3d_camper's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends View]
Monday, February 26th, 2018
Time |
Event |
4:31p |
Немолодой профессор жалуется https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323365864_Academic_Freedom_How_Nasty_Can_a_University_BeStudent spy The university hired a student spy (Maureen Robinson) to covertly surveil me for more than one year while I was a professor. Her actions were condoned by her immediate supervisors (the dean and the legal counsel of the university) and included using a false cyber identity (“Nathalie Page”) and falsely representing herself personally to third parties. The student spy provided weekly reports about me to the university. Her role was described by an Ontario appellate -court judge in his motion ruling in the following terms: MAUREEN ROBINSON [15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire matter is troubling at best. Throughout the relevant portion of the Award by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms. Robins on's written notes were referred to [as] "the report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa student". [16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the edit or of the student newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office, without his input on her hiring. [17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off campus and reported her finding back to the University. In an email to Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile". Ms. Robinson was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her "report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only. [18] The University referred to the “report” thereafter as a transcript which such description was objected to by the APUO. Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which was not evidence. [Underlined subtitle in original] |
|