At the end of the PHY 1703 term, on 19 December 2005, the university inserted a letter of reprimand in Rancourt’s file for having published information pertaining to PHY 1703 on his personal website that, the administration claimed, contained inaccuracies related the course’s language, level, format and content. Rancourt responded by filing a grievance through his union, the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa, and the matter went to arbitration in November 2007.[23] [24] On 25 June 2008, arbitrator Michel G. Picher released his ruling, upholding the administration’s reprimand on the issues of language (agreeing that Rancourt should not have advertised the course as bilingual when it was only officially approved in French) and level (agreeing that Rancourt should not have characterized PHY 1703 as a graduate course). However, on the issues of format and content, which relate specifically to questions of pedagogical approach and academic freedom, the arbitrator sided with Rancourt. The university was thus required to redraft the letter of reprimand to reflect the arbitrator’s ruling.
In the arbitrator's words:
What this grievance and arbitration are about is whether Professor Rancourt exceeded the bounds of academic freedom and his duty to the University and his students by the content of his website postings developed for PHY 1703 as it was to be given in the fall of 2005. In so framing the issue the Arbitrator recognizes that a component of academic freedom is the latitude of a professor to communicate with his or her students without undue interference from the University. In the advancement of their research and teaching professors may well resort to imaginative, innovative and even provocative statements and communications to their students. To the extent that such statements are not unlawful, or materially false and misleading, they should generally have the protection of academic freedom.
[...]
After careful reflection the Arbitrator is compelled to conclude that the University did need to get its position on the record and that it is not appropriate to direct that the letter of reprimand be entirely withdrawn. The reason for that conclusion is that there appears to be no recognition, certainly no articulated admission, on the part of Professor Rancourt that he did anything wrong. At no point in the proceedings can the Arbitrator identify a point at which Professor Rancourt expresses recognition that he was incorrect in publicly describing PHY 1703 as a bilingual course, or that his description in that regard in “Alternative Voices” was clearly contrary to his own description made on the Department’s website, where the course is acknowledged as being a French language course. Nor is the Arbitrator impressed with Professor Rancourt’s apparent indifference at having stated publicly that “the plan” is to offer the course in English in alternate years when in fact that concept is nothing more than a hope or intention in the back of his own mind. Additionally, the evidence before the Arbitrator is without any indication on the part of Professor Rancourt that he believed it to be misleading or incorrect to describe PHY 1703 as a graduate course. While Professor Rancourt is obviously possessed of a fine and discerning mind, these misrepresentations with respect to PHY 1703 are not nuances that are difficult to grasp. The grievor’s failure to acknowledge that he was wrong in so misrepresenting the course, whether on a personal website or otherwise, is a cause for concern that the Arbitrator cannot responsibly disregard. For these reasons I do not consider that the written reprimand issued by the University should be entirely withdrawn.
The Arbitrator therefore directs that the University redraft the letter of reprimand placed on Professor Rancourt’s record. The redrafted letter of reprimand shall identify Professor Rancourt’s description of PHY 1703 as being a bilingual course, which is planned to be available as an English course in alternate years, and a graduate course as incorrect and misleading statements which are damaging to the University’s legitimate interests. The letter of reprimand shall, however, have removed from it any reference to Professor Rancourt’s communications being false or misleading with respect to the content of the course itself.
- Read more of Michel G. Picher's arbitration ruling.
