In a pluralist society, minorities are accepted. But what if a minority doesn't accept the majority?


Home Page
Rooke Pursues Marxist Lesbian Agenda
How UW Eliminates Non Feminists: The Henry Makow Case
University of Winnipeg denies Due Process
UW Collegiate Gender Role Models (Pictorial)
In Defense of Heterosexuality
Tennessee Williams', A Streetcar Named Desire, as Straight Bashing
Reading List
Contact List / Guestbook


Complaint against Constance Rooke, Naomi Levine, and Niel Besner

May 12,2000
Naomi Levine
Harassment Officer
University of Winnipeg
President's Office
University of Winnipeg
515 Portage Ave.
R3B 2E9

Dear Ms. Levine,

This is a formal complaint against you, Naomi Levine, Dr. Neil Besner, and Dr. Constance Rooke for discrimination on the basis of political belief, (2la of the Policy Concerning Respectful Learning & Working Environment).

The occasion is your handling of an anonymous letter written in January 2000 by about five students in my morning class complaining about my conduct of the class. I believe your office is designed to discipline and remove teachers who do not conform to certain gender feminist doctrine. I believe your behavior bears this out.

My grievance against Ms. Levine is as follows:

1) You failed to inform me, the respondent, in writing of the allegations. (8-6-A)

2) You failed to inform me of the existence of a policy regarding respectful learning and working environment, and failed to give me a copy of it. You deliberately kept me in the dark as to the seriousness with which the university took this letter, its effect on my future teaching, and the policy governing resolution of complaints of this kind. Your purpose was to keep me ignorant of my situation in order to manipulate me.

3) You failed to inform me of the services offered through the Human Relations Support Services (8-6-d).

4) You failed to inform me that the students' complaint would not be subject to any scrutiny unless they made a formal complaint. This allowed the university to act as though the complaint had merit. (10-4). In doing so you failed Preamble vi) which states that the university "has a duty to investigate and remedy any such violation."

5) You dismissed and failed to reply to my letter refuting the claims in the anonymous letter. I perceive this as taking sides in contravention of 6-2b.

My complaint against Dr. Bessner is the same as 2 and 5 above. He played the major role in keeping me ignorant. I would not have initially agreed to the measures taken by the university had I known that the university believed the anonymous letter had merit and I would not be employed again. When I finally realized my position, I notified Dr. Besner that I refused to cooperate further.

My complaint against Dr. Rooke is that she acted as though the students' complaint had merit without any investigation. She failed to interrogate me or any other students in the class. She decided that I would not be rehired, and that the university would simply wait out my term.

1) I believe Dr. Rooke took these actions on the assumption that I am "anti feminist." In a meeting April 19, she vehemently insisted that I had described myself as anti feminist and ignored my protestations that I was "non feminist." She told me that "anti feminists are anti women". I concluded she has always believed that I am "anti woman." In the same meeting she said academic freedom existed because "we let you finish teaching the year." This is an amazing statement under the circumstances. It confirms that I had been judged and found guilty without any inquiry as to the facts. This is because I was perceived to be anti feminist.

2) Dr. Rooke allowed letter writers to have their final grades assigned by another professor; and allowed them to attempt to enlist everyone in the class to be graded by another professor. The four students were given permission to cut my class and were offered tutors; I was not informed. These actions were not justified by the circumstances and were designed to discredit me and undermine my position. They were taken because of the perception that I am anti feminist.

3) Dr. Rooke ignored evidence that I conducted my class fairly and according to academic standards. Only four of the 35 students joined the protesting students. There were no complaints from my afternoon class of 35 students. I vehemently denied the accusations in the letter but was ignored.

4) At the April 19 meeting, Dr. Rooke treated me scornfully, saying that "stipends" like me are often not rehired, so I could not claim that my beliefs were the cause.

5) Dr. Rooke has failed to uphold the first tenet of the University Policy; that "the university continues to be committed to academic freedom and freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression among its members." My views and those of the recognized authors I teach have been suppressed because I am considered "anti feminist" and "anti woman" in the President's own words.

If the complaints in the anonymous letter had been investigated, they would have been dismissed. I invite such an investigation now. I would have insisted on it if I knew that the university had accepted them ipso facto. I was deliberately kept in the dark.

I am a dedicated teacher who has been treated in a disgraceful manner by the University of Winnipeg. I have been discriminated against because I did not conform to the radical feminist doctrine that is enforced at the University of Winnipeg today.


Henry Makow, Ph.D.

cc. Dr. Constance Rooke
cc. Dr. Niel Bessner
cc. Dr. Frank Hechter, Chairman, Board of Regents
cc. Drew Caldwell, Minister of Education
cc. Dr. Jean Friesen, Deputy Premier
cc. Len Derkach, PC Education Critic

© 2000 Henry Makow Ph.D.