Student Appeal Centre News

Canada's University on Trial : Three medical doctors file multimillion-dollar joint civil action against the U of O and several officials

2012-01-29T19:52:00.012-05:00

(OTTAWA, January 30, 2012) – Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed a joint action against the University of Ottawa and several of its officials.

Discrimination, conspiracy to injure, malfeasance in public office, breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, defamation, breach of contract, and negligence are claimed against the University and several of its officials.

Among the individual defendants are Dr. Jacques Bradwejn – Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dr. James Worthington – Ottawa Hospital’s Vice-President of Medical Affairs and Patient Safety, Dr. Paul Bragg – Associate Dean Postgraduate Medical Education, Dr. Eric Poulin – Chair of the Department of Surgery, Dr. Therry Mesana – Chair of the Cardiac Surgery Division, Dr. Richard Moulton – Chair of the Neurosurgery Division, Dr. Fraser Rubens – Cardiac Surgery Program Director, and Dr. John Sinclair – former Neurosurgery Program Director.

The claim casts a spotlight on the state of medical training of foreign medical residents at both provincial and national levels in Canadian universities and illustrates some of the hurdles faced by foreign doctors at the U of O.

The plaintiffs’ case had garnered media attention in the Spring of 2011 when they held a press conference to announce that they had filed a Human Rights Complaint against the University of Ottawa.

They are represented by lawyers Douglas Christie and Barbara Kulaszka.

For more details please follow the link to the statement of claim: Aba-AlKhail et al. v. University of Ottawa et al. CV-11-440336

Worst Administrator of the Year: And the winner is…Marie Josée Berger, Dean, Faculty of Education

2011-04-13T12:55:00.004-04:00

After careful consideration involving many candidates the Student Appeal Centre (SFUO) awards its first yearly Iron Fist Award to Marie Josée Berger, Dean of the Faculty of Education since July 1, 2002.

The Iron Fist is awarded to the University of Ottawa Administrator having caught Student Appeal Officers’ attention for being most ruthless and/or unjust while showing little or no respect for students. The Award considers both long-term career contributions and particularly notable specific events.

In this case, Marie Josée Berger is well deserving of the Award, having been the object of several informal complaints at the Student Appeal Centre over many years.

For the 2010-2011 school year highlights include Marie Josée Berger’s refusal to respond and investigate at least three very serious complaints filed with her office, calling a student to her office only to belittle her after the case was already resolved in favour of the student, and threatening to impede her own graduate student’s progress in the program when the student expressed her desire to change supervisors.

For being the Dean of the Faculty that continually ranks first as the most frustrating and inefficient to deal with and for being all-round nasty and uncollegial, Marie Josée Berger is the winner of the 2010-2011 academic year’s Iron Fist Award.

Press Release: Three medical doctors jointly file human rights complaints against the University of Ottawa and several officials

2011-03-04T19:10:00.006-05:00

Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Ms. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario complaints against the University of Ottawa and several officials.

They are represented by freedom of expression and human rights lawyer Douglas Christie.

A joint press conference will be held at 10:30am on Wednesday March 9, 2011, in the entrance rotunda of Tabaret Hall (central administration building), 550 Cumberland Ave., University of Ottawa.

Discrimination, reprisal, and intimidation are alleged on the basis of evidence filed with the Tribunal.

Dr. Aba-Alkail affirms that Senator Dr. Wilbert Keon, Dr. Paul Bragg, Dr. James Worthington, Dr. Thierry Mesana, and others collectively intimidated him behind closed doors to drop a legal reparation case under threat of career obliteration.

The evidence for reprisal and targeting is unambiguous in the form of emails between hospital executives, including emails leaked by an inside source and sent to hundreds of faculty and residents.

For example, on July 11, 2009, Chairman of Neurosurgery Richard Moulton wrote to Dr. Paul Bragg (Associate Dean PGME) and Dr. James Worthington (VP Medical Affairs of TOH) about plaintiff Dr. AlGaithy:

“If the [discrimination] complaint against [Dr. Eve Tsai] is dismissed there are going to have to be some significant consequences for the involved parties (dismissal/suspension) or we are going to be facing this ad infinitum.”

AlGaithy was summarily dismissed despite his outstanding academic and professional standing.

The March 9^th press conference is organized by the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO), following the SAC’s 2008 report about systemic racism at the University of Ottawa.

- 30 -

For more information about the press conference please contact:

Mireille Gervais, LL.L

Director, Student Appeal Centre, SFUO

case.cresac@sfuo.ca

cell: 613-261-6647

Freedom of Information Documents Show Joanne St.Lewis’ Lack of Independence from Central Administration

2011-02-11T16:10:00.006-05:00

In 2008 the Student Appeal Centre published a report which focused on the many injustices and unfair treatment faced by students accused of academic fraud. Numbers revealed that the majority of the students who had consulted the SAC to seek advice concerning accusations of academic fraud were visible minorities – some of whom had openly been targeted because of their ethnic origin. The SAC had warned President Allan Rock of the problem months before but his administration failed to address the problem.

When the SAC’s annual report came out the upper administration asked one of its common law professors and then Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre, Joanne St.Lewis, to conduct what they referred to as an “independent evaluation” of the SAC’s report. Joanne St.Lewis accepted and her evaluation was emailed to every single professor and student at the University.

Within the first few lines of her report, Joanne St.Lewis claims her independence and immediately qualifies our annual report as unsubstantiated, inflammatory and inconclusive. Joanne St.Lewis’ conclusion was that the data we had provided was too limited to support our conclusion of systemic racism. She indicated that “the entire analysis and its conclusion are based on less than 1% of the total university population” and that the SAC data was “too limited to enable any analysis”.

However, this conclusion did not deter the Administration from requesting that the SAC provide all of its confidential data to Joanne St.Lewis. In a letter dated March 24, 2009 the then Vice-President Academic Robert Major informed the SAC that Mrs. St.Lewis had been asked to conduct an independent systemic review of the student academic fraud appeals process and asked the SAC to collaborate with Mrs. St.Lewis namely by sharing all of its data. The SAC responded that the University was in possession of the integral data on academic fraud and that the only information the University could possibly obtain that it did not already have was the identity of the SAC’s clients.

In the summer of 2009 the SAC filed a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to obtain all communications regarding the Centre’s work. The documents obtained confirmed our concerns regarding Joanne St.Lewis’ independence from the administration and revealed the following:

Upon meeting with Robert Major, Joanne St.Lewis browsed through a few lines of the SAC report, was outraged by what she read, and immediately accepted to write an evaluation of the report.
Joanne St.Lewis sent her draft evaluation to Robert Major and Allan Rock saying that she was “happy to respond to any suggestions that [they] may have.”
Allan Rock commented on the wording of Joanne St.Lewis’ first recommendation saying “my only concern is with the first recommendation, the wording of which seems to assume that there is some racism present already. Since Professor St.Lewis already concluded that there is no evidence of it, such wording is wrong and inconsistent with her own report. […] One last point, I would like Robert to be the only point of contact for us with Professor St.Lewis. Although her report is excellent it may be criticized as not being “independent” from the administration. So far, our dealings with her have been through Robert, and have been scrupulously objective. We have simply sought her view, and have imposed no limitations, constraints or conditions. She has been entirely free to say anything she wants. In order to maintain this professional and objective relationship with her, I want Robert to be the only one in communication with her. Robert can simply observe that the first recommendation is inconsistent with her findings. It will then be up to Professor St.Lewis to decide whether to make a change. If a number of people all send emails and call, we will lose that focus of professionalism and independence.”
The University arranged for Mrs St.Lewis to speak on CBC morning radio.
Prior to the interview Robert Major emailed Mrs St.Lewis to say “a thought occurred to me and I’m sorry to have missed it. The report of the SAC deals with appeals in courses. In truth if one calculates the full time equivalent of students (each student taking a number of courses per year) the number of course registration is approximately 240 000! So we have a few possible cases out of a possible number of over 200K. And the SAC is slandering the whole University based on that sampling”.
Joanne St.Lewis reported back to Robert Major after her interview with CBC saying that she “tried to work in the additional info on the context of courses versus individual cases so I hope that they keep it in.”
In March 2009 Joanne St.Lewis wrote a lengthy letter to Robert Major thanking him for having appointed her to conduct a systemic review of the student academic fraud appeals process. In this letter Joanne St.Lewis asks the Administration to write a letter to the SAC “asking them to cooperate with me in the sharing of the data and reassuring them that I will be independent of the University and that all personal information provided will be strictly confidential and that any reports will not in any way reflect said information or be available for use by the administration.”

The access to information documents show a close collaboration between the Administration and St.Lewis in elaborating the final report, in securing media access, and in dealing with media messaging. In addition, there is troubling evidence of a cover up of the lack of independence engineered by the President himself.

Joanne St.Lewis was an untenured professor charged with a high profile task and she elaborated her final report and her media work in communication with the Administration, yet she wrote in her report that her evaluation was “independent”. She knew or should have known that her high profile public report about racism in academic fraud appeals could not be characterized as independent.

The most troubling aspect of the St.Lewis exchanges with the Administration and their report is a total lack of admitting the possibility of the systemic racism or unequitable procedure indicated by the SAC report.

Since the publication of the 2008 SAC report the University has introduced an accelerated process for dealing with academic fraud cases. In cases eligible to the accelerate process, students who agree to recognize guilt, whether voluntary of involuntary, receive the guarantee that their case will be dealt with within fifteen business days. For students wishing to defend themselves via the regular process, the administration continues not to be bound by any time limit for dealing with the case. The SAC has observed many cases where students opt for the accelerated process although they believe to be innocent in order to avoid having to deal with further administrative delays.

Our most recent data concerning academic fraud continues to show that more than half the students who consulted the SAC concerning accusations of academic fraud are visible minorities.

All Freedom of Information documents accessible here.

SAC writes to U of O President Allan Rock and Chair of Board of Governors Marc Jolicoeur concerning Joseph Hickey's case

2010-03-10T10:32:00.013-05:00

Our University campus is one where free speech, student space and freedom of association is protected and promoted. Ahem. Well, huh, not really.

After allegedly painting a political message (these walls belong to students) on the student art walls beside the Morrisett Library (now covered up by the university's selected Gee Gee's images) graduate student Joseph Hickey was charged under the Criminal Code of Canada, barred from campus by being served a blanket trespass notice even though he is a full time student with teaching assistant responsibilities and arrested on campus for trying to book an appointment with President Allan Rock and for brining a cake to his department's Christmas party.

The Student Appeal Centre shares these letters sent to President Allan Rock asking to ensure that the criminal charges are dropped and to the Chair of the Board of Governors Marc Jolicoeur who refused to receive Joseph Hickey's complaint for this serious case of targeted political discrimination.

******************************************************

From: Mireille Gervais
Date: Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Subject: SAC Appeal to Allan Rock Concerning Joseph Hickey
To: Allan Rock
Cc: Diane Davidson , Alain Roussy , kathryn.prudhomme@uottawa.ca, Joseph Hickey , Sean Kelly , interne@gsaed.ca, university@gsaed.ca, Karine Hébert , Zachary Fouchard

Dear President Rock,

You have, on numerous occasions, proclaimed your role as a Defender of Human Rights and as a man of action in the “service of the world”. Such a noble stance is indeed indispensable at the University of Ottawa, for which you act as President, and which has a societal mission to educate students and to foster and maintain an environment where freedom of expression and critical thought are welcomed and protected. How disturbing it is, then, that you have repeatedly taken action to deny University of Ottawa students their natural rights, including the right to be innocent until proven guilty, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of education.

Your administration has put University of Ottawa graduate student Joseph Hickey in the absurd situation of facing a criminal charge for mischief, being trespassed from all campus property, being threatened with denial of work, intimidated, and harassed, all because of allegations of painting a political message on a cement poster backing wall on campus (that has since been covered by a university propaganda poster).

Mr. Hickey’s No Trespassing Notice was revoked without apology, only after weeks of letter writing including firm protests from the Graduate Student Association (GSAÉD) and from the Union of Teacher Assistants (CUPE-2626). Many of the abuses of power that occurred while Mr. Hickey was trespassed, such as his arrest at your office while attempting to make an appointment, his removal from the Physics Department Christmas Party by Protection Services, and threats by the Department of Physics to remove his Teacher Assistant work, have given rise to a CUPE grievance and a Policy 110 complaint addressed directly to the Chairman of the Board of Governors, Marc Jolicoeur.

The criminal charge laid on Joseph Hickey is ludicrous and is an example of misplaced police resources to attack politically active students. The SAC denounces the despicable behaviour of Protection Services personnel who chose to covertly gather “evidence” rather than actually “protect” the property that they allege to be concerned with by engaging directly with students. Colourful and politically messaged cement backing walls hidden behind corporate propaganda posters cannot legitimately be considered “damage to property” on a university campus and certainly such messaging should never lead to a criminal charge against a student.

The University is claiming $1038.19 in damage costs from Mr. Hickey, for the removal of the paint, which read “These Walls Belong to Students”. This absurd cost is a disgusting attempt to use student tuition money to exert punitive measures against a University of Ottawa student. There was absolutely no necessity to remove anything from the poster backing walls. The University’s recent (February 4, 2010) installation of propaganda posters over top of student-made chalk messages on the same walls attests to this fact.

Mr. Rock, we ask you to recall the Student Appeals Centre’s October, 2009 appeal to you concerning the political discrimination inflicted by you and your administration against undergraduate student Marc Kelly. Mr. Kelly had been charged with multiple illegitimate criminal offences stemming from his political activity on the University of Ottawa campus. Directly following our letter of protest to you, the Crown Prosecutor decided that Mr. Kelly’s case was “not in the public interest” to pursue, and all charges were dropped. This decision came after one year of sustained intimidation, harassment, interference, and discrimination of Mr. Kelly by your administration.

We repeat: the University has a societal mission to educate students and to foster and maintain an environment where freedom of expression and critical thought are welcomed and protected. Whereas the University should never have called Ottawa Police onto campus in the first place, and should be lobbying the Courts to rescind Mr. Hickey’s charges, it is now pursuing the maximum punishment possible against Mr. Hickey, including criminal charges and extreme and unnecessary damage costs.

Mr. Rock, the SAC now urges you to once again take action and back down from exerting illegitimate criminal punishment against a University of Ottawa student. The SAC asks you to petition the Crown Prosecutor to drop the charges against Joseph Hickey, and to remove the fabricated damage costs that you are forcing him to pay.

Sincerely,

Zachary Fouchard, Student Appeal Officer

Mireille Gervais, Student Appeal Officer

Karine Hébert, Student Appeal Officer

Student Appeal Centre
appeals@sfuo.ca
tel: 613-562-5800 X 2350
fax: 613-562-5767
UCU 101
www.appeals.sfuo.ca

****************************************************

From: Mireille Gervais
Date: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Subject: Joseph Hickey's Policy 110 complaint addressed to Marc Jolicoeur
To: MJolicoeur@blgcanada.com
Cc: Allan Rock , Diane Davidson , Joseph Hickey , Karine Hébert , Zachary Fouchard

Dear Maître Jolicoeur,

Joseph Hickey has shared with the Student Appeal Centre your March 8, 2010 response to his Policy 110 complaint addressed to you.

We, Student Appeal Officers of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, were surprised to see that you state that Policy 110 is ''meant to address matters arising from the relationship between a graduate student and his or her supervisor and the graduate student’s relationship with the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. It has no application to the substance of your complaint concerning the issuance of a notice of trespass by the University’s Protection Services and the subsequent letter revoking the notice.''

Your interpretation is not in accordance with the policy itself which states ''The University recognizes the many contributions of graduate students to this institution and is committed to offering them protection from abuse in all aspects of their relationship with the University.'' (Preamble 1)

Policy 110 also states ''The procedures for recourse in this policy may be used as well in any circumstance where any other policy of the University of Ottawa is applied'' other than in cases involving appeals concerning academic decision which are under the purview of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies or issues subject to a collective agreement.

Furthermore, the policy clearly states that no member of the academic community shall be subject to discrimination by reason of political belief. The facts show that Mr. Hickey's ill-treatment by the University is based on his political beliefs. If the targeting of Mr. Hickey were not political then it would be arbitrary or unjustified and disproportionate discrimination; it would constitute harassment by those involved in the decisions. More documents pertaining to the nature of Mr Hickey's mistreatment by the University can be provided if need be.

It is our positions that to paint Mr. Hickey's complaint as one that is outside the jurisdiction of Policy 110 is wrong and in contradiction with the Policy itself. To refuse to receive the policy 110 complaint based on a contrived and incorrect reason would only amplify the University's mistreatment of Mr. Hickey.

We trust you will review Policy 110 and receive Mr. Hickey's complaint without further delay.

Sincerely

Zachary Fouchard
Mireille Gervais
Karine Hébert

Student Appeal Officers
Student Appeal Centre
tel: 13-562-5800 x 2350
appeals@sfuo.ca
www.appeals.sfuo.ca

How and Why the University of Ottawa got the Ottawa Police to Lay Bogus Criminal Charges Against a Student

2009-10-19T10:45:00.011-04:00

The Rock Administration's Persecution of Student Marc Kelly Must End

In May 2008 students killed the administration’s attempt to impose a student code of conduct. Code of conduct like measures targeting individual students cannot be tolerated.

Marc Kelly’s case (described below) is the most outrageous case of targeted political discrimination against a student seen by the Student Appeal Centre. Any such injustice to a single student is an injustice to all students.

Prior to December 1^st, 2008 Marc Kelly had filed multiple appeals with the University administration and had vocally denounced the injustices he had suffered at the hands of the Rock Administration. The University’s recent actions against Marc Kelly appear to be reprisal against him for having spoken out and for having ultimately taken his grievances directly to President Rock.

In light of the University’s own rules and regulations that penalize students who do not attend class, the administration’s multiple recent efforts (see below) to keep Marc Kelly out of the classroom are not only hypocritical, they raise serious ethical questions about the University administration.

The University has a societal mission to educate students and to foster and maintain an environment where freedom of expression and critical thought are welcomed and protected. Whereas the University should be lobbying the Courts to have Marc Kelly back on campus, it has done everything in its power to ensure that Marc Kelly’s freedoms are restricted.

This persecution must end.

****

On December 1^st, 2008 undergraduate student Marc Kelly attended the University of Ottawa’s monthly Senate meeting. Inspired by the University’s Vision 2010, in particular the phrase "transparency and accountability are the principles that guide our university governance", Marc Kelly attempted to video record the proceedings in the Senate Chambers, Tabaret Hall Room 083. The Senate is the highest governing body for all academic matters at our University. On December 1^st, 2008, the Senate meetings were open to all members of the public, there was no policy in effect prohibiting the use of video recording equipment and members of the media had previously recorded the proceedings.

But on December 1^st, 2008, some Senators did not want to be filmed. Members of the upper administration, including then VP Academic Robert Major and then VP Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers, approached Marc Kelly. Marc explained that there was no policy prohibiting filming, and Marc suggested the issue be raised before the Senate prior to the start of the meeting.

Instead of calling for a democratic discussion on the question of video recording, the Ottawa Police was called with the full consent of VP-Academic Robert Major who presided the Senate meeting in Allan Rock's absence. Marc Kelly was handcuffed, thrown in the back of a police cruiser and bogus criminal charges were laid against him.

Many students witnessed the arrest and later filed complaints against the Ottawa Police who, once arrived on campus, began confiscating their video recording equipment and repeatedly threatened them with arrest.

A police officer told Marc that he would be released immediately only if he signed an undertaking that barred him from all University of Ottawa property. When Marc protested that he was both a student and an employee, the police officer called the University. The University lied to the police officer by saying Marc was neither a student nor an employee. When Marc asked what would happen if he refused to sign the undertaking, the police officer told him he would be held in jail for a week.

The restriction of freedom in the signed undertaking was not only outrageous, it was a contradiction of the University’s own regulations. After all, Marc Kelly is a student who must abide by the University’s rules on mandatory class attendance! After student protests, the undertaking was modified by the Court to give Marc access to campus once again, and he continued his studies.

During this time, the University kept a close watch on Marc Kelly’s whereabouts. They used the surveillance cameras on campus to store video records of his every action, they took photographs, wrote detailed reports and they sent this information to the Ottawa Police. For example, Marc was seen registering for a course at the Faculty of Science’s undergraduate office. This was reported to the police.

On January 23, 2009 in an attempt to intimidate Marc Kelly away from campus, the Ottawa Police, with the assistance of the University’s “Security Services”, falsely arrested him while he was giving a public presentation in McDonald Hall Auditorium. Marc was held in jail for several hours while students and professors successfully protested outside of the police station for his release.

During the rest of the Winter, both the Crown and the University set out to have Marc Kelly enter into a Peace Bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This would mean that the University of Ottawa would not have to defend its actions in front of a judge, and that Marc Kelly would agree to have his freedoms restricted on campus. In trying to pressure Marc to sign the Peace Bond, the University of Ottawa and the Crown Prosecutor collaborated with the Ottawa Police.

On May 14, 2009 the Ottawa Police showed up at Marc Kelly’s home late at night. They threw him in jail and stuck multiple additional bogus criminal charges against him. The Ottawa Police had used the surveillance information gathered by the University of Ottawa and accused Marc Kelly of “breaching his conditions”. For example, Marc Kelly has been criminally charged for asking a question to President Allan Rock at a public event during the question period.

DuDuring the Summer of 2009, Marc Kelly entered in negotiations with Vice President, Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers and came to an agreement with the University. The agreement included the following:

Marc would fast track his degree (he would avoid taking three additional mandatory electives).
The University would clear Marc’s debt with the University.
The University would award Marc with a bursary of $3500.
The University would ask the Crown Prosecutor to drop the bogus criminal charges against Marc.

The agreement, however, was under the condition that Marc take all of his courses at Carleton University, except for MAT 2762, which Marc would take at the University of Ottawa. A few days before the fall semester courses were to begin, the University’s Legal Council Alain Roussy emailed the ‘formalized agreement’ to Marc. The University unilaterally introduced several new elements never once mentioned by VP Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers during the many months she negotiated with Marc. The modified agreement would not only force Marc Kelly to give up his right to file a civil lawsuit against the University, the new agreement also served as an indefinite notice under the Trespass to Property Act, and included a clause prohibiting Marc from applying to any graduate or undergraduate program of study at the University of Ottawa for the next five years. The University tried (and failed) to take away Marc Kelly’s right to apply for graduate studies.

Marc Kelly’s fight continues. A trial date has been set for January 12^th, 13^th, 14^th and 15^th, 2010 while he continues to fight to regain the student rights and freedoms that have been stripped from him.

Since December 1, 2008, many students have protested the Rock administration’s treatment of Marc Kelly. In March of 2009, the Senate agreed to be filmed and adopted a policy to that effect. Videos of all Senate meetings are now posted on the University of Ottawa website.

The SAC directly appeals to President Allan Rock to stop this madness. The SAC asks President Rock to instruct Legal Counsel to petition the Crown in Marc Kelly’s favour to have all conditions of the undertaking removed immediately. The SAC asks President Rock to allow Marc Kelly to exercise his full freedoms as a student of the University of Ottawa.

Ph.D. Student Denounces State of Academic Freedom at the University of Ottawa

2009-07-13T09:44:00.009-04:00

This open letter was submitted to the SAC by Marie Galophe, Ph.D. student at the U of O Département de français.

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

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

Dans le cadre de ma première année de doctorat en création littéraire au Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa, j’ai soumis le 8 avril 2008 un projet de thèse intitulé : « Dialogue(s) avec Paolo Freire : rhétorique et réécriture. » Ce projet en création avait pour ambition de rédiger « un dialogue mettant en scène de façon figurée le dialogisme à l’œuvre dans l’essai de Freire <> ». Il s’agissait donc de faire œuvre de fiction à partir des thèses et des procédés en présence dans l’essai de Paolo Freire, abordés d’un point de vue rhétorique. Ce dialogue fictionnel avait pour but de réactualiser la pensée de Freire en transformant l’essai dans un autre type de discours, assimilé à un genre littéraire.

Rappelons que la soumission d’un projet de thèse au Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa suppose le choix d’un directeur de thèse, la recherche d’un sujet pertinent et original, et la rédaction d’une proposition de 10 à 12 pages présentant :

« I. Énoncé détaillé du projet

1. Présentation du projet d’écriture (choix et enjeux esthétiques, choix génériques, autres éléments pertinents).

II. Projet de réflexion théorique et critique

1. Énoncé de la problématique et lien avec le projet de création;
2. État de la question (actualité ou tradition de la critique sur le sujet ou le corpus);
3. Objectifs de la réflexion;
4. Bibliographie. » ( Cf. Formulaire de dépôt de sujet de thèse en création littéraire)

C’est donc un travail considérable, qui s’effectue durant la première année d’inscription en doctorat, alors même que l’étudiant doit obtenir 12 crédits, ce qui représente 4 séminaires à suivre et à valider.

Ainsi, j’ai élaboré ce projet de thèse en création littéraire avec l’aide et le soutien de ma directrice de thèse, Mme Danielle Forget, elle-même écrivain, spécialiste en rhétorique et travaillant actuellement sur « L’interculturel et ses manifestations discursives dans les échanges entre le Canada et l’Amérique latine (Argentine, Brésil, Chili, Mexique) », avec Patrick Imbert, membre du Comité des études supérieures du Département de français. De l’avis de Mme Forget, ce projet était tout à fait pertinent et novateur, notamment dans le choix d’écriture d’un dialogue fictionnel.

Dans le cadre de ce processus de dépôt de sujet de thèse, j’ai été amenée à rencontrer les membres du jury de mon examen de synthèse, programmé à l’automne 2009. Ce jury a été choisi en fonction de mon sujet de thèse. Pour ce faire, j’ai envoyé le 2 mars 2009 un résumé de mon projet de thèse à M. Yergeau, président du Comité des études supérieures du Département de français. Ma directrice de thèse, Mme Forget, s’est livrée au même exercice de son côté. De plus, suite à mes inquiétudes concernant la nationalité de Freire, j’avais questionné M.Yergeau sur la recevabilité de mon choix par le Comité. Il a répondu dans un courriel du 31 mars 2009 : « Renseignements pris, vous pouvez choisir cet auteur brésilien. »

Mon projet a donc été soumis le mercredi 8 avril 2009 au Comité des études supérieures du Département de français, composé de Mme France Martineau, de M. Patrick Imbert, de M. Kasereka Kavwahirehi, de M. Robert Yergeau (président du Comité) et de Mme Dominique Lafon (directrice du Département). Pourtant, dans une lettre datée du 28 avril 2008, M. Yergeau m’annonçait le refus de mon projet dans les termes suivants :

« Madame,

Le Comité des études supérieures du Département de français a étudié votre projet de thèse de doctorat.

Je dois vous informer qu’il a été refusé, parce qu’il contient deux aspects qui le rendent inadmissible dans le cadre de notre programme en création littéraire :

1. Le texte de base de ce projet appartient au domaine de la pédagogie. Le Comité considère qu’il n’a pas sa place dans un département d’études littéraires.

2. Cette thèse se veut avant tout un exercice de vulgarisation de la pensée de Paulo Freire. Cette perspective ne relève pas non plus de la création littéraire.

Je vous prie d’agréer, Madame, l’expression de mes salutations les meilleures.

Le président du Comité des études supérieures,
Robert Yergeau »

Ce refus de projet de thèse est le premier dans l’histoire du Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa et m’a surprise tout autant que ma directrice par la brutalité de son propos. Alors que les membres du jury demandent le plus souvent des modifications, des réajustements ou des explications supplémentaires, le Comité a choisi dans le ci-présent cas le refus complet, somme toute peu constructif pour moi, voire irrespectueux compte tenu de la somme de travail fourni, d’une part, et de la validation de mon projet par ma directrice de thèse, d’autre part.

J’observe donc un manquement à la liberté académique dans le caractère unilatéral de la décision, couplé à son autoritarisme. Les arguments invoqués témoignent, d’une part, d’une condamnation de l’interdisciplinarité et, d’autre part, d’un mépris pour la société civile, visible dans l’emploi du terme de « vulgarisation », extrêmement surprenant compte tenu de la vocation même de l’Université. D’où la publicité mensongère à laquelle se livre l’Université d’Ottawa en se présentant comme un lieu d’enseignement interdisciplinaire, favorisant la recherche et l’innovation.

Le Comité des études supérieures du Département de français a autorisé, par ailleurs, une étudiante de maîtrise à travailler sur Elvis Gratton et les scénarios télévisuels dont il est le héros. De même, un colloque a été organisé par un professeur du Département de français sur le personnage de bande dessinée Tintin, abordé dans une perspective sociocritique, dans le cadre de l’ACFAS 2009. Ainsi, il est difficile de comprendre, dès lors, en quoi Paulo Freire ne peut faire l’objet d’une étude littéraire dans le cadre du Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa.

Cependant, à la suite de ce refus, j’ai rencontré le président du Comité, M. Yergeau, en compagnie de ma directrice de thèse, Mme Danielle Forget et d’un agent de recours étudiant, travaillant pour le Centre de recours étudiant (CRÉ). M. Yergeau a admis que la raison de ce refus était « soit très superficielle, soit très fondamentale ». Il a cependant affirmé que je pouvais rédiger une lettre de réponse aux membres du Comité, défendant mon point de vue. Lorsque l’agent de recours a demandé si la décision était réversible à la suite à cette réponse, M. Yergeau a répondu : « Je n’ai pas dit ça. »

Dans la mesure où cette décision n’était pas réversible, d’une part, et que, d’autre part, je devais soumettre un nouveau sujet de thèse avant la fin du troisième semestre d’inscription, soit l’été 2009, j’ai choisi de m’atteler le plus rapidement possible à un nouveau projet de recherche. Ce nouveau projet m’a demandé deux mois et demi de travail supplémentaire, toujours sous la direction de Mme Forget.

Alors que M. Yergeau m’avait affirmé lors de notre rencontre avec ma directrice de thèse et l’agent de recours que je devais soumettre mon nouveau projet avant le 31 août 2009, ce dernier m’a adressé le 25 juin 2009 un courriel me demandant « de déposer une nouvelle version de [mon] projet au plus tard le lundi 20 juillet, date qui correspond au retour de vacances de Madame Gaumond. » Pourquoi cette date ? Aucun règlement écrit n’est disponible au Département de français concernant la reprise d’un projet de thèse refusé et les échéances correspondantes.

Je me suis donc présentée au Département de français le jeudi 18 juin, à 10 h, pour remettre mon projet à la secrétaire. Cette dernière m’a mentionné que plusieurs membres du Comité étaient déjà partis en vacances. Seuls M. Yergeau et Mme Lafon, directrice du Département, étaient encore disponibles. Le lendemain, soit le vendredi 18 juin à 11 h, j’ai reçu un courriel émanant de la secrétaire, avec en fichier joint, la lettre d’acceptation de mon nouveau projet, signée par M. Yergeau.

Il est difficile, dans ces conditions, de ne pas remettre en doute la validité de l’évaluation du Comité des études supérieures du Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa, autoritaire lors de sa première évaluation et prompt à régler les choses au plus vite lors de sa seconde évaluation. Rappelons, en effet, qu’un second refus de mon projet de thèse aurait entraîné mon éviction du programme et la perte de ma bourse internationale.

J’ai donc choisi de dénoncer l’injustice qui m’a été faite, émaillée d’incohérences, inadmissibles dans une institution qui se présente comme l’Université canadienne. En tant qu’étudiante internationale, je suis choquée par les procédés du Département de français. En tant qu’étudiante de Paris IV-Sorbonne en France, j’ai fait part à mon réseau universitaire d’attache de ce refus et n’encourage pas mes compatriotes à venir étudier au Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa.

J’espère qu’en exposant ces procédés arbitraires, le Département de français favorisera une meilleure transparence, en accord avec le projet éducatif prôné par l’Université d’Ottawa, afin de rétablir un climat de liberté académique et de saine création littéraire, dégagée de toute tentative de censure.

Cependant, je reste préoccupée quant au mobile réel de ce refus. En effet, j’avais mentionné aux membres de mon jury d’examen de synthèse que M. Denis Rancourt, professeur de physique de l’Université d’Ottawa congédié au mois de mars 09, m’avait fait découvrir Paolo Freire, pédagogue dont il s’inspire lui-même. De plus, j’ai pris position publiquement contre son renvoi dans une lettre ouverte, mise en ligne par la suite. Enfin, j’ai déjà été l’objet d’un certain nombre de pressions et d’agressions verbales suite à mon enseignement d’un cours de premier cycle dans lequel j’avais remis en cause les grilles de notation et également informé mes étudiants du cas du professeur Rancourt.

À la lumière de ces faits, j’ai donc été amenée à conclure que le refus du Comité était soit le résultat d’une incompétence professionnelle soit le soubresaut d’une affaire politique. Dans tous les cas, je dénonce ce refus et reste ouverte à des explications, des excuses, voire des réparations.

Marie Galophe
Candidate au doctorat,
Département de français de l’Université d’Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.

Cc. Public
M. Allan Rock, Recteur de l’Université d’Ottawa
M. François Houle, Vice-Recteur aux études
M. Gary Slater, Doyen de la Faculté des études supérieures
M. Antoni Lewkowicz, Doyen de la Faculté des arts
Mme Dominique Lafon, Directrice du Département de français
M. Robert Yergeau, Président du Comité des études supérieures du Département de français
M. Alexandre Gauthier, représentant étudiant au Comité des études supérieures du Département de français
Tous les étudiants diplômés du Département de français
Tous les professeurs du Département de français
Mme Lucie Keech, Directrice par intérim du service du marketing
Mme Andrée Dumulon, Directrice du Bureau des communications
GSAED
CRÉ
Bureau des étudiants internationaux
Peter Biesterfel, documentariste
Professeur Claude Lamontagne, CDE
The Freire Project, Montréal
En ligne sur le blog du Centre de Recours Étudiant (SFUO)

Student Appeal Centre Asked to Share Its Confidential Data With The University of Ottawa

2009-04-23T15:34:00.005-04:00

On March 24, 2009, Vice-President Academic Robert Major wrote to the Student Federation’s Vice-President of University Affairs, Seamus Wolfe, announcing that the University of Ottawa was launching an ‘independent’ evaluation of the processes followed in dealing with academic fraud cases. (Letter available in French).

The Vice-President chose Joanne St. Lewis, Professor and Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre to conduct the evaluation and requested that the Student Appeal Centre collaborate with Ms. St. Lewis, namely by sharing all of its data.

In the fall of 2008, Ms. St. Lewis had conducted an ‘independent’ evaluation of the Student Appeal Centre’s Annual report, saying that its content was ‘unsubstantiated, inconclusive and inflammatory.’ Ms. St. Lewis also questioned the SAC’s data in her evaluation, stating that ‘the data is too limited to enable any analysis […] and does not enable the University to identify where there may be problem areas.’

The fact of the matter is that the University of Ottawa holds the complete data on academic fraud cases, seeing as the SAC has not acted on every single case of academic fraud brought forth by the University. By requesting SAC’s data, the only new information that would be gathered by the University is the identity of the Centre’s clients.

The Student Appeal Centre therefore reaffirms to all students that our data is entirely confidential and will not be released to any third party without express consent from the concerned student. (See the letter sent to Vice-President Major, in French)

On that note, the SAC is looking forward to sharing the expertise of its representatives and collaborating with Ms. St. Lewis with regards to the evaluation of the academic fraud procedures. The SAC had recommended a revision of all regulations and practices concerning academic fraud in its 2008 yearly report. The University of Ottawa has not yet taken action to address any of the SAC’s other recommendations.

273 Days After Having Initially Filed her Appeal Student TingTing Wang Will Receive U of O’s Final Decision

2009-03-11T07:51:00.000-04:00

TingTing Wang’s case made news in November following a public letter written by SFUO president Dean Haldendy to University of Ottawa President Allan Rock, denouncing the injustice of TingTing’s situation.

TingTing’s appeal was also featured in the 2008 SAC Annual Report and was covered by the CBC evening news on November 14, 2008.

TingTing Wang’s academic advisor mistakenly registered her in a course for which she did not have the pre-requisite in August 2007. It is only after having failed the course that TingTing’s professor noticed that she did not have the prerequisites. She has since expressed two clear requests to the University of Ottawa: to have the failure removed from her transcript and to be reimbursed the $1782.58 she spent on the course.

TingTing obtained a letter of support from her professor and appealed her case to Manon Lalande (Administrator of Undergraduate Programs for the Faculty of Social Sciences), Cécile Coderre (Vice-Dean Academic), François Houle (Dean), Robert Major (Vice-President Academic) and the Senate Appeals Committee.

In July 2008 The Faculty of Social Sciences first refused to recognize its mistake by ruling that TingTing should have dropped the course even though she was passing the course on the final drop day. At the level of the Senate Appeals, the Faculty changed its position by claiming that it had made a special exception for the benefit of TingTing’s work schedule, a statement that has no basis in fact.

Interestingly, TingTing’s work with Marco Polo Media Communications and with the local Seven Days Newspaper involves networking with potential international students who are interested in studying at the University of Ottawa. Should she lose her appeal, TingTing says it will be important to warn potential students of her case with the University of Ottawa.

The Senate Appeals Committee will make a final and binding decision for TingTing’s appeal on Friday March 13, 2009.

Three Graduate Students File a Lawsuit against the University of Ottawa and Deliver Their Claim to President Allan Rock

2009-02-25T21:31:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday February 24, 2009 physics graduate students Sean Kelly, Joseph Hickey and postdoctoral fellow Meizhen Dang filed a lawsuit against the University of Ottawa.

A press conference was held in Tabaret Hall to announce the lawsuit. Following the press conference students attempted to deliver the claim to President Allan Rock but the glass doors to the central administration offices had been locked. A few minutes later Allan Rock stepped out of his office, smiled and waved to the crowd of students as he made his way out of Tabaret Hall using another exit.

Students quickly caught up to Allan Rock and informed him that they had an important document to deliver. President Rock did not respond to the students and made his way down Laurier Street. Refusing to give up, students followed Allan Rock, explaining the nature of the lawsuit and the grounds of their complaint against the University of Ottawa. President Rock did not respond.

After approximately ten minutes, President Rock finally accepted to take the claim and walked away with yet another wave and a smile.

Press Release Announcing the Conference:

On December 10, 2008, the University of Ottawa summarily, without notice consultation or due process, closed the laboratory of Professor Denis Rancourt, locking out its researchers, seizing equipment and derailing years of award winning scholarship in nanoparticle physics. As a result of this ill-conceived plan, post Doctoral researcher Meizhen Dang's employment was terminated after twelve years of dedicated research assistance. Master's student Sean Kelly lost nearly six years of specialized research in the area of ferromagnetism and Master's student Joseph Hickey has been bullied by the administration to abandon his fully funded NSERC research project under Professor Rancourt.

"Academic excellence and freedom at the University of Ottawa are under a profound attack when the administration takes a personal dislike to a certain professor" according to Joseph Hickey. "I came to attend the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies at this University on a fully funded scholarship to work with a leading world expert in physics, not to be coerced and treated with such disdain."

"Every day that we are locked out of our research jobs, the value of our scholarships diminish and the likelihood of regaining our research momentum decreases rendering the prospects for our scientific careers more doubtful," explained Sean Kelly.

For Meizhen Dang, she is concerned about the lack of consideration and disrespect shown to longstanding researchers at the University of Ottawa. "Had I known that after a decade of work I would end up by being unceremoniously locked out of my lab and having my research seized despite producing internationally recognized and award winning scientific results, I would have left this environment years ago. What have I done to deserve this?"

After their requests to return to their academic supervisor and laboratory research group fell on deaf ears, the postdoctoral researcher and graduate students have filed a joint claim against the University and the Dean of Graduate Studies, Gary Slater for monetary damages relating to breach of contract and misfeasance in public office.

(Press Release by Yavar Hameed)

SAC Annual Report Based on 388 Students’ Lived Experience Claimed to be ‘Unsubstantiated, Inconclusive and Inflammatory’ by the University of Ottawa

2008-12-17T13:01:00.000-05:00

“I know from my days in politics that the easiest way to respond to an unfavourable poll is to brush it off as a misleading snap-shot or to attack the pollster’s methodology” (Allan Rock, “Rock Talk” University of Ottawa. November 19th, 2008).

On November 25th 2008, the University of Ottawa responded to the SAC’s 2008 report titled Unfair Practices, Mistreatment of Students and Systemic Racism at the University of Ottawa. The response was a 19 page evaluation penned by Professor Joanne St. Lewis, Director of the University of Ottawa’s Human Rights and Research and Education Centre.

Professor’s St. Lewis’ response states that the Vice-President Academic, Robert Major, (her superior) asked her to complete an “independent” evaluation of the SAC 2008 report. Professor St. Lewis arrives at the conclusion that, “in many places the content [of the SAC report] can only be described as unsubstantiated, inconclusive and inflammatory.”

Furthermore, the University’s response and Professor St. Lewis’ evaluation examines the SAC report’s methodology, and concludes that the SAC’s data is too limited to enable any analysis supporting the Centre’s claims.

Nonetheless, Professor St. Lewis concludes her report with ten (10) recommendations that echo the SAC report’s recommendation and demands, including strict adherence by the Senate Appeals Committee to reasonable deadlines and the establishment of a university policy protecting undergraduate students from discrimination and non-sexual harassment.

The University of Ottawa issued a press release and emailed members of the university community (all students and staff) informing them of Professor Joanne St. Lewis’ evaluation. The University provided a link to her evaluation, but chose not to link to the SAC’s report. President Allan Rock also wrote about the evaluation and Professor St. Lewis’ analysis on his blog, while again choosing not to link to the Student Appeal Centre report.

The Student Appeal Centre denounces the University of Ottawa’s tactics as an attempt to discredited student voices. Professor St. Lewis’ accusation of the SAC report as “methodologically flawed” not only detracts from the issues of racism and injustice on campus, but also silences the valuable student perspective on matters of appeals and the broader student/university relationship.

The Student Appeal Centre continues to be a witness to racism and contempt for students. The SAC report is a testimonial, based on 388 official cases over the past academic year and over 400 informal consultations.

The University of Ottawa has not yet taken any action to implement Professor Joanne St. Lewis’ and the Student Appeal Centre recommendations.