Doctor Donald Kilby disciplined by CPSO following allegations of sexual exploitation of sick Black foreign student at U of O

Dr. Donald Kilby accepting the Nelson Mandela Humanitarian Award in 2014.

Recent criminal charges of a medical doctor covertly filming a young female patient at University of Ottawa Health Services causes one to examine that institution.

U of O Watch has discovered that the Director of Health Services, Dr. Donald Kilby, has been disciplined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for alleged financial coercion of a Black foreign student and patient for sexual service.

In its October 19, 2017 discipline report, the CPSO puts it this way:

[...] A patient (whose country of origin is outside Canada) complained to the College that after initiating financial support for the patient’s studies in Canada, Dr. Kilby said he would not continue to support the patient unless they were sexually intimate. The patient was also concerned that Dr. Kilby treated him for a certain condition and offered to give him a related vaccine, but then said the vaccine would cost $1500; the patient also claimed that Dr. Kilby did not tell him of risks associated with the patient’s condition.

Dr. Kilby denied the patient’s claims. He said he absolutely never made any suggestion to the patient that his financial support was conditional upon entering into a sexual relationship. He acknowledged treating the patient’s condition, but said he never gave him incorrect information and that he offered the patient employment at a clinic to help pay expenses, which could include a vaccine.

[...] As to the concern that Dr. Kilby threatened to withhold funds from the patient unless they engaged in a sexual relationship, the Committee concluded that a referral to the Discipline Committee was not warranted in all the circumstances of the case, as there was no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the concern.

However, the Committee stated that it did have concerns about Dr. Kilby’s overall understanding of boundaries with patients, noting:

• The investigative record describes how Dr. Kilby has funded many students to come to Canada for university education, and how (among other forms of support) he has arranged (and often paid for) things such as part-time work and housing for them.
• By Dr. Kilby’s own admission, he provided episodic treatment to the patient (whether he made statements attributed to him about a vaccine was unknown to the Committee),and he admits to treating some of the other students for whom he provided financial support.
• Dr. Kilby indicated that, on reviewing the College policy, Physician Treatment of Self, Family Members or Others Close to Them, he recognized it could be perceived that the students fell under the definition of “others close to him.”
• Dr. Kilby indicated he has taken steps to ensure he will not treat the patient and he has drafted a letter to the other students under his care advising he was making arrangements to transfer their care.

The Committee noted that while it was important that Dr. Kilby has recognized the problem in treating the students whom he sponsored and often continued to support financially, the Committee was concerned by his actions to begin with, which reflected poor judgement on his part. The Committee said it needed reassurance that Dr. Kilby will not treat these students going forward, and that he fully understands his obligations in not treating those close to him and maintaining appropriate boundaries with patients at all times. The Committee decided the two-fold disposition set out above was appropriate in all the circumstances of this case.

Final hearings in the dismissal case of Professor Denis Rancourt

In May and June 2013 are the final hearings in the binding labour arbitration tribunal in the case of the dismissal of tenured Full Professor Denis Rancourt from the University of Ottawa.

The schedule for the 14 final hearing days is:
May 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, June 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26 2013 at 9:30am.
Hotel Indigo Ottawa (Indigo Room), 123 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa.

Arbitrator: Claude Foisy
Lead counsel University: Lynn Harnden
Lead counsel union: Sean McGee

Professor Rancourt finished his testimony in chief on May 14th. He will be cross-examined starting on May 15th.

In the course of the first days of testimony, the University has abandoned its discipline of Professor Rancourt for refusing to produce the final examinations of his students. This is no longer one of the causes for discipline.

The remaining alleged causes for discipline include:

• using improper speakers in his Fall 2006 SCI 1101 "Science in Society" course;
• giving anomalously high grades (too many A's) in his Winter 2007 PHY 1722 "Principes de Physique II" course; and
• assigning fraudulent A+ grades to 23 students in his Winter 2008 PHY 4385/5100 "Solid State Physics" course.

The University is also charging that Professor Rancourt incites violence and should therefore not be allowed back on campus even if his dismissal was not warranted.

Background document: HERE.

Who is Allan Rock and why was Denis Rancourt fired?

Analysis of a temper tantrum gone viral

“When Liberal Party heavyweight Allan Rock took over as president at the University of Ottawa this September [2008], many wondered what would be in store for Denis Rancourt.”
--Jesse Freeston, journalist [1]

“We conclude that the charges advanced against Denis Rancourt are a contrived pretext, that they are preposterous as reasons to summarily remove a tenured professor, and that, therefore, the real reasons must lie elsewhere.”
-- Members of College and University Workers United [2]

“I have been following, with interest, the case of Marc Kelly - an under-graduate at the University of Ottawa who appears to be the victim of an outrageous vendetta brought against him by the President of that University, Allan Rock.”
--blogger (sophos) [3]

It is difficult to know how decisions are made because hierarchical institutions do everything they can to hide their true inner workings.

Nonetheless the chronology of events and the leakages of some documents allow one to advance plausible versions.

PRE-ROCK POST-ROCK

Until Allan Rock became president of the University of Ottawa in 2008, the previous administration, starting in 2005, was involved only in relatively moderate schemes to contain radical physics professor Denis Rancourt in his incessant applications of pedagogical advances and social justice and community outreach practices.

Pre-Rock containment attempts included [4]: removing the professor from all large first-year courses which he had developed, barring him from reserving an auditorium for his popular weekly documentary film and discussion series, arbitrarily imposing new academic rules in violation of Senate procedures (until overturned via a union grievance), an in-class dean’s intervention for which the university was later forced to apologize, allowing unethical attacks by a departmental chairman until the university was forced to intervene, fabrication of a student complaint (which the university withdrew), multiple contrived disciplinary campaigns that were dropped without explanation, and unjustified discipline for course content that was overturned by a labour law arbitrator.

In all of this tug of war over academic freedom the previous administration did not appear to contemplate outright dismissal and did not ever threaten dismissal. The first threats of dismissal came with Rock.

Only after Rock’s arrival did the administration’s methods become much more severe and physical, to include everything up to denial of due process, complete banning from all teaching, an unannounced laboratory lockout, unjustified firing of a research associate of 12-years (later settled out of court), threatening graduate students with loss of scholarships, banning of the professor from his weekly campus radio show using threat of police arrest, and forceful police arrest with handcuffs and removal while attending a campus event [5][6].

MORE THAN THE ISRAEL LOBBY AT WORK

Although the professor had received several disciplinary attempts and internal criticisms for hosting invited speakers who were critical of Israel in his classes in 2005 and 2006 and had widely expressed and published his own criticisms of Israel, and although Allan Rock is a known staunch supporter of Israeli policies and has directly intervened on campus on multiple occasions to impose his views on Israel [7][8][9], the sudden and fast-tracked decision to fire Rancourt may not have been primarily driven by Israel-Palestine politics, as is often the case in high-profile firings in North America [10].

In hind-sight, the chronology of events suggests otherwise, suggests that something suddenly irked Rock at an even more visceral level than his allegiance to the Israel lobby.

For example, renowned critic of Israeli policy and colleague professor Michel Chossudovsky (editor of GlobalResearch.ca) was not executed by Rock but only pressured into early retirement and retained part-time status.

It was more than the Israel lobby that drove Rock to his extremes of both urgency and intensity.

CHRONOLOGY TALKS

Let’s examine the chronology, including key campus events that involved Allan Rock. Here is how it went down.

Physics-mathematics student Marc Kelly (now of youTube fame [11]) took a fourth-year quantum mechanics course that Rancourt gave in the winter semester of 2008. The pedagogical method was unusual for a physics course and involved a non-competitive student-centered approach with an emphasis on in-class discussions. This caused some students in the class to question the pedagogical methods being used in their other courses.

Marc Kelly questioned the nature of the tests and assignments in a statistical physics course that he was taking concurrently with professor James Harden. Harden, was not receptive to the student’s questions and belittled Marc in front of the class and verbally intimidated him out of his office while nonetheless allowing the student to do a project instead of the final examination, only to refuse the project after the course was over and to attribute a failing grade without considering the project.

Student Kelly appealed this first to Harden, then to the physics department chairman Bela Joos, then to the vice-dean of science Leonard Kleine, then to the dean of science André E. Lalonde, then to the vice-president academic Robert Major, and finally to the president Allan Rock. In these appeals Kelly documented every step and put all those concerned and their superiors in cc. The saga is reported in a series of posts on UofOWatch and elsewhere [12].

Rock chose to not acknowledge or respond to Kelly’s emails. So, on Monday November 3, 2008, Kelly went to Rock’s office to chat with him about his ordeal.

That is when things took a nasty turn. Rock went ballistic on Kelly and repeatedly yelled at him to verbally intimidate him away in a disrespectful episode that could be enough to get a professor fired.

Fortunately, Kelly voice recorded the encounter and was therefore able to defend himself. Kelly posted the voice recording on the web and sent the link [13] by mass email to all the students and staff at the University of Ottawa (over 40,000 emails). (Even this exposed culmination of mistreatment did not result in justice for Kelly and his final project in the statistical physics course was never considered.)

Rock in turn sent a message to the university community in which he expressed “regret” by blaming Kelly. What followed was uninterrupted persecution of Mark Kelly. He was arbitrarily barred from his student-nominated position on a key university committee, unilaterally deregistered from a physics project course, pursued on multiple (a dozen or so) bogus criminal charges that were dropped, arrested in a class where he was invited to speak, arrested at an event where he was the main presenter (then let go without charges), barred from registering for all courses required to complete his degree, trespassed from campus, and ultimately pursued criminally again for allegedly violating his trespass. Concerted formal protests from both the student union and the union of teacher assistant have been to no avail. [12]

TV TALK SHOW PUTS IT OVER THE TOP

Following the November 3, 2008, verbal intimidation event in Rock’s office, Rancourt was coincidently invited on a pre-scheduled TV talk show (Talk Ottawa) to discuss his academic freedom struggles at the University of Ottawa. The TV interview was held live on the evening of November 12, 2008 [14]. During the call-in segment of the show, Mark Kelly called the studio and was put on air. The host had heard of the incident with Rock and the recording of Rock’s verbal intimidation was played on air from the web.

Rancourt then commented on air that he was appalled at the president’s behaviour and stated that a professor would be fired for treating a student that way.

Within days of this TV show Rancourt and his eight graduate students and research employee were locked out of their laboratory without any notice or forewarning on November 21, 2008. Following this, Rancourt was banned from campus and removed of all his functions on December 10, 2008, when he was escorted off the grounds by campus police. In an accelerated process like has never been seen at the University of Ottawa, Rancourt was then stripped of his tenure and fired on March 31, 2009, by an executive committee that included the membership of a prominent Ottawa Zionist organizer and Allan Rock himself.

It therefore appears that Rancourt was fired under public Israel lobby pressures because Allan Rock was irked beyond rational response by scholarship and award-nominated student and published scientific author Marc Kelly who remains banned from campus like a dangerous criminal.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) chief, Nathalie Des Rosiers, who continues to receive a salary from the University of Ottawa after serving under Rock as a vice president, has a different opinion about why Rancourt was fired [15].


Notes

[1] Opening line in “Dismissing critical pedagogy – Denis Rancourt vs. University of Ottawa”, best of rabble.ca 3 - book, Jenn Watt (Ed.) (First posted on web January 12, 2009.)

[2] Open letter from members of College and University Workers United (CUWU) (http://cdecde.blogspot.com/2010/03/members-of-college-and-university.html).

[3] http://stopthenightmare-wakeup.blogspot.com/2010/05/curious-case-of-marc-kelly.html (Posted May 18, 2010.)

[4] List of outstanding and resolved labour law grievances and outcomes: http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/formalgrievances.html

[5] Background information at AcademicFreedom.ca: http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/

[6] Report by workplace mobbing expert Dr. Kenneth Westhues:
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/Rancourt09.htm

[7] Statement by Denis Rancourt regarding his dismissal:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/component/content/article/25.html

[8] Allan Rock background and actions at the University of Ottawa: http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/allan-rock-u-of-o-mistake-was-avoidable.html

[9] Allan Rock and the Israel lobby – on and off campus:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/comparing-two-red-tie-liberals-on.html

[10] Nocella et al. (Eds.), Academic Repression, 2010, AK Press, 590 pages.

[11] youTube videos of Mark Kelly being arrested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiZ0VVKDGNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbY1nBTtSUI

[12] Articles about Marc Kelly on the UofOWatch blog:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Marc%20Kelly

[13] The true face of Allan Rock – post on UofOVoice blog:
http://uofovoice.blogspot.com/2008/11/true-face-of-allan-rock.html

[14] Talk Ottawa with James Hendricks, Rogers TV (Ottawa), Wednesday November 12, 2008, 9pm to 10pm.

[15] CCLA’s Nathalie Des Rosiers on why Rancourt was fired:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/author-calls-on-canadian-civil.html

Allan Rock puts “Canada’s university in the service of the world”

On December 10, 2008, U of O physics professor Denis Rancourt was barred from campus, suspended from all responsibilities, escorted off the premises by university police, and told that he would be fired as soon as it could be arranged. .

.

This catalyzed numerous responses and the creation and growth of several new web sites dedicated to tracking the University of Ottawa’s campaign to fire Rancourt:
.

Academic Freedom dot ca

.

Denis Rancourt blogspot

.

Denis Rancourt Wikipedia
.

The news also generated a frenzy of comment posting activity on UofOWatch, illustrating both sides of the debate.
.

A support committee (the Committee for the Defence of Education, CDE) has been set up and is chaired by psychology professor Claude Lamontagne, who can be reached at claude.cde -at- gmail -dot- com.
.

The CAUT announced its Independent Committee of Inquiry (ICOI) in the January 2009 issue of the CAUT Bulletin.

Committee Members Committed to Academic Values

December 9, 2008
.

TO: (Members of the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies; EC-FGPS)
.

- Gary Slater

- Irena Makaryk

- Christian Blanchette

- Paul Merkley

- Barbara Vanderhyden
.

CC: made public
.

RE: My membership to the FGPS
.

Dear colleagues,
.

Your membership on the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies shows that you are committed to upholding the academic values that sustain freedom of inquiry, freedom of expression, and professional independence in the academic environment. Your presumed commitment will soon be tested.
.

You are being asked to take part in an egregious, unprecedented, and indefensible violation of these academic values. How you proceed will indelibly, and publicly, reflect upon not only your committee but upon each one of you as individuals.
.

You will soon be evaluating my supervisory skills for the direction of graduate theses in my discipline.
.

Your evaluation is proceeding in the absence of any student complaints about my supervisory skills and in the face of unanimous student testimony to the contrary; in the context of a recognized and productive multi-disciplinary NSERC-funded scientific research group.
.

The exercise of the present review has been an egregious violation of academic norms and an indefensible attack against academic freedom.
.

Since your committee is the final authority in the matter of my membership review, I ask that you answer these simple procedural questions:
.

(1) What are the criteria for evaluating the supervisory skills of a full professor and active researcher with several graduate students?
.

(2) What are the criteria for involuntary termination of such a professor’s privilege to supervise graduate students?
.

(3) What are the precedents, if any, of active full professors being terminated on the basis of insufficient supervisory skills?
.

(4) Which of the criteria obtained in the precedent cases, if any?
.

These are the relevant questions in a fair and transparent process.
.

I ask to be heard at your committee meeting and I suggest that you enquire about all the documents that have been excluded from consideration in the previous committee despite my requests.
.
Sincerely,

Denis Rancourt

(Professor)

.

[Photo credits: University of Ottawa]

Reparation is due at U of O - Grievance filed

October 7, 2008

.
Louise Pagé-Valin

Associate Vice-President

Human Resources Services

University of Ottawa

Tabaret Hall

550 Cumberland Street

(delivered by hand)
.

Re: Grievance G-19 (my code) – EBOG UofOWatch decision.

.

Dear Mrs. Pagé-Valin:

.

This is to grieve the September 11th decision of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) regarding my UofOWatch.blogspot.com blog.
.

The Dean admitted in writing that if my articles had not been critical of the University, then I would not have been punished. This is a blatant violation of academic freedom. It also represents undue interference with my work.

.

In addition, in an email to Secretary of the University Pamela Harrod dated September 28, 2008, I expressed concerns about significant procedural anomalies in the EBOG’s September 11th decision. I have not yet received a response. I ask that you immediately provide written clarifications regarding my concerns expressed in my September 28, 2008, email to Pamela Harrod and immediately provide a copy of the (appropriately severed) minutes of the September 11th EBOG meeting, showing which EBOG members were present.
.
I ask that the discipline be reversed and that reparation be made, with interest. I want a written apology co-signed by all members of the EBOG which were present at the September 11th EBOG meeting. I want a written apology from the Dean. I ask that a new text of the policy for University copyrighted images be adopted which explicitly permits criticism of and/or fair (legal) commentary about the University in the use of University web images by professors, media, and students in any academic or journalistic work.

.
Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

(Professor)
.

Cc: Posted to UofOWatch blog, BOG, APUO, Dean of Science..

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; Louise Page-Valin, Dean Andre E. Lalonde]

It’s Unanimous! The University’s Intellectual Property Must Be Protected

In a letter dated September 23, 2008, the dean of the Faculty of Science, André E. Lalonde, informed Professor Denis G. Rancourt of the September 11, 2008, decision of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) in the matter of discipline for having robed the University’s intellectual property.

.
See uTube video HERE.

.

The dean proudly announced “The Executive of the Board of Governors accepted the Dean’s recommendation [to discipline Rancourt]. The decision was unanimous.”

.

Bloggers and news media beware: The University of Ottawa will take whatever means necessary to bar the use of its pictures that it makes public on its web site.

.

In this case, it has disciplined one of its own professors with an unpaid suspension for having posted properly-credited uOttawa.ca images on his (this) blog (UofOWatch), even though the blog is part of the professor’s work for the University.

.

Just think of what the University will do if you are not one of its professors using the images for University work…

.

If the blog were not part of the professor’s work, then the University could not have disciplined the professor using labour law but would have needed to sue the professor under copyright law.

But wait. All the pictures are still up on the blog? The University has not protected its intellectual property. By its own logic, the University has no choice but to discipline Rancourt further and more severely for continuing to rob the University’s intellectual property. But is the University willing to push its insanity further…?

The University had given Rancourt permission to use its copyrighted images “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa” but then agued that UofOWatch is not “positive.” (LINK) Rancourt explained that the best way to make-positive negatives (such as VPs and deans lying or falsifying documents: LINK, LINK, LINK) is to report the mistakes, and to criticize, so that those who need to learn from their mistakes do. Rancourt explained that criticism is positive, as is being seen to allow criticism, and that, therefore, the images are being used “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.”

In addition, the UofOWatch blog itself is a positive activity of the University of Ottawa and the pictures positively promote the UofOWatch blog.

Hello… The University is adopting a copyright practice regarding its web pictures that is straight out of Orwell’s 1984. “Canada’s university,” that bastion of freedom of expression, intellectual inquiry, and critical discourse, is limiting its copyrighted resources to those who can wear plastic smiles and who are willing to serve its Communications Office.

For some reason, the student and mainstream media have not caught on to these subtleties in their coverage of Rancourt’s EBOG adventure. (LINK) To be fair, these subtleties also unanimously escaped the EBOG members, the Dean, and the University Legal Counsel, to name a few.

The unanimity of thought within the University administration suggests that only individuals that are capable of incisive analyses in complex cases attain the higher positions within the institutional hierarchy. (LINK) Not.

The Dean’s letter [POSTED HERE] made no mention of which of the twelve EBOG members were present at the September 11th meeting or whether President Allan Rock (Vice-Chair, EBOG) was in the room or how many of the members were present in addition to Secretary Pamela Harrod.

.

The public was banned from attending the EBOG September 11th meeting and Rancourt was not allowed to address the committee, not even to obtain clarification of his procedural concerns. The letter and email exchange between Rancourt and EBOG Secretary Pamela Harrod is POSTED HERE.

Security guards and locked doors were used to keep Rancourt and the public from entering the board room: See a report and a video HERE.
***

U of O EBOG Members:

Yves Tremblay, Chair
Allan Rock, Vice-Chair
Pamela Harrod, Secretary (non-member)
Jeffrey M. Dale
Ruth Freiman
Abdo Georges Ghié
V. Peter Harder
Marc Jolicoeur
Richard L’Abbé
Louise Lemyre
Julia Morris
Louise Tardif
Carmen Prévost Vierula

.
[photo credit: University of Ottawa]

LINKS to media:

Ottawa Sun feature 2008
La Rotonde news article
Ottawa Sun feature 2007
Ottawa Xpress feature 2006

UofOWatch Blog Too Much for UofO – Board to Decide on Suspension of Professor

This very blog, which should be celebrated by the University of Ottawa as an example of open self-criticism and vibrant discourse (e.g., see Professor St-Amant’s many contributed comments to the previous post), has in fact been threatened with legal action on two counts and its creator, Professor Denis Rancourt, has been disciplined and is now under review for suspension.
.
Professor Rancourt’s final supplementary brief (posted HERE) in the matter of his suspension for the blog was deposited today. The Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa has 40 working days to provide its decision and its reasons therefor. BOG meetings are public.
.

A brief history of the University’s reactions to the UofOWatch blog is as follows.
.
First, on August 20, 2007, University of Ottawa’s VP-Resources Victor Simon initiated a “private” action against Rancourt using the third largest national law firm in Canada, Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG), which is known to specialize in libel and defamation cases. The Chairman of the BOG of the University of Ottawa is a Partner in BLG.
.

The BLG letter of threat “Notice under the Libel and Slander Act” is posted HERE. It is signed by BLG Partner J. Bruce Carr-Harris who has been involved in high-profile fund raising activities for the University.
.

The letter states:
.

“Mr. Simon hereby demands that you immediately remove the two blogs [THIS ONE and THIS ONE] … from your U of O Watch blog, failing which we expect to receive instructions to commence the requisite legal proceedings to do so.
.

In addition, we require a full, absolute, and unequivocal and fair apology and retraction of all defamatory statements…”
.

Similar letters of threat of legal action, in this matter of Victor Simon and UofOWatch, were sent to graduate students Jean-Paul Prévost and Severin Stojanovic (for allegedly providing material support) and to three (student) staff members (Editor-in-Chief, Director General, and the journalist covering the Victor Simon matter) of the student newspaper La Rotonde (presumably to intimidate the paper away from publishing on the matter).
.

La Rotonde bravely published a full spread on September 10, 2007, with copies of some of the BLG letters. Rancourt did not budge, trusting truth as the ultimate defence. The lawsuits never materialized.
.

Next, on August 28, 2007, came a letter from the University of Ottawa’s Legal Counsel (Michelle Flaherty). This letter is posted HERE and states: “the University of Ottawa hereby requires that you immediately remove the images of Tabaret Hall, of the President of the University of Ottawa with Mr. Telfer and of the President of the University of Ottawa and Mr. Lau from the U of O Watch blog site … If you fail to remove these images by August 31, 2007, the University of Ottawa may take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its intellectual property rights.”
.

The Flaherty letter explained that it is University policy that the images “may be used by faculty, staff, students, and the news media solely for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.”
.

Having been informed of the University policy, Rancourt responded by making more widespread use of copyrighted University images, which greatly enhanced the blog.
.

The Dean of the Faculty of Science, André E. Lalonde, next enthusiastically took on the job of “protect[ing] [the University’s] intellectual property rights.” The Dean initiated his own investigation on November 23, 2007 (see letter posted HERE). In his letter, the Dean explained “I am concerned that your refusal to remove the copyrighted images from the U of O Watch website constitutes insubordination.”
.

What followed was a long series of meetings, exchanges of letters, and procedures (see Rancourt’s brief HERE for a summary) in which Rancourt tried to explain to the dean that both criticism and allowing criticism were positive and that, consequently, the University policy was not being violated.
.

The Dean disciplined Rancourt and warned of more discipline if the images were not removed. The Dean then appealed to the good judgement of VP-Academic Robert Major to ask that Major schedule the continuation of the investigation in order to pursue a suspension of Rancourt. Major obliged – leading to the present evaluation by the Board.
.

The Executive Summary of Rancourt’s BRIEF to the Board reads as follows.
.

The University of Ottawa has a stated policy of allowing professors to use its copyrighted images from its web site “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.” (See Legal Counsel’s letter to Denis Rancourt dated August 28, 2007.)
.

Denis Rancourt uses credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site in the UofOWatch blog that he manages (see attached item-1).
.

The UofOWatch blog features commentary and critical articles about activities of the University of Ottawa (see attached item-1).
.

The credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site significantly enhance the UofOWatch blog (a picture is worth a thousand words) and show a positive image of a university open to self-criticism.
.

University professors have academic freedom in their research and communications, including in criticisms of the university itself. The university has a duty to support the work of its professors, within the usual limits of resource constraints.
.

The University has disciplined Professor Denis Rancourt (Letter of Reprimand dated February 5, 2008) for not removing the copyrighted images from the UofOWatch blog.
.

Dean André E. Lalonde presently seeks further discipline (a one-day suspension) to be approved by the Board, before a grievance (filed on February 24, 2008) against the first discipline has been heard.
.

The University’s discipline and the on-going attempt to further discipline are not legitimate and appear to constitute attempts at ideological (political) censorship. The actions of the dean (and of Legal Counsel) appear to be petty and contrary to fostering a vibrant and critical university intellectual environment in a free and democratic society.
.

In addition, there are many procedural anomalies that point to serious problems in ethical and responsible management. These include illegal gathering and use of personal information and unwarranted legal threats.
.

In wrapping up his BRIEF, Rancourt states:
.

“Criticism is positive, healthy, and necessary to produce change. Congratulatory niceties only support the status quo. Not exposing known problems encourages their continuation. Criticism is vital work that needs to be encouraged rather than censored and attacked.”
.

Let us hope that the Board, in its collective wisdom and mandated fairness, will find a way to celebrate freedom of expression and inquiry at the University of Ottawa.
.

[Photo Credit: University of Ottawa. Mr. Marc Jolicoeur, BLG Partner and Chairman of the University’s Board of Governors.]

Arbitration Ruling Makes Academic Squatting Legal in Canada

On June 25, 2008, Arbitrator Michel G. Picher released his 65-page ruling in the matter of the University of Ottawa vs. the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) regarding Professor Denis Rancourt’s discipline grievance related to the Fall 2005 offering of the course PHY 1703 “Physics and the Environment” (Physique et environnement), popularly known as the Activism Course.
.
The University had taken disciplinary action against Professor Rancourt charging that he had misrepresented his course in a detailed web posting, in such a way as to have described a dramatically different course not compatible with the official course description. The Arbitrator rejected the University’s charges, finding that the described course was within the purview of academic freedom.
.

The then dean of the Faculty of Science, chemistry professor Christian Detellier, had barged into the classroom on September 21, 2005, to suspend the course, causing a strong student reaction that was amply reported in the media. The University has since apologized for the Dean’s in-class intervention: LINK.
.

The public arbitration hearings were held in Ottawa on November 5, 8, 14, and 26, 2007. The Arbitrator refers to the Activism Course in his decision as having been made “something of a ‘cause célèbre’” (p.27 of the June 25th decision).
.

The ruling is a landmark award that strengthens and broadens the scope of academic freedom in Canada. The full text of the Award is available HERE.
.

The ruling establishes that pedagogical innovation and implementation are fully protected under the academic freedom enjoyed by a professor, including the choice of grading system – considered an integral part of the pedagogical method.
.

In the specific case, the protected pedagogical innovations included:
.

(a) A large fraction of the class time used to present societal and political material – in a physics course intended to deliver fundamental physics concepts as the only required physics course in an environmental studies program – as a way to motivate student learning and to position the science in the broad societal context. This was achieved using invited scientist and non-scientist speakers that included activists, politicians, community workers, etc. The ruling clarifies that no “exception [was] taken to the use of activism and social and political issues as catalysts to learning.”
.

(b) Parallel student workgroups with evolving themes and freely changing student memberships and town-hall-style whole-class discussions instead of traditional lectures delivered by the professor.
.

(c) An open invitation to all community members to freely and fully participate in the class, without necessarily officially registering and paying tuition, as a way to bring in the community to enrich class discussions and strengthen relevance and community connections. This brought in a variety of perspectives and expertises that would otherwise not have been available.
.

(d) Large latitude in individual student decision making regarding: order in which to learn things (e.g., workgroup membership and topic), depth of treatment, method of study, method of reporting progress, degree of cooperative work, etc. (Sharing was not considered cheating.)
.

(e) A satisfactory/non-satisfactory (S/NS) grading system rather than the traditional letter grade system (used in all other science courses given that term).
.

Having examined the long list of University complaints about how Professor Rancourt had, in his web communications (see ruling), subverted the “spirit, content, and function” (translated from French) of the course, the Arbitrator found that “that position cannot be sustained by the Arbitrator” and that all the innovations communicated and implemented by Professor Rancourt fell within his rights under academic freedom.
.

The ruling therefore again puts to rest the backward notions that hard sciences must be studied in isolation and that tunnel-vision specialization is the only acceptable way.
.

The Arbitrator added: “… the major change being with respect to the pedagogical innovation of independent group studies, the involvement of the students themselves in identifying areas of interest and the introduction of the satisfactory/not-satisfactory grading system. The Arbitrator is satisfied that those pedagogical initiatives were legitimately within the purview of the academic freedom enjoyed by Professor Rancourt …”
.

The ruling therefore also lays to rest the doctrinal view that only grades can motivate students in the hard sciences and that students must be “forced to learn”, least our technological society fall in ruin. LINK. (If that is true, then Canada’s new academic freedom is indeed a dangerous freedom.)
.

In addition, the Arbitrator’s award also affirms that (consistent with actual practice) a course can, through a process of pedagogical choices, be significantly different in its use of class time and in topics covered than a literal and restrictive reading of the official (Senate-approved) course description would suggest: How much class time a professor chooses to use on what is a matter of pedagogical freedom, in the professor’s attempt to achieve the best possible end results; keeping in mind a professor’s right to be political in the classroom, as already well established in Collective Agreements across the country and in past rulings.
.

In the words of the Arbitrator, “The assertion … to the effect that the publicized descriptions of the course contained a ‘radically different content’ as compared to what was contemplated in the official description of the course cannot be sustained by the Arbitrator” and “there is simply no equitable basis upon which the University, or Dean Detellier, could assert … that Professor Rancourt ‘…brought major changes to the content of his courses…’ (Arbitrator’s translation) … the evidence before this tribunal confirms that … [the changes] fell legitimately within the scope of his academic freedom in pursuing a different pedagogical approach …” (p.60-61 of the decision).
.

The Arbitrator’s ruling is in sharp contrast to Professor (on leave) Christian Detellier’s hearing statement that “‘squatting’ is not an appropriate means to implement curriculum change within a university” (p.19 of the decision).
.

Professor Rancourt won the decision on every major point. Even on the minor point of the course title, the ruling explicitly established that a professor can describe his course with a dramatically different title: “Activism Course: Understanding Power and its Contexts” (web call-out) versus “Physique et environnement” (official Senate-approved title).
.

If your conclusion is “In the classroom, the students and professor rule!”, then you get an S for satisfactory, and you deserve an A+. Let’s make our education…
.

Epilogue: Legal Counsel for the University, Michelle Flaherty, apparently quit or was fired some months after the hearings, leaving her voice-mail greeting on the University phone for a week or so after she left; and without any official announcement of thanks or recognition or acknowledgement of departure from the University, leaving the position vacant to this day. Legal defence for the APUO was assumed by labour lawyer Sean T. McGee of Nelligan O'Brien Payne, who built the case around the principle of academic freedom. Christian Detellier went on academic leave for two years in 2006 before going back to being a regular professor in the Department of Chemistry. The Faculty of Science is on its fourth dean or interim-dean since 2005 (one died of cancer). Dean André E. Lalonde is presently the University’s defender of academic freedom in that faculty and is actively pursuing Professor Rancourt for alleged departures from the official course description in SCI 1101, Science in Society, Fall 2006, and for the professor’s teaching methods and grading practices in PHY 4385 and PHY 5100, Solid State Physics, Winter 2008.

.

LINKS

CAUT Policy Statement on Academic Freedom

Academic Squatting

Ottawa Xpress feature article

Ottawa Sun feature article

Dean Gary Slater Reads Contempt

March 13, 2008

Gary Slater
Dean
Faculty of Graduate Studies
University of Ottawa

Re: Your letter about me to Dean André Lalonde dated January 29, 2008.

Dear Dr. Slater,

In your letter of January 29th to the dean of the Faculty of Science you complained about my late cancellation in serving as a thesis examiner on a student’s MSc thesis.

These were exceptional circumstances. I explained the circumstances to those making the thesis defence arrangements and the defence proceeded without negative consequences to the student.

It is your duty to act in such a way as to ensure optimal functioning of graduate programs, however, in your letter you allowed yourself to gratuitously conclude that “This behaviour [of my having to cancel an engagement due to unforeseen circumstances] shows contempt for the rights of students”.

That is an unacceptable statement from you about my character; that is not based on the facts of the matter and that is inconsistent with my professional ethics of the last 22 years.

I find your communication to the dean of Science in this regard to be unprofessional and unethical, unless you have discovered a magical gift for extrapolating into the heart of a person using only circumstantial administrative events.

I ask that you apologize to me and that you rectify your letter to the dean of Science by March 20th. I make my request public in an effort to discourage the use of such internal administrative documents such as your letter that gratuitously disparages a member of the university community.

Sincerely,

Denis Rancourt
Professor of Physics

cc: APUO
cc: dean of Science
cc: made public, media

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa.]

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]

Students need to be protected from freedom – U of O Legal Council explains

The November 26, 2007, closing arguments in the labour law arbitration case of activist professor Denis Rancourt vs. the University of Ottawa greatly clarified the university position.

Legal Council for the university, Michelle Flaherty, backed by university HR officer Louise Pagé-Valin and ex-dean of science Christian Detellier, pleaded for the university discipline against Rancourt to be upheld. The arbitrator’s decision is expected within a month or more.

Flaherty explained that [despite the letter of reprimand’s profuse insinuations regarding Rancourt’s alleged subversion of course content] the discipline was limited only to Rancourt having allegedly advertised the course (PHY 1703, Fall 2005; required course in Environmental Studies, ES) on the web in a manner not consistent with the official Senate-approved course description.

Of particular concern to the university, were Rancourt’s uses of the words “new,” “bilingual,” and the use of an informal alternative title stressing activism.

This appears to be the first time that a university professor is disciplined for the manner in which she has advertised or promoted one of her courses, as Flaherty stated having found no relevant case law.

Flaherty argued that the discipline should be upheld because students needed to be protected from false advertisement; as this was unfair, irresponsible, confusing for students, and could have serious implications in students’ lives. Flaherty cited the university’s mandatory duty to protect students no less than six times in her approximately 90-minute presentation.

The executive members of the ES Student Association who unanimously endorsed the course were not consulted or allowed to testify, nor were any of the 87 registered students, or any of the more than 600 students who signed petitions to create more courses like the one given by Rancourt in 2005; nor were any of the related documents allowed to be submitted into evidence, by Rancourt’s union that wanted only “relevant” items.

Flaherty read out what the university considers the most damning elements of Rancourt’s “advertisement” as follows:

“The idea is that students will be able to follow their own interests and largely determine class content and direction, via a participatory democracy town hall-type process.”

“The course will largely be administered by a process called "participatory democracy" (PD). This means that the students themselves can (democratically and by consensus) decide on much of the course content, methods, invited speakers, class activities, readings, etc. All such decisions can be revisited periodically and the course curriculum and administration can be adjusted as we go. This means that the course can be greatly tailored to the needs and interests of the students.”

and explained that, therefore, dean Detellier had no way to guarantee that the students would learn science. (*)

Flaherty’s facial expression said it all: “You see. It was going all to hell…!”

There you have it.

That’s what it’s all about: Control, this notion that you can force students to learn. And that the university has a duty to force students to “learn what’s good for them.” And if we have to discipline our professors to understand this, then we will!

Who needs pedagogical research? We have PhDs.


[Photo credits: Ottawa IndyMedia]

(*) This allegedly stressed the dean to the point of performing an in-class tantrum at the second class of term, for which the university has since apologized in writing, just days before the start of the arbitration.

RELATED LINKS

Israel Lobby elephant in the room
Did the dean lie?
52 profs complain about Rancourt
Academic squatting
Rancourt barred from all courses

It’s called transparency…

The dean of the Faculty of Science, University of Ottawa, Dr. André Lalonde, called Professor Denis Rancourt, to a forced June 20th disciplinary meeting, under the threat of dismissal.

The professor was convened under the Star Chamber paragraph (39.4.2.1) of the Collective Agreement. This type of meeting is on-the-record; a professor is bound to answer all questions, and the answers can be used against her.

Normally, this emergency mechanism is used only for grave acts or omissions such as related to sexual harassment. In this case, the professor is suspected of intending to offer a course, on his own time, that hundreds of students want but that the administration has removed from the professor’s workload.

The charge, therefore, is insubordination.

The meeting was cancelled by the dean before its official start, after 45 minutes of intense negotiation, because Professor Rancourt would not sign away his right to tape record the meeting. The meeting has the full force of labour law where all on-the-record proceedings are public.

Bad habits are hard to break: Dean Lalonde has also recently cancelled a public Faculty Council meeting, after two minutes of proceedings, because community members would not stop “harassing” the tenured and publicly-funded council members by taping the proceedings. Three community members present have since been served with trespass notices informing them that they will be prosecuted if found on university property in the future.

To be continued…

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.

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.