OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Monday, March 28

#23658

OMG: I was following March 17's OMG on unwanted body contact and Counselling Services issues. It ran out of room when it hit around 200 posts. So the debate got cut off and I'm too lazy to hit the "Load more..." button to see posts past the default 200 view limit.

Would be good to have an omg to get updates on the unfolding sexual harassment situation at Counselling Services, women's safety on campus, and UW's response to these issues. I find they overlap and are important to me.

181 comments

  1. Are people really still talking about what happened at that office party?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what office party

      Delete
    2. 1a, a quick OMGUW Table of Contents on Counselling Services harassment:

      www.omguw.com/2015/06/21008.html
      Feds Execs AMA! (between 20392 and 20393)
      2015 Jan 19 Q18a-u: FEDs views on unpunished sexual harassment counsellor at CS (22 comments)
      omg20389
      Counseling Services staff and Dalhousie dentistry gentlemen (17 comments)
      omg20236
      CS director imprint article (3 comments)
      omg20165
      Counselling Services cost questions (22 comments)
      omg20813
      brainstorming to remove the director due to malfeasance

      Delete
    3. omg20801
      student service fee increase, finance report highlights.
      omg20768
      cancelation experiences and trends, scheduling fraud
      omg20791
      UW institutional tolerance of sexual violence.
      omg20780
      feasibility of alternatives to counseling services
      www.omguw.com/2014/11/20036.html
      omg20030
      CS groper creeps out, alternatives (10 comments)

      Delete
    4. 19849
      women's safety concerns, management punishing victim, aims to promote groper (111 comments)
      www.omguw.com/2014/02/18476.html
      www.ask.omguw.com/2014/01/5754.html

      Delete
    5. I am so fucking sick of this. Mods, can we please ban all threads about Counselling Services? This is getting ridiculous

      Delete
    6. www.omguw.com/2016/03/23632.html
      Must-read posts from omg23632: events from March 19th, 2016 to March 23, 2016
      10d:
      Calling Dr Morgan "notorious liar", "total crock of shit", "9 years ffs, move on. Nobody cares"
      11a:
      "everything you said in 10d sounds angry and personal. And you want OP to go to Counselling Services. Do you counsel with that mouth?"
      11i:
      "student apology" for 10d, based on "long discussion with a friend", with denial of Counselling Services involvement, plug for Counselling Services, denial that Counselling Services staff "would come on OMGUW to bash on their colleague", expectation that most staff are unaware of the sexual harassment incident, "So don't blame them"
      15:
      summary of Counselling Services situation, (A wise man said "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".
      All eyes on Counselling Services.)
      23c:
      plea to UW President,

      Not must-reads (skip):
      1h,1j,3a,3c,5c,5f,5g,5h,6o,6q,6r,7a,7b,9e,9f,9h,22g,22h,22i spammed diverting articles pasted, causing omg23632 shutdown at 200+post view-limit,
      immediately after 23c plea to UW president Dr. Feridun Hamdullahpur
      Press "Load more..." at page bottom to view all 212 posts

      Delete
    7. actually these are useful

      Delete
    8. @1b/c/d/f do you really have nothing better to do?

      Delete
    9. Wait... so all of the "recent events" on this topic were actually just OMGUW shitposts that OP took way too seriously?

      LMFAO

      OP, really, honestly, you need a reality check. As in, you need to spend a couple weeks off of this site, talking to people in the real world. Then maybe you'll realize that the only place left in the world that still bothers to bring this up are the handful of degenerates who still hang out on this site, and that they only really do it because it's pretty much guaranteed to start a flame war 100% of the time. And you're buying into it.

      But if you want to stop going to Counselling Services because of something that happened a decade ago and was resolved by a Human Rights Tribunal (seriously, go read the actual ruling in detail - it was pretty thorough), then by all means stop. My wait time is too long anyway.

      Delete
    10. 1f, this is finally making more sense

      Delete
    11. 1i "My wait time is too long anyway." do you mean as a counsellor or client

      Delete
    12. you forgot omg23629 the one with the Imprint piece and photo

      Delete
    13. 1k, as a client, sorry. Go in after the 3rd or 4th week of term and it takes me 5 or 6 weeks to get in to see a counsellor - maybe 3 if it's urgent. Not enough people there to meet current demand. If there's any crisis counselling services *actually* is facing, it's that.

      Delete
    14. @1a, 1 here.

      I think it was around 2 ~ 3 years ago. There was some party for counselling services staff, one of the men who worked their got drunk and grabbed the ass of one of the female psychologists. She filed a complain of sexual harassment and it was tried in front of the Ontario Human Rights Council. The Council ruled in the guy's favour, citing it as an isolated incident involving alcohol, and told her (the complainant) that she overreacted, but awarded her money for "hurt feelings".

      After the verdict, someone came on OMGUW asking for people to help get the guy fired, stating that if he had grabbed the psychologists ass, who knew what he does to his female counsellors. It popped up again because that guy had applied for and got a promotion, moving from seeing students to an admin role. Someone with "insider knowledge" about Counselling Services said that after the complaint was filed, the guy would keep his door open if he saw female patients because he was scared of potential further complaints. They also said that the female psychologist had begun to be ostracized in the office, and that the guy she made the complaint against had made offhand remarks about her after she filed.

      So for a certain type of person, it's obvious why they think the way they do. Ignoring context, the situation becomes: a woman filed a sexual harassment complaint against a man, the system failed and threw out the complaint, the man got a promotion, and now the woman is being ostracized by her coworkers.

      Delete
    15. 1n that doesn't match the official links. so I don't believe any of what you wrote.

      Delete
    16. 1n, your excuse tactics change fast

      Delete
    17. 1p that's because they're scrambling to try to find a way to make this go away and have us buy in

      Delete
    18. I suppose it's relevant to post these links again.

      Full text of the Human Rights Tribunal Ruling from 2013 on the incident that occurred in 2009 (please read it, it's actually very well thought-out):

      http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2013/2013hrto1644/2013hrto1644.html

      Imprint article on that same ruling:

      http://www.uwimprint.ca/article/3764-human-rights-tribunal-rules-that-counselling

      Delete
    19. yeah that doesn't at all line up with what 1n said

      Delete
    20. 1s I am so turned off by their lies

      Delete
    21. @1m, @1n

      omg just let it be lol this is a single pathetic troll feeding off your attention.
      The most pathetic thing about him is that he replies to himself to create a false sense of "group consensus". I have honestly never seen such bad faith. Observe how all the replies against Counselling Services (here, in 23632 and other threads) have the exact same writing style. He is purposefully doing that to annoy you, traps you into defending yourself, then says that defending yourself is a proof that you're lying. He's been doing the same thing for several threads now. I kinda feel sorry for this creature, his life must be really miserable :)

      Delete
  2. Good to see you have made your own omg instead of continuing to hijack others. For example, the omg you're referring to wasn't about Counselling Services at all.

    Btw, everyone can see clearly that you have an agenda and you are desperately trying to keep a 3-years-old event in the news, but I won't judge you for it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "unfolding"

    The damn thing happened in 2007, and was a news story in 2012....

    That's not "unfolding." That's "unfolded, then got folded back up again and put away."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reading omg 23632, a lot did happen last week. Maybe that's what OP meant by unfolding. And then the omg got shut down. I never saw that. There are some really angry staff.

      Delete
    2. 3a, "people talking about this on OMGUW again" isn't "stuff happening." Hell, it doesn't even really qualify as "conversation happening."

      Delete
    3. Don't be so sure ...

      Delete
  4. Omg 23632 went crazy. never seen so many posts on an omg before

    ReplyDelete
  5. all these years ppl throw out don't match. 2007? 2012? 3 years is 2013. could u get your excuses straight even?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I was going off memory. The point is it's a *very* old incident that turned into an old news story, which occasionally pops up on OMGUW every so often when people get bored of making racist shitposts. There is literally nothing that can be said about it at this point that hasn't already been said dozens of times in many different ways, and it's one of a few particular discussions here which is guaranteed to end up chasing its own tail, every time.

      So... let's grow up and move on? Or, if that's impossible, maybe at least stop pretending it's some kind of "current issue" that's affecting the University's reputation and the broader student opinion? Because it's not, and it isn't.

      Delete
    2. 5a I don't think anything you said is true or good advice

      Delete
    3. @5b you are so fucking annoying. 5a is absolutely right. There is nothing more to discuss. If you don't "trust" Counselling Services, just don't go there. Like what are you trying to get out of this? What is your goal?

      Delete
    4. dunno about 5b, but truth. or change

      Delete
    5. 5c what are you so angry about? what's it to you?

      Delete
  6. I sure don't feel like walking into that zone. I don't trust advice from anyone there who feels that anger.

    ReplyDelete
  7. People who claim to know this is a non issue, where do you get your information from?
    How do you know?
    Why should your assurances mean anything to me?
    We all saw the meltdown last week by a counsellor, with Dr Morgan being called a "notorious liar", among other things.
    Why should we stand aside while staff does that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >7 thinks they see something

      >Claims "we all saw"

      heh

      7, it's a non issue because nobody cares. Simple as that. You could talk to 1000 students on campus, and you might get 30 that had even heard of this story. Other than that *one time,* years ago, that Imprint wrote about it, I have literally never seen it discussed outside of OMGUW. And if you think OMGUW is representative of the campus as a whole, you spend too much time online.

      Delete
    2. 7a of course "we all saw" is just whoever read the thread.
      No one knows how many that is. It's not the whole campus. It's not the world. No way to know.

      Your wrong that no one cares. Some care a whole lot. Some care enough to get really angry (omg23632 10d anyone? just for starters).
      If you say you haven't talked about it outside of omg, you're either lying, or are in the minority. A lot of students are casual omguw readers. We may look now and then. Skim through and see if anything catches our interest. Most of us never post. But we can take it in, and it can affect what we do or our view.

      If it makes you sleep better thinking no one cares or reads what gets written here, go ahead. But while your sleeping, others may be reading.

      Delete
    3. 7a, what does that even mean "I have literally never seen it discussed outside of omguw". This is just a UW community forum. Why would i write about omguw somewhere else? This site works fine.

      Delete
    4. 7b/c can you just let it go? I really don't understand what you people are trying to accomplish. So far, I see you as a bunch of whinny and annoying trolls.

      Delete
    5. 7d no. This impacts out there in the real world. The toxic state at Counselling Services makes it inadequate for us to go there with any concerns about sexual harassment, sexual assaults, or bullying in groups we're in.
      With Counselling Services treating its own like this (name-calling, victim-blaming), how can we trust them to treat us any better? That's just part of why this is important to me.

      Delete
  8. Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) documents
    HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

    CanLII 2013 HRTO 2119
    Dr Tracy Morgan Applicant, Self-represented
    -and-
    University of Waterloo and David Mackay Respondents, Ted Kovacs, Counsel
    RECONSIDERATION DECISION
    Date: December 27, 2013
    File Number: 2010-05370-I
    Citation: 2013 HRTO 2119
    "[2] On October 28, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The applicant submits that the Decision wrongly decided a number of issues. She submits that Mr. Mackay did sexually harass her on six occasions in the hallways and that these actions also constitute reprisal. She submits that the University failed to investigate these allegations and as such failed in its Code mandated duty to investigate. She submits that the University’s response to her allegations about the hallway incidents constitute reprisal. She submits that the University also failed in its duty to investigate the June 16, 2010 incident. Finally, the applicant submits that the Tribunal should have ordered non-financial remedies in order to ensure her safety and to promote a non-discriminatory workplace. The applicant provides extensive written
    submissions in support of her Request for Reconsideration."

    ReplyDelete
  9. CanLII 2013 HRTO 1644
    Dr Tracy Morgan Applicant, Self-represented
    -and-
    University of Waterloo and David Mackay Respondents, Ted Kovacs, Counsel
    DECISION
    Date: October 1, 2013
    "[1] This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex. The Application further alleges that the applicant’s rights to claim and pursue her rights under the Code without reprisal were infringed."

    ReplyDelete
  10. CanLII 2011 HRTO 2071
    Dr Tracy Morgan Applicant, Self-represented
    -and-
    University of Waterloo and David Mackay Respondents, Ted Kovacs, Counsel
    INTERIM DECISION
    Date: November 15, 2011
    "[1] This Interim Decision is issued in relation to the request made to the Waterloo Regional Police Services (“WRPS”) to disclose certain documents in its possession and control that are arguably relevant to the Tribunal’s decision in this matter.

    [2] On October 5, 2010 the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) in which it directed the WRPS to respond to the parties’ joint request for the production of certain documents in its possession and control.

    The CAD invited the WRPS to make submissions in response to this request. The CAD indicated that the Tribunal would allow the parties the opportunity to respond to any such submissions before it made a determination as to whether to order the production of these documents."

    ReplyDelete
  11. CanLII 2011 HRTO 1422
    Dr Tracy Morgan Applicant, Self-represented
    -and-
    University of Waterloo and David Mackay Respondents, Ted Kovacs, Counsel
    INTERIM DECISION
    Date: July 28, 2011
    "In brief, the applicant alleges that the institutional respondent continues to subject her to reprisal and the personal respondent continues to discriminate against her. She requests that her Application be amended to include alleged incidents of reprisal and discrimination dating principally from January 2011 to June 2011."

    ReplyDelete
  12. CanLII 2011 HRTO 899
    Dr Tracy Morgan Applicant, Self-represented
    -and-
    University of Waterloo and David Mackay Respondents
    INTERIM DECISION
    Date: May 9, 2011
    "This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ request for an adjournment."

    ReplyDelete
  13. CanLII 2010 HRTO 1237
    Dr Tracy Morgan Applicant, Self-represented
    -and-
    University of Waterloo and David Mackay Respondents, Ted Kovacs, Counsel
    INTERIM DECISION
    Date: June 2, 2010
    "On May 31, 2010 the applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application."

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's so obviously Counselling Services staff who are trying to stop these omgs. Face it.
    1. he sexually harassed her
    2. UW covered it up for him
    3. they're all wanting it to stay blocked.

    This is silencing. This is what allows work offenders to get away with doing what they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on Counselling Services' 7 years (2009-2016) suppression to date it only makes sense that we counter that with 7 years more of protesting this. Dr Morgan we will not let this go until we get positive proof that the situation has changed. And yes we'll keep a closer look than in the past. We won't go away or forget. You have my word on this.

      Delete
    2. Here's my take. Either it was Counselling Services David MacKay who wrote that disgusting OMG23632 10d&11i or it wasn't.

      If it was, it shows that he holds uncontrolled anger against Dr Morgan and is acting on it years later. This matches what Dr Morgan reported.

      If it wasn't, it shows David MacKay has spread his anger to others, who now act out their combined group anger against the "notorious liar" Dr Morgan, and are spreading hatred. Either way, it's damning of the current hostile nature at Counselling Services today, and must be intolerable for Dr Morgan, all in reaction since she reported the sexual harassment and reprisals.

      And UW is to blame more widely as it tolerates and even actively supports victim-blaming, by never clamping down on this through the current chain of command.

      All reasons I support the calls to keep many close eyes on that place, and to opt-out of paying Counselling Services fees and instead going off-site with our counselling dollars.

      Delete
    3. 14b, Counselling Services is funded out of the Student Services fee, which is non-refundable and mandatory for all full-time students. The money you pay that allows you 10 sessions with a counsellor wouldn't even get you 30 mins with a mental health worker off-campus.

      Anyway, nice try attempting to start up a dead thread... again....

      But seriously, silencing? A fair hearing in front of a Human Rights Tribunal, with the ruling published online for the public to read, and coverage in our student newspaper, is silencing? Maybe, just maybe, appropriate consequences *were* meted out at the time, and there have been no further incidents because nothing else has happened? There was no evidence to suggest this guy was some kind of predator - just that he was a bit of a sexist drunk asshole. But by all means, continue with your one-person vendetta.

      Delete
    4. 14c, What's the use of value without values? What's a counsellor's advice worth who calls the victim a "notorious liar" like we just saw on display now? What do values do I get from that counsellor's advice? Thanks I'll pass.

      14a, I think educating and raising awareness of campus women's safety is just as important. At some point the laws will catch up with what's going on. Along the way others will step up in different ways. We'll keep talking and our concerns and will keep being minimized in the same breath we're called names.

      Delete
  15. uh "dead thread"? dude OP just posted last week! how short an attention span do you think i have? I guess this can't disappear fast enough for some ... what's the big rush?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And... here we go again. You didn't get the message it seems: NOBODY CARES. This happened a decade ago. Please, find some other cause to defend, or get off this site and do something useful with your life.

      Delete
    2. A decade? March 17 was 2 weeks ago! Your saying nobody cares won't stop us from caring. I care as much for female staff as female students. We're all part of the campus. Soon I'll be in the workforce and I hope people there care too! Honestly it makes me want to work at a private company, not a public place like this. I hope people there would care that I not be called names if I'm ever in Dr Morgan's shoes.

      Delete
    3. ^ I don't know if you realize how ridiculous you are. Nothing happened on March 17 other than a bunch of emotional kids shitposting on OMGUW. I know you REALLY want to believe in this fantasy where you are a hero fighting for the victims of sexual abuse, but it's all in your head sadly. My advice is to get off the internet, take a walk, listen to some music and talk to people in real life. Your delusions are just annoying for us, but for you they might be very unhealthy.

      Delete
    4. Your yelling NOBODY CARES just makes it worse. Calling women names just makes it worse. Trying to stop talks about this just makes it worse. I didn't care before but now I do because of your attitude! Don't you dare try to counsel me. I don't trust a word you say.

      Delete
    5. ^ The fact that you believe I'm a counselor is a proof you are seriously deluded.

      Delete
    6. ^I don't care who you are. But you're still trying to diagnose me. I'm not listening to your advice.

      Delete
    7. ^ LOL you're such a baby. I'm not trying to diagnose you sweetie, I'm just stating facts. You spend too much time on the internet and you seem to suffer from severe delusions. But hey don't listen to me. Go to Counselling Services for an actual diagnosis...

      Delete
    8. ^worst ad spot evar

      Delete
  16. @15b "I hope people there would care that I not be called names if I'm ever in Dr Morgan's shoes". Let's hope for your sake that never happens. From posted court links @8-@13, from 4 years of extensive submissions, Dr Morgan walked a long, difficult, and ultimately fruitless path.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @15aceg condescend much?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't believe for a minute that students posted 23632 10d and 11i. It was the Counselling Services gang that shares that view among themselves that Dr Morgan is a "notorious liar" and the other crap they say about her. Totally unacceptable from UW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Careful dude, I think you're tinfoil hat is slipping off a bit, the government's mind control waves will get through if you don't fix that shit quickly.

      Delete
    2. You're just denying this with ridicule! If you think you know so much about it, answer @19's questions.

      Delete
    3. 18b, it is painfully obvious - and has been right from the beginning - that 19/OP/etc. is not going to be satisfied by any answer from anybody. Either this is a personal vendetta to try and get the upper-level staff in Counselling Services to resign (doubtful, since I'd be surprised if many people from Counselling Services regularly visit this website at all), or it's an attempt to start a flame war using a topic that's basically always guaranteed to do just that (highly likely, since that's pretty much what people come to this site to do).

      Delete
    4. not being satisfied with your lies isn't the problem, so tell the truth! We're going to get there anyway, even if this takes many years. But blowing up at the victim and then blaming it on your clients isn't the answer.

      Delete
    5. lol 18d, I'm actually just a random arts student. But I've been around awhile, so I've seen this discussion unfold so many times and it's gotten tiresome.

      Anyway, it's clear you've already decided what the truth ought to be, and dismiss all other opinions - or attempts to have a reasonable discussion about the questions or values at play in this case - as lies/posts by counsellors. There's no sense arguing with somebody who's made up their mind and decided they will always be right, so I'll take my leave now. Have fun spinning conspiracies and trying to "awaken the sheeple"!

      Delete
  19. ^Can you answer any of the questions posted by OMG23632@11ag to OMG23632@11i about 11i's post below?

    "I am the person who wrote @10d and I want to apologize and withdraw all my comments. I have had a long discussion with a friend of mine today, and I have come to the conclusion that I was in the wrong. My interpretation of this incident was exclusively based on comments read on OMGUW and it was a very biased interpretation. I don't know any of the people involved and I am not associated with Counselling Services in any way. I did attend Counselling Services numerous times and I was very satisfied with their services. I don't know anyone there who would come on OMGUW to bash on their colleague. In fact, I don't think most of them are even aware of the sexual harassement incident (as @6c has mentioned). So don't blame them for what is said here... this forum is mostly students trolling and shitposting."

    1. If you're not a Counselling Services staff, how do you know what they know or heard?
    2. Did Counselling Services staff tell you during your sessions?
    3.You know a lot about many of their thoughts. How? ("I don't think most of them are even aware...")

    4. And why the marketing for Counselling Services, if you have no association? (..."I was very satisfied with their services")
    5. Just decided on a commercial break for them during your apology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Answer: you got trolled so hard, you're still triggered just thinking about it a month later. Now an we move on?

      Delete
    2. ^what's "triggered"?

      Delete
    3. This is the best proof I can think of for why arguing about this stuff on an anonymous forum where nobody knows each others' identities just doesn't work.

      19, you will always be suspicious of every answer you get that doesn't perfectly conform to the story you've already convinced yourself of. Anybody contradicting you is a Counselling Services shill, the same way that those who disagree with you view any posts sympathetic to your viewpoint as simply duplicates you are writing yourself. Furthermore, because you don't know who you're talking to, you pick apart their words for the slightest - sometimes even trivial - inconsistencies, and then use those to say "hey, here's why you're clearly lying and wrong." Which is no way to have a discussion, it's purely a witch hunt. Except this is a self-contained witch hunt with no real world consequences or impact, so have at it if this is fun for you, I guess. For the rest of us, it's just another shitty OMGUW flame war.

      If you really want to draw attention to this stuff, then ask the admins about it directly at the next university town hall, or ask your student councillor to bring it up at the next Feds Council meeting, or write an op-ed in Imprint calling for action. Those are all real world things that lead to real world conversations that sometimes result in genuine action. All that anybody is doing here is chasing their own tales, leading nowhere.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, I meant to say tails instead of tales, but the way I wrote it actually kinda works too I guess.

      Delete
    5. Everyone knows Imprint and Feds won't solve this. Is that why you suggested it? So we waste our time? The solution will need to come from outside, online. Leaks or whatever. Eyeballs, sharing knowledge, and building scrutiny. This is venue's perfect. You know that? Is that why you want us to stop posting? Because you're afraid of the changes we can cause? This isn't a flame war. We're after real fixes for campus women's safety.

      Delete
    6. 19e, I'm trying to suggest that you move your efforts off of this site - one which the Mods themselves admit is undergoing a slow death, and is receiving less visitors/posters than ever before - and engage in actual advocacy/activism, since that's infinitely more likely to actually accomplish something. All you're doing right now is wasting your time.

      Engage the public. Own this issue and build trust by attaching your name to it. Mobilize one of the many groups on-campus that would be willing to go to bat for this with a little bit of evidence. Question public officials to their faces. Put pressure on administrators by protesting in person and in the media. Lobby for change by meeting with those administrators directly once you've gained some traction. This is how change works.

      Here in this place, all that anybody does is brand you another tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, and move on. It accomplishes nothing. And if that's all you intend to keep doing, then you ARE a troll and this IS a flame war, whether that's what you intended or not. So be aware.

      Delete
    7. I believe Dr Tracy Morgan spoke in my best interest. I do not believe that UW, or David MacKay, or you, speak in my best interest. I'm not going away. My best interests aren't going away either.

      Delete
    8. ^lol ok. Whatever floats your boat. But never once has "anonymously posting about something a lot in a little-known internet forum" sparked even the slightest bit of change. You don't have to believe that I speak in your best interest. But you could try actually reading my words, thinking critically, and deciding for yourself whether or not they make sense. You CAN make a difference, you CAN push for changes that will actually improve women's safety on campus. But you won't accomplish that if you only post here. That's just a fact. Go ahead and distrust me if you want, I believe my words speak for themselves.

      Delete
    9. ^not a fact, just discouragement. It takes courage.

      Delete
    10. Ah yes, the courageous act of hiding behind the mask of anonymity to talk about whatever the fuck you want. How silly of me to forget. The actual activists who risk their reputations and careers to speak out publicly, raise awareness about the issues that matter, lead protests in the face of entrenched systemic injustices with their names and faces splashed across local papers... Really *they're* the cowards for not posting in obscure online forums as "anonymous." You brave soul, you.

      Delete
    11. Dr Tracy Morgan is brave. She risked her reputation and career, spoke out publicly and her name's all over the links above. But she didn't choose it. She isn't an activist then?

      Delete
    12. Uhh... no? She's not an activist, she's a victim of sexual harassment who chose to come forward and take legal action against her harasser, and was subsequently awarded partial damages by an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the OHRT's ruling (and from what I've seen, opinions tend to be divided), nothing about that isn't in doubt.

      But what does that have to do with whether or not an obscure/dying community website where everybody hides their identities behind a wall of anonymity is capable of being a force for social change?
      Moving back to the point I've been trying to make: if you see what happened a decade ago as a great injustice and want to fight for change, by all means do that. Fight for things to be different. Be a real activist. You can even keep posting here at the same time if you want. But if all your action is anonymous and online, nothing will change because nobody will pay attention. That's just how the world works.

      Delete
    13. Whoops, REALLY meant to say "nothing about that is in doubt," not "nothing isn't in doubt." Sorry.

      Delete
    14. Your first wording works too: "nothing about that (HRTO decision) isn't in doubt". Lack of women's safety needs in that decision, which Dr Tracy Morgan challenged, is a big source of the current problem.

      Delete
    15. politician here: yes, i am an activist. i love music

      Delete
    16. 19n, and there are many on this campus who would agree with you. But this site has never been friendly to them. Every time this case is brought up here the result is just the few remaining people on this site using it as an opportunity to drag Dr. Morgan's name through the mud again and again. And nothing changes - the admin don't care, the students who lobby them don't notice, hell even WPIRG doesn't have an active campaign around this and this is literally their kind of issue. This website is not a tool for generating outside traction - it's a step below reddit and several cuts below facebook or twitter, plus a whole tier below real life engagement.

      Keep posting here if you want, but without real world action to pressure decision-makers for change, all you're doing is perpetually reopening what I'd imagine is now a very old wound for Dr. Morgan.

      Delete
    17. @19p First I see of Dr Tracy Morgan's name "dragged through the mud" is March 19th 2016 OMG23632 post 10d. That started this huge backlash. Anything before that comment on this site seems absolutely glowing towards her. Where do you see any different? This site seems like the only home for community talks on UW women's safety issues, including hers.

      And about reopening her old wounds, based on the last we heard from her, she complained to there was nothing to stop the injuring environment at Counselling Services or by David MacKay, a counsellor in that department. That's also why we're here today, to make the wounding stop.

      Delete
    18. 19q, "make the wounding stop" is a good idea. But you aren't doing anything practical to bring that about, you're just complaining about the state of things on a dying website that nobody reads. And because it's all anonymous, half the people who DO come here don't believe what you write anyway while the other half were already convinced of it all along.

      I have tried to engage with you. I've tried to push you towards doing something practical and meaningful with your stated passion for this issues, towards real-world actions that will put actual pressure on the only people actually in a position to make policy changes for the better on this matter.

      But you've repeatedly ignored, deflected, and avoided all of those attempts, while continuously chasing your own tail and trying to perpetuate conspiracies by accusing me of being some kind of university shill.

      At this point, it's clear that you're either hopelessly deluded and think that your "anonymous armchair activism" is actually accomplishing something, or you're a troll who just wants to rile me up and waste my time. So I'm done. Have fun doing whatever it is you think you're doing, but if you are serious about this know that you've lost a potential ally.

      Delete
    19. @19r No way is omguw dying. It'll last as long as there are UW students. Lots of us know of it and read, few post. That's true of any online forum. Your half/half doesn't make sense since there's student turnover. ppl can act/protest wherever they want, including here. ppl in authority have had enough time to do the right thing but they haven't. I have no idea who you are or your motivations. I'm just unconvinced that this online forum isn't useful.

      Delete
    20. ^they didn't answer your questions

      Delete
    21. Not 19* but piping in ... the only one I trust on this is Dr Tracy Morgan and she's said her piece. I can't speak for others, but if she were to ever say publicly (so I know it's really her) that all is well for UW women's safety issues and her own safety concerns, then I'd be fine with it and wouldn't read another omg on it. She's earned that. To me her word has more weight than UW's president.

      Delete
  20. @19k and @19j "She risked her reputation and career" "activists who risk their reputations and careers to speak out publicly" what do you mean?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^well this is obvious, what do you expect?!

      Delete
    2. I guess a person should know the risk that these things would happen. But did they? Who's to say her career or reputation has suffered at all? 19q said her reputation's glowing here.

      Delete
    3. You can't know now how Counselling Services would have treated her any differently if she didn't complain tho.

      Delete
    4. @20d, don't judge who, Counselling Services or Dr Tracy Morgan?

      Delete
  21. Nasty, disgusting women like tracy should know their place, go back to the kitchen, I say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but my mom works in the kitchen

      Delete
    2. Doctor Tracy Morgan is a human rights defender, from a UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner term description.

      Delete
  22. @20c dunno maybe you can start here, from @OMG23632 post 10:
    "Not much is said about what's become of the original victim who didn't come forward. I don't know if she still works at Counselling Services. If so, it would be instructive to contrast her work situation in the intervening years to the complainant's."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what original victim?

      Delete
    2. For David Mackay's original victim, let's see what we can piece together from the links. Any quotes about sexual harassment by David MacKay of anyone before Dr Tracy Morgan? Please people scan through and see what's in there.

      Delete
    3. Okay I'll help look but there's a lot to go through. The indexing and links help. It's hard to know where to start. Are there other ways I can help?

      Delete
    4. Ways you can help: tell your friends and roommates. Ask Counselling Services and your counsellor about what they're doing to resolve this. Do you buy UW's and other posters' statements that this was all fixed already and UW doesn't need to do anything more. As we saw the poison atmosphere Dr Morgan reported there is alive and well. Give ideas here about how to get the word out. Tell them the latest omg# (23658 so far), and ask them if they've been reading it too.

      Delete
    5. @22b David Mackay's earlier victim was included right in the published HRTO decision along with Dr. Morgan's. The names of people involved in the case are already public.

      Delete
    6. I can't believe you keep on bumping this ridiculous thread. Please get a life.

      Delete
    7. ^What do you mean bumping? This Counselling Services problem is the main topic I check this site for updates. Most other threads aren't that important. I pan down to 23658 (and 23632 before) and see if anything new's written. And what are you doing responding within an hour, after midnight? Saying not to talk about this? Just look at some of the things being talked about and ways people are talking on other threads here and you're seriously calling this one out for being ridiculous? It's literally the only place to get an idea what's going on about UW's responses to sexual harassment on campus. I'll scan for safety-related new thread topics and read those. Stuff that UW otherwise doesn't talk about.

      Delete
    8. ^ hahahaha omg stahp I'm dying

      Delete
    9. So let me get this straight. A male counsellor at Counselling Services sexually harassed a female psychologist at Counselling Services, and the University didn't fire him? So I can go to Counselling Services for a problem I have with someone groping me and talk with him about it?

      Delete
    10. 22i, the long and the short of it is that he attempted to grab her ass at a work function after having a handful of drinks. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario examined all of the evidence, and determined that:

      a) There was some harassment that occurred, but not to the extent the complainant insisted;
      b) The likelihood that the defendant would repeat similar behaviour in the future was minimal - this was not a case of serial harassment;
      c) In consultation with the complainant, there was no need to restrict the defendant's movements in the workplace, separate the defendant or complainant from each other, or otherwise have the University pursue additional punitive action from the complainant (though continuing to address the issue through HR would not hurt).

      Subsequently, they awarded the complainant a little under half the money she sued for, due to "damage to her feelings," and awarded legal costs to nobody.

      This was a good 7 years ago now, and that was that. And now we're into... year 4 of spinning our wheels on this topic here on OMGUW? You soon learn nobody here has anything new to say on the topic.

      Delete
    11. ^I believe Dr Tracy Morgan that UW, Dr Tom Ruttan, and David MacKay were and continue unchecked to be complicit in systemic reprisals against Dr Tracy Morgan to this day. This continues to be detrimental to the public safety of women on our campus. This is a major conflict of interest that MUST be resolved.

      Delete
    12. 1) That's not what a conflict of interest means.

      2) What you say may be true, but it's one thing to say "there are systemic reprisals," it's another to actually have demonstrable evidence of those things - which is something you absolutely must have in order for change to occur.

      3) In this thread alone, this debate has happened four separate times, and has become utterly circuitous in each case. I do not believe there is anything new to say on this topic, therefore I will not be responding any further at this time, because I have a life.

      Delete
    13. This thread is hilarious. Keep it up guys <3

      Delete
    14. David MacKay and Dr Ruttan cannot both sexually harass and reprise at their workplace AND independently counsel students in a professional capacity for student concerns that include sexual harassment and reprisal. THAT's conflict of interest.

      Delete
  23. It's outrageous that UW's President and the entire Board of Directors (names please?) allow this breach to continue. They show gross negligence of their governance duties and mandate. They could have stopped this disgusting activity any day. It's within each of their power to raise this as an issue to address. Yet every day each one of them chooses to do absolutely nothing to resolve this.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Someone should bring this to the media's attention. Stuff like this goes on at tones of universities, and it seems like nothing gets changed til they get shamed for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^It's only a matter of time. David MacKay and Dr Ruttan could have put the breaks on their own behavior but they chose not to. Given the freedom UW's executive and BoD gave them, they've abused to their limits (which are none). They got themselves into this mess by choosing to not self-regulate. Full freedom+full suppression = absolute power -> absolute corruption. Do this for long enough (years, getting more emboldened) and you're bound to get caught eventually.

      Delete
    2. Invented mess, you mean. Thanks to the tribunal's ruling, there's no way they could fire anybody without that person suing for wrongful dismissal. This issue has already been in the media - 5 years ago, when it was briefly talked about and then died down.

      That said, a provincial law is forcing all universities (including ours) to develop a sexual violence policy by October (the creation of UW's is well underway, and our student reps on Feds have been involved in the process). It will have to be brought into force by January, so if you want some details, email a Feds exec about it.

      Delete
    3. So they sue. If that's the price to kick Dr Ruttan and David MacKay out and resolve the situation then it's a bargain. Small compared to the emotional price Dr Tracy Morgan has paid over the last several years. Where's that Board of Directors list?

      Delete
    4. You underestimate the University's aversion to risk 24c. The tribunal explicitly recommended against further disciplinary action, which, in a public sector setting like this, basically ties the university's hands.

      If you're curious who is on the Board of Governors, the list is at uwaterloo.ca/secretariat. That said, the Feds President is always one of the five student governors on the board, so you can probably just contact him: pres@feds.ca. But be aware the Board only meets four or five times a year, and doesn't deal with individual HR issues, really at all.

      Delete
  25. I still don't understand what type of person would care so much about this whole thing to bump a month old thread everyday with the same annoying walls of texts despite being called out on their hypocrisy again and again by numerous people. The only possibility I see is Tracy Morgan herself or someone very close to her.
    If you folks really can't move on like normal people do after having the same discussions for a few years, can you at least try to solve your private issues by yourselves? Go to the police if you have been victim of a criminal act, go to court if someone is harassing you, resign from your job if your working environment is """toxic""" etc etc there are an infinity of solutions to this """problem""" of yours and they don't involve riling up University students and using them as your personal army in a cause that doesn't concern them.
    And let me be clear before you say I'm David McKay or I work at Counselling Services or some other fucking bullshit that doesn't address what my post says but tries to undermine my credibility so you can continue your cringy shitshow. Let me be fucking clear: I don't care about David McKay. I won't shed a tear if he gets fired or he goes to prison or he gets lynched. I also don't care about Dr Ruttan, Tracy Morgan, the Board of Directors, the President of UW or anyone else mentioned in these threads. I don't know them, I don't want to know them, I don't care about their lives and careers and I don't care about what they did or didn't do. IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS FAM. If it's your business, go sort it out by yourself.
    This site used to be so fun. We had debates, shitposts, trolls, SJW/anti-SJW drama, thirsty guys trying to hook up, memes, banter about UW life, whining about the Feds etc. Your bullshit doesn't belong here. Please go and stay go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does this NOT concern students? It's OUR Counselling Centre.

      Delete
    2. Don't worry 25, this will get sorted once the mods push a few more updates through and this crap falls to the third or fourth page and gets archived/locked. Though OP will probably create another thread in which to talk to themselves at that point.

      Delete
    3. @25 "thirsty guys trying to hook up"? You mean David MacKay dry-lapping his other co-worker's pussy through her clothes when she's too drunk to stop him at a CACUSS AGM banquet?

      Delete
    4. ^ Yeah sorry, I don't know anything about this, I don't attend those "banquets", nor does any student from what I know. If you have evidence of wrongdoing, go ahead and talk to the police or whoever the the concerned authorities are in this case. If you don't have evidence and you're just spreading rumors for the lulz, this is libel and you might get in trouble, so my friendly advice is to stop and find another hobby.

      Delete
    5. ^Read the public HRTO links for dry-lapping evidence already given. We can all read it ourselves.

      Delete
    6. ^ No thx I have better things to do with my time than going through your rabbit hole of links. Again, talk to the police, not me. Write a letter to the UW admin listing all your evidence and arguments. Nobody is going to do the work for you.

      Delete
    7. ^you want an exact link and spot in it for pussy dry-lapping evidence ALREADY PRESENTED? Your ideas were done. We can make it easy for you.

      Delete
    8. No 25h, g is saying they don't care, period, and that if you think you have iron clad evidence of this stuff you should just hammer it together and email the police or the Board of Governors, since that actually has a ghost of a chance of accomplishing something, unlike whatever the bell you're doing (repeating yourself 3 dozen times in one thread for shits and giggles, I assume).

      Delete
    9. @25i the co-worker was too drunk to consent to David MacKay dry-lapping her pussy, and evidence was presented to the HRTO and UW, and the Waterloo Regional Police Services (WRPS). Do you care whether or not he did this to her?

      Delete
    10. 25j the "evidence" was "I was drinking too but I think I saw it happen." Okay.

      And no, I don't particularly care either way which staff members on campus are assholes when drunk.

      Delete
    11. 25L here: I was sitting under a tree when that happened at 25P.

      Delete
    12. @25k No. The evidence of MacKay dry-lapping a coworker's pussy was from someone who did not drink at all and was right there. When being an asshole crosses the line into what the evidence presented, it gets WAY problematic. That this is how David MacKay, past president of CACUSS, behaved against his female coworkers, representing UW, and then UW, without restriction brings him back to Counselling Services, in contact with female students much younger than him, without their knowledge, it gets dangerous to students and WAAAY problematic. If not for you, then for MANY of us.

      Delete
    13. Wtf is dry-lapping anyway?

      Delete
    14. 25n, the drunk dude fell to his knees and pressed his face against the skirt of the woman in question. ...Or something like that. IIRC the tribunal found the evidence of that to not be credible, and dismissed it.

      Delete
    15. @25n from the testimony the co-worker was standing. MacKay was kneeling in front of her with his hands on her ass and his face against her pussy so ... yeah. And the witness was found to have really high credibility.

      Delete
    16. @25n, Lapping
      Oral sex on a woman
      "He gave me an amazing lapping last night."
      Urban Dictionary top definition

      Delete
  26. UW Board of Governors
    1 May 2015 - 30 April 2016
    Constituency: Name

    Chair: William Watson
    Vice-Chair: Catherine Booth
    Secretary: Logan Atkinson

    Ex officio:
    Chancellor: Tom Jenkins (18)
    President: Feridun Hamdullahpur (17)
    Mayor, Kitchener: Berry Vrbanovic (18)
    Mayor, Waterloo: Dave Jaworsky (18)
    Regional Chair: Ken Seiling (18)

    Community-at-Large:
    John Lounds (16)
    Gerry Remers (16)
    Ron Schlegel (16)
    Catherine Booth (17)
    Murray Gamble (17)
    William Pristanski (17)
    Michael Stork (17)
    William Watson (17)
    John Baker (18)
    Jordan Banks (18)
    
    Lieutenant Governor in Council:
    Thorsten Heins (16)
    Satish Rai (16)
    Vacancy (16)
    Cindy Forbes (17)
    Karen Wilkinson (17)
    Ted Scott (18)
    Marta Witer (18)

    Staff:
    Kate Windsor (17)
    Jeremy Steffler (18)

    Faculty:
    Sally Gunz (16)
    David Porreca (16)
    Hamid Tizhoosh (16)
    Tara Collington (17)
    David DeVidi (17)
    Fraser Easton (17)
    Karim S. Karim (17)

    Undergraduate students:
    Allyson Francis (16)
    Christos Lolas (16)
    Tristan Potter (17)

    Graduate Students:
    Maya D'Alessio (16)
    Robert Henderson (17)

    (16) = to 30 April 2016
    (17) = to 30 April 2017
    (18) = to 30 April 2018

    https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general-counsel/governance/board-governors/board-governors-may-1-2012-april-30-2013

    Secretariat » Governance » Board of Governors »
    Board of Governors - membership

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So that's valid for another week then, I guess.

      Delete
    2. ^The Board of Governors members are split into three groups by when their terms end. Those with a (16) beside their name will cease being UW Governors April 30, 2016. These have the longest oversight period that they are accountable for (May 1 2013-April 30 2016). The other members' terms will end in 20(17) or 20(18).

      Delete
    3. Those people have already had their last Board meeting, 26b. The Board won't meet again until June 2016, at which point the "term end 2016" people will be replaced with new folks whose terms either end in 2017 (Feds President), 2018 (other student seat), or 2019.

      Besides, wouldn't it make more sense to pester the Senate about this, since its members meet monthly and represent the most powerful people working on-campus (as opposed to the Board, who is made up of a bunch of community business people and lawyers from Toronto)?

      Delete
    4. ^Also, most of the Board members don't have UW emails you can reach them at. But most of Senate does (since it's admins/faculty/students sitting on it).

      Delete
  27. @26c/d, the Board has the independent governance/oversight role, not the Senate. So it's appropriate to take this to the Board.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Naturally. But the Board doesn't usually listen to things that random people say to it. By contrast, it hardly ever refuses a recommendation from Senate. And since Senate is the body currently involved in developing UW's new policy on sexual violence, it makes more sense to start things there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Senate's had long enough to resolve and has not. The Senate has lost our trust. Enough policies were already in place for the current executive to act. It makes no sense that we would trust the same Senate members to create new policies that would magically cause them to do the right thing. It has been in their mandate all along. Their hands have not been tied by existing policies. We are not looking for a start to a process but a timely resolution to the current situation. The Senate has failed to bring the situation to the Board of Governors. This needs to be addressed. Given the communication failure is at and below the Senate level, an independent avenue of communication from the Senate is needed to get this message to the Board of Governors.

      Delete
    2. ^The Senate has failed to bring this to the Board because nobody has been talking about this issue. It's literally not on anyone's radar. Hell, it wasn't even something the STUDENTS on Senate, who have no fears of embarrassing themselves in front of the UW President, were talking about. But for the first time ~literally ever,~ sexual violence prevention *is* now on their radar, in a major major way.

      Perhaps you need some more background info. A few months back, the provincial government passed a law requiring all Universities to develop a policy on sexual violence prevention, to be approved by the end of 2016 (I think our Board will be voting on it in October, after Senate approves it), and implemented in practice by January 2017. And they stapled a whole bunch of requirements onto it.

      I don't know how much you know about universities, but less than a year to create and implement a new policy exceeds lightning speed by their standards (it normally takes YEARS of committee meetings to move from draft, to final copy, to draft implementation, to first review of the policy, etc.). So there's been a fair amount of discussion about this by the Senate. It's something they're seriously thinking about.

      But hey, it's not a mandatory thing that you go through Senate to put pressure on the Board. It's just a very good idea if you want them to *feel* that pressure. I recommend talking to someone who understands how UW's internal politics works (i.e. how things actually get done on this campus), so that you can develop a plan that will actually yield results (because, after all, the results are what matter, yes?).

      Delete
    3. ^Following up on that, "people who understand the university" who may be sympathetic to your cause would probably include the Feds or GSA Presidents (actually, any of the Feds Execs are good, since they sit on the committee that approves Counselling Services' budget), one of the student senators (particularly those who are also Governors), or the Presidents of the Faculty Association or Staff Association. These are people who, depending on how you approach them, may at least help guide you through an effective process, and can raise the issue themselves in their meetings with admin (if you can convince them it's an issue that needs to be raised).

      From time to time, Feds Council can be a pretty good tool for putting pressure on the university, as well - so consider contacting one of your councillors (if you're an undergraduate student).

      Delete
    4. @28b, frankly your post is appalling. It was on Dr Morgan's radar. She raised it, reported it internally and then to the HRTO and nothing was done though lots should have. This is a disgrace. Either it was on UW Senate's radar, or it should have been on UW Senate's radar. There was more than ample external reporting. Members of UW's Senate made or accepted risk assessments that determined this was not a risk to UW's brand, and that was good enough to do nothing, and not raise to the Board of Governors the serious women's safety issues reported to them. How will a new policy address Dr Morgan's situation at the Counselling Centre, that also affects all women who rely on counselling or safe work at UW's Counselling Centre? The answer is it won't address it at all. The public HRTO documents refer to extensive written submissions by Dr Morgan of her concerns and pleaded remedies, filed between 2009 and 2013. These have been available internally to members of UW's Senate for years. We demand release of these documents. Personal information can be blacklined. If not, Freedom of Information requests will be made for all her submissions. UW has proven to us it WILL NOT ACT to resolve women's safety concerns on campus unless absolutely forced from outside. So be it.

      Delete
    5. @28c, a change in policy by FEDs is too little too late. FEDs make-up and roles precludes them from criticizing the University in an independent and effective way. FEDs has become too opaque to have the trust of the student body. As has been pointed out, FEDs is most useful for its members' resumes and is good at marketing itself. Beyond that, FEDs has neither the will or means to effectively stand up to UW in important matters such as this.

      Delete
    6. 28d/e, you don't seem to understand how internal reporting at UW works, or how the university governs itself. At all. This is why you need to talk to someone who does know. If you want to put pressure on the admin and Board to act, there are a few key channels on this campus to do that effectively, and it *always* requires buy-in from a handful of key people, committees, and organizations outside of the administration, who carry some political leverage.

      I have some experience with this process myself, and I can tell you the simple fact is that the awareness of this issue within the university and its top governing bodies is a flat 0, and basically always has been. That isn't surprising, since the most coverage it received was a one-off article in Imprint. It is *possible* it received an informal discussion at a Board meeting during an "in camera" session, but since minutes aren't taken during in camera meetings there's no way to know - it was certainly never included on the agenda at any of those meetings. I suspect that's because the buck stops with the HR department on this stuff, and the HRTO explicitly recommended against the University taking any punitive action beyond its ruling (which would have also bumped it down on the priority list).

      So yeah, if you're interested in producing change, talk to the people who understand the system - Feds, FAUW, GSA, the Deans, current (experienced) members of Senate and non-external members of Board. Even if they don't support your cause, most will help you develop an effective approach. If you're not interested than doing that... well, then you're basically just trolling.

      Delete
    7. Also, the development of a sexual violence policy *will* create a safer environment at UW, since currently sexual harassment is dealt with the same as a) a standard ethics violation (for students), and b) an interpersonal conflict (for staff). Unless it's serious enough to refer to the police. There is otherwise no process for dealing with victims, accused, or the aftermath outside of that very generic framework. And it doesn't work well. Now a policy explicitly for sexual violence (including sexual harassment) is being developed, with input from all major campus stakeholders. I don't expect a cure-all, but it should at least be an improvement.

      Delete
    8. @25f you lie. Why? The HRTO did not "explicitly recommend against UW taking any punitive action beyond its ruling". Show us where. Quote it. No? Your credibility is zero. "Internal reporting" at UW does not work. It's an oxymoron. That's why we're resorting to external reporting. UW's Senate and those "reporting" up to it failed abysmally at governing themselves. They punish students but only give excuses why they can't effectively self-regulate on this issue. Your "few key channels" is a euphemism for communication choke points. Requiring buy-in from complacent dysfunctional committees and key people who stonewall to protect their drinking buddies has held UW back from solving campus women's safety concerns ages ago, specifically the Counselling Centre. UW cannot seriously try focusing on future issues of women's safety while choosing to wear blinders to ignore resolving the current Counselling Centre emergency and its campus-wide fallout. And you have it backwards: it's not the Senate that needs to put pressure on the Board of Governors, it's the other way around. Given the trust-destroying self-reporting failures of all internal means, the only reliable way to put pressure on UW's Senate is external: (a) raising campus-wide student awareness, (b) the media, and (c) directly to UW's BoG members. For (c) we'll rely on the (1) independent, (2) competent, (3) powerful, (4) principled, and (5) INFORMED members of the Board of Governors to execute their role. The first four we take as is, but we won't be swayed from causing the fifth. We'll see how hard it is to contact Board members one-by-one, and apprising each in full.

      Delete
    9. 28h, the HRTO ruling did say something to the effect of "I find no wrongdoing on the part of the University, and I do not believe further punitive action on their part is necessary." I'm on my phone now but I'll happily pull out the exact quote later on, it was located towards the end of the ruling.

      You've got it backwards. Senate doesn't have authority over staff; HR incidents don't get reported to them. Their job is to consider educational policy at Waterloo, which they do as recommended to them by their own committees and the University administration. They also make recommendations to the Board on any other matter as they see fit. The Board will never lean on the Senate, because traditionally at universities that's seen as a violation of academic freedom, and faculty throw a fit over it (see for example: the shitshow that's been unfolding at UBC these past 8 months).

      What you want to do is: find a way to effectively put pressure on the Governors, in spite of the fact they only meet 5 times a year and 50% of them have other full-time jobs, so that they can launch a formal review of this issue. You also want to put pressure on the Student Services Advisory Committee, since they're responsible for reviewing the performance of all service units funded by the Student Services Fee (of which Counselling Services is one), and allocating the money for those units' budgets. That committee is responsible to neither Senate nor Board, but to the Provost.

      This is a large bureaucracy you're going up against. If change is what you want, you first have to understand how change happens on this campus. And that means either going through the trouble of learning the bureaucracy for yourself, or leaning on people who do understand it but support you. That has *always* been true. Also, the Board is still a majority of internal members, so if you think you can change anything without *some* of the people on this campus who wield actual power buying in to your cause, then you're either the Premier of Ontario or you're just naive.

      Or you're trolling me. And since this exact conversation has happened three times in this thread, I won't respond again unless it's clear you actually understand what I'm saying this time. Though I will post that quote whose absence apparently makes my credibility zero. That's your first piece of advice: don't attack people who are trying to help you.

      Delete
    10. Right. Regarding Dr. Mackay:

      "I do not find these proposed remedies are warranted given my findings. I have determined that a single incident of harassment has taken place. I am not satisfied, given the nature of the Code violation before me, that these proposed remedies are required to ensure future compliance with the Code. They are also largely punitive rather than remedial in nature. "

      Source: Morgan v. University of Waterloo, 2013 HRTO 1644 (CanLII), par. 196, , retrieved on 2016-04-24.

      And regarding the behaviour of the University:
      "I have not found that the University’s investigation process is flawed, or that the University failed in its duty to Investigate. Accordingly, I am not directing the University to make changes to its investigation processes or how it responds to allegations of sexual harassment. It is always open to the University to reconsider its practices in light of its experiences in responding to Dr. Morgan’s complaint."

      Source: Morgan v. University of Waterloo, 2013 HRTO 1644 (CanLII), par. 202, , retrieved on 2016-04-24.

      And finally:

      "Again, I do not find these proposed remedies are warranted given the nature of my findings. I do not find that the University failed in its duty to respond to Dr. Morgan’s complaint. And while I have indeed found that Dr. Morgan was harassed by a fellow member of Counselling Services on one occasion, I do not agree that human rights training or education is required for the Counselling Services Department in order to ensure future compliance with the Code."

      Source: Morgan v. University of Waterloo, 2013 HRTO 1644 (CanLII), par. 204, , retrieved on 2016-04-24.

      It's fine to want the University to take additional action in spite of the above, but your options for doing so are either:

      a) External protests large enough to shut the campus down and draw press attention (if you have 400 people who will mobilize for that, then do it, but large scale civil disobedience like that NEVER happens at Waterloo).

      b) Force the Government of Ontario to tell the University to (they can do this, but it pretty much never happens).

      c) Figure out how power flows on this campus, and get buy-in from key campus stakeholders (i.e. faculty, students, and a some key administrators) who can put pressure on the University at every level to effect real policy change. Maybe consider that the Associate Provost of Human Resources (Marilyn Thompson) only started a few years ago, when this issue was already 2 years "closed," and probably therefore hasn't been briefed on it. She would be a powerful ally to have!

      Delete
    11. 28j please bear in mind that option "b" has already happened, and the university is revising its policies/processes for dealing with sexual harassment/violence. These revisions could include mandatory consent and sexual violence prevention training for all faculty staff and students. So the key is to reach out to the people writing the policy.

      Delete
    12. @28j "Dr Mackay"? really? lol these guys can't go 4 words without lying. even when they try to quote. is it really that hard for them to just tell the truth?

      Delete
    13. 28l, oh, is he not a doctor? Sorry, I just assumed he was. Thanks for the correction, but please bear in mind that a simple factual mistake like that isn't tantamount to lying.

      Delete
    14. 28J Sorry but your quotes disprove what you said.

      You said in 28f: "the HRTO explicitly recommended against the University taking any punitive action beyond its ruling".

      But the decision only says the HRTO will not require or enforce remedies it deems are punitive. HRTO remedies are mandatory actions a party must perform. The HRTO never makes punitive remedy decisions, as the Human Rights Code is remedial not punitive. Punitive actions are outside the scope of HRTO decisions. So the HRTO would be remiss to restrict or recommend against actions that are outside of its scope.

      So punitive actions remain wholly unrestricted and within the power of the University of Waterloo, and specifically within its Board of Directors.

      From http://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general-counsel/governance/university-waterloo-act

      POWERS OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

      14. - (1) The government of the University and the control of its property and revenues, the conduct of its business and affairs, save with respect to such matters as are assigned by this Act to the Senate, shall be vested in the Board of Governors and the Board of Governors shall have all powers necessary or convenient to perform its duties and to achieve the objects of the University, and without intending to restrict the generality of the foregoing, this shall include the power,
      ...
      (e) to regulate the conduct of the students, faculty and staff, and of all other persons coming upon and using the lands and premises of the University;
      ...
      (g) to levy and enforce penalties and fines, suspend or expel from student membership or from employment with the University or deny access to the lands and premises of the University;

      Delete
    15. 28n, for the most part what you're saying doesn't amount to much more than semantics, and I'll agree that "explicitly recommended" was too strong a choice of words for me to use. For the most part, the administration itself would choose to read that ruling as a vindication of its own actions. That's the point I wanted to make, and what it's important to understand.

      Re: Powers of the Board. Yes, the Board *technically* has the power, but if you think that's how it's exercised then you have zero familiarity or understanding of how this university governs itself. In practice, the Board rarely - if ever - exercises any of this power. Instead, that power is delegated to the President (since the Board only meets five times per year, the President is the primary executor of Board power 99% of the time), and then down to the Vice Presidents/Associate Provosts/Department Directors. And (this is the most important part), *the use of that power is strictly regulated via the University's policy framework.* The Board doesn't do much beyond approving very large expenditures, and major operational policy changes.

      Punitive action of staff? There are a series of university-wide policies that govern staff oversight: https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general-counsel/policies-procedures-guidelines/policies-numerical-order, as well as guidelines for dealing with staff: https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general-counsel/policies-procedures-guidelines/guidelines

      Finally, the HR department will, subject to the above policies and guidelines, have created its OWN internal policies and procedures that it uses to deal with instances such as this one.

      So why does this matter? Let me tell you why: the business that makes it onto the Board agenda is decided by a small group called the Board Executive Committee, and one of the questions they ALWAYS ask is: "is bringing this item to Board consistent with our own Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines?" The Secretary of the University is a stickler for making sure the proper process is followed.

      ...So you're back to "learn how power flows on this campus, or find someone who does and win their support. Then use that knowledge to put pressure on SSAC (https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general-counsel/committees-and-councils/student-services-advisory-committee), the AP Human Resources, and the Board as appropriate.

      Useful fact: the Presidential Nominating Committee is currently deliberating whether or not Feridun gets to keep his job, and this turning into a scandal would probably guarantee he loses it. So Feridun might be VERY willing to take action and deal with this, if pressure starts being applied around him.

      Delete
    16. Though he's shown a sexual proclivity for psychologists, Mr MacKay is fortunate that he isn't one. I expect if he were a psychologist he would have lost his license to practise in Ontario for his behaviour.

      Delete
    17. @28o do you expect the Board's Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines will be in or out of scope for the sexual violence policy review?

      Delete
    18. 28q, that's tricky to say. Possibly in scope? The Secretariat will be responsible for making sure that the new policy doesn't conflict with the rest of the policies, so there might be some incidental changes that follow.

      Worth noting: they aren't all necessarily the Board's policies. Ultimately, it is true that every policy is traceable back to Board or Senate in some fashion, but that doesn't mean each one is necessarily seen or approved by those bodies. Policy 1 outlines the rules for creation and amendment of policies - you'll notice some can be done by the President alone. But that's really bureaucratic, and I don't see a need to get into that here since it's tangential (at best) to the topic at hand. Just wanted to clarify.

      Delete
    19. Also, it's worth noting that policies supersede guidelines wherever the two conflict. So the sexual violence policy could absolutely impose new practices in that regard. For instance, it could require all departments to undergo mandatory sexual consent and violence prevention training annually. Which AFAIK is something being considered, since other schools do that already.

      Delete
  29. The rules of this website say you shouldn't identify people by name. This thread is full of rule violations and therefore it should be locked/erased.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @29, that's for private students, not public figures at UW. Among other occasions, MacKay's made himself very public at UW. Including when he spoke as the central panelist, representing the Counselling Centre, at the campus-wide women's safety town hall during the poster campaign that targeted women. (The crowd cheered when a student criticized what MacKay said).

      Delete
    2. That doesn't make him a public figure. Typically we've only used that term to mean "people running in elections," and "the president of the university," and "UW's top admins."

      Delete
    3. ^Yes it does. It's a much wider bunch than that too. Many UW staff, profs. People named in the news.

      Delete
    4. Posts that publicly name prof's typically get deleted. Posts that have named staff members in the past (for instance, a particular campus dentist) have been deleted.

      Oh well, this post is now so old it's in the verge of being locked anyway. People only comment here because you keep baiting them.

      Delete
    5. Past president of the Canadian Association of College and University Student Services (CACUSS). Plus being the central person in a campus-wide women's safety issue. People named elsewhere in online publications or articles are already public too. Basically anyone but individual random students.

      Delete
  30. Just an observation ... the pattern here is someone lies trying to dissuade or shut this thread down, gets called on their lie with a correction or a question. Then they either answer with different lie, or never answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah the pattern is someone lies trying to keep this thread going, and when they get called out on their bullshit, they say it's a conspiracy and keep making up even more bullshit

      Delete
    2. It certainly looks/feels like the person driving this thread is some sort of hopeless contrarian, seeing as they both a) continuously shut down and tear apart anybody remotely critical of Dr. Morgan and supportive of the HRTO decision; and b) attack and shut down the people who come here trying to help them navigate a path to justice for Dr. Morgan, and the creation of a safer campus community. Literally no matter which side you take, you can't win. Unless you're spouting the same conspiracy bullshit. The moment you try and suggest anything practical, you're called a liar and a shill, and ignored. It's weird... But makes sense if you look at this whole thread as one giant shitpost.

      Delete
  31. I can't believe this topic is still taking up the majority of the recent comments... What else is there to say?

    ReplyDelete
  32. lol the thread in 28 is a hoot. One's all like "okay, but be practical" and the other (OP, I bet) is just like "YOUR LOGIC IS A CONSPIRACY TO MAKE THIS GO AWAY." Top quality shitpost, 7/10 popcorn material.

    ReplyDelete
  33. From reading the many views, this issue looks like it just fell through old wide cracks at our fine University.

    No it wasn't a conspiracy. But I do feel it's in our interest to address. Though the HRTO cleared UW with only a gentle nudge, UW dodged one. Let's face it, the bar was placed exceptionally low and set precedent for this.

    Public sector proactivity on sexual harassment sadly lags what we see in place at private companies. This is especially true at Canadian universities.

    I feel it's incumbent upon those in high office at UW to hold ourselves to a higher standard befitting UW's great reputation. None of this keeps key staff from stepping in to fix reporting lines involving certain personnel at the Counselling Centre to remove even the appearance of inequity. Both to get ahead of this, and to prevent more mistakes.

    From a risk view, UW's been lucky. But events can quickly get ahead of UW's well-intentioned plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well-said. This is the best comment in this whole thread IMO.

      Delete
    2. Though the sexual violence review process may take longer than many want, it has wide backing and is a viable way forward. So please people give it a chance. I trust it will fix things in more than one area as it sweeps through UW. In the meantime yes, fairness to Dr Morgan -both perceived and actual- is vital.

      Delete