|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
04 April 2010 By Stephen
Lendman
Section 2(b) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional bill
of rights, states:
"Everyone has the following
fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and
religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief,
opinion and expression, including freedom of the press
and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly;
and
(d) freedom of association."
Article 7 assures "Everyone has
the right to life, liberty and security of person and
the right not to be deprived thereof in accordance
with the principles of fundamental justice."
According to Yale Law Professor
and constitutional scholar Thomas I. Emerson (1908 -
1981):
"Maintenance of a system of free
expression is necessary (1) as assuring individual
self-fulfillment, (2) as a means of attaining the
truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by
the members of society in social, including political,
decision-making, and (4) as maintaining the balance
between stability and change in society."
With no free expression right,
all others are at risk at a time dissent is called a
threat to national security, terrorism, or treason.
Howard Zinn called it "the highest form of
patriotism," and according to Voltaire, "I may
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
death your right to say it."
In a post-9/11 climate, it's more
than ever endangered, academic tenure affording no
protection; to wit, Professor Denis Rancourt's
University of Ottawa (U of O) March 31, 2009 firing,
ostensibly for pedagogical reasons, but as he said:
"I was fired under the false
pretext of having arbitrarily assigned high grades in
one course in the winter 2008 semester. (To do so),
the university had to dispense with due process. In
the words of the professors' union's lawyer, my
dismissal was 'both a denial of substantive and
procedural rights....and a contravention of the basic
principles of natural justice.' "
On rancourt.academicfreedom.ca,
he states:
"Most students agree to give up
their independence of thought and enquiry and to serve
the insane system of due dates and senseless
assignments in exchange for the certificate (a degree.
They spend four years) to be certified persistently
obedient. (In return, they get) access to a privileged
position in the wage hierarchy and professional social
status. It's a trade....It requires survival....that,
in turn, requires adopting the ideology of the
profession....and self-indoctrination" to expunge the
impulse to learn. "Your soul (is exchanged) for a
place in the sun."
Rancount's "critical pedagogy"
focuses on learning, not regurgitating professorial
views for high grades, or as he said in a January 5,
2009 letter to Marc Jolicoeur, Chairman of the
University Board of Governors:
His focus shifted "from
evaluation to education, from rank ordering of
students to learning (to remove) intimidation and
anxiety from the educational equation. As a result,
student performances in my courses have improved
significantly and in fact have been excellent."
University interference was "politically motivated and
resisted in the name of academic freedom and in
defence of the best education for my students."
His political activism lay behind
"the university's attempts to discipline (him) since
September 2005;" specifically over the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "in articles, on radio,
in blog postings, at public venues, and in classes."
In 2007, after criticizing the
university's position on academically boycotting
Israel, repression against him intensified after Allan
Rock became president on June 3, 2008 - a former
Canadian politician, UN ambassador, and staunch
Israeli supporter.
On his March 8 U of O Watch blog
posting, Rancourt said Rock, as UN ambassador,
"abruptly changed Canada's longstanding policy on
Israel," henceforth "vot(ing) against UN resolutions
for Palestinian human rights along with the US and
Israel," contrary to virtually all other UN members
save for a Pacific island or two.
As U of O president, he was
"reprimanded by the Canadian Civil Liberties
Association for banning a student poster about Israeli
Apartheid Week, (then) strong-armed a student union
president into distancing the (organization) from the
student-run Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG)
which had expressed a principled stance towards
Israel."
In September 2008 at Rock's
urging, the Executive Committee of the Board of
Governors (EBOG) suspended Rancourt, recommended
dismissing him in December, barred him from campus,
then fired him in March 2009.
A University of Ottawa physics
professor, he was tenured, a full professor since
1997, a recognized expert in his field, and a
"phenomenal teacher" according to members of the
Environmental Studies Student Association for
providing an "extremely enriching individualized....empower(ing
and) positive learning environment where inspired
students gained confidence and courage."
How could his pedagogical
approach and grading methods "justify ordering the
university police to remove (and ban him) from campus,
(assign) his graduate students to other faculty, fir(e)
his post doctoral research fellow, and summarily fir(e)
him without due process?"
It's "particularly ironic given
its Vision 2010 strategic plan (stating) that the
university will "Support and recognize initiatives
designed to implement a range of new and diversified
strategies for learning and evaluation."
Rancourt wanted a stronger, more
democratic U of O - better pedagogically with a new
syllabus, community service offerings, course content,
and right to challenge established practices.
He was also vocal on
environmental concerns, professional ethics, lobbying,
media influence, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In response, university officials tried to silence
him, finally by dismissal, the same disposition for
others like Bard College's Joel Kovel, De Paul
University's Norman Finkelstein, and University of
Colorado's Ward Churchill, each distinguished
academicians, scholars, and outspoken critics of
injustice.
Until his July 2007 firing,
Churchill was an award-winning tenured professor. He
sued, prevailed, was reversed at the district court
level, appealed, and was supported by National Lawyers
Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights, Society of
American Law Teachers, Latina/O Critical Legal Theory,
and Law Professors and Attorneys through amici curiae
filings to reverse the lower court's ruling. In
summary of argument comments, they stated:
"Academic freedom, a central
component of the First Amendment (similar to Section
2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
and essential to a thriving democracy, is imperiled
when state university officials succumb to political
pressure to fire a tenured professor over
constitutionally protected statements. Affording the
shield of absolute immunity to university officials
and vacating a jury finding of wrongful discharge in
violation of the First Amendment threatens the
fundamental rights of all faculty members."
Such action "will have a chilling
effect on professors, students, and citizens whose
speech is unpopular but constitutionally protected.
The resultant suppression of free inquiry and critical
thinking vitiates the First Amendment and undermines
the foundation of higher learning in this country."
It holds for Canada under
constitutionally protected freedoms, Rancourt saying
tenure produces obedient academics who won't challenge
injustices in society or their university environs. He
wrote:
"One antidote to the university
as boot camp in the service of capital is for tenured
professors to use their tenure. This would turn tenure
on its head, as it is free society's coercive tool of
choice for fabricating aligned and docile academics.
Not the job security itself....but the filtering and
moulding process known as the tenure track....Tenure
is death, risk is life, and collaboration is criminal.
Collaborating in an institutionalized system of
resource looting, labour exploitation, and genocidal
demographic engineering is criminal, especially when
its ultimate weapon is the foremost crime known as
war, such as the present Canadian war in
Afghanistan."
In a detailed February 23, 2009
brief (five weeks before his firing), he said
university officials used a "fast track process"
against him, wouldn't engage in dialogue, and refused
to evaluate him by a committee of his peers to
facilitate his firing:
"on a first offence without ever
having the right to be heard at any stage, including
the final decision meeting of the Executive Committee
of the Board of Governors....Canadian society is
witnessing the contrived and intentional firing of an
outspoken dissident professor, as harsh as the most
prominent recent cases in the US under Bush" that
continue under Obama.
Freedom of information (FOI)
documents showed intense illegal university
surveillance, "including an extensive use of a student
spy and the hiring of professional reporters to
produce commented transcripts of my academic and
conference talks at other universities."
Methods used included:
-- "covertly recording
conversations of others;
-- covertly attending a
presentation....under false pretence and covertly
voice recording the event and preparing reports;
-- using a false Facebook
identity (Maureen Robinson = Nathalie page) to
covertly join activist student events and discussion
groups;
-- using a false Facebook
identity to covertly make enquiries about student
events;
-- using a false gmail
account....to make covert email enquiries;
-- making false pretence
enquiries to outside (blog) editors and outside
conference organizers;" and other methods.
Rancourt concluded that "This may
be the first time in North American academic history
that a university administration (through its highest
legal office) hire(d) a student to practice extensive
covert surveillance of a professor and (other)
students" in violation of Canadian and international
law.
Part VI - Invasion of Privacy
under the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits "private
communication" intercepts from one person to another
within Canada. Provision 184(1) states:
"Every one who, by means of any
electro-magnetic, acocustic, mechanical or other
device, willfully intercepts a private communication
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."
Provision 193(1) prohibits
disclosure of illegal intercepts, subjecting offenders
to imprisonment for up to two years.
Article 17 of the UN
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
states:
"No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on
his honour and reputation (and) Everyone has the right
to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks."
Article 19 states:
"Everyone shall have the right to
hold opinions without interference."
FOI evidence also revealed
interference to prevent Rancourt from reserving an
auditorium, secure computing services, participate in
campus demonstrations, enlist students for research
projects, accept new graduate students, negotiate his
teaching load, propose new courses and curriculum
changes among other things. In addition, since 2005,
measures "included a multitude of tenuous and invalid
disciplinary attempts and interventions including and
not limited to....the Dean barging into"
his....Physics and the Environment course to close it
down."
In 19 prior U of O teaching
years, he hadn't once encountered discipline.
Thereafter it became intense, malicious, repeated, and
wholly unjustified, culminating in his dismissal
because of Allan Rock's collusion with Israeli Lobby
efforts to "enforce (its) ideological alignment within
the University...."
As a result, "At a snap (December
10, 2008) meeting, (he) was effectively summarily
dismissed, physically barred from campus, and escorted
off the premises by university police" for bogus
reasons. Then on January 23, 2009, he was "arrested,
cuffed and removed from campus by Ottawa Police" by
order of the university administration, "and charged
with trespass to property - while hosting (his) weekly
Cinema Academica event."
In a December 2009
activisteacher.blogspot.com posting, he called the
actions against him "an indicator of emergent fascism.
(It's) not a distant historical anomaly. It is an
optimum end-state towards which large-scale disruptive
and predatory economic hierarchies tend. It is the
state of total and unchallenged control of every facet
of life by corporate masters of the economy, achieved
by an optimized balance of force and a designed mental
and social environment. Independent thought is
eliminated (and its) influence rendered foreign."
America is already in an advanced
state, Canada close behind toward a dark future,
prevented only by "authentic (determined) rebellion."
Letters Supporting Professor
Rancourt
Ones from U of O included:
Adjunct Professor Valerie Whiffen,
School of Psychology, calling the university's action
"an appalling and unprecedented lack of respect for
both academic freedom and due process" in urging his
immediate reinstatement.
Department of Criminology Adjunct
Professor Robert Gaucher calling the attack on
academic freedom "extremely upsetting....I am appalled
by it....If a colleague with such outstanding
credentials can be treated (this way), then the
academic freedom of all of us is threatened."
Instructor and doctoral candidate
Claire Delisle, Department of Criminology, expressing
concern about the university "exercising rigid control
over the staff and the students" and for subverting
academic freedom.
Ones from other universities
included:
Members of College and University
Workers United (CUWU) calling Rancourt "a dedicated
educator and a fearless defender of justice (for his)
stand for human rights and students' rights. We are
thankful to count Denis Rancourt among the rare public
intellectuals who do not compromise their principles
when they become aware of institutional folly; but
instead use their positions to expose and correct
flawed practices....We conclude that the charges
(against him) are a contrived pretext, that they are
preposterous as reasons to summarily remove a tenured
professor...."
University of Manitoba Mineralogy
and Crystallography Professor, Frank C. Hawthorne,
calling Rancourt "an outstanding scientist (among the
very) few of his calibre, (a man) the community can
ill afford to lose...."
Ryerson University Professor
Emeritus Helmut Burkhardt calling the action against
him "totally inadmissible...."
Drexel University Assistant
Professor of Sociology Mary Ebeling calling Rancourt's
firing "truly shocking (for having) violated, with
impunity, the very principle of academic freedom" U of
O claims to uphold.
Babes-Bolyai University (Romania)
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Assistant Edmond Nawrotzky-Torok saying he was
"appalled by the violation of academic freedom and the
totalitarianism which seems to characterize a
university that allegedly stands for 'freedom of
expression in an atmosphere of open dialogue, enabling
critical thought.' "
Retired McGill University Biology
Professor John Southin expressed academic freedom
concerns.
University of Western Ontario
Professor Emeritus Arthur Jutan, Department of
Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, said:
"It takes an extreme level of
courage to stand up to the Emperor. I congratulate you
for this. Long after these Houses of cards come
falling down, and they will some day, and new more
solid structures to replace them are built....your
name will be remembered, as someone who had the
courage to stand up to all the administrative hacks,
that tried to hang onto their little deck chairs as
the Titanic slowly slipped under the sea."
University of Calgary Associate
English Professor, Aruna Srivastava "express(ed) not
simply dismay but shock that a university would adopt
such heavy-handed tactics to eliminate (a colleague)
whose opinions and ideas were (to some) abrasive and
unpopular."
Guelph University & Fellow of the
Royal Society of Canada, University Professor Emeritus
John McMurtry, described a similar "harrowing
witch-hunt" he once endured, saying "It will be an
enduring disgrace if this shocking administrator
persecution is permitted to stand."
University of Lethbridge
Professor of Globalization Studies, Anthony Hall,
compared Rancourt's persecution "to a twenty-first
century Canadian version of the Spanish Inquisition."
Others expressed their alarm and
disgust as should we all in condemning assaults on
academic and speech freedoms, democratic principles,
and inalienable liberty in a free and open society.
Mark Twain called
"irreverence....the champion of liberty and its only
sure defense." Benjamin Franklin explained that
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must
begin by subduing the freeness of speech." John Stuart
Mill called the "evil of silencing the expression of
an opinion....robbing the human race; posterity as
well as the existing generation...."
US Supreme Court William O.
Douglas spoke for others in calling "Restriction on
free thought and free speech....the most dangerous of
all subversions....It is our attitude toward free
thought and free expression that will determine our
fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate
discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be
taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
(There must be no restraint against the right to)
protest even against the moral code that the standard
of the day sets...."
From the web site
wewon'tbesilenced.com, "My free speech is not
negotiable."
Nor are human and civil rights,
social justice, and democratic freedoms, ones that
tolerate no subversion of constitutionally guaranteed
rights because the alternative is repugnant
despotism.
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/
EsinIslam.Com
|