Ex-prof accuses U of O of 'covert surveillance'
photo by Frank Appleyard
Back again: Denis Rancourt in his classroom before being dismissed from the U of O last year.
Denis Rancourt publishes public report, files grievance against university
FORMER PHYSICS PROFESSOR Denis Rancourt has filed a formal union grievance against the University of Ottawa, claiming that the administration hired a student to gather information on him through illegitimate means from 2006 to 2008.
“This is an unambiguous violation of academic freedom,” said Rancourt, who expressed that he has recently obtained conclusive proof for his suspicion that the U of O was investigating him in the years leading up to his March 2009 dismissal.
Rancourt alleges in a public, online report that Maureen Robinson, a former undergraduate student (and, in the interest of full disclosure, a former Fulcrum content manager, features editor, and executive editor between 2004 and 2007), collected information and practiced “extensive covert surveillance” by taping conversations and events and creating a fake Facebook persona in order to join discussion groups and attend activist student events.
Before filing the grievance, Rancourt explained that he asked the university numerous times to “come clean” and confess that they were illegally investigating him by means of a student employed as an agent of university legal counsel. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), Rancourt asked the U of O to hand over personal emails and documents so he could see what was happening in regard to any investigations.
“They’ve never even acknowledged that I’m asking them to come forward,” explained Rancourt. “As a result, I had to wait for conclusive proof [in order to take legal action].”
According to Rancourt, the U of O would not hand over some documents that he felt he was entitled to see under FIPPA. Rancourt alleged the U of O appeared before an arbitrator to defend their withholding of information and subsequently confirmed through their defence that that they were operating an investigation and using an agent of legal counsel to help them investigate labour-law grievances.
The report sent to Rancourt for his rebuttal contained the U of O’s reasons for not submitting the paperwork, which included concerns that it might break client-solicitor privileges, that the documents contain personal information of their legal counsel, and that the communications that passed between any legal counsel and the university are considered confidential.
The university declined to comment on the issue, stating that in matters concerning the U of O and its members, they are bound by confidentiality regulations; however, Robinson offered a short statement in response to Rancourt’s claims.
“There is absolutely no truth to the disgraced professor’s allegations that I was a ‘spy’,” she said in an email to the Fulcrum. “This pathetic fabrication is an attention-seeking affront to my integrity and that of the university. These allegations are false, irresponsible, and needlessly intimidating. Due to pending legal proceedings, I shall refrain from making any further statements.”
Rancourt claimed several other Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) members, student groups, and individual students were also under surveillance as part of the ongoing Rancourt investigation, which has led CUPE members to file their own grievance against the university.
“I was shocked,” said CUPE Francophone VP Felix Grenier. “We have never heard of such actions in labour relations in any university, in any academic institutions in Canada.”
Grenier also stated that while CUPE is not necessarily looking for monetary compensation, they are seeking some sort of response from the university.
“The administration has to realize that what they’ve done is totally unacceptable in our society,” Grenier said. “It’s not as much about having money or any material retribution. It’s not about public apologies.”
Rancourt, however, feels that an apology is in order. He also plans on making this grievance a part of his larger case against the U of O for wrongful dismissal.
“My dismissal case is definitely going to court,” said Rancourt. “In my opinion, if we follow the law, it’s unambiguous that the university will be ordered to hire me back and to pay reparations.”
And you really think that Dr. Rancourt accusation are right ? That the university has spies everywhere ? Obviously, the University will try to have a look at Rancourt's collaborator, since it seems they have a tendency to do some vandalism and then blame the university for reprimation :) I think it was fairly obvious that he had to be fired. And I am happy to believe in the university's administration will hold firm.
Olivier,
Please consider reading my reasoned report on this matter at this URL:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/reportoncovertsurveillance.html
Maybe some research into the ethics and legality of covert recordings mandated by a lawyer in the academic work environment would be in order?
Thank you Denis for your response. I did not expect this. I am sorry for my rather 'harsh' comment.
I have just finished reading the report you gave the link for. And I kind of see some contradictions.
If I understand clearly : You accuse Maureen for "spying" on you on behalf of the university, because she recorded talks you gave at Queens and in Quebec. Which were given to a public audience, since she could attend them. And this is criminal ?
And the fact that Marc Kelly recorded Allan's reaction to his billionth entry in his office without noticing him would still be considered ok ? Or doing vandalism on school property then claiming it is freedom of speech can be considered ok too ? I still have to spend more time reading about this whole story, but I am pretty sure that your group has done several actions that are more condemnable than a recording of a public talk...
Again, I insist : I am sorry for the "harsh" tone of my text. However, I feel that it is needed since it is a rather one sided story right now, and I do think there needs to be some argumentations to get the fact straight.
“There is absolutely no truth to the disgraced professor’s allegations that I was a ‘spy’,” she said in an email to the Fulcrum. “This pathetic fabrication is an attention-seeking affront to my integrity and that of the university. These allegations are false, irresponsible, and needlessly intimidating. Due to pending legal proceedings, I shall refrain from making any further statements.”
Of course, it all depends what the definition of "spy" is. What is more interesting is whether Robinson recognizes or not that she did the actions mentioned in Rancourt's detailed report online (rancourt.academicfreedom.ca), whether she thinks it amounts to spying, or not.