From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:41 1992 Path: utcsri!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: 24 Aug 92 13:55:16 GMT References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization Lines: 348 Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu I have received the appended plea for help e.-mail message. I have no connection to any of the events described here. Dov P.S. since receiving this message, V.I. Fabriant e.-mailed me a long file with facts and details of the incident. I will post this file in pieces. ----------------------------- cut here ------------------------------- Message-Id: X-Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec X-Envelope-To: bai@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu, billera@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu X-Vms-To: @B.LST Status: R Dear Colleague: The events which I want you to tell about are so outrageous, that one should see it to believe. There will be several mailings with facts and documents. I have little time left because on August 25 I will be in jail for contenpt of court, so I need to do the mailing really fast. I have no time for editing so everything will be mailed exactly as it was distributed originally in Montreal. I raise question of "scientific prostitution". The main difference between scientific prostitution and "honorary authorship" is that in the first case a completely bogus scientist, not capable of doing any research, hires somebody from developing countries or USSR by using governmental grant. This someone does research in which the parasite supervisor is included as co-author. The more publications this parasite accumulates, the greater grant he gets, the more people he can hire, the more publications he gets, etc. M.N.S. Swamy is Dean of Engineering at Concordia, and classical example of such parasite. The second parasite of same kind is T.S.Sankar, who is President of Canadian society of Mechanical Engineering. I have included him in 35 publications, in which he did not understand a word. For as long as I know him, he has not written a single paper himself. I have filed a lawsuit against these two parasites, and since they have nothing to say about the merit of the matter, they filed a motion to put me in jail for contempt of court, this way they can get rid of me, and I shall not be able to fight the battle. I need your help. Speak up. The rector's e-mail address is pgreco@garnet.concordia.ca. Thank you for your support, V.I. Fabrikant Appendix Here is the list of my latest publications. Please disregard mutiple authorship. Everything was written solely by me. BOOK CONTRIBUTIONS 1. V.I. Fabrikant, \it/[Mixed Boundary Value Problems of Potential Theory and their Applications in Engineering]. Kluwer Academic, 1991. (450 pages). 2. V.I. Fabrikant, \it/[Applications of Potential Theory in Mechanics]. \it/[Selection of New Results.] Kluwer Academic, 1989. (480 pages). 3. V.I. Fabrikant, \it/[Mathematical Problems of Fracture]. Article in the English translation of Soviet Mathematical Encyclopaedia. Kluwer Academic, Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 90-91. 4. V.I. Fabrikant, Complete Solutions to Some Mixed Boundary Value Problems in Elasticity. \it/[Advances in Applied Mechanics], Academic Press, Vol. 27, 1989, pp. 153-223. LIST OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 1. V.I. Fabrikant, General contact problem for a circular annulus. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik], accepted for publication, 1992. 2. V.I. Fabrikant, Dirichlet problem for an annular disc. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik], accepted for publication, 1992. 3. V.I. Fabrikant, Mixed boundary value problem of potential theory in toroidal coordinates. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik], Vol. 42, 1991, pp. 680-707. 4. V.I. Fabrikant, Neumann problem for an annular disc. \it/[International Journal of Engineering Science], Vol. 29, 1991, pp. 1425-1431. 5. V.I. Fabrikant, Non-Axisymmetric Annular Punch Problem. \it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 58, 1991, pp. 947-953. 6. V.I. Fabrikant, Non-Axisymmetric Normal Load on an Annular Crack. \it/[Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics], Vol. 15, 1991, pp. 229-236. 7. V.I. Fabrikant, Internal Circular Crack under Normal Antisymmetric Loading. \it/[Archive of Applied Mechanics (Ingenieur Archiv)], Vol. 61, 1991, pp. 2-17. 8. V.I. Fabrikant, An Arbitrary Tangential Load under a Smooth Punch. \it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 57, 1990. pp. 596-599. 9. V.I. Fabrikant, Inclined Circular Punch Bonded to a Transversely Isotropic Half-Space. \it/[ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics], Vol. 116, 1990, pp. 1599-1617. 10. V.I. Fabrikant, Axisymmetric Bonded Punch Problem: a Complete Solution. \it/[Ingenieur Archiv], Vol. 60, 1990, pp. 213-224. 11. V.I. Fabrikant, External Circular Crack under Concentrated Antisymmetric Loading. \it/[International Journal of Solids and Structures], accepted for publication, 1990. 12. V.I. Fabrikant, Interaction of a normal load with a bonded circular punch. \it/[ Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General], Vol. 23, 1990, pp. 285-298. 13. V.I. Fabrikant, Analytical Approach to Some Non-classical Elastic Contact and Crack Problems. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik], Vol. 69, 1989, pp. 415-418. 14. V.I. Fabrikant, Elastic Half-space, with Several Domains Subjected to Tangential Displacements. \it/[Ingenieur Archiv], Vol. 60, 1989, pp. 73-82. 15. V.I. Fabrikant, Flat Crack under Shear Loading. \it/[Acta Mechanica], Vol. 78, 1989, pp. 1-31. 16. V.I. Fabrikant, Reissner-Sagoci Problem for Non-classical Domains. \it/[Ingenieur Archiv], Vol. 59, 1989, pp. 422-433. 17. V.I. Fabrikant, Close Interaction of Coplanar Circular Cracks under Shear Loading. \it/[Computational Mechanics], Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 181-197. 18. V.I. Fabrikant, Elastic Field around a Circular Punch. \it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 55, 1988, pp. 604-610. 19. V.I. Fabrikant, Potential of Several Arbitrarily Located Discs. \it/[Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series B], Vol. 29, 1988, pp. 342-351. 20. V.I. Fabrikant, Sound Penetration through an Arbitrarily Shaped Aperture in a Soft Screen: Analytical Approach. \it/[Journal of Sound and Vibration], Vol. 121, 1988, pp. 1-12. 21. V.I. Fabrikant, Green's Functions for a Penny-Shaped Crack under Normal Loading. \it/[Engineering Fracture Mechanics], Vol. 30, 1988, pp. 87-104. 22. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, Singularities at Angular Points in Elastic Contact Problems. \it/[Communications in Applied Numerical Methods], Vol. 4, 1988, pp. 173-178. 23. V.I. Fabrikant, Penny-Shaped Crack Revisited: Closed Form Solutions. \it/[Philosophical Magazine A], Vol. 56, 1987, pp. 191-207. 24. V.I. Fabrikant, Flat Crack of Arbitrary Shape in an Elastic Space. \it/[Philosophical Magazine A], Vol.56, 1987, pp. 175-189. 25. V.I. Fabrikant, Mixed Problems of Potential Theory in Spherical Coordinates. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik], Vol. 67, 1987, pp. 507-518. 26. V.I. Fabrikant, Electrostatic Problem of Several Arbitrarily Charged Unequal Coaxial Discs. \it/[Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics], Vol. 18, 1987, pp. 129-147. 27. V.I. Fabrikant, The Stress Intensity Factor for an External Elliptical Crack. \it/[International Journal of Solids and Structures], Vol. 23, 1987, pp. 465-467. 28. V.I. Fabrikant, Close Interaction of Coplanar Circular Cracks in an Elastic Medium. \it/[Acta Mechanica], Vol. 67, 1987, pp. 39-59. 29. V.I. Fabrikant, Frictionless elastic contact problem for a curved rigid punch of arbitrary shape. \it/[Acta Mechanica], Vol. 67, 1987, pp. 1-25. 30. V.I. Fabrikant, Closed Form Solution to Some Mixed Boundary Value Problems for a Charged Sphere. \it/[Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series B], Vol. 28, 1987, pp. 296-309. 31. V.I. Fabrikant, Magnetic Polarizability of Small Apertures: Analytical Approach. \it/[ Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General], Vol. 20, 1987, pp. 323-338. 32. V.I. Fabrikant, Diffusion through Perforated Membranes. \it/[Journal of Applied Physics], Vol. 61, 1987, pp. 813-816. 33. V.I. Fabrikant, Electrical Polarizability of Small Apertures: Analytical Approach. \it/[International Journal of Electronics], Vol. 62, 1987, pp. 533-545. 34. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, An Algorithm for Geometrical Modeling of Surfaces of Revolution. \it/[Computers and Graphics], Vol. 10, 1986, pp. 245-255. 35. V.I. Fabrikant Flat Punch of Arbitrary Shape on an Elastic Half-Space. \it/[International Journal of Engineering Science], Vol. 24, 1986, pp. 1731-1740. 36. V.I. Fabrikant, Sound Transmission through an Arbitrarily Shaped Aperture in a Rigid Screen: Analytical Approach. \it/[Journal of Sound and Vibration], Vol. 111, 1986, pp. 489-498. 37. V.I. Fabrikant, Inclined Flat Punch of Arbitrary Shape on an Elastic Half-Space. \it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 53, 1986, pp. 798-806. 38. V.I. Fabrikant, Sound Penetration through an Arbitrarily Shaped Aperture in a Rigid Screen: Analytical determination of the quadratic terms in low-frequency expansion. \it/[Journal of the Acoustical Society of America], Vol. 50, 1986, pp. 1438-1446. 39. V.I. Fabrikant, Computer Evaluation of Singular Integrals and their Applications. \it/[International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering], Vol. 23, 1986, pp. 1439-1453. 40. V.I. Fabrikant, Exact Solutions to Some External Mixed Problems in Potential Theory. \it/[Aplikace Matematiky], Vol. 31, 1986, pp. 224-246. 41. V.I. Fabrikant, Inverse Crack Problem in Elasticity. \it/[Acta Mechanica], Vol. 61, 1986, pp. 29-36. 42. V.I. Fabrikant, A New Approach to Some Problems in Potential Theory. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik], Vol. 66, 1986, pp. 363-368. 43. V.I. Fabrikant, Several Elliptical Punches on an Elastic Half-Space. \it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 53, 1986, pp. 390-394. 44. V.I. Fabrikant, Four Types of Exact Solutions to the Problem of an Axisymmetric Punch Bonded to a Transversely Isotropic Half-Space. \it/[International Journal of Engineering Science], Vol. 24, 1986, pp. 785-801. 45. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S$. Sankar, and G.D. Xistris, On the Conditions at Infinity in the External Crack Problems. \it/[Engineering Fracture Mechanics], Vol. 23, 1986, pp. 921-924. 46. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S$. Sankar, Concentrated Force underneath a Punch Bonded to a Transversely Isotropic Half-Space. \it/[International Journal of Engineering Science], Vol. 24, 1986, pp. 111-117. 47. V.I. Fabrikant, On the Capacity of Flat Laminae. \it/[Electromagnetics], Vol. 6, 1986, pp. 117-128. 48. V.I. Fabrikant, On the Potential Flow Through Membranes. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik], Vol. 36, 1985, pp. 616-623. 49. V.I. Fabrikant, External Crack in Non-Homogeneous Elasticity. \it/[Engineering Fracture Mechanics], Vol. 22, #5, pp. 855-858, 1985. 50. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, An Efficient Graphical Method for CAD. \it/[Computer-Aided Design], Vol. 17, 1985, pp. 369-373. 51. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S. Sankar and V. Latinovic, Contour Integration on the Graphics Screen and its Application in CAD/CAM. \it/[Computer-Aided Design], Vol. 17, 1985, pp. 60-68. 52. V.I. Fabrikant, A.P.S. Selvadurai and G.D. Xistris, Asymmetric Problem of Loading under a Smooth Punch. \it/[Trans. ASME, Journal ] \it/[of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 681-685. 53. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S. Sankar and V. Latinovic, Integration on the Graphics Screen.$f=3 Trans. ASME Computers in Mechanical Engineering $= , Vol. 3, July 1984, pp. 47-52. 54. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S. Sankar and M.N.S. Swamy, On the Generalized Potential Problem for a Surface of Revolution. \it/[Proc. of Amer. Math. Soc.], Vol. 90, 1984, pp. 47-56. 55. P. O. Brunn, V.I. Fabrikant, and T. S. Sankar, Diffusion through Membranes: Effect of a Nonzero Membrane Thickness. \it/[Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics], Vol. 37, 1984, pp.311-324. 56. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, On Contact Problems in an Inhomogeneous Half-Space. \it/[International ] \it/[Journal of Solids and Structures], Vol. 20, 1984, pp. 159-166. 57. V.I. Fabrikant and T.S. Sankar, Punch and Crack Problems in Transversely Isotropic Bodies. \it/[International Journal of Engineering Science], Vol. 21, No. 7, 1983, pp. 799-811. 58. V.I. Fabrikant and L.M. Keer, The Interaction Between a System of Circular Punches on a Nonhomogeneous Elastic Half-Space. \it/[International Journal of Mechanical Science], Vol. 25, No. 7, 1983, pp. 513-518. 59.T.S. Sankar and V.I. Fabrikant, Investigations of a Two-Dimensional Integral Equation in the Theory of Elasticity and Electrostatics. \it/[Journal de M\aigu/[e]canique Th\aigu/[e]orique et Appliqu\aigu/[e]e], Vol. 2, No. 2, 1983, pp. 285-299. 60. T.S. Sankar, S.V. Hoa and V.I. Fabrikant, Approximate Solution of Singular Integro-Differential Equations in Elastic Contact Problems. \it/[International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering], Vol. 18, 1982, pp. 503-519. 61. T.S. Sankar and V.I. Fabrikant, Asymmetric Contact Problems Including Wear for Nonhomogeneous Half-Space. \it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 49, No. 1, 1982, pp. 43-46. 62. G.M.L. Gladwell and V.I. Fabrikant, The Interaction between a System of Circular Punches on an Elastic Half-Space. \it/[ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics], Vol. 49, No. 2, 1982, pp. 341-344. 63. V.I. Fabrikant, T.S. Sankar, L.M. Roytman and M.N.S. Swamy, Closed Form Solution to the Electrostatic Potential Problem for a Spherical Cap. \it/[Zeitschrift f\umlaut/[u]r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik], Vol. 62, No. 8, 1982, pp. 383-390. 64. V.I. Fabrikant, S.V. Hoa and T.S. Sankar, On the Approximate Solution of Singular Integral Equations. \it/[Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering], Vol. 29, 1981, pp. 19-33. From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:41 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part II) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.150158.6191@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:01:58 GMT Lines: 355 From CCYFK56@vax2.concordia.ca Fri Aug 21 12:00:28 1992 Received: from Clyde.Concordia.CA by poly.math.cornell.edu (4.1/1.5) id AA14096; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:58:42 EDT Received: from vax2.concordia.ca by Clyde.Concordia.CA id aa22788; 21 Aug 92 15:49 GMT ~Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:55 EDT ~From: CCYFK56@vax2.concordia.ca ~Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) To: baartman@math.mtu.EDU, laci@cs.uchicago.EDU, babbitt@math.ucla.EDU, fawb@nmumus.bitnet, bacciotti@itopoli.bitnet, bach@cs.wisc.EDU, bachelis@mts.cc.wayne.EDU, mi048@ibm2.mi.uni-koeln.DE, bachman@nevada.EDU, gbackus@ucsd.EDU, sbaden@ucsd.EDU, badoian@math.berkeley.EDU, baer@ccf3.nrl.navy.mil, jbaez@lucy.wellesley.EDU, bagaria@math.berkeley.EDU, 00ksbagga@bsuvax1.bitnet, baggett@boulder.colorado.EDU, feb@gwuvm.bitnet, baglivo@bcvms.bitnet, bahri@rider.bitnet, bahrmasel@mdc.COM, bai@math.cornell.edu, albhc@cunyvm.bitnet, dbailey@trinity.EDU, dwbailey@amherst.bitnet, jbailey@aegis-dahlgren.nswc.navy.MIL, dbailey@nas.nasa.GOV, bailey@ee.umn.EDU, johnb@buenga.bitnet, baily@zaphod.uchicago.EDU, bbbai@conncoll.bitnet, gama43@cms.gla.ac.uk, cbaker@iusmail.ius.indiana.EDU, grb@shape.mps.ohio-state.EDU, i.n.baker@ma.ic.ac.uk, pm1jwb@pa.shef.ac.uk, kab@math.ucla.EDU, baker@nemo.math.okstate.EDU, bakshi@ncsuche.bitnet, baladi@frensl61.bitnet, kilgore@auducvax.bitnet, balder@math.ruu.NL, baum@gmr.COM Message-Id: X-Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec X-Envelope-To: bai@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu, billera@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu X-Vms-To: @B.LST Status: RO Dear Colleague: Since Rector Kenniff prefers to cover up fraud at Concordia, I have no choice but to make the relevant information as public as possible. I have distributed two Memos, the first one is attached below, the second one is sent separately. I can not reach everyone, so I would be grateful if you could print it and show to all your friends. On the other hand, if you do not like what I have written, you do not have to read it. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, V.I. Fabrikant Mechanical Engineering, Concordia University Copy: FROM: V.I. Fabrikant TO: The university community Dear Colleague: Since my letter has been falsified by the Editor of Thursday Report, I feel morally obligated to distribute the original text because the issues raised are too important for our society. As you know, our Collective Agreement expires on May 31 1992, and the negotiations are in order for a new one. Our negotiating team is quite harmonious with the administration, except for the case when the administration tried to limit huge increases to even more huge salaries of some of the members. Since the negotiators care very little about ordinary members, we have to tell them what changes we want in the Collective Agreement. Here are my suggestions. 3) I suggest that Art. 48 (about various favors for the Department Chairs) be repealed and replaced by another one saying that every tenured member of the Department is expected to perform duties of the Chair for one year. Members can serve in alphabetical or any other order determined by the Department. The main purpose of this suggestion is elimination of corruption which power creates. When I came to the Department of Mechanical Engineering 12 years ago, Dr. T.S. Sankar was its Chairman. He had absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this is exactly what happened to the moral standards of the 'senior' Members of the Department. Everyone knew that in order to get promotion, tenure, or just to keep the job, they had to include T.S. Sankar as co-author in their scientific papers, and they did. While being a Chairman, he averaged 12 papers a year plus even more conference presentations. I have included him in 16 papers and 18 conference presentation, and his scientific contribution to all of them was exactly zero, more than that, he could not understand a single thing in any of my works. Right after his resignation, his 'scientific' yield has mysteriously dwindled to just 4 papers a year. The situation should be quite opposite if one assumes that a Chairman is almost crushed under heavy administrative load. His brother S. Sankar has "miraculously" trippled the number of publications, after becoming Director of CONCAVE. I was the only one in CONCAVE who refused to include his name in my publications, and I have been paying for this ever since. I am not complaining, no matter what happens to me, never again shall I get involved in "scientific prostitution". We did not have a Chair for about a year, and the Department was functioning in exactly the same manner, as if we had one. Now we have Dr. Osman as Chair. He comes to the Department not more than three times per week, usually, after 2 p.m., and very often after 5 p.m. Clearly, he does not have too much of administrative work to do. He does not do any teaching (only a person with wild imagination may consider Doctoral Seminar as a teaching load). As it was before with T.S. Sankar, majority of his graduate students are in co-supervision, and we all know what it means: it means that "the other guy" does all the work, I know this first-hand, I was that "other guy" for T.S. Sankar. Dr. Osman's research results are extremely modest, both qualitatively and quantitatively: as far as I could go back, I was unable to locate a single single-authored research paper, which means that his research is at the graduate student's level. While doing so little work, he is collecting salary well above $100,000. Is not this too much luxury for a university which claims to be heavily underfunded? Rotation of Chair/Director would also eliminate conflict of interest. Here is an example: in 1985, S. Sankar obtained a contract from Transport Canada for his private company S&S Inc. in the amount of $225,000. Part of it was subcontracted to T.S. Sankar. None have made any technical contribution to the work. The work was done by other members of CONCAVE and graduate students paid by the university. Rector knows about all this, at least from January of 1989. 2) Right now, there is no redress for a member when his rights are being violated by CUFA President or any other CUFA official. This is what happened to me. In November of 1991, I have filed two complaints with the Code Administrator. They were to be heard by the Hearing Board, members of which were to be provided by CUFA. This procedure has been functioning for years. When I filed my complaints, CUFA President Mr. Costanzo has decided that he no longer will provide "his people" for the Hearing Board, thus sabotaging my right to have "a day in court". His explanation of such a decision is so ridiculous, that I invite him to explain it to the community himself. I have resubmitted these complaints as grievances on January 10, 1992, hoping that no sabotage is possible here. I was wrong. In order to save administration from embarrassment, CUFA Grievance Officer Mr. Barbieri is effectively sabotaging now by refusing to send them out, though Art. 22.02 says that "...the Association ... will in no case refuse to forward the grievance to the Dean/Director". I must be extremely right in my complaints if so much energy is being spent in order not to allow them to be heard! [A copy of the grievance is attached in the Appendix] Since the Impeachment Article in CUFA Constitution is unrealistic and requires great effort for its implementation, I suggest it to be repealed and the following Article to be included in the new Collective Agreement: IMPEACHMENT OF CUFA PRESIDENT OR ANOTHER OFFICER. If provisions of this Agreement are violated by any CUFA Officer, including the President, the member affected by such a violation has the right to demand in writing that this Officer be impeached. A general meeting of CUFA members is to be convened with ten (10) days from the date of reception of the impeachment request. All the parties involved are to be heard, and the question of impeachment is to be decided by a majority vote of the members present at the meeting. The Officer impeached is relieved from his/her duties immediately. I am sure, that the mere existence of this Article will be a sufficient deterrent, so that the facts, described above, would never occur again. 3) I suggest that a special Article be included in the new Collective Agreement specifying that every CUFA document should be open for inspection by any member, except for those which should be kept confidential according to the Access to Information Act. All the meetings of the Executive Committee should be open, any closed session should be appropriately justified. I have recently requested from CUFA information on the teaching workload of our department for the past three years. I am entitled to this information, according to Art. 16.03. Mr. Costanzo refused to provide me with this information, with no valid reason for refusal. Something must be very wrong with this information if it is kept secret! I strongly believe that openness will introduce some honesty into CUFA. Mr. Costanzo's term in the office expires on May 31, 1992. Let us elect a new President someone who understands that there is a big difference between being friendly with administration, and being "in bed" with administration. Honesty is the rarest commodity in this university. P.S. After this letter has already been sent to press, and after much insistence on my part, Mr. Barbieri finally sent my grievance out ... to the Dean, while my grievance is against the Rector, is not it ridiculous? So, my next suggestion is to change the words "Dean/Director" in Art. 22 by "appropriate administrator", with an explanation that an appropriate administrator is not the one against whom the grievance is filed, but his/her superior. P.P.S. Do you know that 72.4% of our membership dues go to FQPPU(FAPUQ) and CAUT? What do we get in exchange? Neither Mr. Costanzo nor FQPPU could respond anything sensible. If we drop this affiliation, we could pay about a quarter of what we are paying now, or we could find better use for the money. Does this make sense? When I asked Mr. Costanzo for details of various expenses, he refused to open books. Well, honest things should be done in the open. Over $27,000 was spent last year for CUFA lawyer, while FQPPU can provide lawyers free of charge, and CUFA has paid FQPPU over $130,000 last year. Does this make sense? Let us demand CUFA books open. The latest amendments to CUFA Constitution extend term in office for the President to two years and establishes stipend for all Executive. The last sentence in the proposed amendments to Constitution says: "Please note that the stipends would take effect on June 1, 1992, i.e. no one who is currently serving on the executive will benefit from this proposal". Is this really so? I have learned that Mr. Costanzo is running for President. If he is elected. he will definitely benefit from his own proposal, and this is an obvious conflict of interest. Mr. Costanzo, I call upon you to realize it and to withdraw your candidacy. I also suggest that the amendments extending the term in office and stipends be repealed because, whether we want it or not, they increase corruption. I repeat once again: honesty is the rarest commodity in this university. V.I. Fabrikant, Department of Mechanical Engineering. Latest update: on January 28, 1992, Mr. Costanzo told me that my first grievance has been sent to the Labour Relations Office. I have checked it, it was not true. After numerous reminders to him and Barbieri, it was finally sent out on February 6. Everything is being done to delay consideration of my grievances by the union who is supposed to defend me. When I told Mr. Costanzo that I want to start the impeachment procedure, he refused to give me the list of CUFA members. How am I supposed to circulate the impeachment petition? APPENDIX \big/[CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY]$C \head/[Sir George Williams Campus]$C << Montr\aigu/[e]al, January 10,1992< << To: CUFA < ~From: Dr.>V.I.>Fabrikant, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering< $p This is an official grievance as it is defined in the Art.>22 of the Collective Agreement. < 1) Provisions of Art.>6 and 7 have been violated by the Administration of this University. The events are described in the documents attached. I strongly believe that I had all the rights to be in the Department on 30 October, 1991, and in the Senate Chamber on 1 November, 1991, without being insulted, harassed and intimidated. The described events represent part of campaign waged by the Rector, with assistance of other levels of Administrators, in order to discredit me and to undermine my reputation. < 2) The redress required is stated in each complaint attached. < This submission of grievance does not mean that my complaints are withdrawn from the Code Administrator's Office. <<<< $t10 Dr.>V.>I.>Fabrikant<<< Department of Mechanical Engineering< 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West< Montr\aigu/[e]al, Qu\aigu/[e]bec H3G>1M8< Canada < Tel.>(514)-848-3159 >>>FAX: (514)-848-3494 < Bitnet address ccyfk56@vax2.concordia.ca $n \head/[Sir George Williams Campus]$C << Montr\aigu/[e]al, November 3, 1991< << Mr$. H.J$. Relton< Code Administrator< Concordia University< 7141 Sherbrooke West< Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6< Canada <<< Dear Mr$. Relton, $p This is a complaint against Professors M.O.M.>Osman, S.>Sankar, S.V.>Hoa, and S.>Lin. (Art.>2 of Governing Principles in the part "freedom from harassment and intimidation") Here are the facts. I have returned to my office (H-929-24) after late lecture at about 11.10 p.m., on 30 October, with my graduate student, and had a discussion with him for about half-hour, after which he left. I have mailed some letters and prepared to go home, but before that I stood in the corridor (as I often do) looking at the pictures of earlier graduates. I had not been in that position even 20 seconds, as suddenly and quickly the door of the Chairman's office opens, and Dr.>Osman runs towards me (I was standing about 5-6 meters from the door of his office) shouting that they had a meeting of DPC, and that I was spying on them. Other professors joined him in harassing me. I have said that he had no right to shout at me, that I was standing in the corridor too far from his door, looking at the pictures. Using his logic, no one can stand in the corridor, because the doors of other professors offices are around, and everyone can claim that the person standing in corridor is spying on him. Dr.>Osman immediately made an "experiment": Dr.>S>Sankar went inside his office and started talking inside very loudly, so he was heard not only 5 meters away, this way he could be heard even 15 meters away. That was the proof for Dr.>Osman that I was spying. He started calling security, so that the security would come and testify that I was in the department, which was ridiculous, since I had no intention to deny that I was I the Department, more than that, I had exactly the same right to be in the Department as they. When I made an attempt to go home, Dr.>Osman tried to stop me by force. I left anyway, and all of them went with me harassing me on my way downstairs to the garage. There is a hard evidence that the whole thing was staged: 1)No one in his right mind makes a DPC meeting at about midnight; 2)Dr.>Osman admitted that he knew I had a late lecture, and that nobody else would be in the Department; 3)They knew that I stand very often near those pictures; 4)The timing is extremely suspicious: I was not standing there even 20 seconds, as the door opened, they clearly were watching me from behind the door. $p Everyone should be assumed innocent, unless proven$u guilty. They have no proof that I was spying. They should apologize. $p One may ask a good question: why on earth four Professors would stage such a thing. I am prepared to answer this question fully when and if the matter comes to the Hearing Board, and I request that the hearing be made public. Thank you in advance. < $t10 Yours Sincerely, <<<< $t10 Dr.>V.>I.>Fabrikant<<< Department of Mechanical Engineering< 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West< Montr\aigu/[e]al, Qu\aigu/[e]bec H3G>1M8< Canada < Tel.>(514)-848-3159 >>>FAX: (514)-848-3494 < Bitnet address ccyfk56@vax2.concordia.ca \head/[Sir George Williams Campus]$C << Montr\aigu/[e]al, November 3, 1991< << Mr$. H.J$. Relton< Code Administrator< Concordia University< 7141 Sherbrooke West< Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6< Canada <<< Dear Mr$. Relton, $p This is a complaint against the University (Art.>2). I came November 1 at about 4.30p.m.>to the Senate meeting. Immediately, several security officers appeared nearby in the Senate Chamber. I did not pay much attention to it, at least it never crossed my mind that they were watching me. When the Meeting was over, and I went outside, I was approached by two policemen who said that someone from the University called them and told them that I have a concealed firearm and about to commit a crime. They have arrested me and searched me in full view of the University community. Of course, no weapon was found. This is done in the University where "dignity, reputation and honour" of its members are annunciated as Governing Principles. This is yet another part of badly orchestrated campaign against me. I call it badly orchestrated, because here everyone pretends to be afraid of me, while my other complaint clearly indicates that if my colleagues in the Department would be really afraid of me they would not dare to stage what they did. $p I request an apology and an assurance that this incident will not be repeated again. In the case the matter comes to the Hearing Board, I request it to be public. Thank you in advance. < $t10 Yours Sincerely, <<<< $t10 Dr.>V.>I.>Fabrikant<<< From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:41 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part III) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.150255.6252@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:02:55 GMT Lines: 411 Department of Mechanical Engineering< 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West< Montr\aigu/[e]al, Qu\aigu/[e]bec H3G>1M8< Canada < Tel.>(514)-848-3159 >>>FAX: (514)-848-3494 < Bitnet address ccyfk56@vax2.concordia.ca To: addressees of my first letter ~From: V.I. Fabrikant Dear Colleague: I have received a letter from Vice-Rector, Academic (Appendix 1) which she feels necessary to bring to the attention of everyone who had received my first letter. Since my letter was sent to more that 40 individuals, I feel morally obligated to help her by sending the letter to everyone concerned. Please print this letter and show it to your friends and colleagues. If you did not read my first letter, you do not have to read this one either. Some comments are in order. 1. I am unaware of any document stating that E-mail can not be used for transmitting information related to CUFA. Unless and until such a document is produced, I would advise Dr. Sheinin to refrain from using the word "misuse", without a proper justification. 2. The University, as well as "persons affected" are very welcome to sue me for libel. May be, this is the only way for the truth to come out. Someone has asked me if I am afraid that the "persons affected" might hire someone to stage my "accidental death" or to frame me in some kind of a crime. Well, I am no longer afraid of anything or anybody. We all have to die one day. Whenever I die, I shall die an honest person. I just wonder, how many administrators can say the same about themselves. Gandhi considered jail as a must for an honest person. I am prepared for that too. I just regret that I put up with all this filth for twelve years. Make no mistake, I am dead serious in what I am doing. I can not fight all the crooks in the world, but I shall not rest until the bogus scientists in this university are exposed and the Justice is served. Someone told me that I should have waited quietly till I get the tenure, and then start fighting. Well, that might be more prudent, but that would not be me. I do not fight from hiding, I fight in the open, and face to face. This is why I include in Appendix 2 a copy of my letter sent to the Members of the Board of Governors. Realizing that anything can happen when big sums of money are involved, I have decided to make public additional documents (Appendices 4, 5, 6). Some are so shocking that one has to see them to believe. The first prize goes to the minutes of the secret Meeting of "senior" members the Department of Mechanical Engineering (Appendix 4, Exhibit #9). Even Soviets did not go that low: when they denounced Sakharov, he was invited to the meeting. As ridiculous as the document is, it is easy to understand why people like Hoa or Xistris signed it: both had received several papers from me to which their contribution was zero, so they were prepared to do anything to scare me so that I keep quiet. It was more difficult to explain why people, like Habashi, would sign it. This is why I have requested the workload information, and this is why CUFA refused to provide me with one, but what I have is sufficient. If one looks at Habashi's workload for this year, it seems normal: four courses, until one realizes that MECH 464 and MECH 612 are not two different courses but the same one, and given to the same group. So, he has one course remission, (and may be some other favors) and he is prepared to sign anything what the Dean or Chair ask him to sign. The main difference between Soviets and Canadians: Soviets did dishonorable things because their life or freedom was in danger, Canadians do the same when they are afraid that they might get $10 less in the next salary raise. And it was quite an experience to see Rakheja's signature there, he pretended to be my friend, just look how disgusted he was by dishonesty of S. Sankar (Appendix 3). He still has not bothered to explain his actions. Look at Exhibit 6.1 (Appendix 4) where T.S. Sankar claims to be "incensed". Well, he still has not filed his complaint which is the best proof that I was right. For more detailed criticism of Appendix 4 see Appendix 5. The Department plans to introduce a plaque of fame. I suggest to put a plaque of shame and engrave there the minutes of their secret meeting. One might find it difficult to comprehend how the DPC evaluation of my work (Appendix 5, Doc. 1) gave me highest mark for excellence, and the same people, analyzing the same file, have recommended that I be fired (Appendix 4, DPC "reasoned" report). Only people with total lack of integrity can sign such self-contradictory documents. Explanation itself is very simple: praising documents were signed when Swamy and Co. thought that I was not going to blow whistle on them, bad documents were signed when the opposite was true. 3. My accusations, as serious as they are, do not represent something new neither to the Administration, nor to the community. Everyone knows about them (and much more than what was said) and everyone keeps quiet. I am the only one who dared to speak openly. Here are just a few examples. Everyone knows that Dean Swamy has not written "his" book, it was written by Thulasiraman, who in exchange had got an appointment as a Full Professor of .... Mechanical Engineering, though he is a specialist in Electrical Engineering. How could this happen? Very simply: T.S. Sankar was then the Department Chair, and as Swamy himself once mentioned to me that they were "like a family", the whole thing was arranged in a "family" manner. It is "you scratch my back, and I scratch you back" relationship which prevails in this university. Everyone knows that Swamy's contribution to the majority of "his" about four hundred(!!!) publications is zero. The number itself is obscene to everyone who is involved in scientific research and knows how difficult it is to write just one paper. I know, first hand, that over 50 papers (to which his contribution was zero) were provided to him by Drs. Roytman and Plotkin. I have personally included him as a co-author in two papers and three conference presentations, and he does not understand a single thing in any of them. I have counted total of 16 single-authored papers (about 4% of total publications), 12 of them published between 1962 and 1966. His last paper was published in 1977 when he became Dean, (of course, this is just a coincidence) after that there was not a single single-authored paper. His name goes first in less than 1 out of 10 publications. If one assumes that Swamy made major contribution to all of them (which is not the case in at least 14 of them provided by Roytman and Plotkin, and it is very doubtful in the case of co-authorship with graduate students), we still have over 90% of "his" publications where his contribution was "not major", and this person is a Fellow of at least 9 Learned Societies. Something must be very wrong in the peer review process! One reference is so revealing that it deserves to be presented in full: J.L. Brown, J. Delansky, E. Plotkin, L.M. Roytman, M.N.S. Swamy, "Stability test for multidimensional digital filters", Electronics Letters, Vol. 17, 1981. This is a one-page(!) paper, and 5(!) co-authors. Everyone knows that T.S. Sankar has not written a single research paper of his own, at least, for as long as I know him, just because he is not capable of doing any significant research of his own. Recently I have received by internal mail copies of several of "his" papers with others, with handwritten notes indicating the names of real authors. This means that people do know and do care about honesty, they are just too afraid to talk about it openly. Well, I am going to be their spokesman. We have a bogus scientist T.S. Sankar as President of Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering and Fellow of several Societies, and we have Dean of the Faculty Swamy - Fellow of numerous Societies and "honorary" co-author of books and incredible number of papers. 4. Dr. Sheinin had implicitly asked me to substantiate my accusations. Here we go. a) The contract "Study on liquid tanker stability" was awarded in 1985 by DSS on behalf of Transport Canada to a private company S&S Inc. (S&S is an abbreviation of Seshadri Sankar) in the amount of $225,000 for three years. Additional funding was provided in 1988-1990. The contract number is 14SD T8200-4-4584 (OSD85-00055). The work was done by graduate students Ranganathan and Popov. Ranganathan was supervised by Dr. Rakheja (see Appendix 3), Popov did his job independently, since none of his official supervisors (S. Sankar and T.S. Sankar) is familiar with fluid dynamics. Comparison of the final report with Ph.D. dissertation of Ranganathan proves the point: the final report is an abbreviated version of the dissertation. The thesis defense took place before the final report was ready. This is a copy of the title page of the final report: TP 10690E LIQUID TANKER STABILITY Prepared for Transportation Development Centre Policy and Coordination Group Transport Canada Prepared by S & S Inc. Montreal, Quebec and CONCAVE Research Centre Department of Mechanical Engineering Concordia University Montreal, Quebec Nov. 1990 (end of quote) This is a classical example of conflict of interest: owner of a private company collaborates with a research centre where he is a Director. The address of S&S Inc. is given as 4476 Ste-Catherine St. W., Suite #102 Montreal, Quebec H3Z 1R8. This is Sankar's condo which is rented to somebody else. A nice way of doing business: you do not have to borrow money to make an initial investment, you do not have to rent office space: your domicile is a good address for your company, you do not have to hire employees and to pay their salaries, the university does it for you, you will never go bankrupt. You do not have to work on the contract either, your only job is to count profit, is not life good? Yet another contract "Development of vehicle dynamics expert systems" in the amount of $444,121 was awarded to S. Sankar's private company CIE-TECH in 1990 by DSS on behalf of Transport Canada. The contract number is 16SD-T8200-8-8584/01. If one wishes to verify that CIE-TECH belongs to S. Sankar, it can be done by phone, just dial 873-5324. Again, it is the CONCAVE Center which does the work, and this is also a conflict of interest situation. b)The fact that T.S. Sankar was "honorary" co-author in all my publications was well known. Here is a quote from my conversation with Hoa in early 1988: Fabrikant: I mean, if you are called to testify, and I put you a question about the papers I have written: "What was the contribution of T.S.[Sankar]?" << Hoa: He did not contribute, except for the fact that he paid you. (Laughing) (end of quote) Hoa has "forgot" to mention that his own contribution to my papers was exactly the same: both he and Sankar contributed to my salary which was at that time $7,000(!) per year. In the quote below (summer of 1988), T.S. Sankar admits himself that his contribution to my papers was zero: Fabrikant: ............... You mentioned several times, "we were doing", "we were investigating", we do this, we do that. I am kind of wondering, how do you feel when you see in print "Method of Fabrikant, Sankar and Swamy"? What is your internal feeling? << T.S.>Sankar: What do you mean: "What is your internal feeling?" << Fabrikant: OK, let us call a spade a spade. What was your contribution to that method? << T.S.>Sankar: Which one? << Fabrikant: Fabrikant, Sankar and Swamy, remember, I gave you a copy? (I refer to the paper by Love et.>al.,>entitled "On the method of Fabrikant, Sankar and Swamy ...") What was your scientific contribution to that method? << T.S.>Sankar: I do not know, some of these things we discussed ... << Fabrikant: Discussion is not a contribution. Contribution is contribution, and you know this better than anybody else. Could you name at least one single paper published, I understand that I have given you 16 papers, and you did not overpay me, and at least 18 conference presentations, in the best journals around the world, and, as I mentioned it to you, the papers are bound to become classic, and they are, little by little. I can show you a paper by Rice (T.S.>Sankar tries to interrupt). Would you agree, that actually none of the papers published has any scientific contribution of yours, whatever? Would you agree with that? << T.S.>Sankar: Let me tell you. People have short memory. As long as this is fine with them, they do not mind establishing exactly what they have done, and what others have not done. When I hired you, part time, when you came to me, I hired you ... << Fabrikant: You are not answering my question. << T.S.>Sankar: Listen very carefully. I could have asked you to work on the problems that I was trying to do, in which case I would have asked you to come and report to me, in which case it would be my contribution, and you would be a work servant, paid to do what I asked you to do. The very fact that I gave you the freedom to do the things that you thought were best, now you are asking me: "What was your contribution?" I can even write letter of retraction that I have no contribution. << Fabrikant: I don't ask you to do this. << T.S.>Sankar: No, no, no, I will do that, but you have to remember one thing, if I wanted to do the way I wanted, I could have done it, in which case your contribution would be zero, except that I would pay you to do certain things. Now, what I did, because I always considered you, even from the beginning, when you told me you worked with Bolotin, I always considered you as a colleague, and if you felt comfortable, you said you have some new approaches, I said: "Go ahead, do it". Did I, at any time, ask you to put my name on any of your papers? Say, any time I asked you, I want my name? I do not want your papers. You did it voluntarily. So, do not do it like giving some charity and saying: "What did you do for me?" You did it voluntarily, and this point has to come out. You did it voluntarily, I did not at any time pressed you I needed any part in your papers. But I could have done something else. I could have asked you to work on the problems I was interested in, in which case it would be my contribution, and you would be like everybody else, just a worker, like a computer programmer. I could have done that. But I gave you full independence, I treated you like my colleague, my equal, whenever you came to discuss with me, I said it looked fine, it was you who went out and put my name on your paper. The only time when I asked you to put somebody else's name on your paper, Xistris came and requested: "I will support this guy, I need some publications". And I asked you: "Could you put Xistris?" Never, I asked you ... You are talking to a very proud person, OK? And I have established myself in this world ... (end of quote) T.S. Sankar could not possibly use me as a programmer, as he claims in the quote above, because he did not do any research of his own, he could not even pose a problem. Hoa, at least, did pose a problem which he did not know how to solve, and I have solved it. The most repugnant part of what is politely called "honorary" authorship, and what I call "scientific prostitution", is that T.S. Sankar never explicitly asked me to put his name on my papers, but I knew very well what will happen to me if I don't. Here is what happened when I stopped including T.S. Sankar in their own words: T.S. Sankar: Seshadri called me (beginning of 1988) and asked me: "The contract for the people is coming to an end in June, what do you want me to do with Fabrikant?" (end of quote) This is the way the slave owners talk about their slaves. As a result of their conversation, this is what S. Sankar told me later, when he tried to extort papers from me and realized that I was not going to include him in my papers: S. Sankar: .....................................So, in the present situation, in order to be fair to you, we will have one more year, I do not want to have, because I have known you, I feel responsible, in the sense of the human nature, and because of that, I am prepared to make a recommendation to the appropriate body, because appropriate body acts on a recommendation, to the appropriate body, that you would have contract for one more year, up to 1989, at which time the position will be terminated. (Fabrikant tries to interrupt) I am talking one thing at a time, let me finish with that, and then we will come to the other aspects. So, at which time it will be terminated, and I also would like you to go and talk to T.S.>(T.S.>Sankar), before you go and talk to anybody else. After we talk, go and talk to him, and then I cleared in my mind, I spoke to a few other people, because he is an immediate person, who knows you more than anybody else, OK, and then I thought about it, I wanted to make this, I conveyed to T.S.>also about it, this is what I would like to have, so, it will be one more year, nothing, no problem, and it will be terminated at the 31 of May, 1989. (end of quote) When confronted, T.S. Sankar denied everything: Fabrikant: Seshadri mentioned several times, that you are well aware of everything ... << T.S.>Sankar: I am not aware of anything. ................... (end of quote) This was a breach of contract. My contract stipulated that in the case of positive evaluation (and it was positive) I should get a two-year reappointment. I tried to complain to the Chairman Dr.>Osman, and he only told me that all this was between me and S.>Sankar. My conversations with other Full Professors in the Department were of similar nature. Professor McQueen, who is well known for his "fearless" fight for freedom and democracy in South America, got pale and started stuttering. I have never met a person more false and hypocritical. It seems much easier to fight for justice thousand miles from home then to do the same in your own home. If all the fighters for justice in South America are of similar moral qualities, one should not be surprised that they still do not have any. Professor Lin just asked me: 'What does the Chairman think about it?' And there was no way for me to find out what does Professor Lin think about it. It seemed incomprehensible to me: both are tenured Full Professors, they had absolutely nothing to be afraid of, nevertheless they were afraid, probably more than Sicilians were afraid to speak against mafia. I went to Dean Swamy and told him to fix the situation himself, otherwise I would have no choice but to go outside the Faculty. This threat got an immediate effect: next morning I was called by Chairman Osman to his office, and it was a very different Osman, now he was fully involved in my dispute with S.>Sankar, and he was completely on my side. I have got the two-year extension of my contract but it was clear to me that the fight was far from over. In December of 1988 I have asked S.>Sankar if he would support my promotion to Research Professor. He promised to help and said that we need to talk. I already knew what this talk would be about, and I was right: he again asked me about my contribution to his group. This time I have answered point-blank that I was not going to include him or anybody else in my work, ever. And of course, I did not get any promotion. This time I have decided to complain to the Rector hoping that he would protect me from extortion. I was wrong again. The Rector refused to talk to me, I could only tell my story to his Assistant, Dr. MacKenzie, but she pretended not to believe me and refused even to ask both Sankars and Swamy whether what I was telling was truth. The material proof, which I had, was also disregarded. I believe, by now Dr. Sheinin regrets that she asked me to substantiate. Well, I have much more, Dr. Sheinin, just ask for it! I shall be happy to oblige next time. 5. I have received yet another letter from Dr. Sheinin (Appendix 1a). This letter might look strange in view of the following facts: in 1990 she received from the Faculty recommendation for my promotion to Professor (Doc. 9 and 10, Appendix 5), and she just ignored it, I was not refused the promotion, and I was not promoted either; in June of 1991 I was awarded prestigious "Poste Rouge" award from the National Research Council of France (100,000FF for four months), I was not allowed to accept the award; she denied my request for sabbatical (see for details my letter in the Link, Jan. 17), and I could continue the list of lawless actions. Why did she do all this? Because I am the only one in this university (and, probably, in the whole country) who stood up against the system of fraud and extortion in scientific research. I am a great danger to such people like Osman, Sankars and Swamy. If everyone, like I, would refuse to include them in the research work, then everybody would understand that they are bogus scientists, and their power and money would disappear. Since I was dangerous, they have decided to eliminate me. But how this could be done legally? They could not fight me in research - I am a world class scientist, they could not fight me in teaching - my evaluations are in top 10%, so they had to invent something, and they did. They know how everyone hates violence, so they have decided to use this, but they needed facts that I am violent or potentially violent, like threatening someone. This is the main reasons for all the lawless actions: they figured out that the more lawless the action, the greater is the probability that I loose my temper and do something outrageous. In view of this all seemingly senseless actions (like ambush by the DPC members or calling police to arrest and search me) become easily explainable: they try to destabilize me psychologically and to damage my reputation, so that nobody would pay much attention to my accusations. Well, it is about time to understand that all these attempts are total failure. The tactics of "stick and carrot" (Appendix 1 and 1a) will not work either. I would advice Dr. Sheinin to try, for a change, an honest approach: apologize for previous lawlessness and rectify it, and start respecting Collective Agreement - this might work. My only crime is my honesty, and this is the worst possible crime in this university. If you sexually harass you employees, CUFA will support you all the way, if you are trying to be honest, even CUFA does not support you. I am not saying that the alleged harasser should not get all legal support from CUFA, quite opposite: this is what the union is all about - protection, and this is what the dues are paid for. I understand that women complained for many years, well, who was the administrator who ignored those complaints? Why is not he on trial? He is not less guilty than the harasser. Had he reacted then, one warning, probably, would be sufficient, and nobody would need to be suspended, and women would not need to suffer for so long. This university needed a woman Vice-Rector, so that women be protected. What kind of Vice-Rector is needed to protect honest people? From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:42 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!gumby!destroyer!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Re: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part IV) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.150343.6344@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:03:43 GMT Lines: 313 APPENDIX 1 13 February 1992 Dear Dr. Fabrikant: Your letter addressed to "The university community", dated February 9 1992, which you transmitted to approximately forty individuals via the University's electronic mail system has been brought to my attention. I must advise you that it is a misuse of University property to communicate in this manner your dispute with the Concordia University Faculty Association, on what is essentially an internal matter largely related to the administration of CUFA. I must also advise you that you have made some very serious allegations against your colleagues which, if unsubstantiated, expose you to further action against yourself, either by the affected persons or by the University. I shall forward a copy of this letter to all the individuals who, as far as I am able to ascertain, have received your transmission. Yours sincerely, (Signed) Rose Sheinin Vice-Rector, Academic APPENDIX 1a 13 February 1992 Dear Dr. Fabrikant: I was pleased to read of your success in being awarded a research grant on the topic of Interaction between an Arbitrary Point Force and a Flat Elliptical Crack and would like to offer you my congratulations on this achievement. Indeed, such recognition by your peers must make you very proud and rightly so. Please accept my best wishes for the future. Sincerely yours, (signed) Rose Sheinin, Ph.D., DSc., D.Hum.Lett., F.R.S.C. Vice-Rector, Academic APPENDIX 2 << Montr\aigu/[e]al, February 14, 1992< << Dear XXXXXXXXX: $p This is to officially inform you, as a Member of the Board of Governors of Concordia University, that I have evidence that the Director of CONCAVE Center Dr.>S.>Sankar is in the position of conflict of interest. Here is just one fact: in 1985, S.>Sankar obtained a contract from Transport Canada for his private company S&S Inc. in the amount of $225,000. Additional money were allocated in 1988-1989 and 1989-1990. Part of it was subcontracted to his brother T.S.>Sankar. None have made any technical contribution to the work. The work was done by other members of CONCAVE and graduate students paid by the university. I can present proof of other incidence of conflict of interest. I have also evidence that Dr.>S.>Sankar's scientific contribution to all joint publications with Drs.>Rakheja and Ahmed was zero. $p Rector knows about all this but prefers to cover it up. I should be grateful if you initiate an investigation of these facts. < Thank you in advance. < $t10 Yours Sincerely, <<<< $t10 Dr.>V.>I.>Fabrikant<<< Department of Mechanical Engineering< Appendix 3 Parts of Transcript of the conversation with S.>Rakheja, September, 1990 << (In a previous conversation, Rakheja told Fabrikant that the contract "Study on liquid tanker stability", in the initial amount of $$225,000 was awarded to S.>Sankar's private company S&S Inc.) << Rakheja: .... And, apparently, what was initially awarded, was extended, to another phase, and to another phase, and so on. << Fabrikant: And it should be published, whenever it is extended too? << Rakheja: That's right, that had to be published under renewed contract, and extension came out in 1988-1989. ..................................................................... << Rakheja: Let me tell you one thing first. One minute, let me close the door. OK, I want to mention one thing. Apart from Seshadri, Tom Sankar, and myself, nobody has this information, this is well known. << ................................................................. Rakheja: OK, look, if this information is ever to be released, OK, it is going to be released in a court, not here-there, OK, simple as that. << Fabrikant: And not by me, essentially, I hope. << Rakheja: No, we will do it together in the court. << .................................................................... Rakheja: ............................ I have given you the primary source: all the other contracts are also listed in DSS (Department of Supplies and Services). If the worse comes to worst, I have given you a clear path to where get the information, DSS has everything listed. << .................................................................. Rakheja: All the government contracts are listed there. Industry ones, of course, they do not get listed there, but they are little ones. << .................................................................... Rakheja: ........... I want to give you one information, so that I am out of it, and you can build the case, just like you did not have information from me. In case ... << Fabrikant: Aha, aha. << Rakheja: You know, Audrey's (Williams) office sends out Research Bulletins every couple of months where all the awards are listed? If you have those Bulletins stored anywhere, I have them anyway, you put those against the DSS, number one. Put those against the Progress Report you have, OK? You can find out which ones are reported by the Research Office, and which ones are not reported by the Research Office, and whatever is not reported by the Research Office, is a private contract, simple as that. << Fabrikant: Aha. << Rakheja: So, I have given you a route, a simple route, so I can be out of it, you can hit your bases, and once you find that, you can always call Research Office and get the further information. << Fabrikant: Aha. << Rakheja: So, that makes it more official with me, with me, as if I am not supplying any information. << ....................................................................... Fabrikant: .......................................... But as far as Bombardier goes, how on earth would I be able to prove that the contract is awarded to a private company if, for example, here ... << Rakheja: It was reported in the Progress Report, and the Research Office has no information on it. << .................................................................. Fabrikant: ......... why would he (Swamy) support him (S.>Sankar) that way? << Rakheja: You see, it is politics. << Fabrikant: It is what? << Rakheja: It is politics. Swamy has a whole lot of meetings, Swamy wants to push something, he needs the support of certain people, he has got certain people within the faculty, who, it does not matter what Swamy wants to do, they will support him. << Fabrikant: I see. << Rakheja: So, Swamy, in return, like you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back, that kind of things. << ............................................................ Fabrikant: Now, S&S was the first one (the name of a private company founded by S.>Sankar), and the second one was SANCON or CONSAN, what was the second name? << Rakheja: OK, just a moment, please. That is Tom Sankar's? << Fabrikant: Yeah, S&S. << Rakheja: No, S&S is Seshadri Sankar. << Fabrikant: Aha, OK. << Rakheja: Second one, you were saying, was Tom Sankar's. OK, just one moment, please. << Fabrikant: OK. << Rakheja: (after a while) Hi, Valery, I am trying to find that one I showed you, here it is: CIE-TECH is another one. << ..................................................... Rakheja: That you will find in 1989 DSS issue. << ................................................... << Rakheja: ................. The other one is CANSAN, C, A, N, S, A, N. << ............................................................... < Rakheja: Look, the information you are collecting, I think, it is a good idea to have the information ... << ........................................................... Rakheja: .......................... You know, looking at the ethics itself, I feel morally obligated to expose these things. << ........................................................................... Fabrikant: OK, good. By the way, irrelevant stuff, how to make a contact with those in DSS? Because I have quite significant results in which they might be interested in. The only thing, I am kind of puzzled, I think, again, I don't know, that there must be need to give them kickbacks to get the contracts. Is this, kind of, more or less correct assumption? << Rakheja: It is, usually, the case, OK? It is very usually the case. .......................................This is usually the case. What you are saying is true: to get a contract out of CDC or DSS, this is usually the case, that you have to, kind of, make the officer, you are dealing with, kind of a partner, unofficial partner, and otherwise it does not work. As a result, what has happened, was couple of papers we published, this guy who was the delivery officer of the contract, he has not done any part of it, his name (L.>Sabounghi) was added to the paper. OK? Now, that may be one way of a deal, that we will provide your name on the publications, OK? And other than that, I am not aware of anything, if there is another part of the deal. This was possibly one part, one side of the deal, that we were supposed to put his name on the papers, which we did couple of times. < .............................................................. < Rakheja: I am kind of busy doing a big chapter for one of the books, and ... << Fabrikant: Oh, you are writing a chapter for a book! << Rakheja: Yeah, yeah, this is one of the encyclopedia. << Fabrikant: Oh, it's very good, because it is, kind of, well, it is a book contribution, it is also important. << Rakheja: Yeah, yeah, I had this invitation last year, now the deadline has come, another ten days, and I started only last week. << Fabrikant: And it will be yours, without any co-authorship? << Rakheja: Ah, unfortunately, not. The work is the same as the contract, OK, this chapter, I was invited to submit a chapter on that contract work. In the community it is seen as I am the one who is doing the work, because the publications are basically in my name, and I have been associating myself with SAE(?) Dynamics Committee where I have brought up a number of these things, and through that contact I have been recognized that I am the guy who is doing the work, and they invited me, however, the contract is in his (S.>Sankar) name, and the graduate student was a "joint" effort ... << Fabrikant: So, you have to include both of them? << Rakheja: No, no, no, just Seshadri. << Fabrikant: Just Seshadri ... << Rakheja: Yeah. << Fabrikant: At least, he goes second or he goes first? << Rakheja: No, he goes second. I don't do that any more. I don't do that any more. << Fabrikant: Yeah? << Rakheja: Second or third, that's it, but not first, if I am writing it. If a student is writing it, then OK, fine, do whatever you want to do. << .................................................................... Rakheja: ................... As a matter of fact, Ahmed has recently started working with me, OK, which Seshadri does not like it at all, OK, because, you see, Ahmed, he (S.>Sankar) was using him right and left to do odd things, OK, I told him: "What the hell you are doing?" He is a capable guy, very smart guy. Two months ago, we started a few projects jointly, took couple of students jointly, we already sent out two papers together. This summer has been productive for us, because, basically, we started working this summer. << Fabrikant: Without Seshadri? << Rakheja: Without Seshadri. << Fabrikant: He does not know about it yet? << Rakheja: He is aware of it, because whenever he came down to see us, we were together, and, kind of, discussing, and ... << Fabrikant: Yeah, but he knows that you sent out papers without him? << Rakheja: No, he does not know it. He does not come scare me any more, he knows that I do not get scared. He can't scare Ahmed, he told Ahmed: "I know, you guys are working on something, you should come and discuss with me, and we should put a joint effort". << Fabrikant: Aha. << Rakheja: So, he, kind of, indirectly sent us a message: "Ok, you guys, keep doing your work. Just mention to me, and that's enough, and put my name". << ....................................................................... Fabrikant: Well, I had a graduate student too. Who, do you think, read his thesis, and who corrected it? << Rakheja: Of course, you did, I know. So, if they (S.>and>T.S.>Sankar) have a joint supervision, second guy is always going to do it. I have done it too, OK? And they have hardly ever looked at it. ................ From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:42 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!gumby!destroyer!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Re: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part V) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.150434.6405@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:04:34 GMT Lines: 307 Appendix 4 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING November 18, 1991 TO: Dr. M. N. S. Swamy, Chairman, Faculty Personnel Committee Faculty of Engineering & Computer Science FROM: M. O. M. Osman, Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering Re: Reappointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant I am forwarding to you the dossier of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant submitted by him for consideration for reappointment. I am also attaching the reasoned report containing the recommendation of the Department Personnel Committee. encls cc: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Members of Department Personnel Committee CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Department Personnel Committee (DPC) Reasoned Report on its Recommendation concerning Reappointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Preamble: Prior to June 1990, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant was a Research Associate Professor hired under the program d'actions structurantes with research as his main workload. Upon the successful completion of d'actions structurantes program, the DPC made a positive recommendation concerning the appointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant to a tenure track position at the rank of Associate Professor, effective l June 1990. The DPC's recommendation was based mainly on Dr. Fabrikant's research performance and a limited component of teaching. Despite this recommendation and the fact that his previous contract of 1988 entitled him to use all his years of service at the university towards tenure consideration, the Vice- Rector Academic made an offer of probationary appointment with a condition that he would be eligible for tenure consideration only after three years of service from l June 1990. Our interpretation of his contract is that Dr. Fabrikant's appointment as an Associate Professor was a new appointment because the contract stated that he was only eligible for tenure after 3 years, meaning that his previous years of academic service in the University would not be counted. The fact that he applied for a Faculty Research Development Program (FRDP) grant as a new faculty researcher, confirms that he also understood that his appointment was a new appointment. In accepting the 1990 offer of appointment, Dr. Fabrikant compromised on his original demands and accepted the offer which included this major change in the condition of tenure eligibility. Since the time Dr. Fabrikant began his association with Concordia University, many members of the university community have been subjected to his allegations, offensive actions and disruptive behavior which interfered with the normal operation of their work, details of which are elaborated on in other parts of this report. Further, from the time of his probationary appointment, Dr. Fabrikant has shown a pattern of repeated attempts to evade his teaching responsibilities, the details of which are also presented later. When Dr. Fabrikant was appointed in June 1990, the DPC had made its recommendation on his previous performance which was mainly his research activity. At this time of considering Dr. Fabrikant's contract renewal, the DPC is assessing Dr. Fabrikant as an educator. It should be noted that the membership of the DPC at this time of contract renewal is the same as the membership which made the recommendation for Dr. Fabrikant's initial probationary appointment in June 1990. ASSESSMENT OF DR. FABRIKANT'S PERFORMANCE FOR HIS REAPPOINTMENT APPLICATION For the purpose of reappointment, the DPC assessed Dr. Fabrikant as per the collective agreement under Article 14 "Reappointment and Promotion of Faculty." In light of the preamble outlined above, the DPC made its assessment based mainly on Article 14.01 and in particular on the second paragraph which states, "The evaluation of full-time faculty shall be based upon the consideration of professional competence and potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities as defined in Article 16." Herein Dr. Fabrikant's professional competence and potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities will be examined in detail as follows: l. Professional Competence: While the professional competence of a professor not only includes his (her) capacity to teach and to carry out research activities, it also has bearing on his (her) ethical and moral conduct, his (her) professionalism as an academic/educator, his (her) role model for students to emulate, and his (her) ability to gain respect from students, colleagues and the public. Peer judgment is the tool with which these qualities are assessed, and the lack of these qualities, especially if they interfere with the performance of other members of the University and with the department in achieving its objectives cannot be tolerated and must be seriously taken into consideration in evaluating professional competence. Over the past several years, Dr. Fabrikant has constantly made allegations and harassments to many members of the University community. The details of these are outlined as follows: 1. A letter from the then Chairman of the Department of Mechanical Engineering to the then Vice-Rector Academic both of whom indicated certain questionable and implied individual behavior patterns of Dr. Fabrikant. (Exhibit #1). 2. Correspondence relating to Dr. V. Fabrikant and Manager, Purchasing Services. (Exhibit #2.1, 2.2). 3. Additional correspondence related to the said letter in item 2. (Exhibits #3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and #4). 4. Many persons inside and outside the university have been subjected to harassment, threats, blackmail and allegations by Dr. Fabrikant. Many of the above persons can testify to this statement. 5. Most recently, on October 14, 1991, Dr. Fabrikant wrote a letter in which he accused a faculty member of using grant funds to pay someone else to teach his assigned course. (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2, 5.3). The faculty member concerned wrote a letter indicating that Dr. Fabrikant lied and has committed slander (Exhibit #6.1, 6.2). In addition to the above, Dr. Fabrikant constantly showed bad judgment. Following is one example (Exhibit #7). Dr. Fabrikant wrote a letter dated October 2, 1991 to the Chairman of the Department in which he requested to purchase release from teaching duties, (2 courses in Dynamics for the next semester) using the FRDP grant he recently received from the university. Upon receipt of Dr. Fabrikant's letter of October 2, 1991, the Chairman of the department telephoned Dr. Fabrikant and advised him to withdraw the letter since it would reflect bad judgment on his part. Dr. Fabrikant replied "Are you trying to scare me? I am not scared. I wrote a letter, and I want a written reply". Later, he insisted again and again for an apology and continued to challenge the interpretation of the Chairman. Dr. Fabrikant, in his continual arguments to purchase release from teaching, wrote a memo on October 14, 1991 (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2, 5.3). This memo contained an unfounded accusation of a faculty member paying another person from his grant to teach a course assigned to him. Further, the memo was circulated to some members of the department without any identification of circulator. Part of this anonymously circulated material included a confidential memo from the Chairman to Dr. Fabrikant (Exhibit #8). Because of the nature of the content of the memo from Dr. Fabrikant (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2, 5.3), and the circumstances under which this memo was circulated, the Chairman convened a meeting (Exhibit #9) of senior faculty members on October 25, 1991 to discuss the content of Dr. Fabrikant's memo (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2, 5.3). The DPC's observation of the pattern of behavior of Dr. Fabrikant outlined above, was confirmed by a part of the motions passed in the meeting of the senior faculty members of the department on October 25, 1991 (Exhibit #10.1, 10.2, 10.3), which states: ". . . we perceive Dr. Fabrikant's attitude as expressed in his . . . letter to be detrimental to the . . . spirit of harmonious relationship between department members." "Therefore, we strongly urge the department and the university to stand up to such practices and to take appropriate action." Many respected and important people from outside the University have also been disturbed by Dr. Fabrikant's behavior. This has tarnished the reputation of the University. This has also interfered with the objective of the department and of the University in projecting its image of professionalism to the outside community. Dr. Fabrikant has maintained that he held professorial positions in the Soviet Union and that he was unable to get any official documents to support his claim due to the political situation that prevailed there all those years. Considering his lack of professional competence described above, it is of paramount importance that Dr. Fabrikant provide proof of his professorial positions in the U.S.S.R. and his academic credentials, especially his Ph.D. degree certificate. 2. Potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities: After considerable deliberations on Dr. Fabrikant's teaching, research, and other activities as it would be for any other professor holding a probationary appointment, the DPC focused on Dr. Fabrikant's potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities as per Article 16 of the Collective Agreement, and, in particular to teaching. Since the initial probationary appointment, Dr. Fabrikant has demonstrated lack of interest in carrying out his teaching responsibilities including engagement in, promotion and enhancement of the on-going process of curricula development of the department. Continuous attempts to evade teaching responsibilities are illustrated below: a) Continuous arguments for eligibility for sabbatical leave although he has been told repeatedly that he is not eligible. b) Demand for teaching load reduction to concentrate only on research despite the Chairman's continual reminders to him of his teaching responsibility. The Chairman has repeatedly emphasized to him that teaching is a very important responsibility of a professor and that he should not consider teaching as a hindrance to his academic pursuits. c) When he was unsuccessful in persuading the Chairman to reduce his teaching load, Dr. Fabrikant produced an undated memo (Exhibit #11), received at the Chairman's office on May 17, 1991, indicating that a Laboratory for Materials & Structures of Civil Engineering in France had offered him a visiting research position with a salary of approximately $4500.00/month. Dr. Fabrikant requested a paid leave for four months (Sept. 91-Dec. 91). The Chairman denied his request but recommended that he could make arrangements to go to France in the summer (Exhibit #12). The Chairman also suggested to Dr. Fabrikant, if he so wished, that he could take an unpaid leave. However, Dr. Fabrikant insisted that only a paid leave was acceptable, and this was refused by the Chairman. d) In order to help ease Dr. Fabrikant's teaching load, the Chairman made considerations and assigned Dr. Fabrikant two sections of the same course "Dynamics" for Winter Term 91, instead of two different courses. In spite of such considerations, however, on October 2, 1991, Dr. Fabrikant wrote a memo to the Chairman requesting to purchase release from teaching these courses with his FRDP grant (Exhibit #7). Upon receipt of this memo, the Chairman told him that this is unacceptable and if it were possible, every professor in the department could purchase release time from their courses even with money from their own pockets. The Chairman also reminded Dr. Fabrikant about Dr. Stuart Smith's recent report on teaching where it was lamented how many professors neglect the importance of teaching while placing too much emphasis on research. The reply of Dr. Fabrikant to the Chairman was "Are you trying to scare me? I am not scared. I wrote a letter and I want a written reply." The Chairman was stunned at this abnormal and illogical reply reflecting bad judgment, especially when Dr. Fabrikant did compromise at the time of his initial probationary appointment with respect to the change in the condition of his tenure eligibility. e) In spite of the Chairman's request through his memos (Exhibits #13, #14.1, and #14.2) to Dr. Fabrikant requesting him to supply further clarifications related to his teaching and to his research activity supporting the research focus of CONCAVE (Concordia Computer Aided Vehicle Engineering) Research Center as stated in his contract, Dr. Fabrikant did not respond to these memos within the given deadline. However, in another memo to the Chairman (Exhibit #15.1, 15.2), on a different subject, he described those requests in exhibits #14.1 and #14.2 as "strange letters", and then he presented his arguments in an incoherent and illogical manner. f) At a meeting on October 25, 1991, the senior faculty members of the department made a motion (Exhibit #10) which contained the following statement "We perceive the spirit of Dr. Fabrikant's above mentioned letter (letter dated October 14, 1991) as being idle arguments intended to justify his shirking of academic responsibilities, especially with reference to purchasing release of teaching time and his eligibility for sabbatical" Based upon the above considerations, and after 8 meetings on October 17, 25, 28, 30, November 4, 8, 13 and 14, 1991, lasting a total of over 30 hours of extensive deliberations, the DPC made and voted by secret ballot on the following motions: Motion 1: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant be recommended for a two year appointment from June 1, 1992 until May 3l, 1994. Motion was defeated unanimously. Motion 2: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant be recommended for a one year appointment from June l, 1992 until May 31, 1993. Motion was defeated unanimously. Motion 3: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant not be reappointed as of l June 1992. Motion passed unanimously. S. Sankar, Chairman Mo. O. M. Osman, Chairman Department Personnel Committee Dept. Mechanical Engineering S. V. Hoa, Member S. Lin, Member Department Personnel Committee Department Personnel Committee cc: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Members of DPC DPC File From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:42 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Re: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part VI) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.150522.6477@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:05:22 GMT Lines: 137 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT #1 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. J. S. Daniel, Vice-Rector, Academic FROM: T. S. Sankar, Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering DATE: August 19, 1983 ~Subject: Dr. V. Fabrikant I thank you for your prompt response to my request regarding Dr. Fabrikant's promotion to the rank of Research Associate Professor. My intention in addressing my earlier memorandum on this question to both yourself and Dean Swamy was to elicit your reaction both on the procedure (which in cases such as research faculty positions is not clearly known) and on the merit of the case. I now have your reaction and would be pleased to submit to you, through the Dean, a documented recommendation. However, I am very surprised at your suggestion that Dr. Fabrikant's implied behavior in connection with NSERC and Center for Continuing Education would have a bearing on the case. During the past 16 years of my association with this institution and in whatever small role I have been able to play to elevate the excellence of our University to gain wider recognition from outside, I was always under the impression that we took decisions on promotions, reappointments and salary merit increases purely on the basis of scholarly achievements and academic excellence rather than on the individual's behavior patterns or our (administrators') personal likes and dislikes. I hope my understanding is still valid. I do not condone the behavior of Dr. Fabrikant. At the same time, I do know that Dr. Fabrikant feels strongly that he has been treated rather unjustly by certain quarters within the University. I am not in a position to judge whether his feelings are justified. My recommendation on Dr. Fabrikant's promotion, although at the same salary (due to lack of sufficient research funds) is based purely on his merit as an extremely productive research scholar. Although there exists a large probability that he may choose to leave this University soon, he has made a sizable contribution during the past two years. I attach a rough copy of his C.V. wherein you may note that he received his Ph.D. degree in 1966 and was an Associate Professor in 1973. Also he published with us about 25 papers in the last two years out of which I would term 10 of them as truly outstanding contribution. I have also taken the liberty to enclose a few comments from outside experts on his work. My recommendation was based purely on these achievements and these alone. Further, we are on the verge of achieving a major breakthrough in the solution of a class of diffusion problems which will considerably affect the scientific thinking not only in the area of mechanics but also in environmental (ocean and air pollution) and geotechnical applications. I would like to, if I can, keep Dr. Fabrikant with us at least until we complete this study. TSS/eh cc: Dean Swamy encls EXHIBIT #2.1 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM 2 pages TO: Dr. M. Osman, Chair, Mechanical Engineering FROM: Mike Stefano, Manager, Purchasing Services DATE: June 8, 1988 "CONFIDENTIAL" SUBJECT; DR. V. FABRIKANT As you know, Dr. Fabrikant has still not approved the invoice for the Image Station he received. He has spoken to me about returning the Imagen (with no restocking charges) on the basis that Ahearn and Soper was late in delivering it. I told him that normally we could not cancel an order once it was received. When he would not believe me I referred him to Paul Dufour, Concordia's Legal Counsel, who confirmed what I had said. Since that time Dr. Fabrikant has been insisting that I produce a "legal quotation" that will prove that he can't cancel the order. According to Mr. Dufour, the law is not that obviously written and it would require at least a course in elementary business law for Dr. Fabrikant to interpret it properly. Neither the supplier nor myself and willing to wait that long and if this situation persists much longer, the University will be facing a lawsuit. I've enclosed copies of all correspondence, with the hope that you will take the steps necessary to have the bill paid. Also, this is not the first problem I've had with Dr. Fabrikant, who seems determined to see the inside of a courtroom. I am considering refusing to process any future purchase requests without a co-signature, but would like some advice from you first. Could you let me know where things stand? MS/cb Encl: EXHIBIT #2.2 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS Montreal, June 27, 1988 Mr. M. Stefano Manager Purchasing Services Concordia University Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Dear Mr. Stefano, I believe, you are aware of the Pentagon scandal brewing in Washington. I am not interested in starting a similar scandal in our University, but if the harassment does not stop, I shall have no choice but to go public. If I do not hear from you immediately that the printer is taken back, and the matter is closed, all the documents will be sent to the student newspapers and other Montreal media who might be interested to investigate. Sincerely yours, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Department of Mechanical Engineering 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:43 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part VII) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.150643.6558@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:06:43 GMT Lines: 289 EXHIBIT #3.1 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Mo. O. M. Osman, Chair, Mechanical Engineering FROM: Mike Stefano, Manager, Purchasing Services DATE: July 4, 1988 SUBJECT; AHEARN AND SOPER - DR. FABRIKANT As the attached letter from Ahearn and Soper states, Dr. Fabrikant's refusal to pay the bill for the Imagen Image Station has resulted in Concordia University being put on credit hold. Ahearn and Soper will not be honoring service calls affecting at least 13 Printronix printers we have on contract as well as a number of other units where service is on an "on call" basis. There is no valid reason for this bill to be outstanding. Legal Counsel has confirmed this. Dr. Fabrikant's refusal to honor his commitments to a supplier will now inconvenience several other faculties and departments. Both you and Dr. Fancott have been involved in this and while I appreciate the efforts you both have made in trying to persuade Dr. Fabrikant to pay the bill, it appears as though ultimately he will have to be forced. MS/cb c.c. Dr. T. Fancott Dr. M. N. S. Swamy AHEARN & SOPER INC. EXHIBIT #3.2 June 29, 1988 Concordia University 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd., W., Montreal, PQ H3G lM8 ATTENTION; MR. MIKE STEPHANO, MANAGER OF PURCHASING YOUR P.O. # S-58711 OUR INVOICE #42150 DATED APRIL 28/88 for $8,401.72 Dear Mr. Stephano: We regret to have to bring to your attention that payment on our above referenced invoice is over due. Our Terms of Sale is strictly Net 30 Days. Our Company's Policy, is that if a payable is over 60 days without a justifiable reason the Customer is put on "CREDIT HOLD" for Goods and Service. According to investigations as there is no cause to withhold payment, Concordia University is now officially on "CREDIT HOLD". Attached also is our Invoice No.#PI-7 for interest charges for 30 days amounting to $154.16. We also take this opportunity to thank you for your patronage, and trust that the payment problem will be finalized next week. Yours truly, AHEARN & SOPER INC. Pat Pickering, Credit Manager Encl. PP/hdp EXHIBIT #3.3 AHEARN & SOPER INC. INVOICE Sold to: Shipped to: 245 Concordia University Concordia University 2100 Bishop 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, PQ Montreal, PQ H3G lM8 H3G lM8 ATTN: MIKE STEPHANO, MANAGER OF PURCHASING Our order No. 8-01808 Customer Order No. S58711 Invoice No. PI-7 Invoice date June 30/88 Description: WITH REFERENCE TO INVOICE #42150 dated APR. 28/88 INTEREST CHARGES AT 2% for JUNE: $154.16 EXHIBIT #4 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Mechanical Engineering FROM: Mike Stefano, Manager, Purchasing Services DATE: June 28, 1988 SUBJECT; DR. V. I. FABRIKANT I'm afraid I've had more than enough. I've answered all of Dr. Fabrikant's questions, including providing a copy of Quebec's Civil Code. Mr. Dufour has explained the situation to him as well, but there seems to be no end in sight as to what Dr. Fabrikant wants. When Ahearn and Soper agreed to install the unit no charge, he countered with a demand for a one year warranty. (A & S won't do that. The warranty is 90 days). He told me he would pay the bill if you told him to. He then told you he'd pay the bill if the Rector told him to. It appears that he will continue to escalate his demands at every opportunity. I enclose the latest correspondence and reiterate that I have ceased to be involved in this order. I have neither the time nor the patience to research the law to prove what is a standard, accepted business practice. Ahearn and Soper also advised me this morning that they will be sending a final notice of payment, after which they will be taking legal action. MS/cb c.c. Mr. J. P. Dufour Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Dr. T. Fancott EXHIBIT #5.1 SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS 3 pages Montreal, October 14, 1991 Dr. M. O. M. Osman Chairman Department of Mechanical Engineering Concordia University Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Re: Your letter of October 9, 1991 accusing me of illegal solicitation One may argue that the grant received should be spent according to the submitted budget. This makes sense when the amount received equals to the amount requested (as it happened with my grant from NASA), and it does not make sense when the amount received is less than half of the amount requested (as it happened with the FRDP grant). In this situation every grant recipient has to think how to make the best use of the money received. First of all, I have checked, if there was any Concordia Policy document regulating allowable expenses for FRDP. There is none. In this situation it is logical to consult similar documents of NSERC and FCAR as well as Collective Agreement. The NSERC document states explicitly that the grant recipient is not bound neither by the proposal nor by the budget, and may change one or both freely. the FCAR document lists the expense for purchase of time release from teaching duties (degagement d'enseignement) as an allowable expense (Chapter 2, Art. 47). I have been informed that Dr. T. S. Sankar paid to another person from his grant for teaching the course assigned to Dr. T. S. Sankar. You would not believe that Dr. T. S. Sankar could do something illegal or immoral, would you? My colleague from Tufts University regularly uses his grant to purchase release from teaching duties, and he told me that this was widely used practice in the US universities. Our Collective Agreement (Art. 8.16.e) also declares legal the purchase of release time (course remission) by Association; (Art. 16.14) makes it legal for any member, with prior consent of the Chair and the Dean. My letter of October 2, 1991, did just that: your consent was requested. Your response (Re: above) stating that purchasing the release from teaching duties "is illegal and not permitted under any circumstances" is misleading, it contradicts to the facts stated above. It has to be officially withdrawn, and an apology is in order. In the second paragraph of your letter you write: "For this reason, I am requesting you to give ... a detailed Report for your future teaching goals..." linking this to reappointment procedure. Your letter does not give any logical connection between my letter of October 2 and the reappointment procedure. During our telephone conversation, you have told me that my letter proves that I hate teaching. This is wrong: using this logic you should accuse anyone applying for Steacie (or any other similar) Fellowship, anyone applying for a sabbatical leave, anyone taking Doctoral seminar as a teaching load, etc. The normal logic has always considered release from teaching duties as an honor, as a recognition by the university of the importance of someone's research (or other services). In my letter of October 2, 1991, I have asked for such an honor because I strongly believed that I deserved it. There was nothing improper in my letter of October 2, 1991, and I still stand behind every word in it. One can not be very successful in doing a job which s/he hates. I love teaching, and it consistently shows in the students' evaluations. The latest DPC evaluation is of the same opinion. Here is the relevant quotation: DPC of the Department of Mechanical Engineering strongly recommends to the FPC as well as to the VR Academic that Professor Fabrikant be awarded the highest possible extra points, as specified in the Collective Agreement, after comparison with other engineering and university faculty performances. The DPC believes that Professor Fabrikant deserves a final SPS point value of 3.0 I was voted the best teacher back in the USSR, and you may be assured that the quality of my teaching performance will never deteriorate. Art. 14 of Collective Agreement does not require any "Report on future teaching goals", but since you have requested it, here it is. After 12 years of continuous service, with practically no vacations, I plan to go on sabbatical leave, during which I intend to start writing of my third book and continue developing the new graduate course "Contact Mechanics". In the more distant future, two more graduate courses are to be developed. The first one will be a course on "Linear Fracture Mechanics", with emphasis on mathematical apparatus involved, which will be complementary to the existing course "Fracture". The second one will be a specialized course "Mechanics of Rolling Contact", addressed to the needs of CONCAVE graduate students, with emphasis on rail-wheel and tire- road interaction. A laboratory for modelling of these interactions would be very helpful, but this realization depends on the availability of funds. I am of opinion that an upgrading and updating is needed to the existing course of "Applied Elasticity". Right now, it is based on the book by Timoshenko and, therefore, on the results of that time. It should be modified by including recent results in the field, especially, in three-dimensional elasticity, mixed and mixed-mixed problems, etc. A similar upgrading would be recommended to the course on modelling of physical phenomena, which I would rename "Mathematical Physics", and which would demonstrate various analogies between electromagnetics, acoustics, heat transfer, diffusion, fluid mechanics, etc. Majority of students think about these disciplines being very different from one another, and it seems extremely important to show just how many, sometimes unexpected, similarities exist. Some updating is needed to the engineering mathematics courses, for example, introduction of tensor analysis seems to be very useful. In the field of undergraduate teaching my main concern is that our methodology have not changed significantly in centuries (the same chalk and blackboard). It seems useful to introduce more "hands-on" science. For example, in teaching of statics and dynamics it would be more instructive to have physical models corresponding to various problems, which students could see and touch and "play" with it by changing parameters, dimensions, loading, etc. Of course, physical models are expensive, so yet another approach might be useful: instead of building physical models, we can use computer graphics to create these models on the screen, with numerous options to "play" with. Quite some time ago, I have created one such computer graphics model for studies of free and forced vibrations, with damping. Not only all the parameters and the initial conditions could be prescribed arbitrarily, but any of the parameters could be changed interactively in the process of vibrations. Nobody was interested in using the model then, so I dropped it. I still believe that the approach will prove useful. Other interesting ideas might come up in process of discussions with other faculty members. Back in the USSR, my engineering class has had between 30% and 40% of female students, and about 20% of faculty were female. Here, the situation is alarmingly abnormal. I think, that one of the reasons is the perception that engineering is the "men's club". We need to change it, and our activity should start not at the university level but at high school. We should arrange meetings with high school students, with participation of female graduate students, who could tell their own stories to the children and to convince them that engineering is both interesting and accessible. Significant increase in female undergraduate and graduate student population will inevitably result in increase of the proportion of female faculty members. Dr. V. I. Fabrikant cc: Dr. R. Sheinin, Vice-Rector, Academic; Dean M. N. S. Swamy; Members. From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:43 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!uunet!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part IIX) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.170720.9436@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 17:07:20 GMT Lines: 163 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT #6.1 2 pages October 24, l991 Dr. M. O. M. Osman Chair Department of Mechanical Engineering SGW Campus - H 929 ~Subject: Special Closed Meeting - Friday, October 25, 1991 Dear Dr. Osman: Thank you for your prompt response to my memo of October 22, 1991 to you and for your courtesy of sending me a copy of the material referred therein. I am deeply disturbed that my name has been used with malicious intent in the letter dated October 14, 1991 written by Dr. V. I. Fabrikant to you with copies distributed to Dr. R. Sheinin, Dean M. N. S. Swamy and to many others identified as "Members". I did not receive a copy and I believe it was intentional. I am more incensed at the allegation that has been made in the said letter by Dr. Fabrikant against me. His statement is slanderous and an outright lie. He has clearly violated the governing principles stated under item 2 of section 17.1.1 on Rights and Responsibilities in the Concordia University Undergraduate Calendar 1991-92. Through this letter, I am lodging a formal complaint to Dr. R. Sheinin, Dr. M. N. S. Swamy, the University Code administrator and you to take immediate disciplinary action against Dr. V. I. Fabrikant for slander. As you and my colleagues fully know, I consider shirking of teaching responsibilities as an improper conduct for a member of Concordia's professoriate. In my 23 years of service in this University, I have taken particular pride in my dedication to promote excellence in teaching and have pursued it vigorously in our Department during my tenure as its Chair for 11 years. I have tried to set an example with my own teaching performance and both you and the Dean are fully aware of this. My selection as the recipient of the coveted John O'Brien Distinguished Teaching Award at the 1985 Convocation and the fact that at least 8 members of the present Departmental faculty, who have been past students in my courses, can vouch about the seriousness with which I take my teaching responsibilities, are some of the reasons why I cannot allow Dr. Fabrikant's malicious allegation to go unchallenged. You are free to use this letter in any forum you see fit and this includes open circulation. Yours sincerely, T. S. Sankar cc: Dr. R. Sheinin, Vice Rector, Academic Dr. M. N. S. Swamy, Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Mr. H. John Relton, Code Administrator EXHIBIT #7 SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS Montreal, October 2, 1991 Dr. M. O. M. Osman Chairman Department of Mechanical Engineering Concordia University Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Dear Dr. Osman, I have received recently small ($7,000) grant from the University. This amount is much smaller than the one requested, and no research assistant can be hired, so I shall have to do the huge research program myself. It would be extremely helpful in this regard, if I could use this money to purchase the release from teaching duties (two courses in Dynamics) for the next semester. Kindly let me know if you could support this request, and if yes, what is the procedure to follow. Thank you in advance. Yours sincerely, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Department of Mechanical Engineering 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT #8 Department of Mechanical Engineering URGENT & CONFIDENTIAL TO: Dr. V. Fabrikant FROM: M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering DATE: October 9, 1991 Re: Your letter dated October 2, 1991 requesting release from teaching in winter semester 1992. As mentioned to you in my telephone conversation on October 7, 1991, your request for release from teaching duties (2 courses in Dynamics) during Winter semester 1992 is not acceptable, and therefore will not be recommended to the Dean. The grant you received from Concordia University must be used for the research project indicated in your application for the grant received; otherwise the fund must be returned to the university. To "purchase the release from teaching duties" as you wrote in your letter to me dated October 2, 1991 is illegal and not permitted under any circumstances. For this reason, I am requesting you to give in writing before October 15 (Deadline for application for re-appointment) a detailed Report for your future teaching goals and your plan to enhance and develop the undergraduate and graduate curriculum in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in your area of expertise. cc: Dean M. N. S. Swamy, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Members, DPC, Department of Mechanical Engineering File CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT #9 Department of Mechanical Engineering DATE: October 18, 1991 FROM: M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering SUBJECT: SPECIAL CLOSED MEETING The DPc of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at its meeting on Thursday, October 17, 1991 has requested a special closed meeting of senior members of the department. DATE: Friday, October 25, 1991 TIME: 4:00 P.M. PLACE: Room H929-23 The purpose of the meeting is to discuss a memo dated October 14, 1991 addressed to "Dr. M. O. M. Osman, Chairman of the Department of Mechanical Engineering" signed "Dr. V. I. Fabrikant", and "copies to Dr. R. Sheinin, Vice Rector, Academic, Dean M. N. S. Swamy, Members". Distribution: R.B. Bhat, A.E. Black, R.M.H. Cheng, W.G. Habashi, F.D. Hamblin, S.V. Hoa, K.I. Krakow, T. Krepec, S. Lin, H. McQueen, R.A. Neemeh, M.O.M. Osman, S. Rakheja, A.J. Saber, S. Sankar, T.S. Sankar, J. Svoboda, G. H. Vatistas, G.D. Xistris. cc: Dean M.N.S. Swamy From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:43 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!uunet!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part IX) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.170817.9532@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 17:08:17 GMT Lines: 231 EXHIBIT #10.1 3 pages MEETING OF SENIOR FACULTY MEMBERS OF DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING October 25, 1991 at 4:15 P.M. in Room H907-4 Present: M. O. M. Osman, Chair R. B. Bhat A. E. Blach R. M. H. Cheng W. G. Habashi S. V. Hoa T. Krepec (left halfway to teach class) S. Lin H. J. McQueen R. A. Neemeh S. Rakheja A. J. Saber S. Sankar J. Svoboda G. H. Vatistas G. D. Xistris l. The Meeting started at 4:15 p.m. 2. A recording secretary was nominated, seconded and elected unanimously. 3. It was agreed unanimously that only formal motions be recorded and that all other discussion of "off-the-record", unless specifically requested. 4. Chair explained that the meeting would discuss only the memo of Dr. F. Fabrikant, dated October 14, 1991 which had been anonymously circulated. 5. The Chair, as member of the DPC, sought advice of senior faculty on: l) the ethical aspects regarding circulation of Dr. Fabrikant's memo dated October 14, 1991, without identification of the sender. 2) Dr. T. S. Sankar's memo to the Chair dated October 24, 1991 stating that the statements made about him in Dr. Fabrikant's memo dated October 14, 1991 are slanderous. 6. Motion l: With respect to Dr. Fabrikant's memo of October 14, 1991, the charges relating to Dr. T. S. Sankar should be referred to the University Code Administrator. Moved and seconded. After discussion carried with one abstention. 7. Motion 2: Senior Faculty members of the Department of Mechanical Engineering deplore that a confidential letter was circulated without indication as to who circulated it. Moved and seconded. Passed with one vote against the motion. 8. Motion 3: "Whereas, the success of the Mechanical Engineering Department has traditionally been built around the harmonious relationship between its various members and the Chair," "whereas, we strongly disagree with many of the arguments and intentions expressed in Dr. Fabrikant's letter of October 14, 1991 to the Chair," "whereas, we perceive the spirit of Dr. Fabrikant's above- mentioned letter as being idle arguments intended to justify his shirking of academic responsibilities, especially with reference to purchasing release of teaching time and his eligibility for sabbatical," "whereas, we perceive Dr. Fabrikant's attitude as expressed in his above-mentioned letter to be detrimental to the above- mentioned spirit of harmonious relationship between department members," "therefore, we strongly urge the Department and the University to stand up to such practices and to take appropriate action." Moved and seconded. Motion carried with one abstention. 9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. The above Minutes signed by: M.O.M. Osman R.B. Bhat A.E. Black R.M.H. Cheng W.G. Habashi S.V. Hoa T. Krepec S. Lin H.J. McQueen R.A. Neemeh S. Rakheja A.J. Saber S. Sankar J. Svoboda G.H. Vatistas G.D. Xistris EXHIBIT #11 D. Maugis Dr. V. I. Fabrikant L.C.P.C./C.N.R.S. Depart. of Engng. 58 Bd Lefebvre Concordia University 75732 Paris Cedex 15 Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Fax (33-1)40.43.54.99 Dear Dr. Fabrikant, I have received the answer for your visiting stay. I can propose you four months from September to December 1991, with about 25,000 F per month. Are you still interested? I have solved the problem of the JKR.DMT transition using a Dugdale model, but there are certainly interesting related topics to study. Yours sincerely, D. Maugis EXHIBIT #12 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. V. Fabrikant, Department of Mechanical Engineering FROM: M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering DATE: July 11, 1991 RE: Your Memo dated June 26, 1991: Request for leave with pay to visit the Laboratory for Materials and Structures of Civil Engineering (CNRS) Paris, France for four months, September 1 to December 31, 1991. Further to my telephone conversation with you on July 9, 1991 on the above subject, I regret I cannot recommend a leave at full pay to take up what appears to be a salaried position at another institution. It would seem that the summer period would be a more suitable time for this visit since the letter of invitation does not seem to suggest any urgency. cc: Dean Swamy CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT #13 Department of Mechanical Engineering URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL DATE: October 15, 1991 TO: Dr. V. Fabrikant FROM: M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering I have not yet received a response to my memo to you dated October 9, 1991 requesting you to give in writing before October 15 (deadline for application for re-appointment) a detailed Report for your future teaching goals and your plan to enhance and develop the undergraduate and graduate curriculum in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in your area of expertise. If I do not receive this response from you by 5 p.m. on October 15, 1991, I will assume that you are not intending to respond. encl. cc: Members of DPC, Department of MEchanical Engineering Dean M. N. S. Swamy, Faculty of Engineering & Computer Science CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT #14.1 Department of Mechanical Engineering URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL DATE: October 15, 1991 TO: Dr. V. Fabrikant FROM: M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering SUBJECT; YOUR DOSSIER REGARDING RE-APPOINTMENT Further to my memo to you dated October 9, 1991 requesting you to give in writing a detailed report for your future teaching goals and your plan to enhance and develop the undergraduate and graduate curriculum in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in your area of expertise, I have reviewed your dossier for reappointment as per Article 14.01 of the Collective Agreement for general criteria for reappointment which states "that the evaluation of full-time faculty shall be based upon the consideration of professional competence and potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities as defined in Article 16." Consequently I am requesting you to furnish in writing the following information before 5 p.m. on Friday, October 18, 1991. 1) Since the date of your appointment (June l, 1990) as Tenure Track Associate Professor in the Department of MEchanical Engineering, what is the percentage of time you have allocated to teaching activities versus research activities? This is important to the DPC (Department Personnel Committee) in determining your level of commitment to teaching as an educator in the Department versus research activities. 2) Your beliefs and convictions towards your duties as a teacher versus researcher in taking up the duties of your position. 3) A mission statement on how you foresee your future contributions to the department in general and towards development of the quality of teaching and dissemination of knowledge to our undergraduate and graduate students. cc: Members of the DPC Dean Swamy From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:44 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part X) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.170945.9619@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 17:09:45 GMT Lines: 219 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT #14.2 Department of Mechanical Engineering URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL DATE: October 15, 1991 TO: Dr. V. Fabrikant FROM: M.O.M. Osman, Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering SUBJECT; DOSSIER FOR RE-APPOINTMENT As indicated in the letter sent to you by Vice-Rector Academic Dr. Rose Sheinin dated December 4, 1990, offering you a probationary appointment at Concordia University, which you accepted in your letter of December 11, 1990, it was stated: "Please note that your future research activity should be directed to support the research focus of the CONCAVE Research Centre". For this purpose please provide me in writing with a summary of your research activity since June 1, 1990, explaining in detail how your research activity up until now has been directed to support the research focus of the CONCAVE Research Centre. Please furnish the above information before 5 p.m. on Friday, October 18, 1991. cc: Members of the DPC Dean Swamy EXHIBIT #15.1 2 pages SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS Montreal, October 26, 1991 Dr. M. O. M. Osman Chairman Department of Mechanical Engineering Concordia University Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Re: Your refusal to accept my application for promotion Instead of quoting my previous contract, which stipulates that the years served as Research Associate Professor should be counted for promotion consideration, I enclose a copy of the document signed by you, with the same quotation. This proves that you were very well aware of this provision of my contract when you returned my application for promotion. According to my contract and the Collective Agreement, I am now in my seventh year of applicable service, and I am eligible to apply for promotion to the rank of Full Professor. My previously submitted documents are herewith returned. According to Collective Agreement, the decision concerning this application should come not from you but from DPC. I enclose also a copy of the document, signed by T. S. Sankar, a part of which you might find beneficial for you to read. I have also received your three strange letters, all dated October 15, 1991. In the first one you claim that you had not yet received my response to your letter dated October 9, 1991, and this is strange because I put my response myself in your mail box. I am still waiting for your apology. In your second letter you ask question on how my research supported the research focus of CONCAVE Research Center, and this is strange too, because not only you know the answer (my program of research was discussed with you and Dr. S. Sankar, and it was orally approved; see attached my memo of December 9, 1990), but also you did your best of prevent me in this regard when you refused me the permission to accept the scientific exchange award tenable at the Laboratory of Roads and Bridges of the Ministry of Transport of FRance this year. Your reasoning was strange: you have told me that the remuneration (about $4,500 per month) was too big. You pretended not to understand that it was an indication of just how valuable my French colleagues considered my results in the field. CONCAVE would have benefited from this visit too, because the Laboratory is doing interesting research on pavement damage. Recent grant from NASA is yet another strong indication that I am on the right track. The third letter is the most bizarre: someone's potential should be judged not on promises and beliefs, but on facts, in my case, my previous teaching and research record. My whole life of teaching and research (about 30 years by now) is the best mission statement one can make. V. I. Fabrikant cc: Dr. R. Sheinin, Vice-Rector, Academic; Dr. M. N. S. Swamy, Dean; DPC Members. Appendix 5 SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS Montreal, November 24, 1991 Dr. M.N.S. Swamy Chairman, FPC Concordia University Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Dear Dr. Swamy, Regretfully, the content of the DPC Reasoned Report is not consistent with the requirements of the Collective Agreement (Art. 14.01 and 14.02) which require evaluation of my professional competence in teaching and research. The relevant section of the Report is devoted to the history of my purchasing a printer and the like, which has nothing to do with professional competence. The same can be said about the second section 'Potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities', its content is also completely non- academic. On the other hand, the proper academic evaluation of my work has been done quite recently (April-July, 1991) at all levels of this University, with the final of 3.0 points (see attached Document 1 and Doc. 2). Document 1 was signed by the same 4 Members of the DPC, and they have found my work in teaching, research and service to be 'excellent'. No explanation to such extraordinary discrepancy between the Reasoned Report and Doc. l was given so far. I strongly believe that the DPC reasoned report should be rejected as irrelevant. This does not mean that personal qualities of a professor are irrelevant, and that a bad person should be tolerated in this University, not at all, but this aspect is not in the DPC jurisdiction, this is the domain of the Code of Conduct (Non-Academic). It allows suspension of any (even tenured) member for serious personal misconduct. I would encourage anyone, who feels that my personal qualities are detrimental to the Department and/or University, to file an official complaint with the Code Administrator, Mr. J. Relton. Academic matters. The collective Agreement (Art. 14.02) mentions fulfillment of any special requirement in the contract. My contract stipulated that my research should be directed 'towards the focus of CONCAVE Research Center'. Attached Document 3 indicates written approval of my research for 1989-1990, the Document 4 was orally approved by both Drs. Osman and S. Sankar for the years 1990-1993. After receiving a grant from NASA, a temporary change in the subject of research was reported to an approved by Dr. S. Sankar (Doc. 5) I have also been awarded in 1991 by the National Research Council of France a prestigious scientific exchange award 'Poste Rouge' which I was not allowed to accept (see collage of three messages on Doc. 6; see also part c on page 4 of the DPC Report where the whole matter is intentionally misinterpreted). So, the special requirement of my contract was fulfilled completely. All other aspects of my academic achievements are given in the previously submitted dossier. Non-Academic matters. Though the personal allegations made by DPC are irrelevant to the reappointment as such, I take this opportunity to clarify their falsehood. General remark: in the Preamble, the DPC spends much space to prove that I am a new professor, in order to discount my previous achievements, on the other hand, it goes back to 1983 to count all 'incidents'. 1) The exhibit #1 refers to the incident when the teacher in my French class smoked in the classroom, and I asked her to stop. I was right in my request, and I was vindicated when the University in the out-of-court settlement has agreed to pay for my French classes elsewhere. My promotion which followed right after that incident is yet another indication that I was right. 2) In the purchase of a printer I also was right. The best proof of it is the final agreement with the University where all my reasonable conditions are met (Doc. 7). I did not purchase the printer for myself, I have purchased it for the University, and I demanded the conditions which every competitor of Ahearn and Soper was glad to meet, and I was amazed that instead of support from the university officials, I encountered a strong opposition. The university had many millions of business with that company while others were much more competitive. 3) All the above was well known to the Department. It did not prevent them to recommend me for the Merit Award (Doc. 8) and for promotion in 1989 (Doc. 9 and Doc. 10), as well as the recommendation for the tenure-track position (Doc. 11). The paragraph 4, page 3 of the DPC Report states that "Many respected and important people from outside the University have also been disturbed by Dr. Fabrikant's behavior." No proof was provided, on the contrary, Doc. 9 and 10 contain quite favorable opinions, and I can produce many more if requested. 4) My Memo of October 2 (Exhibit #7) was a harmless inquiry whether the purchase of release time was possible since I knew that Dr. T. S. Sankar did it. Dr. Osman phoned me and demanded me to withdraw the letter and threatened to recommend termination of my contract if I did not. This was a provocation, and responded accordingly. In my Memo of October 14 I did not continue demanding release from teaching duties. All what I did there, was explanation that there was nothing wrong with my previous inquiry (Exhibit #7). My Memo was not distributed anonymously, since it clearly indicates Department members as recipients. The confidential letter was addressed to me, so I had the right to distribute it. 5) I am most shocked by Exhibit #10. First of all, I was convicted in absentia, which goes against natural or any other system of justice. Honest things should be done in the open. One of the motions correctly refers the matter to the Code Administrator. The fact that no official complaint has been filed so far neither by Dr. T. S. Sankar, nor by the Department is the strongest indication that my information was true. I challenge once again anyone who feels that I did something wrong to file an official complaint. This would give me the opportunity to defend myself. The trial by rumors and innuendo, to which I have been subjected for a long time, should end. Yours sincerely, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:44 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part XI) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.171041.9680@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 17:10:41 GMT Lines: 126 Department of Mechanical Engineering 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Tel. (514) 848-3159 FAX: (514) 848-3494 Bitnet address ccyfk56@vax2.concordia.ca CONFIDENTIAL DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REASONED REPORT ON SALARY PROGRESSION STEPS 1989-91 The DPC has studied the teaching, research and service dossier submitted by Professor V. Fabrikant and has evaluated his performance to be very good. Accordingly, the DPC unanimously recommends that Professor Fabrikant be awarded a Salary Progression Step of 2.3. The DPC recognizes the excellent work and high performance of Professor Fabrikant; however, because the number of points allotted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering is limited, to be fair to other excellent colleagues the DPC were only able to recommend a maximum of 2.3 points which is the highest SPS awarded to any faculty member in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Therefore the DPC of the Department of Mechanical Engineering strongly recommends to the FPC as well as to the VR Academic that Professor Fabrikant be awarded the highest possible extra points, as specified in the Collective Agreement, after comparison with other engineering and university faculty performances. The DPC believes that Professor Fabrikant deserves a final SPS point value of 3.0 as follows: T 0.2 x 3 = 0.6 R 0.7 x 3 = 2.1 S 0.1 x 3 = 0.3 3.0 cc: Professor V. Fabrikant Page 2) DPC Salary Progression Steps Consideration 1989-91 S. Sankar, Chairman, DPC M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Dept. Mech. Engr. S. V. Hoa, Member, DPC S. Lin, Member,/DPC April 5, l991 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Rose Sheinin, Vice Rector, Academic FROM: Faculty Personnel Committee, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science DATE: May 14, 1991 RE: Performance Evaluation - 1989/90 and 1990/91 The faculty Personnel Committee for the FAculty of Engineering and Computer Science have met to consider Performance Evaluation for faculty members for the years 1989/90 and 1990-91 as per Article 20 of the Collective Agreement. The Faculty Personnel Committee recommends that V. Fabrikant of the Department of Mechanical Engineering receive 0.4 of a point in addition to 2.3 recommended by the DPC, bringing the total number of points to 2.7 for Salary Progression Steps. Attached you will find a copy of the Department Personnel Committee's report. for the Faculty Personnel Committee encl. cc.: V. Fabrikant Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering Personnel File Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY January 20, 1989 Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Research Associate Professor Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Concordia University Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8 Dear Dr. Fabrikant: I acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated January 13, 1989. As we have discussed in our earlier meetings, I confirm my approval of your proposed research program for the academic year 1988-90. I wish to encourage you to communicate to me the research results as you progress in your work. I wish to send my best wishes for the New Year and for a productive year. Yours sincerely, Dr. Seshadri Sankar Professor and Director CONCAVE Research Center SS/az cc. Dean Swamy Dr. M. O. M. Osman, Chair, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering Sir George Williams Campus Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:45 1992 Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!gjnelson From: gjnelson@ee.umn.edu (Grad student Greg Nelson) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part LXIX) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.180851.14861@news2.cis.umn.edu> Date: 24 Aug 92 18:08:51 GMT References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.171041.9680@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@news2.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration) Organization: Electrical Engineering, U of MN, Mpls. Lines: 3 Nntp-Posting-Host: ee.umn.edu Dr. V. Fabrikant: Please quit cluttering up this topic with all this crap. Perhaps you got a raw deal at Concordia. Deal with it! From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:45 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!rpi!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: A question of attitude (was Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part LXIX) ) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.200820.14330@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.171041.9680@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.180851.14861@news2.cis.umn.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 20:08:20 GMT In article <1992Aug24.180851.14861@news2.cis.umn.edu> gjnelson@ee.umn.edu (Grad student Greg Nelson) writes: >Dr. V. Fabrikant: >Please quit cluttering up this topic with all this crap. >Perhaps you got a raw deal at Concordia. Deal with it! > Remember: Someday you may get the same raw deal from the same people, or others. It is an attitude like yours which enables them to do it. Dov From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:45 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!rpi!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part XII) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.201357.14570@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 20:13:57 GMT SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS Montreal, December 9, 1990 Dr. M. O. M. Osman Chairman Department of Mechanical Engineering Concordia University Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Dear Dr. Osman, Please find enclosed my research program for 1990-1993. Since the offer of probationary appointment indicates specifically that my research should support the research focus of the CONCAVE Research Center, I would like to have your confirmation that the proposed program does support that research focus, prior to accepting the offer. I should be grateful to receive your approval of the program. Thank you in advance. Yours sincerely, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Department of Mechanical Engineering 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Tel. (514) 848-3159 FAX: (514) 848-3494 Bitnet address ccyfk56@vax2.concordia.ca Program of research 1990-1993 The mandate of the CONCAVE Research Center consists of two parts: fundamental research and applied research. My research during past five years (1985-1990) was concentrated on the fundamental part of the research mandate. One book and over 50 research papers have been published in the past 5 years in the world leading journals in the following fields: solid mechanics (contact and crack problems), CAD, computer graphics, electromagnetics, acoustics, diffusion, and applied mathematics. The proposed research will continue to be of fundamental nature, with applications not limited to the vehicle design, but to other branches of engineering science as well. The specific fields of research comprise elastic contact and crack problems, electromagnetics, and the relevant numerical methods. Yet another book is to be published in 1992 which will include my results in electromagnetics, acoustics, and diffusion (about 450 pages). A more detailed description of the proposed research follows. Contact Mechanics. The new method of solving mixed boundary value problems will be applied to obtaining of the complete solution for the bonded punch problem. This solution will be used to investigate various interactions of concentrated and distributed loads inside the elastic half-space with the punch. Similar problems are to be solved for a smooth punch. The cases of smooth and bonded punches give us the upper and the lower bounds for any real contact mechanics problem, and this is why they are so important to investigate. Introduction of two new potential functions allows us to derive a new type of governing integral equation for annular punch. In the case of flat centrally loaded and inclined punches, a compete solution can be obtained in terms of iterated kernel. A quick convergence of the process can be established by using various numerical techniques. Some simple asymptotic solutions will be obtained for the limiting cases of a very thin and a very thick annular punch. The size of error of those solutions will be verified by comparison with accurate numerical solutions. Fracture Mechanics. Existing solutions usually consider the case of symmetric loading of crack faces. A much more difficult problem of antisymmetric loading can now be solved exactly and in closed form. A complete solution to the problem opens the door to consideration of various interaction problems between cracks, as well as external loads with cracks. Two important cases to be considered, namely, penny-shaped crack and external circular crack. A simple superposition of symmetric and antisymmetric loadings solves the problem of one-sided crack deformation, which was not considered before. A new technique is to be applied to a long-standing problem of an annular crack. So far, only axisymmetric case have been considered in the literature. Now we can solve the problem in all its generality. The new type of two-dimensional governing integral equation can be derived, with an elementary kernel. Since the kernel is non-singular, a standard numerical technique becomes applicable. The stress intensity factors becomes expressible in terms of the introduced stress functions. Electromagnetics. A generalization of the new method for toroidal coordinates becomes possible with a discovery of a relevant integral representation for the reciprocal of the distance between two points in the traditional form through the y-functions. The use of toroidal coordinates allows us to treat new geometries in a simple and accurate manner. Among those we can name the case of interaction between charged spherical caps which are located arbitrarily in space. Spherical coordinates allow us to consider only the case of concentric spherical caps. A solution to the fundamental problem of interaction between a point charge and a spherical cap gives us the necessary Green's function for integral representation of general solution to problems of various charge distributions. Yet another application of the new method is consideration of the Dirichlet and the Neumann problems for a circular annulus disk. Various generalizations of the problems in spherical and toroidal coordinates are to be considered. Numerical methods. All the above problem require development of new numerical techniques for evaluation of two- dimensional singular integrals over arbitrary curved surface. The main difficulty here is accurate estimation of the integral in a small vicinity of the singularity. The most complicated is the case when the boundary singularity overlaps with the singularity due to the reciprocal of the distance between two points. There is nothing in the literature so far on this subject. The second important problem is computer evaluation of the finite part of a two-dimensional hypersingular integral. This kind of integrals is encountered in various crack problems. Its solution would make it possible an accurate solution to the deformation problem of a crack of general shape. Here is a tentative content of my book to be published in 1992: CHAPTER 1. NEW RESULTS IN POTENTIAL THEORY l.l The L-operator and its properties 1.2 Integral representation for the reciprocal of the distance between two points 1.3 Internal mixed boundary value problem 1.4 External mixed boundary value problem for a half-space 1.5 Mixed problems in spherical coordinates 1.6 Mixed problems in toroidal coordinates CHAPTER 2. GENERALIZED POTENTIAL THEORY SOLUTIONS 2.1 Interior problem for a half-space 2.2 Exterior problem for a half-space 2.3 Generalized problem for a spherical cap 2.4 Generalized potential problem for a surface of revolution CHAPTER 3. APPLICATIONS IN ELECTROMAGNETICS 3.1 Interaction of several coaxial disks 3.2 Potential of arbitrarily located disks 3.3 Capacity of flat laminae 3.4 Magnetic polarizability of small apertures 3.5 Electrical polarizability of small apertures 3.6 Dirichlet problem for an annular disk 3.7 Neumann problem for a circular annulus 3.8 Alternative approach to the Dirichlet problem CHAPTER 4. APPLICATIONS IN DIFFUSION AND ACOUSTICS 4.1 Diffusion through perforated membranes 4.2 Interaction between circular pores 4.3 Pore length effect 4.4 Sound transmission through an aperture in a rigid screen 4.5 Sound penetration through a general aperture in a soft screen CHAPTER 5. NEW SOLUTIONS IN CONTACT MECHANICS 5.1 Axisymmetric bonded punch problem 5.2 Inclined bonded circular punch 5.3 Interaction of a normal load with a bonded punch 5.4 Tangential loading underneath a smooth punch 5.5 The general annular punch problem CHAPTER 6. NEW SOLUTIONS IN FRACTURE MECHANICS 6.1 External circular crack under antisymmetric loading 6.2 Penny-shaped crack under antisymmetric loading 6.3 Annular crack under general normal loading CHAPTER 7. SINGULAR INTEGRAL EQUATIONS 7.1 Approximate solution of singular integral equations 7.2 One-dimensional integro-differential equations 7.3 Computer evaluation of two-dimensional singular integrals SIR GEORGE WILLIAMS CAMPUS Montreal, July 10, 1991 Professor S. Sankar Director Concave Centre Department of Mechanical Engineering Concordia University Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 Canada Dear Professor Sankar, This is to inform you that I have been awarded a grant from NASA (about $10,000). Though the grant is small, I consider it extremely important, since it is related to a feasibility study and, if successful, might lead to a grant of $300,000. The subject of investigation is interaction between an arbitrary force and an elliptical crack. Due to these circumstances, I shall have to abandon for the time being the pursuit of all other topics of research (like pavement damage, etc) and concentrate on the abovementioned subject. Kindly let me know if you have any objections. Thank you in advance. Yours sincerely, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Department of Mechanical Engineering 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8 Canada Tel. (514) 848-3159 FAX: (514) 848-3494 Bitnet address ccyfk56@vax2.concordia.ca cc. Dean M. N. S. Swamy, Chairman M. O. M. Osman Dear Dr. Fabrikant I have asked for you a "Poste Rouge" at the CNRS for 1991, suggesting we could work together on the transition JKR-DMT in contact mechanics. I wait for the answer. Thank you for your reprint. Yours sincerely, D. Maugis Laboratoire Central des Laboratoire des materiaux Ponts et Chaussees et des structures du genie civil Unite Mixte de Recherche 113 D. Maugis Pr. V. I. Fabrikant Montreal Paris le le Juin 1991 Dear Dr. Fabrikant, The CNRS has awarded you a "Poste rouge" for four months during September-December 1991. You will receive soon a formal invitation directly from the CNRS. I regret that you cannot come in September. It is not possible to come in August: papers are not ready. Furthermore I am in holiday. Unfortunately this "Poste Rouge" for 1991 cannot be postponed to 1992. If you want I can try, the next year, to make another demand. With best regards. Yours sincerely, D. Maugis CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. V. Fabrikant, Research Asst Professor, Mechanical Engr. H929 FROM: Dr. J. Charles Giguere, Vice-Rector, Services, BC124 DATE: November 21, 1988 Further to our meeting on November 8, 1988 concerning the laser printer, it was agreed that: (l) You will take possession of the printer (2) The University will repair the printer at no charge to you (3) Should the printer breakdown within the next twelve (12) months, the cost of any repairs will be borne by the University (4) Treasury will authorize a $2,000 overexpenditure for fiscal 1988-89 on your research account. JCG/am cc J.P. Lauly L. Tansey C. Macdonald CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dean M. N. S. Swamy, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science FROM: Faculty personnel Committee for Mechanical Engineering: Professors Bui (CSD), Kubina (ECE), Pekau (CED), Stathopoulos (CBS), Anvari (Finance) DATE: 18 May 1989 RE: Merit Awards Based on the recommendation of the DPC and the dossier submitted by the candidate, the FPC unanimously recommends that Dr. V. I. Fabrikant, Research Associate Professor, be granted a Merit Award. P. M. Bourassa for FPC ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Vice-Rector Academic FROM: M. N. S. Swamy, Dean of Engineering and Computer Science DATE: 30 May 1989 I concur in the above recommendation. cc: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Office of the Dean Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec H3G lM8 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY Department of Mechanical Engineering A REASONED REPORT ON THE CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION OF RESEARCH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR V. I. FABRIKANT FEBRUARY 5, 1990 Dr. M. O. M. Osman produced a dossier prepared by the candidate, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant. The said dossier included the candidate's curriculum vitae, samples of publications, a contribution (one section) in a book, a book authored by the candidate and samples of course evaluations on the candidate's teaching performance. Dr. M. O. M. Osman also produced confidential evaluations which he had solicited from a number of recognized experts in the candidate's field of expertise. These experts gave their views on the candidate's suitability for promotion. The DPC studied the evidence at hand with reference to the relevant articles of the "Collective Agreement" between Concordia University and CUFA. In particular as follows: Article 14-01 - General Criteria - Reappointment and Promotion of Faculty. Article 14-03 - Evaluation for the Purpose of Promotion. Article 16 - Duties and Responsibilities of Faculty. The candidate's research performance was evaluated based on the dossier and on peer judgment. His performance is regarded to be of high quality: his publications are numerous and are published in reputable journals. His book "Application of Potential Theory in Mechanics" is regarded highly by recognized experts in the field. The candidate has been successful in obtaining research grants. The confidential letters solicited from external referees seemed to be in total agreement with one another in recommending the candidate's suitability for promotion. The candidate has offered courses at the undergraduate level. The DPC evaluated the candidate's teaching performance on the basis of evidence presented and judged it to be very good. The candidate has successfully supervised one Master's student to completion. Currently three graduate students (two doctoral and one master's) are under his supervision. Prior to joining Concordia University the candidate was already a Professor at Polytechnic Institute, Ulyanovsk, USSR. Based on the evidence presented, the DPC is unanimous in recommending the Research Associate Professor V. I. Fabrikant be promoted to the rank of Research Professor, effective l June 1990. S. Sankar, Chairman, DPC M. O. M. Osman, Chairman, Dept. Mechanical Engineering S. V. Hoa S. Lin cc: Dr. V. I. Fabrikant From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:46 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!rpi!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part XIII Final) Message-ID: <1992Aug24.201506.14670@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug20.154009.9215@tc.cornell.edu> <1992Aug24.135516.4469@tc.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 20:15:06 GMT FROM: Engineering and Computer Science Faculty Pers. Committee TO: Chair, FPC DATE: 12 March 1990 RE: Reasoned Recommendation for the promotion of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant to the Rank of Research Professor After a careful study and discussion of the information and opinions on file, this Committee has unanimously agreed to recommend that Research Associate Professor V. I. Fabrikant be promoted to the rank of Research Professor, effective June lst, 1990. Prior to joining Concordia University in 1979, Dr. Fabrikant was already a Professor at the Polytechnic Institute, Ulyanovsk, USSR. While he was already an accomplished researcher at that time, the work which he has completed at Concordia has earned him an international reputation. This is confirmed by the letters received from outside referees, from which we quote below. "Dr. Fabrikant is a well known authority in analytic modeling in fracture mechanics. He is one of the most prolific researchers and can be considered to be one of the top ten international researchers in this area." "His work is very well recognized and respected by researchers working in this area of the theory of elasticity all around the world." "Dr. Fabrikant is a well-established scientist with an international reputation. His research record is very strong and goes back over 20 years. (...) The scope of his research is astounding. (...) His solutions are both simple and remarkably accurate." "Even before his immigration to Canada, he already had an outstanding record. (...) Since his arrival to the West, he has progressed immensely. (...) He has successfully done fully independent and innovative research; he is also characterized by successful cooperation with his colleagues." "Dr. Fabrikant's scholarly contributions are of considerable practical interest." In addition to many publications in reputable journals, Dr. Fabrikant has also contributed one chapter to "Advances in Applied Mechanics", published by the Academic Press, Inc., and has written a book entitled "Applications of Potential Theory in Mechanics", published by Kluwer Academic Publishers. His NSERC operating grant amounts to $63,840 over three years. He is also a member of groups which were awarded a major equipment grant from NSERC, a team grant from FCAR, and a University-Industry interaction grant from Quebec's Ministere de l'Enseignement superieur et de la Science. In order to let our students profit from his knowledge and experience and also to confirm his ability as a teacher, Dr. Fabrikant has regularly taught at least one course per term, including first-level undergraduate courses. The information on file indicates that his teaching performance is very good. He has successfully supervised one Master's student to completion. Currently, two doctoral students and one Master's are under his supervision. The confidential letters solicited from external referees give the following comments regarding Dr. Fabrikant's suitability for promotion to the rank of Research Professor. "In terms of both quantity and quality of his work, I recommend very strongly that Fabrikant be promoted to Research Professor". "He is well qualified to be promoted to the rank of Full Professor at (our) University." "I would unhesitatingly recommend him for promotion to the position of Research Professor." "I strongly recommend Dr. V. Fabrikant for promotion to full professorship." I have been on the Promotion and Tenure Committee of (...), both on the Faculty and University levels and I can say without hesitation that a person of Dr. Fabrikant's stature and outstanding accomplishments would have been promoted to full Professorship with tenure." "I would be happy to have him as full professor at my department." "I feel that the research productivity of Dr. Fabrikant is at a high level to qualify him for the rank of Full Professor." "I am surprised that he does not hold the rank of Professor, considering his immense research production and the wide range of fields in which he works." The Faculty Personnel Committee therefore concluded that Dr. Fabrikant has fully satisfied the requirements for promotion to the rank of Research Professor. T. D. Bui S. Kubina O. Pekau T. Stathopoulos CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dean Swamy, Faculty of Engineering & Computer Science FROM: M. O. M. Osman, Chairman, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering DATE: September 12, 1990 ~Subject: Probationary Appointment of Dr. Valery Fabrikant I recommend that Dr. Valery Fabrikant be appointed to a Full-Time Tenure Track Faculty position in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the rank of Associate Professor at existing salary level of Research Associate Professor plus readjustment according to the new Collective Agreement and recommendation for CDI for 1988-89 and 1989-90. After full consultation with the DPC on September 12, 1990, the DPC is in full agreement with the above recommendation. The offer of appointment letter should make clear that Dr. Fabrikant's future activity shall be in the field of vehicle engineering as well as to support relevant research activity of the CONCAVE Research Centre of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Please find attached completed form for New Faculty Recommendation. The recommendation has been arrived at based on the following reasoned report. l. Dr. Fabrikant was hired as a Research Associate Professor to carry out fundamental research work in the general area of contact problems. He defined research problems in this area and conducted research independently. Dr. Fabrikant has reported his research findings in refereed publications and conferences. He is a recipient of an NSERC Operating Grant. His research productivity in terms of publications and research funding received are good. 2. Dr. Fabrikant has received positive recommendation by Dr. S. Sankar, Director, CONCAVE Research Centre, who has judged him suitable to fill a probationary appointment in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and to direct his research activity in a field relevant to the CONCAVE Research Centre. 3. Over the years of employment as Research Associate Professor, Dr. Fabrikant has taught several undergraduate courses for which he has received good course evaluations. He is considered to be a good teacher by both students and faculty. 4. Dr. Fabrikant's hire contract dated May 18, 1988 and December 15, 1989 states that "provided (his) research and teaching performance during the next 2 years of the 5-year grant period has been considered satisfactory, and upon expiration of the grant period and subsequent successful evaluation of the program by the Government, as well as the availability of funding, (he) will be appointed to the full-time faculty of the University at the rank of Associate Professor and (his) previous service at the University will be applicable to any tenure or promotion consideration". Therefore, since the research and teaching performance of Dr. Fabrikant has been judged satisfactory now and in previous performance reviews by the DPC (see Dr. Fabrikant's file), Dr. Fabrikant qualifies to be appointed to Full-Time Tenure Track Associate Professor with his previous service to Concordia as a Research Associate Professor applicable for Tenure Consideration. Appendix 6 INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: The Vice-Rector, Academic FROM: M.N.S. Swamy, Dean of Engineering and Computer Science DATE: 2 December 1991. Re: Reappointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant Department of Mechanical Engineering I enclose the recommendations of the DPC and of the FPC concerning the reappointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant, as well as all the documentation submitted by him. I concur with the FPC recommendation that Dr. Fabrikant be given a one-year reappointment, with the conditions stated in the FPC recommendation. encl: Dossier cc: Personnel file Dr. V. I. Fabrikant, Chair, Mech. Eng. Dept. INTERNAL MEMORANDUM TO: M. N. S. Swamy, Dean of Engineering and Computer Science FROM: Faculty Personnel Committee DATE: November 28, 1991. Re: FPC ON REAPPOINTMENTS CANDIDATE: Associate Professor V. I. Fabrikant DEPARTMENT: Mechanical Engineering Reasoned Recommendation of the FPC The FPC, then consisting of Drs. O. A. Pekau, T. Radhakrishnan, G. H. Vatistas and P. D. Ziogas, met, with the Dean as Chair, for the first time to consider the reappointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant on November 21, 1991. A request from Dr. Fabrikant to meet with the committee was brought to the attention of the Committee by the Dean. It was agreed that Dr. Fabrikant could meet with the Committee on November 25, at 3:00 p.m. The deadline for submission by him of any additional material, originally set at 5:00 p.m. on November 22, was extended to 10:00 a.m. on November 25. The FPC met at 10:00 a.m. on November 25 to consider the DPC report and the dossier submitted by the candidate so that it would be well prepared to discuss the case with Dr. Fabrikant. At 3:00 p.m. on the same day, Dr. Fabrikant made a presentation to the FPC as to why he should get a two-year reappointment. He said that the DPC should have been concerned with an appraisal of his teaching, research and service to the community, and not with questions regarding his behavior or other incidents such as his request to buy teaching time. He also discussed the contents of his letter dated November 24, 1991. During his presentation, Dr. Fabrikant stated that he was unaware of the meeting of senior members of the Mechanical Engineering Department and that he was not asked to appear before the meeting. He then asked Dr. Vatistas what his views were concerning that meeting. Dr. Vatistas did not answer that question. The meeting with Dr. Fabrikant ended without any further remarks. Because of Dr. Fabrikant's comment, and because of the fact that he was present at the meeting of senior members of the MED, Dr. Vatistas felt that, even though he did not perceive that he was in conflict of interest, he should withdraw from the Committee and the Committee agreed to his withdrawal. At that time, the Dean contacted alternate member Dr. T. Stathopoulos to ask him to join the FPC replacing Dr. Vatistas. The remaining part of the afternoon was devoted to reading the documents on file and apprising Dr. Stathopoulos of the presentation by Dr. Fabrikant. It was also discussed whether Dr. Fabrikant should appear once more before the FPC, and it was concluded that this was not necessary. The Committee met again on November 26 and 27 to discuss this case thoroughly including the documents submitted by Dr. Fabrikant to the DPC, the recommendation of the DPC, and additional documents submitted by Dr. Fabrikant to the FPC. Having fully reviewed this case, the FPC notes the following: 1- the DPC report does not include any evaluation of the fulfillment of the condition of employment stated in the letter of December 4, 1990, namely that his "future research activity should be directed to support the research focus of the CONCAVE Research Center". It does not provide any information on the relevance of his research work to the goals of CONCAVE. 2- There is no evaluation of his research contributions, including publications, graduate student supervision, etc. 3- There is no evaluation of classroom teaching from the DPC. 4- There is no evaluation of service to the community except in issues related to "professional" conduct. In view of this, the FPC had to examine more thoroughly the dossier submitted by the candidate, and it notes the following: 1- based on information submitted by Dr. Fabrikant, it is unclear to the FPC whether or not his fundamental research has supported the research of CONCAVE and if so, to what extent. In view of Dr. Fabrikant's letter of July 10, 1991 to Prof. S. Sankar, where he states ". . .I shall have to abandon for the time being the pursuit of all other topics of research. . ." the FPC questions the commitment of Dr. Fabrikant to the objectives of CONCAVE. 2- The FPC is impressed with Dr. Fabrikant's personal research contributions. The Committee also notes that the list of recent publications submitted by him are all single authored. This is commendable. However, in the context of being a member of a research centre, the FPC would have expected evidence of a closer relationship with other members of the research centre and some joint research activities. In the area of student supervision, the FPC notes that he is supervising one Master's student and one doctoral student. However, in the DPC recommendation for his promotion, dated February 5, 1990, and appended to his November 24, 1991 submission, he was supervising one Master's and two doctoral students. It is not clear what happened to the other doctoral student. The FPC would normally have expected a researcher of his caliber to have supervised to completion more graduate students. 3- The two course evaluations that he has submitted to the DPC and the additional one submitted to the FPC on November 25 indicate that his performance in the classroom for Statics and Dynamics courses is very good. However, the FPC has noted in the DPC reasoned report that Dr. Fabrikant has not contributed to the "promotion and enhancement of the on-going process of curricula development of the department". The FPC also notes that he has not taught advanced undergraduate courses in Mechanical Engineering. 4- Although there is evidence in the dossier as to some external professional activities, there is no indication of positive contributions to the life of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. The FPC is very much concerned with the adversarial conditions that seem to have developed between Dr. Fabrikant and the majority of faculty members in the Mechanical Engineering Department. This bodes ill for the effect of this situation on Dr. Fabrikant's professional career on the one hand, and on the healthy functioning of the Department on the other. The FPC sees collegiality as an important aspect in the life of any academic unit. By secret ballot, the FPC unanimously approved a motion recommending that Dr. V. I. Fabrikant be given a one-year reappointment with the following conditions, to be fulfilled before consideration is given to tenure or any future re-appointment: 1- that he show evidence of having fulfilled the conditions of his appointment, namely that his "future research activity should be directed to support the research focus of the CONCAVE Research Centre"; 2- that he show evidence of active participation in the ongoing research activities of the CONCAVE Research Centre, including supervision of graduate students; 3- that he demonstrate the ability to teach advanced undergraduate mechanical engineering courses; 4- that he show evidence of active participation in the life of the department, such as curriculum development, as well as evidence of collegiality. O. A. Pekau 29/ll/91 T. Radhakrishnan T. Stathopoulos 29/11/91 P. D. Ziogas cc: Personnel file of candidate Dr. V. I. Fabrikant From sci.research Mon Aug 24 17:52:46 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!clarkson!news From: russell@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (David Russell) Subject: Re: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University... NEWSFLASH Message-ID: <1992Aug24.221234.8218@news.clarkson.edu> Sender: news@news.clarkson.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: sun.soe.clarkson.edu Organization: Clarkson University References: <1992Aug24.180851.14861@news2.cis.umn.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 22:12:34 GMT Lines: 16 From article <1992Aug24.180851.14861@news2.cis.umn.edu>, by gjnelson@ee.umn.edu (Grad student Greg Nelson): > Dr. V. Fabrikant: > Please quit cluttering up this topic with all this crap. > Perhaps you got a raw deal at Concordia. Deal with it! > I was just scanning through some of these posts and agree... But more to the point I was listening to a Canadian Radio station and guess what... The is an armed gunman with hostages at Concordia, not much details. Just that they suspect it is a disgruntled prof... Could they be related. Hopefully the 6:00 news will have more. -- David M. Russell, Mechanical Eng. Dept. Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13676 (315) 268-9806 russell@sun.soe.clarkson.edu From sci.research Tue Aug 25 16:43:08 1992 Path: utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!bcm!lib!odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu From: dct@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (David C. Tuttle) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Re: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part LXIX) Message-ID: <7186@lib.tmc.edu> Date: 25 Aug 1992 16:59:57 GMT References: <1992Aug24.180851.14861@news2.cis.umn.edu> Sender: usenet@lib.tmc.edu Organization: University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Lines: 15 Nntp-Posting-Host: odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu gjnelson@ee.umn.edu (Grad student Greg Nelson) writes: > > Dr. V. Fabrikant: > Please quit cluttering up this topic with all this crap. > Perhaps you got a raw deal at Concordia. Deal with it! And so he did... in his own way. Perhaps this wasn't such good advice after all. This venomous sarcasm reflects only my opinion, and not necessarily that of my employers. -- David C. Tuttle dct@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu Software Systems Specialist Department of Biomathematics University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Houston, Texas, USA From sci.research.careers Wed Aug 26 13:55:15 1992 Path: utcsri!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!IASTATE.EDU!btd From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) Newsgroups: sci.research.careers Subject: Re: Two die, three hurt in university rampage - Montreal Gazette Message-ID: <1992Aug25.164417@IASTATE.EDU> Date: 25 Aug 92 21:44:17 GMT References: <1992Aug25.172229.22707@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) Organization: Iowa State University Lines: 50 In article <1992Aug25.172229.22707@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes: > In article , disaacs@martha.carleton.ca (Dave Isaacs) writes: > > > > This is from the Montreal Gazette, 25-August-1992 > > > > TWO DIE, THREE HURT IN UNIVERSITY RAMPAGE > > By Aaron Derfel, Geoff Baker, and Elizabeth Thompson > > > > Montreal- A shooting rampage at Concordia University left two employees dead > > and three wounded Monday after a man walked into the university's main > > downtown building with a handgun. > > > The charges were based on a number of electronic on a number of Fabrikant's > > electronic mail messages. > > > > Has anything like this ever happened before? That is, what we have here is > publically available copies of notes from a madman before their killing > spree. In other situations the individual might write notes that in their > distorted view justified what they were about to do, but that would be > evidence not readily available to the public. But there seems to be a bit of a difference here. We are not talking about a suicide note or death threats, but file correspondence with a univeristy derpartment about ongoing legal matters. > Although there may be some small degree of truth to what Fabrikant claimed, I > highly suspect that any person for whom these things could and does drive > them to commit a killing spree would be greatly distorting the truth for > themselves, and in this case for us as well. Another thing, these postings, while most likely biased, do contain elements of verifiable fact. Fabrikant's publication list, the publication list of the head of his department, the personnell department recomendations, contract awards (including contract numbers) and the like. While by no means am I suggesting that this is the full story, I think there is enough facts here to give Fabrikant the benefit of the doubt, instead of dismissing him as a madman with a gun. > > Steve -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy btd@iastate.edu Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011 From sci.research.careers Wed Aug 26 13:55:32 1992 Path: utcsri!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!alpha.ces.cwru.edu!yamauchi From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Newsgroups: sci.research.careers Subject: Re: Two die, three hurt in university rampage - Montreal Gazette Message-ID: <1992Aug26.010329.25424@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> Date: 26 Aug 92 01:03:29 GMT References: <1992Aug25.164417@IASTATE.EDU> <1992Aug25.235253.15424@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: lenny.ces.cwru.edu In article <1992Aug25.235253.15424@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> manuel@space.ualberta.ca (John Manuel) writes: >In article <1992Aug25.164417@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) >writes: >> I think there is enough facts here >> to give Fabrikant the benefit of the doubt, instead of dismissing him as a >> madman with a gun. > >I'd say that what he did with his gun clearly makes him some sort of madman: >what kind of "doubt" could possible justify his actions? As the saying goes, even paranoids have enemies. His actions clearly indicate that he went over the edge, but that doesn't necessarily mean his accusations were false. (Not that that would "justify" his actions, but it might explain them...) My initial reaction to Fabrikant's articles was "why doesn't he just quit and find a position somewhere else?", but after reading some of the comments regarding the problems of foreign nationals in this country, I realized that this might have been easier said than done. If so, this unresolvable conflict could have been what drove him over the edge. If the posted documents are legitimate, then the evidence would seem to point this way. On the other hand, we're only seeing one side of the story here... -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi Case Western Reserve University yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu Department of Computer Engineering and Science From sci.research.careers Wed Aug 26 13:56:21 1992 Path: utcsri!skule.ecf!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!reed!orpheus From: orpheus@reed.edu (P. Hawthorne) Newsgroups: sci.research.careers Subject: Do the police have Fabrikant's postings? Message-ID: <1992Aug25.211931.12120@reed.edu> Date: 25 Aug 92 21:19:31 GMT Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug25.211931.12120 Distribution: na Organization: Reed College, Portland OR Lines: 18 The events that have unfolded before us are stunning, and I would prefer to get over the ersatz trauma of having followed the thread to it's horrible conclusion, but I feel compelled to ask: Do the police have copies of his recent posts here? I mean, are we sure that they've been handed over? Bizarre. News is an abstract involvement in an untangible world, an almost prosthetic existence with little or no impact on physical reality. To have seen the posts the Fabrikant made before us all, followed by such physical and evil acts, is really disturbing. I sided with him, totally. I believed his evidence. Now that I hear what he's done... Should we have done something right away, like notifying some authority, after seeing the parts of the posts where he talks about fearing for his life and being willing to die? I'd really like to get my mind off the subject, but it's a sticky one. Theus (orpheus@reed.edu) From sci.research.careers Wed Aug 26 13:57:40 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research.careers Path: utcsri!torn!cunews!csi.uottawa.ca!news From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) Subject: Re: Do the police have Fabrikant's postings? Message-ID: <1992Aug26.023507.19275@csi.uottawa.ca> Sender: news@csi.uottawa.ca Nntp-Posting-Host: prgv Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa References: <1992Aug25.211931.12120@reed.edu> Distribution: na Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 02:35:07 GMT In article <1992Aug25.211931.12120@reed.edu> orpheus@reed.edu (P. Hawthorne) writes: >The events that have unfolded before us are stunning, and I would prefer to >get over the ersatz trauma of having followed the thread to it's horrible >conclusion, but I feel compelled to ask: Do the police have copies of his >recent posts here? I mean, are we sure that they've been handed over? Yes. They went through some VAX VMS system in between - a printout was shown on the news, and I could make out SOME header information. Presumably somebody at the computing centre at Concordia passed it on. >Bizarre. News is an abstract involvement in an untangible world, an almost >prosthetic existence with little or no impact on physical reality. To have >seen the posts the Fabrikant made before us all, followed by such physical >and evil acts, is really disturbing. Definitely a shock. >I sided with him, totally. I believed his evidence. Now that I hear what >he's done... Should we have done something right away, like notifying some >authority, after seeing the parts of the posts where he talks about fearing >for his life and being willing to die? I'd really like to get my mind off >the subject, but it's a sticky one. Even after hearing the news of the shootings, I tend to believe that the information that he posted is _in part_ correct. I doubt that he could make up the letters by faculty without the whole train of evidence getting terribly convoluted/internally contradictory. I wouldn't be surprised if the chain of letters were actually sent by the various parties. The conclusions that he reaches are certainly questionable. -- Christopher Browne cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca University of Ottawa Master of System Science Program From sci.research.careers Wed Aug 26 13:58:45 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research.careers Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rpi!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) Subject: Re: Fabrikant did not post to sci.research.careers Message-ID: <1992Aug26.130149.13182@tc.cornell.edu> Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization References: <1992Aug26.033318.1123@news.iastate.edu> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:01:49 GMT Lines: 78 In article <1992Aug26.033318.1123@news.iastate.edu> mds@iastate.edu (Mark D. Smucker) writes: > >One thing should be noted here, Dr. Fabrikant did not post to this >group, Dov Bai ( bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu ) posted all of the >articles. I am curious where Mr. Bai got the articles etc. What >other groups saw the same set of postings? I got his plea for help in my mail box, I dont know why me. From the header I notice that he sent it to a large mailing list. I also see from the header that most user ids start with the letters "ba", so he probably got my e-mail address from some directory (Possibly from SIAM or AMS membership list). The header also include the line X-Vms-To: @B.LST so there might have been A.LST, C.LST etc. for people whose name begin with a different letter in the alphabet. I decided to send it to s.r.c. becasue I thought it might be helpful for people who are eagerly looking for a tenure-track position to see how the "Real World" looks, and that it is not a paradise at all. Later on I sent it also science.research. It is not the first time that I get such a plea for help in e.-mail. See my other posting regrarding jobs in small universities. Here is again the file header and the beginning of the file itself, if you are curious. Dov ---------------------------------------cut here-------------------------- From CCYFK56@vax2.concordia.ca Fri Aug 21 12:00:28 1992 Received: from Clyde.Concordia.CA by poly.math.cornell.edu (4.1/1.5) id AA14096; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:58:42 EDT Received: from vax2.concordia.ca by Clyde.Concordia.CA id aa22788; 21 Aug 92 15:49 GMT ~Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:55 EDT ~From: CCYFK56@vax2.concordia.ca ~Subject: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) To: baartman@math.mtu.EDU, laci@cs.uchicago.EDU, babbitt@math.ucla.EDU, fawb@nmumus.bitnet, bacciotti@itopoli.bitnet, bach@cs.wisc.EDU, bachelis@mts.cc.wayne.EDU, mi048@ibm2.mi.uni-koeln.DE, bachman@nevada.EDU, gbackus@ucsd.EDU, sbaden@ucsd.EDU, badoian@math.berkeley.EDU, baer@ccf3.nrl.navy.mil, jbaez@lucy.wellesley.EDU, bagaria@math.berkeley.EDU, 00ksbagga@bsuvax1.bitnet, baggett@boulder.colorado.EDU, feb@gwuvm.bitnet, baglivo@bcvms.bitnet, bahri@rider.bitnet, bahrmasel@mdc.COM, bai@math.cornell.edu, albhc@cunyvm.bitnet, dbailey@trinity.EDU, dwbailey@amherst.bitnet, jbailey@aegis-dahlgren.nswc.navy.MIL, dbailey@nas.nasa.GOV, bailey@ee.umn.EDU, johnb@buenga.bitnet, baily@zaphod.uchicago.EDU, bbbai@conncoll.bitnet, gama43@cms.gla.ac.uk, cbaker@iusmail.ius.indiana.EDU, grb@shape.mps.ohio-state.EDU, i.n.baker@ma.ic.ac.uk, pm1jwb@pa.shef.ac.uk, kab@math.ucla.EDU, baker@nemo.math.okstate.EDU, bakshi@ncsuche.bitnet, baladi@frensl61.bitnet, kilgore@auducvax.bitnet, balder@math.ruu.NL, baum@gmr.COM Message-Id: X-Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec X-Envelope-To: bai@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu, billera@mssun7.msi.cornell.edu X-Vms-To: @B.LST Status: RO Dear Colleague: Since Rector Kenniff prefers to cover up fraud at Concordia, I have no choice but to make the relevant information as public as possible. I have distributed two Memos, the first one is attached below, the second one is sent separately. I can not reach everyone, so I would be grateful if you could print it and show to all your friends. On the other hand, if you do not like what I have written, you do not have to read it. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, V.I. Fabrikant Mechanical Engineering, Concordia University From sci.research.careers Wed Aug 26 13:59:18 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research.careers Path: utcsri!torn!csd.unb.ca!rob From: rob@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Robert Robson) Subject: Concordia shootings Message-ID: <1992Aug26.035456.25427@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> Organization: University of New Brunswick Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:54:56 GMT The tragic events in Montreal point to the incredible pressure many academics are under. Fabrikant made many accusations, which unprovable, remind us of things we all have witnessed. As a result, I believe that at least some of his accusations are true. While I do not believe Fabrikant was in his right mind, he might never have gone over the edge without the treatment he received. Rather than just writing him off as "another nut" the academic community should take the opportunity to examine its practices. Perhaps some good could come of this so that Fabrikant's victims will not have died in vain. The media has compared this case to the last shooting in Montreal of the women at Ecole Polytechnique. This bothers me, since this was a (temporarily?) insane disgruntled employee rather than just someone with a desire to kill women. I think comparisons with other disgruntled employees who have gone gunning for bosses/co-workers would be more apt. All of us would like to know the true story and this would be a great opportunity for some investigative journalism. From sci.research Fri Aug 28 17:04:27 1992 Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!cs.dal.ca!ug.cs.dal.ca!kumar From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: A few thoughts on Fabrikant. Message-ID: Date: 27 Aug 92 02:18:48 GMT Sender: usenet@cs.dal.ca (USENET News) Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Lines: 49 Nntp-Posting-Host: ug.cs.dal.ca I feel I must say something about this. But first, I must add that I've never been a graduate student myself and don't have the inclination to be one. Now that the disclaimer is attached; There's too much detail in Fabrikant's articles to suggest that they are merely the deluded workings of a paranoid schizophrenic/personality. Something is dreadfully wrong in the engineering faculty at Concordia. Facts are mortal enemies of those who fight the truth. Facts are also exaggerations of those who claim to know the truth. From the piggy-backed postings of Dov Bai, two things stick out. One, Fabrikant seems to be a very capable and intelligent research scientist (ie. the quantity of publication attests to this, as well as the variety of different journals that have accepted his articles). Why then, was he refused tenure? (I'm assuming he was eligible for tenure). Secondly, perhaps more importantly, here was a man crying to be heard. I presume he sent e-mail to to the other 25 letters of the alphabet as well, not just "b" initiated addresses. If a man was so desperate to be heard, why the court injunction to silence him? If they were confident Fabrikant was given to frequent bouts of delusion (as was Bobby Fischer in his duel with the ruling chess congress back in '71), then isn't it better to let the media expose this "paranoia"? Unless, of course, there was no paranoia. It's a shame that three professors (none of whom seem to be mentioned by Fabrikant in the articles) got caught in a tornado caused by what seems to be an engineering faculty's irregular atmospheric condition. Kumar ps: In the end, no matter what, Fabrikant proved to be what his critics charged, ie. unstable. It will be interesting to see how much the engineering faculty is going to co-operate in any derivative investigation. -- ******************************************* Kumar Yelubandi ** I don't believe in a lot ** (good wines > good times!) ** of things. And I quit thinking ** ...in the year 2525... ** six years ago, so...DON'T BOTHER ME!!! From sci.research Fri Aug 28 17:04:31 1992 Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!gatech!concert!duke!srt From: srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant. Message-ID: <714926508@pike.cs.duke.edu> Date: 27 Aug 92 14:41:49 GMT References: Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C. Lines: 41 In article kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes: > > From the piggy-backed postings of Dov Bai, two > things stick out. One, Fabrikant seems to be a very capable > and intelligent research scientist (ie. the quantity > of publication attests to this, as well as the variety of > different journals that have accepted his articles). > Why then, was he refused tenure? (I'm assuming he was > eligible for tenure). This comment represents an attitude that really gets to me. I have known people who believe that as long as a scientist puts out good research, then nothing else matters. Go back and read the messages written by Fabrikant --- the man was abusive, arrogant, and more than a little unstable. Would *YOU* want to work with someone like that on a daily basis? I wouldn't! As far as I'm concerned, if someone is as big a pain as Fabrikant seems to have been, it doesn't matter one whit how good their research was. The scientific community can certainly wait for another person to come along that knows how to deal with human beings. As far as what the department "owed" Fabrikant, I don't believe ANY university is obligated to give tenure to such an abusive person. >ps: In the end, no matter what, Fabrikant proved to be > what his critics charged, ie. unstable. You couldn't have read his postings and not realized the man was unstable... I do have one question about the whole situation: the night of the shooting, Headline News reported that Fabrikant was reported to have brought a gun to a previous faculty meeting. Does anyone know if that is true? If so, why wasn't he out on his butt long ago? -- Steve Tate srt@cs.duke.edu | The reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, Dept. of Computer Science | above all other sciences, is that its laws are Duke University | absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all Durham, NC 27706 | other sciences are to some extent debatable. (Einstein) From sci.research Fri Aug 28 17:06:34 1992 Newsgroups: sci.research Path: utcsri!torn!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!cs.dal.ca!ug.cs.dal.ca!kumar From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) Subject: a few comments on Fabrikant Message-ID: Sender: usenet@cs.dal.ca (USENET News) Nntp-Posting-Host: ug.cs.dal.ca Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:25:47 GMT >From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) >Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant. >In article kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes: >> There's too much detail in Fabrikant's articles to >> suggest that they are merely the deluded workings >> of a paranoid schizophrenic/personality. > I have no training in psychology, but my understanding is that >paranoid schizophrenics can create quite detailed and often internally >self-consistent delusions. (If someone who does know something about >psychology can either confirm or deny this, go ahead.) It is only by >reference to our common understanding of the world that one can show >their delusions to be just that. Point taken. Though I must point out, I find it hard to believe that any biochemical imbalance in the brain (I'm sure you would agree that schizophrenia and like neuroses can be linked to biochemistry) would allow a manc to function at the top of his intellectual ability. But the intellectual output of this man has been clearly documented. So, my skepticism of your point remains real. >> If a man was so desperate >> to be heard, why the court injunction to silence him?> > In most countries, including this one, there are laws against libel >and slander. There is no need to assume that anything sinister was >going on here. > > Marc R. Roussel > mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca > Yes, I'm aware of the laws. And I'm also aware of the law as a tool to supress undesired speech. While the laws of libel and slander are noble ventures in the battle against hate literature and what not, they are disproportionately implemented by those insecure with the truth. <---this is my subjective opinion, my observation. Slander and libel suits are postmortems of the fact. Their validity is unquestioned. Court injunctions that protect battered wives and attempt to prevent physical harm on others, are likewise unquestioned. But court injunctions that suppress interpretation of fact, as what clearly Fabrikant was doing, chart a dangerous course for our justice system. Yes, it is legal. And we all know the legal system favors criminals or victims. Okay, maybe that last statement was a bit harsh...but I think you get my drift. Kumar ps: Nobody's justifying what Fabrikant did. I hope the law throws the full book at him. But here is an opportunity to expose the sinister world of grants and granting. Let's not wait for the window to close. -- ******************************************* Kumar Yelubandi ** I don't believe in a lot ** (good wines > good times!) ** of things. And I quit thinking ** ...in the year 2525... ** six years ago, so...DON'T BOTHER ME!!! From can.general Tue Sep 15 11:15:55 1992 Path: utcsri!rpi!gatech!udel!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!daily-planet.concordia.ca!maxwell.concordia.ca!frank From: frank@maxwell.concordia.ca ( Frank Maselli ) Newsgroups: can.general Subject: Message from Concordia University Message-ID: <4949@daily-planet.concordia.ca> Date: 14 Sep 92 19:22:27 GMT Sender: usenet@daily-planet.concordia.ca Organization: Concordia University, Montreal Quebec Lines: 45 On behalf of the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of Concordia University I am posting the following message: ================================================================= ~Subject: Message from Dr. Patrick Kenniff, Rector and Vice- Chancellor of Concordia University in response to queries with regard to Dr. Fabrikant I am taking the unusual step of posting a message on this medium because it has come to my attention that the allegations of scientific misconduct raised by V.I. Fabrikant continue to be addressed on this system and because I wish to inform you of the tragic events of 24 August 1992 at our University. V.I. Fabrikant, an Associate Professor at Concordia University, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, two counts of hostage-taking as well as uttering death threats and using a firearm in the commission of a crime. Three of our colleagues are dead, one remains in serious condition and the fifth is recovering from a gunshot wound to the leg. The families of the deceased and the injured as well as the entire University community are in a state of shock and mourning. The Vice-Rector, Academic conducted an inquiry into the numerous allegations he raised and reported to the Board of Governors in March 1992 that they were unfounded. However, with the continuance of Dr. Fabrikant's allegations, the University will undertake a further review with dispatch. Let us not, however, lose sight of who the victims are in this tragedy. There can be no excuse nor justification for the brutal and senseless actions of 24 August 1992. Patrick Kenniff Rector & Vice-Chancellor Concordia University ================================================================== -- Frank Maselli Assistant Director, Customer Relations Computing Services Concordia University From can.general Tue Sep 15 11:16:08 1992 Path: utcsri!dgp.toronto.edu!ematias Newsgroups: can.general From: ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias) Subject: Re: Message from Concordia University Message-ID: <1992Sep14.210709.22268@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto References: <4949@daily-planet.concordia.ca> Date: 15 Sep 92 01:07:10 GMT Lines: 26 In article <4949@daily-planet.concordia.ca> Patrick Kenniff (Rector & Vice-Chancellor, Concordia University) writes: > >The Vice-Rector, Academic conducted an inquiry into the >numerous allegations [Dr. Fabrikant] raised and reported to the >Board of Governors in March 1992 that they were unfounded. I'm not surprised. Question is: Who is more believable, Fabrikant or this Rector/Vice-Chancellor? I don't know... (Aside: Can you spell "coverup" boys and girls...?) >Let us not, however, >lose sight of who the victims are in this tragedy. There can be no >excuse nor justification for the brutal and senseless actions of 24 >August 1992. No arguments here... Edgar -- Edgar Matias Input Research Group University of Toronto -- I speak for no one... From sci.research.careers Tue Sep 29 17:06:17 1992 Xref: utcsri sci.research.careers:1232 sci.psychology:9746 Path: utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 11:12:56 EDT From: Message-ID: <92271.111256FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,sci.psychology Subject: Re: Montreal news of Fabrikant - 5 References: <1992Sep20.000921.25750@philmtl.philips.ca> <1992Sep24.182435.4849@philmtl.philips.ca> <1999@snap> <1992Sep25.221316.2590@sfu.ca> Lines: 40 >I think that Fabrikant obviously was over the edge to actually kill people - >my opinion. But the problems he referred to, of insitutional plagerisation >and miscredit for publications (if I have it right), are endemic in the >academic world. As a grad student, I would say this is particularly true >for grad students. So there is more to it than meets the eye. The press >has tended to report him simply as a maniac, rather than examine the issues >he was upset about. > Scott As a Faculty member at a Canadian University, I would like to reply to Scott's point. Yes, the press has reported him simply as a maniac, which he undoubtedly was with the respect to the killings. If one wants to draw attention to issues which one is upset about, there are a number of relatively "rational" ways of going about it,...an extreme form of which is suicide. From what I have read of Fabrikant's problems on these bulletin boards, it seems likely that he is a quite gifted and creative scientist who has literally been driven to the limit by the system, to the extent that he became maniacal. Perhaps the way to get to understand his action is to try to think of the most telling way of punishing an individual. The sort of problem which the fox got quite wrong when it threw the rabbit into the briar patch (Uncle Remus). The opposite of the briar patch in the case of a gifted creative person would be to REMOVE something which is essential for his creative act. In the case of a gifted violinist, a Yehudi Menhuin, it would be, of course, to take away his violin. In the case of a creative scientist it is to take away his tenure, his laboratory, his source of research funds. The tragedy is that if you took away Yehudi Menhuin's violin, he would get an old piece of wood and string and cat gut together and stand at the street corner making such a beautiful sound that passers by would be driven to rage that he was denied the means of making even more beautiful sounds. Sadly, the complexities of modern science, where discoveries sometimes are not generally recognized until after a considerable lapse of time, makes this impossible in our profession. I think I can understand how someone, who, rightly or wrongly, believes himself to be a scientific equivalent of a Menhuin, gets driven to such a state by the system that his behaviour becomes maniacal. Sincerely, Don Forsdyke, Department of Biochemistry, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L3N6. [Apologies if I have misspelled Yehudi Menhuin.] From sci.research.careers Tue Oct 13 13:36:49 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.culture.canada:11645 sci.research.careers:1297 Path: utcsri!utgpu!attcan!sobeco!philmtl!ray From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,sci.research.careers Subject: Montreal news of Fabrikant - 9 Message-ID: <1992Oct9.010055.13212@philmtl.philips.ca> Date: 9 Oct 92 01:00:55 GMT References: <1992Sep27.012320.1698@philmtl.philips.ca> <1992Oct1.155050.8318@philmtl.philips.ca> <1992Oct4.015116.9967@philmtl.philips.ca> Organization: On the Brew. Lines: 115 Transcribed without permission from The West Island Suburban, Wed, Oct 8th. 1992, a free, home-delivered tabloid. It has been involved in controversy in the past for publishing extreme editorials. QUOTE Good Luck, you bloody scum, Fabrikant tells Suburban editor By Christie McCormack Editor Valery Fabrikant, the University professor charged with the shooting deaths of four of his Concordia colleagues and wounding a secretary, telephoned my home Saturday night, calling me and Suburban reporter Terry Levine "scum" several times in the course of a twenty minute conversation. I called his wife on Friday, suggesting her husband would find as sympathetic an ear as could be found in the media if he chose to call me. My sympathies arise from a belief that there may be grounds for serious inquiry into the charges he made against his colleagues in the university's mechanical engineering department. Fabrikant's discourse was level headed to begin with. He reviewed his experience in the department in which others were allegedly taking his work, appending their names to it, and selling it to government agencies through a private company of their own. Asked what he had done to bring these charges forward, Fabrikant said he had gone to the "executive-assistant to the rector," Catherine MacKenzie, and she allegedly told him that he would have to substantiate the charges. Concordia University said Monday that Dr. MacKenzie had been transferred to the art history department from her former position of vice-rector, services and that she was never executive assistant to the rector. She is now on sabbatical. University officials, Fabrikant said, "told me that when another person at another university attempted to substantiate such charges, he was fired. I knew what they were telling me." Said a Concordia spokeswoman: "The inquiry into his charges has been put off until the trial is over, but will resume at that time." According to Fabrikant, he received a university merit award in 1989 to silence his protests. "That was the time they were offering me a carrot. They played it that way. There always was a swing in mood in the administration. They didn't want me to blow the whistle, so sometimes they would award me and then they would plan to fire me. Fabrikant also said that his superiors in the department "blackmailed" him into supplying them with papers. "They would make it clear that if I didn't supply them with so many papers, they would not renew my contract." Asked if he had gone to the ombudsman, he said: "The ombudsman's run by the rector, I went to the rectors office." Feeling guilty about not fully investigating his charges, I tried to explain that The Suburban lacked the resources. But Fabrikant was unforgiving: "You scum! I talked to your Mr. Levine and I gave him the documents - documents! Is he stupid or is he trying to protect the university?" No, I said, we needed corroboration, that a single accusation wasn't good enough. "But you had the documents! Scum! You journalists are the worst. You have to wait until people are killed or in jail before you show any interest. Because you did not do your job, you caused this - you bloody scum!" The documents were mere photocopies. "Listen very attentively," he said, before outlining the alleged transfer of money from one person to another in mechanical engineering to private companies. I told him it should be and should have been investigated, but without expert assistance beyond his own, we were not competent to judge unless we put a lot more time than we could afford. "This is stupid!" he snapped. "Can you not see that there was a plain conflict of interest here? Could not Mr. Levine see it, too?" I asked him to be reasonable. To make a comparison, I said that in the master-apprentice relationship, this is how it traditionally works. Only the journeymen received real money. "That's not true," he said. Soon our discussion became irretrievably abrasive. Do you have any regrets, I asked. "Is that, or is that not, a stupid question?" It is the question many people would like asked and answered, I told him. "That was not my question. I asked if it were a stupid question?" No, I said. "Well, do you have any other question, other than the stupid one?" No, I said. "Good luck, you bloody scum," he said. Goodbye, I said. UNQUOTE -- Ray Dunn at home | Beaconsfield, Quebec | Phone: (514) 630 3749 ray@philmtl.philips.ca | dunn@cam.org | uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray From sci.research.careers Tue Oct 13 13:36:49 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.culture.canada:11684 sci.research.careers:1300 Path: utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!olivea!charnel!sifon!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!sobeco!philmtl!ray From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,sci.research.careers Subject: Montreal news of Fabrikant - 10 Message-ID: <1992Oct9.185611.23022@philmtl.philips.ca> Date: 9 Oct 92 18:56:11 GMT References: <1992Oct1.155050.8318@philmtl.philips.ca> <1992Oct4.015116.9967@philmtl.philips.ca> <1992Oct9.010055.13212@philmtl.philips.ca> Organization: Not Philips Lines: 26 Fabrikant's preliminary hearing continued yesterday. Little worth repeating here was reported in the media from a day of mainly ballistics and pathology reports. A SWAT team member testified that after Fabrikant surrendered, he found a .38-calibre revolver in his trousers. The gun had four spent cartridges and one live bullet in the chamber. Fabrikant fired his legal-aid lawyer, Michel Leclerc, saying he was disloyal and gave bad advice. He did it, Fabrikant told the judge, because Leclerc did not help him in his attempt to have the trial moved to an Indian reserve. Indians, said Fabrikant, "know what it is to be oppressed." The judge told Leclerc to stay on as an advisor, but when Fabrikant continued to launch insults at him, the lawyer said he was fed-up with the abuse. When Leclerc asked to be relieved of his role, the judge agreed, and he strode out of the room saying he felt "relieved". Fabrikant has made a formal application to legal-aid for a private-practice lawyer to assist him for the remainder of the preliminary hearing. [sources: Montreal Gazette and CFCF-12 Pulse News] -- Ray Dunn at home | Beaconsfield, Quebec | Phone: (514) 630 3749 ray@philmtl.philips.ca | dunn@cam.org | uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray