>Subject: apology to Ann Clark
>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:28:49 EST
Lester, I think you inadvertantly left out the apology you mentioned so I
have composed one which the University can use free of charge and without
copyright ;>) Mike Miller
APOLOGY To Ann Clark
Dear Ann,
We, Rob McLaughlin, Dean of the Agriculture College and Doug Powell both
employed by the publicly funded University of Guelph, do publicly apologize
for questioning your integrity and motivation when you publicly expressed
an opinion that differs from our own.
We realize that for a University to have credibility and continued public
support, the public must feel that the University is fair and open-minded
especially on controversial matters which are the subject of current
debate. We realize the corporate funding, which we were seeking to enhance
for our department, brings about censorship. We also realize censorship is
an anathema to the very intellectual intergrity we accused you of violiating.
We promise in the future to accept the Public Will expressed in the funding
level granted our University and will eschew corprate funding of our
operations. When more funding is needed, we promise to work throught the
political process to aquire public funds for the operation of our University.
Sincerely,
. >GUELPH PROFESSOR OWED A PUBLIC APOLOGY
>Monday February 14, 2000
>The Toronto Star
>A15
>Karen Wendling, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of
>Guelph, writes that in a Feb. 4 letter, Iain Campbell, provost and the
>vice-president (academic) at the University of Guelph, says: "Along with the
>right of academic freedom ... there comes responsibility," which includes
>that professors "indicate that (their) degrees and subsequent expertise lie
>in a particular field"
>Campbell was also cited as saying that "the word 'unethical' was not the
>best choice of words" on the part of dean of agriculture Rob McLaughlin, who
>criticized professor Ann Clark for her paper arguing that the research on
>the safety of genetically engineered foods listed on Health Canada's Web
>site is inadequate (University dismisses modified food study, Jan. 19)
>Let's apply Campbell's reasoning to his and McLaughlin's statements. Are
>they speaking about matters in their own areas of expertise?
>In particular, are they qualified to say what constitutes "academic
>freedom," "(academic) responsibility" or "unethical" behaviour on the part
>of professors?
>These are ethical and political judgements. Do either Campbell or
>McLaughlin have degrees or expertise in the areas of ethics, applied ethics
>or political philosphy?
>In a democratic society, professors have a right as citizens to voice thier
>concerns about issues that affect the public. Clark has every right to use
>her university affiliation on her paper - as, by the way, Campbell did in
>his leter, and McLaughlin did in The Star's Jan. 19 article.
>Wendling says she wishes the University of Guelph and its administrators
>would acknowledge this and they owe Clark a clear and public apology.
>
>
>
>
>... AND HERE IT IS
>Monday February 14, 2000
>The Toronto Star
>A15
>Rob McLaughlin, Dean, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph
>writes that the University of Guelph Faculty Association has asked that I
>respond publicly to issues raised by the Jan. 19 article, University
>Dismisses Modified Food Study. My concern was not, and is not, with
>professor Ann Clark's opinion of Canada's food regulatory system.
>Every citizen of Canada is entitled to his or her opinion and every
>professosr at Guelph has the right, through academic freedom, to make his or
>her views on any topic freely known without fear of recrimination from
>university administration.
>My comment about Clark's "unethical" behaviour was not prompted by the
>nature of her remarks, where she made them, to whom they were directed nor
>to the fact that she made them at all. The issue for me does not relate to
>her academic freedom. Rather, my comments referred to a perception that she
>might not have adequately identified her area of expertise or made it clear
>that her opinions and research did not represent the university.
>Issues surrounding genetically modified foods and the Canadian regulatory
>system are extremely critical to Canada's future ability to participate in a
>global marketplace.
>It is absolutely imperative that those of us from universities who engage in
>this debate do so fairly and with full disclosure. This is a responsibility
>that comes with the privilege of academic freedom.
>Nevertheless, McLaughlin says he owes Clark an apology. Use of the word
>"unethical" was inappropriate. He well understands that his comments could
>be perceived by her and others to challenge her academic freedom, and this
>was most surely not my intent.
>It was also inappropriate for me to convey my concerns through the press. I
>recognize that, as a member of our academic community, I have a duty to
>follow university policies and, McLaughlin says, he was wrong to comment
>publicly
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:00:25 EST