Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute for non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the copy remain intact and unedited.

The following summary presents a chronology of "main events". It does not include all of the details of the complaint group’s or my dealings with Dr. Persinger or with various University administrators, officials, faculty, or outside agencies. Explaining the twists and turns of the story would require a book-length effort. It does not identify by name anyone directly or indirectly involved in the complaint process. Note that individuals may no longer hold the particular administrative positions to which I refer. The University closed the Ombuds office in spring 1996.

In November 1994, a group of first-year students of the Child and Development Studies (CDEV) Master of Arts Program at Laurentian University filed an official complaint with the Dean of Social Sciences regarding the classroom conduct of Dr. Michael Persinger. Dr. Persinger is a registered clinical psychologist, a faculty member of the psychology department, head of the University’s neuroscience program, and a CDEV faculty member who was teaching Research Methods -- one of the required courses of the program.

As a result of our refusal to return to the classroom, the Dean agreed that students who chose to continue in the course could do so, while those who chose to leave could take a new section of the course in the spring academic session, without the presence of Dr. Persinger. (Some students felt they could not withdraw from the course. They needed to complete it at this time to allow them enough credits to graduate in the current year or meet entry requirements at other universities.) The Dean said he would speak with Dr. Persinger, then set up a meeting with the CDEV Director, Coordinator, Dr. Persinger, himself, and the students to discuss our concerns. Several hours later, the Dean cancelled the meeting, saying it was not usual for a Dean to act as a mediator in these situations and that we should meet with Dr. Persinger on our own. We informed the Dean we would not meet with Dr. Persinger under those circumstances. We had just over three weeks left in the course when half of the students left the class and the course was deleted from our records.

While feeling that the situation that arose during the original course had been dealt with in a manner that was fair for all of the students involved, we were concerned about the probability that Dr. Persinger would i) retaliate against those who filed the complaint, and ii) continue with other students what we characterized as abusive conduct. For these reasons, in January 1995, CDEV students filed an addendum to their original complaint with the Dean, and asked the University to officially penalize Dr. Persinger.

In March, the University Ombudsperson began acting as a mediator between representatives (another student and myself) of our complaint group and the Dean's office, trying to obtain an official response to our complaint. Beginning in June, the Dean repeatedly informed us, through the Ombudsperson, that his written response would be arriving "within the week", a clear indication to us that a decision had been made prior to that time.

In an October meeting with the Dean and the Ombuds Officer, the Dean told us Dr. Persinger would be prohibited from teaching the required course for two years. He stated there were three reasons why he would not extend the discipline beyond that time: i) he could not make decisions which would reach beyond his tenure as Dean, ii) the Vice-President Academic and the President agreed with his decision, and iii) it is the CDEV Committee that carries the responsibility for selecting the teaching faculty for the program. We again asked the Dean for a written response that would set his decision in the context of our complaint. He agreed to provide us with one. We also asked if it would be recorded in Dr. Persinger's personnel file as a disciplinary action. He assured us it would.

In mid-November, we reminded the Ombudsperson that six weeks had passed since the Dean’s most recent assurance that he would formally respond to our complaint, and that more than a year had passed since we had begun our attempts to address the issue within the institution. We informed the Ombudsperson that we were determined to take any steps we felt necessary to obtain the official documentation the Dean had promised and that his verbal response of October 3rd required.

In December, we received the Dean’s letter stating that during 1995/96 and 1996/97, Dr. Persinger would not teach the required course from which we had withdrawn in protest in November 1994. He wrote (in part):

On January 15, the other student and I sent a letter to CDEV Committee members. We informed them of the Dean’s decision, that we were aware we were not the first group of students to submit an official complaint about Dr. Persinger, and asked them to consider the deeper implications of their decisions in light of the conduct of faculty members they select. Some Committee members asked us if we would detail the events that had given rise to our complaints. We each wrote a summary of our experiences with Dr. Persinger and submitted them to the members on January 24. The Committee instructed the Graduate Coordinator (who was also a Committee member) to ask us if we would waive our right to confidentiality. The Coordinator said the Committee wanted to provide copies to Dr. Persinger and ask for his response. We gave our permission.

On February 1, as his response to our complaints, Dr. Persinger sent a letter to each of 11 Committee Members in which he made disparaging comments about us using clinical language. Several days later, he sent copies of his letter, dated February 5, to 12 non-Committee faculty in the departments of psychology, sociology, and human movement. His letters stated (in part):

We had not made public our letters and reports, nor did the CDEV Committee view them as public, otherwise they would not have asked us to waive our right to confidentiality. The study Dr. Persinger attached to his letter was Alterations in Pleasantness But Not Activation When Long-Term Memories are Reconstructed During Contextual Versus Noncontextual Settings (M.A. Persinger and P.M. Richards, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1994, 79, 95-98).

On February 8, we sent a copy of Dr. Persinger's February 1 letter to the Director of Graduate Studies and to the President. We alleged Dr. Persinger's comments constitute violations of ethical principles relating to abuse of power and stated our belief that the statements are "a deliberate and malicious attempt to intimidate us and attack our credibility". We asked for their positions regarding the issue of Dr. Persinger's conduct and what they could do to protect us from further retaliation.

In letters copied to me beginning in February, Dr. Persinger i) asks the Dean if there are "two sets of books" because he finds nothing recorded in his personnel file regarding his exclusion from teaching the 1995/96 and 1996/97 graduate course, ii) claims he was not informed of a disciplinary action, and iii) accuses the Dean, the Vice-President Academic, and the President of having "conspired" to prevent him from teaching the course.

The President responds that the notion of a conspiracy is "absurd". The Dean claims he could not record the discipline in Dr. Persinger's personnel file because he had an obligation to protect our anonymity. He also states "Now that the students themselves have made the issue public, I see no reason why you should not see this correspondence and I enclose copies of the two letters."

(NOTE: Our identities as the latest "Persinger complainants" were known by many in the University community months prior to the December 1995 decision by the Dean. When we asked the Dean during the October 1995 meeting if his decision would be recorded in Dr. Persinger's personnel file, he said nothing about protecting our anonymity.)

On February 16, the Director of Graduate Studies wrote to us regarding our February 8 complaint, stating (in part):

Also in February, a number of other CDEV students began to submit letters to the CDEV Committee and other University officials supporting our claims and stating their own concerns about Dr. Persinger's conduct.

Immediately prior to the CDEV Committee meeting of March 1, the Graduate Coordinator informed us the Committee would not be discussing the reports we had submitted to them because a meeting agenda had not been prepared, Dr. Persinger was not on that year's teaching list, and they did not have the authority to deal with ethical issues. She also told us she did not support us in our complaints about Dr. Persinger.

During this time, I submitted a complaint to the College of Psychologists of Ontario regarding Dr. Persinger’s February letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty. The College began an investigation.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE FORMED

On March 13, in a chance meeting with our Graduate Student Association representative (who also sat on the CDEV Committee) he told me he had never received a copy of Dr. Persinger’s response to the Committee. He said when he asked the CDEV Director for a copy, he was told "loudly and clearly" not to involve himself in our complaints. (I later supplied him with a copy.) Our representative also said the Committee referred our complaint about Dr. Persinger's letters to the new Vice-President, who was heading a special committee that would deal with the situation. He said that committee included the new Dean of Social Sciences, the CDEV Director, and the CDEV Graduate Coordinators (English, French sections).

POLICY ON INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP

The University Senate approved the Policy on Integrity in Research and Scholarship in October 1995. It includes the principles, standards, and rationale for "...providing an environment that encourages recognition of ethical standards" (p. 1). According to Policy guidelines, a reviewer’s (investigator’s) report is to be provided to the complainant and the person who is the subject of the complaint.

(Link to a complete copy of the Policy from the Documents page of this site.)

In May I complained to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council about the University’s failure to provide me with the reviewer’s report. In July, they informed me:

(NOTE: According to Dr. Persinger’s CV, during the period from 1975 to 1988 he benefited from internal NSERC grants totaling $35,000. In letters of July 1996 and January 1999, SSHRC offered to send to the University a copy of the correspondence between myself and the Council "…to inform authorities that the Council is aware of your complaint". In May 1999, I supplied the Council with my consent. They have rescinded their offer(s). Their letter of July 1999 states "…it would be inappropriate for SSHRC to raise this case directly with Laurentian University".)

In November, I wrote to the Director of Graduate Studies, inquiring about when I might expect to receive the President’s report summary regarding my complaint. In his responding letter, the Director states (in part):

The President never responded to my February 8 letter of complaint or my attempts to set up a meeting time to discuss his review findings.

CONSULTANTS FOR ONTARIO COUNCIL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

In December, I was one of a group of students who met with the first of two consultants assigned by the Ontario Council of Graduate Studies. They conducted separate evaluations of the CDEV program reporting to the Council and the University. I submitted in writing information relating to my experiences with the program and my complaint about Dr. Persinger.

In February, I attended the student meeting held with the Council’s second consultant. After the group meeting, some students remained and together we discussed with the consultant ongoing complaints about Dr. Persinger and the University’s unwillingness to deal with those problems. I also submitted my written comments to the consultant.

In January and March, the consultants’ reports were available. Overall, the program was given a positive assessment. Only the March report from the second consultant appears to have provided more than passing commentary on the issues students raised regarding Dr. Persinger. However, the nature of the commentary remains unknown. One part of the section dealing with Faculty matters was blacked out by the Director of Graduate Studies, who signed a handwritten note on the front of the document stating "References to specific professors have been blanked out". Given the style of the report, which avoids directly or indirectly linking any individual to a particular viewpoint, it is unlikely the consultant referred specifically to any professor(s). It is also unlikely that a University official would feel the need to blank out positive commentary.

In March 1998, I received the written Decision from the Complaints Committee of the College of Psychologists. It outlines their reasons for concluding that Dr. Persinger committed 11 violations of 10 of their standards of professional and ethical conduct. It also states (in part):

(Link to a complete copy of the Decision from the Documents page of this site.)

In April, I sent a summary of the College's Decision to each CDEV professor who received Dr. Persinger's 1996 letter. I also referred to the 1996 President’s review and the lack of response to my inquiry about its result. One of the CDEV professors who received my summary had been the Dean when we submitted our initial 1994 complaint, had been the Vice-President, Academic when the President conducted the 1996 review, and had taken on the duties of Acting President of the University in 1998.

On April 17, Dr. Persinger formally asked the Health Professions Board to review the decision made by the Complaints Committee of the College of Psychologists. In July, they granted the review. (It is my understanding that requested reviews are automatically granted. In this case, the Board’s decision to grant one was delayed because Dr. Persinger missed the limitation date for requesting it.)

Also in April, I began to approach news reporters about my situation. I provided them with a copy of the Decision from the College of Psychologists and asked them not to reveal my name to the public.

In June, one reporter told me the University's public relations department conveyed the following administrative response to his inquiries: i) the issue of Dr. Persinger's behaviour was resolved in 1995, ii) there was no review of Dr. Persinger's conduct, and iii) Dr. Persinger is one of the University's most popular professors. In view of the facts -- that Dr. Persinger's letters were written in 1996, that the letter from the Director of Graduate Studies verifies a review took place, and that even Dr. Persinger refers to prior complaints about himself in his submissions to the College of Psychologists -- the administration's statements appear nonsensical. To date, no publicity has resulted from my revelations to local or outside media.

In August, I wrote to the University’s Board of Governors to complain about the administration’s violations of the Policy on Integrity. I included a copy of the Decision from the College of Psychologists. The letter I received from the Chair states "Following my discussions with senior officials of the university, I will respond to you in more detail." He has not communicated with me since.

In June, in accordance with regulations regarding disclosure of information prior to a review, the Health Professions Board released to me and to Dr. Persinger a copy of the Record of Investigation. It was compiled by the College of Psychologists during their investigation. The documentation Dr. Persinger submitted to them in support of his response to my complaint is, to say the least, disquieting. Some of that information is discussed below.

INFORMATION FROM THE RECORD OF INVESTIGATION

In his September 1996 response to the College of Psychologists, Dr. Persinger admits he has no data to support his opinions about me, but repeats those comments. He writes (excerpts):

Dr. Persinger cites gender politics as a problem within the Master's program, ignoring the complaints male students have submitted to the University about his behaviour, and repeatedly uses the adjective "female" and, in one instance, "feminist", when describing complainants. He tries to justify his 1996 letters by stating i) we had publicly distributed our complaints to other Faculty outside the CDEV Committee and to other graduate students, and ii) his comments were driven by concerns about "the CDEV program and...the students' frank libel".

We had not distributed our letters or reports among Faculty or students. Despite claiming concern for the CDEV program, Dr. Persinger’s letters to various academic officials do not demonstrate any willingness on his part to seriously consider the perceived negative effects of his "teaching style" for students, nor do they centre on positive educational suggestions. All of his efforts are focused on consolidating his power within the Master's program and regaining his status as a lead professor.

Dr. Persinger supplied to the College of Psychologists copies of over 40 letters that passed between him and University administrators regarding his removal from the graduate course and students’ complaints about his behaviour. He included a series of letters he wrote to the Dean, beginning in February 1995, in which he insisted there was no objective reason he could not teach us the spring-term Methods course. (Recall that the spring-term course was promised to us as a result of our refusal to continue in his fall-term course). In March, Dr. Persinger writes:

Dr. Persinger submitted letters which were written i) by him to the CDEV Director, and ii) to him by the Dean, parts of which are cited by the Complaints Committee in their decision. Although the letters do not name any student, they provide information about his response when previously faced with students’ complaints about his behaviour.

Dr. Persinger wrote to the CDEV Director at a time when the complaint group of which I was a member had not yet entered the Master's program. He began by reminding the Director that he made a prior request for the same information on 10 November, 1993 -- the year a different group of CDEV graduate students sought an administrative response to their complaints about him.

Although Dr. Persinger states "Please note that this is a request for principle and does not imply any particular student or context", his request of course relates to a context in which graduate students repeatedly complain about professors. The Complaints Committee does not specify what influence, if any, this letter had on their conclusions. However, please note that

i) in his 1994 letter to the Director of the CDEV program, Dr. Persinger aims his unfounded opinion of "a significant personality disorder (e.g., paranoia)" at all complaining students

ii) as Dr. Persinger's own documentation shows, it is he that graduate students have repeatedly complained about

iii) in his 1996 letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, Dr. Persinger publicly aims his unfounded opinions of "paranoid ideation", "delusional", and "anomalous recollections" at specific complaining students

When viewed in context, the 1994 letter helps reveal a behavioural pattern that supports my allegations about the deliberate nature of Dr. Persinger's 1996 statements about me. In concluding that Dr. Persinger had publicly used demeaning descriptions of me in his letters, the Complaints Committee states its decision was based on the type of language used by him (in letters he agrees were public) and that the Dean’s June 1995 letter to Dr. Persinger was additional evidence in support of my claim. The excerpt as noted by the Complaints Committee is:

The following are excerpts from letters written by administrators regarding Dr. Persinger's attempts to regain his position as the primary instructor for the CDEV course from which my complaint group withdrew in 1994. The letters are part of the Record of Investigation but were not cited by the Complaints Committee in their Decision.

In response to repeated explicit cautions from administrators about his alleged practice of publicly maligning others, Dr. Persinger states to the Vice-President Academic and then to the Dean (in part):

____________

Even when asked by the College’s Investigator to refrain from further contacting me about my complaint, he responds in an unyielding and accusatory manner:

The evidence reveals that Dr. Persinger's February 1996 statements about me were a calculated part of his defence strategy -- deliberately constructed to discredit me, not written on impulse during the heat of a dispute and later regretted. The evidence supports my contention that his statements about me were part of a vengeful public attack -- designed with malicious intent, not offered out of misguided belief. Dr. Persinger insists that his opinions about my psychological health are factual despite his repeated acknowledgements that he has no data on which to base his conclusions.

The Complaints Committee states in its 1998 Decision:

In August, the Vice-President Academic contacted me. He said a former University official approached him about my unresolved complaint and showed him my summary of the Decision from the College of Psychologists. He asked if he could see a complete copy and if he could place it in Dr. Persinger’s personnel file.

I brought him a copy of the Decision and of several other documents and asked for the report regarding the 1996 President’s review. He said he was not familiar with the Policy on Integrity and asked if I could give him a copy of it. He also asked if I would keep him posted regarding the Health Professions Board’s review (I agreed to do so). He said that, should the Board decide in Dr. Persinger’s favour, the Decision from the College would be removed from the file. He later informed me he would be discussing the President’s review and my unresolved complaint with the Director of Academic Staff Relations. (The Director had been involved with my complaint since 1994 – he was the Dean in 1994, the Vice-President Academic in 1996, and the Acting President in 1998.)

Later in August, I received a letter from the Vice-President Academic (with no mention of the 1996 review) stating:

In mid-October, I submitted written comments to the Health Professions Board for their Review Hearing. As part of his written submission, Dr. Persinger attached a letter he sent to the College’s Complaints Committee in April 1998 following receipt of their Decision. In that letter to the Committee, he states (excerpts):

The following excerpts are from a letter written by the Vice-President Academic to Dr. Persinger on 24 August 1999. Dr. Persinger also submitted it to the Health Professions Board's Review Panel:

On October 25, the Health Professions Board held the review. According to the Board’s Secretariat, the Panel’s written decision was to be sent to Dr. Persinger and myself "sometime in the next several weeks".

University officials tend to view complaints about Dr. Persinger as a matter of strategy rather than ethics. Behavioural problems are re-framed as academic ones. Prior complaints are denied or downplayed. The authority for appropriately addressing such issues is claimed to lie elsewhere. The student population is a transient one. This allows administrators to react to similar complaints about similar behaviours as though they are unrelated events. Such administrative maneuvers often seem irrational and self-defeating, but their effectiveness cannot be denied. Rarely can individuals outside the loop successfully counter those moves. The evidence they need to do so is in the files of officials they challenge or in the memories of other (unidentifiable) complainants.

The letter below, submitted to the College of Psychologists by Dr. Persinger, was not identified as having any bearing on the conclusions of the Complaints Committee. However, it does contain information significant to the complaint process I experienced at Laurentian University.

In our meetings with him throughout 1994-95, the Dean alternately denied and confirmed the existence of prior complaints about Dr. Persinger. During one meeting (February 1995), he said our complaints were based on "false information" because there had been no problems with Dr. Persinger’s conduct in the past and he had never seen Dr. Persinger behave in an unprofessional manner. He said that we were the problem. He said our complaints had no basis because they rested on our own perceptions. Yet, during that same time (May 1995), the Dean wrote the following letter to Dr. Persinger:

Over four years have passed since I submitted to the administration my complaint about Dr. Persinger’s February 1996 letters. I am certainly not the first individual to struggle with the University’s deny, delay, and deceive tactics. Many faculty members and students view the institution’s complaint process with mistrust, derision, and contempt. Complainants often abandon the pursuit of a just process or an official response. They are unable or no longer willing to expend the mental, physical, and emotional energy required for continuing the battle. I am not the first to seek outside help from government agencies, political representatives, or the media. Nor am I the first to fail at finding an authority that can or will direct the University to uphold its own policies. Unfortunately, in addition to all of the factors that influence the maintenance of institutional arrogance and elitism, there is no one to hold Laurentian University’s officials accountable. Therefore, they feel no need to be accountable.