Stories need proof, all voices with a chance to be heard

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/01/2015 (3985 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

I’ve been watching the court registry for signs of a lawsuit’s being filed, after missing out on what our informant considered my chance to do a major story.

It started a few weeks ago when someone approached us as the go-between representing what he described as a whistleblower, who allegedly had significant negative information to share about the University of Manitoba.

The go-between informant, initially anonymous, turned out to be a he.

Eventually, he gave me the name of the supposed whistleblower, and an opportunity to do an interview, under certain conditions.

The whistleblower intended to sue U of M, though that individual would have to remain anonymous in any story I wrote… a tough thing to do, since it’s inherent in filing a lawsuit that your name be on it. That, and the described circumstances would immediately identify the individual to anyone with knowledge of the situation.

The gist of the information was that a recent graduate of the medical school has been so far unable to obtain a residency in the medical specialization and geographic area of his choosing.

This, I gather, is not all that unusual. Regrettable, but not unusual.

What is unusual is what the young doctor alleged. Naming names within the medical school faculty, he alleged that there was a deliberate campaign against him, that his reputation had been smeared, that the U of M had tried to force him to go to northern Manitoba for his residency.

I never talked directly to the young doctor. I exchanged emails with him and with the go-between, who also supplied me with copies of astounding letters that the young doctor’s father had sent to a senior member of the medical school, and to Theresa Oswald when she was still health minister.

I have once in a while had occasion to deal with parents of adult students who get involved in problems affecting their educated and empowered adult children, but never anything approaching the scope of this father’s involvement. The letter to Oswald took up 10 pages as a computer attachment, and took me more than half an hour to read.

When supervising professors criticized the man’s son in assessing and overseeing his academic performance, it appears, the family had then made complaints about the supervising teacher to even more senior faculty and government people above that individual’s head, right up to complaining to the minister herself. There is no indication that Oswald even replied, and my inquiry to the cabinet office communications staff went unanswered.

The family even says that there were threats against the continued employment of another family member if they didn’t back off, though no names or details appear anywhere in the allegations.

The go-between sent me the link to a YouTube posting which he said was the key piece of evidence in the family’s case, and evidence of what it alleges is institutional racism.

The YouTube post is 93 seconds long. It consists of a photograph of a senior member of the medical faculty, over which is played a conversation between two unidentified people, one of whom may not have been aware it was being taped. Having listened to it, I told the go-between that it sounds to me as though two adult men are having an amicable conversation about the advisability of doing rounds with patients in a hospital ward, while dressed entirely in black.

Such observations likely did not endear me to the family.

This would all be quite a story, if any of it turns out to be true.

We went back and forth for a couple of weeks, before the go-between told me that the family had decided that it is not comfortable dealing with me, and prefers to try its luck with my colleague Gord Sinclair when he’s back in the office next month.

I fear that several things I said or did deterred the family from talking to me.

First, I would not guarantee anonymity. I considered the young doctor a person with a complaint about his own situation, possibly legitimate, but not a whistleblower about systemic problems. We would be very unlikely to allow him to remain anonymous while making these kinds of allegations about people’s character and integrity and professional abilities, and, anyway, everyone involved would know who he is. Filing a lawsuit would make his name public.

Repeatedly, I told the young doctor and the go-between the kind of extensive substantiation we require of each of the allegations, including anything on paper, and any independent witnesses who would support his accusations. We had been given absolutely nothing to prove that any of the allegations were about systemic issues, and affected any other student, rather than about how one student’s academic performance was assessed. In a word, we needed proof.

It did not sit well that I pointed out that I would go to everyone else the family named, and give all affected and involved individuals and institutions an opportunity to respond and to comment for publication.

And, I would not agree to submit any story to the family before publication.

We’ll see how all this plays out, should the family file a statement of claim as it has indicated it intends to do, and the U of M file a statement of defence.

Gord, just a heads up that they’ll be calling you.