In which I tell the Registrar to s*** or get off the pot.

I couldn't very well expect the Registrar to disturb his two-week Christmas break by worrying about my little problems, so instead, I spent two weeks waiting for the Registrar to respond to my request for disclosure. After giving that request, his due consideration, I received the following response the day before the resumption of classes in January:

Dear Marty,

I would like to have a meeting with you to hear your response to the allegations, but it is not designed as a setting in which you have to defend yourself. I do not want to send you the documents that constitute the complaints; my summary establishes the nature of the complaints and I simply want to talk with you about the concerns that have been raised. I hope that you are available in the next day or so to meet. I could meet anytime between 9:00 and 4:00 tomorrow, Wednesday, or between 10:00 and 3:00 on Thursday.

Best wishes,

Colin

 

Wow, it's like he's my best friend now. I don't even have to defend myself; he just wants to talk to me. The problem is, I don't buy it. Call me a hardass, but it's not my job to help him make his case. Either he shows me his case or he doesn't have a case.  I replied the next day:

Dear Mr. Russell:

My sole purpose throughout this affair has been to ensure that I am able to graduate with a teaching certificate along with the rest of my class in 2013. If you are willing to discuss means whereby I can achieve this goal, I will be willing to meet with you. But I have already suffered serious damages to my reputation and employment prospects, not to mention the incredible distress caused to myself and members of my family; therefore, I must be assured of total vindication with regard to all the malicious allegations against me. If the University is not willing to provide a documented list of detailed complaints, including times, dates, and signatures, especially those with regard to the termination of my practicum, then I must insist that all proceedings against me be terminated without delay, and that I be restored to my previous status as a student in good standing. In addition to the immediate restoration of my practicum privileges, this means:

1. An end to being singled out for ridicule and scorn in front of other students by professors including Bush, Metz, and Bell, and in the case of Bush, a public apology for the incident of which he is fully aware and an undertaking to never again conduct the kind of in-class “experiment” which led to the incident.

2. An end to being given low or failing grades for work which would otherwise have merited A’s according to the normal standards of the Education Faculty.

3. The restoration of my sponsorship to the Calgary student teacher’s conference, which was arbitrarily cancelled following initiation of these procedings.

4. Compensation for loss of income due to being arbitrarily fired without cause from my job as a piano teacher in the after-school program at Gordon Bell.

5. Compensation for lost earning power as a result of time which I may need to spend making up for my lost Fall practicum next spring.

I understand some of these demands may fall outside your immediate jurisdiction, but given the treatment which I have already suffered I feel they are the minimum which I can accept at this time. As a practical matter, I feel it might facilitate a speedier resolution to this issue if the Faculty would consider allowing me to transfer to the Access Program. I have already discussed my situation with faculty there and they have responded positively to this idea.

Marty Green

In which I request full disclosure

The Registrar had issued a damning indictment of my conduct, which on closer inspection was more about who I am than what I did: in other words, I was rude, arrogant, disrespectful, etc: but as to what I actually did, the indictment was rather sketchy. I therefore responded in the only way that made sense to me: I asked for full disclosure of all the evidence against me, just as I would be entitled to in any criminal procedings:

I received your letter dated Dec. 15 yesterday and I regret that you have not provided any details concerning the alleged conduct on my part which supposedly provoked these admittedly negative reactions on the part of other people. Surely you must understand that if I am to defend myself I need to know what specific actions I am accused of. It cannot be sufficient to tell me simply that other people were disturbed by my actions.

This is particularly so in the case of my removal from the practicum, where I have already been severely penalized without having had the chance to defend myself, let alone know what I am charged with. It is my reading of the procedures that the principal of Gordon Bell would have been required to provide written reasons for my removal at the time of the incident. I do not know why you have not provided me with her written statement so that I may respond to it. It is certainly not adequate to inform me, as you have done, that staff at my practicum school made complaints “similar to those from students and faculty on campus”. If such complaints exist, I believe I have the right to see them.

You have already told me that a report has been prepared by an impartial third party regarding these allegations. I cannot understand why you would feel I am not entitled to review this report. I am therefore requesting again, as I did two weeks ago by email correspondence, that you send me the entire file so that I may prepare to defend myself.

Marty Green

The Registrar was quick to reply:

I will take your request for additional information under consideration and respond shortly. I am aware of the pressing nature of this matter with regard to the commencement of the Winter term.

Best,

Colin

 

In fact, I would wait two more weeks to hear from him again. You can take your best guess as to whether he found it appropriate to provide me with the additional information I had requested.

What Kind of Person Goes Around Making Girls Cry?

The Registrar had put together a devastating list of complaints about my conduct. I was rude, aggressive, disrespectful, you name it. But the most inexcusable act of all was this: I made a girl cry. What kind of horrible person does that? Apparently, I do.

Not only that, it was clearly part of a pattern of behavior. Several faculty members and students complained that I was "prone to personal attacks on students and professors"; several other complainants confirmed that such behavior was "typical in classes during the term". 

Obviously, the Registrar was not going to include any details about these incidents which might allow me to identify the complainants; after all, those complaints were made in confidence, and it would be unfair to the complainants to expose them to my possible violent rage if I knew who they were and what they had said about me. The Registrar had wisely chosen to give me only the information that I absolutely needed, and no more.

I'm sure you'd like to know just exactly what I did to make that girl cry, but like me, you're just going to have to wait a little longer to find out.

The University Makes its Case

Six weeks after I was first informed that I was being investigated for non-academic misconduct, the Registrar finally provided me with a written summary of the allegations against me. I have some idea how horrifying these charges may appear, but for various reasons I am not yet at liberty to give my side of the story. All I can say is that things are not always what they seem. Here, then, is the letter which I received four days before Christmas:

Dear Marty:

I am writing in response to your request for written disclosure of the allegations that prompted my investigation under the Student Non-Academic Conduct and Discipline Policy.  I will summarize the comments made.

Several faculty members and students have submitted written complaints about your behaviour in classes during the term.  The specific allegations are that you have been perceived by them as rude, disrespectful, dominating class time, confrontational, aggressive, prone to personal attacks on students and on professors, that you reduced one student to tears, that you frequently used class time to express your dissatisfaction with the way the class was being taught.  In particular, concern was raised about your actions toward an American Sign Language Interpreter on Nov. 3, and your aggressive tone and conduct in a Physics class on Nov. 9.  Several other complaints made allegations that such behaviour from you was typical in classes during the term.  The reports come from the period October 27 through November 10, at which point the Deans attempted to meet informally with you to discuss these matters.  Subsequently, as you know, your practicum placement school requested that you be removed from the practicum.  Staff there made similar allegations to those from students and faculty on campus, as well as the allegation that you refused to follow directions and accept constructive criticism from cooperating teachers.

As per the policy, I am requesting a meeting with you to “review the matter and determine whether the facts as disclosed by the complainant are in dispute.”  Please contact me at (204) 786-9337 or c.russell@uwinnipeg.ca in order to arrange a day and time.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Russell

University Registrar

Why Didn't I Just Go to the Meetings?

It would be six weeks from the time the Dean first asked me to meet with him before I was finally given a letter indicating the nature of the allegations against me. In my next post I will reveal what was in that letter. In the meantime, I’m sure people are wondering about those meetings. During those six weeks I was asked on numerous occasions to attend  meetings, supposedly so I would have a chance to tell my side of the story. So what was my problem? Why didn’t I just go to the meetings?

It’s funny that of all the people who ask me why I wouldn’t go to the meetings, hardly any of them ask why the University wouldn’t just put its allegations in writing. It’s a matter of due process and natural justice. I really shouldn’t have to explain the ABC’s of due process, but it goes something like this.

There are two possibilities in a situation like this. Either the University is represented by sincere, well-meaning people who really truly just want to hear my side of the story. In that case I ought to go to the meeting. The other possibility is that the University is represented by vicious, unscrupulous people who will stop at nothing to ruin me. In that case it is against my interests to reveal anything until they have laid all their cards on the table. Which will it be?

What “due process” says is that as the accused person, I am entitled to treat my opponents as though they are Type B; and furthermore, they are not allowed to draw any adverse inferences about my guilt through the fact that I choose to regard them that way.

I know we’ve all watched the movies where the “bad guys” get away with murder because they take advantage of the rules. What “due process” says, unfortunately, is that you’re not allowed to assume I’m a “bad guy” just because I take advantage of the rules. It’s the job of the university to make their best case against me, and it’s not my job to help them make that case. That’s why I wouldn’t go to their little meetings until they disclosed their evidence.

It’s funny how everyone still thinks I’m a badass because I take this hard line. What about the University refusing to disclose their evidence? Why do they get a free pass for their behavior? If anything, doesn’t it show that maybe they really are the malicious, unscrupulous people that I am entitled to assume they are?

I know what the University is thinking right now. “How dare Marty impugn our integrity, we refined, dignified educated people who have been put in a position of trust by society to administer its institutions of higher learning? Those rules are meant to protect people from the excesses of racist police officers, ambitious prosecuting attorneys, and corrupt government officials. No one needs rules to be protected from us, because we would never abuse anyone’s rights.”

Unfortunately, it is just this smug attitude of our-shit-doesn’t-smell that makes those same people capable of the most outrageous excesses.

In which my sponsorship is withdrawn

It had been over two weeks since I was tossed out of my practicum. Finally the Registrar had contacted me: it seems there had been an investigation, and based on its findings, he felt that charges of non-academic misconduct were justified. He was therefore asking me to come in and tell my side of the story. I replied that first I would require full disclosure, in writing, of all the allegations against me. I would wait two more weeks for the Registrar to respond to this request.

In the meantime, I had received acceptance to the WestCan Student Teacher Conference in Calgary. This was a spring-break event to which the Education Faculty annually sponsored a group of students, and I had been accepted for sponsorship in October. The Conference had accepted not one but two of my presentation proposals, and I was looking forward to going, so I informed Deb Woloshyn of my acceptance, and asked her to go ahead and have my travel arrangements set up. Two weeks later, I received the following reply:

To Marty Green,

The University of Winnipeg Faculty of Education provides financial support for students who act as University representatives at the WestCASTconference. Since your acceptance for WestCAST it has come to the Deans’ attention that there are conditions which now make you ineligible for the University’s sponsorship. This decision to revoke your participation at the WestCAST conference is based upon your:

a) declining to meet with the Faculty of Education Deans

b) status being under review by the Registrar’s office

c) being removed from practicum at the request of the host school


There has been no decision made regarding a Winter term practicum placement, as we await a decision from the Registrar.

Regards,
Deb Woloshyn

Director, Student Teaching
Faculty of Education
University of Winnipeg

As I've said previously, I don't blame Deb personally for the content of these messages: obviously she's getting direction from the Dean's office. But either way, I've had my sponsorship withdrawn. It's funny that they still don't say what I've actually done to justify these sanctions, other than declining to meet with the Dean, which as far as I can see was nothing more than an assertion of my rights under due process. The other reasons for pulling my sponsorship are based not on my actions but the actions of other people: the Registrar reviewing my status, and the termination of my practicum by the host school. I was still waiting to find out what I was accused of.

I also learned from this letter that as long as the Registrar chose to drag out the procedings with regard to the non-academic misconduct, there would be no move on the part of the Faculty to restore my practicum privileges. One more example of due process at work, I suppose. In the meantime, I was determined not to let these things interfere with my right to take part in the university experience to the fullest extent. After all, I was only charged, not convicted. Believing that I would ultimately be vindicated on all counts, I wrote back to Deb:

Thanks for the heads up, Debra. I have registered for the conference and will be making my own arrangements for travel and accomodations. I trust that if the procedings against me are resolved in my favor, the Faculty will reimburse me for my expenses.

marty

I received no reply.

In which I am contacted by the Registrar

I was now sitting at home while all my fellow students were out in their schools happily teaching their practicum blocks. I had been barred from my practicum with no prior notice and with no written reasons provided, and at the same time the University had charged me with non-academic misconduct, also with no written reasons. Furthermore, my department was now refusing to respond to my requests for any information as to my status, saying only that my file had been transferred to the Registrar and I would be contacted in due course. There was nothing to do but sit and wait.

On the sixth of December, fifteen days after I had been thrown out of my practicum, I received the following email from the Registrar:

From: Colin Russell

Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 6:26 AM

To: btestware@shaw.ca

Subject: non-academic misconduct investigation

Dear Mr. Green,

I am responsible for the administration of the Student Non-Academic Conduct and Discipline policy, which is available on the University of Winnipeg website at http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/cms-filesystem-action/pdfs/admin/policies/student-non-academic-conduct-and-discipline.pdf . Please note that due to administrative changes, the position of "Associate Vice-President (Student Services)" no longer exists, so references to that position in the policy should be read as "Registrar."

I am in receipt of several complaints about your conduct in the classroom, both at the University and on your practicum experience. I have had a third party conduct an investigation of these written complaints as required in Section IV.1.f of the policy, and that person has submitted a report. It is my view based on that report that the charges appear to be substantive enough to proceed with adjudication of the complaint.

Therefore, as required in Section IV.1.h, I request a meeting with you to review the complaints. I am available Wednesday, December 7 at 2:00, or Thursday, December 8 between 10:00 and noon. Please let me know if one of those times would work for you, or, if not, what your schedule would accommodate within the next few days and I will try to arrange a mutually convenient time.

My office is in 1B14, which is at the far south end of the first floor of Ashdown Hall, past the Student Services offices of Admissions, Records, Disability Resource Centre, etc.

Regards,

Colin Russell
University Registrar, Student Services
Instructor, Department of English
The University of Winnipeg

I was being ordered to report to another meeting, and you know how I feel about meetings. I know people will say I was being difficult, but that is really quite unfair. An accused person has certain rights, and one of the most basic is to be informed of the precise charges against him. In the circumstances, where I had not only been accused but actually punished already, there was only one possible response to this demand, and so I replied the following day:

Dear Mr. Russell:

I will require written disclosure of all allegations against me. Once I have had a chance to review this information, I will contact you to arrange a meeting.

Marty