Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada)
Dov Bai-MSI Visitor
with any of the events, I am just forwarding it
---------------------------- cut here -----------------------
From CCY...@vax2.concordia.ca Thu Aug 20 08:19:43 1992
Received: from Clyde.Concordia.CA by poly.math.cornell.edu (4.1/1.5)
id AA03821; Thu, 20 Aug 92 08:19:30 EDT
Received: from vax2.concordia.ca by Clyde.Concordia.CA id aa00312;
20 Aug 92 12:14 GMT
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:44 EDT
From: CCY...@vax2.concordia.ca
Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada)
To: baar...@math.mtu.EDU, la...@cs.uchicago.EDU, bab...@math.ucla.EDU,
fa...@nmumus.bitnet, bacc...@itopoli.bitnet, ba...@cs.wisc.EDU,
bach...@mts.cc.wayne.EDU, mi...@ibm2.mi.uni-koeln.DE,
bac...@nevada.EDU, gba...@ucsd.EDU, sba...@ucsd.EDU,
bad...@math.berkeley.EDU, ba...@ccf3.nrl.navy.mil,
jb...@lucy.wellesley.EDU, bag...@math.berkeley.EDU,
00ks...@bsuvax1.bitnet, bag...@boulder.colorado.EDU,
f...@gwuvm.bitnet, bag...@bcvms.bitnet, ba...@rider.bitnet,
bahr...@mdc.COM, b...@math.cornell.edu, al...@cunyvm.bitnet,
dba...@trinity.EDU, dwba...@amherst.bitnet,
jba...@aegis-dahlgren.nswc.navy.MIL, dba...@nas.nasa.GOV,
bai...@ee.umn.EDU, jo...@buenga.bitnet, ba...@zaphod.uchicago.EDU,
bb...@conncoll.bitnet, gam...@cms.gla.ac.uk,
cba...@iusmail.ius.indiana.EDU, g...@shape.mps.ohio-state.EDU,
i.n....@ma.ic.ac.UK, pm1...@pa.shef.ac.uk, k...@math.ucla.EDU,
ba...@nemo.math.okstate.EDU, bak...@ncsuche.bitnet,
bal...@frensl61.bitnet, kil...@auducvax.bitnet, bal...@math.ruu.NL,
ba...@gmr.COM
Message-Id: <E54C15C9...@Vax2.Concordia.CA>
X-Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
X-Envelope-To: b...@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu, bil...@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu
X-Vms-To: @B.LST
Status: R
Dear Colleague:
The events which I want you to tell about are so outrageous, that one should
see it to believe. There will be several mailings with facts and documents.
I have little time left because on August 25 I will be in jail for contenpt
of court, so I need to do the mailing really fast. I have no time for editing
so everything will be mailed exactly as it was distributed originally
in Montreal.
I raise question of "scientific prostitution". The main difference
between scientific prostitution and "honorary authorship" is that in the first
case a completely bogus scientist, not capable of doing any research, hires
somebody from developing countries or USSR by using governmental grant.
This someone does research in which the parasite supervisor is included as
co-author. The more publications this parasite accumulates, the greater grant
he gets, the more people he can hire, the more publications he gets, etc.
M.N.S. Swamy is Dean of Engineering at Concordia, and classical example of
such parasite. The second parasite of same kind is T.S.Sankar, who is President
of Canadian society of Mechanical Engineering. I have included him in 35
publications, in which he did not understand a word. For as long as I know
him, he has not written a single paper himself.
I have filed a lawsuit against these two parasites, and since they have
nothing to say about the merit of the matter, they filed a motion to put me
in jail for contempt of court, this way they can get rid of me, and I shall
not be able to fight the battle. I need your help. Speak up. The rector's
e-mail address is pgr...@garnet.concordia.ca.
Thank you for your support, V.I. Fabrikant
Appendix
Here is the list of my latest publications. Please disregard mutiple
authorship. Everything was written solely by me.
BOOK CONTRIBUTIONS
1. V.I. Fabrikant, \it/[Mixed Boundary Value Problems of Potential
Theory and their Applications in Engineering].
Kluwer Academic, 1991. (450 pages).
2. V.I. Fabrikant, \it/[Applications of Potential Theory in Mechanics].
\it/[Selection of New Results.] Kluwer Academic, 1989. (480 pages).
3. V.I. Fabrikant, \it/[Mathematical Problems of Fracture]. Article in
the English translation
of Soviet Mathematical Encyclopaedia. Kluwer Academic, Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 90-91.
4. V.I. Fabrikant, Complete Solutions to Some Mixed Boundary Value
Problems in Elasticity.
\it/[Advances in Applied Mechanics], Academic Press, Vol. 27, 1989, pp. 153-223.
LIST OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS
1. V.I. Fabrikant, General contact problem for a circular annulus.
\it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik],
accepted for publication, 1992.
2. V.I. Fabrikant, Dirichlet problem for an annular disc.
\it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik],
accepted for publication, 1992.
3. V.I. Fabrikant, Mixed boundary value problem of potential theory in
toroidal coordinates.
\it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik],
Vol. 42, 1991, pp. 680-707.
4. V.I. Fabrikant, Neumann problem for an annular disc.
\it/[International Journal of Engineering Science], Vol. 29, 1991,
pp. 1425-1431.
5. V.I. Fabrikant, Non-Axisymmetric Annular Punch Problem.
\it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 58, 1991, pp. 947-953.
6. V.I. Fabrikant, Non-Axisymmetric Normal Load on an Annular Crack.
\it/[Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics],
Vol. 15, 1991, pp. 229-236.
7. V.I. Fabrikant, Internal Circular Crack under Normal Antisymmetric Loading.
\it/[Archive of Applied Mechanics (Ingenieur Archiv)], Vol. 61, 1991, pp. 2-17.
8. V.I. Fabrikant, An Arbitrary Tangential Load under a Smooth Punch.
\it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 57, 1990. pp. 596-599.
9. V.I. Fabrikant,
Inclined Circular Punch Bonded to a Transversely Isotropic Half-Space.
\it/[ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics], Vol. 116, 1990, pp. 1599-1617.
10. V.I. Fabrikant, Axisymmetric Bonded Punch Problem: a Complete Solution.
\it/[Ingenieur Archiv], Vol. 60, 1990, pp. 213-224.
11. V.I. Fabrikant, External Circular Crack under Concentrated Antisymmetric
Loading. \it/[International Journal of Solids and Structures],
accepted for publication, 1990.
12. V.I. Fabrikant, Interaction of a normal load with a bonded circular punch.
\it/[ Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General],
Vol. 23, 1990, pp. 285-298.
13. V.I. Fabrikant, Analytical Approach to Some Non-classical Elastic
Contact and Crack Problems.
\it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik],
Vol. 69, 1989, pp. 415-418.
14. V.I. Fabrikant, Elastic Half-space, with Several Domains Subjected
to Tangential Displacements.
\it/[Ingenieur Archiv], Vol. 60, 1989, pp. 73-82.
15. V.I. Fabrikant, Flat Crack under Shear Loading. \it/[Acta Mechanica],
Vol. 78, 1989, pp. 1-31.
16. V.I. Fabrikant, Reissner-Sagoci Problem for Non-classical Domains.
\it/[Ingenieur Archiv], Vol. 59, 1989, pp. 422-433.
17. V.I. Fabrikant, Close Interaction of Coplanar Circular Cracks under
Shear Loading. \it/[Computational Mechanics], Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 181-197.
18. V.I. Fabrikant, Elastic Field around a Circular Punch.
\it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 55, 1988, pp. 604-610.
19. V.I. Fabrikant, Potential of Several Arbitrarily Located Discs.
\it/[Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series B],
Vol. 29, 1988, pp. 342-351.
20. V.I. Fabrikant, Sound Penetration through an Arbitrarily Shaped
Aperture in a Soft Screen: Analytical Approach.
\it/[Journal of Sound and Vibration], Vol. 121, 1988, pp. 1-12.
21. V.I. Fabrikant, Green's Functions for a Penny-Shaped Crack under
Normal Loading.
\it/[Engineering Fracture Mechanics], Vol. 30, 1988, pp. 87-104.
22. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, Singularities at Angular Points
in Elastic Contact Problems.
\it/[Communications in Applied Numerical Methods], Vol. 4, 1988,
pp. 173-178.
23. V.I. Fabrikant, Penny-Shaped Crack Revisited: Closed Form Solutions.
\it/[Philosophical Magazine A], Vol. 56, 1987, pp. 191-207.
24. V.I. Fabrikant, Flat Crack of Arbitrary Shape in an Elastic Space.
\it/[Philosophical Magazine A], Vol.56, 1987, pp. 175-189.
25. V.I. Fabrikant, Mixed Problems of Potential Theory in Spherical
Coordinates.
\it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik],
Vol. 67, 1987, pp. 507-518.
26. V.I. Fabrikant, Electrostatic Problem of Several Arbitrarily
Charged Unequal Coaxial Discs.
\it/[Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics],
Vol. 18, 1987, pp. 129-147.
27. V.I. Fabrikant, The Stress Intensity Factor for an External
Elliptical Crack. \it/[International Journal of Solids and Structures],
Vol. 23, 1987, pp. 465-467.
28. V.I. Fabrikant, Close Interaction of Coplanar Circular Cracks in
an Elastic Medium.
\it/[Acta Mechanica], Vol. 67, 1987, pp. 39-59.
29. V.I. Fabrikant, Frictionless elastic contact problem for a curved
rigid punch of
arbitrary shape. \it/[Acta Mechanica], Vol. 67, 1987, pp. 1-25.
30. V.I. Fabrikant, Closed Form Solution to Some Mixed Boundary Value
Problems for a Charged Sphere.
\it/[Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series B],
Vol. 28, 1987, pp. 296-309.
31. V.I. Fabrikant, Magnetic Polarizability of Small Apertures:
Analytical Approach. \it/[ Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General],
Vol. 20, 1987, pp. 323-338.
32. V.I. Fabrikant, Diffusion through Perforated Membranes.
\it/[Journal of Applied Physics], Vol. 61, 1987, pp. 813-816.
33. V.I. Fabrikant, Electrical Polarizability of Small Apertures:
Analytical Approach.
\it/[International Journal of Electronics], Vol. 62, 1987, pp. 533-545.
34. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, An Algorithm for Geometrical Modeling
of Surfaces of Revolution.
\it/[Computers and Graphics], Vol. 10, 1986, pp. 245-255.
35. V.I. Fabrikant Flat Punch of Arbitrary Shape on an Elastic Half-Space.
\it/[International Journal of Engineering Science],
Vol. 24, 1986, pp. 1731-1740.
36. V.I. Fabrikant, Sound Transmission through an Arbitrarily Shaped
Aperture in a Rigid Screen: Analytical Approach.
\it/[Journal of Sound and Vibration], Vol. 111, 1986, pp. 489-498.
37. V.I. Fabrikant, Inclined Flat Punch of Arbitrary Shape on an
Elastic Half-Space.
\it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 53, 1986, pp. 798-806.
38. V.I. Fabrikant, Sound Penetration through an Arbitrarily Shaped
Aperture in a Rigid Screen:
Analytical determination of the quadratic terms in low-frequency expansion.
\it/[Journal of the Acoustical Society of America], Vol. 50, 1986,
pp. 1438-1446.
39. V.I. Fabrikant, Computer Evaluation of Singular Integrals and their
Applications.
\it/[International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering],
Vol. 23, 1986, pp. 1439-1453.
40. V.I. Fabrikant, Exact Solutions to Some External Mixed Problems
in Potential Theory.
\it/[Aplikace Matematiky], Vol. 31, 1986, pp. 224-246.
41. V.I. Fabrikant, Inverse Crack Problem in Elasticity.
\it/[Acta Mechanica], Vol. 61, 1986, pp. 29-36.
42. V.I. Fabrikant, A New Approach to Some Problems in Potential Theory.
\it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik],
Vol. 66, 1986, pp. 363-368.
43. V.I. Fabrikant, Several Elliptical Punches on an Elastic Half-Space.
\it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 53, 1986, pp. 390-394.
44. V.I. Fabrikant, Four Types of Exact Solutions to the Problem of
an Axisymmetric Punch Bonded to a Transversely Isotropic Half-Space.
\it/[International Journal of Engineering Science], Vol. 24, 1986, pp. 785-801.
45. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S$. Sankar, and G.D. Xistris, On the Conditions
at Infinity in the External Crack Problems.
\it/[Engineering Fracture Mechanics], Vol. 23, 1986, pp. 921-924.
46. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S$. Sankar, Concentrated Force
underneath a Punch Bonded to a Transversely Isotropic Half-Space.
\it/[International Journal of Engineering Science],
Vol. 24, 1986, pp. 111-117.
47. V.I. Fabrikant, On the Capacity of Flat Laminae. \it/[Electromagnetics],
Vol. 6, 1986, pp. 117-128.
48. V.I. Fabrikant, On the Potential Flow Through Membranes.
\it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik],
Vol. 36, 1985, pp. 616-623.
49. V.I. Fabrikant, External Crack in Non-Homogeneous Elasticity.
\it/[Engineering Fracture Mechanics], Vol. 22, #5, pp. 855-858, 1985.
50. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, An Efficient Graphical Method for
CAD. \it/[Computer-Aided Design], Vol. 17, 1985, pp. 369-373.
51. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S. Sankar and V. Latinovic,
Contour Integration on the Graphics Screen and its Application in CAD/CAM.
\it/[Computer-Aided Design], Vol. 17, 1985, pp. 60-68.
52. V.I. Fabrikant, A.P.S. Selvadurai and G.D. Xistris,
Asymmetric Problem of Loading under a Smooth Punch.
\it/[Trans. ASME, Journal ]
\it/[of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 681-685.
53. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S. Sankar and V. Latinovic,
Integration on the Graphics Screen.$f=3 Trans. ASME Computers in Mechanical
Engineering $= , Vol. 3, July 1984, pp. 47-52.
54. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S. Sankar and M.N.S. Swamy,
On the Generalized Potential Problem for a Surface of Revolution.
\it/[Proc. of Amer. Math. Soc.], Vol. 90, 1984, pp. 47-56.
55. P. O. Brunn, V.I. Fabrikant, and T. S. Sankar,
Diffusion through Membranes: Effect of a Nonzero Membrane Thickness.
\it/[Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics], Vol. 37, 1984,
pp.311-324.
56. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, On Contact Problems in an
Inhomogeneous Half-Space. \it/[International ]
\it/[Journal of Solids and Structures], Vol. 20, 1984, pp. 159-166.
57. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, Punch and Crack Problems
in Transversely Isotropic Bodies.
\it/[International Journal of Engineering Science], Vol. 21, No. 7,
1983, pp. 799-811.
58. V.I. Fabrikant and L.M. Keer, The Interaction Between a System
of Circular Punches on a Nonhomogeneous
Elastic Half-Space.
\it/[International Journal of Mechanical Science],
Vol. 25, No. 7, 1983, pp. 513-518.
59.T.S. Sankar and V.I. Fabrikant, Investigations of a Two-Dimensional
Integral Equation in the Theory of
Elasticity and Electrostatics.
\it/[Journal de M\aigu/[e]canique Th\aigu/[e]orique et Appliqu\aigu/[e]e],
Vol. 2, No. 2, 1983, pp. 285-299.
60. T.S. Sankar, S.V. Hoa and V.I. Fabrikant,
Approximate Solution of Singular Integro-Differential Equations in Elastic
Contact Problems.
\it/[International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering],
Vol. 18, 1982, pp. 503-519.
61. T.S. Sankar and V.I. Fabrikant, Asymmetric Contact Problems
Including Wear for Nonhomogeneous Half-Space.
\it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 49, No. 1, 1982, pp. 43-46.
62. G.M.L. Gladwell and V.I. Fabrikant, The Interaction between a
System of Circular Punches on an Elastic Half-Space.
\it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 49, No. 2, 1982,
pp. 341-344.
63. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S. Sankar, L.M. Roytman and M.N.S. Swamy,
Closed Form Solution to the Electrostatic Potential Problem for a Spherical
Cap. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik],
Vol. 62, No. 8, 1982, pp. 383-390.
64. V.I. Fabrikant, S.V. Hoa and T.S. Sankar, On the Approximate
Solution of Singular Integral Equations.
\it/[Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering],
Vol. 29, 1981, pp. 19-33.
Dov Bai-MSI Visitor
Appendix 4
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
November 18, 1991
TO: Dr. M. N. S. Swamy, Chairman, Faculty Personnel Committee
Faculty of Engineering & Computer Science
FROM: M. O. M. Osman, Chairman, Department of Mechanical
Engineering
Re: Reappointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
I am forwarding to you the dossier of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant submitted
by him for consideration for reappointment. I am also attaching
the reasoned report containing the recommendation of the Department
Personnel Committee.
encls
cc: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
Members of Department Personnel Committee
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Department Personnel Committee (DPC) Reasoned Report
on its Recommendation concerning Reappointment of
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
Preamble:
Prior to June 1990, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant was a Research Associate
Professor hired under the program d'actions structurantes with
research as his main workload. Upon the successful completion of
d'actions structurantes program, the DPC made a positive
recommendation concerning the appointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant to
a tenure track position at the rank of Associate Professor,
effective l June 1990. The DPC's recommendation was based mainly
on Dr. Fabrikant's research performance and a limited component of
teaching. Despite this recommendation and the fact that his
previous contract of 1988 entitled him to use all his years of
service at the university towards tenure consideration, the Vice-
Rector Academic made an offer of probationary appointment with a
condition that he would be eligible for tenure consideration only
after three years of service from l June 1990. Our interpretation
of his contract is that Dr. Fabrikant's appointment as an Associate
Professor was a new appointment because the contract stated that he
was only eligible for tenure after 3 years, meaning that his
previous years of academic service in the University would not be
counted. The fact that he applied for a Faculty Research
Development Program (FRDP) grant as a new faculty researcher,
confirms that he also understood that his appointment was a new
appointment. In accepting the 1990 offer of appointment, Dr.
Fabrikant compromised on his original demands and accepted the
offer which included this major change in the condition of tenure
eligibility.
Since the time Dr. Fabrikant began his association with Concordia
University, many members of the university community have been
subjected to his allegations, offensive actions and disruptive
behavior which interfered with the normal operation of their work,
details of which are elaborated on in other parts of this report.
Further, from the time of his probationary appointment, Dr.
Fabrikant has shown a pattern of repeated attempts to evade his
teaching responsibilities, the details of which are also presented
later.
When Dr. Fabrikant was appointed in June 1990, the DPC had made its
recommendation on his previous performance which was mainly his
research activity. At this time of considering Dr. Fabrikant's
contract renewal, the DPC is assessing Dr. Fabrikant as an
educator. It should be noted that the membership of the DPC at
this time of contract renewal is the same as the membership which
made the recommendation for Dr. Fabrikant's initial probationary
appointment in June 1990.
ASSESSMENT OF DR. FABRIKANT'S PERFORMANCE FOR
HIS REAPPOINTMENT APPLICATION
For the purpose of reappointment, the DPC assessed Dr. Fabrikant as
per the collective agreement under Article 14 "Reappointment and
Promotion of Faculty."
In light of the preamble outlined above, the DPC made its
assessment based mainly on Article 14.01 and in particular on the
second paragraph which states, "The evaluation of full-time faculty
shall be based upon the consideration of professional competence
and potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities as defined
in Article 16."
Herein Dr. Fabrikant's professional competence and potential for
fulfilling academic responsibilities will be examined in detail as
follows:
l. Professional Competence:
While the professional competence of a professor not only includes
his (her) capacity to teach and to carry out research activities,
it also has bearing on his (her) ethical and moral conduct, his
(her) professionalism as an academic/educator, his (her) role model
for students to emulate, and his (her) ability to gain respect from
students, colleagues and the public. Peer judgment is the tool
with which these qualities are assessed, and the lack of these
qualities, especially if they interfere with the performance of
other members of the University and with the department in
achieving its objectives cannot be tolerated and must be seriously
taken into consideration in evaluating professional competence.
Over the past several years, Dr. Fabrikant has constantly made
allegations and harassments to many members of the University
community. The details of these are outlined as follows:
1. A letter from the then Chairman of the Department of
Mechanical Engineering to the then Vice-Rector Academic both
of whom indicated certain questionable and implied individual
behavior patterns of Dr. Fabrikant. (Exhibit #1).
2. Correspondence relating to Dr. V. Fabrikant and Manager,
Purchasing Services. (Exhibit #2.1, 2.2).
3. Additional correspondence related to the said letter in item
2. (Exhibits #3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and #4).
4. Many persons inside and outside the university have been
subjected to harassment, threats, blackmail and allegations by
Dr. Fabrikant. Many of the above persons can testify to this
statement.
5. Most recently, on October 14, 1991, Dr. Fabrikant wrote a
letter in which he accused a faculty member of using grant
funds to pay someone else to teach his assigned course.
(Exhibit #5.1, 5.2, 5.3). The faculty member concerned wrote
a letter indicating that Dr. Fabrikant lied and has committed
slander (Exhibit #6.1, 6.2).
In addition to the above, Dr. Fabrikant constantly showed bad
judgment. Following is one example (Exhibit #7). Dr. Fabrikant
wrote a letter dated October 2, 1991 to the Chairman of the
Department in which he requested to purchase release from teaching
duties, (2 courses in Dynamics for the next semester) using the
FRDP grant he recently received from the university. Upon receipt
of Dr. Fabrikant's letter of October 2, 1991, the Chairman of the
department telephoned Dr. Fabrikant and advised him to withdraw the
letter since it would reflect bad judgment on his part. Dr.
Fabrikant replied "Are you trying to scare me? I am not scared.
I wrote a letter, and I want a written reply". Later, he insisted
again and again for an apology and continued to challenge the
interpretation of the Chairman.
Dr. Fabrikant, in his continual arguments to purchase release from
teaching, wrote a memo on October 14, 1991 (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2,
5.3). This memo contained an unfounded accusation of a faculty
member paying another person from his grant to teach a course
assigned to him. Further, the memo was circulated to some members
of the department without any identification of circulator. Part
of this anonymously circulated material included a confidential
memo from the Chairman to Dr. Fabrikant (Exhibit #8). Because of
the nature of the content of the memo from Dr. Fabrikant (Exhibit
#5.1, 5.2, 5.3), and the circumstances under which this memo was
circulated, the Chairman convened a meeting (Exhibit #9) of senior
faculty members on October 25, 1991 to discuss the content of Dr.
Fabrikant's memo (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2, 5.3).
The DPC's observation of the pattern of behavior of Dr. Fabrikant
outlined above, was confirmed by a part of the motions passed in
the meeting of the senior faculty members of the department on
October 25, 1991 (Exhibit #10.1, 10.2, 10.3), which states:
". . . we perceive Dr. Fabrikant's attitude as expressed in
his . . . letter to be detrimental to the . . . spirit of
harmonious relationship between department members."
"Therefore, we strongly urge the department and the university
to stand up to such practices and to take appropriate action."
Many respected and important people from outside the University
have also been disturbed by Dr. Fabrikant's behavior. This has
tarnished the reputation of the University. This has also
interfered with the objective of the department and of the
University in projecting its image of professionalism to the
outside community.
Dr. Fabrikant has maintained that he held professorial positions in
the Soviet Union and that he was unable to get any official
documents to support his claim due to the political situation that
prevailed there all those years. Considering his lack of
professional competence described above, it is of paramount
importance that Dr. Fabrikant provide proof of his professorial
positions in the U.S.S.R. and his academic credentials, especially
his Ph.D. degree certificate.
2. Potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities:
After considerable deliberations on Dr. Fabrikant's teaching,
research, and other activities as it would be for any other
professor holding a probationary appointment, the DPC focused on
Dr. Fabrikant's potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities
as per Article 16 of the Collective Agreement, and, in particular
to teaching.
Since the initial probationary appointment, Dr. Fabrikant has
demonstrated lack of interest in carrying out his teaching
responsibilities including engagement in, promotion and enhancement
of the on-going process of curricula development of the department.
Continuous attempts to evade teaching responsibilities are
illustrated below:
a) Continuous arguments for eligibility for sabbatical leave
although he has been told repeatedly that he is not eligible.
b) Demand for teaching load reduction to concentrate only on
research despite the Chairman's continual reminders to him of his
teaching responsibility. The Chairman has repeatedly emphasized to
him that teaching is a very important responsibility of a professor
and that he should not consider teaching as a hindrance to his
academic pursuits.
c) When he was unsuccessful in persuading the Chairman to
reduce his teaching load, Dr. Fabrikant produced an undated memo
(Exhibit #11), received at the Chairman's office on May 17, 1991,
indicating that a Laboratory for Materials & Structures of Civil
Engineering in France had offered him a visiting research position
with a salary of approximately $4500.00/month. Dr. Fabrikant
requested a paid leave for four months (Sept. 91-Dec. 91). The
Chairman denied his request but recommended that he could make
arrangements to go to France in the summer (Exhibit #12). The
Chairman also suggested to Dr. Fabrikant, if he so wished, that he
could take an unpaid leave. However, Dr. Fabrikant insisted that
only a paid leave was acceptable, and this was refused by the
Chairman.
d) In order to help ease Dr. Fabrikant's teaching load, the
Chairman made considerations and assigned Dr. Fabrikant two
sections of the same course "Dynamics" for Winter Term 91, instead
of two different courses. In spite of such considerations,
however, on October 2, 1991, Dr. Fabrikant wrote a memo to the
Chairman requesting to purchase release from teaching these courses
with his FRDP grant (Exhibit #7). Upon receipt of this memo, the
Chairman told him that this is unacceptable and if it were
possible, every professor in the department could purchase release
time from their courses even with money from their own pockets.
The Chairman also reminded Dr. Fabrikant about Dr. Stuart Smith's
recent report on teaching where it was lamented how many professors
neglect the importance of teaching while placing too much emphasis
on research. The reply of Dr. Fabrikant to the Chairman was "Are
you trying to scare me? I am not scared. I wrote a letter and I
want a written reply." The Chairman was stunned at this abnormal
and illogical reply reflecting bad judgment, especially when Dr.
Fabrikant did compromise at the time of his initial probationary
appointment with respect to the change in the condition of his
tenure eligibility.
e) In spite of the Chairman's request through his memos
(Exhibits #13, #14.1, and #14.2) to Dr. Fabrikant requesting him to
supply further clarifications related to his teaching and to his
research activity supporting the research focus of CONCAVE
(Concordia Computer Aided Vehicle Engineering) Research Center as
stated in his contract, Dr. Fabrikant did not respond to these
memos within the given deadline. However, in another memo to the
Chairman (Exhibit #15.1, 15.2), on a different subject, he
described those requests in exhibits #14.1 and #14.2 as "strange
letters", and then he presented his arguments in an incoherent and
illogical manner.
f) At a meeting on October 25, 1991, the senior faculty members
of the department made a motion (Exhibit #10) which contained the
following statement
"We perceive the spirit of Dr. Fabrikant's above
mentioned letter (letter dated October 14, 1991) as being
idle arguments intended to justify his shirking of
academic responsibilities, especially with reference to
purchasing release of teaching time and his eligibility
for sabbatical"
Based upon the above considerations, and after 8 meetings on
October 17, 25, 28, 30, November 4, 8, 13 and 14, 1991, lasting a
total of over 30 hours of extensive deliberations, the DPC made and
voted by secret ballot on the following motions:
Motion 1:
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant be recommended for a two year appointment from
June 1, 1992 until May 3l, 1994.
Motion was defeated unanimously.
Motion 2:
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant be recommended for a one year appointment from
June l, 1992 until May 31, 1993.
Motion was defeated unanimously.
Motion 3:
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant not be reappointed as of l June 1992.
Motion passed unanimously.
S. Sankar, Chairman Mo. O. M. Osman, Chairman
Department Personnel Committee Dept. Mechanical Engineering
S. V. Hoa, Member S. Lin, Member
Department Personnel Committee Department Personnel Committee
cc: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
Members of DPC
DPC File
Dov Bai-MSI Visitor
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT #1
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. J. S. Daniel, Vice-Rector, Academic
FROM: T. S. Sankar, Chairman, Department of Mechanical
Engineering
DATE: August 19, 1983
Subject: Dr. V. Fabrikant
I thank you for your prompt response to my request regarding Dr.
Fabrikant's promotion to the rank of Research Associate Professor.
My intention in addressing my earlier memorandum on this question
to both yourself and Dean Swamy was to elicit your reaction both on
the procedure (which in cases such as research faculty positions is
not clearly known) and on the merit of the case. I now have your
reaction and would be pleased to submit to you, through the Dean,
a documented recommendation. However, I am very surprised at your
suggestion that Dr. Fabrikant's implied behavior in connection
with NSERC and Center for Continuing Education would have a bearing
on the case. During the past 16 years of my association with this
institution and in whatever small role I have been able to play to
elevate the excellence of our University to gain wider recognition
from outside, I was always under the impression that we took
decisions on promotions, reappointments and salary merit increases
purely on the basis of scholarly achievements and academic
excellence rather than on the individual's behavior patterns or
our (administrators') personal likes and dislikes. I hope my
understanding is still valid.
I do not condone the behavior of Dr. Fabrikant. At the same time,
I do know that Dr. Fabrikant feels strongly that he has been
treated rather unjustly by certain quarters within the University.
I am not in a position to judge whether his feelings are justified.
My recommendation on Dr. Fabrikant's promotion, although at the
same salary (due to lack of sufficient research funds) is based
purely on his merit as an extremely productive research scholar.
Although there exists a large probability that he may choose to
leave this University soon, he has made a sizable contribution
during the past two years. I attach a rough copy of his C.V.
wherein you may note that he received his Ph.D. degree in 1966 and
was an Associate Professor in 1973. Also he published with us
about 25 papers in the last two years out of which I would term 10
of them as truly outstanding contribution. I have also taken the
liberty to enclose a few comments from outside experts on his work.
My recommendation was based purely on these achievements and these
alone. Further, we are on the verge of achieving a major
breakthrough in the solution of a class of diffusion problems which
will considerably affect the scientific thinking not only in the
area of mechanics but also in environmental (ocean and air
pollution) and geotechnical applications. I would like to, if I
can, keep Dr. Fabrikant with us at least until we complete this
study.
TSS/eh
cc: Dean Swamy
encls
EXHIBIT #2.1
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
2 pages
TO: Dr. M. Osman, Chair, Mechanical Engineering
FROM: Mike Stefano, Manager, Purchasing Services
DATE: June 8, 1988
"CONFIDENTIAL"
SUBJECT; DR. V. FABRIKANT
As you know, Dr. Fabrikant has still not approved the invoice for
the Image Station he received. He has spoken to me about returning
the Imagen (with no restocking charges) on the basis that Ahearn
and Soper was late in delivering it. I told him that normally we
could not cancel an order once it was received. When he would not
believe me I referred him to Paul Dufour, Concordia's Legal
Counsel, who confirmed what I had said. Since that time Dr.
Fabrikant has been insisting that I produce a "legal quotation"
that will prove that he can't cancel the order. According to Mr.
Dufour, the law is not that obviously written and it would require
at least a course in elementary business law for Dr. Fabrikant to
interpret it properly. Neither the supplier nor myself and willing
to wait that long and if this situation persists much longer, the
University will be facing a lawsuit.
I've enclosed copies of all correspondence, with the hope that you
will take the steps necessary to have the bill paid.
Also, this is not the first problem I've had with Dr. Fabrikant,
who seems determined to see the inside of a courtroom. I am
considering refusing to process any future purchase requests
without a co-signature, but would like some advice from you first.
Could you let me know where things stand?
MS/cb
Encl:
EXHIBIT #2.2
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY
SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS
Montreal, June 27, 1988
Mr. M. Stefano
Manager
Purchasing Services
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8
Canada
Dear Mr. Stefano,
I believe, you are aware of the Pentagon scandal brewing
in Washington. I am not interested in starting a similar scandal
in our University, but if the harassment does not stop, I shall
have no choice but to go public. If I do not hear from you
immediately that the printer is taken back, and the matter is
closed, all the documents will be sent to the student newspapers
and other Montreal media who might be interested to investigate.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
Department of Mechanical Engineering
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West
Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8
Canada
Dov Bai-MSI Visitor
EXHIBIT #3.1
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. Mo. O. M. Osman, Chair, Mechanical Engineering
FROM: Mike Stefano, Manager, Purchasing Services
DATE: July 4, 1988
SUBJECT; AHEARN AND SOPER - DR. FABRIKANT
As the attached letter from Ahearn and Soper states, Dr.
Fabrikant's refusal to pay the bill for the Imagen Image Station
has resulted in Concordia University being put on credit hold.
Ahearn and Soper will not be honoring service calls affecting at
least 13 Printronix printers we have on contract as well as a
number of other units where service is on an "on call" basis.
There is no valid reason for this bill to be outstanding. Legal
Counsel has confirmed this. Dr. Fabrikant's refusal to honor his
commitments to a supplier will now inconvenience several other
faculties and departments.
Both you and Dr. Fancott have been involved in this and while I
appreciate the efforts you both have made in trying to persuade Dr.
Fabrikant to pay the bill, it appears as though ultimately he will
have to be forced.
MS/cb
c.c. Dr. T. Fancott
Dr. M. N. S. Swamy
AHEARN & SOPER INC. EXHIBIT #3.2
June 29, 1988
Concordia University
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd., W.,
Montreal, PQ
H3G lM8
ATTENTION; MR. MIKE STEPHANO, MANAGER OF PURCHASING
YOUR P.O. # S-58711
OUR INVOICE #42150
DATED APRIL 28/88 for $8,401.72
Dear Mr. Stephano:
We regret to have to bring to your attention that payment on our
above referenced invoice is over due.
Our Terms of Sale is strictly Net 30 Days. Our Company's Policy,
is that if a payable is over 60 days without a justifiable reason
the Customer is put on "CREDIT HOLD" for Goods and Service.
According to investigations as there is no cause to withhold
payment, Concordia University is now officially on "CREDIT HOLD".
Attached also is our Invoice No.#PI-7 for interest charges for 30
days amounting to $154.16.
We also take this opportunity to thank you for your patronage, and
trust that the payment problem will be finalized next week.
Yours truly,
AHEARN & SOPER INC.
Pat Pickering,
Credit Manager
Encl.
PP/hdp
EXHIBIT #3.3
AHEARN & SOPER INC.
INVOICE
Sold to: Shipped to:
245 Concordia University
Concordia University 2100 Bishop
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, PQ
Montreal, PQ H3G lM8
H3G lM8
ATTN: MIKE STEPHANO, MANAGER OF PURCHASING
Our order No. 8-01808
Customer Order No. S58711 Invoice No. PI-7
Invoice date June 30/88
Description:
WITH REFERENCE TO INVOICE #42150
dated APR. 28/88
INTEREST CHARGES AT 2% for JUNE: $154.16
EXHIBIT #4
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Mechanical Engineering
FROM: Mike Stefano, Manager, Purchasing Services
DATE: June 28, 1988
SUBJECT; DR. V. I. FABRIKANT
I'm afraid I've had more than enough. I've answered all of Dr.
Fabrikant's questions, including providing a copy of Quebec's Civil
Code. Mr. Dufour has explained the situation to him as well, but
there seems to be no end in sight as to what Dr. Fabrikant wants.
When Ahearn and Soper agreed to install the unit no charge, he
countered with a demand for a one year warranty. (A & S won't do
that. The warranty is 90 days). He told me he would pay the bill
if you told him to. He then told you he'd pay the bill if the
Rector told him to. It appears that he will continue to escalate
his demands at every opportunity.
I enclose the latest correspondence and reiterate that I have
ceased to be involved in this order. I have neither the time nor
the patience to research the law to prove what is a standard,
accepted business practice.
Ahearn and Soper also advised me this morning that they will be
sending a final notice of payment, after which they will be taking
legal action.
MS/cb
c.c. Mr. J. P. Dufour
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
Dr. T. Fancott
EXHIBIT #5.1
SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS 3 pages
Montreal, October 14, 1991
Dr. M. O. M. Osman
Chairman
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8
Canada
Re: Your letter of October 9, 1991 accusing me of illegal
solicitation
One may argue that the grant received should be spent
according to the submitted budget. This makes sense when the
amount received equals to the amount requested (as it happened with
my grant from NASA), and it does not make sense when the amount
received is less than half of the amount requested (as it happened
with the FRDP grant). In this situation every grant recipient has
to think how to make the best use of the money received. First of
all, I have checked, if there was any Concordia Policy document
regulating allowable expenses for FRDP. There is none. In this
situation it is logical to consult similar documents of NSERC and
FCAR as well as Collective Agreement.
The NSERC document states explicitly that the grant recipient
is not bound neither by the proposal nor by the budget, and may
change one or both freely. the FCAR document lists the expense for
purchase of time release from teaching duties (degagement
d'enseignement) as an allowable expense (Chapter 2, Art. 47). I
have been informed that Dr. T. S. Sankar paid to another person
from his grant for teaching the course assigned to Dr. T. S.
Sankar. You would not believe that Dr. T. S. Sankar could do
something illegal or immoral, would you? My colleague from Tufts
University regularly uses his grant to purchase release from
teaching duties, and he told me that this was widely used practice
in the US universities. Our Collective Agreement (Art. 8.16.e)
also declares legal the purchase of release time (course remission)
by Association; (Art. 16.14) makes it legal for any member, with
prior consent of the Chair and the Dean. My letter of October 2,
1991, did just that: your consent was requested. Your response
(Re: above) stating that purchasing the release from teaching
duties "is illegal and not permitted under any circumstances" is
misleading, it contradicts to the facts stated above. It has to be
officially withdrawn, and an apology is in order.
In the second paragraph of your letter you write: "For this
reason, I am requesting you to give ... a detailed Report for your
future teaching goals..." linking this to reappointment procedure.
Your letter does not give any logical connection between my letter
of October 2 and the reappointment procedure. During our telephone
conversation, you have told me that my letter proves that I hate
teaching. This is wrong: using this logic you should accuse
anyone applying for Steacie (or any other similar) Fellowship,
anyone applying for a sabbatical leave, anyone taking Doctoral
seminar as a teaching load, etc. The normal logic has always
considered release from teaching duties as an honor, as a
recognition by the university of the importance of someone's
research (or other services). In my letter of October 2, 1991, I
have asked for such an honor because I strongly believed that I
deserved it. There was nothing improper in my letter of October 2,
1991, and I still stand behind every word in it.
One can not be very successful in doing a job which s/he
hates. I love teaching, and it consistently shows in the students'
evaluations. The latest DPC evaluation is of the same opinion.
Here is the relevant quotation:
DPC of the Department of Mechanical Engineering strongly
recommends to the FPC as well as to the VR Academic that Professor
Fabrikant be awarded the highest possible extra points, as
specified in the Collective Agreement, after comparison with other
engineering and university faculty performances. The DPC believes
that Professor Fabrikant deserves a final SPS point value of 3.0
I was voted the best teacher back in the USSR, and you may be
assured that the quality of my teaching performance will never
deteriorate.
Art. 14 of Collective Agreement does not require any "Report
on future teaching goals", but since you have requested it, here it
is. After 12 years of continuous service, with practically no
vacations, I plan to go on sabbatical leave, during which I intend
to start writing of my third book and continue developing the new
graduate course "Contact Mechanics". In the more distant future,
two more graduate courses are to be developed. The first one will
be a course on "Linear Fracture Mechanics", with emphasis on
mathematical apparatus involved, which will be complementary to the
existing course "Fracture". The second one will be a specialized
course "Mechanics of Rolling Contact", addressed to the needs of
CONCAVE graduate students, with emphasis on rail-wheel and tire-
road interaction. A laboratory for modelling of these interactions
would be very helpful, but this realization depends on the
availability of funds. I am of opinion that an upgrading and
updating is needed to the existing course of "Applied Elasticity".
Right now, it is based on the book by Timoshenko and, therefore, on
the results of that time. It should be modified by including
recent results in the field, especially, in three-dimensional
elasticity, mixed and mixed-mixed problems, etc. A similar
upgrading would be recommended to the course on modelling of
physical phenomena, which I would rename "Mathematical Physics",
and which would demonstrate various analogies between
electromagnetics, acoustics, heat transfer, diffusion, fluid
mechanics, etc. Majority of students think about these disciplines
being very different from one another, and it seems extremely
important to show just how many, sometimes unexpected, similarities
exist. Some updating is needed to the engineering mathematics
courses, for example, introduction of tensor analysis seems to be
very useful.
In the field of undergraduate teaching my main concern is that
our methodology have not changed significantly in centuries (the
same chalk and blackboard). It seems useful to introduce more
"hands-on" science. For example, in teaching of statics and
dynamics it would be more instructive to have physical models
corresponding to various problems, which students could see and
touch and "play" with it by changing parameters, dimensions,
loading, etc. Of course, physical models are expensive, so yet
another approach might be useful: instead of building physical
models, we can use computer graphics to create these models on the
screen, with numerous options to "play" with. Quite some time ago,
I have created one such computer graphics model for studies of free
and forced vibrations, with damping. Not only all the parameters
and the initial conditions could be prescribed arbitrarily, but any
of the parameters could be changed interactively in the process of
vibrations. Nobody was interested in using the model then, so I
dropped it. I still believe that the approach will prove useful.
Other interesting ideas might come up in process of discussions
with other faculty members.
Back in the USSR, my engineering class has had between 30% and
40% of female students, and about 20% of faculty were female.
Here, the situation is alarmingly abnormal. I think, that one of
the reasons is the perception that engineering is the "men's club".
We need to change it, and our activity should start not at the
university level but at high school. We should arrange meetings
with high school students, with participation of female graduate
students, who could tell their own stories to the children and to
convince them that engineering is both interesting and accessible.
Significant increase in female undergraduate and graduate student
population will inevitably result in increase of the proportion of
female faculty members.
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
cc: Dr. R. Sheinin, Vice-Rector, Academic; Dean M. N. S. Swamy;
Members.
Dov Bai-MSI Visitor
I have received a big file from V. I. Fabrikant with lots of information.
I am posting it in pieces.
Dov
--------------------------------- cut here ------------------------------
Dear Colleague:
Since Rector Kenniff prefers to cover up fraud at Concordia, I have no choice
but to make the relevant information as public as possible. I have
distributed two Memos, the first one is attached below, the second one is sent
separately.
I can not reach everyone, so I would be grateful if you could print it and show
to all your friends. On the other hand, if you do not like what I have written,
you do not have to read it.
Thank you. Yours Sincerely, V.I. Fabrikant
Mechanical Engineering, Concordia University
Copy:
FROM: V.I. Fabrikant
TO: The university community
Dear Colleague:
Since my letter has been falsified by the Editor of Thursday Report,
I feel morally obligated to distribute the original text because the issues
raised are too important for our society.
As you know, our Collective Agreement expires on May 31 1992, and the
negotiations are in order for a new one. Our negotiating team is quite
harmonious with the administration, except for the case when the
administration tried to limit huge increases to even more huge salaries of
some of the members. Since the negotiators care very little about ordinary
members, we have to tell them what changes we want in the Collective
Agreement. Here are my suggestions.
3) I suggest that Art. 48 (about various favors for the Department Chairs)
be repealed and replaced by another one saying that every tenured member of the
Department is expected to perform duties of the Chair for one year. Members can
serve in alphabetical or any other order determined by the Department. The main
purpose of this suggestion is elimination of corruption which power creates.
When I came to the Department of Mechanical Engineering 12 years ago,
Dr. T.S. Sankar was its Chairman. He had absolute power. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely, and this is exactly what happened to the moral standards
of the 'senior' Members of the Department. Everyone knew that in order to get
promotion, tenure, or just to keep the job, they had to include T.S. Sankar as
co-author in their scientific papers, and they did. While being a Chairman, he
averaged 12 papers a year plus even more conference presentations. I have
included him in 16 papers and 18 conference presentation, and his scientific
contribution to all of them was exactly zero, more than that, he could not
understand a single thing in any of my works. Right after his resignation, his
'scientific' yield has mysteriously dwindled to just 4 papers a year. The
situation should be quite opposite if one assumes that a Chairman is almost
crushed under heavy administrative load.
His brother S. Sankar has "miraculously" trippled the number of publications,
after becoming Director of CONCAVE. I was the only one in CONCAVE who refused
to include his name in my publications, and I have been paying for this ever
since. I am not complaining, no matter what happens to me, never again shall I
get involved in "scientific prostitution".
We did not have a Chair for about a year, and the Department was functioning in
exactly the same manner, as if we had one. Now we have Dr. Osman as Chair. He
comes to the Department not more than three times per week, usually, after 2
p.m., and very often after 5 p.m. Clearly, he does not have too much of
administrative work to do. He does not do any teaching (only a person with wild
imagination may consider Doctoral Seminar as a teaching load). As it was before
with T.S. Sankar, majority of his graduate students are in co-supervision, and
we all know what it means: it means that "the other guy" does all the work, I
know this first-hand, I was that "other guy" for T.S. Sankar. Dr. Osman's
research results are extremely modest, both qualitatively and quantitatively:
as far as I could go back, I was unable to locate a single single-authored
research paper, which means that his research is at the graduate student's
level. While doing so little work, he is collecting salary well above $100,000.
Is not this too much luxury for a university which claims to be heavily
underfunded?
Rotation of Chair/Director would also eliminate conflict of interest. Here is
an example: in 1985, S. Sankar obtained a contract from Transport Canada for
his private company S&S Inc. in the amount of $225,000. Part of it was
subcontracted to T.S. Sankar. None have made any technical contribution to the
work. The work was done by other members of CONCAVE and graduate students
paid by the university. Rector knows about all this, at least from January
of 1989.
2) Right now, there is no redress for a member when his rights are being
violated by CUFA President or any other CUFA official. This is what happened to
me. In November of 1991, I have filed two complaints with the Code
Administrator. They were to be heard by the Hearing Board, members of which
were to be provided by CUFA. This procedure has been functioning for years.
When I filed my complaints, CUFA President Mr. Costanzo has decided that he no
longer will provide "his people" for the Hearing Board, thus sabotaging my
right to have "a day in court". His explanation of such a decision is so
ridiculous, that I invite him to explain it to the community himself.
I have resubmitted these complaints as grievances on January 10, 1992, hoping
that no sabotage is possible here. I was wrong. In order to save administration
from embarrassment, CUFA Grievance Officer Mr. Barbieri is effectively
sabotaging now by refusing to send them out, though Art. 22.02 says that
"...the Association ... will in no case refuse to forward the grievance to the
Dean/Director". I must be extremely right in my complaints if so much energy is
being spent in order not to allow them to be heard! [A copy of the grievance
is attached in the Appendix]
Since the Impeachment Article in CUFA Constitution is unrealistic and requires
great effort for its implementation, I suggest it to be repealed and the
following Article to be included in the new Collective Agreement:
IMPEACHMENT OF CUFA PRESIDENT OR ANOTHER OFFICER.
If provisions of this Agreement are violated by any CUFA Officer, including
the President, the member affected by such a violation has the right to demand
in writing that this Officer be impeached. A general meeting of CUFA members
is to be convened with ten (10) days from the date of reception of the
impeachment request. All the parties involved are to be heard, and the
question of impeachment is to be decided by a majority vote of the members
present at the meeting. The Officer impeached is relieved from his/her duties
immediately.
I am sure, that the mere existence of this Article will be a sufficient
deterrent, so that the facts, described above, would never occur again.
3) I suggest that a special Article be included in the new Collective
Agreement specifying that every CUFA document should be open for inspection by
any member, except for those which should be kept confidential according to
the Access to Information Act. All the meetings of the Executive Committee
should be open, any closed session should be appropriately justified. I
have recently requested from CUFA information on the teaching workload of our
department for the past three years. I am entitled to this information,
according to Art. 16.03. Mr. Costanzo refused to provide me with this
information, with no valid reason for refusal. Something must be very
wrong with this information if it is kept secret!
I strongly believe that openness will introduce some honesty into CUFA.
Mr. Costanzo's term in the office expires on May 31, 1992. Let us elect a new
President someone who understands that there is a big difference between being
friendly with administration, and being "in bed" with administration. Honesty
is the rarest commodity in this university.
P.S. After this letter has already been sent to press, and after much
insistence on my part, Mr. Barbieri finally sent my grievance out ... to the
Dean, while my grievance is against the Rector, is not it ridiculous? So, my
next suggestion is to change the words "Dean/Director" in Art. 22 by
"appropriate administrator", with an explanation that an appropriate
administrator is not the one against whom the grievance is filed, but his/her
superior.
P.P.S. Do you know that 72.4% of our membership dues go to FQPPU(FAPUQ) and
CAUT? What do we get in exchange? Neither Mr. Costanzo nor FQPPU could respond
anything sensible. If we drop this affiliation, we could pay about a quarter
of what we are paying now, or we could find better use for the money. Does
this make sense? When I asked Mr. Costanzo for details of various expenses, he
refused to open books. Well, honest things should be done in the open.
Over $27,000 was spent last year for CUFA lawyer, while FQPPU can provide
lawyers free of charge, and CUFA has paid FQPPU over $130,000 last year.
Does this make sense? Let us demand CUFA books open.
The latest amendments to CUFA Constitution extend term in office for the
President to two years and establishes stipend for all Executive. The last
sentence in the proposed amendments to Constitution says: "Please note that
the stipends would take effect on June 1, 1992, i.e. no one who is currently
serving on the executive will benefit from this proposal". Is this really so?
I have learned that Mr. Costanzo is running for President. If he is elected.
he will definitely benefit from his own proposal, and this is an obvious
conflict of interest. Mr. Costanzo, I call upon you to realize it and to
withdraw your candidacy. I also suggest that the amendments extending the term
in office and stipends be repealed because, whether we want it or not, they
increase corruption. I repeat once again:
honesty is the rarest commodity in this university.
V.I. Fabrikant, Department of Mechanical Engineering.
Latest update: on January 28, 1992, Mr. Costanzo told me that my first
grievance has been sent to the Labour Relations Office. I have checked it,
it was not true. After numerous reminders to him and Barbieri, it was finally
sent out on February 6. Everything is being done to delay consideration of my
grievances by the union who is supposed to defend me. When I told Mr. Costanzo
that I want to start the impeachment procedure, he refused to give me the
list of CUFA members. How am I supposed to circulate the impeachment
petition?
APPENDIX
\big/[CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY]$C
\head/[Sir George Williams Campus]$C
<<
Montr\aigu/[e]al, January 10,1992<
<<
To: CUFA
<
From: Dr.>V.I.>Fabrikant, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering<
$p
This is an official grievance as it is defined in the Art.>22 of the
Collective Agreement.
<
1) Provisions of Art.>6 and 7 have been violated by the Administration of
this University. The events are described in
the documents attached. I strongly believe that I had all the rights to be in
the Department on 30 October, 1991, and in the Senate Chamber on 1 November,
1991, without being insulted, harassed and intimidated. The described events
represent part of campaign waged by the Rector, with assistance of other
levels of Administrators, in order to discredit me and to undermine my
reputation.
<
2) The redress required is stated in each complaint attached.
<
This submission of grievance does not mean that my complaints are withdrawn
from the Code Administrator's Office.
<<<<
$t10 Dr.>V.>I.>Fabrikant<<<
Department of Mechanical Engineering<
1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West<
Montr\aigu/[e]al, Qu\aigu/[e]bec H3G>1M8<
Canada
<
Tel.>(514)-848-3159 >>>FAX: (514)-848-3494
<
Bitnet address ccy...@vax2.concordia.ca
$n
\head/[Sir George Williams Campus]$C
<<
Montr\aigu/[e]al, November 3, 1991<
<<
Mr$. H.J$. Relton<
Code Administrator<
Concordia University<
7141 Sherbrooke West<
Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6<
Canada
<<<
Dear Mr$. Relton,
$p
This is a complaint against Professors M.O.M.>Osman, S.>Sankar, S.V.>Hoa, and
S.>Lin. (Art.>2 of Governing Principles in the part "freedom from harassment
and intimidation") Here are the facts. I have returned to my office (H-929-24)
after late lecture at about 11.10 p.m., on 30 October,
with my graduate student, and had a
discussion with him for about half-hour, after which he left. I have mailed
some letters and prepared to go home, but before that I stood in the corridor
(as I often do) looking at the pictures of earlier graduates. I had not been
in that position even 20 seconds, as suddenly and quickly the door of the
Chairman's office opens, and Dr.>Osman runs towards me (I was standing
about 5-6 meters
from the door of his office) shouting that they had a meeting of DPC, and that
I was spying on them. Other professors joined him in harassing me. I have
said that he had no right to shout at me, that I was standing in the corridor
too far from his door, looking at the pictures. Using his logic, no one can
stand in the corridor, because the doors of other professors offices are
around, and everyone can claim that the person standing in corridor is spying
on him. Dr.>Osman immediately made an "experiment": Dr.>S>Sankar went inside
his office and started talking inside very loudly, so he was heard not only 5
meters away, this way he could be heard even 15 meters away. That was the
proof for Dr.>Osman that I was spying. He started calling security, so that
the security would come and testify that I was in the department, which was
ridiculous, since I had no intention to deny that I was I the Department, more
than that, I had exactly the same right to be in the Department as they. When
I made an attempt to go home, Dr.>Osman tried to stop me by
force. I left anyway, and all of them went with me harassing me on my way
downstairs to the garage. There is a hard evidence that the whole thing was
staged: 1)No one in his right mind makes a DPC meeting at about midnight;
2)Dr.>Osman admitted that he knew I had a late lecture, and that nobody else
would be in the Department; 3)They knew that I stand very often near those
pictures; 4)The timing is extremely suspicious: I was not standing there even
20 seconds, as the door opened, they clearly were watching me from behind the
door.
$p
Everyone should be assumed innocent, unless proven$u guilty. They have no
proof that I was spying. They should apologize.
$p
One may ask a good question: why on earth four Professors would stage such a
thing. I am prepared to answer this question fully when and if the matter
comes to the Hearing Board, and I request that the hearing be made public.
Thank you in advance.
<
$t10 Yours Sincerely,
<<<<
$t10 Dr.>V.>I.>Fabrikant<<<
Department of Mechanical Engineering<
1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West<
Montr\aigu/[e]al, Qu\aigu/[e]bec H3G>1M8<
Canada
<
Tel.>(514)-848-3159 >>>FAX: (514)-848-3494
<
Bitnet address ccy...@vax2.concordia.ca
\head/[Sir George Williams Campus]$C
<<
Montr\aigu/[e]al, November 3, 1991<
<<
Mr$. H.J$. Relton<
Code Administrator<
Concordia University<
7141 Sherbrooke West<
Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6<
Canada
<<<
Dear Mr$. Relton,
$p
This is a complaint against the University (Art.>2). I came November 1 at
about
4.30p.m.>to the Senate meeting. Immediately, several security officers
appeared nearby in the Senate Chamber. I did not pay much attention to it, at
least it never crossed my mind that they were watching me. When the Meeting
was over, and I went outside, I was approached by two policemen who said that
someone from the University called them and told them that I have a concealed
firearm and about to commit a crime. They have arrested me and searched me in
full view of the University community. Of course, no weapon was found.
This is
done in the University where "dignity, reputation and honour" of its members
are annunciated as Governing Principles. This is yet another part of badly
orchestrated campaign against me. I call it badly orchestrated, because here
everyone pretends to be afraid of me, while my other complaint clearly
indicates that if my colleagues in the Department would be really afraid of me
they would not dare to stage what they did.
$p
I request an apology and an assurance that this incident will not be repeated
again. In the case the matter comes to the Hearing Board, I request it to be
public.
Thank you in advance.
<
$t10 Yours Sincerely,
<<<<
$t10 Dr.>V.>I.>Fabrikant<<<
Dov Bai-MSI Visitor
1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West<
Montr\aigu/[e]al, Qu\aigu/[e]bec H3G>1M8<
Canada
<
Tel.>(514)-848-3159 >>>FAX: (514)-848-3494
<
Bitnet address ccy...@vax2.concordia.ca
To: addressees of my first letter
From: V.I. Fabrikant
Dear Colleague:
I have received a letter from Vice-Rector, Academic (Appendix 1) which she
feels necessary to bring to the attention of everyone who had received my
first letter. Since my letter was sent to more that 40 individuals, I feel
morally obligated to help her by sending the letter to everyone concerned.
Please print this letter and show it to your friends and colleagues. If you
did not read my first letter, you do not have to read this one either.
Some comments are in order.
1. I am unaware of any document stating that E-mail can not be used for
transmitting information related to CUFA. Unless and until such a document
is produced, I would advise Dr. Sheinin to refrain from using the word
"misuse", without a proper justification.
2. The University, as well as "persons affected" are very welcome to sue me
for libel. May be, this is the only way for the truth to come out.
Someone has asked me if I am afraid that the "persons affected" might hire
someone to stage my "accidental death" or to frame me in some kind of a crime.
Well, I am no longer afraid of anything or anybody. We all have to die one
day. Whenever I die, I shall die an honest person. I just wonder, how many
administrators can say the same about themselves. Gandhi considered jail
as a must for an honest person. I am prepared for that too.
I just regret that I put up with all this filth for twelve years.
Make no mistake, I am dead serious in what I am doing. I can not fight
all the crooks in the world, but I shall not rest until the bogus
scientists in this university are exposed and the Justice is served.
Someone told me that I should have waited quietly till I get the tenure, and
then start fighting. Well, that might be more prudent, but that would not be
me. I do not fight from hiding, I fight in the open, and face to face. This is
why I include in Appendix 2 a copy of my letter sent to the Members of the
Board of Governors.
Realizing that anything can happen when big sums of money are involved, I have
decided to make public additional documents (Appendices 4, 5, 6). Some are so
shocking that one has to see them to believe. The first prize goes to the
minutes of the secret Meeting of "senior" members the Department of Mechanical
Engineering (Appendix 4, Exhibit #9). Even Soviets did not go that low: when
they denounced Sakharov, he was invited to the meeting. As ridiculous as the
document is, it is easy to understand why people like Hoa or Xistris signed
it: both had received several papers from me to which their contribution was
zero, so they were prepared to do anything to scare me so that I keep quiet.
It was more difficult to explain why people, like Habashi, would sign it. This
is why I have requested the workload information, and this is why CUFA refused
to provide me with one, but what I have is sufficient. If one looks at
Habashi's workload for this year, it seems normal: four courses, until one
realizes that MECH 464 and MECH 612 are not two different courses but the same
one, and given to the same group. So, he has one course remission, (and may be
some other favors) and he is prepared to sign anything what the Dean or Chair
ask him to sign. The main difference between Soviets and Canadians: Soviets
did dishonorable things because their life or freedom was in danger, Canadians
do the same when they are afraid that they might get $10 less in the next
salary raise. And it was quite an experience to see Rakheja's signature
there, he pretended to be my friend, just look how disgusted he was by
dishonesty of S. Sankar (Appendix 3). He still has not bothered to explain his
actions. Look at Exhibit 6.1 (Appendix 4) where T.S. Sankar claims to be
"incensed". Well, he still has not filed his complaint which is the best proof
that I was right. For more detailed criticism of Appendix 4 see Appendix 5.
The Department plans to introduce a plaque of fame. I suggest to put a plaque
of shame and engrave there the minutes of their secret meeting.
One might find it difficult to comprehend how the DPC evaluation of my work
(Appendix 5, Doc. 1) gave me highest mark for excellence, and the same people,
analyzing the same file, have recommended that I be fired (Appendix 4, DPC
"reasoned" report). Only people with total lack of integrity can sign such
self-contradictory documents. Explanation itself is very simple: praising
documents were signed when Swamy and Co. thought that I was not going to blow
whistle on them, bad documents were signed when the opposite was true.
3. My accusations, as serious as they are, do not represent something new
neither to the Administration, nor to the community. Everyone knows about them
(and much more than what was said) and everyone keeps quiet. I am the only
one who dared to speak openly. Here are just a few examples. Everyone knows
that Dean Swamy has not written "his" book, it was written by Thulasiraman,
who in exchange had got an appointment as a Full Professor of .... Mechanical
Engineering, though he is a specialist in Electrical Engineering. How could
this happen? Very simply: T.S. Sankar was then the Department Chair, and as
Swamy himself once mentioned to me that they were "like a family", the whole
thing was arranged in a "family" manner. It is "you scratch my back, and I
scratch you back" relationship which prevails in this university.
Everyone knows that Swamy's contribution to the majority of "his" about
four hundred(!!!) publications is zero. The number itself is obscene to
everyone who is involved in scientific research and knows how difficult it is
to write just one paper. I know, first hand, that over 50 papers
(to which his contribution was zero) were provided to him by Drs. Roytman and
Plotkin. I have personally included him as a co-author in two papers and three
conference presentations, and he does not understand a single thing in any
of them.
I have counted total of 16 single-authored papers (about 4% of total
publications), 12 of them published between 1962 and 1966. His last paper
was published in 1977 when he became Dean, (of course, this is just a
coincidence) after that there was not a single single-authored paper.
His name goes first in less than 1 out of 10 publications. If one assumes
that Swamy made major contribution to all of them (which is not the case
in at least 14 of them provided by Roytman and Plotkin, and it is very
doubtful in the case of co-authorship with graduate students),
we still have over 90% of "his" publications where his contribution
was "not major", and this person is a Fellow of at least 9 Learned Societies.
Something must be very wrong in the peer review process!
One reference is so revealing that it deserves to be presented in full:
J.L. Brown, J. Delansky, E. Plotkin, L.M. Roytman, M.N.S. Swamy,
"Stability test for multidimensional digital filters", Electronics Letters,
Vol. 17, 1981. This is a one-page(!) paper, and 5(!) co-authors.
Everyone knows that T.S. Sankar has not written a single research
paper of his own, at least, for as long as I know him, just because he is not
capable of doing any significant research of his own. Recently I have received
by internal mail copies of several of "his" papers with others, with
handwritten notes indicating the names of real authors. This
means that people do know and do care about honesty, they are just too afraid
to talk about it openly. Well, I am going to be their spokesman. We have
a bogus scientist T.S. Sankar as President of Canadian Society for Mechanical
Engineering and Fellow of several Societies, and we have Dean of the Faculty
Swamy - Fellow of numerous Societies and "honorary" co-author of books and
incredible number of papers.
4. Dr. Sheinin had implicitly asked me to substantiate my accusations.
Here we go.
a) The contract "Study on liquid tanker stability" was awarded in
1985 by DSS on behalf of Transport Canada to a private company S&S Inc.
(S&S is an abbreviation of Seshadri Sankar) in the amount of $225,000 for
three years. Additional funding was provided in 1988-1990. The contract
number is 14SD T8200-4-4584 (OSD85-00055). The work was done
by graduate students Ranganathan and Popov. Ranganathan was supervised by
Dr. Rakheja (see Appendix 3), Popov did his job independently, since none of
his official supervisors (S. Sankar and T.S. Sankar) is familiar with
fluid dynamics. Comparison of the final report with Ph.D. dissertation of
Ranganathan proves the point: the final report is an abbreviated version of
the dissertation. The thesis defense took place before the final report was
ready.
This is a copy of the title page of the final report:
TP 10690E
LIQUID TANKER STABILITY
Prepared for
Transportation Development Centre
Policy and Coordination Group
Transport Canada
Prepared by
S & S Inc.
Montreal, Quebec
and
CONCAVE Research Centre
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec
Nov. 1990
(end of quote)
This is a classical example of conflict of interest: owner of a private
company collaborates with a research centre where he is a Director.
The address of S&S Inc. is given as 4476 Ste-Catherine St. W., Suite #102
Montreal, Quebec H3Z 1R8. This is Sankar's condo which is rented to somebody
else. A nice way of doing business: you do not have to borrow money
to make an initial investment, you do not have to rent office space: your
domicile is a good address for your company, you do not have to hire employees
and to pay their salaries, the university does it for you, you will never
go bankrupt. You do not have to work on the contract either, your only job
is to count profit, is not life good?
Yet another contract "Development of vehicle dynamics expert systems" in the
amount of $444,121 was awarded to S. Sankar's private company CIE-TECH in
1990 by DSS on behalf of Transport Canada. The contract number is
16SD-T8200-8-8584/01. If one wishes to verify that CIE-TECH belongs to
S. Sankar, it can be done by phone, just dial 873-5324. Again, it is the
CONCAVE Center which does the work, and this is also a conflict of interest
situation.
b)The fact that T.S. Sankar was "honorary" co-author in all my publications
was well known. Here is a quote from my conversation with Hoa in early 1988:
Fabrikant: I mean, if you are called to testify, and I put you a question
about the papers I have written: "What was the contribution of T.S.[Sankar]?"
<<
Hoa: He did not contribute, except for the fact that he paid you. (Laughing)
(end of quote)
Hoa has "forgot" to mention that his own contribution to my papers was exactly
the same: both he and Sankar contributed to my salary which was at that time
$7,000(!) per year.
In the quote below (summer of 1988), T.S. Sankar admits himself that his
contribution to my papers was zero:
Fabrikant: ............... You mentioned several times, "we were doing",
"we were investigating", we do this, we do that. I am kind of wondering,
how do you feel when you see in print "Method of Fabrikant, Sankar and Swamy"?
What is your internal feeling?
<<
T.S.>Sankar: What do you mean: "What is your internal feeling?"
<<
Fabrikant: OK, let us call a spade a spade. What was your contribution to that
method?
<<
T.S.>Sankar: Which one?
<<
Fabrikant: Fabrikant, Sankar and Swamy, remember, I gave you a copy? (I refer
to the paper by Love et.>al.,>entitled "On the method of Fabrikant, Sankar and
Swamy ...") What was your scientific contribution to that method?
<<
T.S.>Sankar: I do not know, some of these things we discussed ...
<<
Fabrikant: Discussion is not a contribution. Contribution is contribution, and
you know this better than anybody else. Could you name at least one single
paper published, I understand that I have given you 16 papers, and you did not
overpay me, and at least 18 conference presentations, in the best journals
around the world, and, as I mentioned it to you, the papers are bound to
become classic, and they are, little by little. I can show you a paper by Rice
(T.S.>Sankar tries to interrupt). Would you agree, that actually none of
the papers published has any scientific contribution of yours, whatever?
Would you agree with that?
<<
T.S.>Sankar: Let me tell you. People have short memory. As long as this is
fine with them, they do not mind establishing exactly what they have done,
and what others have not done. When I hired you, part time, when you came to
me, I hired you ...
<<
Fabrikant: You are not answering my question.
<<
T.S.>Sankar: Listen very carefully. I could have asked you to work on the
problems that I was trying to do, in which case I would have asked you to come
and report to me, in which case it would be my contribution, and you would be
a work servant, paid to do what I asked you to do. The very fact that I gave
you the freedom to do the things that you thought were best, now you are
asking me: "What was your contribution?" I can even write letter of
retraction that I have no contribution.
<<
Fabrikant: I don't ask you to do this.
<<
T.S.>Sankar: No, no, no, I will do that, but you have to remember one thing,
if I wanted to do the way I wanted, I could have done it, in which case
your contribution would be zero, except that I would pay you to do certain
things. Now, what I did, because I always considered you, even from the
beginning, when you told me you worked with Bolotin, I always considered you
as a colleague, and if you felt comfortable, you said you have some new
approaches, I said: "Go ahead, do it". Did I, at any time, ask you to put
my name on any of your papers? Say, any time I asked you, I want my name?
I do not want your papers. You did it voluntarily. So, do not do it like
giving some charity and saying: "What did you do for me?" You did it
voluntarily, and this point has to come out. You did it voluntarily, I did not
at any time pressed you I needed any part in your papers. But I could have
done something else. I could have asked you to work on the problems I was
interested in, in which case it would be my contribution, and you would be
like everybody else, just a worker, like a computer programmer. I could have
done that. But I gave you full independence, I treated you like my colleague,
my equal, whenever you came to discuss with me, I said it looked fine, it was
you who went out and put my name on your paper. The only time when I asked you
to put somebody else's name on your paper, Xistris came and requested: "I
will support this guy, I need some publications". And I asked you: "Could you
put Xistris?" Never, I asked you ... You are talking to a very proud person,
OK? And I have established myself in this world ...
(end of quote)
T.S. Sankar could not possibly use me as a programmer, as he claims in the
quote above, because he did not do any research of his own, he could not
even pose a problem. Hoa, at least, did pose a problem which he did not
know how to solve, and I have solved it.
The most repugnant part of what is politely called "honorary" authorship, and
what I call "scientific prostitution", is that T.S. Sankar never explicitly
asked me to put his name on my papers, but I knew very well what will happen
to me if I don't. Here is what happened when I stopped including T.S. Sankar
in their own words:
T.S. Sankar: Seshadri called me (beginning of 1988) and asked me:
"The contract for the people is coming to an end in June, what do you want
me to do with Fabrikant?"
(end of quote)
This is the way the slave owners talk about their slaves. As a result of their
conversation, this is what S. Sankar told me later, when he tried to extort
papers from me and realized that I was not going to include him in my papers:
S. Sankar: .....................................So, in the present situation,
in order to be fair to you, we will have one more year, I do not want to have,
because I have known you, I feel responsible, in the sense of the human nature,
and because of that, I am prepared to make a recommendation to the appropriate
body, because appropriate body acts on a recommendation, to the appropriate
body, that you would have contract for one more year, up to 1989, at which time
the position will be terminated. (Fabrikant tries to interrupt) I am talking
one thing at a time, let me finish with that, and then we will come to the
other aspects. So, at which time it will be terminated, and I also would like
you to go and talk to T.S.>(T.S.>Sankar), before you go and talk to anybody
else. After we talk, go and talk to him, and then I cleared in my mind, I spoke
to a few other people, because he is an immediate person, who knows you more
than anybody else, OK, and then I thought about it, I wanted to make this, I
conveyed to T.S.>also about it, this is what I would like to have, so, it will
be one more year, nothing, no problem, and it will be terminated at the 31 of
May, 1989.
(end of quote)
When confronted, T.S. Sankar denied everything:
Fabrikant: Seshadri mentioned several times, that you are well aware of
everything ...
<<
T.S.>Sankar: I am not aware of anything. ...................
(end of quote)
This was a breach of contract. My contract stipulated that in the case of
positive evaluation (and it was positive) I should get a two-year
reappointment. I tried to complain to the Chairman Dr.>Osman, and he only
told me that all this was between me and S.>Sankar. My conversations
with other Full Professors in the Department were of similar nature.
Professor McQueen, who is well known for his "fearless" fight for freedom
and democracy in South America, got pale and started stuttering. I have never
met a person more false and hypocritical. It seems much easier to fight
for justice thousand miles from home then to do the same in your own home.
If all the fighters for justice in South America are of similar moral
qualities, one should not be surprised that they still do not have any.
Professor Lin just asked me: 'What does the Chairman think about it?' And there
was no way for me to find out what does Professor Lin think about it. It seemed
incomprehensible to me: both are tenured Full Professors, they had absolutely
nothing to be afraid of, nevertheless they were afraid, probably more than
Sicilians were afraid to speak against mafia.
I went to Dean Swamy and told him to fix the situation himself, otherwise I
would have no choice but to go outside the Faculty. This threat got an
immediate effect: next morning I was called by Chairman Osman to his office,
and it was a very different Osman, now he was fully involved in my dispute with
S.>Sankar, and he was completely on my side. I have got the two-year extension
of my contract but it was clear to me that the fight was far from over.
In December of 1988 I have asked S.>Sankar if he would support my promotion to
Research Professor. He promised to help and said that we need to talk. I
already knew what this talk would be about, and I was right: he again asked me
about my contribution to his group. This time I have answered point-blank that
I was not going to include him or anybody else in my work, ever. And of
course, I did not get any promotion. This time I have decided to complain to
the Rector hoping that he would protect me from extortion. I was wrong again.
The Rector refused to talk to me, I could only tell my story to his Assistant,
Dr. MacKenzie, but she pretended not to believe me and refused even to ask
both Sankars and Swamy whether what I was telling was truth. The material
proof, which I had, was also disregarded.
I believe, by now Dr. Sheinin regrets that she asked me to substantiate.
Well, I have much more, Dr. Sheinin, just ask for it! I shall be happy to
oblige next time.
5. I have received yet another letter from Dr. Sheinin (Appendix 1a). This
letter might look strange in view of the following facts: in 1990 she received
from the Faculty recommendation for my promotion to Professor (Doc. 9 and 10,
Appendix 5), and she just ignored it, I was not refused the promotion, and I
was not promoted either; in June of 1991 I was awarded prestigious "Poste
Rouge" award from the National Research Council of France (100,000FF for four
months), I was not allowed to accept the award; she denied my request for
sabbatical (see for details my letter in the Link, Jan. 17), and I could
continue the list of lawless actions. Why did she do all this? Because I
am the only one in this university (and, probably, in the whole country) who
stood up against the system of fraud and extortion in scientific research.
I am a great danger to such people like Osman, Sankars and Swamy. If everyone,
like I, would refuse to include them in the research work, then everybody
would understand that they are bogus scientists, and their power and money
would disappear.
Since I was dangerous, they have decided to eliminate me. But how this could
be done legally? They could not fight me in research - I am a world class
scientist, they could not fight me in teaching - my evaluations are in top 10%,
so they had to invent something, and they did. They know how everyone hates
violence, so they have decided to use this, but they needed facts that I am
violent or potentially violent, like threatening someone. This is the main
reasons for all the lawless actions: they figured out that the more lawless
the action, the greater is the probability that I loose my temper and do
something outrageous. In view of this all seemingly senseless actions
(like ambush by the DPC members or calling police to arrest and search me)
become easily explainable: they try to destabilize me psychologically and
to damage my reputation, so that nobody would pay much attention to my
accusations. Well, it is about time to understand that all these attempts
are total failure. The tactics of "stick and carrot" (Appendix 1 and 1a)
will not work either. I would advice Dr. Sheinin to try, for a change,
an honest approach: apologize for previous lawlessness and rectify it,
and start respecting Collective Agreement - this might work.
My only crime is my honesty, and this is the worst possible crime in this
university. If you sexually harass you employees, CUFA will support you all
the way, if you are trying to be honest, even CUFA does not support you. I am
not saying that the alleged harasser should not get all legal support from
CUFA, quite opposite: this is what the union is all about - protection, and
this is what the dues are paid for. I understand that women complained for
many years, well, who was the administrator who ignored those complaints? Why
is not he on trial? He is not less guilty than the harasser. Had he reacted
then, one warning, probably, would be sufficient, and nobody would need to be
suspended, and women would not need to suffer for so long.
This university needed a woman Vice-Rector, so that women be protected. What
kind of Vice-Rector is needed to protect honest people?
Dov Bai-MSI Visitor
13 February 1992
Dear Dr. Fabrikant:
Your letter addressed to "The university community", dated February 9 1992,
which you transmitted to approximately forty individuals via the University's
electronic mail system has been brought to my attention.
I must advise you that it is a misuse of University property to communicate
in this manner your dispute with the Concordia University Faculty Association,
on what is essentially an internal matter largely related to the
administration of CUFA.
I must also advise you that you have made some very serious allegations
against
your colleagues which, if unsubstantiated, expose you to further action
against yourself, either by the affected persons or by the University.
I shall forward a copy of this letter to all the individuals who, as far as I
am able to ascertain, have received your transmission.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)
Rose Sheinin
Vice-Rector, Academic
APPENDIX 1a
13 February 1992
Dear Dr. Fabrikant:
I was pleased to read of your success in being awarded a research grant on the
topic of
Interaction between an Arbitrary Point Force and a
Flat Elliptical Crack
and would like to offer you my congratulations on this achievement.
Indeed, such recognition by your peers must make you very proud and rightly
so. Please accept my best wishes for the future.
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
Rose Sheinin, Ph.D., DSc., D.Hum.Lett., F.R.S.C.
Vice-Rector, Academic
APPENDIX 2
<<
Montr\aigu/[e]al, February 14, 1992<
<<
Dear XXXXXXXXX:
$p
This is to officially inform you, as a Member of the Board of Governors
of
Concordia University, that I have evidence that the Director of CONCAVE Center
Dr.>S.>Sankar is in the position of conflict of interest. Here is just one
fact:
in 1985, S.>Sankar obtained a contract from Transport Canada for
his private company S&S Inc. in the amount of $225,000. Additional money were
allocated in 1988-1989 and 1989-1990. Part of it was subcontracted to his
brother T.S.>Sankar. None have made any technical contribution to the
work. The work was done by other members of CONCAVE and graduate students
paid by the university. I can present proof of other incidence of conflict of
interest. I have also evidence that Dr.>S.>Sankar's scientific contribution to
all joint publications with Drs.>Rakheja and Ahmed was zero.
$p
Rector knows about all this but prefers to cover it up. I should be grateful
if you initiate an investigation of these facts.
<
Thank you in advance.
<
$t10 Yours Sincerely,
<<<<
$t10 Dr.>V.>I.>Fabrikant<<<
Department of Mechanical Engineering<
Appendix 3
Parts of Transcript of the conversation with S.>Rakheja, September, 1990
<<
(In a previous conversation, Rakheja told Fabrikant that the contract
"Study on liquid tanker stability", in the initial amount of $$225,000 was
awarded to S.>Sankar's private company S&S Inc.)
<<
Rakheja: ....
And, apparently, what was initially awarded, was extended, to another
phase, and to another phase, and so on.
<<
Fabrikant: And it should be published, whenever it is extended too?
<<
Rakheja: That's right, that had to be published under renewed contract,
and extension came out in 1988-1989.
.....................................................................
<<
Rakheja: Let me tell you one thing first. One minute, let me close the door.
OK, I want to mention one thing. Apart from Seshadri, Tom Sankar, and
myself, nobody has this information, this is well known.
<<
.................................................................
Rakheja: OK, look, if this information is ever to be released, OK, it is going
to be released in a court, not here-there, OK, simple as that.
<<
Fabrikant: And not by me, essentially, I hope.
<<
Rakheja: No, we will do it together in the court.
<<
....................................................................
Rakheja: ............................ I have given you the primary
source: all the other contracts are also listed in DSS (Department of Supplies
and Services). If the worse comes to worst, I have given you a clear path
to where get the information, DSS has everything listed.
<<
..................................................................
Rakheja: All the government contracts are listed there. Industry ones,
of course, they do not get listed there, but they are little ones.
<<
....................................................................
Rakheja: ........... I want to give you one information, so that I am out of
it, and you can build the case, just like you did not have information from
me. In case ...
<<
Fabrikant: Aha, aha.
<<
Rakheja: You know, Audrey's (Williams) office sends out Research Bulletins
every couple of months where all the awards are listed? If you have those
Bulletins stored anywhere, I have them anyway, you put those against the DSS,
number one. Put those against the Progress Report you have, OK? You can
find out which ones are reported by the Research Office, and which ones
are not reported by the Research Office, and whatever is not reported by the
Research Office, is a private contract, simple as that.
<<
Fabrikant: Aha.
<<
Rakheja: So, I have given you a route, a simple route, so I can be out of it,
you can hit your bases, and once you find that, you can always call Research
Office and get the further information.
<<
Fabrikant: Aha.
<<
Rakheja: So, that makes it more official with me, with me, as if I am
not supplying any information.
<<
.......................................................................
Fabrikant: .......................................... But as far as
Bombardier goes, how on earth would I be able to prove that the contract is
awarded to a private company if, for example, here ...
<<
Rakheja: It was reported in the Progress Report, and the Research Office has
no information on it.
<<
..................................................................
Fabrikant: ......... why would he (Swamy) support him (S.>Sankar) that way?
<<
Rakheja: You see, it is politics.
<<
Fabrikant: It is what?
<<
Rakheja: It is politics. Swamy has a whole lot of meetings, Swamy wants to
push something, he needs the support of certain people, he has got certain
people within the faculty, who, it does not matter what Swamy wants to do,
they will support him.
<<
Fabrikant: I see.
<<
Rakheja: So, Swamy, in return, like you scratch my back, I'll scratch your
back, that kind of things.
<<
............................................................
Fabrikant: Now, S&S was the first one (the name of a private company
founded by S.>Sankar), and the second one was SANCON or CONSAN, what was the
second name?
<<
Rakheja: OK, just a moment, please. That is Tom Sankar's?
<<
Fabrikant: Yeah, S&S.
<<
Rakheja: No, S&S is Seshadri Sankar.
<<
Fabrikant: Aha, OK.
<<
Rakheja: Second one, you were saying, was Tom Sankar's. OK, just one moment,
please.
<<
Fabrikant: OK.
<<
Rakheja: (after a while) Hi, Valery, I am trying to find that one I showed
you, here it is: CIE-TECH is another one.
<<
.....................................................
Rakheja: That you will find in 1989 DSS issue.
<<
...................................................
<<
Rakheja: ................. The other one is CANSAN, C, A, N, S, A, N.
<<
...............................................................
<
Rakheja: Look, the information you are collecting, I think, it is a good idea
to have the information ...
<<
...........................................................
Rakheja: .......................... You know, looking at the ethics
itself, I feel morally obligated to expose these things.
<<
...........................................................................
Fabrikant: OK, good. By the way, irrelevant stuff, how to make a contact with
those in DSS? Because I have quite significant results in which they might be
interested in. The only thing, I am kind of puzzled, I think, again, I don't
know, that there must be need to give them kickbacks to get the contracts. Is
this, kind of, more or less correct assumption?
<<
Rakheja: It is, usually, the case, OK? It is very usually the case.
.......................................This is usually the case.
What you are saying is true: to get a contract out of CDC or DSS, this is
usually the case, that you have to, kind of, make the officer, you are dealing
with, kind of a partner, unofficial partner, and otherwise it does not work.
As a result, what has happened, was couple of papers we published, this guy
who was the delivery officer of the contract, he has not done any part of it,
his name (L.>Sabounghi) was added to the paper. OK? Now, that may be one
way of a deal, that we will provide your name on the publications, OK?
And other than that, I am not aware of anything, if there is another part
of the deal. This was possibly one part, one side of the deal, that we were
supposed to put his name on the papers, which we did couple of times.
<
..............................................................
<
Rakheja: I am kind of busy doing a big chapter for one of the books, and ...
<<
Fabrikant: Oh, you are writing a chapter for a book!
<<
Rakheja: Yeah, yeah, this is one of the encyclopedia.
<<
Fabrikant: Oh, it's very good, because it is, kind of, well, it is a book
contribution, it is also important.
<<
Rakheja: Yeah, yeah, I had this invitation last year, now the deadline has
come, another ten days, and I started only last week.
<<
Fabrikant: And it will be yours, without any co-authorship?
<<
Rakheja: Ah, unfortunately, not. The work is the same as the contract, OK,
this chapter, I was invited to submit a chapter on that contract work. In the
community it is seen as I am the one who is doing the work, because the
publications are basically in my name, and I have been associating myself with
SAE(?) Dynamics Committee where I have brought up a number of these things,
and through that contact I have been recognized that I am the guy who is doing
the work, and they invited me, however, the contract is in his (S.>Sankar)
name, and the graduate student was a "joint" effort ...
<<
Fabrikant: So, you have to include both of them?
<<
Rakheja: No, no, no, just Seshadri.
<<
Fabrikant: Just Seshadri ...
<<
Rakheja: Yeah.
<<
Fabrikant: At least, he goes second or he goes first?
<<
Rakheja: No, he goes second. I don't do that any more.
I don't do that any more.
<<
Fabrikant: Yeah?
<<
Rakheja: Second or third, that's it, but not first, if I am writing it. If a
student is writing it, then OK, fine, do whatever you want to do.
<<
....................................................................
Rakheja: ................... As a matter of fact, Ahmed has recently
started working with me, OK, which Seshadri does not like it at all, OK,
because, you see, Ahmed, he (S.>Sankar) was using him right and left to do odd
things, OK, I told him: "What the hell you are doing?" He is a capable guy,
very smart guy. Two months ago, we started a few projects jointly, took couple
of students jointly, we already sent out two papers together. This summer has
been productive for us, because, basically, we started working this
summer.
<<
Fabrikant: Without Seshadri?
<<
Rakheja: Without Seshadri.
<<
Fabrikant: He does not know about it yet?
<<
Rakheja: He is aware of it, because whenever he came down to see us, we were
together, and, kind of, discussing, and ...
<<
Fabrikant: Yeah, but he knows that you sent out papers without him?
<<
Rakheja: No, he does not know it. He does not come scare me any more, he knows
that I do not get scared. He can't scare Ahmed, he told Ahmed: "I know, you
guys are working on something, you should come and discuss with me, and we
should put a joint effort".
<<
Fabrikant: Aha.
<<
Rakheja: So, he, kind of, indirectly sent us a message: "Ok, you guys, keep
doing your work. Just mention to me, and that's enough, and put my name".
<<
.......................................................................
Fabrikant: Well, I had a graduate student too. Who, do you think, read his
thesis, and who corrected it?
<<
Rakheja: Of course, you did, I know. So, if they (S.>and>T.S.>Sankar)
have a joint supervision, second guy is always going to do it. I have done it
too, OK? And they have hardly ever looked at it. ................
Kevin Dooley
>Gee and just when this list was getting boring! Its great to see
>things running so smoothly back home, I think I'll stay in Oz.
>
>Seriously, since nobody else seems willing to get ensnared in this
>most grusome of quagmires. What the hell here goes...
>
>We (royal "we") must all be thinking the same thing. This guy
>(lets call him DT, DeepThroat), DT is totally over the top and we
>shouldn't say anything for fear of escalating this. O.K. on the
>other hand this could be a complete hoax, I mean the situation is
>not unjamesbond you know.
>
>Can anybody in netland provide any non-libalous, non-inflamitory,
>poop on the key players real or imagined existance, or perhaps the
>existance of said publications?
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
Well, the latest word is that Fabrikant took several firearms into the
department and murdered 3 people and wounded 2 others. He then surrendered
to police after a short standoff which ended in him having a small heart
attack and having to be rushed to hospital. I haven't heard how the
other 2 people are doing. He has been charged with 3 counts of first
degree murder and several other lesser charges.
Kevin Dooley
Thomas Hood
Original Subject: Re: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part III)
b...@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>To: addressees of my first letter
>From: V.I. Fabrikant
>
>Dear Colleague:
>
>2. The University, as well as "persons affected" are very welcome to sue me
>for libel. May be, this is the only way for the truth to come out.
>Someone has asked me if I am afraid that the "persons affected" might hire
>someone to stage my "accidental death" or to frame me in some kind of a crime.
>Well, I am no longer afraid of anything or anybody. We all have to die one
>day. Whenever I die, I shall die an honest person. I just wonder, how many
>administrators can say the same about themselves. Gandhi considered jail
>as a must for an honest person. I am prepared for that too.
>I just regret that I put up with all this filth for twelve years.
>Make no mistake, I am dead serious in what I am doing. I can not fight
>all the crooks in the world, but I shall not rest until the bogus
>scientists in this university are exposed and the Justice is served.
>
>Someone told me that I should have waited quietly till I get the tenure, and
>then start fighting. Well, that might be more prudent, but that would not be
>me. I do not fight from hiding, I fight in the open, and face to face. [...]
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]
complete mastery of our language. Perhaps in saying those things, he
didn't *intend* to provide any foreshadowing, and so I doubt that we
should interpret it as such.
Just my opinion...
-- Murray S. Kucherawy ----------------------------------------+--------------
Software Systems Co-op, Math Faculty Computing Facility [MFCF] | This is a
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | machine that
E-mail: mskucherawy@{math,watdragon}.UWaterloo.ca | goes PING!
---------------------------------------------------------------+--------------
John Coughlin
>If you read through his other letters, you'll notice he doesn't have a
>complete mastery of our language. Perhaps in saying those things, he
>didn't *intend* to provide any foreshadowing, and so I doubt that we
>should interpret it as such.
What struck me is his poor command of English after having lived in Canada
for a dozen years or so. Perhaps the delay in granting of tenure is related
to this. I mean, no matter how brilliant his research papers may be, if they
must be edited by a grammarian every time, it would be a bit embarrassing for
Concordia, don't you think ?
--
Flesh: John Coughlin Elvis ate my Cadillac
Net: wc...@ccs.carleton.ca Vox: +1 613 957-2851 Fax: 990-7370
Simon Read
mskucherawy@{math,watdragon}.UWaterloo.ca writes:
> If you read through his other letters, you'll notice he doesn't have a
> complete mastery of our language. Perhaps in saying those things, he
> didn't *intend* to provide any foreshadowing, and so I doubt that we
> should interpret it as such.
>
> Just my opinion...
I assume you mean English by "our language" though in Quebec that may
not be the case of course. Or is that your point? Anyway to mine...
Sadly people who's first tongue is not the local one are very often
misunderstood even if their command of the language is good. Sometimes
their limited vocabulary causes them to use words native speakers regard
as frank and unsubtle, giving the impression of annoyance and anger.
This can be exacerbated when two or more "allophones" (to pull in
another thread) are involved.
Perhaps this contributed to the sad state of affairs at Concordia. In
any case it's always worth bearing in mind with such individuals that
they may not mean some of the things implied and to keep cool.
Simon Read
--------------
Simon...@umist.ac.uk
Bill Maniatty
|> In <Btp6I...@math.uwaterloo.ca> msku...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) writes:
|>
|> >If you read through his other letters, you'll notice he doesn't have a
|> >complete mastery of our language.
|>
|> What struck me is his poor command of English after having lived in Canada
|> for a dozen years or so.
Its obvious that these people both expect Fabrikant to have mastered English
to become tenured. I'm not sure that is fair, since Concordia is in Quebec
if I remember correctly, which would mean that French is the primary language
there. That means that he would not get much chance to practice his English.
Bill
|> --
|> Flesh: John Coughlin Elvis ate my Cadillac
|> Net: wc...@ccs.carleton.ca Vox: +1 613 957-2851 Fax: 990-7370
--
|
| mani...@cs.rpi.edu - in real life Bill Maniatty
|
David B Stewart
>What struck me is his poor command of English after having lived in Canada
>for a dozen years or so. Perhaps the delay in granting of tenure is related
>to this. I mean, no matter how brilliant his research papers may be, if they
>must be edited by a grammarian every time, it would be a bit embarrassing for
>Concordia, don't you think ?
Having spent 4 years at Concordia (84-88) I honestly don't think that
mastery of the English language is a criterion for granting tenure.
There were a few professors in engineering that could barely speak
English, yet they did get tenure.
~dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Stewart - email: <dste...@cmu.edu> The Robotics Institute
snail mail: - ECE Dept., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Current Projects: - Chimera 3.0 Real-Time Operating System
- Reconfigurable Sensor-Based Control Systems
Doug Zolmer
>for a dozen years or so. Perhaps the delay in granting of tenure is related
>to this. I mean, no matter how brilliant his research papers may be, if they
>must be edited by a grammarian every time, it would be a bit embarrassing for
>Concordia, don't you think ?
Don't be so sure of this. Many professional people (many with Masters degrees
or Doctorates) in the company that I work for can barely write a proper
English sentence. These people have lived in Canada all their lives. I find
that Canadians, in general, seem to be very lax when it comes to writing
standards.
>--
>Flesh: John Coughlin Elvis ate my Cadillac
>Net: wc...@ccs.carleton.ca Vox: +1 613 957-2851 Fax: 990-7370
--
dw...@bnr.ca Voice: +1 613 763-8217 Disclaimer: my opinions only
Bill Maniatty
|> In article <csty+a=@rpi.edu> mani...@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty) writes:
|> >In article <wcsjc.715192126@cunews>, wc...@alfred.carleton.ca (John Coughlin) writes:
|> >|> In <Btp6I...@math.uwaterloo.ca> msku...@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) writes:
|> > [Stuff Deleted]
|> >
|> >Its obvious that these people both expect Fabrikant to have mastered English
|> >to become tenured. I'm not sure that is fair, since Concordia is in Quebec
|> >if I remember correctly, which would mean that French is the primary language
|> >there. That means that he would not get much chance to practice his English.
|> >
[Stuff Deleted]
Thanks for clearing up my misconception.
Bill
Ray Dunn
>Its obvious that these people both expect Fabrikant to have mastered English
>to become tenured. I'm not sure that is fair, since Concordia is in Quebec
>if I remember correctly, which would mean that French is the primary language
>there. That means that he would not get much chance to practice his English.
Quebec yes, but Concordia is an English (speaking) University, so all of
Facricant's day to day work is in English.
His English isn't bad - mainly preposition errors, and no, I doubt that
this has any bearing on the case at all.
--
Ray Dunn at home | r...@philmtl.philips.ca | (514) 630 3749
Denis Beauregard
I understand that some people have interest in presenting Quebec as
only French and anti-English, but :
In article <csty+a=@rpi.edu> mani...@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty) writes:
>
>Its obvious that these people both expect Fabrikant to have mastered English
>to become tenured. I'm not sure that is fair, since Concordia is in Quebec
>if I remember correctly, which would mean that French is the primary language
>there. That means that he would not get much chance to practice his English.
>
>Bill
>| mani...@cs.rpi.edu - in real life Bill Maniatty
Concordia is an English speaking university, like McGill (also in
Montreal) and Lennoxville (besides Sherbrooke). So, the fact that
Concordia is in Quebec has no relation with the quality of Fabrikant's
English.
Moreover, if this was in a French-speaking university, I don't see
the relation between someone's
English being worse and impeachment of tenure.
Using english would help to have more publication, but at the
local level, in a non-english university, this is not relevant. Compare
with any other non-english country.
--
\_\ Denis Beauregard * internet:beau...@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
/ \ Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J __> Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-=== Opinions ? Et pis non !