The Gazette has been asked to publish the following Open
Letter from the provost, Dr. Jim Kalbfleisch. The full
report to which it refers can be found on UWInfo under the
heading "News" and the subheading "Documents FYI".
                         
Open Letter to the University of Waterloo Community
On May 9, 1994, I received the report of an Ethics Hearing
Committee on a complaint brought against Dr. Ken Westhues by
Dr. Adie Nelson, both of whom are faculty members in the
Department of Sociology. Dr. Nelson's complaint was stated
as follows:
     "My complaint is that Professor Westhues attacked my
   professional integrity beginning with my work as chair of
   a Ph.D. comprehensive exam committee.... Professor
   Westhues' conduct towards me, which has included written
   and verbal assaults upon my personal integrity, my status
   as a scholar, and my role within the department, has gone
   far beyond the bounds of proper and allowable behaviour."
 This complaint was considered by a Hearing Committee
consisting of Dr. Sally Gunz (Chair), Dr. Don Brodie, and
Ms. Patti Hayworth. The enquiry dealt with the professional
relationship between Dr. Nelson and Dr. Westhues. It did not
extend to an enquiry into the examination itself, nor did it
involve a review of what might have happened in recent
months between Dr. Westhues and other members of the
Department of Sociology.
 Among the items considered by the Committee was a letter
written on March 15th by Dr. Westhues to Professor Gail
Grant of the University of Guelph which was included in a
March 24th mailing by Professor Grant to numerous
individuals across Canada.
 The Committee found that:
     ù The Respondent was in violation of Policy 33. His
   behaviour constituted an attack on the Complainant's
   competence and character in a number of ways.
     ù The Respondent's attack on the Complainant's security
   within the Department amounted to an interference with
   her ability to perform her academic duties.
     ù To date, no apology that would be appropriate or
   acceptable in the context of the dispute has been
   received by the Complainant.
     ù The distribution of the March 15, 1994, "Dear Gail"
   letter to be a further attack on the Complainant's
   competence and character. Its effect, whether intended or
   not, may well be to damage her ability to perform her
   academic duties at the University of Waterloo or
   elsewhere. That letter also put a new spin on this
   matter; it served to extend the misinformation to the
   broader academic/professional community.
     ù The Respondent's case that the interactions were part
   of the normal "cut and thrust" of academic life is not
   accepted.
 One of the Committee's recommendations was that Dr.
Westhues be required to write an apology to be distributed
to recipients of the March 15th letter, to the Gazette and
via the Internet. Prior to its distribution, the response
was to be vetted by the Hearing Committee.
 I accepted the Committee's recommendations on May 18th.
Following several iterations, a letter of apology acceptable
to the Hearing Committee was produced by Dr. Westhues on May
31st, and a copy of that letter is attached.
 Unfortunately, Dr. Westhues has chosen to distribute his
apology as an attachment to a two-page letter dated June 2nd
and addressed to "Dear Colleagues and Friends". This letter
all but dismisses the findings of the Hearing Committee with
the statement: "...the fact remains that except for speaking
harshly to a colleague, I have done nothing contrary to uni
versity policy or standard academic norms...". It continues
the extension of misinformation to the broader
academic/professional community.
 The material distributed by Dr. Westhues to recipients of
the Gail Grant letter is far removed from what the Ethics
Hearing Committee approved. I consider it to be a violation
of the undertaking given by Dr. Westhues to me. It is not an
acceptable response to the Report of the Ethics Hearing
Committee.
 The actions of Dr. Westhues point to a serious difficulty
that can arise when formal complaints and grievances are
dealt with on a confidential basis.  Unless all parties to a
dispute respect confidentiality and refrain from public
statements, those who do respect it are placed at a
considerable disadvantage. The damage caused by one-sided
public statements may outweigh any remedies provided through
the formal hearing process.
 In view of Dr. Westhues' actions, and following
consultation with the Chair of the Ethics Committee and Dr.
Nelson, I am making public the full Report of the Ethics
Hearing Committee on this matter.
                                             Jim Kalbfleisch
                          Vice-President, Academic & Provost
 
                  Public Apology
K. Westhues, Professor of Sociology, University of Waterloo
Dear Colleague:
 In response to your complaint, an Ethics Hearing Committee
of the University of Waterloo (Professor Sally Gunz as
chair, Professor Don Brodie, Ms. Patti Haygarth), on the
basis of its interpretation of UW Policy 33, has ruled that
in my letter to Professor Gail Grant of 15 March 1994 (in
which I identified you as "Jane Jones"), I attacked your
competence and character. The committee has judged my
earlier apologies to you to be "not unequivocal," and
"reluctant at best," and it has recommended that I
   be required to write an apology - including a correction
   of any misleading or incorrect statements - to be
   distributed to recipients of the March 15 letter, to the
   Gazette and via the Internet. Prior to its
   distribution/circulation, the response would be vetted by
   the Committee.
By letter to me of 18 May 1994, the UW Vice President
Academic & Provost, Professor Jim Kalbfleisch, has accepted
the committee's recommendation.
 I hereby publicly apologize for having addressed you
rudely, offensively, and in a manner that you experienced as
intimidation, in private conversations on 11 and 12 November
1993, following the decision of a committee you chaired to
fail a doctoral student working under my supervision. I
sincerely regret if any of my communications since that time
has been understood by any reader as an attack on your
integrity or professional competence.
 I stated in my letter of 15 March that you telephoned me on
the day after the exam. It is true that I had tried to
telephone you earlier that day. There had been no answer, I
had left no message, and I was unaware that you had
telephone equipment by which to record my number. You have
pointed out that, because you recognized my number on your
equipment, you understood yourself to be returning my call.
I do not dispute your assertion.
 I realize that certain other statements in my letter of 15
March may be understood to reflect badly on you. Having
supported your appointment to our department in 1991, I
reaffirm my high regard for your scholarly achievements. I
consider you a fair-minded person. I respect your
competence, your character, and your right to disagree with
me about the procedures and outcome of the 11 November exam,
and of subsequent events in our department.
                                                 K. Westhues
                                                 31 May 1994