An agreement between Professor Verushka Lieutenant-Duval and the University of Ottawa regarding the “N-word” has been reached. The clauses of this agreement, which occurred during an arbitration process, however, remain confidential.
“The parties have agreed to fully resolve the grievances and all disputes between them to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved. The resolution remains confidential,” wrote arbitrator Michelle Flaherty, in an award rendered on June 13. “Consequently, I do not draw any conclusions in the context of these arbitral proceedings and the file is now closed,” she adds.
Verushka Lieutenant-Duval, who was a lecturer at the University of Ottawa, was temporarily removed from her duties after saying the “N-word” in a course on the representation of sexual identities in visual arts, in the fall of 2020. In the months following the event, the professor maintained that the university never asked her version of the facts before removing her from her position.
Arbitrator Michelle Flaherty, in the three-page award, summarizes the respective positions of the University of Ottawa and Professor Verushka Lieutenant-Duval, represented by her union, the Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa (APTPUO).
“The Complainant was at the center of a media storm, often amplified by social networks. She lost her right to anonymity. His personal information, including his address and phone number, was published on Twitter and elsewhere. She received numerous messages, at times threatening,” according to the APTPUO.
“During this time, the University issued communications that described its comments as unacceptable and inappropriate, without having taken the time to view the interactions with students, and before even meeting with the Complainant to obtain her version of the facts », Adds the union.
“For the APTPUO, the reactive actions of the University caused irreparable harm to the complainant. The importance of procedural fairness is not only a right that is granted for the benefit of individuals affected by a decision, but also for the decision makers. By having more information, the decisions made are thoughtful and intelligible,” the decision reads.
Before the arbitrator, the University, for its part, maintained that it acted in good faith.
“For the University, it is important to recognize that contrary to what was reported in the media during the fall 2020 events, the complainant was not disciplinary suspended or dismissed. She remained a paid employee of the University, and no disciplinary measures were imposed on the complainant or placed in her file,” according to the University.
The establishment also claims that the use of the “N-word” was not an issue in the event. “What is at the heart of the University’s decisions and actions, taken in accordance with the collective agreement, did not arise from the complainant’s choice to utter this word, but rather from the events during the following class, which gave rise to a crisis requiring intervention on the part of the University,” continues the higher school.
As a result of this course, the university says it received complaints from students. “The University had to intervene temporarily and quickly in order to fully understand the situation and implement an approach reconciling the interests of the students, the community and the complainant,” we read.
“At the time of the events, the University found itself in special circumstances. The issue of racism was already at the center of significant collective reflection and was the subject of numerous interventions in its community and in the various media,” adds the Ottawa establishment.
The University also maintains that its communications were intended to promote equity, diversity, inclusion as well as freedom of expression and academic freedom. “Freedom of expression and academic freedom are necessary for the functioning of any university. The protection of respectful exchanges and academic debates in the classroom is fundamental in a university environment,” underlines the University.
The APTPUO did not want to comment on this agreement and Professor Lieutenant-Duval did not return our calls. The University of Ottawa did not respond to our questions, but simply stated, by email: “The disputes were resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved. »