07 Mar Dalhousie and the ducking stool

What the media has inaccurately  portrayed as a decision by Dalhousie Dental School to allow whistleblower Ryan Millet’s conditional return to his studies is, more accurately, an attempt by Dal to coerce a false confession from an innocent student on the basis of a secret tribunal.

So Orwellian is the process Dal has imposed on the student who exposed its rampant misogyny, the school won’t even acknowledge its disciplinary character. That would require such safeguards as due process, natural justice, the right to an impartial hearing, and an opportunity to confront one’s accusers.

In place of these age-old standards, Dal dons the fig leaf of a confidential inquiry into “academic standards.”

No court would countenance this behaviour, but to seek judicial review of Dal’s reckless disregard for fundamental fairness will cost Millet at least a year’s delay in graduating, and untold thousands of dollars atop the tens of thousands he has already paid the dental school.

In an exercise of institutional cynicism, Dalhousie is relying on this inequity to ramp up pressure on Millet to confess the imaginary crimes it falsely accuses him of.

This calls to mind the ancient ducking stool, a judicial instrument that tested the guilt of accused witches by plunging them underwater for prolonged periods. Survival was proof of witchcraft, and led to further punishment. Drowning proved innocence–and cold comfort of the accused.

Here is the full text of the statement Millet’s lawyer, Bruce MacIntosh, emailed to Journalists yesterday:

Ryan Millet today received a ruling from the Academic Standards Class Committee that continues to find him guilty of professional misconduct related to issues of sexism, misogyny and homophobia.

In place of his indefinite suspension of more than two months, he has now been allowed to return to clinic, but conditional upon his first acknowledging his guilt through submission to a variety of remedial initiatives, including private counselling, written essay sand public lectures. Until these initiatives are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Committee, Ryan will not be permitted to graduate.

Ryan has not yet had a chance to digest the implications of this ruling. He must now consider his legal options. Any exercise of legal options of appeal will almost inevitably lead to the loss of his academic year. He has some difficult choices to make and will not be responding to media inquiries until he has fully considered his predicament.