Skip to content

Allan Rock, “Why do you refuse to answer?”

April 5, 2012

From: Hazel Gashoka
To: Allan Rock
Cc: Members of Senate
Date: April 5, 2012
Subject: A Travesty of Justice

Dear President Allan Rock,

On March 13, I asked you to permit public observation of your sworn testimony over your decision to use student tuition money and government money to fund one side of a private lawsuit (the St. Lewis v. Rancourt case).

On March 15, after not receiving a reply from you, Mr. Joseph Hickey and I duly submitted a formal motion to the University of Ottawa Senate for the Senate to take a position in favour of public observation of your sworn testimony.  That meeting was cancelled by the Vice-President of Governance and yourself, and our motion was illegitimately barred from being heard by the Senate, you, and the Vice-President of Governance.

On March 28, Mr. Hickey brought a formal Motion to Intervene to the Ontario Superior Court in order to argue in favour of public observation of your cross-examination in the case.  Following the judge’s decision not to permit Mr. Hickey to intervene, the University’s lawyer, Peter Doody, and the Plaintiff’s lawyer, Richard Dearden (who is payed by the University) submit costs outlines to Mr. Hickey in the amount of $ 5,326.98.

Mr. Rock, I am simply asking to observe your testimony about your decision to use student and government money in this way.  Why do you refuse to answer?  Why do you choose instead to punish a student for participation in university governance using an outrageous demand for legal fees?

As student representative to Senate, I am appalled by your persistent decisions as President to block transparency and stultify student participation in university governance.

Will you withdraw your outrageous costs demand and apologize to the student community?

Please respond immediately.

Sincerely,

Ms. Hazel Gashoka
President, Kilimanjaro Black Student Association
Undergraduate Student Representative to Senate, Faculty of Social Sciences

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. you reap what you spam permalink
    April 5, 2012 10:16 pm

    Is this the same Hazel Gashoka claimed to also run your other blog site dedicated to this lawsuit? Not exactly independent or unbiased, don’t you think? Wasn’t this originally a defamation lawsuit against a fired former professor for posting a racially offensive slur against another professor? From all these other posts, you might almost forget that. Or is that the point of this blog now – selective posts and ignoring comments that don’t support your view? Is this blog about actual fair journalism (that’s what you claimed in another post – you are a student media reporter) or just a forum for taunting and propaganda? Its hard to tell anymore, but lately its been looking more like the latter, don’t you think?

    • April 5, 2012 11:20 pm

      For argument sake, lets assume that you are correct that I, Hazel Gashoka, am biased. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? In other words, your statement is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is whether what I am saying is true or false.

      Moreover, the defamation lawsuit was a smoke screen for the real issue: institutional oppression that is racism.

      Regards,
      Hazel

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: