Yesterday I posted a link to my Statement of Claim, and soon I'm going to talk about it in some more detail. But today I'd like to digress. I've been taking a lot of flak from some people about my attitude. One thing that people often throw in my face is the fact that I declined to attend an informal meeting called by the Dean to discuss the complaints against me. I still think that was one of the smartest moves I made in this whole campaign.
People think I could have solved my problems amicably if I had just agreed to compromise early in the game. After all, what was the harm in going to a meeting?
What these people don't understand is that by this time, I was already dealing with vicious, unscrupulous enemies who were determined to do me in. At that time, I didn't know this either. I only had my instincts to guide me, and there was something in the tone of the Dean's correspondence that told me I should keep my guard up. So I simply requested that whatever proceedings were being contemplated against me, they ought to proceed by the book, according to the University policies. Since the meeting with the Dean was not part of the formal proceedings, I told the Dean it was not in my best interests to attend.
I didn't tell him why it wasn't in my best interests, because it wasn't his business. But now I'm going to tell him. When powerful people get together to make malicious accusations against you, they are taking a bit of a risk. Their problem is that depending on how reckless they are, they might accuse you of something that you happen to be in a position to refute with solid evidence. That would be embarrassing to them. So what they try to do is fling a lot of mud at you and hope that some of it will stick. But they absolutely will not commit themselves.
That's why they don't want to put their case on paper. Once they've put it on paper, they're committed. Instead, they want to corner you in a meeting and probe you with this and that, watching your responses to see if they detect vulnerability. They get a sense of where you are confident and where you are on shaky ground. And understand, when I say you are on shaky ground, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have done something wrong...it's just that you don't have any ready means of disproving the allegation, even though it may be false.
So the secret is to not respond to \anything until they've put it all on paper...and that means, their entire case. That was my strategy all along, and it frustrated the hell out of them, because it undermined their whole strategy of bait-and-switch. You don't think they would stoop to such dirty tactics? Check out the following excerpt from the letter sent to the Dean by Professor David Bell, where, after accusing me of numerous unspecified instances of rude behavior, he states:
"I have more examples of inappropriate behavior if needed" (italics mine).
That's how these people work. Try flinging some mud, and if it doesn't stick, fling some more. That's why they got so frustrated when I refused to respond until I saw the complaints in writing.
Now they're about to go to court, and they still don't know what I know. They're committed to their side of the story, and they still don't know how I'm going to respond to their lies. The irony is that they had every opportunity to learn my side of the story, and they squandered it. Two days before my final appeal hearing before the Committee of the Board of Regents, I finally got them to release the written complaints. By any standards of due process and fair play, this was an outrage. How could I prepare an adequate response with so little time, especially since it had been five months since action against me was initiated? But despite this, I went to the meeting and attempted to tell my story.
The committee refused to listen! They had already decided that I would be given thirty minutes to speak, and despite my vehement protests, they cut me off long before I had finished. It was a flagrant abuse of power and it was completely unnecessary, because even if I spoke for three hours, they still intended to throw me out as soon as I was done. They cut me off simply because they couldn't pass up the chance to humiliate me face to face.
And so they still don't know what I'm going to say when we go to court. But I do. I know my side of the story and their side of the story. They'd like to go back to Professor Bell and get "more examples of inappropriate behavior" to shore up their case, but it's really too late for that. They threw me out on the basis of the case they put together way back when, and now they have to live or die by that case.
They made their bed, and now they have to lie in it.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
How to Write a Statement of Claim
I said yesterday that I would post my Statement of Claim, and here it is. The Statement of Claim is a critical element in any legal proceeding, and a lot of effort went into putting this together. I talked yesterday about how some of the more obvious approaches wouldn't work. Either I would end up with a long and pointeless process that would only bring me back to Sqaure One in the best case scenario, or the University would have the claim dismissed with cost before it even got to court. I believe the approach I am taking is sound, and I think the University is going to have a problem with it.
The Statement of Claim is sixteen pages long, so I think I'll let you look it over and then we can talk about it when I return.
The Statement of Claim is sixteen pages long, so I think I'll let you look it over and then we can talk about it when I return.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Presence of Malice
After I was kicked out of school, I consulted several lawyers as to what my options were. They were pretty discouraging. The courts are very reluctant to get involved in the internal disciplinary processes of universities. The best hope that was offered me was that after "exhausting all my internal remedies", I might be allowed to petition the court to quash the university's verdict on procedural grounds. And all that would do would be to throw me right back into their clutches, where they could repeat the lynching a second time, making sure they dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's.
I thought I had come up with a different angle of attack when I proposed to one lawyer that I could sue for defamation those professors who went behind my back and wrote damning reports about me. There is a natural sort of "qualified immunity" that attaches to complaints of this type. The law recognizes that for business and organizations to function in terms of managing personnel, officers of those corporations must be allowed to write frank and critical evaluations which may be damaging to the subjects of those assessments. To successfully sue for defamation, a plaintiff must show that such judgements were not only false (because a person is entitled to make an honest mistake) but that they were malicious. And malice, being a state of mind, is notoriously difficult to prove.
This difficulty did not deter me. Having at last gotten access to the complaints against me, I could see the malice in every line, and I was confident that I could prove it in court, once I was allowed to tell my side of the story. I proceeded to work on a defamation claim. But in the course of my research, I learned something very disturbing. I was aware of the "qualified immunity" which attaches to complaints of this kind. And I knew that there was a stricter level of immunity associated with court procedings. You cannot sue someone for defamation if they say something about you in open court, as part of a judicial process. It's called "absolute immunity" and it applies even if you can show the accusations to be false and malicious. The theory is that your remedy should be in your right to challenge those allegations in cross examination or otherwise withing the court proceedings. It's considered a very strict principle of law, and it is even entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What I didn't realize at first was that Professors Metz, Bell, and Cantor would be able to invoke this "abolute privilege" in defence of their accusations against me, no matter how false and malicious those accusations were. But how could that be, since there were never any court proceedings? The loophole is something very disturbing that has become entrenched in the common law over the last forty years or so, and it is the concept of a "quasi-judicial process". Presumably because of the huge backlog of the court system, judges have over a number of years shown themselves willing to delegate a quasi judicial status to all kinds of bodies that operate independently: the Labor Board, the Law Society and other professional bodies empowered to discipline their own members, the Medical Boards of hospitals which are empowered to discipline doctors and nurses etc. But no "quasi-judicial bodies" are given more deference by the courts than the disciplinary committees of universities.
Not only are the courts extermely reluctant to second-guess the universities on disciplinary matters, but they recognize the internal disciplinary process as having "quasi-judicial" status. And because of this, they extend "absolute privilege" to any testimony that submitted as part of such a process. What is most disturbing about this privileged status is that I have been unable to find any examples in the legal literature where the courts have held those disciplinary bodies up to any kind of standards to make sure that the rights of the accused are respected, as they are in the real courts. In the real court, if someone slanders you, you can cross-examine him and you can call your own witnesses to support your own story. There is no such right in the University of Winnipeg's star chamber.
But the most fundamental right of all, which you are guaranteed in the courts but not in the "quasi-judicial" world, is the right to know the accusations against you. This is the right I demanded repeatedly, and which the University scoffed at. And despite their denial of my right to even know what I was specifically accused of, let alone to respond to or cross examine my accusers....despite all this, the courts would almost undoubtedly (based on my extensive readings of case law) accord "absolute privilege" to my accusers, thereby denying me the opportunity to sue them for slander.
And yet here I am taking them to court, and defamation is a part of my claim. Why do I think I can get away with this? When we return I'm going to post my Statement of Claim and I'll explain to you how it all works.
I thought I had come up with a different angle of attack when I proposed to one lawyer that I could sue for defamation those professors who went behind my back and wrote damning reports about me. There is a natural sort of "qualified immunity" that attaches to complaints of this type. The law recognizes that for business and organizations to function in terms of managing personnel, officers of those corporations must be allowed to write frank and critical evaluations which may be damaging to the subjects of those assessments. To successfully sue for defamation, a plaintiff must show that such judgements were not only false (because a person is entitled to make an honest mistake) but that they were malicious. And malice, being a state of mind, is notoriously difficult to prove.
This difficulty did not deter me. Having at last gotten access to the complaints against me, I could see the malice in every line, and I was confident that I could prove it in court, once I was allowed to tell my side of the story. I proceeded to work on a defamation claim. But in the course of my research, I learned something very disturbing. I was aware of the "qualified immunity" which attaches to complaints of this kind. And I knew that there was a stricter level of immunity associated with court procedings. You cannot sue someone for defamation if they say something about you in open court, as part of a judicial process. It's called "absolute immunity" and it applies even if you can show the accusations to be false and malicious. The theory is that your remedy should be in your right to challenge those allegations in cross examination or otherwise withing the court proceedings. It's considered a very strict principle of law, and it is even entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What I didn't realize at first was that Professors Metz, Bell, and Cantor would be able to invoke this "abolute privilege" in defence of their accusations against me, no matter how false and malicious those accusations were. But how could that be, since there were never any court proceedings? The loophole is something very disturbing that has become entrenched in the common law over the last forty years or so, and it is the concept of a "quasi-judicial process". Presumably because of the huge backlog of the court system, judges have over a number of years shown themselves willing to delegate a quasi judicial status to all kinds of bodies that operate independently: the Labor Board, the Law Society and other professional bodies empowered to discipline their own members, the Medical Boards of hospitals which are empowered to discipline doctors and nurses etc. But no "quasi-judicial bodies" are given more deference by the courts than the disciplinary committees of universities.
Not only are the courts extermely reluctant to second-guess the universities on disciplinary matters, but they recognize the internal disciplinary process as having "quasi-judicial" status. And because of this, they extend "absolute privilege" to any testimony that submitted as part of such a process. What is most disturbing about this privileged status is that I have been unable to find any examples in the legal literature where the courts have held those disciplinary bodies up to any kind of standards to make sure that the rights of the accused are respected, as they are in the real courts. In the real court, if someone slanders you, you can cross-examine him and you can call your own witnesses to support your own story. There is no such right in the University of Winnipeg's star chamber.
But the most fundamental right of all, which you are guaranteed in the courts but not in the "quasi-judicial" world, is the right to know the accusations against you. This is the right I demanded repeatedly, and which the University scoffed at. And despite their denial of my right to even know what I was specifically accused of, let alone to respond to or cross examine my accusers....despite all this, the courts would almost undoubtedly (based on my extensive readings of case law) accord "absolute privilege" to my accusers, thereby denying me the opportunity to sue them for slander.
And yet here I am taking them to court, and defamation is a part of my claim. Why do I think I can get away with this? When we return I'm going to post my Statement of Claim and I'll explain to you how it all works.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Danny Blair Conducts an Impartial Investigation
For the last few days, I've been going over the letter of complaint submitted by Prof. Laurelyn Cantor. I think it should be clear to anyone that she had no business complaining to the Dean about an essay I wrote. Even if the contents of the essay raised legitimate concerns about my suitability to be a teacher, they were still entirely confidential. And even if she felt it was necessary to breach the trust of confidentiality for the sake of some higher purpose, she ought to have done so objectively, in a nuanced way, instead of by taking snatches of discussion out of context and playing them back to the Dean in such a way as to cast me in the worst possible light. As I have already said, she ought to be ashamed of herself.
What I haven't told you is how Professor Cantor's letter fell into my hands. It's an interesting story, because the University did everything in its power to hide the complaints from me. Although the complaints were written in October and November, and I was formally barred from the campus on January 11th, it wasn't until the 20th of March that I got to see the complaints. That was just two and a half days before I was to have my final chance to appeal the expulsion before the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee.
The Chair of the committee, Grace O'Farrell, did not want me to see those reports. She wanted to convict me based on thirdhand hearsay consisting mainly of the findings of the Registrar, who had never heard my side of the story. This was the information she provided to the committee members as to the case against me. But without thinking it through, it seems she also included a copy of the Third Party Report which the Registrar had ordered prior to initiating official proceedings against me, as called for in the university's Disciplinary Procedures. The Registrar called on Associate Dean of Science Danny Blair to prepare this report, and it makes me look very bad indeed. I have posted a copy so you can see what he said about me.
It's quite appalling really...remember, this is supposed to be an "impartial" report. He conducted his "investigation", as he calls it, be reading through the charges against me. He didn't find it necessary to ask me for my side of the story. From his investigation he concluded that there was ample evidence in the five letters of complaint to find me guilty of Non-Academic misconduct. He found the evidence so compelling that he was moved to strongly urge the University to take whatever measures necessary to make sure that I would never be allowed to teach children. And all this without ever hearing my side of the story.
It seem Professor O'Farrell thought Blair's comments would be helpful in convincing the Comittee to ratify my expulsion, but she failed to notice that she had given me an opening. She had circulated a letter quoting Blair as saying there was "an abundance of evidence within the written complaints" showing that my behavior constituted non-Academic misconduct. But she had not circulated those letters themselves. I wrote the Board of Regents pointing out this discrepancy, and I observed that if the Chair of the Commitee was allowed to introduce Blair's letter into evidence, then it would be manifestly unreasonable to not also include as evidence those very letters which Blair had already identified as containing the gist of the case against me.
The letters of complaint were disclosed to me the next day.
What I haven't told you is how Professor Cantor's letter fell into my hands. It's an interesting story, because the University did everything in its power to hide the complaints from me. Although the complaints were written in October and November, and I was formally barred from the campus on January 11th, it wasn't until the 20th of March that I got to see the complaints. That was just two and a half days before I was to have my final chance to appeal the expulsion before the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee.
The Chair of the committee, Grace O'Farrell, did not want me to see those reports. She wanted to convict me based on thirdhand hearsay consisting mainly of the findings of the Registrar, who had never heard my side of the story. This was the information she provided to the committee members as to the case against me. But without thinking it through, it seems she also included a copy of the Third Party Report which the Registrar had ordered prior to initiating official proceedings against me, as called for in the university's Disciplinary Procedures. The Registrar called on Associate Dean of Science Danny Blair to prepare this report, and it makes me look very bad indeed. I have posted a copy so you can see what he said about me.
It's quite appalling really...remember, this is supposed to be an "impartial" report. He conducted his "investigation", as he calls it, be reading through the charges against me. He didn't find it necessary to ask me for my side of the story. From his investigation he concluded that there was ample evidence in the five letters of complaint to find me guilty of Non-Academic misconduct. He found the evidence so compelling that he was moved to strongly urge the University to take whatever measures necessary to make sure that I would never be allowed to teach children. And all this without ever hearing my side of the story.
It seem Professor O'Farrell thought Blair's comments would be helpful in convincing the Comittee to ratify my expulsion, but she failed to notice that she had given me an opening. She had circulated a letter quoting Blair as saying there was "an abundance of evidence within the written complaints" showing that my behavior constituted non-Academic misconduct. But she had not circulated those letters themselves. I wrote the Board of Regents pointing out this discrepancy, and I observed that if the Chair of the Commitee was allowed to introduce Blair's letter into evidence, then it would be manifestly unreasonable to not also include as evidence those very letters which Blair had already identified as containing the gist of the case against me.
The letters of complaint were disclosed to me the next day.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
A Breach of Trust
Yesterday I told you about Professor Cantor's letter to the dean. I thought is was pretty unethical of her to use this information, which was given to her in confidence, in order to discredit me. But it's not just that she discloses personal information. In fact, I have nothing to hide. I have posted the offending essay in its entirety here, and I am quite proud of it.
Professor Cantor begins her letter with the declaration that she feels my behavior has had an adverse effect on my classmates. She ends her letter with a repetition of this declaration. But in between only 25% of her letter deals with my "behavior" in class, supposedly the subject of her concern. The other 75% deals with my essay and the subsequent discussion she had with me about it. Since the discussion was not held in the presence of any of my classmates, it could hardly be considered to have been evidence of "behavior" on my part detrimental to my fellow students. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Professor Cantor's letter was an attempt to show underlying causes for my supposed behavior...in other words, that my essay and the ensuing discussion revealed signs of a disturbed psyche.
Remember, the essay was confidential; and one would think, so was the follow-up discussion. So her use of this information to undermine my status in the program seems to me to show very questionable ethics. But one could almost excuse this lapse if one felt it were motivated by a true concern for the welfare of potential students of mine, and if the analysis were conducted objectively. Let's have another look then, and see if she really is being fair and objective towards me. We can begin with her first allegation, where she says that my essay did not meet any of the criteria "clearly explained in the course syllabus".
Let's look at the syllabus then, and see which criteria I failed to satisfy in my essay. Before we go any farther, let's consider the title of the assignment:
"Personal Identity and Reflection Paper"
If someone asks you to write an essay where you reflect on your personal identity, it's got to be quite a stretch for that person to later object that you haven't fulfilled the criteria of the assignment. I don't think anyone can read my essay and doubt the fact that I have reflected deeply on my personal identiy. But furthermore, the very nature of the subject demands that the writer be given a wide latitude in terms of what he chooses to reveal or delve into. Professor Cantor makes no allowance for this in her criticism. But let's go on to the details of the assignment specification. Here is the first requirement:
"Length: Using APA style, 5-7 pages (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font.) Family photographs, drawings, audio or video responses can accompany the paper."
I believe my essay was of the required length, in fact seven full pages not including the title page, and I copied to the best of my ability the APA format from the examples I downloaded. It's true that I didn't include family pictures, but this was optional.
The syllabus continues as follows:
"The purpose of this assignment is for students to explore their own family story and to recognize that diverse family stories come together in schools. A strong paper will effectively weave together an analysis of your own experiences, beliefs, traditions and practises. Use the questions below as a guide to your thoughts in structuring this paper."
Let's look at the syllabus then, and see which criteria I failed to satisfy in my essay. But right away the Professor is on shaky grounds. There are in fact no "requirements"...only "guidelines". How closely was I expected to hew to these "guidelines", and in fact how far did I stray from them? Let's read the guidelines. I'm going to start with these four:
1. When you think of your family, who is included?
2. When you think about your heritage, what places of origin do you identify for your family?
3. What languages are/were spoken in your home?
4. What holidays, traditions, celebrations and/or rituals did your family observe that reflect your culture, religion, or heritage, and how do these affect your current perceptions?
The first thing that should be obvious to anyone is that a professor has no business expecting you to answer personal questions of this kind; and to the extent that I choose to answer or not answer, it is nobody's business. In fact, if you read my essay I concluded it with a very deeply felt analysis of how my Jewish background and my father's personality affected my outlook on educational philosophy and life in general. I don't know what Professor Cantor's problem is with what I wrote, except that she is also Jewish, and her idea of Jewishness is apparently very different from mine. In fact, her very "guidelines" show how she identifies Jewishly: she asks about the "holidays, traditions, celebrations and rituals that your family observes". These are precisely the central focus of the woman's role in Jewish life: preparing the Passover meals, lighting the Sabbath candles. If she expected me to talk about those aspects of Judaism as defining my cultural identity, I'm sorry I disappointed her. In my essay, I talk very clearly about how my Jewishness affects my worldview, and it has nothing to do with matzoh-ball soup or corned beef sandwiches.
There are two more criteria (oops...I mean "guidelines") that I supposedly failed to meet in my essay. Remember, she said I met "none" on the criteria. So here are the last two items I supposedly failed to cover:
5. Have you been affected by discrimination or prejudice?
6. How do you believe your personal experiences will impact your view about education, school, and your future working in a school setting?
I am appalled that Professor Cantor goes on to tell the Dean that instead of writing about what I was supposed to write about, I spent much of my essay complaining about how I was mistreated by one of my professors. It makes me sound like nothing but a complainer. And yet she fails to mention the pertinent fact that in Item 5 I am asked to write about a situation where I had experienced discrimination or prejudice. Well, this was my experience. I was discriminated against because of my educational philosophy. Perhaps Professor Cantor was disappointed that I did not report having been discriminated against because I am Jewish.
Finally, let's look at Item six: How do I believe my personal experiences will impact my views on education and my future working in a school setting? In my essay, I describe in detail my educational philosophy. Then I say, "Today in class a small incident took place which clearly illustrates where my views conflict with the conventional wisdom." Then I tell my story about the disagreement with Professor Metz. In what possible way have I failed to reflect on items 5 and 6 in Professor Cantor's list of guidelines?
It seems pretty clear to me that Professor Cantor was not so much disturbed by my failure to address the issues she listed in her assignment, but rather she was offended that my opinions on those issues were different from hers.
Professor Cantor begins her letter with the declaration that she feels my behavior has had an adverse effect on my classmates. She ends her letter with a repetition of this declaration. But in between only 25% of her letter deals with my "behavior" in class, supposedly the subject of her concern. The other 75% deals with my essay and the subsequent discussion she had with me about it. Since the discussion was not held in the presence of any of my classmates, it could hardly be considered to have been evidence of "behavior" on my part detrimental to my fellow students. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Professor Cantor's letter was an attempt to show underlying causes for my supposed behavior...in other words, that my essay and the ensuing discussion revealed signs of a disturbed psyche.
Remember, the essay was confidential; and one would think, so was the follow-up discussion. So her use of this information to undermine my status in the program seems to me to show very questionable ethics. But one could almost excuse this lapse if one felt it were motivated by a true concern for the welfare of potential students of mine, and if the analysis were conducted objectively. Let's have another look then, and see if she really is being fair and objective towards me. We can begin with her first allegation, where she says that my essay did not meet any of the criteria "clearly explained in the course syllabus".
Let's look at the syllabus then, and see which criteria I failed to satisfy in my essay. Before we go any farther, let's consider the title of the assignment:
"Personal Identity and Reflection Paper"
If someone asks you to write an essay where you reflect on your personal identity, it's got to be quite a stretch for that person to later object that you haven't fulfilled the criteria of the assignment. I don't think anyone can read my essay and doubt the fact that I have reflected deeply on my personal identiy. But furthermore, the very nature of the subject demands that the writer be given a wide latitude in terms of what he chooses to reveal or delve into. Professor Cantor makes no allowance for this in her criticism. But let's go on to the details of the assignment specification. Here is the first requirement:
"Length: Using APA style, 5-7 pages (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font.) Family photographs, drawings, audio or video responses can accompany the paper."
I believe my essay was of the required length, in fact seven full pages not including the title page, and I copied to the best of my ability the APA format from the examples I downloaded. It's true that I didn't include family pictures, but this was optional.
The syllabus continues as follows:
"The purpose of this assignment is for students to explore their own family story and to recognize that diverse family stories come together in schools. A strong paper will effectively weave together an analysis of your own experiences, beliefs, traditions and practises. Use the questions below as a guide to your thoughts in structuring this paper."
Let's look at the syllabus then, and see which criteria I failed to satisfy in my essay. But right away the Professor is on shaky grounds. There are in fact no "requirements"...only "guidelines". How closely was I expected to hew to these "guidelines", and in fact how far did I stray from them? Let's read the guidelines. I'm going to start with these four:
1. When you think of your family, who is included?
2. When you think about your heritage, what places of origin do you identify for your family?
3. What languages are/were spoken in your home?
4. What holidays, traditions, celebrations and/or rituals did your family observe that reflect your culture, religion, or heritage, and how do these affect your current perceptions?
The first thing that should be obvious to anyone is that a professor has no business expecting you to answer personal questions of this kind; and to the extent that I choose to answer or not answer, it is nobody's business. In fact, if you read my essay I concluded it with a very deeply felt analysis of how my Jewish background and my father's personality affected my outlook on educational philosophy and life in general. I don't know what Professor Cantor's problem is with what I wrote, except that she is also Jewish, and her idea of Jewishness is apparently very different from mine. In fact, her very "guidelines" show how she identifies Jewishly: she asks about the "holidays, traditions, celebrations and rituals that your family observes". These are precisely the central focus of the woman's role in Jewish life: preparing the Passover meals, lighting the Sabbath candles. If she expected me to talk about those aspects of Judaism as defining my cultural identity, I'm sorry I disappointed her. In my essay, I talk very clearly about how my Jewishness affects my worldview, and it has nothing to do with matzoh-ball soup or corned beef sandwiches.
There are two more criteria (oops...I mean "guidelines") that I supposedly failed to meet in my essay. Remember, she said I met "none" on the criteria. So here are the last two items I supposedly failed to cover:
5. Have you been affected by discrimination or prejudice?
6. How do you believe your personal experiences will impact your view about education, school, and your future working in a school setting?
I am appalled that Professor Cantor goes on to tell the Dean that instead of writing about what I was supposed to write about, I spent much of my essay complaining about how I was mistreated by one of my professors. It makes me sound like nothing but a complainer. And yet she fails to mention the pertinent fact that in Item 5 I am asked to write about a situation where I had experienced discrimination or prejudice. Well, this was my experience. I was discriminated against because of my educational philosophy. Perhaps Professor Cantor was disappointed that I did not report having been discriminated against because I am Jewish.
Finally, let's look at Item six: How do I believe my personal experiences will impact my views on education and my future working in a school setting? In my essay, I describe in detail my educational philosophy. Then I say, "Today in class a small incident took place which clearly illustrates where my views conflict with the conventional wisdom." Then I tell my story about the disagreement with Professor Metz. In what possible way have I failed to reflect on items 5 and 6 in Professor Cantor's list of guidelines?
It seems pretty clear to me that Professor Cantor was not so much disturbed by my failure to address the issues she listed in her assignment, but rather she was offended that my opinions on those issues were different from hers.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Laurelyn Cantor: What I think of Marty Green
Yesterday I told you I felt pretty betrayed when I found out what the oh-so-nice Professor Cantor was saying about me behind my back. Here it is in its entirety. The essay she trashes was a Personal Reflection assigment which I was actually really proud of. I'll show you what I wrote when we return, but today I yield the floor to Professor Cantor.
"To whom it may concern:
"I feel that Marty Green's behavior has had an adverse effect on the well-being of his fellow students in my class, EDUA 2530 152 Introduction to Special Education in the Fall 2011 term at the University of Winnipeg.
"During the first week of classes, I explained the expectations for all the assignments for the course. Prior to the first assignment being handed in, due on Sept 22, 2011, I told the students not to hesitate to ask if anyone had questions or needed clarification about the assignment. Marty did not attempt to contact me. Marty's assignment did not meet any of the criteria clearly explained in the course syllabus. The feedback I gave Marty said that I could not mark his paper, and to meet with me to discuss it. He told me that he did not feel the assignment was relevant. Included in his paper was a detailed account of one of his classes, and the way he was mistreated by the professor.
"Marty also told me at the time that he felt many of the professors, as well as the students, disregarded and disrespected him.
"At the conclusion of one of the final presentations, Marty made an inappropriate request of an ASL interpreter. The student who had invited the interpreter was embarrassed and offended, and wrote an email, which I have enclosed, with redaction.
"As indicated, I feel that Marty Green's behavior in class has had a detrimental effect on his fellow classmates.
"Sincerely,
"Laurelyn Cantor, PhD."
"To whom it may concern:
"I feel that Marty Green's behavior has had an adverse effect on the well-being of his fellow students in my class, EDUA 2530 152 Introduction to Special Education in the Fall 2011 term at the University of Winnipeg.
"During the first week of classes, I explained the expectations for all the assignments for the course. Prior to the first assignment being handed in, due on Sept 22, 2011, I told the students not to hesitate to ask if anyone had questions or needed clarification about the assignment. Marty did not attempt to contact me. Marty's assignment did not meet any of the criteria clearly explained in the course syllabus. The feedback I gave Marty said that I could not mark his paper, and to meet with me to discuss it. He told me that he did not feel the assignment was relevant. Included in his paper was a detailed account of one of his classes, and the way he was mistreated by the professor.
"Marty also told me at the time that he felt many of the professors, as well as the students, disregarded and disrespected him.
"At the conclusion of one of the final presentations, Marty made an inappropriate request of an ASL interpreter. The student who had invited the interpreter was embarrassed and offended, and wrote an email, which I have enclosed, with redaction.
"As indicated, I feel that Marty Green's behavior in class has had a detrimental effect on his fellow classmates.
"Sincerely,
"Laurelyn Cantor, PhD."
Monday, October 1, 2012
How Crazy Am I?
Today the Free Press published a news story about my lawsuit against the University of Winnipeg. You can read it here online. The story is all right, but the talkbacks are kind of interesting. Apparently it's pretty clear to a lot of people that there's something wrong with me in the head. And therefore it's a good thing that the U of W kicked me out of the teaching program, because we can't have crazy people teaching our children.
Maybe it's true. Of course, the University was pretty careful not to say anything like this out loud during the proceedings against me, because that might be "discrimination". But I when I see the reaction of "normal" people to my story, I have to wonder if the University wasn't motivated by the similar feelings of fear and revulsion towards people who are different from the "normal" ones. Yes, I have to admit I'm different...the whole world can't be wrong. But just what is it about me that makes me unfit to be put in charge of children?
You see, the University had a problem. From their point of view, they obviously had to get rid of me, because I was potentially dangerous, on account of my psychological disability. But they couldn't just say so...they had to come up with actual reasons.
When I finally got to see the "reasons" they had for kicking me out, I was amazed at how flimsy they were. (And by the way, it wasn't until months after I was kicked out that I managed to pry the reasons out of them, with a little help from the Freedom of Information Act.) I've already posted the very limited amount of information they were willing to disclose while the proceedings against me were still under way. You can review it here. Admittedly it makes me look pretty bad, especially the part about how I made a girl cry. But these were not the actual written complaints against me...they were just a summary. I wanted to know which girl I made cry, and just how I did it? But they wouldn't tell me. Imagine how surprised I was months later when I finally got to see the complaints, and all that was written up was that I "reduced another student to tears". I just thought they had to have more than that to hang me with.
But when I re-read the complaints in the light of what I learned today, about how the rest of the world sees me...I can see the true undercurrent which flows through all of them: it is the unspoken implication that this man is crazy! That was the true gist of the complaints, and that was why they kicked me out. I can see it everywhere, but nowhere is it more clear to me than in the written complaint lodged by Professor Lauralyn Cantor.
Professor Cantor is, I believe, a professional psychologist; if she isn't, I think it is fair to say that she is recognized as someone with expertise in psychology. She taught us a class on how to teach people with disabilities, and of course mental and psychological disabilities were a main focus of her course. I knew early on that three professors had written complaints against me, and I was pretty sure I knew who they were. When the written complaints were finally disclosed months later, I was not surprised to see complaints by Professors Bell and Metz; but I was quite flabbergasted to see that the third complaint was not from my old nemesis Professor Bush, but rather from Mrs. Nicey-nice Caring and Sharing Professor Cantor, loved by one and all for her niceness. She wrote a devastating critique of my character, based largely on an essay I had submitted in the third week of classes.
The essay in question was assigned as a Personal Self-Reflection. She wanted us to look within ourselves and write about some of the things that made us who we were. Of course, whatever we wrote would be strictly confidential: we could count on that. I certainly took her at her word.
Imagine how surprised I was to find my personal and confidential essay dissected for the Dean of Education; and I can tell you, I came off looking pretty disturbed. When we return, I'll tell you what I wrote, and how Professor Cantor played it back to the people who would shortly thereafter kick me out of school.
Maybe it's true. Of course, the University was pretty careful not to say anything like this out loud during the proceedings against me, because that might be "discrimination". But I when I see the reaction of "normal" people to my story, I have to wonder if the University wasn't motivated by the similar feelings of fear and revulsion towards people who are different from the "normal" ones. Yes, I have to admit I'm different...the whole world can't be wrong. But just what is it about me that makes me unfit to be put in charge of children?
You see, the University had a problem. From their point of view, they obviously had to get rid of me, because I was potentially dangerous, on account of my psychological disability. But they couldn't just say so...they had to come up with actual reasons.
When I finally got to see the "reasons" they had for kicking me out, I was amazed at how flimsy they were. (And by the way, it wasn't until months after I was kicked out that I managed to pry the reasons out of them, with a little help from the Freedom of Information Act.) I've already posted the very limited amount of information they were willing to disclose while the proceedings against me were still under way. You can review it here. Admittedly it makes me look pretty bad, especially the part about how I made a girl cry. But these were not the actual written complaints against me...they were just a summary. I wanted to know which girl I made cry, and just how I did it? But they wouldn't tell me. Imagine how surprised I was months later when I finally got to see the complaints, and all that was written up was that I "reduced another student to tears". I just thought they had to have more than that to hang me with.
But when I re-read the complaints in the light of what I learned today, about how the rest of the world sees me...I can see the true undercurrent which flows through all of them: it is the unspoken implication that this man is crazy! That was the true gist of the complaints, and that was why they kicked me out. I can see it everywhere, but nowhere is it more clear to me than in the written complaint lodged by Professor Lauralyn Cantor.
Professor Cantor is, I believe, a professional psychologist; if she isn't, I think it is fair to say that she is recognized as someone with expertise in psychology. She taught us a class on how to teach people with disabilities, and of course mental and psychological disabilities were a main focus of her course. I knew early on that three professors had written complaints against me, and I was pretty sure I knew who they were. When the written complaints were finally disclosed months later, I was not surprised to see complaints by Professors Bell and Metz; but I was quite flabbergasted to see that the third complaint was not from my old nemesis Professor Bush, but rather from Mrs. Nicey-nice Caring and Sharing Professor Cantor, loved by one and all for her niceness. She wrote a devastating critique of my character, based largely on an essay I had submitted in the third week of classes.
The essay in question was assigned as a Personal Self-Reflection. She wanted us to look within ourselves and write about some of the things that made us who we were. Of course, whatever we wrote would be strictly confidential: we could count on that. I certainly took her at her word.
Imagine how surprised I was to find my personal and confidential essay dissected for the Dean of Education; and I can tell you, I came off looking pretty disturbed. When we return, I'll tell you what I wrote, and how Professor Cantor played it back to the people who would shortly thereafter kick me out of school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)