provide access. Patry refused, citing Blais’ decision letter. See exchanges HERE.
At about this time the Access Service office booked a sign language interpreter by “mistake,” as they normally would have done without the dean’s negative response. As a result, Deguire and another member of the deaf community enjoyed one film and discussion event that was a great success. This confirmed to those in attendance that deaf community access was a benefit to all, including the hearing community.
Deguire therefore wrote the president a second time asking him to reconsider his decision. The President refused again. See exchanges HERE.
When the university called a December 2007 town hall meeting with its executive, Deguire asked to attend and was provided access to the meeting. At that town hall meeting Patry publicly stated that access to the film series would not be granted because the series was sponsored by a separate organization and was not affiliated with the University. He stated as “proof” that if an auditorium had not been available for the series then it could have been given off campus.
DEGUIRE GOES PUBLIC AND THE UNIVERSITY SPELLS IT OUT
Deguire held a well organized press conference on January 14, 2008, with virtually every major Deaf community association present in support, and with two sign language interpreters on hand, provided by Deaf community associations. The press conference was held in the lobby of the campus building (MacDonald Hall) where the film series has most often been hosted. Deguire filed THIS Ontario Human Rights Commission complaint.
The University made its position public. It put out THIS press advisory stating that the film and discussion series “is in no way related to any academic or other activity at the University of Ottawa.” Someone should inform the many professors who regularly attend and who recommend it to their students…
University Legal Counsel, Michelle Flaherty, is quoted by the media as stating that the film and discussion series, that has recently called itself the Ottawa Cinema Politica (OCP) series, is sponsored by Cinema Politica. That it is therefore not a University-sponsored community service and that, therefore, the University has no human rights legal obligation to provide access.
The university position, in the opinion of UofOWatch, is more tenuous than if it were to say, for example, that the U of O business school calls itself the Telfer School of Management and the university has received $25 million from Telfer towards the school’s new building so the university has no liability insurance responsibilities towards students of the school.
Cinema Politica is a shoestring-budget student network that started at Concordia University in Montreal and that provides a web site for promotion of film events put on by its independent name-affiliated members. It makes itself available as a free resource to organizers, including university professors, and it mostly serves university venues.
The University’s position is ludicrous and appears to be a device intended to deny access. The university pays for the auditorium, the projection equipment, the insurance coverage, security, after-hours auditorium wheelchair access via a lift operated by security personnel, and Rancourt’s salary. The university has given continuous public access to the weekly academic-year event since September 2005 and has never required that an external fee be paid by anyone.
To use such a device to deflect a modest request for access to a valued community educational experience is, in the opinion of UofOWatch, a violation of the historic principles guiding public academic institutions in Canada. This from a public institution that in the last fiscal year had a surplus of $67 million dollars and in the last year or so has received “no-strings-attached” private gifts of over $40 million dollars.
In the opinion of UofOWatch, if this is not the result of gross institutional incompetence, then it points to malfeasance of office by several University executives and their professional agents, including the president.
The University’s decision to deny access is contrary to “promot(ing) the betterment of society” “in accordance with Christian principles.” (University of Ottawa Act, 1965) Something is amiss.
.
***
.[Note-1: “In the opinion of UofOWatch” means “In the opinion of its editor and manager Professor Denis G. Rancourt”, as always in this blog.]
[Note-2: Interestingly, the University formally admits that this UofOWatch blog is part of Rancourt’s official university workload, since it is using labour law and internal discipline to attempt censorship, yet it has now arbitrarily declared the OCP film series that it houses and finances as not part of Rancourt’s university workload… How convenient.]
[Photo Credit: The Fulcrum.]
Thursday, August 9, 2007
U of O President confirms that VP-Resources lied and falsified, and agrees
The UofOWatch entry of July 21st described a mean-spirited affair in which U of O’s VP-Resources Victor Simon lied and falsified a document in attempting to justify his illegitimate reprimands and threats to two students who had dared to express their views on an academic matter, using campus email lists.
The students next individually wrote to President Gilles Patry to complain and to ask for reparations (rescinding the threats, apologies, etc.).
In his answers, the President confirms that Simon lied since he confirms that Simon provided “all documents” (only one, which is not a complaint to Simon’s office) whereas Simon had claimed several (in the plural) complaints addressed to his office.
In his answers, the President states that Simon indeed removed a paragraph from a document (that the student was entitled to see in its entirety under the Freedom of Information Act of Ontario). The President confirms that Simon did this without informing the student. The President goes on to “explain” that this was justified because the paragraph in question was not something the university wanted to act upon…
Hello?
The President put it this way: “The University did not consider taking any action regarding the final paragraph of the complainant’s email and it was on this basis that Mr. Simon did not include that information”.
The paragraph in question is highly incriminating for its author, Professor Vladimir Pestov, who suggests fabricating a case to remove student Jean-Paul Prévost from his PhD program of study, following the student’s first and only communication on an academic matter to a relevant academic unit email list. The paragraph in question de-legitimizes Pestov’s message and damages the credibility of his motives. Contrary to the President’s statement, it is entirely “relevant to the allegations concerning [your] misuse of University resources.”
The President concludes “I am satisfied that this matter was dealt with appropriately.”
The President also states to both students that he “has decided that the letter [Simon’s unfounded letters of reprimand and threat] is entirely appropriate and I will not take steps to retract it.” The President thereby goes on the record to condone and reinforce Simon’s original intimidation and harassment, and copies Simon to the entire exchange.
That’s how University Inc. (universities are legal corporations not answerable to the Ministry of Education) is run: By an unelected corporate executive that in practice answers to no one and that makes day to day self-preserving decisions about students’ lives without an oversight committee or an appeal process. There is no independent ombudsperson on campus and there is no policy that admits that the executives can mistreat students.
But it’s not over until the fat lady sings.
Epilogue: This means that, as it stands, both students are effectively barred from using the academic email lists for their legitimate committee work and collegial participation in university affairs, to the extent that their views will not be acceptable to the first enlightened academic who will scream “spam attack”.
RELATED LINKS
Documents posted by student JP Prevost (in PDF, takes a few minutes to download)
Documents posted by student Severin Stojanovic (takes a few minutes to download)
The students next individually wrote to President Gilles Patry to complain and to ask for reparations (rescinding the threats, apologies, etc.).
In his answers, the President confirms that Simon lied since he confirms that Simon provided “all documents” (only one, which is not a complaint to Simon’s office) whereas Simon had claimed several (in the plural) complaints addressed to his office.
In his answers, the President states that Simon indeed removed a paragraph from a document (that the student was entitled to see in its entirety under the Freedom of Information Act of Ontario). The President confirms that Simon did this without informing the student. The President goes on to “explain” that this was justified because the paragraph in question was not something the university wanted to act upon…
Hello?
The President put it this way: “The University did not consider taking any action regarding the final paragraph of the complainant’s email and it was on this basis that Mr. Simon did not include that information”.
The paragraph in question is highly incriminating for its author, Professor Vladimir Pestov, who suggests fabricating a case to remove student Jean-Paul Prévost from his PhD program of study, following the student’s first and only communication on an academic matter to a relevant academic unit email list. The paragraph in question de-legitimizes Pestov’s message and damages the credibility of his motives. Contrary to the President’s statement, it is entirely “relevant to the allegations concerning [your] misuse of University resources.”
The President concludes “I am satisfied that this matter was dealt with appropriately.”
The President also states to both students that he “has decided that the letter [Simon’s unfounded letters of reprimand and threat] is entirely appropriate and I will not take steps to retract it.” The President thereby goes on the record to condone and reinforce Simon’s original intimidation and harassment, and copies Simon to the entire exchange.
That’s how University Inc. (universities are legal corporations not answerable to the Ministry of Education) is run: By an unelected corporate executive that in practice answers to no one and that makes day to day self-preserving decisions about students’ lives without an oversight committee or an appeal process. There is no independent ombudsperson on campus and there is no policy that admits that the executives can mistreat students.
But it’s not over until the fat lady sings.
Epilogue: This means that, as it stands, both students are effectively barred from using the academic email lists for their legitimate committee work and collegial participation in university affairs, to the extent that their views will not be acceptable to the first enlightened academic who will scream “spam attack”.
RELATED LINKS
Documents posted by student JP Prevost (in PDF, takes a few minutes to download)
Documents posted by student Severin Stojanovic (takes a few minutes to download)
.
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Lying and falsifying documents – All in a day’s work for U of O’s VP-Resources
You do what you have to do when it comes to suppressing the political freedoms of students.
Two physics graduate students at the University of Ottawa recently made the mistake of expressing their views regarding the pedagogical value of an activism course in the Faculty of Science.
Severin Stojanovic argued as a Faculty Council member that the possible creation of a second-year level activism course (SCI 2101) should be discussed at Council whereas Jean-Paul Prévost, having attended the first-year course (SCI 1101), explained the value of these courses to staff and student colleagues.
That was too much for several science professors who blasted the students. A certain professor Vladimir Pestov went so far as to ask the physics graduate chairman (now department chair Bela Joos) to bar the students from using faculty email lists and to consider ways that a case could be mounted to expel Prévost from the PhD program.
Joos faithfully forwarded these over-the-top complaints from Pestov to the dean of the Faculty of Science (André Lalonde) “for his information” without notifying the students. The dean’s office then forwarded these emails to VP-Resources Victor Simon, without written explanation and, again, without consulting or informing the students.
Simon, in turn, came down hard. He informed each student that he had received several complaints (in the plural) about their uses of university computer resources. He stated that their actions were in violation of the User Code of Conduct for Computer Resources, implying that they had been spamming the academy. He informed them both (individually) that if he received a single other complaint he would automatically cut them off from all computer resources.
The students individually responded by asking to see the complaints that justified such a severe reaction from a VP, no less. One of the students also independently filed a Freedom of Information request to obtain the complaints.
Simon proceeded to play a game of cat and mouse, showing only one partial complaint to each student and, eventually, after the Freedom of Information documents were obtained, reluctantly forked over everything he had.
In the final analysis, VP Simon had lied to both students about the number of complaints: There was only one document per student and none was a complaint made to his office. And he had falsified one of the interim documents, removing the Pestov attempt at collusion with Joos (to expel Prévost), presumably because Pestov’s words both incriminated two professors and made the student “violations” look insignificant in comparison…
All in a days work. Can’t have the societal implications of science discussed in the Faculty of Science: That would be subversive and counter productive.
The dedication of self-appointed university executives, willing to take the risks necessary to preserve “academic integrity”, is sometimes the strongest testament to the vitality of our public institutions of higher learning.
Epilogue: There is no policy at the University of Ottawa that protects students from intimidation by deans or executive officers – It is assumed not to occur. Meanwhile, the official complaints against the many professors who took it onto themselves to harass and intimidate the students for their communications are being deflected and resisted by both the dean of science and the dean of graduate studies (Gary Slater), while President Gilles Patry watches on.
RELATED LINKS
Documents posted by student JP Prevost (in PDF, takes a few minutes to download)
Documents posted by student Severin Stojanovic (takes a few minutes to download)
Two physics graduate students at the University of Ottawa recently made the mistake of expressing their views regarding the pedagogical value of an activism course in the Faculty of Science.
Severin Stojanovic argued as a Faculty Council member that the possible creation of a second-year level activism course (SCI 2101) should be discussed at Council whereas Jean-Paul Prévost, having attended the first-year course (SCI 1101), explained the value of these courses to staff and student colleagues.
That was too much for several science professors who blasted the students. A certain professor Vladimir Pestov went so far as to ask the physics graduate chairman (now department chair Bela Joos) to bar the students from using faculty email lists and to consider ways that a case could be mounted to expel Prévost from the PhD program.
Joos faithfully forwarded these over-the-top complaints from Pestov to the dean of the Faculty of Science (André Lalonde) “for his information” without notifying the students. The dean’s office then forwarded these emails to VP-Resources Victor Simon, without written explanation and, again, without consulting or informing the students.
Simon, in turn, came down hard. He informed each student that he had received several complaints (in the plural) about their uses of university computer resources. He stated that their actions were in violation of the User Code of Conduct for Computer Resources, implying that they had been spamming the academy. He informed them both (individually) that if he received a single other complaint he would automatically cut them off from all computer resources.
The students individually responded by asking to see the complaints that justified such a severe reaction from a VP, no less. One of the students also independently filed a Freedom of Information request to obtain the complaints.
Simon proceeded to play a game of cat and mouse, showing only one partial complaint to each student and, eventually, after the Freedom of Information documents were obtained, reluctantly forked over everything he had.
In the final analysis, VP Simon had lied to both students about the number of complaints: There was only one document per student and none was a complaint made to his office. And he had falsified one of the interim documents, removing the Pestov attempt at collusion with Joos (to expel Prévost), presumably because Pestov’s words both incriminated two professors and made the student “violations” look insignificant in comparison…
All in a days work. Can’t have the societal implications of science discussed in the Faculty of Science: That would be subversive and counter productive.
The dedication of self-appointed university executives, willing to take the risks necessary to preserve “academic integrity”, is sometimes the strongest testament to the vitality of our public institutions of higher learning.
Epilogue: There is no policy at the University of Ottawa that protects students from intimidation by deans or executive officers – It is assumed not to occur. Meanwhile, the official complaints against the many professors who took it onto themselves to harass and intimidate the students for their communications are being deflected and resisted by both the dean of science and the dean of graduate studies (Gary Slater), while President Gilles Patry watches on.
RELATED LINKS
Documents posted by student JP Prevost (in PDF, takes a few minutes to download)
Documents posted by student Severin Stojanovic (takes a few minutes to download)
.
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]
Friday, June 29, 2007
U of O’s Patry weighs in to defend academic freedom
Orwell would be proud…
No U of O president has ever made a public statement to denounce Israel’s immoral and brutal (now 40-year) occupation of Palestine – a strangle-hold that can only be characterized as a genocidal impoundment under severe economic and civil liberty restrictions, including regular military violence against civilians and state-sanctioned political executions; not too unlike Canada’s own treatment of indigenous peoples, that has also not been denounced by U of O presidents.
Indeed, university presidents in these times rarely take stands of principle but mainly promote an institutional image and congratulate their corporate donors.
Yet U of O’s President Gilles Patry recently felt compelled to speak out against the threat to academic freedom posed by a UK University and College Union (UCU) resolution to encourage and study a possible boycott of Israeli universities.
The president’s statement parrots similar statements made by US university presidents, thereby giving deep integration an academic dimension.
The president’s “argument” is that boycotting Israeli academia (that has been complicit in the occupation) can only move one away from a resolution. That would be true if Israeli academia were visibly and significantly opposing the occupation rather than collaborating with it.
Patry has hauled out the convenient myth that tenured professors, by virtue of their academic freedom, naturally fight injustice and side with the oppressed. It follows, in Patry’s fairy tale scenario, that limiting academic freedom of association and collaboration (not of research and expression) with a boycott would only hinder progression to a more just world.
This is analogous to arguing that, given the myth of economic trickledown, the economic boycott of South Africa only frustrated an inevitable progression towards more democracy.
Notable exceptions notwithstanding, academics serve and legitimize power, are true to their class, and make students into obedient employees that accept and defend the logic of systemic oppression. This is what makes the UCU and its resolution so extraordinary. (It must have been hijacked by activists, as apologists have explained. Or maybe it’s the ‘Colleges’ component?)
Media bias and U of O’s affiliation with CanWest notwithstanding, Patry’s statement is either ignorant or disingenuous and politically motivated. I believe it is mostly the latter, in which case it will not matter to its author that it is wrong. If there is a movement in North America for university executives to denounce the UCU then to not join this movement is to invite Israeli lobby contempt. To join is to make points with the Israeli lobby and its parliamentary allies.
“Canada’s University” knows when to l*ck *ss.
RELATED LINKS:
Gabriel Ash – Why Boycott Israel?
IHRNASS-Executive - In Support of Academic Freedom
Jason Kunin – Supporting CUPE’s Israel Boycott
Steven Rose – Why Pick on Israel?
Tanya Reinhart – Why Academic Boycott
No U of O president has ever made a public statement to denounce Israel’s immoral and brutal (now 40-year) occupation of Palestine – a strangle-hold that can only be characterized as a genocidal impoundment under severe economic and civil liberty restrictions, including regular military violence against civilians and state-sanctioned political executions; not too unlike Canada’s own treatment of indigenous peoples, that has also not been denounced by U of O presidents.
Indeed, university presidents in these times rarely take stands of principle but mainly promote an institutional image and congratulate their corporate donors.
Yet U of O’s President Gilles Patry recently felt compelled to speak out against the threat to academic freedom posed by a UK University and College Union (UCU) resolution to encourage and study a possible boycott of Israeli universities.
The president’s statement parrots similar statements made by US university presidents, thereby giving deep integration an academic dimension.
The president’s “argument” is that boycotting Israeli academia (that has been complicit in the occupation) can only move one away from a resolution. That would be true if Israeli academia were visibly and significantly opposing the occupation rather than collaborating with it.
Patry has hauled out the convenient myth that tenured professors, by virtue of their academic freedom, naturally fight injustice and side with the oppressed. It follows, in Patry’s fairy tale scenario, that limiting academic freedom of association and collaboration (not of research and expression) with a boycott would only hinder progression to a more just world.
This is analogous to arguing that, given the myth of economic trickledown, the economic boycott of South Africa only frustrated an inevitable progression towards more democracy.
Notable exceptions notwithstanding, academics serve and legitimize power, are true to their class, and make students into obedient employees that accept and defend the logic of systemic oppression. This is what makes the UCU and its resolution so extraordinary. (It must have been hijacked by activists, as apologists have explained. Or maybe it’s the ‘Colleges’ component?)
Media bias and U of O’s affiliation with CanWest notwithstanding, Patry’s statement is either ignorant or disingenuous and politically motivated. I believe it is mostly the latter, in which case it will not matter to its author that it is wrong. If there is a movement in North America for university executives to denounce the UCU then to not join this movement is to invite Israeli lobby contempt. To join is to make points with the Israeli lobby and its parliamentary allies.
“Canada’s University” knows when to l*ck *ss.
RELATED LINKS:
Gabriel Ash – Why Boycott Israel?
IHRNASS-Executive - In Support of Academic Freedom
Jason Kunin – Supporting CUPE’s Israel Boycott
Steven Rose – Why Pick on Israel?
Tanya Reinhart – Why Academic Boycott
.
[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]
Saturday, May 26, 2007
U of O Removes Activism Course – Prof Files $10M Grievance
Physics professor Denis Rancourt filed a $10 million grievance on May 18th against the University of Ottawa for alleged violation of academic freedom, executive interference, sustained harassment, slander, and misfeasance, by the President, Mr. Gilles Patry, the VP-Academic, Mr. Robert Major, and the Dean of Science. The first-step required mediation attempt is to be scheduled before the end of next week.
This followed workload attributions where Prof. Rancourt was removed from all three first-year courses that he developed, including the controversial SCI 1101 Science in Society activism course, and from the popular Cinema Politica series that he organizes, and given only final-year and graduate physics courses.
The full text of the grievance is posted HERE.
Student and community member supporters have formed the Freedom of Expression Committee (FEC) to rectify the situation. The FEC campaigns are described on THIS web site.
The FEC is calling for the resignation of Patry, Major, and dean André Lalonde and has initiated an aggressive petition campaign. The petition can be reviewed and signed electronically HERE.
This followed workload attributions where Prof. Rancourt was removed from all three first-year courses that he developed, including the controversial SCI 1101 Science in Society activism course, and from the popular Cinema Politica series that he organizes, and given only final-year and graduate physics courses.
The full text of the grievance is posted HERE.
Student and community member supporters have formed the Freedom of Expression Committee (FEC) to rectify the situation. The FEC campaigns are described on THIS web site.
The FEC is calling for the resignation of Patry, Major, and dean André Lalonde and has initiated an aggressive petition campaign. The petition can be reviewed and signed electronically HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
