University of Ottawa vs. activist prof Denis Rancourt

There are informative articles and comments about this case on the website of U of O's French student paper "La Rotonde", that are squarely supporting Rancourt. Also here [4].

Denis Rancourt is a right-wing crank and a climate-change denier.

Shame on Rabble for giving this lunatic credibility! 

From M. Spector's hyperlinked article:

"(...)I argue that the real threat (the most destructive force on the planet) is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might and that you cannot control a monster by asking it not to shit as much. I argue that non-democratic control of the economy and institutionalized exploitation of the Third World (and all workers) must be confronted directly if we are to install sanity.(...)"

I sure wish all "right-wing cranks" put out similar opinions.

Nice cherry-picking, there, Martin. 

OK, maybe he's not deliberately right-wing, but his writings certainly give great aid and comfort to the right-wing opponents of the environmental movement.

See, for example, Rancourt's crowing about how a Republican senator quoted from Rancourt's writing to prove that climate change was a myth. And Rancourt makes no attempt whatsoever to distance himself politically from one of the most right-wing senators in the US.

But you need to include the whole quote:

So he's not a right-wing crank.  He's a crackpot, a knee-jerk devil's advocate, who says climate change isn't real because credible scientists say it is.

Ah, insult... where would we be without this shortcut to examining the issues... meanwhile how do we feel about tenured teachers being handcuffed and forced off campuses apparently because of their anti-imperialist positions?

M. Spector: What do Denis Rancourt's writings on climate change -- which, yes, I along with others have critiqued -- have to do with his current treatment by the University of Ottawa?

M. Spector, do you oppose the academic persecution of this professor or not? What can it possibly have to do with his views on climate change? And if he said the special theory of relativity was full of crap, should we cheer even more loudly?

I support Denis Rancourt's right to keep his job at the University of Ottawa.

I also support J. Philippe Rushton's right to keep his job at UWO.

I also support holocaust-denier Arthur Butz's right to keep his job at Northwestern U. in Chicago.

I also support "intelligent design" advocate Michael Behe's right to keep his job at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

But I do not make them into martyrs or poster-boys for academic freedom. Nor do I keep silent about my distaste for their views or their actions, insofar as they promote repugnant right-wing causes.

Those are stunning comparisons. But thanks for answering my question.

The news story seemed to leave out any account of  the due process that was surely followed in his case, or of any investigation by the appropriate committee of the charges brought against Prof. Rancourt.  It seems highly unlikely, indeed impossible, that the university should bar him from teaching and from his lab based only on his assertion about grades, without further investigation.  Was he involved in a contentious fight with the administration? with his department and/or dept. head? with the union?  Was insubordination or a threat involved?  What process had been followed?

Where is all this documented? Can someone refer us?

Sites like this one should present more than a newspaper report in the case of a cause célèbre.

Let me know when you've finished reading all the material here and if you have any further questions.

It appears that Dr Rancourt was barred for defying an order from his dean to give grades, which would perhaps be a contract violation. Can't imagine why the UofO has a problem with pas/fail as a grading method. 

U of Guelph's student paper tells more: http://theontarion.ca/viewarticle.php?id_pag=2209 

So the man is factually wrong about climate change...
That's not the issue he's being persecuted over, unlike Michael Behe, etc.I've been wrong about many things in my life, therebut for the grace of Pete go I.
For his refreshing presence on teaching methods and obvious interest in his students he deserves my solidarity and has it.

"Right-wing causes" like the following, I suppose:

It is a right-wing cause. By failing to recognize that addressing climate change, and all environmental degradation in the service of so-called First World economies, is not just a social justice issue but a critical social justice issue plays into the hands of the coprorate and crack-pot lobbies that argue we can continue on as we have for as long as we please because .... Crisis? What crisis?

It is not much different than a Hitchens arguing in favour of the war in Iraq and the massive destruction inherent in that war to liberate Iraq from Islam. 

With that said, I agree he ought not to be fired. 

FM, did you read his article? Just wondering.

The first three paragraphs and that was sufficient. He is a denier and I thought M. dealt with his arguments quite adequately when he cited the following:

I will acknowledge, however, that Rancourt is correct to an extent in that clomate change is primarily a concern of the First World middle-class, but then so is academia, acedemic freedom, and tenure among professors. 

I can't tell if you're being dry or being serious, but for what it's worth, pass/fail as a policy wouldn't really leave a whole lot of, say, criteria for entering grad school ("We have 900 applicants, all tied for first choice with "pass" and 300 tied for second with "fail").

Anyway, there's only so far you can go in trying to burn down your employer's organization and building a new one on the ashes.  Rancourt tilted one windmill too many. 

And contrary to popular belief, academic freedom doesn't really mean that a university professor can do anything and everything their little heart desires and it's fine.  Universities still retain the right to mandate certain course management policies, and how (or if) a course is graded is definitely among those.  

I can tell, Snert, that you haven't a) read any of the interview in which Rabcourt defends his pedagogical methods or b) ever applied to grad school.

For the first, I offer this tonic:

And for the second, I would point out that reference letters and interviews are the primary materials on which graduate admissions base their decisions. With standardized tests like America's GREs, Britain's A-levels  and other metrics like number of published papers, conference presentations and panel discussions, the available materials increase. Not to mention the fact that most graduate courses are graded virtually pass/fail anyway, with the standard being an 'A'. If you get less, you better pull up your socks; if you get much less, you better pick a different discipline.

All of that may be valid support for the idea of pass/fail as a grading scheme, however Rancourt seems to miss the point that it's not necessarily his call to make.

He says "Ivy League schools", not "Ivy League professors".

If I were in management at some company, I may be able to assert that my workplace would be happier and more efficient working a four day week, and I may be able to point to many organizations in Europe who work a four day week as support for this, but ultimately, it's my employer's call, not mine. 

Your assumptions are correct, though.  No grad school for me (yet?), and no, I didn't read his interview, because my guess is that his justifications don't address the fact that he's still expected to comply with certain policies and standards at his school.  Perhaps over lunch I'll read about why he thinks his way is better, but I'm liable to stop at the first sign of bloated entitlement.

Snert, are you sure Rancourt was suspended, expelled, etc. just because of his pass/fail marking approach? Have you read all the material I linked to above (under http://academicfreedom.ca [27])?

ETA: Here is an excerpt from a letter posted there yesterday by John McMurtry, the well-known anti-globalization advocate [28]:

There are more letters and testimonials on that page.

From unionist's article:

That's what universities are for, to be incubators for independent thought and creativity and influenced by neither governments nor private enterprise. I suspect this is what put him in the dog house at a time when corporate influence in North American universities is on the rise.

From what I can see, he's got a mix of both reasonable and actionable concerns (eg: not following policy with regard to grading, not following established curriculum for courses) and non-actionable concerns (eg: his ongoing mission of being contrarian and obstructive at every turn).

It seems to me a bit like going 165kph in a 100kph zone, with "Screw the Cops" on the side of my car.  If I get pulled over, is it for my bad attitude?  How could we be certain it had nothing to do with disobeying the speed limit?   

Any counterpoints on that site, or is it 100% support for Rancourt?  I took a look, but once it started to look like his personal blog, I mostly stopped.

Also, with the support of his faculty union or faculty association, I'm betting he could have fought back.  Do they support him?  Er, I mean, do they support "academic freedom"?

You'd think they would, wouldn't they?  And yet I get the distinct sense that they don't, and that they (with more to gain from this than almost anyone) don't regard academic freedom as implying that anything they do is de facto perfect. 

There is no 'established curriculum' in most degrees I'm aware of at the university level except on core degree courses (neither of the classes Prof Rancourt taught were core courses) and even then there is a lot of leeway in what kinds of content are included in the courseand how that content is taught. From what I've read about the case so far, the only thing worth a disciplinary action is the "A+s all around" caper, and as an activist, I can see no better way for a University prfessor to effect change. Even then, it is unlikely that a grievance would stand up to an appeal, and it is certainly no grounds for firing a tenured professor, especially one who enjoys such student, colleague and industry support.

Well, I couldn't really say, but the Canadian Association of University Teachers has taken the extraordinary step of striking an independent committe of inquiry:

So it sounds as if the academic community as a whole is concerned - as well they should be.

In my experience, there's at the very least an assumption that a course about Physics will actually be a course about Physics.

Can we agree on that?

Or is it your experience that sometimes students show up for a Physics course to discover that it's actually a course in Conversational Spanish?

We're not really talking about someone exceeding their "leeway".  We're talking about someone who chose to not even teach what was in the course calendar. 

If all you're reading is "academicfreedom.ca" it would be easy to believe that everyone thinks he's awesome.

My understanding is that some of the disciplinary action came about as a result of a petition of complaint signed by a full third of his colleagues.  That doesn't sound like a great deal of support, to me.  I'm guessing "cult" following:  few in number, but loud.

Indeed!  If professors aren't free to unilaterally decide that Physics courses shouldn't teach physics, the terrorists have won!

Snert, I take it you think the CAUT independent inquiry is a waste of time?

Not necessarily.  As a committee of academics, I won't be surprised if they come to the conclusion that academics need more freedom, but it's possible that the inquiry might help to clarify the boundaries of academic freedom and institutional control.

I'll be very surprised if they end up asserting that a professor hired to teach a Physics class should have the right to decide that it's going to be a Conversational Spanish class instead, however.  Not and still keep their paycheque.

I'm not at all sure that Dr Rancourt was attempting to teach conversational Spanish. In fact, it appears that he was not.

And I'd say the point about marks being for the consumption of grad schools is essentially what he was saying. If marks determine your future eligibility and employability, there's a problem with the pursuit of knowledge idea, it's at least compromised. Believe me, this is a real debate in the academic world. (As is the fact that science majors can finish courses with 100% and so almost invariably have higher grades than arts majors -- it's not because they're smarter, that's for sure.)

Possibly the blanket A+ violates his contract and gives the university grounds for dismissal. I haven't read his contract, so I don't know. I'd imagine the CAUT panel will be looking into precisely that. It would definitely get non-tenured professors (an increasingly large group) the boot. 

It got some good US profs the boot when they gave an A+ to all men in their classes of draft age during Vietnam. Not that I'm saying the need is the same in this case, since looking for work sure ain't the same as being conscripted.

I agree with pass/fail grading for some courses, sure. No good reason against it. Ironically, it's often students who dislike that system, losing the chance to be ranked against each other and show their future employers their high grades.

Snert, I should mention that I have a pretty good idea how university works, having worked at many different levels in a couple of institutions, academic and administrative. If you teach a course in a university, you write the course calendar. There is no schematic in place that you have to follow, there is no auditor that makes sure you are teaching it properly. Grading usually follows a guide, but it certainly is not consistent even with instructors who claim to follow department recommendations. While this is more true in the humanities, it is also true in sciences--consider lab reports and the subjectivity required in actually authoring exams  and assignments.

Stanley Fish weighs in on Denis Rancourt's case

Regardless of one's opinion of Rancourt, Fish's article is frightening. He could be speaking of a factory assembly line - management is in charge, and any dissent is equivalent to insubordination. Human rights (in this case academic freedom) must be read down to conform with the corporate goals as defined by the administrators. Failure to accept this fundamental truth makes dialogue pointless - fire him.

Not a very nuanced contribution to the debate. And no wonder, when he cites as his source for the definition of "academic freedom" some nameless court decision from Arizona. 

I should think that it could.  Strictly speaking, it's not much different than if he handed out F's across the board.  Students have a right to believe that the grading scheme of a course will be respected.  And of course the University probably doesn't want word getting out that "everybody gets an A+ just for showing up", as that clearly devalues those A+s that students actually earned.

There's nothing in and of itself wrong with pass/fail.  It simply takes a scale with roughly 13 gradations and crunches it down to two.

It's my understanding, however, that Rancourt says "pass/fail" when he really means "pass/pass".  In other words, it's my understanding that, just like "everyone gets an A+", in his class, everyone passes as well.

A class that one cannot fail by one's own merits is also known as "a free credit".  If Rancourt really wants to convince the University that he's not just thumbing his nose at the Establishment then he might want to consider using the pass/fail as intended.  Or just come right out with it and concede that he's giving a University level credit for attendance.

Certainly inter-rater validity could be higher, especially in Arts and Humanities, I think it's reasonable for a University to expect its faculty to at least try, in good faith, to grade according to the school's policy.  Rancourt goes out of his way to show that he's not.

As you noted above, professors get a lot of leeway, in many things.  In fact, short of perhaps a private business owner, rock star or sports idol, I can think of few jobs with more of this "leeway".

So unless there's some dark and sinister vendetta in play here, it sure seems to me that when the University gave (many) inches, Rancourt wants to take his mile.  Clearly he's exceeded even the very, very generous leeway he was given.

So if a University needs someone to teach, say, an intro study of Jane Austen, and I get hired, it's perfectly fine (and you believe this is a good thing) for me to unilaterally declare that in lieu of actually reading and discussing Jane Austen, we're instead going to spend our academic year discussing how the book was printed and marketed?

Even if you tell me "Yes!  That's exactly how it works!", I still retain the right to say that that's an incredibly stupid arrangement that, to me, raises the vague notion of "academic freedom" to an absolute and sacred status that's good for noone but the professors it favours.

Seriously... are we supposed to defend that??  Or the terrorists have won?

You ordinarily seem a relatively balanced and honest contributor, but if you think that this is a case of "one slip up and you're out" then you're being shamefully disingenuous. 

 Rancourt is serially insubordinate.  He's insubordinate at every turn.  And as only the truly pampered and self-important can do, he demands a full paycheque and the blessing of his University for it.

How much of his insubordination do you want to defend?  It's a cliche of the Left that they favour Unions who fight for an employee's right to not have to do their work.  Wanna breathe new life into that cliche by supporting Rancourt's "human right" to not do anything his whims don't lead him to do?

Well, to be fair to Fish (with whom, in this instance, I emphatically disagree ) he writes often on the topic of Academic Freedom. He offers this gloss of his views on the subject here:

Of course, Fish doesn't discriminate between a job at the University and a job at a law firm--as evidenced by his thoughtless analogy that opens his piece. The fact is that there is a reason why higher education is an inalienable and universal human right and working at a law firm is not. And to explain why, I can find no better proof than the Catholic Victorian philosopher John Henry Newman. In his discourses on The Idea of a University [42] (1852), Newman argues:

ETA:

Firstly, as a point of information, usually the outline for courses provided by the department is far more general. So they would never  ask for a 'Jane Austen' course. They would ask for a course on 'The Romantic Novel' or perhaps even 'The 19th Century Novel' or even 'c-19 Literature' and it would be up to the person writing the course to choose Jane Austen or one of her novels.

Secondly, and this is more important, I have a very difficult time understanding why you would have a problem with the scenario you cited. This is actually how many courses are taught, and such a historical materialist approach is quite common. Of course you would have to address the text itself, but you could find the scenario you came up with on any English department syllabus in any University in the English-speaking world.

Finally, you are of course quite right about Rancourt's insubordination. That's kind of the point. How much insubordination ishe allowed? You seem to think not much, others think quite a bit. I suppose that's the point of this discussion, to find out where that line is. Do you think, for the purposes of clarity, you could be more specific as to where, precisely, Rancourt goes over the line you've drawn for him?

I'm currently enrolled in graduate studies at U of T that grade on a "pass-fail-honours" basis, and it's a more honest way of grading, emphasizing your knowledge of the material as a whole rather than just adding up the total score of one test after another.  Undergrads might find it more stressful, being used to dualistic marking in high school, but they could be eased into it as a part of their intellectual growth.

My question would be, how good an academic is this guy, really?  He is a climate change denier after all.  And it would be a shame if the university's draconian crackdown only served to make a martyr out of a crackpot, giving him credibility he doesn't warrant.

I see he's popular with some students.  But seriously, the average 20 year old, even a very bright one, doesn't know shit about shit.  I remember some wacky profs from my undergrad days who would manage to gather a small, loyal following of students/acolytes who would get all excited about this whole alternate way of teaching or thinking or being.  But you don't tend to see that with the truly gifted academics.  I mean, everybody admired Northrup Frye, but he didn't have a cult following and he didn't need to grandstand in order to draw attention to himself.

Rancourt makes some valid points.  My own faculty has relied on corporate sponsorship to try and keep tuitions down in an age when government funding has been cut.   

But this is a guy with a PhD in physics, who is so desperate to be on the cutting edge of contrary, he denies climate change.

What is this really?  Supporting academic freedom, or a cult of personality? 

You obviously don't know me very well.

I didn't say that. I questioned whether it was fair to compare insubordination in a factory with insubordination in a university.

Put differently, is it fair to compare a factory with a university?

In a factory, the chain of command is exceedingly clear. Someone owns the place, hires workers, and hires managers/supervisors to convey directives and organize the work.

In a university, tell me (because I don't know):

1. What is the chain of command? E.g., who would be Prof. Rancourt's immediate superior, whose orders he must follow on pain of being insubordinate?

2. Who determines and enforces the marking system?

I'm very troubled by the notion of a university where some faceless bureaucrat determines whether there should be 13 gradations of ranking of students (in all courses? in some courses?), rather than two, or five, or one, or none.

Give that bureaucrat a face for me, please, and let me know how they decide and how they direct.

I hope people have read the interview hyperlinked to in the opening post. Rancourt explains his pedagogy rather well. It is only because he is kept from using the Pass/Fail rating system that he is passing everyone as a protest tactic.

Here are the last two paragraphs:

"JF: You have a long history of conflict with the university administration, do you believe that there is more to this than your choice of evaluation method?

DR: They are trying to neutralize me as a dissident who is critical of the university's role as an institution that does society's dirty work of creating and forming obedient employees instead of free thinkers.

The universities are being taken over. In the United States there have been various famous firings related to politics, people like Norman Finkelstein and Ward Churchill. Our campus is no different. Allan Rock recently announced publicly that he was looking into ways to cut funding to the Ontario Public Interest Research Group on campus because it refused to provide funding to an arm of the Israel lobby group called Hillel for an activity it was running on campus. I have been very vocal in my opposition to Israeli military aggression, to what I believe are some of the most clear and obvious war crimes and crimes against humanity, crimes which our country is directly complicit in. It is just as much about my politics as it is about my grading.

JF: If readers want to understand you and your ideas on pedagogy, what or who have been your inspirations?

DR: Paolo Freire is the first major influence that has helped me understand what my pedagogy needs to be about. The book that he is most known for, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is an incredible masterpiece. It's academic, it's intellectual, but it's deep and based in experience. You can read it over and over again and get more out of it each time. Jeff Schmidt wrote a very important book that is not well known called Disciplined Minds, which talks about how professional employees are formed. Lastly, as an anarchist, I have found a great deal of inspiration for my education from Mikhail Bakunin. "

'Right-wing crank'?

I don't care if he's right wing, left wing, or cranky. Personally, I draw the line at openly racist, fascist, homophobic, misogynistic. But apart from that, academic freedom has to mean something. And I don't particularly recall this syllogistic form when I studied logic:

1. Most right-wing cranks have tended to dismiss climate change theories.

2. D. Rancourt criticizes climate change theories.

3. Therefore, D. Rancourt is a right-wing crank.

4. And what's more, we should support his cause less on that account.

I can only speak from my experience in working at one Canadian university (not Ottawa) and I don't know if their system is similar to otehr institutions, although I  suspect that it is. This question is difficult because the process of firing a tenured professor is complicated. In terms of hierarchy, the ladder is short: professor--department head--faculty dean--vp academic or provost. But greivances, which can be filed by students or fellow professors or even the department head, would go straigh to the indpendent disciplinary body, a panel comprised of students, peers (both departmental and otherwise) and administrators, the whole process usually overseen by a secretariat. Furthermore, the highest governing body is the Board of Governors, followed by the Senate.

 I actually read a great deal of staff grievance reports at the institution I worked for, and none of them, as you would expect, came from other staff members or higher-ups against a tenured professor. Most grievances also do not end in termination--I can't think of one offhand that did.

So it has to be said that Rancourt's case is particular. But you knew that already.

I'm not sure about this, but marking is a university-wide standard. That is, the scale used: either a 4-point scale, a 12-point scale, a 5-point, etc. Departments and individual programs would decide which requirements use the pass/fail scale or the university standard. I expect the standard would come under the jurisdiction of the VP Academic's office, or equivalent. But it would definitely be ratified by the School Senate. I remember this because the Senate of my institution ruled a few years back against adding an 'A+' grade to their scale. Currently, it stops at 4.00, or an A (85 or above).

The Senate, incidentally, is made up of a few student reps, many academic reps, a few administrative staff, a few Governors, and a few alumni. The BoG is made up of a very small amount of students (usually one or two) a few academics, the VPs, Provost and Principal, and eminent public figures (read: successful and rich business people)

In most Universities that would be his Departmental Chair, typically a rotating post held for a few years at a time by tenured faculty.  Above that would be the Dean.

At the UofO, that would be the Senate, an elected body made up of faculty, staff and students.

I'm afraid it's many faces.

Uh, if he's such a fan of pass/fail, why not use pass/fail as his protest, rather than pass/pass?  At least he could make the case that he's following what he believes to be right, and not just acting out.

LOL!  Testify!

I had no idea that by assessing my learning as something other than "pass" or "pass", I was being groomed for my inevitable position as an obedient lapdog of The Man!

Say... is there any possibility that this "defiant" attitude is a factor in his support from the Left?  Or, in other words, if he were a "defiant" and "revolutionary" professor who wanted to "academically squat" a Women's Studies course into a Home Ec course, would everyone support him, on the principle of supporting his academic freedom?

Or would the more likely reaction be "throw him out"? 

You have disingenuously simplified Rancourt's position. If you can't do better than that, why would anyone waste their time further discussing with you?

I don't think a great deal of the criticism of the public school system and the post-secondary system as "tiny jails where students go to learn to be obedient to the Corporate Master".  Frankly, I think that position, not mine, is the disingenuous simplification.

But other than that, obviously I can't force you to participate.  You'll need to decide for yourself whether there's enough wheat in with the chaff to be of interest to you.

Just out of curiousity, though (and assuming you continue) do you feel that the Universities at which you've worked have been nothing more than preparation for a life of obeying and consuming?  Was your school so corrupt, so empty of value, that you agree it needs to be burned to the ground and a new system built on its ashes?

I suppose it's fairly evident, but I don't think that our educational system needs to dispense with grades, for example, or some kind of reasonable expectation (beyond showing up) for receiving a University-blessed credit or degree.  Sure, there's lots that could be improved, but I, personally, disagree with Rancourt's premise that academia "needs" to be destroyed.

I don't think much of climate-change denial - to say the least. But that doesn't stop me looking sympathetically and openmindedly at this case. What I hear you saying is that because his ideas are (in your view) so wacky, or so contrary to your own opinions, we shouldn't take his demand for academic freedom seriously. That's a perilous road that I never want to go down.

Actually, I'm not asking you to agree with Rancourt, or even sympathize with his views. I'm asking you to question or apparent position that dissent=insubordination and therefore deserves termination. Or am I misrepresenting your position (it's difficult to tell amid all the 'lols')? Do you distinguish between dissent and insubordination? Is Rancourt's behaviour one, or the other, or a little of both? Should dissent not be tolerated by an institution whose entire genesis is founded on sceptisism, critical thought and the idea of improving society?

You've already been down that road many times, friend.

Well, not quite.  First and foremost, I don't believe that what he's demanding constitutes "academic freedom".  If it does, it effectively puts control of nearly everything a University does in the hands of unaccountable individuals.  Or, to put it another way, I don't believe that deciding to give an A+ to every student = "academic freedom"

But it strikes me as well that Rancourt is a bit of a zealot.  He's not looking for some incremental changes for the better, he's looking to destroy it all, and I don't get the sense he's interested in compromise on that.  So I don't think it's out of line to question his premise for his belief that he needs to do as he's been doing.

If, for example, he demanded the right to discuss offshore oil drilling in the negative, I'd support that (assuming that such a discussion was reasonably salient in a Physics curriculum).  That, as I understand it, is where academic freedom originated.  A need to ensure that the topics or opinions expressed by professors would not be subject to the political whims of the day.

And before anyone starts, I don't believe that not following his University's grading scheme is the kind of "political" opinions that academic freedom was intended to protect.  As Universities are academic organizations, it's easy to get lazy and assume that, therefore, anything and everything at a University is therefore "academic" and therefore anything and everything is subject to "academic freedom".

You seem to believe the opposite:  that insubordination = dissent.

I may disagree with my employer's lunch room policies, or our list of approved Dental providers.  I'm not aware that I can refuse my duties in protest. 

I would say that insubordination = dissent only in clear issues of safety (eg: being asked to do unsafe work) or legality (being asked to do illegal work).  I'm really not ready to say that if you think the University you work at shouldn't grade students, you don't have to, and that will be regarded as "dissent" rather than a simple refusal to do your job.

Again, as you noted, Professors receive a level of "leeway" that neither you nor I could reasonably expect from our employer.  But no matter how generous this leeway, someone could, I suppose, always demand more.  I don't believe that this leeway should be infinite, nor the concept of "academic freedom" an absolute. 

But let's see if we can find some kind of boundary that you'd agree to.  I'll start a bit "way out there", but I'm sure we'll converge quickly enough.

Do you believe that if a Professor believes that the most effective learning happens in a lecture that's 5 minutes long, once a month, they should be empowered by the grace of Academic Freedom to teach that way, while still receiving full pay?  Yes or no?

What if a professor believes that students, upon completing a first year introductory course, should receive a PhD.  Should Universities respect and bless this?  Yes or no?

What if a professor believes that students need to understand how little they really know, and thus wishes to grade on a scale of perfect/fail, such that nearly all students will not receive a credit, and will have an "F" on their transcript.  Would you support that, under the rubric of academic freedom?

I know these questions are a bit out there, but then so is unilaterally deciding to give everyone an A+.  Each question involves a component of policy or course management that is typically the purview of the institution, not individuals.  Do you believe that "academic freedom" should transfer decisions of this nature to individuals?? 

And you are bad at sports and wear ill-fitting cheap clothes.

Whoops, the discussion is degenerating...

Snert, kindly provide a real or hypothetical example of a directive (if any) that a professor would be entitled to defy on grounds of academic freedom. Otherwise, it's difficult for me to know what you mean by the term.

Come on. Philosophical questions and academic polices are not resloved or determined through a yes/no questionnaire. That's how internet quizzes work. It's fairly clear through the material presented (that you clearly have not bothered to look at) that Rancourt follows a radical pedagogy at odds with conventional methods. You choose to view this as 'he gives 'em all A+s! Lawl!' rather than addressing his philosophical underpinnings. Is this because you are dishonest or because you are out of your depth?

I'm beginning to understand that what you really object to is radicalism. The idea that you suggest I think any insubordination is dissent because I sympathize with Rancourt's action demonstrates you have an understanding of neither radicalism nor dissent. That explains your thoughtless contributions to this discussion and your utter lack of intellectual rigor.

But, there are millions of people who are afraid of radicalism. They tuned in to watch the half-time show at the Superbowl (and all the attendant commercials, natch!). Go Cardinals!

I don't think that it often takes the form of "University makes inappropriate directive and Professor refuses, citing academic freedom".

I think that for the most part, Universities understand where the line is drawn, and don't meddle in those affairs that would be covered by academic freedom.

So I don't think many Universities start with "One of our big benefactors is Microsoft, so no more criticizing MS in the classroom".  They know they'd be shot down on that.  I think that most directives from the University are going to revolve around University policies and course management. 

I suppose the clearest answer to your question would be "any opinion", which is separate (I think) from actions. 

Wikipedia has a pretty good page on academic freedom

It's because I believe he's out of his jurisdiction.  If I don't believe it's his place to decide whether a course is graded or not, his reasons for wanting to not grade become somewhat moot.

Ah.  Well, you had rattled your sabre about ignoring me.  If you believe my contributions to be this valueless, perhaps you should revisit that.  Just remember that it's a bit like making a dramatic exit; nothing more embarrassing than having to return sheepishly for your umbrella.

And while I'll admit that the mere notion of radicalism doesn't get me moon-eyed, I believe I've been arguing from a rational position regarding the limits of academic freedom vs. institutional autonomy.  You're free to ignore all of it, of course, but I think that dismissing everything I've said as ignorance (because I don't "get" radicalism!) is just a convenient out for you.  At a certain point you'll need to actually draw your own line in the sand as regards what Universities should be able to mandate for their faculty and what faculty are entitled to under the rubric of academic freedom, and I get the sense you'd like to avoid that.  No better way of backing out than by saying "You're too irrational/emotional/ignorant to talk to!"

ed'd to add:  you appear to believe that I'm formulating my arguments on academic freedom based on my personal opinion of radicalism.

Does that knife cut both ways?  Do you have the guts to admit that even as you seem to be accusing me of dismissing Rancourt for his radicalism, you're supporting him for it?  Or is yours a purely rational position, and it's only mine that's tainted by emotion?

That's very clear - freedom of opinion, but never of action. That's the way it works in the factory, too.

When your employer signs your paycheque (to the tune of $120,000 in Rancourt's case) they're probably going to expect a few things in exchange, aren't they?

I really haven't been convinced that expecting an employee to follow company policy isn't a reasonable example of one of those things.

But poor Denis Rancourt!  He's allowed to think whatever he wants, but his mean old employer won't just let him DO whatever he wants!! 

For sure, I'd love to be in a situation where I could tell an employer what I will or will not do, and at the same time demand not only that they pay me very handsomely for this, but also pay me until retirement.  That would be super sweet!

Catchfire was right. Instead of dealing with the specificity of this case, you're taking refuge in exaggeration. I found your definition of academic freedom very telling in that respect.

I dunno, I think Snert has made a compelling case for why Rancourt shouldn't have been teaching Conversational Spanish in his Physics class!

And thus far, I've found your definition of academic freedom entirely absent.  And yet here you are, arguing with conviction, on a topic that you admit you really don't know much about.

If you don't like my definition, did you like Wikipedia's?  It's pretty much a rollup of academic freedom in several jurisdictions; surely there's something in there that could provide a starting point.  And if nothing else, it might tip you off to the fact that "Academic Freedom" is a concept that (in North America, anyway) primarily affects research, and not course management.  Rancourt isn't being silenced in his research, but he is being censured for refusing to comply with course management policies.  Y'know... the ones hatched up by that anonymous bureaucrat. 

But honestly, Unionist, what is it you think I'm "hiding" from?  What specifics have you or Catchfire advanced that you believe I'm dodging?

Excellent!!!  That's as close as anyone but me has come to acknowledging that there are necessary limits to professors' freedom to do whatever they feel like!  Now all we need to do is refine that.

Actually, I linked to primary sources that support both my view of Academic freedom and the one that some have used to criticize Rancourt. You linked to wikipedia in to defend (quote lazily) your argument that had hitherto been comprised of hyperbole and empty mockery. In fact, when you are not exaggerating, you are simply trying to reverse my own arguments which evidences your lack of critical thought.

And when you do start talking in specifics, like on how classes are taught and how university administration works, you have demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. But, this characterizes your comportment on babble thus far: you are simply a contrarian, and not a very good one. I wonder how far your lawling!!! will see you.

No worries.  To my embarrassment, I only now noticed that this site very recently lobbed some generous softballs to Rancourt and called it an "interview". 

Given this site's such obvious sympathy for him and his windmills I probably shouldn't have wasted my time arguing for anything other than his Perfect Wisdom.  Maybe I'll go start a thread entitled "Tommy Douglas Wasn't All That".

See, the guy strikes me as a nutcase (yes I know I am using language used to tear down dissent etc etc.)

 However, I'd say moving to pass/fail (and believe me, you can fail those courses easily enough) is a defensible position, and the UofO's refusal to do what is routine elsewhere either (a) shows them as reactionary or (b) hides something else. His contract MAY require him to follow foolish regulations of that sort -- it may not, I have not read it. I'd think CAUT is a good body to look into it.

Rancourt's protest, yeah, would have been more consistent had he announced the only grades were A+ or F. His A+ only option suggests, given the rest of what he talks, about that he's a controversy entrepreneur. However, we don't fire professors for that. 

The provocative professor

Cathfire: "And for the second [applying to grad school], I would point out that reference letters and interviews are the primary materials on which graduate admissions base their decisions. With standardized tests like America's GREs, Britain's A-levels  and other metrics like number of published papers, conference presentations and panel discussions, the available materials increase."

Right now, I'm doing a preliminary look at 219 applications for our PhD programme and 91 applications for our MA programme for next year. The committee will eventually make offers to about 24 PhD applicants (with the hope of getting 12 to come), and about 15 MA applicants (with the hope that about 12 will come).

Grades do not come close to telling the whole story, but they help us make decisions. If you didn't get mostly A's in the discipline, then you won't get into the programme, unless there's some special countervailing evidence in your file. Grades, together with letters of recommendation, really do help us make a first cut. I know of no major department in my discipline that uses interviews. It's simply too much work, and not all that probative anyway. GRE's are frequently used, but there's a lot of debate about whether they should be used. Most applicants to our direct entry PhD program only have a BA, or maybe an MA, so few have published papers, conference presentations or panel discussions. The most important part of the file is the writing sample: this will make or break an application. Sadly, we simply do not have the time to read 310 20-page writing samples. Thus the unfortunate reliance on grades.

So, perhaps unfortunately, grades are an important part of an application; they help us make preliminary cuts.

Grades also matter for the Ontario Graduate Scholarship. In fact, there are specific rules about minimal grades needed for your application even to be considered. Students from universities that do not have grades (e.g. St. John's in New Mexico) are basically out of luck if they apply for an OGS.

A very interesting discussion.

I tend to be in favour of as much academic freedom as feasible. Though I do recognize some limitations on my own academic freedom. I can't set a policy of giving all the men A's and all the women B's, or vice versa, as a protest against grading. I can't spend my entire Intro to Calculus course railing against the patriarchy, or against feminism. I can't spend the entire Intro to Quantum Mechanics course reading the novels of Jane Austen. Any of these actions would draw an appropriately negative response from my chair, if it were brought to her/his attention. Probably a talk, with a caution, maybe some sensitivity training ... but if I persisted, I'd probably risk getting fired.

I remember an extremely sad case at Yale a decade ago: an important geophysicist,  was involved in a child porn ring, and using university computers to trade images. It took weeks (maybe months) before the university fired him, for "moral terpitude". (See http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/12692)

Torontoprofessor, besides your colourful exaggerations of what academic freedom does not mean (we've had enough of those already, thanks), did you have any examples in mind of what it might mean?

ETA: By the way, it's "turpitude".

You're right. It's "turpitude".

Basically, academic freedom means one thing in research and another in teaching. By the way, everything I am about to say is subject to revision, but here goes.

In research. Academic freedom is the freedom to pursue, without fear of dismissal,

- research projects that might not bear fruit (e.g., a mathematician should be free to spend years trying to close some extremely difficult open problem, even if that means she won't have any publications for very many years, and even though she has no guarantee of success in closing that open problem);

- research projects that are controversial or politically sensitive.

It is also the freedom to express, without fear of dismissal, opinions in newspapers, academic journals, personal correspondence, etc., that might offend. I would say that this second freedom should be nearly absolute, perhaps limited by Canadian hate speech laws. (I am open to refining this position.)

In teaching, Academic Freedom means,

- getting to set your own set of readings, within reason; your own syllabus, within reason; and your own grading scheme, within reason. Here, we are required to have at least 10% of the course graded before the add/drop date. This allows students to have some sense of how they're doing before they decide whether to drop a course. This strikes me as a reasonable restriction on my academic freedom. We are also required to have a final exam for lower level courses. I think that final exams can be bad pedagogy (depending on the course). I have argued strenuously against this requirement, though I do meet it. This is also a restriction on my academic freedom; one that I would say is a borderline case.

- getting to discuss controversial issues, and express controversial views. Here care needs to be exercised, since certain views might create a hostile learning environment for certain students. Should a professor be allowed to opine that certain races are superior to others? I'm thinking of Rushton at UWO here. The university resisted moves to have him dismissed. Should a professor be allowed to opine that homosexual acts are unnatural? Should a professor be allowed to opine that Christianity or Islam is bunk? I suppose that I think so, as long as she does not break Canadian hate speech laws.

This is a bizarre thread illusions to child pornography, outright comparisons of Rancourt with holocaust deniers, racists and creationists. innumerable unfounded character assasinations.

 There is also the disturbing inquisitional tone of denouncing Rancourt as a Global warming heretic and right wing hack even though it is clear he is neither right wing and nor is  an apologist or a denier of the devastation that corporate activity is wreaking on the environment. Is Global warming the only game in town? Should all other forms of environmental devastation be viewed as secondary or less significant?

I'm not saying I believe his claims concerning global warming but to be honest I also don't have the scientific expertise to challenge them.  To be honest I'm not sure where my beliefs concerning global warming come from apart from popular science articles that I've read and discussions on the internet. I'm certainly sceptical of research that is funded by specific corporate interests, the fossil fuel sector in particular. It does raise some interesting questions concering the dissemination and acceptance of scientific beliefs. If anything this thread is interesting due to the numerous unacknowledged assumptions and grand narratives being presented. I do agree with Rancourt that the research on Global warming is unlikely to change the exploitive nature of corporate behaviour.

It is also disheartening to see such reactionary responses to radical positions.

Rancourt is being interviewed right now on The Current (eastern time).

ETA: Now the editor of The Fulcrum (anti-Rancourt) is starting his interview.

I just managed to catch the Fulcrum editor and the interview with Stanley Fish (see column above). Fish is such a knob.

I listened online and was disappointed but not surprised with the bias. The editor of the Fulcrum just proposed a series of unverified statements concering student opinion that even if they were true really have little bearing on Academic freedom. Academic freedom is not something that is determined by student popular opinion.

Fish is also an ass as Catchfire mentions. The point that was ignored throughout the discussion and that is at the heart of critical pedagogy is that ideological assumptions and dynamics of power are embedded in standard pedagogical practices. The dissemination of dominant ideologies are dependent on these hidden assumptions not being manifested or examined. I didn't listen to most of the Fish interview but I somehow doubt he was asked about his particular ideological bias, although it is obvious to anyone who is critical. I think a letter to the CBC is in order.

Fully agree with Catchfire and N.R.KISSED. I thought the Fulcrum editor was downright sinister. And simple journalistic fairness would have required finding someone to interview who supported Rancourt to some small extent, instead of essentially piling on him three against one (including the interviewer). David Noble appeared only via a short taped clip, which was then played to Fish for him to "demolish".

By the way, through the magic of the internet, here is the whole thing again in MP3 format:

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/currentdonotusethis_20090318_13253.mp3

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

By global warming, does he mean climate change due to CO2 levels? If so, I agree with him. 

*bump*

Might as well revive this thread - and begin with this rabble interview that was mentioned way back in the OP:

Dismissing critical pedagogy: Denis Rancourt vs. University of Ottawa

Although this latest update is somewhat different from OP, thought I'd post it here.

Rancourt is being sued for libel by a law professor at U of O who claims he made racist statements about her.

http://tinyurl.com/4xltrd3

Here is the blog post that leads to the rest in this matter:

U of O law professor Joanne St. Lewis sues Rancourt for $1 million, will give half to a law student scholarship fund

and see the few comments, including a contribution from gay mariage legal battle expert Adele Mercier (Queens U).

Wow. What a terribly inappropriate remark for Rancourt to make. I'd say the plaintiff has a good case (IANAL, etc.)