Professor Denis Rancourt & Academic Freedom

In response to the recent firing of Professor Denis Rancourt from the University of Ottawa (detailed here), my colleague Dr. Marc Spooner has written and sent a letter to the President of Ottawa U, Alan Rock. This is a passionate, well-written piece that outlines important ideas for those who defend the principles of academic freedom. I commend Dr. Spooner for his bravery and action.

RE: Professor Denis Rancourt & Academic Freedom

It is with a great deal of regret that I compose this letter. However, an overwhelming sense of alarm compels me to write to you as the president of the University of Ottawa because your institution is my alma mater, the university where I received my doctorate, worked as a part-time professor, and served many years as an elected representative on the Graduate Student Association (GSAED, 1999-2004). Collegial affiliation is a powerful “tie that binds”, and I cannot pretend that momentous events at the place that shaped me as an academic are of no concern to me now that I have taken a position elsewhere.

So it is with immense dismay that I read two recent articles in the Globe and Mail (February 6 & 11, 2009) outlining the suspension, possible firing, and forcible arrest and removal of Professor Denis Rancourt from the University of Ottawa campus.

It was at the U of O that I came to understand the power of the great ideals that have always guided the Academy. Ideals that are fundamental to the Academy’s role in a progressive and inclusive society and so compelling that if borne in mind for even a moment would surely disbar us from allowing faculty disagreements, academic differences, and/or bruised egos to cloud our judgment and let the petty politics of the day win out.

At your behest the university invoked an armed branch of the state, the police, to squelch speech. This speech did not promote hate nor incite violence, but simply took a critical view of the institution itself, and the larger polity it serves. The university’s action was not only irresponsible, but reprehensible, anathema to the very cornerstone upon which the academy rests.

There must be space for dissent and critical reflexion in a pluralistic and peaceful society and universities ought not shirk their responsibilities in this regard. To the contrary, they ought to be shining examples of it– beacons of freedom, diversity, and rational and passionate dialectic. In a world where, all too often, parties seek to resolve conflict at the barrel of a gun, or through force and intimidation, a university’s role as a space for dialogue and respectful disagreement becomes all the more evident and all the more vital. As the first point in the CAUT’s policy statement on academic freedom1 reminds:

“Post-secondary educational institutions serve the common good of society through searching for, and disseminating, knowledge, truth, and understanding and through fostering independent thinking and expression in academic staff and students. Robust democracies require no less. These ends cannot be achieved without academic freedom.” (Source)

As to the specific of Professor Rancourt’s grading policy: I first implore that we do not make the fallacious assumption to mistake grades for learning. Second, to suggest that under a pass/fail (or in Dr. Rancourt’s case an all “A”) approach students do not learn, become unmotivated, or that such a system is not a well-respected and credible marking scheme is simply unfounded. I proffer the University of Saskatchewan’s medical school and the University of Prince Edward Island’s Bachelor of Education program as two examples; the former highlights that, even with something as self-evidently important as a medical doctor’s education and training, such a system can be employed to great success; the latter is an example of its adoption by those who research and practice effective pedagogy.

Professor Rancourt and I worked on several projects in my time at the University of Ottawa that I truly believe made tangible contributions to the campus, community, and greater society, despite not always sharing one view of the way forward. Had I been in his position these last four years I no doubt would have employed a different set of tactics than those utilised by Dr. Rancourt throughout his longstanding conflict with the Physics Department, the Faculty of Science, and the Central Administration. Although Dr. Rancourt’s tactics, or my tactics, or anyone else’s tactics, might offend, a discussion of them is simply not germane when the issue at hand is the fundamental right and essential need for universities to respect academic freedom and divergent viewpoints.

I believe in my academic colleagues. I believe in their intelligence, their expertise, their experience, and in their difference. I also believe that our actions should follow that which we profess. To act on anything less than the belief in the fundamental principles of academic freedom is an assault on the creative act of teaching, and an insult to the abilities and expertise of our colleagues as we seek, in the ideal, to serve in the public interest.


Marc Spooner, Ph. D.

Support Net Neutrality in Canada: Take Action!

I have posted about Net Neutrality in Canada before, but the issue has still not been resolved, and is currently in the hands of the CRTC. I received this message from the SaveOurNet Facebook group today with details of an upcoming decision.

In the coming days the federal communications regulator will issue a landmark ruling that has huge implications for Canadians’ access to the Internet. The CRTC decision will determine whether Bell and other big telecoms can continue to “throttle” Internet service.

Please take a few seconds to tell the CRTC to stop Internet throttling. Your voice could be the deciding factor!

Take Action here:

The commissioners have already twice delayed releasing their ruling, suggesting that they are struggling to make a decision. We need to make it very clear to the CRTC which side the Canadian public is on.

Until recently, Canada’s Internet was an open network – a level playing field for free speech and innovation. All that is now threatened by a handful of corporations that want to control a “gatekeeper network” in which they decide what content and services get the fastest access to our homes.

These companies have been caught:

• throttling or slowing Internet traffic to businesses and consumers;
• blocking access to websites that criticized them;
• crippling consumer devices and applications.

The upcoming CRTC decision will have major and long-lasting implications for our Internet. Our online level playing field of innovation and free speech hangs in the balance.

Please Take Action and invite your fellow Canadians to do the same!

Start here:

I Can Has Neutral Internets

Please, do something. Do NOT take take our current level of freedom and access for granted.

Photo Credit: SMN

Lessig On Corruption

In this video, Lessig explains his change of focus, from copyright law, to government corruption.

I agree with the majority of the views presented by Lessig. However, I think his argument loses a bit of steam when he explains how transparency of government can help to reduce corruption. I agree to some extent however, I believe that (1) not all corruption will be transparent (that’s the nature of corruption), and (2) even if all corruption were exposed, people still need to act upon that information. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening, and the major political events of the last few years have demonstrated to me that people can be empowered by information but more often, they are disempowered through inaction.