The letter presented below from Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum “answers” my short formal note of May 26^th about the censoring of information by The Reporter. She is trying very hard to defend the editor with very questionable credentials (http://www.spop.addr.com/w0.htm), but it looks quite fishy. It seems that too many “networked motives” are behind this. Please pay attention in the texts below toward the presented general problem of “palestinization of the people at McGill” with the two first almost totally forgotten McGill’s martyrs committing suicide not long ago. Let’s support the eventual McGill Senate voting to erect a memory plaque for these academics that were so brutally treated at McGill with a triumphing subculture of influence and money that starts more often to oppress true honesty, knowledge and respect for human dignity.

- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -

Letter from Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum:

July 21^st, 2003

Mr. Slawomir Poplawski

Technician

Mining, Metals and Materials

Department of Engineering

Dear Mr. Poplawski,

Thank you for your e-mail of May 26^th. I regret the delay in responding to you.

Your note expressed the concern that all members of McGill’s community uphold the highest possible standard of integrity and I share that view. One of my roles as Principal is to encourage open discussion based on facts and good judgment.

The McGill Reporter is the faculty and staff newspaper. My Office does not determine its content in any way. The Reporter regularly publishes a sampling of its letters to the Editor but is not in a position to print every letter received, or to respond to all of those who submit them.

I understand that Ms. Maeve Haldane was appointed Editor thanks to her talents and solid work record. I see no reasons to doubt her credentials. The University Relations Office has assured me that Ms. Haldane has, in this specific case, replied to your letter at her earliest convenience.

I further understand that you’ve brought your concern to the Quebec Press Council and that they have reviewed your concerns. Thank you for your taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Professor Heather Munroe-Blum

- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - -- - -- - -- -- - -- -- - - -- - - - - -

This letter is still not answered:

August 9^th, 2003 (This letter replaces a letter of August7^th , 2003)

Principal and Vice-Chancellor - Professor Heather Munroe-Blum

McGill University

845 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H3A 2T5 Fax: 398-4768

Dear Professor Heather Munroe-Blum,

Thank you for your letter of July 21^st, 2003 (delivered on August 6^th) referring to my short formal note of May 26^th about the censoring of information by The Reporter.

In fact, I sent two other letters to you from March and June of this year that remain unanswered. They raised more important problems than that of the peculiar behaviour of Ms. Haldane as the Reporter's editor.

It is good that you have a good opinion about her credentials, but it does not fully resonate with this e-mail where I was saying that "Ms. Haldane replaced the previous editor who was known for his integrity ... and that her job is of a much lower quality". If you want to be consistent in protecting the current editor it would be advantageous to be able to compare her performance with that of the previous editor, who is now totally silenced at McGill. At this moment it would be helpful to refer to the questionable behaviour of Vice-principal Mr. Yalovsky, and indeed I will raise concerns about his abusive reaction once more. He was very aggressive to my departmental chair after my words about the McGill’s establishment teaching us the art of “outsmarting others” were being spread around. You can only imagine how furious he was when The Reporter published my latest letter to that effect, which indeed also silenced me in this paper since 2001. The true but obscured power of McGill’s financial king (Yalovsky) is truly overwhelming.

You state that Ms. Haldane "replied to (my) letter at her earliest convenience." However, let us not forget that she replied only a few hours after I sent a formal complaint to you wherein I “insisted on (her) reply to my communication.” I received a reply from her last year in exactly the same circumstances, after I had informed Mr. Shapiro of her questionable manners. In the all other cases she has never replied. Is it normal to receive “answers” from the editor only after complaining to the Principals?

Yes, there is something fundamentally wrong at McGill University if only these extreme interventions are effective. Instead of cultivating creative human dialogue we see the cult of influence and arrogance introduced into academia. In this situation, only by showing determination can the ignored members of the McGill staff eventually solve some of their problems. However, it is a “suicidal strategy” on a longer perspective, if we take into account, for example, their further chances to be promoted or have their contracts renewed. It is not surprising that the majority of people feel cornered, and the growing incidence of depression at McGill (http://spop.addr.com/WEBDEPR.html and N.B. not printed by The Reporter) confirms this all too well. Also, only a few of your court enjoy a constant increase of their salaries or perks, while the rest are ever more exploited. As a result, a more visible wall between “they” and “us” is emerging in our community.

This situation represents a perfect model to analyse, in what is still a relatively quiet social environment, the concept of the “palestinization of the people” that was publicly introduced in the my open letter to Mr. Shapiro in November 2002. It seems that it almost perfectly reflects similar processes around the world, which why Google (a web searching engine) now recognizes this way of interpretation in its first five entries. Let me at this moment humbly dedicate this expression to a memory of two hard working McGill scientists who together committed suicide after the Gazette served slavishly certain sort of McGill establishment networked with the media by publishing an anonymous letter some years ago. The letter was obviously written by some parasitic academics preferring dirty politics instead of being hard working and humble in their University environment. They were obviously envious about the relatively young couple’s strong scientific achievements in a free territory of science. They cowardly hid behind an anonymous letter (The Gazette still swears to their devil god that it does not know the authors, but cannot answer why it was published as it is against their policy to publish anonymously) and accused them of conducting some experiments without asking patients for permission to use some data for their research regarding the patients’ medical treatment in the hospital clinic.

It reminds me very closely of a situation of poor protesting boys shot from armoured vehicles by soldiers who only want to get rid of these people and posses their territories. I hope to witness one day the McGill Senate voting to erect a memory plaque for these academics who were so brutally treated in the building in which they were working. They are our first martyrs to the nasty policies of palestinization gradually introduced into McGill by the corrupting forces of … that are similarly humiliating people in the change to globalization.

McGill now plays a very important role in articulating this problem on a more intellectual platform and can be proud to expose clearly to the world these processes of the Palestinization of the people. It is still timely since:

1) Ms. Haldane, a neophyte editor at McGill, with her servile bending to power (and money) represented by the people at your level as well as manifest arrogance toward the lowest level workers, is already beginning to mimic not only The Gazette but even more Mr. Asper,

1a) And exactly the same situation exists in the nation’s media with its hundreds of enslaved journalists,

2) Mr. Bernard Shapiro from McGill University publicly promotes an anonymous student's letter denouncing a professor. The editor, in the decision not to publish my critical remarks, appears to accept this act as normal nowadays, even when perpetrated by a University official. Only secrecy with the acts of denunciations magnifying the influence of money and power are celebrated at McGill.

2a) Similarly, the forces of globalization encourage anonymous informers with astronomically high rewards. This comes along with invasions of the weakest countries after twisting information in the monopolized media and devaluing human dignity, while simultaneously boosting the importance of their money in many dimensions of our lives.

3) You, Prof. Monroe-Blum, come to this university accompanied with a very expensive spectacle and secretly increased salary alike a celebrity. We are forced to accept that it raises the market value of this university, but we are not allowed to question devaluating academic independence, honor and the principles or even only minor aspects of the wasted money for this never ending circus.

3a) Similarly the media and the puppet governments controlled by the arrogant financial echelon are very enthusiastic when announcing on the front page news about the new giants created by noisy fusions, but omit to mention our shrinking independence and the dangerously growing social polarization.

Prof. Monroe-Blum, it is not true to say that “Your (my) note expressed the concern that all members of McGill’s community uphold the highest possible standard of integrity” because I was only writing to you about Ms. Haldane and didn’t use these pathetic words. We must be aware that when more pathetic we are, the more untrue our declarations are.

For me, respecting our own dignity when recognizing others as equal human beings is enough to secure a healthy social environment in our University.

Prof. Monroe-Blum, I have severe doubts about your true intentions behind this letter when reading your last two sentences: “I further understand that you’ve brought your concern to the Quebec Press Council and that they have reviewed your concerns. Thank you for taking the time to write.” This issue was never mentioned in my short e-mail of May 26^th. It seems that you are motivated by information received from someone around you about the preliminary verdict that was supposed to be final in the middle of July. Yes, this sentence was supporting The McGill Reporter but due to some procedural infringements I was able to extend the 30 days time for appealing until August 8, and my appeal questioning many basic issues is being just submitted. In this situation receiving your answer after over two months with this final reference can be easy to understand. However, it also indicates that you do not want the previous letter or the last one about “Senate.doc debate” to be published.

Are you sure that “My Office does not determine its (Reporter) content in any way”?

Sincerely,

Slawomir Poplawski

- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --- - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -

The two mentioned above letters that were not answered by Dr. H. M.-B before – see the first at: (http://www.spop.addr.com/blum.htm) and the second one below:

Montreal in June 17, 2003

Att: Ms. Maeve Haldane and as cc. to: Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum heather.munroe.blum@mcgill.ca

and Dr. Bernard Shapiro bernard.shapiro@mcgill.ca

Hi Ms. Haldane,

The only way to get an answer from you, Ms. Haldane, seems to be to complain about your questionable behavior to our principals. Mr. Shapiro answered my letter directly. The present principal, Dr. H.M.-Blum, at least seems to be encouraging you to send me an answer after receiving my letter of May 25^th. Unfortunately, both principals seem to accept your ambiguous responses, in which you admit a possibility of publishing my suspended texts but don't follow through, at face value. They are fully aware of your position on publishing opinions uncomfortable to them and pretend not to know about your consistent censorship.

Perhaps this support from higher up has contributed to your ever more censorious editorial policy. Last year you said in an email that you could run even a text you received a few hours before printing on Wednesday/Thursday night in the Reporter. However, the letter that was the subject of the email was not published either in that edition or in the next issues. Now even two full days are not enough for you to add a shorter text about Mrs. Blum's patronizing and manipulative treatment of the Senate. By arguing, "(my) letter arrived too close to publishing time for me to consider including it” you avoid making a commitment to publish the text in the next Reporter. I received emails in those cases, I suspect, because the principals were formally informed that I had sent letters. You ignored completely two letters (November 2002 and March 2003) aimed for publishing in the Reporter. However, in those cases the principals were not informed formally about your “printing problems” (this explains why I'm now sending this letter to their attention as well).

One year ago Principal Shapiro canvassed the entire McGill community for anonymous letters. This year you have gone further: in the last Reporter you even asked us to use this doubtful social form of communication by preference! Anonymity should not be necessary in a democracy. Rather, it is often used as an instrument of social control: it is assumed that anonymous letters represent a more inclusive segment of the population, when in fact it represents only those who are motivated by the promise that their opinions will not be backed up by their identities. As a result this practice creates a class of "shy" people (your euphemism) who are afraid to express their opinions publicly: that is, non-citizens. Why should the McGill community be afraid to make their opinions public? Do they fear repercussions from the administration? If so, surely the administration's job is to root out this fear, not to reinforce it by soliciting anonymous contributions.

On the contrary, the administration is working especially hard to make us feel shy at McGill. The latest treatment of dissenting Senate members and TAs that I mentioned in my previous letter (¹) confirms this trend. The professors were too "shy" to defend their right to presenting their own opinions in Senate. Similarly, individual TAs were too shy to complain about their $16/h salary rate -- but exactly at the same time the Carleton University TAs were not shy to demand and get $30/h from their previous rate of $29/h.

So far, Ms. Haldane, your biggest achievement as chief editor seems to be having created a class of "shy” readers of the Reporter. Further, only articles glorifying the administration are published -- certainly nothing critical. There is a sharp contrast with the previous editorial policies before your promotion to chief editor. The foregoing are only examples that illustrate the repressive treatment of the workers and students at McGill. In this situation we should loudly say that nobody should feel shy to present his or her own opinions, at least not at McGill University!

Ms. Haldane, you must understand that I have nothing personal against you and I see you only as a victim of the process of intellectual polarization (²) that has occurred at McGill. Either you are on the side of the administration or you are not. Instead of a unique University that respects individual approaches, McGill is treated as a corporation of human knowledge where only standardized thoughts are promoted. These processes take place for a reason: they ensure McGill's profitable growth and the repression of professors' opinions as required by a market economy, which needs subjects without bones. It seems that you, Ms. Haldane, play here the very important role of “kapo” on behalf of the despotic local rulers. The poor people named as “kapo” were the representatives of the prisoners in concentration camps, chosen from among their number. The Nazis thus gave the imprisoned (³) informers (kapos) power over other prisoners of the system. They were the key figures in securing control of the concentration camps over 60 years ago. Today we have many kapos as presidents, prime ministers, CEOs and editors who slavishly serve the hidden forces of selfishness and greed. It is not enough for this system to “globalize” our world: more kapos are needed at the lower social levels to imprison our minds.

If this corporate supervision is maintained, soon we will not need the McLean ranking. Instead, a new ranking is emerging: a university's status will be determined by the size of its budget. Only the corporate-oriented university administrations can secure more money. The corporate orientation in turn attracts the children of important and rich parents whose corporations will be even more willing to cooperate. The same processes involve the alumni, whose souls are already sold to the forces of globalization. Their generous help can often lead to our growing dependence on money, media, politics and legislatures. Today, these strategic elements of social life are closely networked into a relatively small number of representatives, who are obsessed with the desire to rule the majority. The universities, which should stay as isolated as possible from these influences as havens for deeper and independent reflections, represent a key element in this chain of complex changes aimed to imprison our minds.

So, let's observe your reactions carefully, Ms. Haldane, as well as the help given you by protectors in the administration supervised today directly by Dr. H.M.-Blum. I assume your full participation in evaluating McGill as a social experiment that almost perfectly reflects the "modern world.”

Yours sincerely,

Slawomir Poplawski

P.S. It is very symbolic that the latest McGill deficit calculated and presented at the last Senate by Dr. Yalovsky of about $300,000 would be more than perfectly balanced minus the present principal’s salary.

(¹) – censored on May 27, 2003 text that describes the blocked discussion about TAs strikes by the Principal

(²) – also called "palestinization" -- this term was introduced in November 2002 in the censored text describing the first lavishly organized seminar at McGill.

(³) – those with already imprisoned minds do not feel ashamed to agree to censor information and read anonyms.

Cc. to: Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum heather.munroe.blum@mcgill.ca

and Dr. Bernard Shapiro bernard.shapiro@mcgill.ca

- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- ------ - ------ ------------------------------ -------------------------

This is the only letter that our Principal has chosen to answer:

May 26, 2003
 
e-mail: heather.munroe.blum@mcgill.ca
 
Dear Dr. Munroe-Blum,
Please find enclosed a letter (Senate.doc) that was delivered to Ms. M.Haldane (Editor) and to Mr. M. Reynolds (the author of an article about The Senate's meeting on April 30). Not only has the letter not been published, I have received no answer from them.
 
Ms. Haldane replaced the previous editor (who was known for his integrity) soon after the public announcement of your nomination on April 15, 2002. This incident goes to confirm the already significant evidence that Ms. Haldane's behavior is questionable and that her work is of a much lower quality.
 
I hope that as the new McGill Principal you will share my concerns about censorship and undemocratic methods of work in The Reporter. As a member of the McGill community I expect a democratic forum for my views. While I recognize that not every letter can be published, on the mere ordinary grounds of good editorial practice I have reason to insist on a reply to my communication. I expect your direct intervention into these matters, as McGill's internal and external good reputation is at stake. I also hope that you find my letter as needed for publishing. However, if some “dark forces” around you are making it to be difficult, please, be sure of having soon or latter a full support – “that this University will be open to our idealism!”
 
Sincerely,
 
Slawomir Poplawski
 
P.S. Please send me your answer by mail or e-mail.

P.P.S. The enclosed letter (senate.doc) for publishing in The Reporter has 387 words and is about 100 words shorter from the previous version that was delivered to Ms.Haldane in the last long weekend.