Dean attacks student senator for complaint about graduate student supervision
Every graduate student knows, either personally or second-hand, of mistreatment of students by their research supervisors. At the University of Ottawa, there is, at least in principle, a mechanism in place for correcting such supervisory deficiencies. Students can submit complaints about abuse or neglicence by supervisors to the dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (FGPS), or pursue a complaint under the University’s Policy 110 regarding the treatment of graduate students.
On October 22, 2010, I submitted a complaint to the dean of the FGPS, Gary Slater, regarding the mistreatment of a student by the student’s research supervisor, a professor. The student had informed me that the supervisor was unavailable to meet, did not respond to e-mails, and was not helping the student prepare for an important upcoming conference. The mistreatment of the student had lasted over at least six months.
Furthermore, on my own research, I discovered that the professor had only published 5 peer-reviewed articles since 2005 (3 in 2006, 1 in 2008, 1 in 2009). At least two of the 5 articles were led by a different research group than the professor’s (with none of the professor’s graduate students being involved) and only one of the latter papers reported any citations. I noted from my exploration that this appeared to be sub-standard for research supervisors in the Faculty. The professor also did not hold an NSERC Discovery grant, which is a basic minimum indicator of research performance for professors in the professor’s area of research.
I am a graduate student representative to Senate, and I take the job description seriously. It is my duty to do what I can to protect the wellbeing of all graduate students and to uphold the honourable standards of the University. So when I saw that something appeared to be amiss with a professor’s research and supervision capabilities, I brought a complaint about it to the appropriate official, in confidence, assuming that he would proceed according to his responsibilities.
Instead, as the following sequence of e-mails demonstrates, dean Gary Slater attacked the messenger by intimidating, defaming, and trying to silence me. Mr. Slater’s actions are now the source of a Policy 110 complaint filed by me to the University’s Vice-President of Governance, Diane Davidson.
E-mails edited to preserve the identity of student and professor.
Date: Fri, Oct 22, 2010
Subject: Problem with research supervision
Dear Dean Gary Slater,
A student has recently (on October 19, 2010) informed me that he/she has been having difficulties meeting with his/her research supervisor, a professor at the University. According to the student, the supervisor has not responded to the student's e-mails and they have not met for a significant period of time, even though the student is in the process of preparing for an important conference and needs the help of the supervisor.
In addition, the student has informed me that for months now, despite his/her efforts, he/she has not been able to obtain sufficient meetings with the supervisor. The student reports that it is difficult to secure even one meeting per month and that this is not sufficient.
Instead, the student has had to rely on the help of a retired professor, in an unofficial capacity. I first heard about the student's difficulties with meeting the supervisor in April, 2010.
In light of this ongoing problem, I request that you begin a review of the professor's supervisory capabilities in your role as Dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, following section 32.2.2.1 of the Collective Agreement for professors. In my view, there is evidence that the professor's supervisory skills may no longer be adequate. It would also be relevant for you to examine the professor's recent publication record regarding his/her responsibility to maintain a record of scholarly activities appropriate for the direction of graduate theses.
Regarding the latter point, I note that a search in Google Scholar for the period 2005 to 2010 using the professor's name returns only 5 articles (3 in 2006, 1 in 2008, 1 in 2009). At least two of the 5 articles were led by a different research group than the professor's (with none of the professor's graduate students being involved) and only one of the latter papers reports any citations at all. I note from my Google Scholar exploration that this appears to be sub-standard for research supervisors in the Faculty.
I trust that you will take every care to protect the student’s interests in this matter and that you will consider intervening immediately to resolve the present situation which is harming the student.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Representative for graduate students to the University of Ottawa Senate, Sciences section
Date: Sun, Nov 14, 2010
Subject: Problem with research supervision
Dear Dean Slater,
On October 22, I wrote you an e-mail requesting that you begin a review of a professor's graduate student supervisory capabilities following section 32.2.2.1 of the Collective Agreement for professors.
I provided evidence of apparent negligence in the professor's supervision of one of his/her graduate students who had complained to me. I also provided facts showing that it is apparently necessary for you to examine the professor's ecent publication record regarding his/her responsibility to maintain a record of scholarly activities appropriate for the direction of graduate theses.
In addition, according to the public record of the granting agency NSERC, the professor has not held an NSERC Discovery Grant during the past two years. The professor's standing with NSERC, together with his/her apparent sub-standard publication record should be part of your concerns. I understand that the NSERC Discovery Grant status of individual researchers is a reliable and accepted outside indicator of researcher merit. This could also mean that the professor does not have the operating funds to operate his/her laboratory and adequately support graduate student research.
Therefore there appears to be more than sufficient reason for you to invoke a section 32.2.2.1 formal examination of these matters. In fact, I believe it is your duty to do so to protect the standards and reputation of the school and to protect graduate students and the value of student degrees.
On Monday, November 1, we spoke about the requests in my e-mail. You informed me that you did not deem that it was appropriate for you to begin a review of the professor's supervisory capabilities, and that had a professor made a similar request to you, the professor would have been reprimanded by you for doing so without the authorization of the student or students suffering the mistreatment. This seems to me to be an untenable proposition expressed by you and coming from the dean of the FGPS. Your position also appears to contain the incorrect underlying assumption that the student could legitimately suffer harm from having his/her expressed concerns related to you by a member of university senate, or the underlying suggestion that you would not act to ensure the complete safety of the student in these circumstances.
You also informed me that you were aware of the professor's recent research record.
It is in the best interest of graduate students, and indeed all members of the university community, that the serious concerns raised in my Oct. 22 e-mail to you be investigated following the relevant collective agreement sections. This must be done in order to ensure that graduate students receive adequate research supervision, that the standards of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies are maintained, and that the reputation of the University of Ottawa as a leading research institution is upheld.
I therefore urge you to initiate a review of the professor's supervisory capabilities in your capacity as Dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies or to explain why you will not do so. I believe this is an important matter of concern to all graduate students and to the community at large.
Given the urgency of ensuring that no students suffer any damage, please respond by one week.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Senator, FGPS, Sciences section
Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2010
Subject: Re: Problem with research supervision
Dear Mr. Hickey
I note that your email does not mention that you now have the permission of the student to pursue this matter. I myself do not have the student's permission to talk to you about his/her situation.
I checked with the GSAÉD and I checked the web site of the CRÉSAC. Both require written consent before they share personal information with other people. So does the FGPS. I would expect the same level of professionalism and ethics from student senators.
Your statement “You informed me that you did not deem that it was appropriate for you to begin a review of the professor's supervisory capabilities” is simply untrue. I told you that I still had not determine how to proceed with your request given the fact that you sent me privileged information without the student’s consent. I would appreciate more accuracy in your emails.
I am still examining this situation and I will respond to you when I have had time to look at all possible options.
Sincerely
Gary W. Slater, Ph.D.
Doyen | Dean
Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales |
Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
Université d'Ottawa | University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, Nov 23, 2010
Subject: Re: Problem with research supervision
Dear Dean Slater
On October 22 (attached below) I first informed you of the serious problems of apparent negligence in a student's research supervision by his/her supervisor, a professor, as the student reported them to me. As you know, the student has not denied the facts that I reported to you about his/her supervision. It was my duty as a student representative for graduate students who is concerned with academic integrity within the University to report these serious problems to you, just as it is your duty to ensure the student’s academic needs and administrative safety. I am disturbed by your apparent lack of action in this matter, which if left unresolved could cause harm to the student and possibly to other students.
I followed up in this matter again in writing on November 14 (attached below) and indicated further relevant information. I have brought to your attention strong and relevant evidence that the professor's supervisory skills may no longer be adequate and that the professor has not maintained a record of scholarly activities appropriate for the direction of graduate theses in his/her field. This, together with the student's clear, sustained, and repeated complaints to me and others, appears to me to constitute sufficient evidence for a responsible dean in your position to have serious concerns about the professor's supervisory capabilities. Indeed, I note that your duty in this matter is at least partly described in the APUO Collective Agreement under Section 32.2.2.1, regarding reviews of supervisory capabilities for members of the FGPS.
Your implication that my reporting this apparent deficiency in research supervision to you is unethical under the circumstances unfortunately suggests that you assume the student could legitimately suffer harm from having his/her expressed concerns related to you, the Dean of the FGPS, by a member of the university senate. I trust, however, that you will act to ensure the complete safety of the student.
Further, your repeated position that I have acted unethically in this matter by asking you to intervene is at best misguided and at worst irresponsible, since you appear to be using this as a pretext to avoid your duty. I would ask that you refrain from such gratuitous and paternalistic statements in our future exchanges.
The apparent supervisory deficiency on the part of a professor puts the reputation of the professor's Faculty and of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, and consequently that of the entire University, at risk. This situation also harms the value of graduate training, the quality of student experience and the value of University of Ottawa graduate degrees. It is rightly a matter of concern for all graduate students, for the University community and for the public.
I request that you take action immediately to rectify the situation, or explain to me why you will not do so. Please confirm by one week.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Senator, FGPS, Sciences section
Date: Tue, Nov 23, 2010
Subject: Re: Problem with research supervision
Hi again
I am sorry to realize that you do not want to accept the fact that your behaviour in this matter has been, and continues to be, unacceptable.
I am away for the next two weeks and will deal with this after I come back.
Sincerely
Gary Slater
Date: Tue, Nov 23, 2010
Subject: Re: Problem with supervision
Dr. Slater,
This urgent matter cannot be put on hold for another two weeks or more, while at least one student remains at risk.Please indicate whether your office will be able to answer by November 30. If not, I will immediately pursue other avenues to seek the needed remedies.
I await your response today.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010
Subject: Re: Problem with research supervision
Cc: Sonia Letourneau, Diane Davidson
Dear Mr. Hickey
I am currently in China and communications are not easy (plus there is a large time difference).
Nevertheless, I found some time to reread the correspondence before starting my day of meetings.
You brought this matter to my attention on the basis that you were representing the student when according to the student's email you do not. The student indicates that there was a "grave misunderstanding" in comments he/she made to you and that I am to disregard "any further comments communications" on this matter. It cannot be more clear. I thus see no basis to pursue your request for a review, and I certainly do not see any evidence of urgency. This matter is closed.
Sincerely
Gary Slater
Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2010
Subject: Re: Problem with research supervision
Dear Dean Slater,
On October 22, November 14, and November 23, I wrote to you requesting that you investigate serious problems of apparent negligence in a student's research supervision by the student's supervisor, as the student reported them to me. I also informed you of the apparent inadequacy of the supervisor's record of scholarly publications and his/her apparent lack of NSERC funding for research, both of which, in my reading of the professor's collective agreement, provide additional reasons for you to investigate the professor's supervisory capabilities following your duty as Dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (FGPS).
On November 24, you wrote to me informing me that you would not pursue a review of the professor's membership in the FGPS. In addition you made no indication that you had attempted to resolve the student’s circumstances.
In December, 2010 the student again informed me and others that his/her problems of negligence in supervision by the research supervisor are ongoing. Another professor present appeared to be concerned that the student is relying on the help of a retired professor in a non-official capacity rather than having adequate official and accountable supervision.
I am troubled that the student is continuing to experience inadequate research supervision and that he/she does not have an official supervisor who can provide him/her with appropriate supervision, this after I have made significant efforts to inform you about these problems.
Following my responsibility as a graduate student representative concerned with student welfare, academic integrity and the academic success of students, I again request that you investigate the professor's membership in the FGPS now in light of the new evidence of continuing negligence in the professor's graduate student supervision, or explain to me why you will not do so, and that you consider how to immediately remedy this untenable administrative-responsibility and supervisory situation.
Please respond by one week
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL :: Problem with research supervision
Cc: Vice-President of Governance Diane Davidson, GSAÉD External Commissioner GSAÉD University Affairs Commissioner
Mr. Hickey
Previously, I asked you whether you had the student’s permission to discuss this matter with me. You never answered my question. I thus contacted the student a few days ago to enquire. The student just confirmed with me that he/she does not want you to speak on his/her behalf, and that you do not have his/her permission to discuss the situation with me. The student also asked me, again, to disregard any further email from you on this matter. Therefore, this will be my last email on this matter, and I hope that you will do the same and respect the student’s wish from now on.
Your intervention goes against the procedures used by the FGPS, the GSAÉD and the CRÉSAC. I consulted with the External Commissioner of the GSAÉD about this and he agrees with me that this is unacceptable, especially since you seem to be using your title of Senator to justify your actions.
The 3 other points that you have raised in your recent emails are simply without any basis. Let me explain:
1) You now seem to claim that the Collective Agreement mentions that one needs funding from a federal granting council (NSERC in this case) to become (or remain) a member of the FGPS (“…the professor's apparent lack of NSERC funding for research, both of which, in my reading of the professor's collective agreement, provide additional reasons for you to investigate the the professor's”). This is simply false. The Collective Agreement does not mention funding as a criterion.
2) Regarding the publication record: The FGPS membership of the professor was renewed very recently, i.e. in the past year. The academic unit submitted the professor's CV for renewal. The Executive Committee of the FGPS examined his/her CV, and especially his/her record publication of the last years (i.e., since the last formal evaluation of the academic unit – as required by the Collective Agreement), and unanimously decided to renew the professor's membership. In other words, neither the professor's academic unit nor the Executive Committee of the FGPS have found any “inadequacy in the professor's record of scholarly publications” (to use your own words).
3) You are now claiming that another professor “appears” to have concerns about the supervision provided by the professor. Since this other professor was not copied on your email, I called him/her to verify the facts. The other professor denies that he/she voiced any concerns of this kind and was quite surprised that you would use his/her name in this fashion without his/her approval.
As far as I know, your role as Senator does not include representing students without their approval. As this may be an abuse of your title, I have copied the Vice-President Governance, the GSAÉD University Affairs Commissioner and the GSAÉD External Affair Commissioner on this response so that they can determine if this is the case.
Your continued insistence is now approaching harassment. I ask you to stop this immediately. The matter is closed.
Sincerely
Gary Slater
Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2010
Subject: Research supervision, complaints policy
Cc: Vice-President of Governance Diane Davidson, Vice-President Academic Francois Houle, GSAED Executive, SFUO Executive, Student Appeals Centre
Dear Dean Slater,
In my e-mails to you of October 22, November 14, November 23, and December 5, I requested that you investigate serious problems of apparent negligence in a student's research supervision by the student's research supervisor, based on the student relating them to me and to others.
I approached you, as Dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (FGPS), because you are the appropriate person to contact in the university administration regarding issues about the supervision of graduate students, and because I believed that you would intervene tactfully and responsibly to immediately resolve the problem. I trusted that you would ensure the safety and academic success of any student potentially affected by a complaint made to you or potentially affected by any investigation carried out by you regarding the professor's supervisory capabilities.
To my knowledge you did not intervene to properly investigate and remedy the situation, since it has persisted until at least December 2010.
Rather than intervene as needed you have chosen to attack the messenger. You have attempted to intimidate me and you have now defamed me by gratuitously accusing me of practicing harassment, by incorrectly stating that I misrepresented myself as the authorized representative of an individual student, by misrepresenting my statements to you, and by alleging that my behaviour is unethical and unprofessional.
Leaving the latter points aside for the moment, a central feature of your characterization of the situation is that you take the position that you are constrained from acting on a complaint about harm to a student from irresponsible or improper behaviour of a professor or supervisor when the student has asked you not to proceed. Your position is also that without the permission of the impacted student the person making the complaint confidentially to you is acting improperly in doing so (and, according to you, would normally be subject to discipline or reprimand). See Appendix below of your statements in this regard.
Is this indeed the policy of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies regarding third person complaints about supervisor deficiencies which impact students? Is this a university-wide procedure regarding such complaints? Please clarify.
This would also mean that third party complaints about student supervisions cannot be used in the FGPS’s reviews of FGPS memberships unless the students in question give their consent. Is that correct? Again, please clarify. Is this your policy?
If the policy that third-party complaints which the concerned students do not authorize cannot be used by the University is NOT your policy, then are you not disregarding GSAED and CRESAC procedures as you would say?
You can see that I have reason to be concerned about your policy explanations to date.
Please respond promptly because in my view your position, as I understand it, is irresponsible and puts both students and the institution at risk.
Please respond by one week.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Student member of Senate, FGPS, Sciences Section
APPENDIX: Relevant Statements by dean Gary Slater
November 1, 2010
You told me that making a complaint such as the one I have made to you without the authorization of the student is very serious, and that if a professor had done so, you would have reprimanded the professor.
November 19, 2010
You wrote: “I checked with the GSAÉD and I checked the web site of the CRÉSAC. Both require written consent before they share personal information with other people. So does the FGPS. I would expect the same level of professionalism and ethics from student senators.
November 23, 2010
You wrote: “I am sorry to realize that you do not want to accept the fact that your behaviour in this matter has been, and continues to be, unacceptable.”
November 24, 2010
You wrote: “You brought this matter to my attention on the basis that you were representing the student when according to [the student’s] email you do not. The student indicates that there was a "grave misunderstanding" in comments [the student] made to you and that I am to disregard "any further comments communications" on this matter. It cannot be more clear. I thus see no basis to pursue your request for a review, and I certainly do not see any evidence of urgency. This matter is closed.
December 9, 2010
You wrote: “Previously, I asked you whether you had the student’s permission to discuss this matter with me. You never answered my question. I thus contacted the student a few days ago to enquire. [The student] just confirmed with me that [the student] does not want you to speak on [the student’s] behalf, and that you do not have [the student’s] permission to discuss [the student’s] situation with me. [The student] also asked me, again, to disregard any further email from you on this matter. Therefore, this will be my last email on this matter, and I hope that you will do the same and respect the student’s wish from now on.”
and
“Your intervention goes against the procedures used by the FGPS, the GSAÉD and the CRÉSAC.”
Date: Wed, Jan 5, 2011
Subject: Research supervision, complaints policy
Cc: Vice-President of Governance Diane Davidson, Vice-President Academic Francois Houle, GSAED Executive, SFUO Executive, Student Appeals Centre, student media
Dear Dean Slater,
On Dec.15, I wrote you an e-mail (below) requesting your clarification on an important policy matter of the FGPS regarding 3rd party complaints made by students about professional duty and responsibility.
I requested that you respond and clarify the situation because in my view your position as I understand it is unusual and may be harmful to both students and the institution.
Please respond by one week, or inform me why you will not do so.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Student Member of Senate, FGPS, Sciences section
Date: Wed, Jan 12, 2011
Subject: Re: Research supervision, complaints policy
Cc: Vice-recteur Etudes Francois Houle
Dear Mr. Hickey
You will be happy to hear that I have completed my investigation.
I now have the permission of the student to tell you that I have been meeting with him/her as part of the investigation. I also have his/her permission to let you know that the file is closed as the result of my investigation and intervention.
I am currently writing my report and will submit it to the person I am reporting to, i.e. the Vice-President Academic and Provost.
Sincerely
Gary Slater
Date: Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:26 PM
Subject: Request for Apology
Cc: Vice-recteur Etudes Francois Houle, Vice-President of Goverance Diane Davidson. GSAED Executive, Student Appeals Centre
Dear Dean Gary Slater,
In your recent meeting (last week) with GSAED University Affairs Commissioner Jonathan Duguay, you implied to the commissioner that I was harassing you in relation to my pursuit of a complaint. You also made this comment in your December 9, 2010 e-mail with the University Affairs Commissioner and the External Commissioner in Cc.
This kind of defamatory attack against me to members of the association that represents me is unacceptable.
In addition to this, as I have noted in my email to you dated December 15, 2010, you have attempted to intimidate me and you have also defamed me by incorrectly stating that I misrepresented myself as the authorized representative of an individual student, by misrepresenting my statements to you, and by alleging that my behaviour is unethical and unprofessional.
Furthermore, just today you informed me by e-mail that you have in fact investigated the complaint that I brought to you, whereas in your previous communications you repeatedly told me that you would not investigate, and you stated that my behaviour in pursuing the complaint was unacceptable. I am disturbed that you have misled me in this manner. Your doing so has caused me undue stress and effort in attempting to repair this important matter of apparent professional irresponsibility affecting a student.
I ask that you send me an unqualified written signed apology for all of these actions which you have made against me since November 1, 2010 and that you include a statement that you will stop. I make this request without prejudice.
If you can promptly provide me this apology (not simply an expression of regret that these matters have somehow occurred but an authentic personal apology) including a statement that you will stop then I will consider the matter of your attacks against me closed, I will not seek further reparations for the damage done, and I will continue to cooperate on a moving forward basis.
Also, since you have refused to answer my request of December 15, 2010 and January 5, 2011 about the central policy question in this matter, I will now be pursuing this clarification with the university.
Please respond by one week.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2011
Subject: Research supervision, complaints policy
To: Vice-President of Governance Diane Davidson
Cc: GSAED Executive, Student appeals centre
Dear Diane Davidson,
On Dec.15, 2010, and on January 5, 2011, I wrote to the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate studies, requesting clarification on an policy matter of the FGPS regarding 3rd party complaints made by students about professional duty and responsibility. The dean has apparently defined and imposed a policy that is harmful to students and to the institution. The e-mail of Dec. 15, which you received in Cc, is included below.
As the dean has refused to respond to my question, I now approach your office for the needed clarification on this important policy matter.
What is the correct university policy in such cases?
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Student Member of Senate, FGPS, Sciences Section
Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2011
Subject: Request
Dear Mr. Hickey,
Further to your recent correspondence to the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies , I wish to inform you that we are not prepared to entertain your request to remove the membership of the professor as a member of the FGPS. The matter is closed.
Diane Davidson
Vice-President of Goverance, University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011
Subject: Policy 110 complaint -- January 25, 2011
To: Diane Davidson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Cc: Student Appeals Centre, GSAED Executive, Vice-President Academic Francois Houle
Dear Ms. Davidson,
This is a complaint under Policy 110. As described in Appendix A below, Dean Gary Slater of the FGPS has intimidated me, discriminated against me, and treated me in a manner which is in violation of my right to be treated according to commonly accepted norms of fairness and ethical behaviour.
As reparation, I request an unequivocal and unqualified written apology from Dr. Slater explicitly for each of his abuses in Appendix A and a written clarification of FGPS policy about using third party complaints.
Please indicate the time frame and next step in treating my complaint. I would ask that this matter be resolved before mid-March 2011.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Appendix A:
E-mail from Joseph HIckey to Gary Slater, Jan. 13, 2011
E-mail from Joseph Hickey to Gary Slater, Dec. 15, 2010
