<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19222">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Chronicle of Higher Education August 5, 2013<BR>A Self-Proclaimed Dissident
Riles Up Canadian Academe<BR><BR>Denis Rancourt, a physics professor who was
dismissed in 2009 by the U. <BR>of Ottawa, in part for his unorthodox grading:
"Socrates did not give <BR>grades. My job is to educate."<BR><BR>By Karen
Birchard and Jennifer Lewington<BR><BR>Denis Rancourt is a self-described
"anarchist" and "dissident," an <BR>internationally recognized researcher in
physics, and a blogger who <BR>writes bluntly about social activism, climate
change, and the <BR>Israeli-Palestinian conflict.<BR><BR>But it is the challenge
to his dismissal as a tenured professor at the <BR>University of Ottawa—a rare
occurrence in Canadian academe—that has <BR>brought him the most recent
attention, raising questions about academic <BR>freedom and its
limits.<BR><BR>Mr. Rancourt was dismissed in 2009 after 23 years at Ottawa,
setting off <BR>a lengthy, still unresolved legal battle between the scholar and
his <BR>former university. In June an arbitration hearing on the dispute ended
<BR>after 30 days of deliberations over two years. A decision is expected in
<BR>2014. In theory, the arbitrator could decide that the dismissal
<BR>constitutes an erosion of academic freedom or merely a provocative
<BR>professor's failing to respect agreed-upon university
procedures.<BR><BR>"This is a case certainly about a university that is very,
very <BR>uncomfortable with an individual and the fact that he is extremely
vocal <BR>in his criticism," says Sean McGee, the lawyer representing Mr.
Rancourt <BR>for the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa,
which <BR>took up his grievance. "One of the things the arbitrator will decide
is, <BR>How far can you go in all the senses with your criticism of the
university?"<BR><BR>For its part, the university has painted Mr. Rancourt as a
bully who has <BR>flouted rules and repeatedly defied his superiors'
orders.<BR><BR>The relationship between the professor and the administration was
not <BR>always so fraught. In 2001, Mr. Rancourt was even featured in a
<BR>University of Ottawa publicity campaign, "Can you recognize Canada's
<BR>university of the 21st century?"<BR><BR>But since then, the mutual
admiration has withered. Before and after his <BR>dismissal, Mr. Rancourt filed
more than two dozen grievances against the <BR>institution. Several still await
arbitration. Of nine settled <BR>grievances, the faculty union has won six on
his behalf. He lists the <BR>grievances on his Web site, where he continues to
write a blog sharply <BR>critical of university policies and
administrators.<BR><BR>In 2006 he provoked a controversy when he allowed
10-year-old twins to <BR>register for one of his courses. After the university
reversed their <BR>registration, he publicly supported the mother's case for age
<BR>discrimination before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. (The
<BR>commission dismissed the case on technicalities.) He also backed several
<BR>of his students who filed a lawsuit against the university demanding the
<BR>appointment of more teaching assistants. Over the years, he was
<BR>disciplined several times by the administration before being dismissed
<BR>by the institution's Board of Governors.<BR><BR>During the arbitration
hearing, both sides fired charges and <BR>countercharges, and numerous facts are
in dispute. An important part of <BR>the case—one that touches directly on
academic freedom—involves the <BR>right of a professor to grade as he or she
sees fit.<BR><BR>The university argued that Mr. Rancourt had committed "a
serious form of <BR>academic fraud." The accusation was made by Lynn Harnden,
the <BR>university's lawyer, as reported by the Ottawa Citizen. He was
<BR>describing Mr. Rancourt's unorthodox pedagogy, which supposedly included
<BR>his promise on Day One of a fourth-year physics class to award all of
<BR>the students grades of A-plus. He allegedly went on to give the high
<BR>marks despite a specific order from a dean not to do so.<BR><BR>"If you
endorse how this professor conducted himself, that would <BR>represent a threat
to the credibility of the principle of academic <BR>freedom," Mr. Harnden told
the hearing. "The principle of academic <BR>freedom does not protect the right
of professors to engage in academic <BR>fraud."<BR><BR>Mr. McGee, the
faculty-union lawyer for Mr. Rancourt, says that the <BR>principle of academic
freedom extends to how professors grade. He <BR>concedes that his client holds
"very, very, very countercultural" views <BR>about pedagogy but says Mr.
Rancourt believes deeply in the need to <BR>rethink the teaching of physics. Mr.
McGee contends that protecting a <BR>professor's right to speak up is all the
more vital when you don't agree <BR>with the opinions expressed. "It is the hard
cases of protection that <BR>build the rights of the individual," he
says.<BR>Strong Protections<BR><BR>Mr. Rancourt has described his approach as
"student centered" and says <BR>he relied on continuing evaluations, not tests,
to measure comprehension <BR>of physics concepts. "Socrates did not give
grades," he told The <BR>Chronicle at the time of his suspension. "My job is to
educate. Over the <BR>years, I've come to the conclusion that what we've been
doing with the <BR>grading system doesn't work. We are creating obedient
employees, but not <BR>people who think."<BR><BR>In a recent interview, Mr.
Rancourt says his dismissal only strengthened <BR>his resolve to fight for his
beliefs. "Personally, I was not emotionally <BR>or psychologically scarred by
this. I always felt the grading thing was <BR>a pretext by the administration to
get rid of me."<BR><BR>He describes his post-dismissal life as one of an
intellectual: "I can <BR>still think, read, and do calculations." He has written
a book of essays <BR>about human rights, helped write several published
scientific papers, <BR>and has been invited by colleagues at Carleton University
and even the <BR>University of Ottawa to deliver guest lectures.<BR><BR>Asked if
he wants to return to teaching at Ottawa, he is quick to reply. <BR>"Absolutely.
That's the hope. We have asked the arbitrator to order me <BR>back to
work."<BR><BR>Caroline Milliard, Ottawa's manager of media relations, says via
e-mail <BR>that the university has no comment, because the case is in
arbitration.<BR><BR>Not surprisingly, observers are loath to predict the outcome
of such a <BR>high-profile and complicated case, though some say access to
<BR>arbitration, typical in dismissal cases, indicates Canada's strong
<BR>protections for professors to speak their minds in and outside of the
<BR>classroom.<BR><BR>"Academic freedom in a cross-Canada sense is better
protected than it is <BR>in the United States," says Jon Thompson, a professor
emeritus of <BR>mathematics at the University of New Brunswick and an expert on
academic <BR>freedom and due process.<BR><BR>With labor rules that are
consistently strong across the provinces, <BR>"there's much better opportunity
for professors who come under attack <BR>internally or externally on academic
freedom to succeed," he says.<BR><BR>Still, Mr. Thompson worries about a
weakening of academic freedom in a <BR>global political climate that has become
more anti-intellectual and <BR>anti-union, with growing support in Canada for
restrictive labor laws.<BR><BR>While there have been few arbitration cases quite
like Mr. <BR>Rancourt's—many disputes are settled long before a hearing—one
notable <BR>ruling found in favor of a professor. In 2004 an arbitrator
concluded <BR>that York University, in Toronto, had infringed on the academic
freedom <BR>of one of its professors, David Noble (since deceased), when he
<BR>distributed fliers questioning the influence of what he called
<BR>pro-Israel interests in the university's fund-raising operation. Without
<BR>naming the professor, the university issued a news release denouncing
<BR>the flier as "highly offensive." The arbitrator ruled that York had
<BR>undermined the professor's right to criticize the institution and
<BR>ordered it to pay Mr. Noble $2,500 in damages.<BR><BR>More recently, the
definition of what constitutes academic freedom has <BR>sparked a dispute
between faculty and administration representatives <BR>nationally. In 2011, the
Association of Universities and Colleges of <BR>Canada issued a statement on
academic freedom that came under fire from <BR>the Canadian Association of
University Teachers for the narrowness of <BR>the wording, which included no
references to protection for "extramural <BR>utterance and action."<BR><BR>Some
higher-education experts, however, warn against speculating on the
<BR>implications of the Rancourt case for academic freedom in Canada. "The
<BR>situation is enormously complex and complicated, with a whole range of
<BR>issues," says James L. Turk, executive director of the Canadian
<BR>Association of University Teachers, which set up an independent
<BR>three-person panel to investigate the dispute.<BR><BR>"The documentation was
voluminous," he says of the inquiry. "It <BR>stretched 27 linear feet ... and
took six months to digitize." The panel <BR>has yet to submit its findings,
which carry no legal weight but, based <BR>on the history of past reports from
such panels, can carry moral authority.<BR><BR>If the arbitrator decides that
Mr. Rancourt's unconventional grading <BR>falls within the bounds of academic
freedom, his lawyer, Mr. McGee, <BR>contends that the onus will be on the
university to spell out accepted <BR>approaches to evaluating students if it
wants to ban such unorthodox <BR>practices.<BR><BR>But higher-education scholars
in Canada note that academic senates are <BR>typically the forum for such
discussions. "University charters in Canada <BR>assign responsibility for
academic-policy issues to the university <BR>senate, and while there are clearly
variations by institution, academic <BR>policies related to grades are clearly
the responsibility of the <BR>senate," says Glen Jones, a professor of higher
education at the <BR>University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, in <BR>an e-mail.<BR><BR>Without commenting on the Rancourt case,
Harry Arthurs, a former <BR>president of York University and a scholar in labor
and employment law, <BR>says universities must be vigilant in safeguarding
academic freedom. <BR>"Clearly, people legally and morally are entitled to due
process," he <BR>told The Chronicle. "And if you are moving against someone to
restrict <BR>their behavior or to get rid of them, you should be scrupulous
about <BR>ensuring their procedural rights are
protected."<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>