"Ethically challenged" Allan Rock U of O mistake was avoidable

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

Allan Rock began his mandate as president of the University of Ottawa in July 2008.

In the short time since his arrival at 'Canada's university', Allan Rock has

• unilaterally declared that his plan for the University of Ottawa was to "put [it] in the service of the world"
  
• fired a tenured professor who was never heard by a committee of his peers
  
• installed the regular use of trespass against professors and students
• installed the regular use of criminal charges against activist students (E.G.)
  
• personally gone after and deregistered and banned student Marc Kelly
• banned a student Israeli Apartheid Week poster (E.G.)
  
• personally attacked a student research group (OPIRG) for its principled stance on Israel
• steadfastly covered up at least two known campaigns of university covert surveillance against students and a professor
• ousted the University Secretary and installed an outsider as VP-Governance
• financially committed the university to promotion of Canada's war in Afghanistan via "Project Hero" without any community consultation
  
• increased university central administration costs by 30% (Report)
  
• increased executive salaries by 30% last year alone (Report)
  
• supervised the greatest damage to the university's reputation in the institution's history (Coulter fiasco)
• pushed through a corporate-style fiscal restraint plan using outside experts (at a cost of over $160, 000) rather than using the traditional collegial governance model (Report)
  

Could this have been predicted? And if so, what was the selection committee thinking?

For example, one member of the selection committee that gave 'Canada's university' Rock was physics professor Gary Slater. Dr. Slater is an accomplished scientist and a previous recipient of the institution's Researcher of the Year Award. One would have expected Dr. Slater to have done a little research about Mr. Rock.

Did the selection committee know that Allan Rock had overrun the gun registry budget by 50,000% (fifty thousand percent)? Or that he had paid two million dollars of tax payer money to Brian Mulroney? Or that he had left 60,000 Canadians infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood without reparation on the basis of the year they were infected?

Did Dr. Slater ask himself why Mr. Rock's once still promising political career came to an abrupt end in 2003 after which he was shuffled off to the UN to reinvent himself as a champion of human rights? (For example by changing Canada's longstanding foreign policy on Israel from abstaining on human rights resolutions for Palestine to being one of the few countries in the World that vote with the US and Israel against UN human rights resolutions for Palestine.)

If Dr. Slater posed this research question then he discovered what the media discovered in 2003: That Allan Rock is "ethically challenged" - Ottawa Citizen, November 8, 2003, page 1.

In the words of CanWest News investigative reporter Norma Greenaway:

"[Rock's] behaviour since the Irving affair became public has revealed him to be ethically challenged."

"it took Rock days to apologize. And he only grudgingly did so after Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw rose in the Commons and offered an unqualified apology for accepting a ride on the Irving corporate jet three years ago. She also announced she was reimbursing the family for the flight."

In 2002 when the then Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson discovered that Minister Rock had in summer 2001 accepted a private jet stay at the Irving family salmon fishing lodge, he issued a ruling that Rock was to avoid all ministerial dealings benefiting Irving enterprises for one year. During that blackout year Rock made three significant ministerial decisions benefiting Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

On investigating the latter multimillion-dollar violations, "Wilson said it 'would have be better' if a minister other than Rock had signed the $55-million grant, but noted the signature was made by a machine on instructions from Industry officials."(Ottawa Citizen)

Rock was happy to accept the latter whitewashing that the opposition leaders called a "complete joke" but it put an end to his political and federal judgeship ambitions.

Fast forward to 2008: The media reported that the first thing Rock did as president of the University of Ottawa was to accept an Israel lobby funded trip to Israel and agree to launch an inter-university exchange program in law ("in the service of the world"). When later asked if Palestinian students would be allowed to participate in the program Rock publicly stated that he could not answer that.

These days, Rock's "service to the world" includes promoting "the responsibility to intervene" in Africa and writing an opinion editorial about stranded Nazia Quazi in Saudi Arabia. All of which he describes to attentive students on his "Rock Talk" blog which filters out critical "off topic" student comments. The blog was said to have been initiated to "help resolve the problem of one-way communication." Student leaders explain Rock's behaviour to themselves by postulating that he wants to re-enter federal politics - because they can't otherwise figure it out.

Clearly the Allan Rock U of O mistake was avoidable. Unless the selection committee was incompetent or blinded, it must have known how predictable Rock's unconstrained performance would be?

Why would any university make itself home to a failed politician who is ethically challenged, who has bungled most major dossiers to cross his desk, who appears to be in the pocket of outside interests, and who wants to spend more time out "in the world" rather than on campus?

Such an appointment is diametrically opposed to the established academic principles of responsible management of public (and student tuition) funds and of institutional independence as a safeguard for academic freedom (HERE).

We hope that this blog will help produce needed change, a break from the pattern of history.

RELATED POSTS:
All UofOWatch posts about Allan Rock

'Canada's university' spied on Burmese students to 'protect' Desmarais

THIS stunning media report from Burma exposes a second known University of Ottawa campaign of covert surveillance that the Rock administration is covering up.

The original Burmese report is HERE. Detailed revelations directly implicate several top U of O executives and are supported by hard-fought-for documents* obtained through access to information law.

University executives conspired

• to covertly spy on a student event about Burmese blood money allegedly having been received from corporate donor Paul Desmarais in funding the university's Desmarais building,
  
• to gather information in view of libel lawsuits against the students, and
  
• to increase room booking rates to make rooms inaccessible to unfunded student groups.

For example, U of O Vice-President Victor Simon is quoted from one of his emails as:

"we should prohibit the use of our facilities for this event, on the grounds that the program material includes allegations and accusations that may be libellous . . .I know that this kind of action thinking flies in the face of many principles we hold dear in the University world, but I think we have others interests at stake here."

Others interests (sic)? These guys know who they work for... They have a legal responsibility to protect academic freedom; a responsibility reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This is how they do it.

Will the Rock administration continue to bury this kind of malfeasance (e.g., HERE) or will it straighten the ship and do the necessary to restore public confidence in the institution?

RELATED POSTS:
All UofOWatch posts about covert surveillance at U of O

*Access to information documents made public HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Coulter aftermath: Allan Rock "comes clean" three weeks later

THIS video and THIS media report establish the official blame sharing scheme worked out at the University of Ottawa some three weeks after the canceled Ann Coulter event:

1. Allan Rock alleges to have pre-approved the boobanesque Francois Houle letter to Coulter, as the official institutional response to her planned visit.
2. Allan Rock alleges to have recognized when he approved the letter that such a letter sent only to certain speakers could represent discrimination and could have a chilling effect on a potential speaker.
3. Allan Rock alleges that he refused to accept the student union request to ban the Coulter talk from campus based entirely on his responsibility to defend free speech.
4. Allan Rock continues to allege that the University of Ottawa has always been and without exception a vigorous defender of free speech.
5. Allan Rock proposes that the U of O now needs to develop a consensus policy of freedom of expression?
   

[We are not making this shit up. He wants an institutional consensus view about freedom of expression. Watch the VIDEO.]

There you have it, in five-point format. No sophistry or contradictions in them there words. That should wrap it up nicely. Try taking me to the human rights tribunal now. Took away your bang didn't I? "I did it." "The institution is wise and pure." "I did it." "You have to go after me, not just Franky."

Meanwhile, Franky Houle sat beside his boss and did not utter a peep (see VIDEO). Now we know what it means when a VP signs a letter at the U of O.

Rock's CEO career ambitions and professional reputation are over if he continues to take U of O down the tubes as he is doing, so it was time for him to take some hits in an attempt to salvage the wreckage. Historians are already penning the sequence of consecutive professional fiascoes:

• Gun registry cost overshoot by $1B
• $2M of taxpayer cash paid to Brian Mulroney for no known reason
• Tainted blood victim discrimination
• Canadian UN position on Israel
• Intimidation of student politicians, banning of student poster
  
• Police-state style persecution of student Marc Kelly
• Cover up of an extensive on-campus covert surveillance campaign
• Trashing of a major school's reputation internationally
  

Maybe some people just aren't meant to have responsibilities beyond student government?

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock lied about freedom of expression at U of O
All UofOWatch posts about Ann Coulter matter
All UofOWatch posts about Marc Kelly
All UofOWatch posts about covert surveillance and cover up
Rock corporatization of U of O (in a bad way)

A first at U of O: Professors' union goes public against central administration

Never before seen at the University of Ottawa. What does it mean?

The school's Association of Professors University of Ottawa (APUO) union has, for the first time in its history, been publicly critical of the university's central administration.

Read the April 15, 2010, media-reported criticism HERE.

This suggests particularly bad leadership by former Minister of Justice now university president Allan Rock but may also reflect a momentary lapse in the union's longstanding posture or a fundamental underlying shift in institutional culture?

The APUO union is a typical Canadian professors' union that seeks to collaborate with the administration in order to best secure and maximize the relative societal privileges of the majority of its members.

As with virtually all such professors' unions (e.g., see No Ivory Tower by Ellen Schrecker), ass kissing and hierarchical obedience have been found by experimentation to be the surest route to job security for aligned professors and to the proverbial three P's: Parking, pay, and pensions.

But now this. Novice APUO president Lessard actually talking to the media and going after the admin's mission of the moment: Control by budget restructuring. This in a context where the number of contract-protected professors' salaries over $100,000 per year rose by 25% last year: HERE and HERE.

In other words, there is no obvious reason for the APUO to stand up at this time in this dramatic and public way, after decades of mute collaboration. Maybe the Rock administration's authoritarianism is starting to make its mark on even the most privileged group of the university community? Maybe the appearance of solidarity with students would have been difficult to avoid?

For the first time in the history of the institution, the traditional power of the VP-Academic (normally second in command, as per the University of Ottawa Act, 1965) has been replaced by an outside Rock appointment, Diane Davidson, in the newly created position of VP-Governance.

For the first time in the history of the institution, the CEO and his executive staff are mostly not from the professorial ranks, mostly don't have PhDs, and are mostly not familiar with undergraduate teaching or academic research.

As pointed out by Lessard, administrative costs rose by 23.7% last year [not to mention executive salaries... or the fact that the former president is still collecting (2009) his full CEO salary of $351,120. per year plus benefits and has been nowhere to be found since Rock took over]. We note that this administrative cost increase occurred under Rock as corporate-style control was implemented, including unprecedented uses of branding and media relations, campus police, surveillance, and hired corporate lawyers. Rock has written more Op-Eds than one can shake a stick at.

Rock is also always "out of town", either promoting "the responsibility to intervene" in Africa or creating academic exchange programs with Israel or using his university-paid-for flat in Toronto.

The U of O is being put to waste and its reputation shredded (e.g., Coulter fiasco, police-state measures against student Marc Kelly) while Rock appoints his cronies and is out of town. To fix it Rock wants to impose budget restructuring which, again for the first time in the institution's history, has not proceeded via the required collegial governance process.

By not grieving (lawsuit under labour law) the Rock budget plans as having violated the legally established fundamental principle of collegial governance (of universities), the APUO is abandoning its legitimate power and its social responsibility, while publicly posturing to avoid deeper scrutiny.

Just my opinion.

RELATED POSTS:
Rock's corporatization of the U of O
All UofOWatch posts on corporatization of the U of O

U of O's Rock actuates a complete exile of math student Marc Kelly

Hemlock or exile?

Those were the only two choices provided by former Minister of Justice now university president Allan Rock.

Rock's conflict with student Marc Kelly has been described HERE and recently in a detailed report by Stephen Lendman HERE. The Ottawa corporate media have also recently reported Kelly's banishment HERE and HERE (today).

Allan Rock's recorded November 3rd 2008 verbal abuse and intimidation of Kelly was made public HERE and by mass email:


But now exile - a complete ban on associating or communicating with all 50,000 members of the university community.

The Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the student union is leading Kelly's defense and has put out this press release:

U of O’s Rock administration exiles student from all communications

OTTAWA, April 14, 2010 – Following Monday’s arrest of University of Ottawa math student Marc Kelly and a 24 hour detention in jail, Ottawa Police have imposed an unprecedented restriction:

Under the threat of immediate jailing until trial, Kelly is required to abstain from communication or associating directly, indirectly, or electronically, with all students and staff of the university.

The arrest was for an alleged violation of unjustified trespass from the public institution, contested by the student unions, and was intended to keep Kelly from speaking at a university Senate meeting where university president Allan Rock spoke to defend U of O’s freedom of expression practices in the wake of the Coulter fiasco:
http://web5.uottawa.ca/admingov/committee-video.html?id=2&vid=305

Kelly had sent a mass email to students inviting them to attend Senate using this striking video link:
http://www.marckelly.tv/monday/

The arrest was only days after Kelly was freely allowed into the same building to speak and to introduce free speech legal expert Doug Christie.

“Marc is being treated like a terrorist and exiled from the community so that Rock can have his damage-control media show uninterrupted” said university student Senate member elect Joseph Hickey.

- 30 -

For more information please contact:

Mireille Gervais LL.L
Director, Student Appeal Centre (SFUO)

Joseph Hickey, university Senate member elect

Liam Kennedy-Slaney, student

U of O’s Rock administration used excessive force against students today

THIS MEDIA REPORT of April 11, 2010, cannot have pleased U of O president Allan Rock:

On the student satisfaction front, the only direction to go is up. A 2008 national survey of students asked "if you could start over, would you go to the institution you are now attending?" Senior University of Ottawa students gave answers that placed their school 52nd of 53 Canadian universities ranked. The report says "the data are stark and call for immediate action."...

One might conclude that the University of Ottawa has blundered into a quagmire. In polite terms, the report says the university leadership doesn't properly understand the financial impact of its decisions on student enrolment, research focus and productivity. ...

Continuing his recent policy of not saying anything about anything, Rock declined to comment on the report, although it is said to reflect his desires to do more for students. ...

But now is this how he takes it out on others?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - U of O’s Rock administration used excessive force against students today

OTTAWA, April 12, 2010 – University of Ottawa campus police assaulted and held student Marc Kelly today at the bus stop at the corner of Laurier and Nicholas to prevent him from presenting his case at university Senate; in front of more than twenty shocked student supporters and several video cameras, as Ottawa Police arrived on the scene.

Kelly is being held at the Elgin Street jail and has not yet been allowed to contact his lawyer at this time.

This only four days after Kelly was allowed into the same university building to host controversial freedom of expression speaker Doug Christie. The latter event caused the TV and print Ottawa media to report Kelly’s unjustified political expulsion by the Rock administration.

Fellow student and Senate member elect Joseph Hickey was also assaulted and thrown to the ground while being choked during the campus police action. Hickey’s complaint with Ottawa Police is being investigated against campus police member Michel Leroux.

Campus police presence was reminiscent of a terrorist lock down rather than an action intended to prevent a student’s university Senate enquiry. At the same time in the Senate chamber, university president Allan Rock expressed the university’s commitment to free speech in relation to its recent Coulter fiasco.

“Excessive force was used” expressed student witness Liam Kennedy, “Marc was not a threat and there was no need for an arrest.”

“This is off the charts in terms of political discrimination” said Student Appeal Centre director Mireille Gervais.

- 30 -

For more information please contact:

Mireille Gervais LL.L
Director, Student Appeal Centre (SFUO)

Joseph Hickey

Liam Kennedy-Slaney

For all and more recent posts about student Marc Kelly CLICK HERE.

Targeting Activist University of Ottawa Students: A Lendman report

The UofOgate cover up is starting to fall apart... (all blog reports HERE)

Targeting Activist University of Ottawa Students - by Stephen Lendman


Until his early March Board of Directors removal, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya was Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS) Ombudsman, the English-language student newspaper at Canada's University of Ottawa (U of O).

It resulted from his critical reports, including a preliminary February 23 one for FPS's editorial mistreatment of Professor Denis Rancourt, fired in March 2009 for his political activism - specifically his courageous stance on Occupied Palestine.

In 2007, after criticizing university opposition to academically boycotting Israel, repression against him intensified under new president Allan Rock, a former Canadian politician, UN ambassador, and staunch Israeli supporter.

Nazemroaya accused the Fulcrum of "publishing opinion pieces against Dr. Rancourt. (They've) strongly criticized him, his university classes, his position, and his brand of activism."

In his January 9 report, Nazemroaya cited illegal U of O "covert surveillance," adding that "The Fulcrum has a duty to cover all news concerning campus life in an unbiased way and to the best of its abilities," especially over denying a distinguished tenured professor academic freedom and firing him for his views - the way a police state silences dissent.

Nazemroaya also accused the FPS Board of endorsing:

"a conflict of interest" (and) tr(ying) to force (him) to be quiet about it and to accept it without initially offering a remedy....Contrary to FPS rules, the Board also (attempted) to force (its) Ombudsman to play a passive role;" in other words, forced compliance to quash an independent investigation into Rancourt's firing, one that surely would vindicate him.

After his dismissal, Nazemroaya wrote an open letter to the FPS, the university Students Federation (SFUO), Graduate Students Association (GSAED), and U of O, saying he was FPS Ombudsman until early March, then removed over "a sequence of events launched by the investigation of a formal complaint by Denis Rancourt."

He accused FPS Business Manager Frank Appleyard of "breach(ing) the FPS constitution by simultaneously working for Allan Rock and the FPS. This was a conflict of interest. Appleyard claimed that this was okay because the BOD had authorized this violation. The BOD has no such power," any more than a head of state may violate constitutional and international laws. Doing so is a criminal act. In academic environs, violations are ethical conflicts of interest, clearly explained in the FPS Constitution's Section 1(1), stating:

"Employees (include) section editors, editor-in-chief, unelected editorial positions, business positions, and any other individual on the Corporate payroll."

They may not simultaneously work for the Fulcrum, SFUO, GSAED or U of O Administration. Doing so is a constitutional violation and conflict of interest.

"There is no debate or divergence of interpretation on this fact. No one can authorize breaches of the FPS Constitution or FPS By-laws, including the Board of Directors. According to Section 2.03 of the FPS Constitution, amendments can only be made at a duly constituted meeting of the staff approved by the Board or vice-versa."

Appleyard breached his constitutional duty, then falsely accused Nazemroaya in his Ombudsman capacity.

He also "mismanage(d)....FPS funds, which are obtained through student fees. The constitution clearly says 'no employees' can work for the FPS and either the university administration, SFUO, and/or GSAED at the same time. This is to prevent political influences from biasing Fulcrum reporting."

"The BOD now claims there was a 'typographical mistake in the constitution," an entirely bogus assertion to justify an unjustifiable act. Appleyard then "accuse(d) me of personal attacks and false statements, which BOD member Scott Bedard informed me was reason for my suspension," bogus again to remove him and attack academic freedom.

As troublesome, the Fulcrum "imposed a media blackout on this scandal. My position is that a cover-up has been underway. A public inquiry is in order," one not forthcoming to let Allan Rock run the U of O like a feudal lord, ruling by edict with no opposition.

BOD members gave Nazemroaya two choices - obey or go. He chose honor, stepped down, and accused university president, Allan Rock, of unfitness and damaged credibility in asking him to resign, then added:

"Appearances are pertinent for judging conflicts of interest. Did Allan Rock forget about the Conflict of Interest Code in Parliament?"

He should have known that hiring Appleyard was unethical, after he backed Rancourt criticism - what Nazemroaya called "notoriously negative and ill-informed." Hiring him looks "like a reward and was an infringement of ethical norms expected for the governance of a publicly funded institution."

Because of arrogant Allan Rock leadership, the U of O is despotically run, tolerating no views divergent from his own. Effectively, he declared free expression and academic freedom dead, so long as he's lord and master of U of O's administration.

A Program Note
Professor Denis Rancourt will be this writer's guest on The Progressive Radio News Hour on The Progressive Radio Network - Saturday, May 8 at 1PM Eastern time.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya will be on the same program - Sunday, April 11 at 1PM.
In-depth discussion will focus on the gross injustice to both guests - to freely air what FPS suppresses.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://prognewshour.progressiveradionetwork.org/

Student Marc Kelly should obtain justice from U of O's Allan Rock administration

THIS neanderthal violation of natural rights perpetrated by the Allan Rock regime at the University of Ottawa will not stand.

Banned and trespassed physics-mathematics scholarship student and scientific author Marc Kelly had to mass-email his story to 67,000 members of the University of Ottawa community to be heard and the message got through...

More than 200 concerned students showed up today in the week before the final examination period to hear Marc Kelly talk in the Tabaret central administration building lobby, just underneath president Allan Rock's door.

Allan Rock was again conveniently out of town. Seems to be a habit (SEE LINK).

And the main Ottawa newspaper finally covered the story (HERE) of this longstanding Rock university executive malfeasance against student Marc Kelly.

This public exposure and the continued strong student union support should help the Rock administration to come to its senses, we hope?

Will the former Minister of Justice do the right thing?

Or at least explain what the hell is going on?

For all and more recent posts about student Marc Kelly CLICK HERE.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association chief Nathalie Des Rosiers will not bite the hand that feeds her

There you have it! (Alternative LINK to VIDEO) (Video also available on youTube LINK)

Canadian Civil Liberties Association chief Nathalie Des Rosiers responds to the Ann Coulter fiasco at the University of Ottawa:

She excuses the university administration by suggesting that Coulter's crew needlessly canceled the Ottawa event to generate publicity and then suggests that the obvious answer to these freedom of expression student demonstrations of differing opinions on campuses is MORE POLICE.

We kid you not - watch the video!

With civil liberties bosses like that you don't need authoritarian university presidents or anything. Just increase the police budgets and take on more insurance policies.

Maybe it's just us but we feel that there is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest when the chief of a national civil liberties association has her salary paid by a major university and allows herself to make media commentary on an international freedom of expression scandal involving the said university and its chief administrators...

And when that civil liberties association decides to not formally reprimand the university administration as it has done in writing in the recent past in a less high-profile case under the previous chief whose salary was not paid by the said university...

Maybe its just us?

Because despite a media frenzy like Canadian academia has not previously seen no journalist has pointed to the surprisingly weak and apologetic public musings of the chief of the Canadian Cicil Liberties Association (CCLA) regarding the University of Ottawa Allan Rock administration's violations of a university's defining principle of free speech (HERE).

No journalists have been struck by this anomaly enough to "follow the money" and ask who pays Nathalie Des Rosiers' salary?

After all, the Rock administration has been rightly and formally severely criticized for its behaviour in this matter by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) (HERE) and was severely and formally criticized by Des Rosiers' predecessor concerning its last (2009) media-reported violation of civil liberties on campus (HERE).

Even Rock's traditional Ottawa media ally (The Ottawa Citizen) has laid the blame squarely at president Allan Rock's feet in rather unflattering terms (HERE and HERE). But the CCLA has seen no reason to write to Rock to come to the defense of academic freedom and civil rights in the highest profile case of this nature in recent Canadian academic history?

Nathalie Des Rosiers retained her Full Professorship at the University of Ottawa and her University of Ottawa salary (at $173,583.36 per year, 2008 salary) when she accepted the position as head of the CCLA in July 2009.

Rex Murphy tears the U of O a new asshole

Yup, here is the video clip from CBC's The National: LINK-TO-VIDEO.

What could the Allan Rock administration do for the U of O that is worse than degrading the school's reputation to this degree across all print, radio, and TV media in the country?

From gun registry accounting, to tainted blood reparations, to giving Brian Mulroney two million dollars of taxpayer money, to reversing Canada's position on Palestine at the UN... and now this wholesale destruction at "Canada's university"...

Time for the Board of Governors to consider letting Allan Rock go?

Time to go again? It's in the hands of the Board.

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock's direct involvement in the Coulter matter
All posts about Ann Coulter at the U of O

All posts about Allan Rock's work at the U of O

CAUT to U of O: Franky is a boob - Rock administration needs to apologize

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has written THIS LETTER to University of Ottawa Vice-President Academic Francois Houle, in the matter of the Coulter scandal at the U of O.

In a PREVIOUS POST we suggested that the U of O's VP-Academic was a genius for intervening to protect decency on campus. This suggestion has been unambiguously contradicted by freedom of expression lawyer Douglas Christie (HERE), by the General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) (HERE), and now, we discover, by the CAUT also (HERE).


Looks like only President Allan Rock does not agree that Houle's move was a violation of the fundamental mission of a university - but we have established that Rock was being a spat disingenuous (HERE).

Funny how the CCLA has not written Rock a formal letter about this matter asking him to do better than his shameful press release...? Could THIS be the reason?

Barring Rock, therefore, the right, the left, and the center, agree: Franky is a boob, judging from his first considered public intervention in his new functions as VP-Academic. Only the brightest and fittest serve in the newly formed Rock executive team?

The CAUT has asked for reparation:

"We feel you owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the University strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values."

Will the Rock administration do the right thing? Or will it stick to its shameful and disingenuous press release? (SEE HERE)

How much longer do U of O students need to wait before the administration stops acting like an image-managing political party and starts spontaneously and authentically recognizing and repairing its mistakes? How much longer does the reputation of the University of Ottawa need to be dragged in the mud by an autocratic and detached administration?

The right is racist, the left is stupid, and Allan Rock lied

Ann Coulter madness brings out the truth in people

Following the Ann Coulter fiasco at the University of Ottawa (see extensive national and local media coverage) the institution stooped into damage control mode by practicing the opposite of open discourse and transparency: It put out a PRESS RELEASE that ends

"Please note that this is the University of Ottawa’s official statement and no further comments will be issued."

In the press release President Allan Rock is quoted as:

“Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University.

So Allan Rock said that the university has always promoted freedom of expression.

Let us examine if this is true.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is of the firm professional opinion that this is not true.

In fact, the CCLA wrote directly to Allan Rock on February 26, 2009, to EXPRESS "deep concern" that the University of Ottawa had actuated "a radical departure from the traditional mission of the university" by banning a student poster and asked Allan Rock that this "be rectified:"

"Specifically, we urge you to reverse the ban of the poster, as well as issue a public statement reassuring students that they will not face official sanction or discipline for expressing highly controvertial political views."

Allan Rock did not comply with the request.

Fast forward to the present. On March 24th the new General Counsel of the same CCLA (and Full Professor at the University of Ottawa) Nathalie Des Rosiers is quoted in the Globe and Mail as making these statements in response to the Rock administration's LETTER to Coulter from VP-Academic Francois Houle:

Civil libertarians decried the University of Ottawa’s treatment of Ms. Coulter, saying it’s out of line for an educational institution to be telling people to watch their words.
“It could be interpreted as an attempt to curtail speech,” said Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Des Rosiers (unless misquoted) went on to defame Coulter:

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to warn speakers. Regardless of how bigoted and terrible a speaker she is, she’s entitled to freedom of expression and Canadians have a right to hear her views.”

Now on the question of who is more able to recognize a breach in promoting free expression, we can safely go with a national civil liberties association rather than with a former politician who was not known for his good judgment. We conclude that the University of Ottawa has NOT always promoted freedom of expression.

Furthermore, since the CCLA letter of 2009 was addressed directly to Mr. Rock and since Mr. Rock's communication department reads every major media article about the U of O and promptly informs Mr. Rock, we must conclude that Mr. Rock knew that the the University of Ottawa has NOT always promoted freedom of expression.

Since, lying involves both falsehood and intent, and since it is generally known and accepted that Mr. Rock does not suffer from dementia, we can conclude that Mr. Rock lied when he said "Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted."

We conclude that Allan Rock lied.

The next logical question is the question of motive. It would appear that Mr. Rock sees his job as protecting the reputation of the University of Ottawa, and therefore his own reputation, even if this involves lying.

This example suggests that it is not illogical to ask how often University of Ottawa press releases contain lies and what those lies are meant to accomplish.

Breaking UPDATE: Houle - Genius or idiocy at U of O?

Contrary to the PREVIOUS POST suggesting genius, freedom of expression lawyer Douglas Christie suggests that

"stupidity ... is well underway at the University of Ottawa."

In his own words:



and some vintage material (from the Canadian TV show Crossfire) on this "complex" question of freedom of speech:



In any case, it seems the concept of freedom of speech is also too complex for the highly educated administration of the University of Ottawa and for the University's elected student representatives...

It's Oooooofficial: The new VP-Academic at U of O is a genius!

You thought the last one was a number huh: LINK-1, LINK-2, LINK-3.

That was former University of Ottawa VP-Academic Robert Major.

Meet the new University of Ottawa VP-Academic named under President Allan Rock: His name is Francois Houle and he is a genius.

Here is the proof.

VP-Academic Francois Houle sent THIS EMAIL to Ann Coulter; basically threatening Coulter with criminal charges for a speech she has not yet given. Coulter will deliver a talk at "Canada's university" tomorrow, Tuesday March 23rd.

This is perfect. That way Coulter is informed about Canadian law and the benefits of freedom of speech all in one tactful message.

And as a side bonus, "Canada's university" gets loads of free media publicity:

National Post
Ottawa Citizen
Globe and Mail
National Post again
CBC...

Nice job Rock team!

[Note that Houle's boss may well have encouraged the youngin on this brilliant path to censorship: LINK?]

Human rights judge spied on university students – National civil rights association director covers it up

New records have been released.

The UofOgate is disturbing enough even as the access to information (ATI) battle rages on but now the plot really thickens. LINK TO ALL POSTS about UofOgate.

One of the student victims of the University of Ottawa covert information gathering campaign of 2006-2008 against student politicians, student activists, and one professor has obtained and released ATI records.

These new records are damning for both the student spy (former science student and student journalist/editor Maureen Robinson, aka Nathalie Page) and the university officials who supervised the spying

• Dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde

• Former Legal Counsel Michelle Flaherty

but also for those who supervised the supervisors

• Former VP-Academic Robert Major

and who appear to be participating in the cover up

• President Allan Rock

• VP-Governance Diane Davidson

• Former VP-Governance and FIPPA Coordinator Pamela Harrod

• Former VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers

• Legal Counsel Alain Roussy

• Human Resources Assistant Director Jean-Yves Leduc

• Former Human Resources Director Louise Pagé-Valin

Nathalie Des Rosiers is now General Council (i.e., director) of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), while presumably retaining her salary from the University of Ottawa; whereas Michelle Flaherty is now a Vice Chair (i.e., judge) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The CCLA has been asked to investigate Nathalie Des Rosiers regarding several alleged civil rights abuses: LINK.

For this post, consider just two specific newly released ATI documents and their implications.

Recall that it has already been established that student journalist Maureen Robinson was hired by the University of Ottawa as “agent of Legal Counsel”, working directly under Flaherty, to covertly gather information (SEE REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS HERE). But it’s always nice to actually see their correspondence, as revealed pursuant to ATI law.

DOC-3

DOC-3 (LINK) is an email exchange dated March 12, 2008 (severed pursuant to ATI law). Here we see a detailed report by the student spy about a student political event: An all candidates’ debate for the Graduate Student Association Études Diplômée (GSAED).

Note that the subject line is marked “privileged and confidential”, as were all communications between Maureen Robinson and Flaherty. “Privileged” communications in law are protected under solicitor-client confidentiality. The University argued that all Robinson-Flaherty communications were protected in this way by virtue that Robinson was a hired “agent of Legal Counsel” (see REPORT). A web law dictionary (under)states “Privileged communications are controversial because they exclude relevant facts from the truth-seeking process.”

In the exchange (DOC-3), former Legal Counsel Flaherty appears to be enjoying the report, as she states:

“I’m laughing out loud-- I’ll miss the severin updates. Thanks [XXX].”

This shows that there were several updates, that Legal Counsel received them and commented them (severed parts), and that the reports were precisely about student politics in anticipation for elections and possible student political pressure for the activism course (SCI 1101). Another document from Robinson appears to be a transcript from a voice recording of the GSAED event, with lengthy quotes from student politician “severin”.

Flaherty “will miss the reports…” She left to take up her new HRTO position on or around March 31, 2008.

DOC-8

DOC-8 (LINK) is an email exchange dated March 5, 2008 (severed pursuant to ATI law).

Recall that student spy Maureen Robinson used a false Facebook identity (Nathalie Page) to infiltrate student activist electronic lists and discussion groups (see REPORT).

Well, here you have it: An email presumably from “Nathalie Page” (severed but the ATI request was for Maureen Robinson only) with Maureen Robinson as a recipient, along with Flaherty and the ever-present Dean of Science.

It starts: “Hi, it’s [XXX]. Haha.”

The exchange also contains a forwarded email from a private activist student Google Group (“Reinstate the Activism Course”) that Robinson was not a member of but that “Nathalie Page” was allowed to join (see REPORT).

This appears to show that both the Dean of Science and Legal Counsel Flaherty knew that Maureen Robinson was using a false identity to infiltrate activist student groups in order to provide them information while acting as “agent of Legal Counsel”. Ah if only the severing could be uncovered and all the communications were released…

In addition, DOC-8 shows the student spy informing the Dean of Science and Legal Counsel that she is using her media connections to attempt to secure a voice recording of a coming talk by the spied-on professor at a student conference to be help at UBC. It would not be the only time: LINK. (It should not take an Independent Committee of Inquiry to see that this is a violation of the legal principle of academic freedom.)

It seems to us that the Dean of Science should explain himself. There is enough smoke from this smoking gun to fill a mineralogy lab.

Maybe an investigation by The Law Society of Upper Canada would be in order? After all, Canadian lawyers have some of the strongest professional ethics rules in the land: LINK. In particular, lawyers have 100% professional responsibility for their juniors; that would be the “agent of Legal Counsel” we presume…?

We have asked both Lalonde and Flaherty to correct or comment on our reports: Neither has replied.

Maureen Robinson has repeatedly denied everything to the media: LINK-1, LINK-2, MORE-MEDIA. Well at least she did not directly threaten a libel lawsuit as did her former student editor colleague Appleyard: LINK.

When will the Ottawa Citizen cover these matters? It was eager to please Allan Rock with “editorial support” in the dismissal of the spied-on professor but it has not touched UofOgate? Not news worthy? Humm. Maybe if its publisher, James Orban, got off his seat at the University of Ottawa Board of Governors?

[Photo: Michelle Flaherty, Vice Chair, HRTO]

Postscript: Nathalie Des Rosiers provided a response (on April 20, 2010) which is posted ON THIS PAGE: HERE. Denis Rancourt's reply to Nathalie Des Rosiers is posted HERE.

Comparing two red-tie Liberals on Israel war crimes

The apartheid state of Israel, with its disregard for civilian lives and international law, needs to be sternly pressured to follow the Geneva Conventions and to abandon its genocidal strangulation of Gaza.

This is a needed debate in Canada to save lives and to stop war crimes by the state of Israel. This is particularly true in Canada because of its strong ties with the United States.

Influential Canadians who attempt to stifle expressions of the needed criticisms of Israel's practices in Palestine are guilty of condoning war crimes and in that measure have blood on their hands.

Allan Rock, now President of the University of Ottawa, is the man who in 2004 under the Liberal Martin government, as Canada’s ambassador to the UN, abruptly changed Canada’s longstanding policy on Israel to vote against UN resolutions for Palestinian human rights, along with the US and Israel and contrary to virtually all other member states. (E.g., THIS LINK.)

Once on campus at the University of Ottawa, HERE (backup link) is an example of his work where he had to be reprimanded by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for banning a student poster about Israeli Apartheid Week.

Allan Rock also strong-armed a student union president into distancing the student union from the student-run Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) which had expressed a principled stance towards Israel. Rock then publicly announced that he would look for administrative ways to deny OPIRG its student funding... For this and more such examples see Endnote-3 in THIS document.

Well, here is another Liberal supporter of Israel war crimes, present Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff with his approach to student censorship:



This commentator is beginning to think that the Liberal red tie is meant to represent a flow of Palestinian blood.

BACKGROUND READING:

Fired ombudsman finds Rock unfit and asks U of O president to resign

This is the latest development in the Fulcrum scandal component of UofOgate at the University of Ottawa.

Former Fulcrum Publishing Society Ombudsman Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya has asked University of Ottawa President Allan Rock to resign (see excerpt below):

"Rock should have been aware that hiring Appleyard, after Frank wrote critically of Rancourt, would appear like a reward and was an infringement of ethical norms expected for the governance of a publicly funded institution. Rock has damaged his credibility and is unfit. As such, I am publicly asking Allan Rock to resign as President."


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: M.D. Nazemroaya
Date: Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:26 PM
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO THE FPS and HEADS OF THE SFUO , GSAÉD, & U OF O
To: editor@thefulcrum.ca
Cc: president@sfuo.ca, news@thefulcrum.ca, mheba053@uottawa.ca, vp.communications@sfuo.ca, n.taylor.vaisey@gmail.com, , actualites@larotonde.ca, redaction@larotonde.ca, external@gsaed.ca, studentlife@gsaed.ca, charlatan@charlatan.ca, times@algonquincollege.com, university@gsaed.ca, internal@gsaed.ca, allan.rock@uottawa.ca

Hello Emma, here is my letter that we discussed. Please publish it the upcoming issue of The Fulcrum:

OPEN LETTER TO THE FPS and HEADS OF THE SFUO, GSAÉD, & U OF O

I was the Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS) Ombudsman until the start of March 2010, when I was removed by the Board of Directors (BOD). This was the buildup of a sequence of events launched by the investigation of a formal complaint by Denis Rancourt. BOD members gave me two choices: obey them as a subordinate or pack up.
[…]
Appleyard breached the FPS Constitution by simultaneously working for Allan Rock and the FPS. This was a conflict of interest. […]
[…]
Appearances are pertinent for judging conflicts of interest. Did Allan Rock forget about the Conflict of Interest Code in Parliament? Rock should have been aware that hiring Appleyard, after Frank wrote critically of Rancourt, would appear like a reward and was an infringement of ethical norms expected for the governance of a publicly funded institution. Rock has damaged his credibility and is unfit. As such, I am publicly asking Allan Rock to resign as President.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Former FPS Ombudsman

UofOgate: Fulcrum gives 'cover up' a whole new meaning

Fulcrum pulls peanut butter stain defence to cover Rock and Appleyard

The March 4, 2010, weekly print edition of the U of O student newspaper, The Fulcrum, is out on the stands.

It is remarkable in two respects.

First, despite numerous requests to the editors, it completely avoids news coverage of the Fulcrum scandal that has been raging since the Fulcrum Board of Directors suspended and fired its Ombudsman in mid-investigation. (See French student media coverage HERE.)

Second, this little item in a box at the bottom of page 21:

Excuse me? Fulcrum Business Manager Frank Appleyard, who threatened to sue over false accusations, was in "technical breach" of the Constitution ... but only because "Typographical errors in Sections 1.01 (i) and (l) of the Constitution suggest [as in state] that employees of the Business Department are subject to its provisions."

"In an effort to clarify its [conflict of interest] policy, the Society is in the process of making amendments to the Constitution..." ...so it says what we says it means... (Recall: They fired their Ombudsman over differences in "interpretation" of the Constitution.)

Wow.

If we find we are "technically" breaking the rules then we must change the rules so that their "intent" is clear. Holy poo poo. That tops the Rock admin approach of "if we are criticized for our actions then we will introduce a policy to legitimize what we want to do (e.g., promised 'donor recognition policy').

Why not just state that Appleyard had a peanut butter stain on his copy of the Constitution when he accepted the job under Rock while he was Business Manager of the Fulcrum and that Rock forgot that he was no longer a Liberal MP.

[Photo: Business Manager Frank Appleyard and Editor-in-Chief Emma Godmere - total separation between the business and editorial departments?]

Now it's time to change the Constitution so that it allows conflict of interest? Brilliant move.

It's right up there with the Publisher of The Ottawa Citizen (Jim Orban) being on the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa while Rock writes invited editorials and receives personal advance notices from Orban about editorials critical of dissident professor Rancourt, not to mention media-reported undisclosed contracts for naming publicly funded campus spaces in exchange for "editorial support".

As Frank Appleyard has learned, "editorial support" has a mercantile value...

What was that job? How was it advertised? What special talents were required? How was student tuition money being spent? An investigation is in order. Ooops, we fired the Ombudsman.

U of O student newspaper Business Manager Frank Appleyard threatens legal action against UofOWatch blog posts

What was Mr. Rock Thinking?

In two recent posts (HERE and HERE) we reported breaches of professional journalistic ethics by staff and journalists at The Fulcrum (U of O student newspaper) regarding Fulcrum staff and journalist treatment of former U of O physics professor Denis Rancourt.


Fulcrum Business Manager Frank Appleyard objects to some of the content in the two posts and believes that he has been unjustly defamed.

In particular, it appears that U of O's President Allan Rock hired Appleyard in 2009 to reward him for his critical editorial coverage of Rancourt.

The best way for Mr. Appleyard's objections to be fully and accurately represented is to post his detailed letter of protest. Appleyard's letter is posted HERE.

This way readers can judge for themselves.

The Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS) Ombudsman has a perspective at odds with that of Appleyard and an interpretation of his own Ombudsman's Interim Report that is relevant in the matter of the alleged unjustified defamation of Appleyard.

The FPS Ombudsman's reaction and clarification is posted HERE.

It appears that Mr. Appleyard (and the FPS Board of Directors) did not read the FPS Constitution all the way down to Section 12; the "Conflict of Interest Policy" section. As pointed out by the Ombudsman, the meaning and intent of Section 12 are quite clear.

[The FPS Ombudsman was immediately suspended by the FPS Board of Directors following the release of his Interim Report, for not agreeing to perform his duties as directed by the Board - for doing his job. At the time of this posting he had not yet been removed from his position.]