Rebuttal to a Colleague

The following text was read by one of my colleagues at our departmental meeting of September 23, 2008. I did not respond then, as I was hoping to reserve the limited time that was allocated for the agenda item on academic integrity to address the substance of my proposal. However, given his follow-on motion to compel me to apologize for calling on my [Senior Departmental Administrator] to step down, his comments warrant the fisking that I provide here.

As this colleague refused to grant permission to include his name with these comments, I respect his wishes, as well as his decency to respond honestly and straightforwardly to my question.

Comments on Prof. J. Cooperstock's "academic integrity" item on the agenda of the ECE departmental meeting of 23/9/2008

I urge the department to be on its guard when considering the proposal submitted by Prof. Cooperstock on academic integrity. I ask that you consider its underlying motivation carefully. I say this not because the issue of academic integrity is not important and not because I wish to stop anyone from expressing his or her views. The reason is that I am very distrustful of Prof. Cooperstock's motives. As I will explain, I did not arrive at this conclusion lightly, nor did I arrive at it based on an educated guess. It is based on documented facts, mostly supplied by Prof. Cooperstock himself.

As noted below, it is also based on extensive conjecture on the part of my colleague in addition to misreading of old web pages (and false accusations). It may also be based in part on my colleague's own frustration with me for defying him several years earlier. At the time, as acting [Senior Departmental Administrator] his response to my disagreement with the inflation of the grades of two graduate students was as follows: "My feeling is there are issues that are worthwhile fighting for on principle, but I don't see this as one." He then "asked" me to sign off on inflated grades for two graduate students in my class, which I refused to do.

In essence, the hidden agenda behind this proposal is to regain some of the credibility that Prof. Cooperstock has squandered through behaviour that is bullying and insulting toward various members of ECE, the faculty of engineering and the university. The facts tell us that Prof. Cooperstock would use our possible endorsement of his proposal to continue to disparage the university with the added credibility of our department's support.

I don't have a credibility problem, but our administration does, in its handling of plagiarism and related matters of academic integrity. If I simply wanted to "disparage" the university rather than motivate improvement in its policies and administration, I certainly wouldn't have bothered investing hundreds of hours in attempting to discuss this matter with the various levels of our administration, from Associate Deans, to Deans, to Dean of Students, Deputy Provost, and Provost, compiling and submitting documentation, and seeking internal remedies to the failings of our system before going public.

In my thirty odd years here, I have never had to state anything close to this about one of my colleagues, and I feel very uncomfortable doing so, but I also feel strongly that it must be done, for the good of the department and the university. The defamatory and grossly unjustified behaviour exhibited by Prof. Cooperstock is ruining the high standards of mutual respect that ECE has always followed.

I'm afraid my colleague is confusing "mutual respect" with blind, unquestioned obedience. As for "defamatory behaviour" (is it possible to behave defamatorily?), I repeat what I wrote in my blog, that in order for communication to be considered defamatory, the statement(s) made must be untrue, or in Quebec, "solely to hurt the person's reputation."

Prof. Cooperstock's deplorable behaviour must be confronted and exposed for all to consider. Allow me to explain.

Approximately one year ago, Prof. Cooperstock described at length the circumstances that led him to condemn a decision by the faculty's disciplinary officer to exonerate one of his students on a charge of plagiarism. We don't know the full details behind the exoneration. Perhaps there is cause to disagree with such a decision. There is certainly cause to review and revise the process by which the university monitors and ensures academic integrity. In fact, the Faculty of Engineering has an on-going committee headed by Prof. [...] canvassing all Faculty departments for feedback on how to improve the handling of academic offenses. To my knowledge, however, Prof. Cooperstock has not submitted any feedback to this committee, and this makes me curious.

To be blunt, I'm skeptical of the value of submitting feedback to a committee headed by someone who, while aware of the plagiarism, nevertheless raised the mark on a plagiarized assignment and refused to justify a significant increase awarded to the final examination mark for the same student. Similarly, I'm reluctant to work through a committee appointed by the [Senior Faculty Administrator] with whom I tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to meet last year to discuss my concerns, and who, ultimately, "disciplined" me for the temerity to speak out.

Why would he ignore a committee with the clout to propose changes to the university?

In a democracy, anyone has the clout to propose changes. Why should such proposals need to go through a smokescreen committee that reports to an administrator who has demonstrated no interest in speaking with me regarding such recommendations?

Why would Prof. Cooperstock instead bring his many recommendations to the ECE department knowing that we do not have the authority to make such changes?

Simply to mobilize greater awareness of and support for such changes within the university community. It's a shame that my colleague chose to spend his efforts attacking me personally rather than considering the merit of these recommendations, or offering suggestions to improve them.

What we do know is that Prof. Cooperstock holds deep grudges against a number of colleagues and will not speak to them unless absolutely necessary.

I didn't realize my colleague was a psychoanalyst.

One is our [senior departmental administrator], Prof. [...], and another, Prof. [...], the chair of the above mentioned committee looking into academic integrity.

... and neither of whom have made any effort to communicate with me. In fact, to this day, both individuals refuse to answer simple questions posed over one year ago, one relating to questionable re-grading practices and the other, regarding orders to break his promises. Perhaps they also hold deep grudges?

It is noteworthy that Prof. [...] is a respected colleague and close friend of Prof. Cooperstock who happened to re-read and raise slightly the grade of one of Prof. Cooperstock's students.

Slightly? He raised a final examination mark from 14/40 to 19/40 (or more) without explanation. Does this not raise any suspicion?

We also know that Prof. Cooperstock has not accepted the outcome of his particular plagiarism case gracefully.

Absolutely correct. But then again, I don't just pay lip-service to academic integrity, I actually believe in it.

We know that he has taken his objection to the highest levels of the university and that, dissatisfied with the response, Prof. Cooperstock then went public, denouncing the decision, the university and its administration in his web site, on the radio, and more recently in the email attached to this proposal, much of it, it must be emphasized, in offensive and denigrating language. Prof. Cooperstock has raised accusations of a university-wide complicity to let our academic integrity standards "erode", and of "ill-conceived" policies at the hand of a "corrupt" and "out of control" administration. I am certain that Prof. Cooperstock is aware that publicly debasing the university and deriding its leadership, that being rude and offensive and burning bridges is a sure way not to achieve the changes that Prof. Cooperstock professes to champion. Notwithstanding, he continues to follow this fruitless approach.

Sometimes, challenges to dogma necessarily involve discourse that some will consider as impolite. In this instance, it's really hard to find effective diplomatic language to explain what is happening without offending the administrators who are guilty of corrupt and academically dishonest practices. Nor, for that matter, is such discourse foreign to the halls of academia, where calls (e.g., at Harvard) for "leaders" to step down do not confine themselves to the most flattering terminology.

I am therefore highly suspicious that the principal [sic] goal behind the agenda item under discussion today is to recruit the good name of the ECE department so as to add credibility and legitimacy to his never-ending quarrel against the university leadership.

As above.

If we endorse Prof. Cooperstock's proposals, Prof. Cooperstock could continue to deride and embarrass the university, but now with the backing of our department. To understand how I arrived at this Machiavellian conclusion, allow me to draw your attention to Prof. Cooperstock's statement in the email that accompanied this agenda item. In it, Prof. Cooperstock states that whatever academic integrity problems we might be facing would be ideally resolved if all administrators from associate chairs up "packed up and left". It is important to note that Prof. Cooperstock then goes on to state that this so-called "ideal solution", were it feasible, would "obviate" the proposal that he then goes on to detail. This means that if everyone involved resigned, the problem would somehow be solved and there would no longer be any need to propose any changes to our academic integrity procedures. The implication from this contradictory statement is that Prof. Cooperstock cares little about academic integrity and more about settling accounts.

The statement is no more contradictory than saying that moving indoors during a rain shower obviates the need for an umbrella. What we have, at present, is a hierarchy of administration whose implementation of policy is corrupt. Thus, we can either revise policy in such a manner that helps prevent such corruption, or we can replace the current administration. True, the new batch of administrators may be equally bad, but the hope is that the message is communicated: if you reward students who plagiarize their assignments, you'll be asked to leave too.

What is more worrisome is that, with Prof. Cooperstock, getting even is an obsession without any end in sight. Endless settling of scores is the end that justifies his twisted means.

There's the psychoanalysis again.

As an example of Prof. Cooperstock's manner of obsessive thinking, I suggest that you take a look at Prof. Cooperstock's public web site containing a repository of complaints against a well- known airline company. This web site, which Prof. Cooperstock started as a result of an incident in which one of his suits was rumpled, has been kept going by Prof. Cooperstock for close to a decade and has received thousands of hits from disgruntled travellers.

At least get the history straight. The site started as a result of UAL's refusal to respond to a simple complaint, exacerbated by the airline's subsequent legal threats against me and the University of Toronto. In many ways, it's a very similar story to what's going on at McGill, complete with the unexpected feedback from numerous other academics who have faced similar issues with the university.

One would think that a reasonable man would have long ago decided that enough was enough. Yet, when asked what it would take for Prof. Cooperstock to close the site, Prof. Cooperstock answers (in the site itself) that it would take a written apology and the resignation of the airline's top administrators.

I'm having trouble finding such a statement on the Untied.com site, for the very reason that I never wrote this. My dear colleague, making false accusations of this nature is defamatory, and I urge you to exercise caution in the future. The relevant statement from my legal disclaimer, written approximately ten years ago, was "If your company addressed the concerns of its customers in a more satisfactory manner than it has in the past, then there would be no need for my own web pages."

The very familiar ring to this response tells us that Prof. Cooperstock's vendetta against McGill university will also never stop, that Prof. Cooperstock has no intention of ever withdrawing his web site denigrating McGill and insulting its leadership, that Prof. Cooperstock derives a bizarre pleasure from never ending confrontations.

And yet more psychoanalysis, this time based on either fabrication or misreading of old web pages.

Adding the good name of ECE to his proposal will be used by Prof. Cooperstock to claim legitimacy. It will send a message that we are willing to avert our eyes to his overall offensive behaviour for the sake of listening to his wise counsel. I feel that this choice would severely damage the reputation of our department.

Assuming everything that my colleague wrote were true, would this "choice" actually damage the reputation of our department more than awarding higher grades to students who plagiarize their assignments and then threaten to sue?

I also remind you that one year ago, under a similar agenda item at an ECE departmental meeting, ...

My colleague's recollection of events is flawed. I was explicitly prevented from speaking under a similar agenda item because our [Senior Departmental Administrator] exercised his "prerogative" to table this item. Faced with this blatant effort to silence debate in a university environment, I had a moral obligation to speak out harshly, which I did under "Other Business".

... before a room full of academics, students, support staff, and visitors, Prof. Cooperstock took advantage of the privilege granted to those having the floor to use offensive and defamatory language against the [senior departmental administrator] of ECE, brazenly mugging Prof. [...]'s honesty and good name, both in spoken words and in writing.

Again, there's a problem here with my colleague's understanding of "defamatory", based on the sequence of events documented in these pages.

In my view, Prof. Cooperstock's hurtful words against Prof. [...] were clearly intended to harm Prof. [...]'s reputation.

Quite the contrary. I was giving our [Senior Departmental Administrator] an opportunity to demonstrate his integrity by resigning his position in protest of the "orders from central administration", which, ostensibly, compelled him to break his promises and permit a gross violation of academic integrity. Unfortunately, to this day, the same administrator refuses even to suggest the name of someone who could be asked about this order.

For those of you who are new to the department, allow me to recall that in over thirty years of ECE department meetings, some conducted under heated and noisy debate, never have we been subject to such discourteous behaviour. I am ashamed that, caught off guard, I did not stand up more firmly against Prof. Cooperstock's bullying toward our [senior departmental administrator].

Let's see if I've got this straight: My [Senior Departmental Administrator] silently breaks his promises and then tells me I can't discuss an issue of student cheating with my colleagues; I'm formally disciplined by my [Senior Faculty Administrator]; my personal correspondence is secretly investigated; my systems administrator is threatened with disciplinary action if he doesn't comply immediately with an order to turn over to the administration my archived computer files. And I'm the bully?

Today, Prof. Cooperstock, once again presents us with a document whose preamble uses extremely offensive language lacking the most basic mutual respect.

From that description, one would think that my preamble ("A proposal for change") was replete with expletives and personal attacks. As regards mutual respect, the meaning of this term is lost when professors attempting to uphold standards of academic integrity are subject to the treatment I have documented here.

It demeans in a vulgar and unjustified way a large number of our colleagues, academics like you and I, honorable people who have the best interests of the university at heart and who work extremely hard for the good of this university and, particularly, of its student body.

... by ensuring that if you cheat, you'll still pass your courses, even if you should have failed?

I should add here that an attempt was made by Profs. [...] and [...] to persuade Prof. Cooperstock to soften his offensive preamble and submit only the non-insulting (and constructive) aspect of his proposal. Yet, this rational advice was ignored by Prof. Cooperstock.

Wrong again. I did have discussions with these two colleagues about focusing on the main issue of plagiarism, as well as whether to provide hardcopies of the proposal, and whether to propose two separate motions or a single motion. However, there was no discussion of softening the preamble, nor would I have had a problem doing so.

The proposal on academic integrity was not altered, leaving every bit of offensive language, consequently giving it no chance of being accepted by any reasonable individual (even if this department were to pass it as is, it would most certainly get nowhere in Senate). Since Prof. Cooperstock, being intelligent, surely knows this, the question is: Why does he do it?

As I noted in my blog, my intent in making the motion was to start the discussion, in the hopes of obtaining similar consensus from the professoriate in my department as we've seen from the student body, to advocate for a major change in the way McGill deals with these fundamental issues of academic integrity. Unfortunately, given the time restrictions imposed by the [Senior Departmental Administrator], coupled with my colleague's lengthy speech decrying my "rudeness" and "bullying", along with much of the follow-up discussion, there was little time to address the substance of the proposal itself.

And the answer must be that he wishes to prolong his vendetta against the university, to be able to add one more item to his web site denigrating McGill, to derive whatever twisted pleasure he extracts from these setbacks. See, the conspiracy against me is true.

And yet more psychoanalysis, this time, painting me as the archetypical villain. But who will play the role in the upcoming movie?

If we approve Prof. Cooperstock's item in the agenda, we will be agreeing as a department that, when it comes to debate, it is acceptable to depart from the traditional language of courtesy and mutual respect, and that defamatory statements against individuals and the university are condoned by the department.

As above regarding mutual respect and defamatory statements.

If we approve Prof. Cooperstock's agenda item, if we endorse his item without considering the overall offensive background behind it, this department will be tacitly supporting Prof. Cooperstock's distasteful statements, we will be agreeing that the ideal solution to the university's academic integrity issues is for all administrators from [departmental administrator] up to resign.

Not all administrators, although there is a significant number of members of the present administration who share responsibility for rewarding students who plagiarized, either through action or deliberate inaction. Whether their resignation represents the ideal solution to problems of academic integrity is arguable, as I noted by qualifying that this "would quite possibly obviate the need for new policy."

I remind you that in his list of so-called corrupt administrators who should resign, Prof. Cooperstock includes ECE colleagues such as Prof. [...], Prof. [...], Prof. [...], Prof. [...], Prof. [...], Prof. [...] and Prof. [...].

While I neglected to qualify explicitly which members of the administration were involved in the rewarding of plagiarism last year, my colleague has unwittingly or disengenuously read into my text a non-existent "all". Clearly, my call does not apply to those members of the administration who had nothing to do with these incidents. From the list supplied by my colleague, it is, however, worth noting the extent to which our administration at the departmental and faculty level has mushroomed over the past decade. I was unaware, in fact, that several of the named individuals were also members of our ever-expanding administration.

The question that Prof. Cooperstock must answer on this point is whether he believes that Prof. [...] is corrupt. Is Prof. [...] corrupt? Is Prof. [...] corrupt? Is Prof. [...] corrupt? Is Prof. [...] corrupt? Is Prof. [...] corrupt? If his answers are yes, then in what way are they corrupt? In what way would the resignations of Profs. [...], [...], [...], [...], [...] and [...] (and many others) eliminate corruption?

What started this entire discussion is a former student, who plagiarized two consecutive assignments, and should, without any penalties for plagiarism, have failed the course. Instead, through the active participation of more than one of the administrators named above, that student had his grades increased, and graduated. Perhaps my colleague considers such actions as perfectly legitimate, but in my set of values, these administrators are corrupt. As such, their resignations would serve the same purpose as that of the resignation of any politician over a similar abuse of his or her power or a violation of the public trust.

I do not ask you today to suppress debate in any way or form on important issues such as academic integrity.

This is a most interesting assertion. Last year, when I sought to reinsert the topic of academic integrity in the departmental meeting agenda, this same colleague protested that my complaints about the grade awarded to a particular student had no place for discussion in a departmental meeting. How does he reconcile this attitude with "not asking to suppress debate in any way or form"?

What I ask you to consider is that the department of ECE has always set and followed standards of collegial behaviour, a tradition for which Prof. Cooperstock has repeatedly shown total disdain. I ask you therefore not to grant Prof. Cooperstock the credibility and legitimacy that he seeks from this department. I ask you to jointly tell Prof. Cooperstock that enough is enough, that his points have been made, that closure should be added to his personal quarrel against the university so that he may be able once again to devote his entire energy to more productive endeavors.

Alternatively, the department may tell my colleague to spare us the sanctimony and that restoring academic integrity to our department, faculty, and university should be valued as one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the professoriate.

Other Business: A Call for an Apology

Under "Other Business", my colleague then read the following proposed motion, which will be discussed at the next departmental meeting of November 2008. I will reserve my comments to this until that time.

Motion to the ECE departmental meeting of 23/9/2008

At the ECE departmental meeting of 25/9/2007, Prof. J. Cooperstock used highly offensive language against the [Senior Departmental Administrator] of ECE, attacking Prof. [...]'s honesty and good name in both words and in writing. I quote one of Prof. Cooperstock's statements from the minutes of that meeting:

"Mr. [Senior Departmental Administrator], your assurances have proven worthless, and your silence until now has left me questioning your leadership. If you value academic integrity and if you wish to convince us of your personal integrity, I call on you to step down as [Senior Departmental Administrator], effective immediately, until such time as matters are resolved in a manner as outlined in my list of Desired Outcomes."

These vengeful words were directed at Prof. [...], a person of undeniable honesty who we all respect, before a room full of colleagues, staff, students and visitors. Intended to humiliate and be hurtful, these words have without a doubt achieved their purpose. It must be noted that Professor [...] acted in good faith when offering certain assurances to Prof. Cooperstock regarding a case of plagiarism. Being new to the job of [Senior Departmental Administrator], Prof. [...] made promises that he was unable to fulfill for reasons beyond his control, something for which Prof. [...] has been kind enough to apologize.

The malicious words uttered by Prof. Cooperstock are contrary to the best traditions of this department and unacceptable, and this, irrespective of the reasons that may have motivated them. I note that, according to the definition below, Prof. Cooperstock's words may have constituted harassment under the rules of the university:

Harassment means any vexatious behaviour by one Member of the University Community towards another Member of the University Community under the control and authority of the University in the form of repeated hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affect the dignity, psychological or physical integrity of a Member of the University Community and that result in a harmful environment for such an individual. Within the employment relationship, a single serious incidence of such behaviour that has a lasting harmful effect on such an individual may also constitute Harassment.

I move therefore that the ECE department request Prof. J. Cooperstock to apologize to Prof. [...] for having called into question Prof. [...]'s integrity.