The public tribunal hearings into the 2009 firing of tenured Full
Professor Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa are on-going this
May and June 2013.
These hearings will determine if the dismissal of the professor was (1)
justified, and (2) whether it was done in bad faith for reasons other
than the alleged pretexts given.
The main alleged reason given by the University of Ottawa for firing the
professor is that he would have assigned fraudulent grades to 23
students in an advanced physics course in the winter semester of 2008,
grades that are alleged to have no relation to the students' actual
performances and progress in the course.
A recent ruling by the Arbitrator has allowed the university to
cross-examine Rancourt on his radical blogs "U of O Watch" and "Activist
Teacher", and on any broad question to impeach Rancourt's "credibility"
and/or fitness to be a university professor.
Rancourt's union had argued that such questions should not be permitted (HERE and HERE). The University had argued that such questions are proper cross-examination questions (HERE and HERE).
The Arbitrator explained that allowing the cross-examination questions
is a distinct step from a determination of the relevance of the
questions and answers, and cited the factors for determining
admissibility of the thus gathered evidence.
The questions about the blogs appear to be aimed at establishing that
Rancourt cannot be allowed back on campus because he incites and/or
condones violence (link), because he is an anarchist, because he attacks University administrators with no regard for their feelings (link), because he uses his blogs for vengeance against any University executive associated with the dismissal (link), because he celebrates burning cop cars at G20 (link), because he promotes academic squatting (link), and so on.
On May 23, 2013, the University was allowed to put into evidence a report covertly prepared by a hired student spy
about a talk Rancourt gave on another campus in 2007. Rancourt
requested that he be provided a complete document rather than an
incomplete report, and requested that the source of the report be
identified and documented on the record, prior to answering questions
about the report. Rancourt's requests were not granted. The Arbitrator
ordered Rancourt to answer questions about the report. Rancourt was then
cross-examined about the report.
The union will introduce a new witness when the hearings resume on June
5, 2013. The cross-examination of Professor Rancourt will then continue
after the new witness is cross-examined and re-examined.
From: http://uofowatch.blogspot.ca/2013/05/the-cross-examination-of-professor.html
1 comment:
This entire case is an outrage. Though I might disagree with some of Prof Rancourt's political views, I would defend to the death his right to hold and express them without fear of losing his job. In my view, the pretext of grading impropriety is a thinly veiled cover for the underlying policies of repression at U of O.
Post a Comment