Protest on campus
The events since July 19, 2000, continued from the Main Page.

On July 19, I came to the campus and started distributing the "Open Letter to CBC.." and also the details of the fraud ("Ruthless Science Fraud..") and the file with 35 documents. I stood near one of the libraries, every day. One of those who asked for all documents was a lady from the Public Relations Department. There was no law suit for defamation, nor any other law suit. I freely displayed banner "Prof. Larsen - liar and thief".

The police gets involved to enforce ideology (as they said), but, in fact, to stop distribution of the evidence of the fraud. On September 6, before the arrival of undergraduates, the administration panicked. Two policeman (the U of T has its own police detachment, the one to which I was sent by the city police to complain of fraud!) were sent to remove me from the "private property". The police gave me the reason - "antisemitism" in my Open Letterr. I obeyed, but the next day I brought a letter to the President R. Birgeneau, enclosing the documents, (Doc. 41), and then went to see the Chief of the police. A deal was made: I was allowed on campus (which proves that no crime was suspected), but I promised not to distribute there the Open Letter. I continued to distribute it on the city property, the streets crossing the campus area. I did not receive any answer from the President.

CIUT radio silenced. Several journalists and reporters from the press, electronic media, etc., took my documents and promised to publish the story. Nothing ever appeared. The University radio station, CIUT, asked me to give a 30-minutes interview on the air within their usual format, with callers, but, the evening before it was scheduled, it was postponed (the reason - to prepare better), indefinitely.

"Varsity" is silenced. I talked to the News Editor of the main U of T student newspaper (The Varsity, with offices on several floors), Richard McKergow, who had read my Open Letter and was quite aware of what is going on. I explained to him that in this very trying time I needed support, I needed the contents of the documents to reach the public. He said that he already is working on this article. He asked me if I liked the way he did the coverage for another case of injustice at the U of T and I said, yes. He made a copy of the documents and said he will contact me soon. Then, - he was avoiding me for a couple of months. In December, he told me that there will be no article, because of... "antisemitism" in my Open Letter. Is this a bad dream? An openly political excuse for hiding the crime from public? Is the newspaper reporting the events or is it published merely to exert certain influence on the public? And what a bullshit of a pretext!! Newspapers do print the stories of antisemitism, they are wrong if they miss one. But, he knows that there is no chance to turn the story of rotten political influence in my letter into the story of antisemitism; that my Petition is signed by several Jewish students; and that there is no chance to avoid the main story - the fraud. He, clearly, was reminded that his newspaper serves the regime, period. He knows, probably, that U of T had fired several professors for merely political reasons and to explain why Larsen is still teaching students is not very easy.
In addition, several years ago, I had a lengthy interview (recorded) with the previous News Editor of this newspaper; the article never appeared.
What this newspaper proved is that my view of the present situation in Canadian press expressed in my Open Letter to CBC President, is correct.

The Graduate Students' Union. (see the previous history of my relationships with the GSU.) In September, GSU affirmed that they do support my case, however, they wanted "to make changes in the way the case is presented". A preamble was inserted on their web site, distancing GSU from my political incorrectness. Moreover, GSU has inserted an ominous reference to "the reluctance of the media to deal with a fairly complex case", giving the public an idea that media can, without being blamed, never ever publish the story. They also inserted the ominous words: "the University does not normally [sic!] dig beneath the surface for the facts", giving the public an idea that U of T, without taking serious blame, can never ever restore justice.
No, this case is not so complex. Reading a few pages of documents written by the U of T officials, is already hair raising: Larsen, repeated my experiments, "picked up" my ideas and published them as her own, - that's what is admitted. The press has been publishing cases more complex than this.
The U of T has destroyed my life. For 15 years it, "normally", wouldn't dig deeper? Yes, they did dig deeper and they came up with falsifying the law and the custom of scientific research. They had abolished the right of authorship of scientific ideas, they went very, very deep. They already dug "beneath the surface for the facts", they admitted the most incriminating facts, but falsified the law.
After my Petition was brought to the campus, in October, GSU had promised me that they will send it by e-mail to all U of T professors. I agreed to remove from the "Ruthless Science Fraud..", to which the Petition refers, a couple of less relevant paragraphs. Yet, the GSU President could not meet with me and there is no indication that GSU is in any hurry to send the Petition.
What the GSU can be scared with is the truly frightening silence, continuing for 6 months after my appearance on the campus, indicating the determination of the administration to cross all borders of decency and all borders of sanity rather than admit gilt, and giving to all others a lesson of absolute power.

Unions are heard when they want to be heard. The means available to them in this case: sending my Petition to the faculty and to the graduate students, condemning the administration at press conferences, demonstrations and strikes, and anything else done publicly, would be very effective. The administration would be forced to give meaningful answers to all questions and not feel free to take course for disaster. The Union should have also demanded a public inquiry into the matter.
The Graduate Students' Union has unconditional obligation to demand resignation of Ian Orchard, Vice-Provost of U of T (Student Affairs!!). This man, Ian Orchard, was the one who did first investigation of my case and falsified the University law. He made fraudulent statements which effectively took away the authorship of my Ph.D. research. He concealed the fraud and called my legitimate complaints "naive meanderings". (See Doc. 24.) GSU has to inform all graduate students of the implications of this precedent and to condemn statements made by Ian Orchard.
But, nothing of the above has been done.
In the Appeal, made on my behalf and drawing attention to other cases of appropriation of graduate students' research, the GSU says quite unequivocally: "Crimes are committed, but the university community remains silent." Should this university community now ask why, in three years, GSU has done nothing of the above? What is going on inside the Graduate Students' Union?
Below, is my last conversation with GSU's James Hoch on April 6, 2001 :
- This is Michael Pyshnov.
- O, hi, Michael.
- Ya, how are you?
- OK. I am sorry I wasn't able to do anything this week either.
- A.. for what reason?
- A.. partly, a.. there wasn't time and partly I wasn't feeling well.
- O, I see, I am sorry. But, there was a meeting and you were there, right?
- That's right. But we didn't have time to finish our business.
- A, so, a.., well, it looks like you didn't have time since October to April, right?
- Yea..
- A?
- A, not. Some of it true, some of it not true. But - yes.
- What is not true here?
- I mean, it.. it did go earlier and was somewhat discussed, but, it's unfortunately it didn't get very far.
- So, a.. you know I have a feeling that Graduate Student Union does not want to endorse my petition or send it anywhere. Is it true?
- It may be. It may be.
- And this is why there is a delay from October to..
- That, I think, that partly the reason actually.
- A.., and what is the reason why you don't want it?
- I am not exactly sure. As I told you before, I think some of the things in your literature just tipped the scales to the other side and, I think the support that you did have is not very much, not very strong.
- Well, I never had much support. You know, for three years you didn't do anything for me.
- That's true. Anyway, Michael, I am sorry, I have to go right now.
- So, a.. there is no.. there is no.. Why you are delaying me every time instead of, you know, saying this straightforward?
- Yeah.. well. It's.. the fact is I am not even sure myself frankly. So.. I will be raising it with.. electronically because we are not going to be meeting for a while. So. I'll see. But I will do that this afternoon for sure.
- Uhu.
- OK?
- OK. bye.
- Talk to you later, bye.
The "elected" executive and the staff of this GSU are simply running the communist party cell on the public money. My complaint was for them a political case only: A communist professor was a slave keeper. And she, the female scientist, was a fraud. And she, the Jewish female, brought the holocaust upon a scientist. This GSU, which is printing tons of Human Rights literature, could never receive any political benefit from this case. So, these "activists", for three years were actually helping the sadistic persecution of an innocent man. That is - instead of doing their direct duty - defending graduate student. How many of these conversations, as above, I had? One day, this city will be able to get a taste of it.

Leftist obscurantism rules student organizations and there is no other official voice on the campus; but, privately, uniformity is not there and many people do not wish to appear duped. For the first time in years I have found many people supporting me. Coming to the U of T, directly, with the Open Letter and with the documents was my last option and the right thing to do, even though the role of a lone street protester is frightening and frightening to others.
Yet, student organizations, all belonging to "groups" fighting for "social" justice, would do nothing for a man thrown out and robbed by a "progressive" professor. My documents did not move these young officials, as they did not move the older ones. The amazing selection of people is carried out in this University.
Quite a number of people said to me honestly that they are facing a dilemma: to sign the petition is the right thing to do, but they hesitate to give their signature to someone in clash with their own political persuasion, leftist, that is. The communist propaganda has been teaching people that there are "wrong things done for the right reason" and vice versa (the "right reason" here being their communist objectives). Morality, itself, has become "confused, in denial". The much quoted feminist maxims, reading like maxims of a hardened criminal caught red-handed, did not help the cause of justice. Painting Shylock as a humanitarian figure did not help it either. The "social" change has made the crimes acceptable and a lot of truth "unacceptable". It created a class of people - victims of politically correct crimes, who, however, en mass, have fear of even spelling out the cause of their demise. Incredible as it was, Serbs, whose motherland was destroyed and poisoned with radioactive waste, called the American government, at the time almost entirely represented by Jewish Democrats, - "fascists".
I would like to notice here the fact that among people who had signed my petition there are all names and "categories", but it seems to me, with considerable prevalence of women.

I never belonged to any political group and, for a long time - six years, did not see why this case of fraud in science should become politicized. Yet, the University, the Government and the press which turned out to be just a part of the regime, have been treating me, from the start, in one of the ways the political dissidents are treated by the totalitarian states: as if I, simply, do not exist. It was very difficult to begin seeing myself outside of the law.

When U of T had denied the jurisdiction of the civil court and jurisdiction of the Government, blocked my access to the court and to the law enforcement, they had thrown the process of justice into the medieval conditions when, according to the old English law, the victim would acquire the jurisdiction himself. The only way back to a modern civilization - is for the community to react decisively.

Petition is now rejected. I spoke to Beata Fitzpatrick, Head of the President's office, on the phone. President would not meet with me either. The letter from Birgeneau followed. I wrote second letter. (See the Main Page).
I thank everybody who signed the petition.
See the new attempt by the police to silence my protest on campus.
I will try to continue to demonstrate on the campus and elsewhere, informing people. I welcome phone calls and e-mail.
Write to the FORUM!
Send e-mail with reference to this web site everywhere!