SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM

SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM

Posted by ショック・システム on   0 comments

SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM

By Brian O'Neill


with thanks to Samantha, Steve & Ronnie

(n.b.: Because of my disabilities — Depression and Anxiety, caused by and constantly exacerbated by the ongoing abuse I have been subjected to by the University of Manitoba and the Government of Manitoba (especially the Manitoba Human Rights Commission) — It takes me an extremely long time to write and edit this material. Because I am a very private person, I began by writing about myself in the third person, as "Student X". I have since started using my real name. Because of my problems focussing and concentrating, there may be some thus-far unedited parts of this text in which I still refer to myself in the third person, as "Student X". So far, as of 2015.03.25, I have posted on this blog approximately 5% of all the material involved in this matter.)


The SHOCK is: the effect that certain human filth have had on my nervous system

The SHOCK is the "threat" that I pose to this disgusting, corrupt and hypocritical "human rights" / "we care!" / "One Hundred Flowers" / "anti-bullying!" / "we're all equal" SYSTEM.


THE SYSTEM'S DEFENCE MECHANISMS

REPRESSION: The System Automaton shoves upsetting thoughts and things it is unable to cope with back and down into the sewers and shadows of its unconscious mind, to be dealt with at another time, or, hopefully, never.

DENIAL: The System Automaton refuses to accept external reality because it is too threatening to its artificial model of reality. It refuses to acknowledge what has happened, is happening, or will happen.

COMPENSATION: The System Automaton attempts to disguise the presence of an undesirable or negative quality (hate/fear) by emphasizing a more "positive" one (power/force).

PROJECTION: The System Automaton insanely transfers its own unacceptable impulses onto The System's Target, relegating the blame for personal shortcomings, mistakes, and transgressions onto the target, or attributes personal motives, desires, characteristics and impulses onto the target.

RATIONALIZATION: A subconscious technique whereby The System Automaton irrationally justifies its own actions and the actions of its fellow automatons that would be otherwise unacceptable. (In contrast, true rationalization occurs when humans sincerely believe in plausible excuses based upon reality.)

REACTION FORMATION: The System Automaton formulates a fake belief opposite to its own true belief, because the true belief causes anxiety. The System Automaton feels an urge to do or say something, and then does or says the opposite.

FANTASY: The System Automaton engages in uses its imagination to escape from reality.

DISPLACEMENT: An emotion, affect, or desire is displaced from the original object to a more acceptable, less threatening substitute. The System Automaton uses Displacement to avoid any risk associated with feeling unpleasant emotions.

PASSIVE AGGRESSION: One of the main psychological tactics used by the System Automaton, taking advantage of its privileged social status.


TACITUS

idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

They called it civilization, when it was but part of their slavery.

proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris

It belongs to human nature to hate those one has injured.

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

The more corrupt the state, the more laws.


2013.10.10

Two voice-mails I left for University of Manitoba CTESL's alleged "Academic Coordinator" Heather McIntosh, 2013.10.10, around noon, regarding abuse and other misconduct by Clea Schmidt. At that point in time I was becoming increasingly stressed-out, due to Schmidt's constant insults and attacks:

Yeah, hello, this is Brian O'Neill calling, at [my phone number]; and I have.... I wonder if I could make an appointment with you. I have a number of, I would say, very serious concerns about how the program is run, and, specifically, the classes.

And I have a number of matters dealing with Human Rights, and Advocacy, and Accessibility office complaints, about the professors, and discrimination against myself on the basis of Ancestry, Race, Colour, Nationality, National Origin, Ethnic Background, and Political Belief (Political Association, Activities...), and Gender (or Sex). And I...but that's...but what I was wondering about... — And also mental distress caused by this abuse, and blatant bias expressed in the classroom, and insults. So.... But...

Actually, is it okay for your classes to have more...like...I would say, at least 50% political content? With campaigns against the federal government? And against...uh... [pause]. ... [Classes/Teachers] Promoting various foundations and [their] websites? Telling students that they can't be teachers unless they have certain political viewpoints? And supporting certain standards for immigration? And so on.

Also [for the teacher] to be campaigning on behalf of teachers going on strike? [n.b., University of Manitoba professors were threatening then to go on strike] — Telling the students...trying to make them sympathetic towards the teachers, and take the teachers' point of view et cetera. I don't even know if that has any place in the class.

So...those other matters I just mentioned ... I will deal with those with the other offices ... but I would specifically like to know ... I am just curious, if you agreed with the political content in the class. And...or...if you think that's fine. Or if perhaps you are not even aware of it, and you would like to know what is going on in your classes.

And...uh...sorry, I go on..um...I have certain mental disabilities. [I was referring to: (a) having problems speaking on the phone, because I prefer to be able to look in people's eyes while speaking to them; and (b) being a bit absent-minded sometimes. At this point in time I was trying to remember if I had already given McIntosh my name and phone number. Schmidt's constant abuse had caused me to become increasingly stressed out.] I am trying to think of what to say. Yeah, sorry, I can't remember if I gave you: Brian at — uh.... I met you before, at your office — [I stated my phone number].

And I've heard from people that the classes you teach don't have this...what I consider completely irrelevant content.

So that's what I am hoping: to resolve these matters without having to bring everything to the Advocacy, and Human Rights, and Accessibility offices.

Thank you very much.

Have a nice day.

Bye bye.



Yes, hello again! Very briefly, this is Brian O'Neill calling again.

And I...before I forget...and I'm not sure which avenue to go through to investigate this matter; but the teacher in question (who[m] I was speaking of before) also said that the University...that your department, um, that your department and the University in general, is racist, and uses racial policies to keep out certain people.

And I just wanted to find out if that's, um, if there is evidence of that.

And she also said that the University applies — how to say? — standard English tests as part of money-making scams, and as a way of...she complained — she had said, of her "dark view" of it — of "excluding certain people"; and they [the tests] have no connection to English ability, but they are just used to exclude people — it's a discriminatory practice.

And I just...I think this is something you should be concerned about, to end this practice, if it's going on. And I would like to investigate that. So, I don't know if that's your business, or if I should deal with that with the University...um...president...or...whoever...um...

So, yeah, sorry, forgot to mention that before.

Thank you very much.

Bye bye!




REPRISAL

In response to those two voicemails (labeled as "ALARMING" by the university) the University of Manitoba launched a massive campaign of vilification and clandestine surveillance against me, deploying massive security and legal and bureaucratic resources, and then FALSELY accused me of interfering with staff, wasting resources, engaging in "violent or threatening" behaviour. The voicemails were withheld from me until I took legal action to get audio copies, but were sent to multiple staff-members, and were falsely characterized as "alarming voicemails". The fact that the university withheld them from me caused me incredibly suffering, since for months I worried that perhaps I had used some word or phrase that had been misinterpreted as threatening, or perhaps that I had used a tome of voice that could be mischaracterized as aggressive. In fact, as I confirmed when I eventually (in the spring of 2014) received audio files of my voicemails, I had spoken in a very polite and reasonable and friendly manner, and I didn't say anything threatening or abusive, or anything that could be reasonably interpreted as threatening or abusive.

The immediate response from the university is unclear, because of the blatant discrepancy between what is written in a UMSS Incident Report, and what Clea Schmidt testified to at a University Disciplinary Committee "hearing" (kangaroo court) that I was subjected to. Either Schmidt lied at the "hearing" or her eunuch boss David Mandzuk lied to the UMSS.


Francine Morin to Li Yi, 2013.10.10 16:27:

Subject: Come and See Me

Hi Yi Li,
I need to talk to you with david before you go into your class tonight.
There is a student who I am concerned about. If you get this, come by my office or call me.
Thanks,
Francine Morin, Ph.D.

Professor and Department Head

Curriculum, Teaching and Learning
Room 230T Faculty of Education
University of Manitoba



UMSS Incident Report INCD-2013-005731

Printed 2013.11.29 14:22.

Obtained 2013.12.23.

UMSS Director Jansen, with UMSS Special Constable Dawn Prystenski as a witness, informed Student Z and me on 2013.10.28, that he was not allowed to tell us anything about UMSS records, but to prevent me from the "expense" (i.e. $0.00) and time (a few minutes) required to file FIPPA requests, he would break the rules and tell Student Z and me that there was only a "one-line" report on me (this was a lie; in fact there were multiple documents about me, including two ongoing Incident Reports), and that was simply that I had allegedly been "disruptive". Jansen said he did not know what that meant, and said he did not care. He refused to listen to the accounts that Student Z and I gave him about what had happened in class, saying it was none of his business. Later that same day so-called "Student Advocate" Brian Barth, who should have by this time been aware that Jansen had lied, told Student Z and me that Jansen was a trustworthy person, and advised me not to file FIPPA requests since that would only upset "the University".

The attachment entitled "Report on Brian O'Neill Prepared by Clea Schmidt, October 24, 2013" is a DEFAMATORY document, replete with falsehoods, mischaracterizations, exaggerations, errors and other slanderous material, which caused me to be treated with hatred, contempt and ridicule.

For example: The defamatory claim that I disrupted a class. The defamatory claim that I sent "multiple emails" to someone I never sent any emails to. The false claim that I "threatened to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission" (this false claim was the basis for the University of Manitoba's massive Reprisal against me, in blatant violation of Section 20 of the Manitoba Human Rights Code. Et cetera.

When I attempted to have these falsehoods corrected (as is my right under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)), the university's Privacy Officer (Karen Meelker)refused to correct them, and the university's legal counsel (Maria Versace) sent me a threatening letter, warning me not to file FIPPA requests, not to file complaints against staff, and to stay away from the Privacy Office, the UMSS HQ, the Human Resource Office, etc.

This "Report" was written and was filed with the UMSS office four days before Student Z and I met with UMSS Director Rick Jansen. On 2013.10.25, Jansen, as a Student Threat Assessment Triage Intervention Support team-member, reported me as a possible threat to the university. On 2013.10.28 (after meeting with and Student Z and me, pretending he had nothing to do with me having been assaulted by his staff, and saying that he wasn't interested in what happened in the class; and after shaking hands with Student Z and me, wishing us good luck in dealing with university bureaucracy) Rick Jansen wrote an email to his Student Threat Assessment Triage Intervention Support team-boss Susan Gottheil, informing her that he had lied to Student Z and me, and had gotten rid of us.

The voice_001.wav attachment was withheld from me until 2014.04.11, and was only provided to me after the Manitoba Ombudsman Office finally intervened (after I spent months pushing them to assist me, but that's another story of human rights abuse) and requested the University of Manitoba to give me a copy. I was disciplined by the University of Manitoba for having sought the assistance of the Manitoba Ombudsman.

Security Services
423 University Resent

Winnipeg, Manitoba

Incident Report

Incident Number: INCD-2013-005731
Reportable Incident:
Class/Category: Policy/University Policy and Procedure
Occurred From Date/Time: 13/10/10 4:58 PM
Status: Open

Incident Details

Incident Details

Incident Number: INCD-2013-005731
Reported Date/Time: 13/10/10 4:58 PM
Occurred From Date/Time: 13/10/10 4:58 PM

Summary: Dean of Education concerned of student's behaviour

HENSELWOOD 208

Classification

Class: Policy
Category: University Policy and Procedure
SubCategory: Disruptive Student Behaviour

Physical Location

Site: FORT GARRY CAMPUS
Building: EDUCATION BUILDING

Supplemental Details

Reported to Police: No
Reported to ERM: No
Reported to Supervisor: No
Follow-up Required: No

Incident Involvement Section

Linked Person: Total = 4

LI, Eyi
Involvement Type: Complainant
Date of Birth:
Gender: Female
Hair Color:
Eye Color:
Height: 00'00"
Weight: 0lbs
Marital Status:
Employee: Yes
Visitor: No
Phone Number:
Address:
Faculty: No
Contractor/Vendor: No
Student: No
Notes:
Linked To Person: LI, Eyi

MANDZUK, David
Involvement type: Reported By
Date of Birth:
Gender: Male
Hair Color:
Eye Color:
Height: 00'00"
Weight: 0lbs
Marital Status:
Employee: Yes
Visitor: No
Phone Number:
Address:
Faculty: No
Contractor/Vendor: No
Student: No
Notes:
Linked To Person: MANDZUK, David

O'NEILL, Brian
Involvement Type: Subject of Interest
Date of Birth:
Gender: Male
Hair Color:
Eye Color:
Height: 00'00"
Weight: 0lbs
Marital Status:
Employee: No
Visitor: No
Phone Number:
Address:
Faculty: No
Contractor/Vendor: No
Student: No
Notes:
Linked To Person: O'NEILL, Brian

SCHMIDT, Clea
Involvement Type: Complainant
Date of Birth:
Gender: Female
Hair Color:
Eye Color:
Height: 00'00"
Weight: 0lbs
Marital Status:
Employee: Yes
Visitor: No
Phone Number:
Address:
Faculty: No
Contractor/Vendor: No
Student: No
Notes:
Linked To Person: SCHMIDT, Clea

Incident Narratives

Incident Narratives: Total = 4

AUTHOR: HENSELWOOD, Matt
Narrative Type: Original Narrative
Created By Date/Time: 13/10/10 4:51 PM
Sealed: No

Narrative:

13/10/10

16:58

While working as the SDO, I received a call from:

David MANDZUK
Dean of Education
Ph 474-6866
Ph 474-9001
Room 225A
Education Building

MANDZUK wanted to advise UMSS of his concerns regarding the following student:

Brian O'NEILL
E.S.L. student

MANDZUK did not have a student number for O'NEILL, as he is registered though Extended Education.

MANDZUK informed me that O'NEILL is taking an E.S.L. class)English as a second language) through Extended Education.
During last night's class he became quite agitated and upset with:

Clea SCHMIDT
E.S.L. Instructor

MANDUK reported it may have been a misinterpretation between O'NEILL and SCHMIDT.
Today O'NEILL sent multiple emails to MANDZUK regarding the incident. O'NEILL has threatened to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, as well as with the President's office.
MANDZUK is concerned for O'NEILL and feels he may be mentally unstable at this time.

O'NEILL is scheduled to attend another class this evening in:

Room 318
Education Building

From: 17:30-20:30

MANDZUK is requesting a P/O periodically patrol the area while the class is in session.
MANDZUK advised that tonight's class is with a different instructor, which may help in diffusing the situation, as O'NEILL's problems may have been with SCHMIDT's instructional style.

The teacher for tonight's class is:

Dr. Eyi Li

I asked MANDZUK if there were any threats of physical harm made, he said there were not.

I advised him I would have a report generated, and have a P/O attend.

17:13

I briefed P/S TAYLOR of the situation

17:25

P/S TAYLOR is on scene in:

Education Building

P/S TAYLOR reports he will conduct random patrols through the area for the remainder of the A1 shift, at which time he will pass the information onto the A2 shift.

HENSELWOOD 208

AUTHOR: TAYLOR, Keith
Narrative Type: Follow-up
Created By Date/Time: 13/10/10 6:15 PM
Sealed: No

Narrative:

2013/10/10

1725
Attended Education Building and started a walk through. Went by Room 318 and the room was full of students but it was quiet as I patrolled by .

1735

Med MANDZIUK . David on the third floor just down from the classroom . MANDZUK indicated that a Professor SCHMIDT had received two voice mails which wee forwarded to MANDZUK. MANDZIUK indicated that there were no direct threats in the Voice Mail but it was quite a diatribe which made both the MANDZIUK and SCHMIDT uneasy. MANDZIUK's greatest concern was with the MCNEIL would disrupt tonight's class for which LI, zyi was the instructor. I asked MANDZIUK if he could forward the voice mails. He indicated that he could do so by E Mail. I provided him with my card so that he could do so.

1745
Cleared the Education Building.

1800
In my office . E Mails were already on my system. They were copied to the reoort as an attachment . Though O'NEILL did go on he did not directly threaten staff.

1835
Did an additional patrorl by Room 318. All was quiet. MANDZIUK had spoke to the Education night caretaker and advised him of his concern ( Call sign 212 ) . I advised him to call on his radio if he heard loud voices from 318 but he was not to get involved.

1845
All clear of Education.

1900
Updated P/S HEINRICHS about the request for extra patrols.
EOR
TAYLOR #193

2013/10/17

I had received a E Mail request from MANDZIUK yo do some patrols of Room 318 on 2013.10/17 Professor SCHMIDT was going to be having class in 318 and O'NEILL, was going to be present. I indicated that to MANDZIUK that CONVOCATION was on going and we would be nearby. P/S HIENRICHS was advised on 2013/10/16. He was able to do a short patrol at 1800 hours . I was in attendance at 2018 and remained until 2045. There were no problems.

EOR
TAYLOR #193

AUTHOR: HEINRICHS, Doug
Narrative Type: Follow-up
Created By Date/Time: 13/10/10 9:02 PM
Sealed: No

Narrative:

2013/10/10 - 1925hrs, P/O HENSCHEL and I patrolled Education and passed by room 318. Class appeared to be going on as normal. No signs of any disruption.

One more patrol to be completed before the end of class at 2030hrs.

Heinrichs
139

AUTHOR: CRAWLEY, Charles
Narrative Type: Follow-up
Created By Date/Time: 13/10/11 3:21 AM
Sealed: No

Narrative:

CRAWLEY

13-10-11 @ 20:10 P/O M. THIESSEN attended to the area of rm. 318 of the education bldg where we waited down the hall until the class ended.

20:30 The class ended. P/O THIESSEN and I remained in the area until 20:40.

CRAWLEY 206

Attachments

Additional Attachments: Total = 2

Attachment Title: Report on Brian O'Neill
Attachment Type: Document
File Name: Report on Brian O'Neill.docx
File Size: 28 KB
Description: Observations of Professor Clea Schmidt in regards to O'NEILL

Attachment Title: voice_001
Attachment Type: Audio Recording
File Name: voice_001.wav
File Size: 337 KB
Description:

Related Incidents

Link Section: Total = 1

Linked From Incident: INCD-2013-006010
Link Type: Common Suspect
Linked To Incident: INCD-2013-005731
Link Effective Date: 13/10/23

Investigation Details

Investigation Last Review Date:
Investigation Closed Date:
Investigation Initiated By Person:
Investigation Comments:
Investigation Duration: 0
Total Time Spent: 0 Hrs. 0 Min.
Total Expenses:

Incident Controls

Incident Controls

Org Rollup Name

Org Level 1:
Org Level 2:
Org Level 3:
Org Level 4:
Org Level 5:

Access Level: Level 2
Status: Open
Disposition:
Expiry Date:
Locked: No
Archive (record not visible): No
Record Owner: HENSELWOOD, Matt

Incident Visibility

Owner Group: Security
All Workgroups: None
Exceptions: Workgroup Name Record Rights

User Defined Fields

Checked Incidents?: False
Checked Persons?: False
Checked Vehicles?: False
IRIMS Query: No


Incident Record Created By henselwo, 13/10/10 10:49 PM GMT
Last Modified By robinsos, 13/10/30 7:06 AM GMT

Owner Workgroup: Security
Access Level: 2
Last Print Date/Time: 13/11/29 2:22 PM

ATTACHMENT ONE

Report on Brian O'Neill

Prepared by Clea Schmidt, October 23. 2013

The Events in this report pertain to the behaviorof [sic] Brian O'Neill and my responses to his behavior within the context of EDUB 1640,1 Teaching ESL Vocabulary and Pronunciation, held this term on Wednesday evenings 5:30-8:30 p.m.

Behaviours over the term

For the first month of classes, Brian participated fairly regularly in class discussions and completed class activities as assigned. He began partnering regularly with [Student Z] in group tasks. Sometime I would vary the grouping strategies so he was required to work with others. He often stayed behind after class to make brief comments about the course content.

Brian's most enthusiastic participation in class during the first month occurred when I assigned a brainstorming activity whereby groups were required to plan a vocabulary lesson based on certain principles. He got very excited about a lesson plan he had for junior high school girls from Taiwan, in which they would pretend to be movie stars interviewed by media and gossip about their lives. This was a less academic focus than I was looking for in this task, and I gave some general feedback to the whole class about how to ensure students are supported with meaningful activities that help prepare them for authentic academic workplace language demands.


Oct. 9

In a discussion I was leading during this class, I used the phrase "so-called native English speaker" to problematize assumptions around ownership of English and hierarchies pertaining to different varieties of English. Brian got very upset and questioned what I meant by "so-called"native speakers. He said he was a native speaker and this was very clear to everyone. I pointed out that, on the contrary, this whole issue of what constitutes a native speaker of a language is in fact a major area of controversy in the field. He got angrier and insisted it wasn't controversial at all.

I informed him thatthe [sic] debate began in the mid-80's with a book entitled "The Native English Speaker is Dead" written to provoke debate and to challenge the idea that the native speaker status is clear-cut and universally agreed upon. This upset Brian even more and he loudly proclaimed in an agitated manner that he was offended by this. His comments lacked coherence and clarity and his reaction was hostile. I brought the discussion to closure by suggesting that he engage in further reading to help him understand the issues in greater depth and complexity and then moved the class on to the next task at hand.



Oct. 16

During this class, we watched a video of a vocabulary lesson in which a Grade 3 teacher was helping students understand the difference between fact and opinion. The criteria the teacher was using to distinguish between fact and opinion was clearly discussed in the video and the Grade 3 students in the class picked up on the distinction quickly, Brian seemed to misunderstand the difference and in the debriefing following the video began defending a position based on his misguided interpretation. Other students quickly joined the discussion to refute what Brian was saying and there was a moment of tension as he was trying to defend his position even more staunchly. However, other students continued the discussion and Brian quieted down, though he was visibly upset.

Brian's participation in the class noticeable decreased from his earlier engagement and he spent most of his time writing in a small notebook. At the end of the class, Brian left his reusable water bottle in plain sight on his desk and left the room. I chatted with other students who remained after class to speak with me, packed up and left quickly. I was met at the door by Bill our custodian and Keith from Campus Security, who had become involved at this stage in light of the voicemails Brian had left for Heather McIntosh following my Oct. 9 class. We spent some time chatting in the hallway outside the classroom during which most of the students left the classrooms and hallways on the third floor. When we approached the elevator, Brian was still in the hallway with [Student Z: Christian name] and when he saw us they moved quickly out of sight behind the alcove beside Rm. 360. Bill, Keith and I took the elevator to the 2nd floor where we chatted by the cooler of the Hard Chalk Café and eventually Brian and [Student Z: Christian name] came down and exited by the door closest to the Aboriginal Student Centre.


Oct. 23

In this class, I introduced a framework based on the research of Jim Cummins and explained we would consider three components related to the framework, the third of which involved explicitly addressing power relations in language teaching. Brian immediately became agitated and said it didn't seem appropriate that I was asking him to point out to his students from Saudi Arabia that they had power over him. I explained that I wasn't advising anything of the kind and in fact it wold be more appropriate for him to reflect on his own white privilege as an English teacher working in international contexts. This angered him further and he angrily pointed out I had mentioned white privilege before and demanded I give him examples. I said I would revisit the issue when we arrived at that point in our discussion of addressing power relations but I was going to return to the agenda because we were getting off-track. I suggested that if the conversation was too upsetting for him, he could opt to leave the class.

The class discussion continued and I assigned a scenario for the students to consider in which they had to determine appropriate grouping strategies for multilingual learners in the context of a group project.Students were asked to decide whether they would group learners from the same language background together or mix the groups and to justify the answer. Brian protested talking about this issue but I reiterated that it was important for teachers to know how to determine when and how students' multilingual abilities could be drawn upon as a resource in the classroom. I circulated to check in ith [sic] the groups and answer questions and when I arrived at [Student Z: Christian name] and Brian's table he remained silent. [Student Z: Christian name] shared an inappropriate and incoherent idea about students from her own race grouped togetherto [sic] maintain their privilege while letting other students from different language backgrounds mix together. I responded that this was an inappropriate strategy.

I then called the whole class together to debrief ideas [sic] from this activity and students shared their perspectives. When a student made a commentmentioning [sic] the term ‚"mother tongue", Brian sarcastically and snidely accused his classmate of being sexist and insisted that his own daughter did not speak her mother tongue but rather her "father" tongue. I told Brian he was being inappropriate and needed to calm down. Another student attempted to reason with him and bring him back to the topic at hand. He continued to insist he was offended by the term "mother tongue" to which I replied he seemed offended by many things and given the obvious distress the class discussions were causing him, it would be preferable for him to leave. I mentioned that his concerning behavior had been brought to the attention of Campus Security and they would be by shortly. I wrapped up the discussion, asked the class to take a break, and found Bill. He summoned security at which point Keith and two security guards arrived. Keith spoke to Brian and informed him I wanted him to leave the class. He said he was waiting for his assignment to be returned to him. I handed it back to him and [Student Z: Christian name] opted to leave with him as well, once she received her assignment.

My decision to ask Brian to leave was based on the fact that his behavior seemed to be escalating and he had verbally attacked another student.


ATTACHMENT TWO

voice_001



Keith Taylor to David Mandzuk, 2013.10.10 18:11:

Subject: Recieved Voice Mail for Report 2013-005731

We have been able to attach the voice mails and play them while on our main report .Copies now reside there. The above is the report number that references your request to have us attend tonight.



David Mandzuk to Keith Taylor, 2013.10.10 18:21:

Subject Re: Recieved Voice Mails for Report 2013-005731

Thanks, Keith. Nice meeting you tonight. Let's hope that this doesn't amount to anything.
David.



From Yi Li to Francine Morin and to David Mandzuk, 2013.10.10, 21:39:

Subject: RE: Come and See Me

Hi Francine and David,

Thank you so much for your concerns. The class tonight went well.
This student behaved a bit more negatively than he did in the previous classes. Otherwise he was OK.

Thanks again, Li Yi



From David Mandzuk to Yi Li and to Francine Morin, 2013.10.10 21:50:

Subject: Re: Come and See Me

Thanks for letting us know, Yi Li. Campus Security was there this evening. I gave them a detailed report. We will need to monitor things on a go-forward basis.
David




2013.09.11 - 2013.10.23

For six weeks, Clea Schmidt, a professor at the University of Manitoba, abused and insulted me, for being a White Irish man; and she encouraged the rest of the class to join her in insulting and abusing me.

She spent more than half the class discussing political matters that had she admitted had no connection to the course, but were "things I have to get off my chest!" She informed the student that she wished she were teaching another class.

She has a very mediocre intellect, though with a facility at manipulating trendy post-mod jargon. She has delusions of grandeur, fancies herself as an intellectual, and has political aspirations. She sells herself as an SJW, and is a small-minded mean-spirited psychologically-twisted dishonest and evil bigot.

She told me I have to mitigate my Whiteness.

She stated, while giving a Chinese student marital advice: "He [the student's husband] has White privilege. Face it, they are all arrogant bastards who expect Asian women to conform to their needs.”

She literally ranted in class about Stephen Harper, the federal Conservative government, and the right wing provincial NDP government. She ranted about how she has struggled against "the reactionaries and conservatives", and how we must also or we cannot be teachers. She ranted about how angry she was that a Black man got a job and a place to live, and how we students must campaign to lower English language requirements for immigration and Canadian citizenship, and should sign petitions to change High School credit standards in British Columbia, and how we must be advocates for immigrants, and how we should go to Ontario to attend a conference of which she is one of the organizers.

She went on an extended rant about how offensive it would be for me to call myself a native English speaker.

Et cetera. Six weeks of this. Six weeks.

Her constant harassment of me, and her human rights offenses against me were causing me to become increasingly anxious, and I began to worry that the stress might cause me to miss a class, or be late, or miss an assignment deadline. I had previously been registered with the disability office, because as an undergraduate student I had suffered from Depression and Social Anxiety. I had very serious money problems, and have been a single parent since 1996, with no support and little contact with my daughter's mother. Also, socially, I didn't really fit in with most students,because I was about 20 years older than the average student.; and I found out that most students were not very sociable with me until they needed help with their homework, or explaining the course material, or preparing them for exams.

Because I was so stressed out, insomniac, exhausted,overworked, and so on, I registered as a Disabled student at the university, so that I could then write exams in private, because I found it increasingly difficult to concentrate in rooms full of students sighing, groaning, talking to themselves, tapping pencils on their desks, trying to look at each other's papers.... This stress, and the resultant stress and anxiety caused my GPA to fall. I usually got A or A+ on written assignments, and had multiple A+ grades for courses, but as my anxiety increased I would forget to go to exams, or forget to answer all the questions, or forget to turn over the question-paper and so miss the questions on the reverse side, or would simply forget facts and dates and terminology that I have know since childhood and which I could easily recall and recite in everyday life.

However, I began to fell better as soon as I graduated in 2009, and was in very good health in the 9 months or so before returning to the University of Manitoba to take those two worthless and stupid TESL courses.

Since my stress was returning, due to the harassment from the professors, and their human rights violations, and also die to their arrogance and incompetence, I went to re-register with the Accessibility Office.

On 2013.10.02, a classmate and I went to complain to Arlana Vadnais, an Accessibility Advisor at the Advocacy and Accessibility office. My classmate, a Chinese woman, insisted on coming with me, stating that otherwise my complaints would not be taken seriously, because I am a White man, so she went there to confirm everything I said. Vadnais informed me that I would have to get a new doctor's note ($30), to prove that I am disabled again. That proved to be quite difficult, because the UM Medical Centre couldn't find any record of me being registered as a student.,

Over the next week, the professors' harassment and other abuses escalated. Therefore, on 2013.10.10, while waiting to get medical confirmation of my problems, I informally, politely, cogently and concisely complained about Schmidt, via voicemail, to her supervisor, Heather McIntosh, hoping to resolve the matter amicably, so that the class could go on as outlined in the curriculum. Although I had two professors, and I never mentioned Schmidt's name, McIntosh and the Dean of the Faculty of Education knew that I was referring to Schmidt. This shows that her politicization of courses,, and her incompetence and arrogance, must be well-known to her colleagues and supervisors.

Within less than an hour of me making my complaint, the security forces, secretaries, professors and other staff were on the alert, patrolling the Education building, clandestinely following me, observing me, reporting on me.

This went on for weeks. Every time myself and a classmate tried to make a complaint about this professor we were laughed at and told to go away. Then (as I later found out) the staff reported to Security that we had been to their office and they had gotten rid of us.

On October 23, 2013, I was kicked out of class by three Special constables, after I observed, in passing, that the term "mother language" is a priori a sexist term. (This is not something I normally care about at all, but was only mentioned in the context of this class, after the teacher had ranted at me for ages about how offensive and problematic it is for me to describe myself as a "native speaker", and after her multiple insults against me for being a White Irish male.)

Over the next eight months, I was threatened, harassed, deceived, mistreated, lied to, and lied about by multiple UM staff, who conspired to prevent me from being heard, to portray me as a potential mass-murderer, and to make other staff have an unfounded an irrational fear of me. A key part of this process of abuse and defamation was based on the fact that I was registered with the University of Manitoba as a Disabled student, suffering from "Anxiety Disorder" and "Depression"; and was based on university staff maliciously using my medical condition to falsely portray me as dangerous, violent, threatening and/or disruptive; even though I at no point ever threatened a single person, and was never even alleged to have, and not a single threatening quote was ever attributed to me.

The people who abused and defamed and lied to me (including breaching confidentiality), and lied about me the most are:
  • Clea Schmidt, Professor
  • Li Yi, Professor
  • David Mandzuk, Dean of Education;
  • Rick Jansen, Director of UMSS
  • Susan Gottheil, Vice-Provost
  • Maria Versace, Legal Counsel
  • Karen Meelker, Privacy Officer;
  • Brian Barth, so-called "Student Advocate"
  • Arlana Vadnais, so-called "Accessibility Advisor"
  • Brandy Usick, Director of Advocacy and Accessibility


I’ve repeated these allegations multiple times to multiple people and institutions (including the Minister of Justice, the Crown Attorney’s office, on the Internet, in letters and calls (which have all been completely ignored) to the CBC, the Sun, the Winnipeg Free Press, Macleans Canada, CJOB), and many, many columnists, radio hosts, lawyers, government workers, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and the Public Interest Law Centre of Legal Aid Manitoba. None of the people I have accused has publicly responded or tried to sue me or has called me a liar, because what I say is true: they (Clea Schmidt, Li Yi, David Mandzuk, Rick Jansen, Susan Gottheil, Maria Versace, Karen Meelker, Brian Barth, Arlana Vadnais, Brandy Usick, Brenda Hann, and others) are all liars and have all abused my human rights and my civil liberties; and Brenda Hann (Professor, and Chairwoman of the University Disciplinary Committee) abused my human rights and my civil liberties. I repeat what I have publicly stated many times: they are all scum, they are all devious and abusive, they don’t even follow their own rules, and nobody at the University of Manitoba should ever trust them; and I dare them to try to take legal action against me.

Only one "threatening' action was ever attributed to me: In a University of Manitoba Security Service Incident Report I was alleged to have "threatened to file a complaint with the Human Rights commission." (Which is not even true, since I never made any such "threat”, but actually stated the exact opposite! — that I wanted to try to resolve my problems with a professor informally, and wanted to avoid having to deal with the university’s Human Rights Office.)

In the Summer of 2014, I was unjustly banned from the University of Manitoba, from my church (which is on UM grounds) and from seeing my doctor, in spite of my doctor's testimony in support of me, and her warnings to the university authorities that forcing her to stop seeing me would be extremely detrimental to my health.

I am now medically diagnosed and certified as being severely permanently disabled, and incapable of working.

Most of the time:
  • I cannot speak properly.
  • I stutter, or am completely unable to speak.
  • I cannot focus or concentrate on anything.
  • I have trouble shopping, cooking, and other daily functions, because my short-term memory is completely dysfunctional, and I lose money, forget things I have just bought, and so on.
  • Cannot write or spell, and am functionally illiterate.
  • It takes me ages to get anything done.

I am finally beginning to write about this (based on multiple texts I have compiled and have been so far unable to put in order, due to medical problems caused by the multiple human rights abuses I suffered from the University of Manitoba and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission), on November 28, 2014, because today I am relatively able to focus and function.

What follows is a partial account (when I am able to write, taking into account my medical problems) of what happened.

I am writing this to warn all University of Manitoba students to not trust UM staff and never expect anyone to assist you, and in the hope that any student who has a problem with staff might learn from my experiences how to proceed in taking appropriate action.

The most important advice I can give anybody in a similar situation is to do as I did: record classes, conversations, phone calls. Record EVERYTHING. Keep records of everything.

I will fill in details as I am able.

2013.09.11:

2013.10.02:


2013.10.09:

Doctor's Note

I obtained the following doctor's note so that I could re-register as a disabled student at the University of Manitoba. I did so as a precautionary measure, because I was becoming increasingly stressed out due to professors Li Yi and Clea Schmidt's incompetence and misconduct, and because of Clea Schmidt's constant abuse of me based on my race, gender, nationality and ethnicity.

Dear Whom It May concern:

Brian O'Neill is followed by the University of Manitoba Student Health Services for the following diagnoses:

1) Generalized anxiety disorder (chronic ie. permanently disabled)

2) Anxiety/Depression (chronic ie. permanently disabled)

Suggested accommodations include: patient requires a private room for exams and compassion regarding the occasional absence from class and with regards to occasional late assignments.

Please do not hestitate [sic] to contact me if any further information is required.

Kind regards,
Dr. [QP]
[Doctor's UM ID], October 9, 2013 1:39pm

[Doctor's signature]



The doctor was delayed in writing his note by the fact that his office was unable to locate any record of me on the University of Manitoba's online registration system (because I was not listed there).

I presented this doctor's note to Arlana Vadnais, my so-called "Accessibility Adviser".

Vadnais neglected to inform my professors of any requested Reasonable Accommodations for me on the basis of medical problems.

When I asked Vadnais, in January of 2014, why she had never informed anyone of my health problems, she lied to me, and told me that she had not informed my professors of any requested Reasonable Accommodations because I had not granted her permission to do so. That is absurd, since I had already twice consulted with her regarding that matter, and had signed forms granting her that authority, and had brought the doctor's note to her office precisely for that purpose. She told me that she had sent me an email requesting final authority before proceeding. She sent me no such email. When I asked her what date the email was sent, and asked if she had a copy of the email, she looked on her computer screen and mumbled some random dates in October, then changed the subject and said she'd look for it later. There was no such email.

On 2014.06.07 I discovered, by reading her file on me (obtained via FIPPA), that Vadnais purposely chose not to inform the professors of my medical problems because she believed I would end up just dropping out of the courses. That was her colleague Brian Barth's main advice to Student Z and me: "If you don't feel comfortable in the classes, then I suggest you just quit."

In Clea Schmidt's Class


2013.10.10:


2013.10.11

Francine Morin to David Mandzuk and to Li Yi, 2013.10.11 09:13:

Subject: RE: Come and See Me

Hi Yi Li.
Okay, this is good news and like David suggests, keep us informed of how things are going. Best, Francine.



David Mandzuk to Keith Taylor, 2013.10.11 13:04:

Re: Recieved [sic] Voice Mails for Report 2013-005731

Hi Keith
Just to follow up on the Brian O'Neill matter, I wanted you to know we are acknowledging his messages today (Friday) and suggesting if he still has concerns, she should consult with Student Advocacy. In the mean time, I wonder if we could ask for someone from Security Services to be in the building again next week, particularly on Wednesday at 5:30 as this is when the initial incident happened.

Just to remind you, the name of the professor that night is Dr. Clea Schmidt and she will be teaching in Room 318, the same room as Dr. Li Yi was teaching in Thursday evening. According to Yi Li, the student was "more negative than usual" but there were no problems in her class per se.
Thanks,
David




2013.10.12

2013.10.12: Heather McIntosh, after having forwarded, verbatim, to Clea Schmidt, my 2013.10.10 complaints about Clea Schmidt — and acting on instruction from David Mandzuk (Dean of the UM Faculty of Education) — refused to do anything about my complaints about Clea Schmidt (i.e. Schmidt's abuse of me, as well as her multiple and extremely lengthy self-described "political rants" that Schmidt said were "not connected to the stated course content" but that she 'felt the need to get off her chest').

Heather McIntosh to Brian O'Neill:

from: Heather McIntosh Heather.McIntosh@umanitoba.ca
to: [Brian O'Neill email]
date: 12 October 2013 14:40
subject: Phone Message

Hello Brian

I received your two phone messages on Thursday, October 10, 2013. Give the nature of your concerns, I recommend that you seek the support and advice of the Student Advocacy Office on campus about mediating a meeting with the aim to have your concerns heard by an appropriate administrator. Please find the contact information below:

Student Advocacy
523 University Centre
University of Manitoba
Phone: 204-474-7423
student_advocacy@umanitoba.ca





2013.10.16

Keith Taylor to David Mandzuk and to Doug Heinrichs, 2013.10.16 04:38:

Subject: RE: Recieved [sic] Voice Mails for Report 2013-005731

Wednesday is the day in which we are tied up with Convocation. If we can we will do a walk through but if we do not get time we are literally next door in IGAC. Therefore , if there is a problem we will not be far away. It is my hope that he does not create a disturbance in class. Everyone will be aware of the potential problem that may occur. If something does happen and he is disrupting the class the Professor can contact us on the Emergency Phone. We will ask him to leave if that is what the Professor wishes. After that your could proceeed [sic] with some sort of disciplinary action.



Note that that conspiracy between UMSS and the Faculty of Education is contrary to the UMSS code of conduct, which requires UMSS constables to investigate allegations, take witness statements, determine facts, etc. Instead, UMSS made it clear to the Faculty of Education that if the professor "will ask him [me] to leave if that is what the Professor wishes", with no investigation whatsoever (and in fact this is what happened, whom Taylor and his two henchmen informed me that they are mere automatons, who take instructions from professors, and who are not interested in the facts, and make no attempt to investigate anything; and completely dismissed Student Z's defence of me and her condemnation of Clea Schmidt, and refused to take her witness statement.

David Mandzuk to Clea Schmidt, 2013.10.16, 07:43:

Subject: Fw: Recieved [sic] Voice Mails for Report 2013-005731

Clea,
Please see message below from Keith Talyor [sic] from Security Services.
Hope all goes well.
David

From: Keith Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:38 AM
To: David Mandzuk
Cc: Doug Heinrichs
Subject: RE: Recieved [sic] Voice Mails for Report 2013-005731

Wednesday is the day in which we are tied up with Convocation. If we can we will do a walk through but if we do not get time we are literally next door in IGAC. Therefore , if there is a problem we will not be far away. It is my hope that he does not create a disturbance in class. Everyone will be aware of the potential problem that may occur. If something does happen and he is disrupting the class the Professor can contact us on the Emergency Phone. We will ask him to leave if that is what the Professor wishes. After that your could proceeed with some sort of disciplinary action.



Clea Schmidt to David Mandzuk and to Francine Morin, 2013.10.16 22:55:

Subject: update

I just wanted you to follow up regarding Brian O'Neill, and to say how much I've appreciated the care and caution that's been taken in this matter.

Tonight's class went well overall, though Brian seemed tense and defensive and it's apparent he views any sort of input or constructive feedback as a form of criticism. When he started to get off-track with a misguided view about one of the topics we were discussing, a number of students jumped in to offer alternate, more reasoned perspectives, essentially shutting him don. He clearly wasn't pleased but he didn't lose his temper like he did last week when I challenged him on some of his views.

At the end of the class, he left his reusable water bottle in plain view on his desk and left the room. I chatted with a few other students and then quickly packed up and left; Bill was waiting at my classroom door at my request so we could walk down together, and the night security person (Doug? Keith?) was also there. We chatted for a few minutes and the three of us made our way to the third floor elevator. Most of the students were long gone at this point, but Brian was lingering near Room 360 with one other student from my class he tends to associate with [Student Z: Christian name]. My sense is he may have intended to come back to the room where I usually take my time packing up once students have left. As we approached the elevator, Brian and [Student Z: Christian name] went into the alcove by Room 360. The security guard made his presence known to Brian by backing up until he ha a clear view of the alcove. Once on the second floor, the three of us talked for awhile near the Hard Chalk Café coolers, and eventually Brian and [Student Z: Christian name] came down from the third floor and left the building by the door closest to the elevator. Bill walked me out and waited with me until my ride arrived, which I really appreciated.

So, all's well for tonight. I'll continue to be vigilant.

Thank you both for your help and support.
Clea




2013.10.17

Francine Morin to Clea Schmidt and to David Mandzuk, 2013.10.17 10:21:

Hi Clea,
Thank you for the update. From what you say below, I do think that continued caution is in order. I am thinking we should keep these steps in place for next week and will talk with David to see what we need to do to communicate with security again.
Take care, Francine




2013.10.18

From Li Yi to Francine Morin, and to David Mandzuk, and to Clea Schmidt, and to Heather McIntosh, 2013.10.18 08:20

Subject: RE: Come and See Me Brian O'Neill

Good morning Francine

Brian approached me yesterday evening after class and I listened to him for about 15 minutes.

He began by asking me if I had received a note from the Student's Disability Services about him. I said that I had never received any information from them. He then told me that he had registered there because of his mental illness issues. He didn't specify what kind though, just saying that he is forgetful and easily distracted when there is too much going on around him in the classroom.

He seemed much less negative and agitated than last week. I wonder if the letter I had asked my students in the course to write to me about their learning so far had given him the opportunity to write out his frustration or anger or whatever. He didn't hand in that letter last week or yesterday evening, but he told me that he had run out of space to write something positive about my course! So he decided to come and just let me know what he likes and what he would like to learn more in the remainder of the course.

I will keep you posted,

Yi Li



That was a collection of lies from Professor Yi Li.

I approached her to inform her that I refused to comply with her assignment requiring students to publicly critique her, since that is contrary to university regulations. Professors are forbidden to require students to publicly or privately critique them (positively or negatively) during a course. That is why there is a very well-established anonymous criticism procedure which is conducted after the final lesson and prior to any exams. While I know very well (as a University of Manitoba graduate) that that is the correct procedure, I also checked with various personnel. I was informed by librarians at St John's College Library, who found for me the relevant regulations, that professors are forbidden to require students to openly critique them.

When Student Z and I attempted to register complaints with the Faculty of Education (speaking directly to Dean Mandzuk's secretaries) we were bizarrely given Grade Appeal forms, and told we had to give them $35.00 each. Then they told us to "go to your Student Advocate!" That was also their response to our attempts to complain about the abuses and incompetence of Li and Schmidt, and to our attempts to file Sexual Harassment charges against our Student Advisor and classmate Stephen Rice (they laughed at the details of Steven Rice's sexual harassment: Him jumping around like an ape, pretending two watermelons were giant breast and then giant testicles, leering at Student Z and shouting at her to look and his "titties", and then informing her that she made his "cojones" hard, as she was nervously attempting to deliver her first Peer Teaching assignment). Then they reported to UMSS our attendance at their office, without stating why we went there, except to say we were incoherent, and that they found it threatening that we had gone there when their office just opened (which was in fact false, and anyway irrelevant).

When Student Z and I attempted to register complaints with Faculty of Extended Education Student Advisor Miriam Christophe, she informed us that she didn't know anything about such matters, and it didn't have anything to do her, and that we should "go to your Student Advocate." That was also her response to our attempts to complain about the abuses and incompetence of Li and Schmidt, and to our attempts to file Sexual Harassment charges against our Student Advisor and classmate Stephen Rice (who was sitting about ten or fifteen feet from us while we attempted to file a complaint against him, as he and Christophe kept glancing back and forth at each other, with looks of concern on their faces; Christophe informed her that it was not her job to take Sexual Harassment complaints about her colleagues, and that she didn't know whose job it was).

What I had informed Li Yi about was how offensive her curriculum was, in that it consisted of 70% Self-Assessment, and self-grading (which she then ignored, and gave her own grades anyway). I told her that her curriculum was a series of Maoist self-criticism sessions (which she conceded and stated it worked well in her Communist homeland), and that it constituted a violation of students' privacy (since she told us we had to dig deep into traumatic experiences from our lives in order to prove we had suffered enough to be able to be English teachers to foreigners).

I was then obliged to inform Li of my medical problems, since she had not been informed by my alleged Accessibility Advisor that I was entitled to Reasonable Accommodations according to Human Rights legislation.

The process was supposed to work like this: After obtaining a Doctor's note ($30.00), I registered with Accessibility Services (part of Student Advocacy and Accessibility Services, under Director Brandy Usick) as a Disabled Student. Then Vadnais was required to inform my professors that they should afford me certain Reasonable Accommodations, as appropriate, without divulging the exact nature of my disabilities. Vadnais was also required to inform professors and the relevant bureaucratic and secretarial staff to avoid bringing attention to my disabilities, and to treat the information with respect and in confidence. Vadnais had in fact prepared such a letter, but then had purposely not sent it to the relevant staff (including my professors), because she had been instructed not to assist me, because the Advocacy and Accessibility Office was attempting to just push Student Z and me to quit the classes in which we were being targeted for abuse.

Therefore, because Advocacy and Accessibility was conspiring against me, I was obliged to divulge the exact nature of my disabilities to Li Yi, in an attempt to explain to her why her improper, and offensive, and illicit behaviour (her Maoist self-criticism sessions; her expectation that we students were supposed to delve deep into our pasts and revisit and retell (from three different perspectives) traumatic life experiences; and her requirement that we praise or criticise her openly, in the middle of the course, against university regulations) were all increasing my stress levels, which were already quite high, due to Clea Schmidt's constant obscene and absurd attacks against me on the basis of my race, sex, association, political opinion, nationality, citizenship, ethnic group, etc.

Note also that according to University of Manitoba regulations, all staff members are forbidden to discuss or share any information about students' medical conditions via electronic-mail.

David Mandzuk to Francine Morin, and to David Mandzuk, and to Clea Schmidt, and to Heather McIntosh, 2013.10.18 08:39:

Subject: RE: Come and See Me Brian O'Neill

Thanks for the update, Yi Li.

David Mandzuk, Ph.D.
Dean, Faculty of Education
University of Manitoba



Clea Schmidt to Francine Morin, and to David Mandzuk, and to Yi Li, and to Clea Schmidt, and to Heather McIntosh, 2013.10.18 16:22:

Subject: RE: Come and See Me Brian O'Neill

You're correct, Francine, that I haven't received any contact from disability services about Brian. Would it be appropriate to follow up with them since he's under the impression his instructors are familiar with his issues?
Clea



David Mandzuk to Clea Schmidt, and to Francine Morin, and to Heather McIntosh, 2013.10.18 16:28:


Subject: RE: Come and See Me Brian O'Neill

Hi all,
Well be sure to check in with Accessibility Services on Monday.
Have a good weekend everyone.

David Mandzuk, Ph.D.
Dean, Faculty of Education
University of Manitoba



I was supposedly given all of Arlana Vadnais' notes about me, and don't recall seeing any mention of such contacts with the Faculty of Education.

Please note also that at a UDC "hearing" (kangaroo court), Legal counsel Maria Versace and Vice-Provost Susan Gottheil (both STATIS members) both lied when they falsely stated that they were unaware that I was and am disabled, and that I was attempting to register any complaints against staff members.

All-in-all I was treated as an "UNPERSON".

Yi Li to David Mandzuk, and to Clea Schmidt, and to Francine Morin, and to Heather McIntosh, 2013.10.18 20:15:

Subject: RE: Come and See Me Brian O'Neill

Hi everyone,

Brian did mention that if there is an exam, he will need to write the exam at the Disability (Accessibility) Services because he can't concentrate in a classroom full of people. As our C-TESL courses typically don't have exam, we might not be notified. But I think it is a good idea to follow up with Accessibility Services as a couple of my students in the course already find him very negative and hard to work with in group activities.

Have a nice weekend and see you all on Monday,

Yi Li



David Mandzuk to Yi Li, 2013.10.18 20:36:

Thanks, Yi Li.
Will do on Monday.
Take care everyone!




2013.10.21

Li Yi to David Mandzuk, and to Li Yi, and to Clea Schmidt, and to Francine Morin, 2013.10.21 08:50:

Subject: Re: Come and See Me - Brian O'Neill

Hi everyone,

I just got a note from Brian, indicating that Accessibility didn't inform me of his registration there because he is an Extended Education student and his classes are not listed on Aurora. He also included a doctor's note (from U of M Health Services, saying he has generalized anxiety disorder and anxiety/depression (both conditions are chronic, i.e. Permanently disabled).

I am not sure how I can minimize his negative impact upon other students in the class, who don't know he has these conditions.

Please advise.

Thanks, Yi Li



Francine Morin to Li Yi, and to David Mandzuk, and to Clea Schmidt, and to Heather McIntosh, 2013.10.21 09:18:

Subject: Re: Come and See Me - Brian O'Neill

Hi Yi Li,

I would double check with David in case he thinks you should talk to Accessibility, but it seems to me that instructors could contact them and ask for advise on how to handle these matters. Anxiety and depression do not necessarily mean that he will be dangerous. He might just need to know that he can go and walk around or leave the room for a bit. He may have trouble looking at the positive side of things, and need to be reminded of the positive...I am not sure what they will advise. If the situation gets out of hand, then he might have to excuse himself from class.

So, await David's response, and then follow up with Accessibility would be my thoughts. Francine



Heather McIntosh to Francine Morin, and to Li Yi, and to David Mandzuk, and to Clea Schmidt, 2013.11.21 09:30:

Subject: Re: Come and See Me - Brian O'Neill

I am surprised that Extended Ed students would not have access to Accessibility. I will be in shortly and can help to follow up on this.

Heather



Besides violating their own regulations against discussing students' medical conditions via electronic mail, and requiring them to treat disabled students with dignity and respect, they wrote about me as if I am some sort of beast, some animal, to be taken for walkies; or as if I were an infant, to be sent for a time-out; and as if anytime I may be upset it could only be for irrational reasons, like I'm some sort of "nut-case" and should be treated accordingly.

In summary: THEY TREATED ME WITH UTTER CONTEMPT.


2013.10.23

Me to Brian Barth:

Hi Brian,

I am forwarding you the only correspondence I have received regarding my complaints.

This was in response to quite detailed voicemail messages I had left, covering the same concerns/complaints I mentioned in my meeting with you.

I contacted Heather McIntosh because she is officially "Coordinator, CTESL Program, Faculty of Education".

See you on the 31st.

[Forwarded email:]

from: Heather McIntosh Heather.McIntosh@umanitoba.ca
to: Brian O'Neill
date: 12 October 2013 14:40
subject: Phone Message

Hello Brian

I received your two phone messages on Thursday, October 10, 2013. Give the nature of your concerns, I recommend that you seek the support and advice of the Student Advocacy Office on campus about mediating a meeting with the aim to have your concerns heard by an appropriate administrator. Please find the contact information below:

"Student Advocacy
523 University Centre
University of Manitoba
Phone: 204-474-7423
student_advocacy@umanitoba.ca

[End of forwarded email]




2013.10.23

That evening I was unlawfully, unjustly and maliciously expelled from Clea Schmidt's class, without any explanation given. Student Z left with me, in solidarity with me, and because she (correctly, as we discovered months later, via FIPPA requests) feared remaining in that class with Clea Schmidt targeting her for condescending and contemptuous race-based special treatment.


2013.10.24: Clea Schmidt's DEFAMATORY "Report on Brian O'Neill", with my responses to Clea Schmidt's DEFAMATION.

I discovered this document as pages 12-14 of UMSS Incident Report INCD-2013-005371, which I obtained on 2013.12.23. On 2014.01.02 I wrote responses to this document, and gave those handwritten responses, marked "CONFIDENTIAL", to my "Accessibility Adviser" Arlana Vadnais, and to two other UM staff-member who were supposed to be bound to confidentiality. Vadnais refused to help me, lied to me, and told me that she had been instructed not to assist me.

Report on Brian O'Neill

Prepared by Clea Schmidt, October 24, 2013


The Events in this report pertain to the behaviorof [sic] Brian O'Neill and my responses to his behavior within the context of EDUB 1640,1 Teaching ESL Vocabulary and Pronunciation,2 held this term on Wednesday evenings 5:30-8:30 p.m.

Behaviours over the term

For the first month of classes, Brian participated fairly regularly in class discussions and completed class activities as assigned.3 He began partnering regularly with [Student Z] in group tasks.4 Sometime I would vary the grouping strategies so he was required to work with others.5 He often stayed behind after class to make brief comments about the course content.6 7

Brian's most enthusiastic participation in class during the first month occurred when I assigned a brainstorming activity whereby groups were required to plan a vocabulary lesson based on certain principles.8 9 He10 got very excited11 about a lesson plan he had for junior12 high school girls from Taiwan,13 in which they would pretend14 to be movie stars interviewed by media and gossip15 about their lives. This was a less academic focus than I was looking for in this task,16 and I gave some general feedback to the whole class about how to ensure students are supported with meaningful activities that help prepare them for authentic academic workplace language demands.17 18

Oct. 919

In a discussion I was leading during this class, I used the phrase “so-called native English speaker” to problematize assumptions around ownership of English and hierarchies pertaining to different varieties of English.20 Brian got very upset21 and questioned what I meant by “so-called” native speakers. He said he was a native speaker and this was very clear to everyone. I pointed out that, on the contrary, this whole issue of what constitutes a native speaker of a language is in fact a major area of controversy in the field. He got angrier and insisted it wasn't controversial at all.

I informed him thatthe [sic] debate began in the mid-80's with a book entitled “The Native English Speaker is Dead”, written to provoke debate and to challenge the idea that the native speaker status is clear-cut and universally agreed upon.22 This upset Brian even more and he loudly proclaimed in an agitated manner that he was offended by this.23 His comments lacked coherence and clarity and his reaction was hostile. I brought the discussion to closure by suggesting that he engage in further reading to help him understand the issues in greater depth and complexity and then moved the class on to the next task at hand.

Oct. 16

During this class, we watched a video of a vocabulary lesson in which a Grade 3 teacher was helping students understand the difference between fact and opinion. The criteria the teacher was using to distinguish between fact and opinion was clearly discussed in the video and the Grade 3 students in the class picked up on the distinction quickly, Brian seemed to misunderstand the difference and in the debriefing following the video began defending a position based on his misguided interpretation. Other students quickly joined the discussion to refute what Brian was saying and there was a moment of tension as he was trying to defend his position even more staunchly. However, other students continued the discussion and Brian quieted down, though he was visibly upset.24

Brian's participation in the class noticeable decreased from his earlier engagement25 and he spent most of his time writing in a small notebook.26 At the end of the class, Brian left his reusable water bottle in plain sight on his desk and left the room.27 I chatted with other students who remained after class to speak with me,28 packed up and left quickly. I was met at the door by Bill our custodian and Keith29 from Campus Security, who had become involved at this stage in light of the voicemails Brian had left for Heather McIntosh30 following my Oct. 9 class. We spent some time chatting in the hallway outside the classroom during which most of the students left the classrooms and hallways on the third floor. When we approached the elevator, Brian was still in the hallway with Brian31 and when he saw us they moved quickly out of sight32 behind the alcove33 beside Rm. 360. Bill, Keith and I took the elevator to the 2nd floor where we chatted by the cooler of the Hard Chalk Café and eventually34 Brian and [Student Z: Christian name] came down and exited by the door closest to the Aboriginal Student Centre.35

Oct. 2336

In this class, I introduced a framework based on the research of Jim Cummins37 and explained we would consider three components related to the framework, the third of which involved explicitly addressing power relations in language teaching.38 Brian immediately became agitated39 and said it didn't seem appropriate that I was asking him to point out to his students from Saudi Arabia that they had power over him.40 I explained that I wasn't advising anything of the kind41 and in fact it wold be more appropriate42 for him to reflect on his own white privilege43 as an English teacher working in international contexts. This angered him further44 and he angrily pointed out I had mentioned white privilege before and demanded45 I give him examples.46 I said I would revisit the issue when we arrived at that point in our discussion of addressing power relations47 but I was going to return to the agenda48 because we were getting off-track.49 I suggested that if the conversation was too upsetting for him, he could opt to leave the class.50

The class discussion continued and I assigned a scenario for the students to consider in which they had to determine appropriate grouping strategies for multilingual learners in the context of a group project.51 Students were asked to decide whether they would group learners from the same language background together or mix the groups and to justify the answer. Brian protested talking about this issue52 but I reiterated that it was important for teachers to know how to determine when and how students' multilingual abilities could be drawn upon as a resource in the classroom.53 I circulated to check in ith [sic] the groups and answer questions and when I arrived at [Student Z: Christian name] and Brian's table54 he remained silent.55 [Student Z: Christian name] shared an inappropriate and incoherent idea56 about students from her own race grouped togetherto [sic] maintain their privilege while letting other students from different language backgrounds mix together. I responded that this was an inappropriate strategy.57

I then called the whole class together to debrief ideas from this activity and students shared their perspectives. When a student made a commentmentioning [sic] the term “mother tongue”,58 Brian sarcastically59 and snidely60 accused his classmate of being sexist61 and insisted62 that his own daughter did not speak her mother tongue but rather her “father” tongue.63 I told Brian he was being inappropriate and needed to calm down.64 Another student attempted to reason with him and bring him back to the topic at hand.65 He continued to insist he was offended by the term “mother tongue”66 to which I replied he seemed offended by many things67 and given the obvious distress the class discussions were causing him,68 it would be preferable for him to leave.69 I mentioned that his concerning behavior70 had been brought to the attention of Campus Security71 and they would be by shortly.72 I wrapped up the discussion, asked the class to take a break,73 and found Bill.74 He summoned security at which point Keith and two security guards75 arrived. Keith spoke to Brian 76 and informed him I wanted him to leave the class.77 78 He said he was waiting for his assignment to be returned to him. I handed it back to him and [Student Z: Christian name] opted to leave with him79 as well, once she received her assignment.

My decision to ask Brian to leave was based on the fact that his behavior seemed to be escalating and he had verbally attacked another student.80



NOTES

[1] I was not registered in this class. I was registered in 39302. In fact they are the same class, but I later had to argue with Miriam Christophe of the Faculty of Extended Education, when she falsely informed me that I couldn't get a refund because I was not registered in EDUB 1640. The point is that 39302 is sold as a CTESL class, to get money from unsuspecting would-be ESL teachers, but then the actual class is full of people who have no idea what CTESL is, and have no intention of becoming English teachers. When Student Z and I brought this rip-off to the attention of University of Manitoba staff, our complaints were ignored.

[2] Schmidt took the liberty of changing the name of the course in class. Why does she here revert to using the proper name for the course? She made such a point in class of how offensive the acronym “ESL” supposedly is.

[3] I always participated regularly in class discussions and completed all class activities as assigned. And so what?

[4] So what?

[5] Did Schmidt do this with other students? Did she do this because of her belief, stated in class, that “They [White men] are arrogant bastards and expect Asian women to conform to their needs.” ?

[6] False. I stayed behind class one time to discuss class content, after Schmidt said that it would be “inappropriate” for me to prepare a lesson plan (on “a topic of the student's choice”) on North Belfast English, and that she would have to be “convinced of a reason why anyone would want to learn something like that”; and that was just after she had stated that all “Englishes” are equal and deserving of respect.

[7] So what?

[8] False. My most enthusiastic participation was when she asked students to form groups and come up with lesson plans based on wordlists she assigned. Student Z and I were on our own again, because people didn't want to work with us because it was clear that Schmidt had it in for me. We were left with the most difficult assignment, to use 20 high-level words from an academic wordlist to teach an “early grades” class. We completed the assignment. Everybody else just vaguely mumbled through their incoherent lesson plans. With Schmidt's permission, I stood up and acted out our lesson plan, role-playing as if the class was a Grade 3 class. When I had finished I got a round of applause and people commented on how "brilliant", etc., I am.

[9] False. Schmidt said nothing about any “principles”. All she said was that we had to come up with a lesson in which students were encouraged to speak as much as possible.

[10] False. I worked on the assignment with Student Z, because nobody else would work with us. We were clearly marked as personae non grata by Schmidt.

[11] I was no more nor less “excited” than I was about any other assignment. Student Z and I were always enthusiastic.

[12] False. Student Z and I both clearly stated that it was a lesson plan for a Grade 12 class. Did Schmidt change the target class to junior high girls to try to portray me as some sort of pedophile/pederast?

[13] False. Student Z and I clearly stated it was a class at a girls high school in Taiwan, not girls from Taiwan.

[14] Role-play. A very common teaching technique, especially useful in getting students to speak, which was the entire point of the assignment.

[15] False. It was clearly stated that one girl would play a pop star and actress whose career was in decline, and the interviewer would pretend to be nice but would actually be critical of the star's recent work. This would create tension between the two and thereby facilitate dialogue. Resolution of tension is a common theme in drama.

[16] If Schmidt had wanted us to produce something “academic” she should have said so. We students can't read her mind. As far as I remember nobody in class planned a lesson that was in any way “academic”. This is part of Schmidt's attempt to portray herself as being a deep intellectual, teaching obscure and abstruse postmod, structuralist, Derridean, Marcusian, cult-of-critique-of-Whitey dogmas. Things which most of this particular class (especially the students who can barely explain what a bus-stop operates, never mind discuss ""bus"-""stop"" as ""sign"+if-I-er" of white privilege", or whatever barely-understood talmudic postmoddishy gobbledygook has infested Schmidt's deluded mentality) could barely comprehend, and which are unrelated to the stated course content, and are not mentioned anywhere in the provided curriculum.

[17] Schmidt is a liar. She said no such thing. All she said when setting the assignment was that we should come up with activities that would encourage students to speak in class. That is what Student Z and I did. And Schmidt's only stated objection to us was “that would be far too difficult for Grade 12 Chinese girls” (and now she's trying to assert that it wasn't difficult enough!?!?) which is a stupid and insulting thing to say. I taught a Grade 12 class at The National Tainan Senior Girls High School 國立臺南女子高級中學 (and a class at The National Tainan First Senior (boys) High School 國立臺南第一高級中學) (these schools are commonly referred to as "Tainan No. 1 Girls" and "Tainan No. 1 Boys"), and have tutored many high school girls in Taiwan (and in Japan), and I know very well that one of their main topics of conversation is the latest acts and words and fashions and works of local pop stars, actresses and models. And Student Z was once a high school girl in China. Therefore we both know quite well what a Grade 12 Taiwanese girls high school class is academically, socially and linguistically capable of.

[18] What is the point of Schmidt mentioning any of this in a “Report” on me, thereby greatly inconveniencing me by forcing me to respond to her petty nonsense?

[19] Schmidt discussed for an hour or so a possible upcoming teachers' strike for a long time. She assured the class that professors had no interest in striking for a pay-increase, and that any suggestion of such a thing was just slanderous “propaganda” on the part of the university administrators. A classmate, Alberta, shouted out, demanding to know if Schmidt would cross the (hypothetical) picket line, and then glared at classmates and demanded to know the same of them. Schmidt had no objections to Alberta's disruptive behaviour. Of course she was only disrupting Schmidt's political speech (and Schmidt's boring reminiscence of her salad days during a teachers' strike at York University), so it wasn't like Alberta was disrupting anything related to the course ... still, it was rather annoying and intimidating in intent.

[20] Yet again Schmidt was giving one of her (long, stupid and boring) self-described “political rants” (rants that she conceded were not part of the course). In the course of this one she claimed it was hurtful and offensive for “so-called native speakers” (uttered in a voice dripping with contempt and sarcasm) to dare to correct the linguistic errors of non-English-speaking immigrants to Canada.

[21] A lie. I politely asked what Schmidt meant by the phrase "so-called native speakers", since lexically it would imply a person who is not a native English speaker but who claims to be. I never said anything about whether it is "controversial" or not whether so-and-so is a native English speaker. I merely pointed out the fact that I am a native English speaker and stated that there is no "controversy" about that fact. It is an incontrovertible fact that I am a native English speaker, as the vast majority of Irish people have been for centuries now. The rest of Schmidt's "Report" on this matter is such a distortion of reality that it constitutes a fabrication. And it all has only the most tangential and obscure connection to the stated course content.

As to whether I was "upset" or "angry" or whatever negative characterization Schmidt puts upon me, the fact is that on the very first day of class (2013.09.11), Schmidt's very first words to the class were: "I am very political. Language is very political. In fact everything is political! I love to discuss hot-button issues. I love to push students to engage in heated political debates." So even if I was in fact "upset" or "angry" or "hostile", that was her very objective in the class — to anger students (especially White male students). And she thanked me for the "debate" that I had absolutely no desire to engage in (I simply asserted the fact that I am a native English speaker in spite of her repeated attacks), so Schmidt is a lousy hypocrite. The facts, from the record:

Schmidt: "Canadian-born monolingual English-speaking people NEED to be exposed to other languages without always making the assumption, 'Well, this, this is Canada! Speak English!' You know? And, they NEED to be okay with other people entering into the dialogues in languages that they know. You know, because it IS an issue, and in a societal attitude, and when, you know, many, many people talk about this, that, they feel shame. Students talk about feeling shame speaking their heritage languages because they get dirty looks or recriminations from other people, and so WE DO NEED to do more to educate the wider society about the value of heritage languages, and to promote pluralingualism amongst the wider population, because we never want to see it as just something that's sort of tolerated amongst newcomers, right? Like, we do need to address the discrimination and the racism that goes along with suppressing other people's languages. Ummm. And, uh, you know, I have a Ph.D. student, right now, who's researching this very topic. She's looking at Farsi, and as a heritage language, and she interviewed young people and their parents, and, and they, they time and again said in the interviews that, you know, they felt shame, like, they were made to feel shame in speaking their, their heritage language, either in public schools, in diverse [laughs, sarcastically] public schools, or, just out in public, where people were, umm, hostile towards them for, umm, engaging with, with Farsi. So, I think it is a big problem, and it, in a setting where we pride ourselves on being multicultural and the embracing of diversity, and it is an ugly truth, uhh, we're not quite there yet [laughs] in terms of really taking that to a level of affirming differences and, and, aiding people to be themselves in this environment." [. . .] "Linguistic discrimination is something that's been well-documented in the research, and, it's, it's one of the last kind of acceptable forms of discrimination, I feel, because, I mean, it's not to say that racism isn't prevalent on many levels, but it's somehow acceptable to...blame communication breakdown on the newcomer who has English as an additional language, even if that person speaks five languages, speaks English very well, among those five languages, it, it, it's still kind of okay to say, I mean, okay, I put it in quotation marks, like, it's okay, it's okay, but it, it seems to be more acceptable, 'Oh well, we had miscommunication, it must be your fault, because, you know, you don't know English as well as I do.' Right? And, and the responsibility for breakdown in communication is often placed. And that is a form of discrimination, because there's no recognition that or acknowledgement on the part of the 'so-called' [Schmidt uses scare-quotes, twice] 'native speaker' that, 'Gee! I'm participating in a, an intercultural communication here, and I have a responsibility to really, to make myself understood and to, you know . . . ."

[Schmidt then discussed how important it is for English teachers to get their students to teach their English teacher their own languages. I suspect this might not be a very popular technique when students are paying to learn English and instead the teacher says, "How about you (pay me to) teach me your language!"]

Me: "I'm sorry, you spoke about...'a so-called native speaker.' I don't know what is 'a so called native english speaker.'"

Schmidt: "I say 'so-called' ... I say so-called because that whole term 'native speaker' has, has, is very controversial actually."

Me: "Well, I am a native English speaker. I speak English. I mean, I don't know what is controversial about it."

Schmidt: "Oh! It is VERY controversial! It's HUGELY..."

Alberta: "That's not the language of the Irish people. Why does it fucking matter!?"

[Widespread laughter, and insults directed against me.]

Me: "No, that's my native language. I am Irish."

Schmidt [in an angry voice]: "Okay. Okay. I am problematising it, Brian, because, because, actually, many scholars are writing about this, and there is a famous book called The Native Speaker Is Dead.

Me: "I'm not dead."

[Widespread laughter.]

Schmidt: "And, and, the idea behind it, is that English has come to be used by so many different people in the world, and in so many different contexts, that it is not easy to define a native English speaker. You 'may' [Schmidt uses scare-quotes] define yourself that way, and that's...'fine' [Schmidt uses scare-quotes], but meanwhile, I mean, I mean, oh..."

[People talking over each other, laughter, directed at me. People mouthing "moron" "asshole", etc., at me.]

[A discussion ensued between Schmidt and Ghassan about how English is spoken in Singapore, as if I am not aware of that. (I've lived in Singapore.)]

Schmidt: "...and so the definition is not that clear. I. Hmm. Hmmm. I...it really is a huge issue, and there's a huge air of controversy. Well, well, let's do it now — just google..."

Me: "Are there native Irish speakers?"

Ghassan [laughs, sarcastically]: "Irish!?"

Schmidt [laughing]: "YES!"

Me: "But there are no native English speakers?"

Schmidt [as if she's talking to a moron]: "I am not saying that there are NONE! I am saying it is a problematic term."

Me: "Saying the native English speaker is dead is very offensive." [Please keep in mind the context: that in this class Schmidt was constantly offended — offended that a native English speaker would dare to describe himself as a native English speaker — offended that an Irish person dared plan to teach a lesson on North Belfast English (as part of an assignment to teach anything the student chooses, and after Schmidt just finished a long rant about how all "Englishes" are equal and must all be respected — offended that a student from Shanghai dared plan to teach fellow Chinese people going on a trip to India how to bargain in English (offended because that would be "racist", because it would suggest that Chinese people like to get good deals and that Indian shopkeepers are in the habit of haggling over prices) — offended that anyone would dare suggest telling students of English who keep talking to each other in foreign languages (and thereby distracting other students) to move so that they would not be able to keep doing so.]

[Widespread laughter, led by Schmidt, and people shouting at me.]

Schmidt: "It is a book! It is a book!" [That she had just cited in class as an authoritative text, but was now distancing herself from.]

[Schmidt laughs. Widespread laughter along with Schmidt.]

Schmidt: "It is obviously tongue-in-cheek."

Me: "I don't find it funny."

Schmidt: "And it is, it is, well...."

Me: "Is the native Japanese speaker dead?"

Schmidt: "What it is saying is, this whole 'construct' of being a 'native speaker', of a language, in this era of extreme multilingualism, where children may grow up speaking four or five languages. what if you had three languages you are speaking..."

[Various scenarios were then put to me, in which I was challenged to say what a person's native language might be. None of this held or holds any interest for me, or is in any way controversial to me. If people speak English to all sorts of different extents all over the world, that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that I am a native English speaker]

Schmidt [in her talking-to-a-moron voice]: "You find it simple, black and white, I get it. But it is complex, when you think about how people define themSELVES! And this is actually the direction the scholarship has gone, really, asking people, 'How do you identify?'"

[Note that all this "controversy" and abuse was in response to my simple assertion that I identify myself as a native English speaker.]

Schmidt: "Because the 'native speaker' status has been used to privilege some and disadvantage others."

[What has that got to do with the fact that I am a native english speaker?]

Schmidt: "And the 'native speaker' norm in languages has been the standard to which additional language learners are compared, quite inappropriately."

[Why shouldn't language learners be compared to native speakers? The stated topic of the course is "teaching comprehensible and acceptable English pronunciation." Obvious there must be a standard of comprehensibility and acceptability. Why this extreme hostility to my statement of the fact of my identity? Obviously if a non-White student simply stated that they are a native English speaker there would not have been this hostility and ridicule.]

Schmidt: "Because if you come to study English as a child, or adolescent, or as an adult, hmmmm, comparing you to a 'native speaker' when you simply haven't had the exposure or the experience with the language, you know, you are always going to be at a disadvantage."

[First of all, that is not necessarily true. A learner can end up speaking or writing English that is more widely admired than that of a native speaker. For example, John Cale, Joseph Conrad, Vladimir Nabokov; and many people whom I have met in person. And secondly, so what!? It's like complaining that some people are disadvantaged as basketball players because they are short. What's the point? What an infantile argument, grasping at straws. When I went to Spain I was at a disadvantage compared to native Spanish speakers. So what?]

Schmidt: "I'm talking about very profound levels on which people identify."

[Note that this whole fuss is just because of a pathological reaction to my simple assertion of self-identification.]

Schmidt: "And so what if a language learner?..." [Etc. More irrelevant scenarios.]

Me: "It's a matter of tolerance. If people come here and can't speak English, you can help correct their mistakes; but to take that to the extent that I don't have any right to tell you what's correct grammar, that it [English] is not my language.... It is my language. That's what I'm saying. If I am a teacher, it's my language that I'm teaching, and a lot of students will respect that I correct them, and appreciate being corrected."

Schmidt: "But notions of 'ownership' of language are hotly contested. I'm just, I'll leave the conversation there. And I DO ENJOY THIS DEBATE. And it something that my graduate students do research on. And it really is a very interesting area in and of itself. I would encourage you to read the work of Kachru."

[I don't need to read the work of Kachru to figure out what my native language is. What is this aggression against me motivated by?

Schmidt: "Kachru was a pioneer in the field. He was the founder of, and the editor of. a journal called World Englishes..."

[Schmidt then went on to inform me that there are many "varieties" of English, and that many English speakers around the world have trouble understanding each other. She's very well aware of the fact that I'm from Belfast. She had previously told me that it would be "inappropriate" for me to teach a lesson based on North Belfast English. Does she seriously think I've never noticed that people speak English differently in different places? Her main point now is that there is not "one English", so therefore nobody could be a native speaker.]

Schmidt: "And so, when you say you're 'a native speaker of English', which English?"

[Schmidt leads the class in laughter.]

Schmidt: "So anyway, Kachru developed a model of world [...] Ownership of the language changes. [...] There is an Inner Circle, an Outer Circle, and an Expanded Circle."

[Schmidt condescendingly informs me that the "Inner Circle" includes Britain, Canada and Australia, the "Outer Circle" includes places "that through colonization and imperialism became English speaking". This is a really stupid, ill-informed and ahistorical model. Britain includes Wales and Scotland, which have their own native languages. Where does Ireland fit into this model? Inner or Outer? Or is the "Outer Circle" only predominantly non-White places? Am I supposed to go and read all this in order to be able to teach English or to check whether I'm a native English speaker or not? I couldn't care less what Kachru wrote. It makes absolutely no difference to the the fact that I am a native English speaker. It's a fact, not a "controversy". I did go and check what Kachru and other writers at World Englishes have written. This was just yet more of a waste of my precious time on this stupid course that has hardly any connection to the stated topics. According to Kachru, Ireland is in the Inner Circle and English is (obviously, to any sane person) the native language of almost all Irish people.]

Schmidt: "There are issues of power and of hierarchies, and that's what's very political. I mean, David Crystal writes..."

[Actually, David Crystal commonly writes and speaks about "native English speakers" and "non-native English speakers". On and on Schmidt goes, oblivious to reality. And all of this just because I asked, "What is a 'so-called native English speaker'?" (which question was, by-the-way, never even answered — though semantically the term would best describe a person pretending to be a native English speaker), and because I had made a simple and factual assertion that I am a native English speaker. How tedious, offensive, ill-informed and bizarre this attack on me was!]

[22] I never said, or suggested, or supported any "idea that the native speaker status is clear-cut and universally agreed upon."

[23] What was I offended by? Was I supposedly "offended" by "the idea that the native speaker status is clear-cut and universally agreed upon" can be challenged? Why would I be offended by my own opinion?

[24] The Facts: Schmidt played a YouTube video. In the video, a teacher asks a class of American third-graders if America is the greatest country in the world. As one might well expect, the response is basically affirmative. A boy is asked why America is the greatest. He responds that it is the greatest because it is HIS country. The teacher (quite rudely, and entirely unnecessarily, in my opinion; and, in fact, philosophically incorrectly) "corrects" the boy, and tells him that what he has just stated is an opinion, not a fact. I was asked to give my opinion about the bad lesson that we had just observed via YouTube. Drawing upon my thirty-two years of experience as a teacher, I stated that the teacher had acted inappropriately, and had chosen a very poor example with which to illustrate the difference between fact and opinion. I pointed out that "greatness" is both subjective and objective, and therefore is semantically variable depending upon what criterion or criteria are established for "greatness" in any particular circumstance. I verbally expressed this argument by simply stating that "greatness" was not defined by the teacher in the video, so the boy provided his own criterion for "greatness", namely that what is "his" is therefore "great"; and whether that is an opinion or a fact is an epistemological conundrum that philosophers could debate for millennia. A classmate, Alberta, responded to my argument (that for that boy his nation's greatness is a fact, based upon his established criterion of belonging), by shouting, "That's the definition of an opinion, you fucking moron!" Schmidt laughed at Alberta's absurdly reductionist abuse, but I ignored her crude outburst and continued by expressing my opinions that the teacher in the YouTube video (a) had chosen a very bad example of factuality versus opinion, and (b) had been politically motivated in her choice of example. These opinions enraged Schmidt. I argued that the teacher had not defined "greatest", and therefore the definition was open for debate; and that the U.S.A. is certainly the greatest nation in history in terms of military force, whereas Russia is the greatest in terms of land-mass, though a small island-nation could also be the greatest if one wanted to live somewhere one could walk around in a single day. A classmate, Ghassan (one of Schmidt's pet-students), agreed with me on this point, and Schmidt became more enraged and switched to another topic. If we had continued, I would have stated my heartfelt opinion that it is really quite rude and uncaring to argue with little children about the greatness of their nation. It's not a nice thing to do. It's like telling a kid, "You said your dad is the greatest dad in the world? Oh, no, no, no, that's not true. It's just your opinion!"

What was the point of Schmidt "reporting" this distorted anecdote to the University of Manitoba Security Service? I had virtually forgotten (in the colloquial sense of "I'd forgotten all about it!") this episode, and hadn't even thought about mentioning it in my diary, since at least we had been discussing in class something that was sort of related to the stated course-content for a change, and because the abuse I faced on that occasion was relatively mild.

I believe that Schmidt "reported" this twisted story (in her "Report on Brian O'Neill" to the University of Manitoba Security Service) because after she was informed that I had complained about (a) her having wasted most of our class-time with her attempts at political indoctrination, and (b) her repeated and egregious human rights abuses, and then after she assaulted me on October 23, 2014, she desperately cast her mind back to try and dredge up any so-called "incident" that she could pervert in the retelling, with the intention of trying and make me look stupid and/or crazy and/or dangerous, in order to try to discredit me.

In this case Schmidt portrayed me as an idiot who is dumber than third-graders, and/or as a madman who does not know what reality is. She most likely never imagined that I would be given the opportunity to respond to her malicious defamation.

[25] So Schmidt reports as a security threat for talking, and also reports me as a security threat for not talking.

[26] Yes, I confess. I wrote in a small notebook in class. Call the Mounties!

[27] What is the point of this? It is clearly defamatory. Why mention it? Is the reader supposed to conclude that the water bottle was full of poison? Or explosives? Is this mentioned in order to take advantage of my status as a disabled individual, in order to try to portray as a lunatic? Or is it mentioned because I am from Northern Ireland, and so must be a terrorist? Or both? Am I supposed to be a deranged terrorist? First of all she portrays me as an idiot, dumber than a third-grader. Now she tries to portray me as some sort of crafty, cunning criminal. Yes, I left a water bottle in the class. I confess. Where is that water bottle now? Was it "in plain sight"? I wouldn't know, because I forgot to bring it with me. I was becoming increasingly distracted in response to the ongoing and increasing abuse I was receiving in class, and the stress the University of Manitoba was causing me (as I had reported on 2013.10.02 to my Accessibility Advisor, Arlana Vadnais, with Student Z as a witness) by allowing Schmidt to hijack a Vocabulary and Pronunciation class to engage in enforced political indoctrination, at the expense of the students. I went back to the room later, to look for my water bottle, but it was gone. Did Schmidt steal it? Did she get her bodyguard to procure it and have it sent to a forensic laboratory? As far as I know, she was the last person to see it. It cost me about $16. Schmidt passed me in the hallway a couple of minutes later. While she was under no legal obligation to remind me of my lost property, it would have only taken her a second to remind me that I'd forgotten it. Instead she was busy plotting revenge and retaliation because she had been informed on, 2013.10.10, that I had registered complaints about her misconduct, including her abuse of me. She had in fact been informed immediately after I complained, though the university has still to this day ignored my complaints.

[28] Did Schmidt report those students for remaining after class, as she did in regards to me?

[29] University of Manitoba Security Service Special Constable and Patrol Supervisor Keith Taylor.

[30] Polite and succinct voice-mails detailing Schmidt's misconduct, including her repeated and egregious abuses of me. These complaints were ignored by the University of Manitoba, except as the basis of a massive, large-scale and months-long retaliatory attack against me.

[31] So what? We were discussing the class before we parted ways and went home. What's the point? In fact we were discussing how weird it was that what seemed to be (and what in fact was) a bodyguard had met Schmidt after class. We were talking about how bizarre Schmidt's behaviour was, and I said how for the past week I had felt I was being followed and observed (months later I would discover that that was in fact the case).

[32] What rubbish! We moved aside to let them go on the elevator, and to continue our private discussion in private.

[33] Where there was a table and chairs, and where students commonly sit when not in class. Student Z and I sat there and remarked on how bizarre Schmidt and her bodyguards were, and how she avoided eye-contact with me while the two men stared at me malevolently. I remarked to Student Z: "Am I paranoid, or were they giving me dirty looks?" Student Z: "Yes! Absolutely they were staring at you." Me: "Yeah, that was so weird. I feel really paranoid though. Maybe it's just my imagination..." In fact it wasn't my imagination, and I wasn't paranoid; but Schmidt's dramatic exit with her completely uncalled-for bodyguard did indeed increase my anxiety and adversely affected my health.

[34] "Eventually"? What is the point of all this? First of all Schmidt seems to be implying that we were waiting for her, but then we ran away, but then she waited downstairs for ages and we "eventually" tracked her down (to the first floor) in some freakish scenario she is attempting to construct out of nothing. Her attempt was very poor, with no imagination at all; but obviously it was clever enough to fool the idiots of the UMSS, and the Student Threat Assessment Triage Intervention Support team clowns, and the naïve buffoon who's supposedly in charge of the Faculty of Education.

[35] Is there some significance to that? Were Student Z and I in cahoots with some native band?

[36] The first hour of the class was spent teaching the class how to use a dictionary (including letting us know, in excruciating detail, that dictionaries of alphabetic languages are arranged alphabetically), and how useful Facebook and cellphones are in ESL classes, so students can express themselves freely during class.

[37] More class material unconnected to the stated course content. In fact Schmidt introduced Jim Cummins (whom she called her "guru") so she could urge us to go to Ontario and spend money to attend a conference that she is on the Organizing Committee of: "2014 Toronto District School Board Celebrating Linguistic Diversity Conference: Honouring the Contributions of Professor Jim Cummins, Co-Sponsored by CERLL, OISE, University of Toronto, April 30 - May 2, 2014." Is it normal for teachers to drum up business in class? I already have an Advanced B.A., and this was the first time I had ever witnessed such a blatant display of self-promotion in any class. I have never even heard a teacher mention books they had authored.

[38] Nothing to do with this course Schmidt had been hired to teach. The students were all being cheated.

[39] Schmidt's first words in the very first class (2013.09.11): "I am very political. Language is very political. In fact everything is political! I love to discuss hot-button issues. I love to push students to engage in heated political debates."

[40] False. We were informed that teachers must make classroom power relationships explicit. (Which had nothing to do with the course.) In the class context, Schmidt was obviously referring to interracial power relationships. I politely asked her if it would not be rude for me, were I to find myself teaching in Saudi Arabia, to make explicit any Saudi Muslim students' power over me as a Christian foreign resident in that Wahabist kingdom. Schmidt responded by asking me to reflect upon why I would be teaching there in the first place. I suggested it would be because people wanted to learn English and I am a good teacher. Schmidt laughed at this very obvious suggestion, and insulted me by telling me that were I so employed it would be due to my "White Privilege" (she had previously stated that she had gotten her job at the "racist institution" of the University of Manitoba thanks to her own "White Privilege") — she thereby insulted me on the basis of race, while denigrating my abilities, skills and work ethic.

[41] False. I never suggested she was; and she never said that anyway.

[42] Why would it be "appropriate" to reflect on something unconnected to the stated course content?

[43] So according to Schmidt I can only teach English because I am White.

[44] She could tell this from my "angry" laughter at her absurd insult? She's a liar. She's just trying to work up a phoney "justification" for her assault on me.

[45] False. I asked, politely; as did other students.

[46] Schmidt [quoting her guru, Cummins]: "In class, teachers need to explicitly address power relations."

Me: "But if I were to go to teach English in Saudi Arabia, wouldn't it be rude of me to explicitly address the fact that my Saudi Arab students would have power over me (as a Christian foreigner)?"

Schmidt: "You should rather ask yourself why you are there."

Me: "Because they want to learn English, and I am a good teacher?"

[Schmidt leads the class in laughter.]

Schmidt: "No, because you are White, and you have White Privilege."

[So the only reason I could ever get a job, and the only reason I have ever had any job, is because I am White? And I have more power in Saudi Arabia than Muslim Arab Saudi citizens do? I find this risible.]

Me: "What is this 'White Privilege' you keep talking about?

[No response. No definition.]

A Chinese student asked Schmidt, "Yes, what is 'White Privilege'?]

Me: You've discussed 'White Privilege' at least six times during this course, so...."

Other students: "Yeah..."

Schmidt: "That's not what this class is about."

[Indeed it was not supposed to be.]

[47] False. She said the class was not about "White Privilege", even though she constantly mentioned this thing.

[48] Schmidt's agenda, which was not part of the course.

[49] Off what track? Schmidt's course was "off-track". Discussing the stated course content would be off the track of her political agenda.

[50] A lie. She never said this. And if she had, it would have been impertinent and hypocritical, since her very first words in the first class had been, "I am very political. Language is very political. In fact everything is political! I love to discuss hot-button issues. I love to push students to engage in heated political debates." Apparently Schmidt loves to push students to engage in heated political debates but doesn't actually like to engage in debate herself, especially with someone who is obviously more intelligent than she is. Anyway, why does she lie here? I assert that it is because she had had me thrown out of class the day before, for allegedly being "disruptive", and then she realized that she hadn't given me any warning about my fictitious disruptiveness, so she had to invent a warning.

[51] A repeat of a scenario (irrelevant to the course's stated content) she had brought up two weeks previous (2013.10.09), in which the "answer" was not to separate the students. We were told that it would be wrong to move students around in order to prevent them from speaking to each other in languages other than English. When (on 2013.10.09) two students suggested that rearranging the seating arrangements would be a simple solution to this problem, Schmidt informed us, "That doesn't affirm using their heritage language." So the class of 2013.10.23 (or at least those who had been present two weeks before and had paid attention, such as myself) already knew the answer.

[52] False. Applying Schmidt's repeatedly-stated principles, I said that I would not want to oppress any non-White students with my offensive Whiteness or my "mythical White Privilege", and that since Schmidt had told us in our first class that teachers must take instruction from their students, I would ask any non-White students to tell me what I should do. Schmidt asked me, incredulously, if it is oppressive for a teacher to tell students where to sit. I responded that Schmidt had in fact stated, on 2013.10.09 (in response to the previous virtually-identical "scenario"), that it is indeed oppressive for a teacher to ask students where to sit, since separating students according to their languages spoken in class would not "affirm their use of their heritage languages." Schmidt looked angry that I had paid such close attention to her political speeches. A Chinese student answered, "If I were the teacher, I would use my Chinese Privilege to keep all the Chinese students together and divide the non-Chinese students, so then Chinese students would have an advantage over non-Chinese students." Clever satire, I would say. Schmidt's response was, "Hmm... Interesting...." Note that this female Chinese student was not criticized for her statement/joke/satire, nor kicked out of class by UMSS Special Constables. It would seem that she does indeed have Chinese Privilege. Or is it Female Privilege? Or is it Asian Female Privilege? (This student later accompanied me to the UMSS office and to the Human Resources office to attempt to register complaints against staff. While I got reprimanded for this, in nasty, defamatory and insulting letters, this Chinese female classmate was never once criticized. I see that Schmidt writes, on her website homepage (http://cleaschmidt.com/), "I am committed to diversifying the Canadian teaching force and from 2005-2011 co-designed and coordinated two programs to support the integration of immigrant teachers in Manitoba." Is Schmidt's stated commitment to "diversifying the Canadian teaching force" what causes her to privilege non-White females and disprivilege White males? It is true that I am actually an "immigrant teacher", and therefore Schmidt should logically support me; but based on Schmidt's repeated anti-White political speeches in class, it is obvious that because of my skin colour and/or my Native English Speaker status (both of which she finds offensive), Schmidt clearly does not view me as a "real" immigrant.

[53] She did not say this; but even if she had, then she would have been hypocritical (yet again), since she had previously told me that it would be "inappropriate" for me to prepare a lesson plane "on the subject of the student's choice" — in my case the English of North Belfast, my native dialect. Apparently Schmidt means that the multilingual abilities of only non-White or non-Irish students can be drawn upon as classroom resources.

[54] Where we sat alone because we were shunned, since it was obvious to anyone there that Schmidt hates me.

[55] Schmidt's agenda: If I speak, then I'm "agitated", "upset", "angry", "hostile; and if I am silent I must be brooding or something, plotting to leave me water bottle in plain sight or write in a notebook or some other silently nefarious activity. It's hard to believe anyone could be dumb enough to fall for this nonsense, but they are, and they did.

[56] And what has that got to do with me? Oh right. Schmidt already stated in class that White men are arrogant bastards who expect Asian women to conform to their (White men's) needs. She seems to be implying here that a Chinese female classmate is my puppet, and can't think or speak for herself, or some such thing. In fact, Student Z's idea was quite appropriate and extremely coherent; and was entirely her own thought and expression.

[57] A lie. Schmidt responded: "Hmmm, interesting..." and smiled. And again, why on Earth is another student's comment mentioned in a "Report" on me that I discovered in a UMSS Incident Report!?

[58] False. The term was "mother language".

[59] False. I was sincere.

[60] False. I spoke with love.

[61] A lie. I mentioned that a phrase he used, in repetition of Schmidt's comments, is sexist (which it is, of course).

[62] I insisted nothing. I mentioned a fact, by way of example.

[63] I stated that fact that my daughter's native language is her father-language (without any scare-quotes around "father").

[64] False. She said no such thing. And anyway, how would it have been inappropriate of me to discuss the vocabulary Schmidt used in a Vocabulary class? Just because she was not interested in the topic of the course, that doesn't mean that students can't show in interest in Vocabulary and/or Pronunciation.

[65] Is she referring to a woman who told me to shut the fuck up? Anyway, the term "mother-language" was "the topic at hand". Schmidt had just used the term twice, and a student had repeated her use of it.

[66] I stated that in the context of that class I found the use of the term "mother-language" offensive, and pointed out the fact that the term "mother-language" is sexist, and that I find it therefore offensive. As a matter of fact it is personally offensive, and the use of this term in the context of this particular class is an example of Schmidt's hypocrisy and biases. Please note that the University of Manitoba in general and the Faculty of Education in particular have policies forbidding sexist language and encouraging staff to be considerate in avoiding the use of language that could be considered offensive by students. Schmidt generally used the term "Heritage Language" in class to describe Native Speakers, and strongly objected to the term "Native Speaker". Her objections are absurd and hypocritical. "Heritage" literally refers to genetic inheritance, going back any number of generations, and can apply to languages that a person doesn't even speak. The word "native" derives from the from Latin nativus, from nat- 'born', from the verb nasci, the second-person singular indicative present of nascere, "to be born"; and is therefore a reference to one's first generation genetic inheritance. "Mother language", on the other hand, specifically excludes a language-speaker's paternal linguistic inheritance, and is therefore a blatantly sexist term. I doubt that Schmidt, being a pseudo-intellectual with a visceral anti-male bias, could appreciate such simple etymological logic. (Furthermore note that Schmidt has only two "likes" on her public Facebook page, one of which is for "International Mother Language Day". Facebook was discussed by Schmidt as a useful classroom communication tool.)

[67] Here Schmidt is actually being honest, in revealing what a poor listener she is, and showing how biased she is against me. As I told her at the time: I didn't see how she could conclude I am offended by many things, since I had only once before said that I found something offensive (on 2013.01.09. when she had gone on an extended political rant to "prove" it was "controversial" for me to state the fact that I am a native English speaker). Also, if I find something offensive, why should I therefore be compelled to leave the class?

[68] Schmidt's first words in the first class (2013.09.11): "I am very political. Language is very political. In fact everything is political! I love to discuss hot-button issues. I love to push students to engage in heated political debates."

[69] Preferable for whom? Obviously not for me. I had paid good money for this course, and I live on only about $12,000 per annum, supporting a child as a single, disabled father. Why on Earth should I leave a class I had invested so much time and money and effort in, just because the teacher refused to teach the curriculum? Surely she should be the one to leave, so as to allow a competent and respectful teacher to take her place.

[70] Is that English? Of concern (or "concerning") to whom? On what grounds?

[71] Another blatant lie. She said no such thing. In fact, if she had said that, then when I went to the UMSS office with Student Z on 2013.10.28, we would have known not to believe UMSS Directer Rick Jansen, when he said (standing right next to his subordinate, Dawn Prystenski), "I really shouldn't be telling you this, but, uh, well, I wouldn't want you to waste your time and money filing FIPPA requests, so I can tell you I just checked in our computer, and all we have on you is that you were reported as being 'disruptive' in a class. That's all." If Schmidt had "mentioned that [my] concerning [sic] behaviour had been brought to the attention of Campus Security", then I would have filed FIPPA requests for those files right away, instead of waiting until (a) I had found out how incompetent and/or compromised my so-called "Student Advocate" was, and (b) I had been harassed by the Student Threat Assessment team (of which Jansen is a member), and then filing FIPPA requests on 2013.11.29.

[72] False. If she had said that, then I would have known that I had not been paranoid when I detected security guards following me and observing me over the previous weeks. In fact what she said was that she was going to go and call security to come and expel me from the class.

[73] At around the normal break time, though she had in fact gone slightly beyond the regular time in her zealous attempt to push me into "engaging in heated debate". But of course Schmidt can't resist trying to make it look as if I had somehow disrupted the class, when in fact it was she and her high-string and self-serving antics that had disrupted the class (which she had after all hijacked from day one anyway).

[74] Meaning that she left an allegedly threatening/dangerous/unstable/hostile/angry/agitated student in a class. Wasn't she afraid I was going to murder everyone while she was gone? What a bizarre response to my supposedly "disruptive" and "concerning" behaviour! Does she not have a cell-phone to call UMSS? Could she not have borrowed a cell-phone from another student? Of course, no, there was no need for that, since everyone knew very well there was nothing dangerous about me. So she sauntered off with a big smile on her face, to get three white men to do her dirty work for her, and have me thrown out of class, so then she could have me labeled as a "threat" and thereby have my original complaints (2013.09.10) about her misconduct and abuse ignored. I guess she calculated (correctly) that the university would treat her words like gospel and treat me like dirt.

[75] UMSS Patrol Supervisor Taylor, Patrol Officer Sehn, and Patrol Officer Henselwood.

[76] He pretended not to know who I was, even though he had observed me on his patrols over the past two weeks. He addressed me as "McNeil", which suggests how devious he is or how incompetent he is.

[77] Special Constable Taylor: "[...] advised O'NEILL that he was to leave class at this time. O'NEILL complied [...]" (UMSS Incident Report UMSS-2013-6010, p. 7.)

[78] I was ordered to leave the class. I was told (and I confirmed it): "You have to leave." In other words: Clea Schmidt assaulted me, by applying force, indirectly, via the agency of three University of Manitoba Security Service (UMSS) special constables (Patrol Supervisor Taylor, Patrol Officer Sehn and Patrol Officer Henselwood), who were acting in response to and based upon Clea Schmidt's defamatory statements about me. This assault was effected by means of intimidation, by instilling in me — then a 49-year old man in poor health — a reasonable fear of violence if I did not comply with the UMSS orders, which were related to me by Taylor, who was backed up by the much younger Sehm and Henselwood. After I verbally confirmed with Taylor that he was in fact ordering me to leave that class and that classroom, I, being a gentle man of good character, peacefully complied with Taylor's order, but did not in any way consent ("consent" as defined and explicated in Section 265 of the Criminal Code of Canada) to leave that class and/or that classroom.

[79] Because Student Z was afraid of being left alone with Schmidt, as she informed the UMSS Special Constables (who chose/neglected not to mention that in their Incident Report).

[80] False, false, false and false. I assert that all she cared about was her (apparently successful, so far) attempt to have my complaints (about her abuse and her failure to teach the stated course) ignored, by trying to discredit me, by trying to convince her colleagues that I am some kind of dangerous and moronic lunatic. My behaviour could not have been "escalating", since there was nothing negative about my behaviour; though my health was steadily deteriorating as a result of the University of Manitoba's abuse of me, and continues to deteriorate drastically as that abuse is constantly escalating. I never "verbally attacked" another student. In fact, the actual lie that Schmidt shouted out as I was being led from the class was: "He was sarcastic! And he attacked another student!"


2013.10.25:

2013.10.28:


2013.10.30

Brian O'Neill to Brian Barth:

from: Brian O'Neill
to: Brian Barth

[to do]



Brian Barth to Brian O'Neill:

from: Brian Barth Brian.Barth@umanitoba.ca
to: Brian O'Neill
date: 30 October 2013 09:08
subject: RE: Draft Complaint

Hi Brian,

I for sure had no intention of forwarding your complaint as-is. We'll continue working on the draft, meet with Jackie Gruber, and then prepare a final version together.

Thanks,
Brian


Barth never did any work on my complaint, or Student Z's. For months he kept telling us that he was working hard trying to massage our very complete and precise written complaints "into the correct format", which he kept assuring us was a very complicated matter. In January, 2014, he informed us that it wasn't his job to help us write complaints and that we were required to submit our own complaints, but that our original complaints (of October 2013) were not acceptable and would be rejected.


2013.11.08

Student Z to Brian Barth, 2013.11.08:

Dear Mr Barth,

I am too depressed to deal with this case in detail.

And I am busy trying to find a job.

It seems like a simple case of fraud to me: a rip-off, a scam. Easy to prove, I thought.

I don't trust the Human Rights office. After hearing about 6 weeks of constant anti-male and anti-white poison (in a simple English class!) and then seeing the smartest student in the class being kicked out of class by the police, and hearing condescending and imperialist attitude towards non-whites, and a professor trying to discourage me from being a teacher, and another incompetent and biased professor who can't really speak English (teaching a TESL class, full of students who have never heard the word "TESL") giving us unfairly low marks — after all that, all I heard from Jackie Gruber were her deep concerns about watermelons and blonde jokes.

I doubt you would even take a white man's complaints about sexism and racism seriously if I hadn't gone with him.

So from now on, unless my presence is required, I would like Brian O'Neill to represent both me and himself in dealing with our complaints, since I can't stand dealing with all this nonsense, and hardly expect any good results (if your job is to discourage people, you have succeeded), and anyway Brian is a better speaker than I am, and a better writer, and it is his complaints that are not taken seriously.

[Student Z]
November 8th, 2013




2013.11.29: AUTHORIZED WITHDRAWAL (AW) REQUESTS

The history of these requests is itself another drawn-out saga of absurdity and human rights abuses.

Brian Barth kept attempting to prevent us from stating the exact reasons we were requesting authorized withdrawals. He instructed us to not mention anything about human rights abuses, or anything pertaining to unprofessional conduct on the part of UM staff, or anything about what a scam the UM CTESL program is. He instructed us to simply state that we were too sick to go on and we couldn't handle the standards of the courses, which was a lie.

Student Z and I (both of us having already graduated from the University of Manitoba) were registered as Faculty of Extended Education students. The course were administered by the Faculty of Education.

Margaret McAllister and Miriam Christophe falsely informed us that were not entitled to any refunds whatsoever, no matter for what reason. They also refused to even give us AW forms, telling us that we were not entitled to them. When I attempted to openly record them telling us this, I was instructed that any such recording would be illegal. I informed both McAllister and Christophe that we were indeed entitled to receive copies of the relevant forms. We were told that it would be a waste of our time to apply, since any request would be automatically rejected. I informed them that they could do whatever they like with our requests, but that I insisted we be given them and that any failure to do would constitute an offence against university procedure and a violation of our civil liberties. I said, "Tell you what: You give us the forms, we fill them out, we hand them in, then you can throw them in the garbage if you like; but you will give us the forms." Then they reluctantly relented, giving us the relevant forms, but swearing at us that they would be rejected.

We then took the relevant forms to Barth, who was angry that we had obtained them.

Brian Barth, our so-called "Student Advocate", began by telling us that he would work with his friend Dean David Mandzuk to see if we could get refunds without having to submit formal AW cover-letters. He assured us that because of his rapport with Mandzuk, and because they had been naked together, we could trust him to sort everything out. Then he told us that the university (in the persons of David Mandzuk and Kathleen Matheos) would in fact simply refund us our course fees, no questions asked. A week later he informed us that Mandzuk and Matheos had reneged on that agreement, which Barth was quite upset about, and that therefore he would draft AW cover letters for us. His draft letters, which he expected us to sign ("or you won't get any money!") consisted of the false claim that we were both too sick to handle the coursework, and therefore were pleading for a merciful refund of our course fees. He was alarmed at our own AW cover letters, warning us that they would most likely be rejected and were full of irrelevancies. He found the standard legal phrase "request and require" offensive and abusive. We informed him that we were begging for nothing, that we would state precisely why we expected refunds and Authorized Withdrawals, and that we entitled to them, and that if we were denied them that we would go to court. He then, reluctantly, agreed to arrange meetings with Mandzuk and Mattheos, and warned us that he would not be responsible for the consequences.

We submitted the following letters.

Student Z and I also hand-delivered copies to the UMSS HQ, and to the President of the University of Manitoba, and I was disciplined for doing so (Student Z, an Asian female, was not), on the alleged grounds that doing so constituted threatening behaviour..

Dr. Kathleen Matheos
Associate Dean
Faculty of Extended Education
169 Extended Education Complex
University of Manitoba

Dear Dr. Matheos,

I hereby request and require that I be granted a retroactive Authorized Withdrawal from the courses cited on the attached letter from Dr. [QP] of University Health Center:

  • EDUB 1620/39301: "Principles and Procedures of Second Language Teaching"
  • EDUB 1640/39302: "Teaching ESL Vocabulary and Pronunciation"


I further request and require a complete refund of all tuition and fees associated with my registration in the program, as well as the cancellation of my enrolment in the CTESL program.

After perfect attendance, and having completed all assignments competently, it became impossible for me to continue to attend these classes and to continue in the CTESL program due to the following factors (all of which seriously affected my health):

  • Repeated and egregious offenses against my person (specifically, a malicious denial, on pseudo-academic grounds, of my true identity as a native English speaker), my Irish nationality, my Irish and Northern Irish and British ethnic heritage, my racial identity, and my gender; discrimination on the basis of political opinion; and discrimination on the basis of faculty affiliation;
  • Violations of the University of Manitoba's Respectful Work and Learning Environment (RWLE) policy and of the University of Manitoba's Responsibilities of Academic Staff with Regard to Students (ROASS) policy;
  • Gross mismanagement of the University of Manitoba's CTESL Program, including a failure to provide the education promised and paid for (specifically, failure to provide genuine TESL courses – rather I was in classes in which students didn't even know what TESL is or even what it is an acronym for, including a class in which a student was obliged to speak with a professor in Mandarin because they couldn't communicate with each other in English and a class that consisted primarily of what the professor herself described as political rants unrelated to the course), and repeated refusals to hear or deal with my complaints;
  • Abuse of power (specifically, having me unjustly expelled from class by University of Manitoba Special Constables).


The actions and statements of your staff directly exacerbated medical conditions which they would have been informed of by the University of Manitoba's Accessibility Office.

As you are aware, Dr. Mandzuk, the Dean of the Faculty of Education (who is ultimately responsible for the stated courses) supports my request for a refund of the costs of these two classes.

Please note that any delay in filing these requests is due to the facts that Faculty of Extended Education personnel falsely informed me that I am not entitled to any refunds, University of Manitoba staff then refused to deal with me directly, the University Health Centre was unable to find any record of my course registration on the University of Manitoba's Aurora online registration network, and my Student Advisor has so far told me to refrain from submitting my request.

If these requests are not granted I will be significantly disadvantaged. I will experience financial hardship, and in fact am still paying for these courses on my credit card account. Furthermore, I may be disadvantaged in regard to future applications to other academic programs and future job prospects if evidence of this withdrawal exists on my University of Manitoba record.

Sincerely, ______________________________

Brian O'Neill

Enclosure: Letter from Dr. [P]

cc.

  • James Allum, Minister of Education and Advanced Learning, Manitoba
  • Dr. David T. Barnard, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Manitoba
  • Brian Barth, Student Advocacy Office
  • Kerri Irvin-Ross, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Fort Richmond, Manitoba
  • Rick Jansen, Director, Security Services, University of Manitoba
  • Dr. David Mandzuk, Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba
  • Andrew Swan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Manitoba
  • TESL Canada, 3751 21st Street NE, Calgary, Alberta, T2E 6T5
  • Kenneth Whyte, Editor-in-Chief & Publisher, Maclean's On Campus


Dr. Kathleen Matheos
Associate Dean
Faculty of Extended Education
169 Extended Education Complex
University of Manitoba

Dear Dr. Matheos,

I hereby request and require that I be granted a retroactive Authorized Withdrawal from the courses cited on the attached letter from Dr. [QP] of University Health Center:

  • EDUB 1620/39301: "Principles and Procedures of Second Language Teaching"
  • EDUB 1640/39302: "Teaching ESL Vocabulary and Pronunciation"


I further request and require a complete refund of all tuition and fees (including compensation for textbook costs) associated with my registration in the program, as well as the cancellation of my enrollment in the CTESL program.

After perfect attendance, and having completed all assignments competently, it became impossible for me to continue to attend these classes and to continue in the CTESL program due to the following factors (all of which seriously affected my health):

  • Being told by a professor (in a class mostly full of political speeches unrelated to the stated course content) that the University of Manitoba is a racist institution that gives preference to White people, that she had gotten her job thanks to her “White Privilege”, and that I will have not much chance of getting a job as an English teacher because my skin is not white and because I don't have an English name;
  • Having a professor discourage me from becoming a Canadian citizen including by trying to make me despise and fear White people and to despise Canada;
  • Violations of the University of Manitoba's Respectful Work and Learning Environment (RWLE) policy and of the University of Manitoba's Responsibilities of Academic Staff with Regard to Students (ROASS) policy;
  • Gross mismanagement of the University of Manitoba's CTESL Program, including a failure to provide the education promised and paid for (specifically, failure to provide genuine TESL courses – rather I was in classes in which students didn't even know what TESL is or even what it is an acronym for, and a class in which a student was obliged to speak with a professor in Mandarin because they couldn't communicate with each other in English), and repeated refusals to hear or deal with my complaints;
  • Witnessing a classmate being unjustly expelled from class by police (this action also left me more vulnerable to attack, and part of the reason I left the class at the same time was because I feared the professor and my classmates even more than I had already).


All of this was especially stressful for me because I had quit my job in order to take these courses.

As you are aware, Dr. Mandzuk, the Dean of the Faculty of Education (who is ultimately responsible for the stated courses) supports my request for a refund of the costs of these two classes.

Please note that any delay in filing these requests is due to the facts that Faculty of Extended Education personnel falsely informed me that I am not entitled to any refunds, University of Manitoba staff then refused to deal with me directly, the University Health Centre was unable to find any record of my course registration on the University of Manitoba's Aurora online registration network, and my Student Advisor has so far told me to refrain from submitting my request.

If these requests are not granted I will be significantly disadvantaged. I will experience financial hardship, especially since I quit my job to attend these courses. Furthermore, I may be disadvantaged in regard to future applications to other academic programs and future job prospects if evidence of this withdrawal exists on my University of Manitoba record.

Sincerely, ______________________________

[Student Z]

Enclosure: Letter from Dr. [P]

cc.

  • James Allum, Minister of Education and Advanced Learning, Manitoba
  • Rob Altemayer, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Wolseley, Manitoba
  • Dr. David T. Barnard, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Manitoba
  • Brian Barth, Student Advocacy Office
  • Kerri Irvin-Ross, Members of the Legislative Assembly for Fort Richmond, Manitoba
  • Rick Jansen, Director, Security Services, University of Manitoba
  • Dr. David Mandzuk, Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba
  • Andrew Swan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, and Government House Leader, Manitoba
  • TESL Canada, 3751 21st Street NE, Calgary, Alberta, T2E 6T5
  • Kenneth Whyte, Editor-in-Chief & Publisher, Maclean's On Campus



2013.12.11: Student Z and me to Brian Barth, 2013.12.11:

Dear Brian,

Kathleen Matheos phoned both of us today, and asked us to meet Dean Mandzuk and herself on Thursday, December 12, at 10:00 a.m. [Student Z: Christian name] and Brian at 10:30 a.m. We were told that this was the only time available. Dr Matheos called Brian first, stating that a 10:30 appointment was the earliest time available, and then called [Student Z: Christian name] to say that 10:00 was the only time available. She said that our mutual complaints are unconnected, and must be dealt with separately, but called us within minutes to arrange to discuss our mutual complaints separately, with each of us immediately after the other (making it clear that they want to talk to [Student Z: Christian name] first even though Dr Matheos contacted Brian first.

We both said that we wanted to see them (Matheos and Mandzuk) together, but Dr Matheos said that is impossible, that that would be forbidden. She told both of us that it would be a violation of University of Manitoba "regulations" for them to see us both at the same time. She said it was "because of...uh...privacy". We both said that we have no problems regarding the sharing of information about us with each other, and anyway we have no secrets, having the same experiences, being witnesses for each other and with our respective complaints overlapping to a great degree anyway. We were informed that this is all irrelevant, and that we are not permitted to waive any privacy/confidentiality rights/privileges for each other.

Brian asked Dr Matheos to cite the regulation that forbids us to see them together. This request was ignored.

It seems to both of us incredible that we are not allowed to discuss our joint concerns, and that we are forbidden to waive confidentiality for each other.

So, we are wondering if you can answer this question: Is what Dr Matheos said true? Are we not permitted to waive confidentiality for each other?

Dr Matheos also said that she would refuse to speak to us together.

Frankly, we find Dr Matheos' attitude toward both of us to be rather hostile. She said to Brian, "There is no reason for us to be hostile," and then basically called him a liar, while telling him things that either seem to be falsehoods or are certainly rather difficult to square with logic.

Dr Matheos told Brian that she didn't know anything about him wanting a letter about why he was kicked out of that class, on October 23, 2013. But you forwarded to Brian a letter, dated December 5, 2013, addressed to Matheos, Mandzuk and Jansen, in which you clearly asked them to respond to Brian's request for a letter. Did she not read that letter? Did she not receive it?

Dr Matheos told Brian that the reason why he was kicked out of that class is irrelevant to any discussion of our authorized withdrawal applications. And yet we both cited that incident as one of the reasons we are seeking said authorized withdrawals.

Dr Matheos told Brian that she had only heard about "all this" (our problems with the classes and the programs) "a few days ago". We both find that difficult to believe.

Dr Matheos told Brian that she knows nothing about what happened on the evening class of October 23, 2013. But when Brian stated something that did happen in that class, she laughed and said that what he said was false. Besides indicating that she is not an impartial listener, and indicating that she appears to biased against us, her refutation of Brian's version of events clearly contradicts her prior statement that she doesn't know about anything that happened that night.

Without having met the lady, and while reserving our judgement, at this point in time we both agree that we find her rather deceptive and untrustworthy. We share a feeling that we are being treated as if we are fools. And this makes us both suspicious that whatever we say could be somehow twisted.

We also see no reason why they can't discuss [Student Z: Christian name]'s complaints with Brian as a witness (with [Student Z: Christian name]'s consent), and then discuss Brian's complaints, with [Student Z] as a witness (with Brian's consent). After all, we were present together for each minute of each class of both courses, attempted to withdraw from the classes together, assisted each other with together — Brian because he was unjustly compelled to under threat of force, and [Student Z: Christian name] because she feared being left "alone" with an abusive professor.

Anyway, we would be very grateful if you could tell us if it is true that University of Manitoba regulations forbid Dr Matheos and/or Dr Mandzuk to talk to both of us ([Student Z: Christian name] and Brian) at the same time. And if so, we would appreciate a citation stating the relevant University of Manitoba regulation.

Thank you very much for your consideration,

[Student Z] and Brin O'Neill

P.S. Dr Matheos did at least, this evening, guarantee Brian that Dr Mandzuk would give Brian a letter on the morning of December 12, 2013, stating exactly why Brian was forced to leave that class on October 23, 2013.



I never received any such letter from Mandzuk. In fact Mandzuk, after a great deal of negotiations between Barth, Jansen, Matheos and Mandzuk, did promise that he was "committed" to providing me with a written document stating why I had been thrown out of class. Months later he was still refusing to provide me with the promised letter, Eventually he sent me a letter in the mail, falsely stating that he no longer considered himself bound to his commitment, on the false grounds that I had asked numeroud other people for such a letter.. That is false, because I never asked anybody except Barth for such a letter; and I never expected Barth to write such a letter; but he contacted Jansen, Matheos and Mandzuk requesting such a letter (noting that it would be highly irregular for them not to provide me with any written explanation as to why I had been forcibly removed from class). and those three (J, M & M), after meeting and discussing the matter, elected that Mandzuk would accept the duty of providing me with the requisite letter.

Perhaps the negotiations establishing the Peace of Westphalia involved less complications; and were certainly carried out between people with higher standards of honour and decency than these University of Manitoba functionaries.

Brian Barth to Brian O'Neill and [Student Z], and to to Brandy Usick, 2013.12.11:

Brian O'Neill
[Student Z]

Hello again,

Thanks for the below email, and sorry to hear you were unhappy with the conversation and planning offered by Associate Dean Matheos. I think I can respond to a few different things from your below email:

1. The issue of separate meetings with Brian and [Student Z: Christian name]. Seeing students one-on-one is standard procedure whenever a Dean or Associate Dean meets to discuss a specific request (like each of your AW letters). The basis for this has to do with maintaining student confidentiality. Further, it is an administrator's prerogative to meet one-on-one with a student who has submitted a specific request, and who will receive a unique written response. There is no specific policy that I'm aware of at the U of M which states this prerogative to meet one-on-one. Still, I'll consult the policy documents more carefully, and let you know what more I find (by the end of day today).

2. The issue of Brian and [Student Z: Christian name] supporting each other as witnesses. Even if Dr. Matheos and Dr. Mandzuk meet with you two individually, you can both bring each other's support to your respective meetings. You should each draft a short letter (half page at most) to Dr. Matheos and Dr. Mandzuk which you can present at your respective meetings on Thursday. The letter should refer specifically to your mutual support regarding the experiences you've had in the CTESL program. To be clear, you don't need to go into detail about those experiences; you can just refer to your Nov. 29 2013 request letters to Dr. Matheos.

3. Regarding other complaint options. As the three of us discussed in previous meetings, you have the option to make complaints about your experiences under the Respectful Work and Learning Environment policy (RWLE) and the Responsibilities of Academic Staff with Respect to Students policy (ROASS)-recall the schematic diagram I provided you on Nov. 15. Though both of you have chosen to take a different approach from that plan, complaints under these two policies remain an option to you, irrespective of what comes out of the AW and Tuition request process. Via complaints under these policies, you can express support for each other's complaints and name the other as a witness.

4. The AW and Tuition refund request. When I spoke on the phone with Dr. Mandzuk last week, he stated that he was supportive of the Tuition fee refund requests presented in [Student Z: Christian name]'s and Brian's Nov. 29 letters. He stated that he would communicate with Dr. Matheos about this further. It is my expectation based on that conversation (and based on your below email) that the granting of your request will be communicated to you tomorrow in your respective meetings.


Moving forward, I'm happy to prepare with each of you and attend each meeting as a support tomorrow. I've cleared my calendar for that purpose, so just call the front desk staff as soon as possible (474-7423) to set up a timeslot. If you choose to continue using my support, please update me regarding your plans and strategies.

Please let me know if you have other questions, and I'll double check the policy information (see point one above).

Take care,
Brian




Brian Barth to Brian O'Neill and Student Z, 2013.12.11:

Hello again,
I'm writing to follow up regarding my email from this morning. Specifically, I have contacted the Secretary's office of the U of M to ask about relevant polices related to administrators meeting with students. I did not give any information regarding you two, nor did give any details about your case. I asked if there were specific policies permitting administrators to see students one-on-one.

Staff at the Secretary's office explained that there was no specific policy about one-on-one meetings. Further, the staff explained that an administrator had the prerogative to hold meetings one-on-one with students who have brought specific requests of their own forward.

Finally, the staff agreed that students could bring supporting documentation from fellow students with similar requests. The administrator then has the option to consider that information as part of their decision making process.

I hope this helps clarify things. Please let me know if you have other questions and/or if you need assistance.
Take care,
Brian



Student Threat Assessment Triage Intervention Support team-member and UM Legal Counsel Maria Versace to Brian O'Neill, 2013.12.11:

Mr. O'Neill,

Please see the attached letter of today's date.

Regards,

Maria A. Versace, B.A., LL.B.
Legal Counsel

THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
Office of Legal Counsel
E3-250 Engineering Building
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3T 2N2

Phone: (204) 474-8360
Fax: (204) 474-7454
Email: Maria.Versace@umanitoba.ca


[ATTACHED PDF:]

Email: maria.versace@umanitoba.ca
Office of Legal Counsel
E3-250 Engineering Building
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R3T 2N2
Fax (204) 474-7454

December 11, 2013

Via Email: [Brian O'Neill's email]
Brian O'Neill
[Brin O'Neill's address]

Dear Mr. O'Neill,

Re: Inappropriate Behaviour

I am in receipt of your letter to Jodie Schoenbeck dated November 17, 2013, which you delivered to the Office of Legal Counsel on November 18, 2013. I understand that Ms. Jodie Schoenbeck responded to your letter on Monday, November 25, 2013, and offered to address your concerns as outlined in your letter at such meeting. I also understand that you have refused such request for a meeting, and in the meantime that you have been in contact with a number of other University offices, including Access & Privacy, Human Resources, Security Services, the Office of the President, and the Office of the Vice-Provost (Students), amongst others.

I am writing to you today to respond to your questions regarding the legal authority for the STATIS team, Ms. Schoenbeck's role with the University, the concerning behaviour which brought you to the attention of the STATIS team, the STATIS team's review of the incident and other concerning behaviour since the incident occurred.

A) What is the legal authority for STATIS?

STATIS is the University's common name for the Risk Assessment Team that is formed to review reported incidents under the University of Manitoba's Violent or Threatening Behaviour policy and related procedure. This policy has been approved by the Board of Governors pursuant to section 16(1) of The University of Manitoba Act, C.C.S.M. c. U60. It may be found online at umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/community/669.html.

B) Ms. Schoenbeck's role at the University

Ms. Schoenbeck was hired by the University to be a student support case manager for the STATIS team. Her role is to meet with students who have become a subject of concern to other members of the university community, to assess and assist in situations that may not require referral to the STATIS team, as well as to assist the STATIS team in developing and implementing appropriate action plans when a situation of concern is brought to our attention. In

- 2 -

this role, Ms. Schoenbeck will often ask for an opportunity to meet with an individual to discuss situations of concern in order that the University and the STATIS team might be better able to understand a student's needs and develop a plan to address their concerns and the concerns of the University community as a whole.

C) What brought you to the attention of STATIS?

For a number of weeks, you have been exhibiting concerning behaviour in your EDUB 1640 class. According to your professor, Dr. Schmidt, your behaviour escalated on October 23, 2013, and you were asked to leave the class by Dr. Schmidt, and Security Services. According to Dr. Schmidt:

- On October 9, 2013, you exhibited angry behaviour when she led a class discussion using the phrase "so-called native speakers", which she did in order to problematize assumptions around ownership of English and hierarchies pertaining to different varieties of English. Your comments and reactions to the topic were viewed to be agitated, angry and hostile.

- On October 16, 2013, you again became agitated and upset by the group discussion that ensued after watching a video of a vocabulary lesson in which a Grade 3 teacher was helping students understand the difference between fact and opinion. While you eventually quieted down, Dr. Schmidt was concerned by your visible agitation and the tension that had temporarily existed in the class during the discussion.

- Finally, on October 23, 2013, you exhibited escalating inappropriate behaviour during a class discussion that addressed power relations in language teaching. Dr. Schmidt asked you to leave the class. When you refused to leave, she advised that she would be calling Campus Security, then called for a break and did call Campus Security.

D) STATIS's Review of the Incident

The STATIS team has reviewed Dr. Schmidt's summary of your behaviour, as well as the correspondence that you have sent to all members and your request for an authorized withdrawal from your classes. Dr. Matheos and Dr. Mandzuk will be responding to your academic requests, as that falls outside of the authority and mandate of STATIS.

With respect to your behaviour in your classes with Dr. Schmidt, the STATIS team has made no determinations or recommendations about your situation to date, as Ms. Schoenbeck has not had an opportunity to meet with you. We note, however, that the University encourages informed debate and supports academic freedom in our classes, which may include discussion of controversial topics. We are concerned about Dr. Schmidt's description of your agitation and aggression in response to such debates and discussions, as such debates and discussions are key tools frequently and strategically used in a university setting. If you find informed debate and controversial discussions to be difficult, then you may have to consider how you might achieve your goals outside of a university setting.

- 3 -

E) Other concerning behaviour

Finally, I have been advised that since the incident on October 23, 2013, you have attended at various administrative offices and consumed undue amounts of administrative time in relation to this matter.

Please be advised that the University's policy on Inappropriate or Disruptive Behaviour (umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/students/279.html) prohibits conduct which "habitually interferes with the learning environment or requires the inordinate time and attention of faculty and staff".

To avoid breaching this policy, you should direct all of your communications regarding this matter through a single contact. I recommend that such communications be directed to Mr. Brian Barth in Student Advocacy, who may be contacted at 204-474-7423. If you do not wish to work through Mr. Barth, then as an alternative you may direct your communications to Ms. Schoenbeck as the student support case manager. You are welcome to bring an advocate to any meetings that you may have with Ms. Schoenbeck, and she will coordinate communications with the appropriate administrative offices of the University.

Please note that absent additional information from you to Ms. Schoenbeck (either directly or through your advocate), the University will be forced to act based solely on the information at hand. Please also note that should the information at hand demonstrate a failure to adhere to the University's policies and procedures, the University may initiate disciplinary proceedings against you in accordance with those policies and procedures.

Please contact either Mr. Brian Barth (204-474-7423) or Ms. Jodie Schoenbeck (204-474-8196) to set up a meeting at your earliest opportunity, but in any event no later than December 16,

Yours truly,

[Signature: "M Versace"]

Maria A. Versace
Legal Counsel

cc. Susan Gottheil, Vice-Provost (Students)
Dr. Kathleen Matheos, Associate Dean, Faculty of Extended Education
Dr. David Mandzuk, Dean, Faculty of Education
Jodie Schoenbeck, Student Conduct Case Manager
Don Stewart, Executive Director, Student Support
Rick Jansen, Director, Security Services
Brandy Usick, Director, Student Advocacy



Brian O'Neill to Brian Barth, 2013.12.11:

Dear Mr Barth,

Thank you, Brian, for your latest email.

I hope I will be able to meet with you tomorrow morning. However, I am still under extreme stress, not sleeping much, and having trouble functioning, due to the harassment I have been receiving from the university.

I have every intention of being at the university tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. In the event that I am not there, I assure you in advance that it would only because my disabilities (exacerbated by the ill-treatment I have received) could possibly prevent from going outside or otherwise hinder me from appearing.

I shall be attending that meeting with a friend who is a CTESL graduate. He will be acting as my witness.

I just received an extremely problematical letter (of which I understand you received a copy) from Maria Versace of the Student Threat Assessment Triage Intervention Support team, in which she states, amongst other outrages, that I could be guilty of disruptive behaviour for having exercised my civil rights — specifically, for having dared to file FIPPA requests with the Privacy Office.

I shall certainly be bringing this gross violation of my constitutional rights up with the Manitoba Ombudsman office, the Minister of Justice, and with governmental bodies who have already been apprised of this case.

Without in any way intending to offer any personal insult to you at all, and without impugning your personal integrity, I wish to let you know that I have a number of complaints about your role. Please understand that I present my thoughts on this matter as neither administrator nor as a lawyer. The fact is that a number of people whom I view as having violated my rights are, as far as I am aware, your superiors (so to speak) in the university's administrative hierarchy, and as you stated, at least one individual who filed a complaint against me is a personal friend of yours. Such a situation presents grounds upon which to question your supposed impartiality, and seem, to me, to present a clear situation of conflict -of-interest. Accordingly, I am hereby extending you the courtesy of putting you on warning that [Student Z: Christian name] and I have approached certain governmental bodies and requested that they investigate your office, investigate any potential violation of students' rights; and we have specifically requested that persons in authority investigate why the University of Manitoba Ombudsman Office was closed in 2010, and what detrimental effect that closure may have had on assuring the civil and human rights of students at the university. It is our belief, at this point in time, that the current set-up in which you are a functionary has been designed to allow — or has the effect of allowing University of Manitoba personnel to collude in abusing students.

However, since Student Threat Assessment Triage Intervention Support team-member Versace has made it clear to me that (a) any attempt to assert my rights at the university and to deal with abuses against me should be dealt with only through the agency of yourself or Jodie Schoenbeck (Versace's team-member and apparent underling); and that (b) any attempts to deal directly with University of Manitoba offices will result in my being punished; and that (c) I have been instructed to see you and/or Schoenbeck by December 16th, 2013, at the latest, or face disciplinary measures; I will, therefore, under duress, and under protest, be seeing you accordingly, and shall expect you to represent MY interests to the best of your abilities, and not the interests of your friends and hierarchical superiors.

- Brian O'Neill



Re “Without in any way intending to offer any personal insult to you at all, and without impugning your personal integrity, I wish to let you know that I have a number of complaints about your role.” : It is embarrassing now to read that, but the reason I was so painfully polite, to someone who was so offensive, is because I was being treated like a criminal, and was constantly lied to, cheated, and subjected to multiple other offences, simply for having attempted to register informal human rights complaints, so I was constantly having to act as polite as possible, in writing and in person, in order to have to “prove” all the time that I am a decent person, honest, straightforward, and so on (as if I was under constant surveillance - which, actually, as I now know - I was! and as if everything I said and did was subject to intense legal scrutiny - which I was! with the STATIS clown outfit holding multiple meetings to figure out how to prevent me from filing complaints, and how to use my identity, my maleness, my whiteness and my disabilities to falsely portray me as some sort of irrational, raving, retarded, violent or potentially violent “threat”), when in fact I shouldn’t have to prove anything, because I AM decent, polite, honest and straightforward, and I never behaved otherwise.


2013.12.23:

2013:12.27:

2013.12.??: Sent email to the university "while the university was closed" — and was later disciplined for doing so. Not for the content of my email, but — seriously — I swear to God Almighty! — because I had dared to send an email to the university when the university was closed! I could not have made that up! I wish I had such an imagination to invent such absurdity.


2014

2014.01.02

2014.01.06


2014.01.09

Arlana Vadnais to Brian O'Neill