A complaint!

The University vehemently and repeatedly told the AASUA that there were no complaints against me. The University repeatedly stated that my termination was “Management Rights”.

It took years to obtain the records, but I discovered that there might have been a complaint!

If I had done something worthy of termination, fair. But this website wouldn’t exist if that was the case. Even so, there should have been an investigation! In suppressing the existence of a complaint, Tykwinski and the University have completely failed:

  • presumption of innocence: innocent until proven guilty
  • due process: following established procedures
  • procedural fairness: independent, fair, and impartial process

By their failures, Tykwinski and the University of Alberta breached the Collective Agreement, University policies, provincial and federal statutes, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their intentional delays — withholding information of the complaint for years — made other avenues of recourse impossible, but I can still inform the world of their egregious misconduct.

The complaint

I have never seen the complaint. A University record suggests that a complaint was filed relating to inappropriate conduct with a student. Records suggest that Tykwinski met with the complainant in late March. Tykwinski never informed me of a complaint. Tykwinski never met with me. By his actions, Tykwinski unequivocally sided with the complainant and acted assuming the complaint was valid. Tykwinski terminated me and then decimated my character to the department and academic community.

The other possibility is that the University fabricated the existence of a complaint post-facto to justify their actions. It was several years from the start of this Tykwinski debacle to me receiving any record suggesting there was a complaint. Throughout the entire ten month AASUA investigation, the University repeatedly justified my termination as “Management Rights” — there was never any mention of a complaint.

As of December 2024, I have the following records:
• a record alluding to the existence of ONE complaint
• a record alluding to the existence of at least FOUR complaints (all within a short time)
• the University telling the AASUA there were no complaints
• when I FOIP’d the University for the complaints, they stated that there are none

Due process

The Collective Agreement details the procedure for handling complaints. The relevant section states, “On receipt of a written complaint, the Provost [delegated to the Chair] shall a) send a copy of it to the staff member“.

The very first thing the University was required to do was provide the me with a copy of the complaint and give me 10 days to respond. This never happened! Tykwinski never informed me of the complaint. This is gross misconduct by Tykwinski. When asked about a complaint, the University repeatedly told the AASUA that there were no complaints. The University lied, making them complicit in Tykwinski‘s misconduct and cover-up thereof.

General response

I taught between 2000 and 3000 first-year students every year. All of them are high-achievers who had A-averages in high school. At university, many of them are challenged for the first time in their life. Many get C’s, D’s, and F’s for the first time in their life. When they struggle and fail, some blame the instructor. Coupling this with grandiosity, narcissism, psychopathy, mental illness, and a desire for a specific career that requires high grades, a few students will actively retaliate against the instructor.

Statistics Canada reports that 18 % of the population over 15 experiences at least one clinical mental health event per year. The mental health of students is a growing concern at all universities. At UAlberta, counsellors see thousands of students per year. UAlberta doesn’t publicize it, but there are numerous student suicides every year.

An instructor who teaches 3000 students per year and gives 55 % of them a C grade or lower (45 % get A’s and B’s) should statistically expect that a confluence of events will eventually result in a malicious complaint against that instructor. Only a proper investigation will determine if a complaint is malicious or legitimate.

Specific response 1: entitled student

The only student complaint I ever received was a student who demanded a higher grade because of their familial ties. This student literally yelled at me, several times, “Do you know who my parents are?!” while demanding a grade that “was befitting of their status”. I directed this student to my supervisor. I then sent an e-mail to my supervisor, explaining what had just transpired. I later found out that the student was already in their office lodging a complaint when they received my email. After reading my email, my supervisor asked several pointed questions of the student and then denied their complaint.

A year later, the department Chair (not Tykwkinski) asks to see me. The Chair had received a complaint about my conduct with a student. I was shocked. As the Chair and I are going over the complaint, I asked if <student name> filed the complaint. The Chair went silent and white. Yes, it was that student. I explained what had happened a year earlier and provided the email. The complaint was investigated, and found to be malicious. The only complaint against me was malicious and from an entitled student.

Three years later, this student would be graduating.

Three years later, Tykwinski takes over as department Chair. Just before graduation, Tykwinski receives a complaint. Could it be the student from three years previous? Possibly. This student has shown they were persistent and willing to make a false complaint. They were probably smarter, and could have used their connections to convince someone else to be the complainant. If this complaint had been investigated properly, it would have taken time to identify the actual source and that the complaint was malicious. By then, they would be graduated and gone. But there was no investigation; Tykwinski acted as if the complaint was legitimate.

Specific response 2: University sexual assault awareness session

Reflecting on the timing of the complaint (late March), the only other event that could be taken out of context was my attending a sexual assault awareness session that was organized by the University to help people understand the new and controversial Sexual Assault policy. These sessions were intended to be a safe space to ask questions and get answers on what was and was not sexual assault.

The new Sexual Assault policy was controversial for two reasons:

  1. anyone could file a sexual assault compliant: they didn’t need to be involved in the assault. They didn’t even need to witness the assault; they could file a complaint based solely on hearsay.
  2. the default position was that the complaint was valid: the accused was guilty and had to prove their innocence. Guilty until proven innocent — exactly the opposite of centuries of legal precedence, and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This caused a lot of concern, so the University hosted discussion sessions and awareness events. The University wanted people to hear each-other’s perspectives, so these sessions were open to faculty, staff, and students. I attended a session in early March.

At the session, people brought up the possibility of malicious complaints, which the University representatives repeatedly dismissed. Someone mentioned that around 5 % of complaints are malicious. (I don’t remember what number was stated; 5 % is the current estimate.) The University representatives appeared to want to remain wilfully ignorant to the idea of malicious complaints.

I presented two examples:

  1. It was the beginning of the school year, and I was walking with an international student from a conservative country. We were walking several paces behind a couple holding hands. The couple reached a junction, kissed, and went separate ways. The international student exclaimed, “How disgusting!”, and other choice words.
    I asked the University if the international student had a legitimate sexual assault complaint. By policy, because it was an affront to them and they perceived it to be sexual assault, it was sexual assault. This complaint must be taken seriously, investigated, and the couple obligated to prove that their actions were not sexual assault.
    .
  2. In all religions, believers have varying degrees of commitment, from spiritual to devout. One tenet of devout Islam is that a woman cannot be alone with a male who is not their relative. Imagine a devout Muslim seeing a female student in a male professor’s office. The office door is open. The two are sitting on opposite sides of the professor’s desk. The devout Muslim files a sexual assault complaint. Is the professor guilty of sexual assault? By policy, the professor is immediately guilty and required to prove that his actions were not sexual assault.

Others nodded in agreement. Others presented their own examples. One of the other examples was of skin-tight and low-cut clothing. They commented that this type of clothing makes some people look, but they looked with shock and surprise, not with sexual interest.

I realized something, and presented another example.

3.






I asked about people attempting to read the writing on clothing. Some clothes have words written across the chest, across the buttocks, and up the side of the leg. People also wear name tags on their chest. If a person looks to read what is written on clothing, and another person sees and reports it as sexual assault, is the person reading the clothing guilty of sexual assault? By policy, the answer is yes. I pointed out that the University was currently selling track pants with bear paws on the butt cheeks. Many take this as sexual. I asked if the University selling this style of clothing made it complicit with sexual assault on campus. (image source: adapted from Muskoka BearWear)
.

After the session, I relayed the events of the sexual assault awareness session to Kerrie Johnston. At the time, Johnston was a senior administrator in my department. We had talked about the sexual assault policy earlier, and she also had concerns. She asked me how the session went, and I detailed the events.

These sessions were advertised by the University as a safe place to raise concerns and ask questions, which we did. But they were attended by faculty, staff, and students. Is it possible that someone attending the session turned something I said into a complaint?

Summary

The potential complaint may have pertained to one of the above events. It may have pertained to something else. It may have been fabricated by administration. If there was a complaint, I was not informed and not given an opportunity to respond — action required by University policy and the Collective Agreement. This website exists because I vehemently deny any wrongdoing. Tykwinski unilaterally took the side of the complainant and acted as if the complaint was valid. Tykwinski terminated my employment based on this complaint, and then decimated my reputation and career based on this complaint. Tykwinski breached the Collective Agreement, University policies, provincial and federal statutes, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Never try to destroy someone’s life with a lie, when yours could be destroyed with the truth.