in?; 8,3 iv-r.? grow exponential?)!
Vii": ilz- El 

August 3, 2018

PER SONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Dr. Rick Mehta
Department
Horton Hall, Room 310
Acadia University, NS
2R6

Dear Dr. Mehta

i have reviewed all the material in the MacKay Report including all appendices, as well as a
report from the inquiry Dr. Jeff Hooper, Dean of the Faculty of Pure and Applied Science,
conducted and the documents he appended to his report.

There are very serious issues outlined in the MacKay Report and, taken together with the further
documentation from Dr. Hooper?s inquiry, I have concluded there are grounds for disciplinary
action. In the discussion below I provide only examples to demonstrate the justi?cation. The
complete set of documentation submitted with this letter provides the details and particulars
supporting the allegations. For greater clarity, while this letter sets out categories of
inappropriate conduct, the particulars supporting this conduct are too voluminous to repeat in this
letter. The grounds for disciplinary action are:

1. Unprofcssional and non?collegial conduct directed at students, faculty and
administration, including the creation of a poisoned work environment;

There are a wide range of examples cited and described in the MacKay and Hooper reports (and
appendices) including everything from posting inappropriate material on your office door that is
offensive, to making poisonous twitter statements that Acadia should start saving money by
cutting the Women Gender Studies Program. More speci?c examples discussed below are
representative of the pervasiveness of your unprofessional and non-collegial conduct.

Specific to students, there is an inappropriate use of your position of authority/ power differential
as you disseminate opinions: for example, your unacceptable conduct stemming from the article
written. by student for the Athenaeum about women. and science where you
attacked both the article and in many different foras. This includes your
unprofessional usage of Acadia FYI to criticize. which goes out to all faculty and

deaths University, to University Antes-sin, ?t?dolfuit?a, Nova Sootia, Elana-do lit-ii" Vite

(951-3353853435? 

staff and possibly even students described. in MacKay Section I . A further example is your
interaction with student [on Facebook described in the same section of MacKay.

Another example stems from the incident of proj ecting the grades of majors and
minors in class and telling students that majors were doomed for the future because
their grades were lower than non-majors (MacKay Appendix 7, Tab 2 and. Hooper 3).

In addition, there is your unprofessional conduct in your class held March 26th, 2018 when you
referred to your students as engaging in cult like behavior and referencing Jonestown. Further,
there is the unprofessional, disrespectful conduct you demonstrated at the Honours thesis
defences on Including rollng your eyes, laughing and shaking your head during

?s thesis presentation about the impact of science and math engagement on
girls? self-?efficacy described in MacKay Section I VB 1, as well as in the Hooper Report. While
you turned to a series of tweets to apologize (documented in MacKay Appendix 6, Tab 13) and
personally emailed an apology to the student, the sincerity of your response (as noted by MacKay
p.49 - 50 and in Dean. Hooper?s report) is questionable given that you followed this apology with

retweeting others? messages.

Speci?c to faculty, many of your colleagues have expressed how your conduct has negatively
impacted their work and the enviropment in the Department. Your conduct of
acquiring the mail oil? desoribed in MacKay Section 2 is non~collegial and
inappr0priate. Furtherl?xamples involve your use of social media, including posting a letter you
wrote to Dr. Hooper where you are critical of two colleagues and included student survey data to
explain why you feel that it was in the department?s best interest to have you teach
the large intro courses. You also insinuated that changes in your course assignments
are a result of Dr. Brodeur disciplining you or retaliating against you because of issues related
to collective bargaining. The information you posted is con?dential, per Article 15.55, and
should never have been made publicly available.

Speci?c to administration your approach to many issues has been unprofessional and
insubordinate, including responding to Dean Heeper advising you to remove a post Where you
criticized the research of an Acadia graduate student in another discipline by taking to social
media and. reporting what you claim the Dean allegedly said as outlined in MacK'ay (Appendix 3,
tab 3, Brodeur). Further, sensitive letters to you from Dr. Raeside and from me ended up be
posted on various media sites (MacKay Appendix 6, Tab 213, pp 2 and 3) claiming that your
actions are an act of conscience and amount to whistleblowing.

2. Breaches of privacy in relation to students and colleagues;

Your attempts to pro?le yourself publicly without considering privacy rights of students
demonstrates a shocking lack of professionalism and insensitivity. This is especially problematic
because, as a professor, you are in a power position and in control of decisions that can have

serious consequences for students.

A I A. ?33" "i?i?ii?i


$3

A

Incidents that demonstrate your privacy breaches are outlined in the MacKay and Hooper reports.
These include, but are not limited to, your decision to invite Global News into your classroom
with no regard for students? privacy. Another, was your online postings where you provided
identifying detail of the student il/facKa ay Screen. shot of tweet attached
to formal complaint. Appendix %b 20)

The decision to post your lectures in a publicly available DrOpbox is extremely problematic. This
action further demonstrates your disregard for the privacy rights of students and suggests you are
more concerned with public online support than the interests of students. The public Dropbox
posting of a recording of your M?lclass in which student ldisclosed
her rape experience is reprehensible. The inappropriateness of this conduct was brought to your
attention by Dr Raeside (Letter March 6m, 2018 included in Hooper Appendix 3), yet you
refused to acknowledge the problem or remove the posting.

Many relevant details identified during the Mchay investigation are outlined in Section 1
and the transcripts in MacKay Appendix 2. Not only did you not remove the audio ?le when
requested, you responded by tweeting publicly to your followers to make copies to preserve the
audio recordings online. When asked a question on Facebook about the expectation of privacy in
the classroom you shockingly stated that "the student's right to con?dentiality and privacy was
lost the moment she loudly proclaimed what had happened to her in her personal life."
(Screenshot save: MacKay Appendix 6, Tab 2)

Your privacy breaches have not been limited to students as is evident by many of the complaints
from colleagues, including your posting of student survey data of other instructors. This
information is con?dential, per Article 15.55, and should never have been made public.

3. Creation of a poisoned, intolerant teaching environment, particularly regarding
sensitive issues of gender and race;

"Maintaining a productive learning environment" is one of your academic responsibilities 
Fifteenth Collective Agreement between The Board of Governors of Acadia University and The
Acadia University Faculty Association Article 17.02. In addition, as a member of the University
community, you are obligated to conduct yourself in a manner that respects and abides by the
Acadia?s Policy Against Harassment and Discrimination policy. There are many instances
reported in MacKay where you have failed to uphold these responsibilities. I will highlight a few
extracted from the Mac-Kay Report. There are situations where you make rude, intolerant and
degrading comments and present yourself in a hostile demeanor to students. An. example of such
an occurrence appears in the MacKay interview with student when she recalled that
you talked about rape culture in Intro to and denied that sexual assault survivors are
victims. You stated that women are assaulted because they put themselves in dangerous
environments (MacKay Appendix 2, Tab 1). Other examples, identi?ed by student?
in her interview, are when you spoke unkindly of Indigenous persons, commented on how
female students should try to prevent being raped and where you put a student?s name in the


i3 flit 

 

UNIVERSI ITY

Powerpoint presentation in class and criticized the student openly to a large class of peers
(MacKay Appendix 2, Tab 15).

On various occasions you brought some ofyour controversial social media posts into your
classroom and thus linked your classroom teaching and your social media activities. As MacKay
identities in Section VIA, this is a point that you con?rmed in your response to questions about
this use of social media in your class (MacKay Appendix 7). To the extent that at least some of
these posts are potentially discriminatory and/or harassing, the impact can be felt both in class
and on social media. One student, lcomplained, (providing documentation to
support (MacKay Appendix 2, Tab 21) that you have consorted with members of hate groups and
movements including MRAs and the Alt-Right (eg. Faith Goldy, a well-known Alt-Right
sympathizer and suspected white supremacist) showing sympathy for their views and refusing to
outright condemn. their hate speech (MacKay Appendix 2, Tab 21).

Negative impacts on the teaching environment were also created by conduct that pits science
against the arts. I will highlight a few examples extracted from the MacKay Report. Many
students in your classes come from both faculties. 'l?weets such as the example of disparaging
remarks about STEM and STEAM quoted in MacKay p. 64 and other examples as described in
MacKay Section VA 4 demonstrate the divisive nature of your conduct.

The cumulative effect of these behaviours, and others contained in the appended documents,
have created a poisoned learning environment.

4. Making inappropriate and potentially discriminatory comments towards women and
vulnerable groups in the course of his professional duties and on social media;

Evidence in the prior section obviously overlaps here and there are numerous other examples
documented in the MacKay Report. which include social media and face-to-face exchanges. As
stated in the MacKay "the fact that there are sixteen different items in the category of potentially
discriminatory or harassing posts is in itself alarming. It is also disconcerting that within this ?rst

category there are a wide range of targets. Indigenous peoples, racialized minorities, women,
sexual identity and gender expression, immigrants and multiculturalism are all targets? (Machy
p. 81). Appendix 6 of MacKay organizes social media posts demonstrating who you have

targeted.

MacKay Section. VA 2 documents the impact of your conduct as explained by students, and
faculty. External submissions, including is statement, express concern about
Indigenous students on the Acadia campus because of your public statements that gratuitously
criticize the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission without valid explanation,
academic support or relevance to your curriculum. at self-identi?ed victim of
rape and a student in your course, described her reaction to what you posted about women (cited

in 1t./facKay p.77. Appendix 2, Tab 2). A group of three students cited in lilacKoy p.77 (found in

{i?i?it?ilf 'l'i?if:


a. 

NIVERS

 

TY





Appendix 2, Tab 6) commented that you are insensitively targeting Aboriginal people and
transgender people online.

Personal harassment, and bullying of students, faculty and other members of the . .

university community;

As indicated above, you do not appear to recognize your re5ponsibilities under Acadia?s Policy
Against Harassment and Discrimination. policy. Moreover, you seem to be under the impression
that your rights of "free speech" and academic freedom trump all other obligations to the
university and members of the university community.

Your conduct in this regard has been far-reaching. MacKay Section 1 states "Virtually
every faculty and staff member identi?ed situations of harassment and discrimination of women,
transgendered individuals, black students, victims of violence, and Indigenous people."

Examples of harassment are outlined in MacKay Section where he discussed the roughly
twenty seven (27) different forms he identified which often included several instances within that
area. For example, there are situations where your comments denigrated women, such as
suggestions that they are not good at math, they are irrational, they are advantaged if they have
children and should have consulted Planned Parenthood before having children; you have also
publicly demeaned a student for the quality of their research, then breached. their privacy and
posted comments inviting others to weigh. in.

Regarding your online interactions with student MacKay 83) urges a "full read
of the Twitter exchange to see the extent to which she was attacked and ganged up on by Dr.
Mehta?s followers on his site. He in no way defended his student and in part initiated the attack?
(Appendix 6, Tab 2A, pp 123-144). My concern here, is not restricted to the harassment and bullying
of, referred to above. It is coupled with a failure on your part to recognize the power
imbalance between you as a faculty member and a student?.

Many members of the department have expressed genuine concern for their safety.
The interviews with faculty included in Mchay Appendix 3 speak to how you have harassed
them through your social media posts. You have targeted department members in other forms of
public communications such as talks and interactions like those described by] 
(MacKay Appendix 3, Tab 2) and discussed in .MacKay Section IVB 2. These include your
public attacks on WISE. One colleague expressed in the MacKay investigation, that he feels
harassed indirectly by the way you poisoned the workplace and created stress among students

and colleagues.

6. Signi?cant deviations from academic syllabus and significant use of irrelevant non-
academic sources in class, resulting in a failure to teach the required course materialI consider your conduct related to this issue to be serious breach of your responsibilities as a
professor. There has been a detailed analysis conducted by Dr. Diane Holmberg (Hooper
Supplemental Section D) referred to in MacKay and considered as part of the inquiry conducted
by Dr. Hooper. Lectures you posted publicly were reviewed by professors Holmberg and

Symons and contained signi?cant deviations from the curriculum. You presented a large amount
of material that would not normally be in an introductory course. The'courscs you 
teach are to be based on descriptions approved by the Senate of Acadia University and, in the
case of a course like Intro there is a discipline-based expectation that topics and
concepts will be covered that are typical of similar courses across the country.

A significant amount of class time (in some classes 90% or more) was spent on topics which are
irrelevant, or not connected to the course syllabus. This means that students from these courses
are not well-prepared for future courses and that you did not deliver the course Acadia contracted
you to teach. As reported in MacKay 15), the concern about diversions was shared by
24 of the 23 students interviewed (MacKay Appendix 2).

This clearly calls into question whether these students have had suf?cient exposure to the science

underlying or to key concepts related to their future programme of studies. This was
?concern echoed by studentL_ in her MacKay interwew where she 1nd1cated that

?we?re not covering the course content, so it is hard to get good marks? (MacKay Appendix 2,

Tab 1).

Your signi?cant deviations from academic syllabus and regular use of irrelevant non-academic
sources in class was informally brought to your attention by Dr. Hooper in mid-January and
formally by Dr. Raeside in the ?rst of his 15.50 (0 letters, yet no changes were made. After your
meeting with Dr. Hooper under Article l.4.02(a) in May 2018, he reported, "Dr. Mehta claimed
that he only used relevant material, and that he only used academic sources for his content. Yet it
is clear even from a cursory glance through his course materials that his statement to me is not
true. There are a considerable number of items that are not from academic sources or whose

relevance to is dubious."

While I. have concerns related to the content of your teaching as discussed above, another
concern I have is your approach to those who challenge you or attempt to provide a different 
perSpective in your classes, particularly vulnerable students. You claim in audio recordings,
tweets, interviews and meetings with Dr. Raeside and Dr. Hooper that you are trying to offer a
different perspective and that you are provocative to promote critical thinking. However,
students report that you are quick to shutdown people who disagree with your perspective and
that you often ignore students who you do not wish to hear or respond to. MacKay Section II 2

(fr 3 identi?es several relevant examples.

Excerpts from interviews in MacKay p. 20 comment on your defensive approach. As one
member put it, "What happens with Dr. .Mehta is not a question of content. It is a question. of
method". MacKay p.30 concludes, "While Dr. Mehta argues that he is de?nitely open to

orders; of? ?i't'ft?i

fii?x?tlit?ia?i-f}

 

@?ftdiy

$5



challenge and debate, there is considerable evidence to suggest that this is not the case. His
intentions do not appear to be applied effectively in reality (Appendices 2 and 

7. Damaging the reputation of the institution by attacking the University and colleagues
on social media;

in MacKay (Appendix 6) there are multiple posts demonstrating conduct thereyo'u damage the I
reputation of the University. These include comments you made where you give Acadia a one
star rating and advise students not to attend the university since Acadia is pursuing a ?social
justice agenda? and is not Open to a range of perspectives. You also attack Open Acadia as a
"cash cow? that "treats its employees like dirt. 

External submissions demonstrate the impact your posts have had on the institution. A poignant
submission was that of a potential student (MayKay Appendix 4, Tab 3). Others
remarked upon the anti-?intellecruai nature of some of your posts reported in MacKay (Appendix
4, Tab 6) drawing negative attention to Acadia.

While I consider all of these behaviors to be problematic, my most serious concern is the image
you have created of Acadia publicly as an intolerant environment and as a place where
vulnerable students may be attacked.

8. Unwilling to recognize harmful effects of actions on students and faculty.

For the past several months, issues involving the harmful effects of your class teaching,
interactions with faculty and students, and inappropriate social media activities have been
brought to your attention. These concerns, cautions and counseling have fallen on deaf cars. You
have been completely unwilling to recognize the harmful impact that your actions are having on
students, faculty and the University. Instead of taking resPonsibility for your actions, you have
de?antly refused to adjust any of your conduct and "doubled down" on this activity by seeking
support from free speech advocates outside of the University community under the guise of
"freedom of expression" and "academic ?eedorn". You have also provided selective information
about your activities to free speech zealots and encouraged them to engage with students and

faculty members.

You seem to be under the impression that your rights to free speech and academic freedom have
no limits and cannot be balanced with other rights and obligations, including the rights of faculty
members and students not to be subject to harassment, discrimination and intimidation, or
obligations to create an inclusive teaching environment conducive to learning the core
curriculum. As faculty members, we all have an obligation to create a challenging academic
environment, but when dealing with sensitive subjects such as gender, gender identity, and race,
these issues must be presented in a manner that is sensitive to students and relevant to the

Curriculum.

You have also failed to recognize that many of your social. media activities cannot be separated 
from your academic, collegial and social obligations to this institution and individual members of

were {Fir 

I
I i 

the Acadia community. Your decontextualized social media postings, engagement of free speech
supporters, and your gratuitous criticism of the University are all cause for serious concern.

One of the most troubling aspects of this case is that you have not accepted responsibility for
your actions or taken any steps to correct your behavior. This is evident from your denial that
you are engaged in any inappropriate conduct. Once such example is the recent meeting you had
with Dean Jeff Hooper, under Article 1402(3), wherein you declared that you have no idea why
that meeting was taking place.

In. summary, your conduct, commentary, deviation from teaching curriculum and the poisoned
teaching and collegial environment you have created is totally unacceptable and cannot be

ustified by rights to academic freedom or free speech. Your actions have extended well beyond
the boundaries of such protections. Moreover, the cumulative and escalating nature of this
behavior, coupled with your inability to recognize or take responsibility for the harm cannot be
tolerated. This conduct has seriously damaged the environment in your depaitment, the overall
reputation of the University, student learn.ng and our trust in you as a member of this academic

community.

You will be provided with an opportunity to comment on and respond to these issues in a 14.03

meeting.

Sincerely,

Q6 

Heather Hemming
Vice~President Academic
Acadia University

Encl.

Cc: Dr. Marc Ramsay, AUFA Senior Grievance Of?cer
Ron Pink, QC

A C'llii?lm?; 613?: 'l'i?ilf


I F. fi?3fzt3i5i?ii<?