However, Ryan’s and Sibley’s arguments do little to allay my scary impressions of the Harper government, since my fears are far more solidly based on what Harper and his cohorts say and do, as well as the philosophy underlying their actions. In the House of Commons on Oct. 28, 2002 Harper said, “A government monopoly is not the only way to deliver health care to Canadians. Monopolies in the public sector are just as objectionable as monopolies in the private sector. It should not matter who delivers health care, whether it is private, profit, not-for-profit or public, as long as Canadians have access to those services through the public insurance system regardless of their financial needs” (Barrett, 2004). Also, in a speech delivered to Toronto-area Conservative candidates on May 10, 2004, Harper said, “It does not matter who delivers health care — it matters that everyone can receive it” (CTV news staff, 2004).

This really scares me because of the implication that Harper either does not know of (or worse, knows of and is ignoring) a wide-ranging study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal entitled “A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Comparing Mortality Rates of Private For-Profit and Private Not-For-Profit Hospitals” (Devereaux et al, 2002). In this peer-reviewed analysis of data involving 26 thousand U.S. hospitals and 38 million patients, Dr. P. J. Devereux et al come to exactly the opposite conclusion to that stated by Stephen Harper above. Dr. Devereaux (2002) states, “The higher death rate at for-profit hospitals occurs for two reasons. Shareholders expect a 10% to 15% return and the hospitals have to pay taxes. Funding is fixed [from Medicare and other schemes in the United States and from national health insurance in Canada], so they cut corners on skills. It would be no different in Canada or Britain. If Canada opened its doors to private, for-profit hospitals, they would be the same US chains that generated the data included in our study.”

In the conclusion of an editorial comment on the research cited above, Dr. C. David Naylor, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto, wrote, “Does anyone still want to contract out large segments of our publicly financed health care system to for-profit US hospital chains after reading this article? I hope not” (Naylor, 2002). However, Harper, nearly two years later (Barrett, 2004), is expressing the opinion that providers don’t really matter, and I find this very scary indeed.

Another scary aspect of Mr. Harper’s recent behaviour would be his support and collusion in the defection of David Emerson from the Liberal opposition to a Conservative cabinet post, only a few days after the election. Mr. Harper, who actually claims all the credit and says that it was his idea to have Mr. Emerson defect, has never said that Emerson should run in a by-election to justify his actions to the electorate. (This is probably because the Conservative candidate in Vancouver Kingsway ran third with only 18% of the vote!). Emerson, who said on election night that he would be “Stephen Harper’s worst enemy” (Bryden, 2006) also has ruled out the by-election possibility, and admits he changed sides in order to remain in cabinet.

This contempt for the wishes of the vulgar electorate shown by both Harper and Emerson impresses me with their shared attitude that they know better what is best for the country, better than do the voters of Vancouver Kingsway. The actions of these two seem ethically reprehensible to me, and very scary in terms of the future of democracy in a Harper-led government. Their attitudes also seem very Straussian, at least as defined by Robert Locke, a follower of Strauss. In an article entitled, “Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind,” Locke outlines a central concept of Straussian philosophy:

“The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one (“exoteric”) thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real (“esoteric”) meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men’s attachment to their societies. Ideally, it then offers an alternative based on reason, but understanding the reasoning is difficult and many people who read it will only understand the “calling into question” part and not the latter part that reconstructs ethics” (Locke, 2002).

Possibly, Harper and Emerson regard themselves as the elite leaders who understand the “esoteric” context of their words and actions as part of the ruling class, while the voters of Vancouver Kingsway are only able to understand on the “exoteric” level. If we are offended at such an assumption, Locke provides some further explanation,

“Admittedly, the concept of the Straussian text is one susceptible to intellectual mischief in the form of wild claims about the esoteric meaning of texts, not to mention rather off-putting for anyone who doesn’t like know-it-all elites. But before getting too huffy about this elitist view of the good society, it is best to remind oneself that it is strikingly similar to the view cultivated for centuries by the Catholic and Orthodox churches and by Orthodox Judaism, not to mention other religions: there is a small number of men who know the detailed truth; the masses are told what they need to know and no more. Free inquiry outside the bounds of revelation is dangerous. And yet Strauss practiced free inquiry and taught anyone who could afford the tuition at the University of Chicago how to do so. Clearly he is not just an elitist trying to return to the past that he claims existed; he strongly hints this is impossible anyway” (Ibid.).

The above seems far more scary than the innocent sounding “pedagogical methodology” that Gregory Ryan (2006) would have us believe is underlying the distrust of Harper and the Calgary school. In fact, it almost seems that what Locke (2002) is saying could be used to justify (politically) withholding the truth, or even lying to the electorate, if justified by noble goals.

Finally, I am scared by the fact that Harper has still not rescinded the infamous “firewall letter” to Ralph Klein (Harper et al, n.d.). Since this letter basically recommends actions that, by some interpretations, could lead to the break-up of Canada in the same style as that is supported by Quebec sovereigntists, I find it very scary that one of the co-signers is now sitting in the Prime Minister’s Office.

There are many more concrete reasons to find Harper and the “Calgary school” scary, rather than the vague philosophic misconceptions Gregory Ryan (2006) suggests, and the actions that Harper has taken so far haven’t been reassuring. I, and the majority of Canadians who did not vote for Harper, will be waiting to see if our fears were justified.

References

Barrett, T. (2004, May 20). So What Did Harper Say? The Conservative Leader’s sound bite file on everything from taxes to Iraq, health care, gay marriage, nature, left wingers and keeping. The Tyee. Retrieved from http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/05/20/So_What_DID_Harper_Say/
Bryden, J. (2006, February 6). Emerson defection to Tories in the works within days of election as a Liberal. Canadian Press. Retrieved from http://www.cp.org/english/online/full/election/060206/D020674AU.html
CTV news staff (2004, May 10). Harper looks to expand role of medicare. CTV.ca [web site]. Retrieved from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1084209609152_7/?hub=Canada
Devereaux, P.J. et al (2002, May 28). A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), vol. 166, issue 11. Retrieved from http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/11/1399?ijkey=55e3d956db16fe6dfff97c8baffacc5082afec86
Harper, S. et al (n.d.). The Alberta Agenda: Letter to Hon. Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta. Alberta Residents League. Retrieved from https://www.albertaresidentsleague.com/How/AlbertaAgendaLetter.htm
Hopkins-Tanne, J. (2002, June 8). Mortality higher at for-profit hospitals. British Medical Journal (BMJ), vol. 324, p. 1351. Retrieved from http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7350/1351
Locke, R. (2002, May 31). Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind. FrontPageMagazine.com [web site]. Retrieved from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1233
Naylor, C.D. (2002, May 28). Your money and/or your life? Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), vol. 166, issue 11. Retrieved from http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/11/1416?ijkey=8743929201b1fd15e23339481cc66a4c26f56b21&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Ryan, G. (2006, February 17). Misconceptions about Harper’s Hidden Agenda. The Voice, vol. 14, issue 6. Retrieved from http://www.voicemagazine.org/archives/articledisplay.php?ART=4507&issuesearch=1406
Sibley, R. (2006, February 5). The making of a negative image (Part 2). Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/archives/story.html?id=8cd97736-b45f-40e4-bf92-ef83e19225cc

UPDATE TO The Scary Harper Government
“Harper ‘loath’ to co-operate with ethics commissioner

On March 3, 2006, CBC News published an article entitled “Harper ‘loath’ to co-operate with ethics commissioner.” The news article includes the following text,

The Prime Minister’s Office attacked the credibility of the ethics commissioner Friday night after he announced an investigation into conflict of interest allegations against Stephen Harper. Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro said he will look into what influence Harper wielded to convince former Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson to cross the House of Commons floor. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s conduct in the Emerson affair will be reviewed. “The Prime Minister is loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned, moreover who has been found in contempt of the House,” said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister’s director of communications.”

As this situation was one of the ethical concerns in the Voice article I recently wrote, I did a quick search to determine how serious this issue is. Apparently, some lawyers (Burrows, 2006; Dimitrov, 2006) feel that Harper and Emerson may have violated the constitutional rights of the Liberal voters in Vancouver Kingsway, specifically rights set out in Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Dimitrov suggests “that it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General of Canada to act to resolve this matter. Action might take the form of the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate, a judicial inquiry, a reference question to the Supreme Court.”

Also, Emerson has been asked by the president of the Liberal riding association to return more than $90,000 in Liberal campaign contributions (Bailey, 2006). It appears that his acceptance (and Harper’s offering) of “$70,000 in annual ministerial compensation (bringing his total taxpayer-financed salary to about $215,000 per annum, not including benefits), the chauffeur-driven limousine, the executive office suite and the army of public servants and political staffers anxious to do his bidding” (McMartin, 2006) may be a violation of the law administered by Elections Canada. Emerson has vowed to resign if found guilty (Globe and Mail, 2006), but it is not clear what the repercussions will be for Stephen Harper. Harper, his party, and Emerson will lose considerable credibility as crusaders to re-establish ethical government if they continue to stay silent (Ermisch, 2006).

References
Bailey, I. (2006, February 8). Vancouver-Kingsway demands Emerson returns campaign contributions. Republished by Vivelecanada.ca [web site]. Originally published under title: Angry Emerson seethes at critics in The Province. Retrieved from http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060208100356536.
Burrows, M. (2006, March 2). Legal action gets mixed reviews. Straight.com [web site]. Retrieved from http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=16397.
CBC news staff (2006, March 3). Harper ‘loath’ to co-operate with ethics commissioner. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/03/emerson_060303.html.
Dimitrov, P. (2006, February 20). Is there a legal case against David Emerson: Part two. Vivelecanada.ca [web site]. Retrieved from http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060220013657272.
Ermisch, M. (2006, March 5). Tory mutes don’t surprise NDP MP. Kamloops this Week. Retrieved from http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=15&cat=23&id=602017
Globe and Mail news staff (2006, February 14). Emerson vows to quit if guilty. Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060214.wxemerson14/BNStory/National/home.
McMartin, W. (2006, February 9). Emerson: The power and the Tory: His betrayal, his perks and some context for the outrage. The Tyee. Retrieved from http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/02/09/EmersonPower/

In any case, I decided to do an analysis of the essay and the conclusions of the review as outlined in an article appearing in the Calgary Herald on May 29/04 (“Athabasca University Clears Klein: Plagiarism Complaint Dismissed”, by Karen Kleiss of Canwest News Services, Edmonton), and another article (“Athabasca University Clears Klein of Plagiarism Charge, Calls Mistake Minor”, by Lorraine Turchansky, found at http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/28/pf-477282.html). My purpose is to make it possible for any member of staff or student to easily go on line and check my conclusions against those of the administrators who conducted the review. (While I could not find original copies of the essay, I used copies posted at http://www.cbc.ca, and at http://www.ralphsworld.blogspot.com/RKChilePaper.htm, which corresponded, except for minor typos).

I would like to strongly protest some of the opinions expressed with regard to Klein’s essay, but also AU’s Vice-President , Academic, Judith Hughes’ statement quoted at the end of the Turchansky article as follows:

We have a pretty clearly prescribed process, and when someone in the community raises a complaint about possible academic misconduct, we are required to conduct a process, and we’ve done that … We’re satisfied and comfortable that the process was applied properly, that we applied the process that we would apply to any of our students.

As a former student of AU’s predecessor ( the Alberta Correspondence School Branch), a member of the community, a graduate of the M.ED. program at the U. of C. (with thesis), and a teacher who spent much of his career teaching high-school English, I disagree!

First, it is incredible to believe that Ralph Klein did not know that he must enclose directly quoted passages in quotation marks, since, in the latter part of the essay, he quotes copiously from a course reading (Gibert) without any problem. Also, as a politician and as a journalist, he has been reading and reporting researched material for many years and should be accustomed to demanding sources and defining sources he has used. In addition, in his early political career, especially when speaking to teachers, I have often heard Klein refer to his experience as both a teacher and administrator at a secretarial school, where such mundane skills would certainly be part of the curriculum. Finally, Klein, as Minister of Communication, also could easily have subjected his effort to a sort of “peer review” by asking any of the more than 200 employees of the government communications staff he directly controls to review his work after-hours for proper attribution.

Much of the material that Klein copies directly, beginning with the fourth paragraph of his essay, is taken from (and indirectly attributed in his “Endnotes”) a web site maintained by a Marc Becker, who teaches Latin American history at Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri. However, the material is clearly labelled (at http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/webpages/) as the work of his students on a web site development assignment. This material was actually copied by Becker’s students (Ken Tucker, Aubrey Finch, and Maria Jose Carrasco) from another web site without proper attribution. The material copied was actually from a case study assigned by another professor at another university, in a sociology course (“Allende’s Chile, 1972 ” by John Foran, Univ. of Calif., Santa Barbara http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/130.html). The point here is that these were obscure and non-authoritative sources; exactly the kind likely to be chosen by a plagiarist. Also, headings and content that did not suit Klein”s purpose were edited out, further reinforcing my view of this section as a deliberate act of plagiarism, rather than a mistake or unintentional use of material (See paragraph dealing with Kissinger’s comments about Allende).

After copying a lengthy section nearly verbatim, except for headings and section breaks, (from either the student site mentioned earlier or the source the students used at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/index-dg.html), Klein then uses three paragraphs clipped from another web site (http://www.moreorless.au.com/about.htm) and used nearly verbatim. While he does acknowledge using this site with his “Internet/End-notes” approach, this is again an obscure site, authored by Bruce Harris, an Australian with a B.A. in communications, who freely admits that he has not properly attributed sources.

This is followed by two paragraphs which may have been written by Klein, and then another paragraph with what seems to be an edited version of Allende’s last interview, copied again from the Harris site. Then, following an introductory paragraph referring to readings in CMNS 402, Klein demonstrates that he does know how to attribute sources and use quotation marks, headings and other devices (“Gibert goes on to say…”) indirectly quoting the following seven paragraphs and an editors’ note from the Gibert reading. After some material derived from personal interviews, Klein mentions the Harris site as one “notable” source but does not give the full address, and just before his conclusion, he again copies most of three paragraphs from Harris (http://www.moreorless.au.com/about.htm) and returns to using “Internet” as his only attribution.

The point in discussing the above actions is to show that Klein was editing these sources, knew that the material was not his, and knew what to do to properly credit the real authors. This is, clearly, deliberate plagiarism.

In an effort to determine how any process of review could have cleared Klein, I consulted the section of the AU calendar dealing with “Intellectual Ownership and Honesty” (http://www.athabascau.ca/studserv/inthonesty.htm#recpla). Under the heading “Recognizing Plagiarism”, three examples are cited:

1 .If you fail to indicate that material is quoted by enclosing the material in quotation marks.
2. If you do not acknowledge the source of a direct quotation within the text of the paper, in footnotes, on the Works Cited or Reference page, or if you do not identify the correct source of a quotation.
3. If you included paraphrased or summarized information (that is not generally accepted as ‘common knowledge’) and do not acknowledge its source.

At the same location, I found that there are brief exercises in academic honesty to be completed by anyone who is doubtful about handling source material, which would ensure that any student could easily become extensively familiar with what is and is not plagiarism (http://library.ups.edu/research/guides/ex1ver.htm).

In my opinion, the examination above shows that much of Ralph Klein’s essay was plagiarized according to the first and third example of AU standards, and that Klein also did not make the effort to easily familiarize himself with AU standards.

The actions of the unnamed instructor of CMNS 402 in giving this material a grade of 77 percent, apparently after clearly recognizing attribution problems, according to the Kleiss article (The Herald, May 29/04) are puzzling to me. A demand for correction of the attribution problem would have made sense. However, if this was done with Klein’s essay, it would have immediately highlighted the lack of original material written by Klein, and likely would have received a failing grade for lack of content.

Ms. Hughes is quoted as saying “…The instructor would treat opportunities like these as teachable moments…” (The Herald, K. Kleiss, May 29/04). In my experience, the “teachable moment” would only have occurred if this poorly organized cut – and – paste job , with only a few vague paragraphs actually written by Klein, had been rejected and the student required to complete the assignment properly or receive a failing grade. (This certainly would have been my reaction at the high school level, and the student concerned would have arrived at his/her first university course knowing the importance of proper attribution).

There are those who say Klein would never have tabled his essay in the legislature if he had been aware of his plagiarism. I feel it was far more likely that Klein was ignorant of how easy it is to use web search-engines to check for sources, and felt that his essay had already fooled one PhD. to achieve a 77 per cent grade, and therefore would be likely to pass with the legislature and the general public. Also, Ralph Klein has been known to do and say things before that he has not completely thought through, especially in the heat of debate. Using his rather pointless essay to illustrate anything appears to qualify as one of those occasions.

In the Turchansky article, the director of Klein’s program, Ken Collier, who actually conducted the review, is quoted below:

“In Collier’s rationale – released by the university with Klein’s permission – he said he viewed the improper citation ‘as a relatively minor error undisputed by (the) student, easily corrected, and not an on-going or repeated problem.'” (Athabasca University Clears Klein of Plagiarism Charge, Calls Mistake Minor, by Lorraine Turchansky, found at http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/28/pf-477282.html)

I was unable to locate the rest of this “rationale”, but I think I have shown above that improper citation / plagiarism was rife throughout the essay and was corrected immediately when dealing with course readings assigned by the instructor. I also find Collier’s comments inexplicable in the exonerating letter he sent to Klein:

I find that there is no academic or legal basis to sustain the claim that an academic offence has taken place. No intent to deceive or cover up use of unattributed material.nor any practices to pursue those goals are evident. (Letter to Ralph Klein from Ken Collier – May 20/04 – para. 3 – downloaded as a pdf file from the Alberta Govt. web site on Athabasca U. letterhead.)

I would definitely like to see what logic was used to come to these conclusions when mine are so opposite. Perhaps a clue comes from the paragraph immediately preceding the paragraph quoted above:

After speaking with the complainant, yourself, and others with information bearing on the complaint, I reviewed course assignments you submitted, with tutor comments written upon them. The tutor’s treatment of citation issues related to the Internet quotes was completely justified and adhered to AU policy. These were the only quotes with problems (dealing solely with placement in the text of identifying quotation marks and author names) (Letter to Ralph Klein from Ken Collier – May 20/ 04 – para.. 2)

The quoted paragraph above makes it seem as though a few misplaced punctuation marks were the extent of the problems with this essay, and this was due to innocent misunderstanding! I think any reader of this analysis who bothers to check the sources I have cited above will conclude that well over 50 per cent of the content of this essay was simply copied, pasted and edited, with and without attribution, and the remainder is of doubtful value in generating any sort of meaningful thesis statement regarding the media and the revolution in Chile.

Finally, I find it extremely difficult to believe that any student of AU would have been treated in the same way. Both Ms. Hughes and Mac McInnis, president of your student union, excuse Klein’s actions by citing the fact that this is only Klein’s fourth course (K. Kleiss, The Herald, May 29/04). However, this is a senior level course, and, in my university experience, no one was ever given this kind, tolerant, and grade-enhancing treatment, even in introductory courses. As a result, I believe that AU students and staff actually should investigate this matter fully, before the Klein essay and AU becomes a case study in plagiarism.

In fact, it is already being used in this way by:
an instructor at the U. of Lethbridge – http://classes.uleth.ca/200402/engl1900z/plag.htm
an anonymous teaching assistant – http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/426504.html
and an instructor at Carleton U. – http://www.carleton.ca/~dmcdowal/assign/1stessay.htm.

While Ralph Klein, Ken Collier, and Judith Hughes feel that the matter was closed with the review they conducted, I feel that the reputation of Athabasca University staff and students still needs to be “cleared”. I hope both groups will examine what I have concluded above, form their own conclusions, and take some appropriate action.