The President’s Response

The President’s Response to my Criticisms of the Investigation

Rather than examining the report to see whether my criticisms were justified, the President turned on me, accusing me of making serious personal allegations against a specific member of the Dean’s office. I informed the President that I had not made personal allegations against anyone, a fact that would be clear to him if he reread my letter. The strange twist here is that it is the President who identified the key player from the Dean’s office in this matter by naming a specific individual.

Up to this point, the president and I had been corresponding by email without the involvement of other individuals. The President did three things to make the issue more public. (1) He began to copy his emails to me to other administrators. (2) He falsely accused me of having made “very serious allegations” against a particular individual, and he made that charge against me to senior administrators and to members of the Dean’s office. (3) He reported me to the Board Chair.

Curiously, the President’s concern that I had made “very serious allegations” against a particular individual (when I had not), stands in sharp contrast to the President’s own action, for the President showed no restrain himself in making very serious (and false) allegations about me, and in making such false allegations about me to senior administrators who could affect my career. Further, he did not apologize to me or withdraw his statements when I pointed out to him that his charges were false.

The President’s primary concern seemed to be to criticize me for criticizing the Dean’s office and for pointing out the inadequacies in the report that the President had commissioned. I can only conclude that the President was taking such actions to silence or discredit me and to remove attention from the primary matter at hand. The serious matter of the inadequacy of the investigation and the possibility of a misrepresentation to students by the Dean’s office are not addressed in the President’s response to my critique of the investigation—nor have they been addressed to this date.

QUESTION: Is it the routine policy of the administration of the University of Lethbridge to mute the force of criticism of administrative conduct by attempting to discredit critics of the administration, as it has done in my case, or is my case an anomaly?

— Tom Robinson

The University of Lethbridge


PAGE  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
1   2   3   4   5