|
- The Dean of the Law School sent an e-mail to Professor Denise Reaume stating:
- Dear Denise,
As you may know, first year students have recently approached the Administration to express concern over the accuracy of the grades submitted by some students to law firms offering first year summer jobs. I am writing to let you know that some students have told us that you made certain comments to students bearing on the way in which they should communicate their Christmas test results to the law firms. Could you please let me know if you made any statements to students in connection with self reporting of first term grades, and any other information you believe is relevant. I would appreciate your response at your earliest possible convenience. Thanks so much. Ron
Ronald J. Daniels
Dean and Professor of Law
University of Toronto Faculty of Law
84 Queens Park
Toronto Ontario
M5S 2C5
CANADA
Professor Reaume's response follows:
- From: Denise Reaume
To: Ron Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: some help please
Dear Ron,
I did have a discussion with my small group about the summer job application process. They were clearly feeling incrediblystressed (this in November!) not any more than usual about the December tests per se, but about the effect of their results on future job prospects. We talked a bit about how the law school sees these tests, as an opportunity to try out different strategies for exam writing and just get used to the fact pattern format with no downside risk. It was clear that they did not feel the freedom to use the practice tests in any of these ways - they were fixated on the need to get good marks so as not to jeopardize their job prospects.
What I said to them, in a deliberately provocative fashion I admit, was that I thought the first year class should enter into a collective pact that everyone would claim straight A's on the practice exams, since that way it would be obvious that it couldn't be true and the firms would get the message that it is destructive to the learning environment of first year to rely on these results as the firms appear to do, and would stop asking for them in future. It should have been clear - indeed it is clear that this is how my students understood it - that this was suggested as a political protest strategy and not as an individual stategy to gain advantage over one's classmates. I meant simply to bring home to the students the tension between the internal purpose of the tests and the external uses to which they are being put and to encourage the students not to lose sight of the real, educational function of the tests because of their inappropriate use by others. It is unfortunate if some students have taken advantage of our decision to continue to treat these results as unofficial, but I have a feeling that anyone who was capable of using this for personal advantage didn't need any help from me in realizing that the opportunity was there.
I don't think the issue here is whether some students lied, since this opportunity has always been there and has undoubtedly been taken in the past, but rather the increasing anxiety amongst students about jockeying for position in the job market to the point that it interferes with their ability to learn that is simply manifesting itself this year in these rumours about widespread lying..
I hope this clarifies things.
Denise
There are several relevant points with respect to this correspondence, including, but not limited to the following:
- Professor Reaume was never notified that she was entitled to meet with the Dean, have representation, etc., as outlined in the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters when contacted about the students' alleged statements;
- following this exchange of correspondence, and prior to February 18, 2001, there were at least two faculty meetings and several meetings of the "Course Assignments Committee" (a.k.a. the Executive Committee); during this period, there was never an allegation raised against Professor Reaume;
- Professor Reaume was never contacted by the Dean to further discuss the contents of her e-mail correspondence, or the contents of the law school news article (in Ultra Vires), nor were any of the steps mandated by the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters put into play, although there was ample opportunity to do so prior to releasing information to the media;
- On Sunday, February 18, 2001, the "Course Assignments Committee", chaired by the Dean of the Law School, again met; it was determined that an expeditious investigation of the issues take place; the Dean requested the Provost establish such a process by letter dated February 19, 2001. Further, on or about February 18, 2001, the Dean of the Law School notified the national media that such a process would begin at the University and deliberately and with malice named Professor Reaume as the faculty member to be investigated. The Dean of the Law School, however, made essentially no effort to contact Professor Reaume prior to her leaving for a law conference in Britain -- a conference the Dean was well aware of and aware of the fact that Professor Reaume would be attending.
- On February 20, 2001, the University administration posted a statement on its web site stating "law professor Denise Reaume may have played a role [in the law students misrepresenting their grades in applications to law firms]"; further statements appeared in all major newspapers from the University administration, including the Vice-Provost, following this period of time referring to an investigation which could result in discipline up to and including termination, not only harming Professor Reaume's reputation, but clearly breaching Articles 5 and 9 of the Memorandum.
- The University administration has proposed an Investigation Committee whose terms are not foreseen by any policy that has been negotiated between the parties nor previously in practice at the University.
|