Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

[an error occurred while processing this directive] 

CASE NO. ICP/NIPRC/2001/02/0981

REPORT ON CHRIS KIFINDI BUNKHETI COMPLAINT AGAINST
LOVEJOY HINTERLAND PROJECT AND YORK UNIVERSITY

PREPARED FOR THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSION FOR

HUMAN RIGHTS, SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON RACISM, RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE,
GENEVA TO FACILITATE THE INVESTIGATION ON THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY DR. CHRIS KIFINDI BUNKHETI AGAINST
YORK UNIVERSITY AND MR. LOVEJOY HINTERLAND PROJECT OF
YORK UNIVERSITY ONTARIO CANADA


BY


INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR NIGERIAN PEOPLE'S
LIBERATION AND DEMOCRACY (ICN-PLD)

ANTI-REFUGEE SLAVERY INTERNATIONAL (INTERNATIONAL
CAMPAIGN PROJECT)

AFRICAN CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION (ACHRA)

NETLINK INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM (NLICS)

OIL AND CHEMICAL WATCH INTERNATIONAL (OCWI)

AFRICAN CANADIAN IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION
(ACISA)


REPRESENTED BY:

DR. PHILLIP C. OFUME - CHAIR OF THE INVESTIGATING
COMMITTEE

DR. AGNES M. CALLISTE - MEMBER OF THE INVESTIGATING
COMMITTEE

DR. GODSON ETIEBET - MEMBER OF THE INVESTIGATING
COMMITTEE

DR. FRANK N. UKADIKE - OBSERVER AND ASSESSOR

June, 2001


Page 2

CONTENTS

PAGE

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….3 - 5

CHAPTER I

Extract of Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti's written Complaint…………………………..........5 - 19

CHAPTER II

Background ……………………………………………………………………19 - 20

Specifics of the Allegation and the Inquiries of the Investigating
Committee ……………………………………………………………….…….20 - 24

CHAPTER III

Method of Investigation………………………………………………………...24 - 27

Documentary Submissions……………………………………………………..28 - 29

Expert Discovery of Facts and Issues at York University……………………....28 - 29

CHAPTER IV

Issuance of Interrogatories on York University………………………………....29 - 37

Answer to Interrogatories and Factional Intervention:

(a) Tele- Gallup Poll at York University……………………………………....37 - 37

(b) Answer to Interrogatories:
(i) Mr. Conrad Thompson - President, Graduate
Students' Association…………………………………………………….......37 - 39

(ii) Denise N Hammond, M.E.S : Faculty of Graduate
Studies Petitions Committee - February 27, 2001……………………………39 - 40

(iii) The clarification of UNESCO dated 13 February
2001shows that Dr. Bunkheti was merely issuing an academic
and professional advise to Mr. Paul Lovejoy and UNESCO
and Nigerian Hinterland Project…………………………………………….40 - 41

Page 3

(iv) Ms. Shirley Katz - Professor at York University………………………...41 - 42


CHAPTER V

Findings of the Investigating Committee…………………………………….42 - 46


Recommendation……………………………………………………….....46 -46

Introduction


This is a complaint filed by Dr. Chris Kifindi Bunkheti at the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Geneva against Mr. Lovejoy Hinterland and York University. On February 05, 2001 the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Geneva forwarded the documents containing the complaint to the above listed NGO through Dr. Phillip C. Ofume. The purpose of this transmission from the UN to these NGOs is request for intervention in relation to possibility relevant to using their experiences in dealing with similar situation to advise and find solution to the conflict.

This Report is the opinion of what the Investigating Committee found after its research and investigation of Dr. Bunkheti's allegation, the different opposition at York University, UNESCO and other anonymous Intervenors. The proliferation and opposition system within the authorities at York University compelled the Investigating Committee not to represent York University with one central administrative system capable of speaking for the entire University. During the research and investigation of the dispute, the Investigating Committee encountered diverse opinions and opposition authorities at York University. The Committee found that this divided authorities and opinion disrupted justice, human rights, procedural rules, mediation and dispute resolution since 1999 and became the sources of Dr. Bunkheti's hardship, victimization, pains and persecution.

The Executive Council of these Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) under the chairship of Dr. Ofume requested for the constitution of an Investigation Committee made up of experts with longstanding experience in academic administration, teaching, research and human rights.


Page 4

The committee entered into a preliminary investigation first of all to know whether the domestic mechanism has been exhausted at York University and Canada before Dr. Bunkheti proceeded on to the United Nations. Dr. Bunkheti started filing his complaint to different authorities inside and outside York University since 1999. The Committee found that Mr. Lovejoy is very popular inside York University and among certain institutions across Canada due to his ability to get research grants inside and outside Canada. At York University, Mr. Lovejoy used this power to frustrate the hearing of Dr. Bunkheti complaint inside and outside York University. The Committee found that this excessive power and oppression lead to the fragmentation of opinion and creation of a wide array of opposition and faction against the persecution and victimization of Dr. Bunkheti.

The purpose of this Report is to document the situation at York University thus, prevailing between Dr. Chris Kifindi Bunkheti and Mr. Paul Lovejoy and Nigerian Hinterland Project and York University. According to the sources which traced the history of the conflict at York University, Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti alleged that there was conflict on/before the lecture at York University on September 15,1999 which expanded the conflict. According to the source, Dr. Bunkheti challenged and rebutted what was regarded as academic and professional fallacies on the writing of Africa History without collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions. Dr. Bunkheti discovered on the foundation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) /Paul Lovejoy/Nigerian Hinterland Project a curious research and investigation defects which has created a disconnection and instability inside and outside Africa.

On the UNESCO/Lovejoy Hinterland African Slavery, the source further alleged that these defects relate to writing of Africa History without collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions in Western, Central and Eastern Africa. The Committee found that Dr. Bunkheti's opinion, which was academic and professional contribution, unfolded series of inter-personal, administrative, academic, professional, etc. conflicts and strained the relationships between Dr. Bunkheti and Mr. Lovejoy and York University. Dr. Bunkheti alleged that this scholarly opinion amounted to the formation of different gangs inside and outside the York University against him to force him to leave York University.

The centre of the conflict is that Mr. Lovejoy has certain research experience on African Slavery in collaboration with York University and UNESCO and Dr. Bunkheti has research, academic and practical experience on African Slavery, History, Culture and Language. This uneven situation degenerated to "two major conflict; firstly when Dr. Bunkheti challenged the UNESCO/Nigerian Hinterland African Slavery Project which was put in place from time to time without collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions in Western, Central and Eastern Africa and secondly when he persisted in his desire to study another Ph.D. degree in history with a special focus on African slavery. The First Ph.D., which Dr. Bunkheti
Page 5
earned from the University of Paris III, is equivalent of a North American Ph.D. Dr. Bunkheti's first Ph.D. dealt specifically and profoundly with the marginal residual slavery factors in Africa and its sociolinguistic interconnection and direct correlation to match the application for the second Ph.D. application at York University. Slavery in Africa and African Slavery are some of the core concentration of Mr. Lovejoy's fund generation sources and resources to York University and his affiliates in Canada and Africa. The Committee tied this to the major centre of gravity fanning the conflict and dispute at York University between Dr. Bunkheti and Mr. Lovejoy and some of the opposition at York University.

In summary conclusion to this introduction, the Investigating Committee discovered that the cold relationships started before the September 15, 1999 controversial history lecture when Dr. Bunkheti dissented academically and professionally on the Lovejoy Hinterland/UNESCO Project. Dr. Bunkheti's Ph.D. research choice to study African Slavery at York University Department of History contributed to widen the scope of the already wide conflict. The fragile relationships degenerated to create all the spells and factions within York University. Thereafter, lack of impartial domestic conflict resolution mechanism further created various objects of the conflict, which led to a devastating uneven and fragile environment. The Committee found that all the domestic mechanism inside and outside York University failed and there is urgent need for the intervention of the United Nations.

The Report concludes inter alia with recommendation drawn from a wide array of written opinion by the investigating Committee; the position of the divided authorities at York University; discovery examination on documentary and oral submissions; academic and professional investigation on UNESCO/Lovejoy Hinterland Project; the submission of the UNESCO; the position of Dr. Bunkheti and expert opinion on the academic; professional relationships between Dr. Bunkheti and Mr. Paul Lovejoy and academic administration defect.

Extract of Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti's written Complaint

Introductory Remarks

I am writing in response to the biased decision rendered by York University's UNESCO Nigerian Hinterland Project with regard to my academic work. The letter is to appeal the decision made on my case. In my view the decision smacks of high handedness; it flagrantly violated the accepted norms and procedures of academic ethic. Procedural norms are invariably sacrificed at the altar of expediency to satisfy the whim and fancy of some people. Fair treatment is thrown out of the window when decision are made not on merit but, on what appears to be the race, nationality and ideological leanings of the person under consideration. These procedural faux pas it would appear have the backing of both the History department and its dean, professor S. Murphy.

Page 6
As you are aware this case has its genesis in the procedural action initiated by me in 1997. Maintaining contact with you is necessary for the resolution of the problem. However I have been consistently frustrated in my attempts at seeking to resolve the problem. The constant running around and bureaucratic quagmire one has to negotiate does not inspire confidence. It is not unreasonable then, for one to speculate that a hidden and subtle agenda exists, one that is committed to a detraction of and the possible dismissal of the issue at all costs. It boggles the imagination to understand how a university of York's standing and reputation can sanction a project that legitimizes the misrepresentation and falsification of African history in the name of serious scholarship. Below I outline issues that are pertinent to understanding of the matter under consideration:

Heart and genesis of the dispute

My first contact with the school was made by email (dated Dec, 1997) One of these missives survived email dated Thursday Jan.22, 1998 to Professor Lovejoy.
The surviving email indicates my concern with Lovejoy's methodology employed in the writing of African history. An article on slavery in a scholarly publication that argued that slavery was universally abolished piqued my interest. Lovejoy was a member of the editorial board of this publication. I emailed the members of the board, including Lovejoy. I argued in my email that slavery was far from over. I cited the example of my own clan in the Kongo, which I liberated when I became chief of the clan in 1977. Also I talked about Angola and argued that slavery is still very much apart of central African societies, but unfortunately the institution of slavery is well hidden. In the email I am already talking about the necessity of Oral traditions and recommending the incorporation of African witnesses in the scholarship. My arguments (via email) must have aroused the interest of professor Mark Klein of University of Toronto, for he invited me to Toronto to further discuss this matter. I came and we had some fruitful discussion.
(2) A comparison between my first email alluded to above and an email (dated February 9, 2000) to Lovejoy would establish my claims. From the inception, then, it is very clear that I am endorsing Oral traditions and Genealogical history. The real reason(s) underlying the issues surrounding the conflict between Lovejoy and myself had its genesis in my constant recommendation that oral tradition be incorporated in the descriptive and theoretical model used in the writing of African history.

Conflict of Interest
My intentions were never to criticize the views of Lovejoy for the sake of criticism. On the contrary I was and am motivated entirely by a search for 'truth' regardless or where that journey may lead. I was also very eager to provide or point Lovejoy to other sources, which I am convinced, would have greatly benefited the research. Sadly Lovejoy did not entertain such requests or notions. Unfortunately for reasons entirely unclear to me, Lovejoy misconstrued what I was arguing and his behaviour


Page 7
towards me has been a reflection of what I think is his misinterpretation of what I am arguing.
(3.) A recent publication (Lovejoy's friend) that came out of Indiana University press speaks about the sinking of a slave vessel (we also know about many other slave ships that sank). Lovejoys database, concerning the number of slaves that were taken from Africa is based on a count of the number of slaves on vessel transporting these people. How can one hope to achieve any semblance of accuracy in establishing the number of slaves taken from Africa when the database is built on false premises and estimations. Lovejoy's database has no way of knowing the number of slaves that were on those vessels that sank, for example.

History
4 A letter from Dean David Leyton-Brown and the Office of Graduate Admissions [gradenq@Yorku.ca] provided materials for my perusal concerning my possible candidature in the history department in the fall of 1999. I take issue with the fact that the letter from the graduate admissions office addressed me as 'miss' Kifindi. I cannot help but wonder if the school is only interested in women
(5.) On November 17,1998, Professor Joseph Emonds sent me a letter advising me how to deal with North American universities.
(6.) Email dated May 4, 1999 asking for the status of my application.
(7.) In an email dated May 5, 1999 I queried Diane's and the Admissions Office's earliest and (arbitrary) denial of my application to the school of Graduate Studies. The basic of my non-acceptance was my failure to pay the sixty dollars application fee. Moreover the Admissions Office claimed that their letters to me in Paris (France) went unanswered. When I came to Canada I indicated to the Office that the reason for my not answering was simply because I was no longer in Paris. My point is simply that I could not pay the fees because of a failure of communication. In view of the fact that I am now a landed immigrant in Canada (and subjected to domestic fees) I fail to comprehend the position of the Admissions office with regard to the deadline for paying application fees. Because of my new status I am no longer subjected to this deadline that applies to international students. My first appeal to Morrison, Lovejoy, Diane and the Admissions Office discussed the points just outlined. ADMISSION
9.) On May 5, 1999 I paid the required sixty dollars ($60.00) to the Admissions Office. I was very much surprised (on paying the fee) to learn that my application could no longer be located. It was lost. My lost application made me aware that my non- acceptance to graduate school was not accidental, but a systematic attempt to slam the door in my face. The denial of my application became so complicated that Lovejoy asked Professor Curto to intervene on my behalf. The Admissions Office dictated a list of requirements (to Curto). The list of requirements put me in a position where I had to reconstruct an entirely new application, although the misplacing (lost application) was none of my fault in the first place. Below is a list (9 a, b, c.) that I would like to draw your attention to. ADMISSION

Page 8
(9.a.) is a document in Curto's handwriting listing the newly required documents specified by Darlene Morrison. [darlenef@yorku.ca].
(9.b.) See my fax addressed to Darlene Morrison, Kathy Massey and Service de Doctorats in Paris (Sorbonne University). In addition I sent copies of all other document required by the Admissions Office.
(9.c.) This is a letter from Lucy Fromowitz (dated May 8, 1999) in which she acknowledged receipt of my application for the second time.
(10.) On June 30, 1999 I received a letter from David Leyton Brown copied to the Dean and to the department of History announcing that The senate of York University has accepted me for graduate studies. Below I paraphrase important points of the letter.
10 (a) York University offered me "unique opportunity for my scholarship"
The offer was conditional upon the following:
alledgelly that this process has not been in use and applicable to other graduate students

(i) Official transcripts of academic work.
(ii) The letter indicated THE OFFER OF ADMISSION WAS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE OFFICE OF ADMISSIONS. The letter went on: "Some transcripts are still outstanding. Please forward official /final copies of all transcripts to the office of admissions." (Please note that I had previously provided copies of the documents the letter alludes to, to the Admissions Office). Specifically I submitted original copies of the entire required document.
10 (B) I was advised that confirmation of my offer of acceptance was required by July 30, 1999.
(11.) In a letter ( June 22, 1999) Bettina Bradbury confirmed my SPECIAL STUDENT STATUS and told me I was required to take three courses.
(12.) Before the arrival of the letters (alluded to above), Jose Curto advised me by email that I was accepted as a full -time graduate student. (the email can be found in my blocked files).

Contradictory offer of admission to me:

(13) I dispatched an email to Curto (June 30, 1999) in which I expressed my thanks and gratitude to him for his assistance in facilitating my admission. However in my missive to Curto I opposed the taking of additional courses. My correspondence to Curto was also copied to Lovejoy, History department and the admissions office. In September 1999 Curto advised me that me admissions should be kept a secret. Curto also indicated to me that his decision to inform me (in advance) to keep me admission a secret did cause him trouble. What is the reason for all this intrigue surrounding something as innocent as the admission of a candidate to Graduate school?
(14) On July 5th, 1999, I accepted the offer of admission. However I strongly objected to the imposition of courses and the ascribing of Special Status to me. I was


Page 9
very surprised at such a misevaluation and requested a review of the stipulated courses.
(15) Early in Sept.1999, I requested a revocation of my "special student" status. I asked to be considered for Full-time status, as I could not start researching without any funding and housing. The changing of status took a very long time. In the meantime I rushed around to different offices trying to figure out what exactly had happened to my application. Darlene Morrison came up with copies of letters addressed to me, which I never received. The letters that Morrison found and which were addressed to me were, never sent to me by the admissions office. I find this episode of the non-arriving letters very strange. What possible reason(s) could account for this debacle, I would love to know? I am left to wonder and ask why are all these 'mistakes' apart of My case (only?). I draw your attention to my letter dated January 27, 2001. I recall another letter concerning my admission that I gave to Lovejoy. This letter was never returned to me.
(16) Professor Shore, like Diane informed me in September 1999 that I was required to take additional courses. (See letter dated July 26, 1999 filled out on Sept 1, 1999.) According to Diane Jenner, the stipulated courses that I had to take were a provisional arrangement. She indicated to me that should I attain the status of "full time student" the provisional requirements of additional courses would cease to apply to me. However I found it very difficult to attend classes because I was swamped and buried in bureaucratic red tape in my effort to resolve issues surrounding admission, courses, housing, funding, the obtaining of a Canadian passport and arranging my children's migration to Canada.
(17) One of the provisional courses that I was required to do (with Kanya Fostner) was replaced by a course of Professor Nick Rogers. The replacement of courses emanated from an arrangement worked out between Myself and Professor Lovejoy. The arrangement between Lovejoy and myself precluded me from attending Tom Cohen's course.
(18) On October 15, 1999 via a letter from Marlene Shore I learnt that I had been admitted to graduate program in history as a full time student. However, on the issue of provisional, nothing was said. The issue was buried. Funding for school was tied up to this new status. But this new status was problematic, while it removed the barriers to funding it failed to address the problem of provisional courses and writing of comprehensive examinations. This in my view was a deliberate ploy to control my future academic advancement and fate in academia. I was placed in a position where I was coerced into legitimizing petty scholarship example the counting of slaves based on fallacious source. Lovejoy wanted me to adjust to his manipulation and remain silent in the face of research that was flawed.
(19) October 15, 1999, I sought a written explanation from Diane concerning the courses and what she told me in the past. Diane's new position was that the provisional requirements stand. I invite you to inspect an exchange of emails between Diane, myself and Lovejoy, that discussed this problem. (Please see the 3-paged attached email printout).

Page 10
(20) I contacted the Center for Ethnic and Race relations (CER) in October 1999 and a meeting was arranged for November 1999. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the mediator, Teferi Adam, of the CER the problem remained unsolved. Professor Shore's newest trick was that the admissions office was not in receipt of copies of my diploma and hence I would be dropped entirely from the program. Shore's position brought the mediation to a halt. Lovejoy position was also in sync with Shore's. Lovejoy remarked that admission to the graduate program in history was contingent upon students taking these courses. Lovejoy insisted that even students, with Ph.d in African history from the University of Toronto was not exempt from such requirements. I question the validity of Lovejoy's assertion concerning the requirement of even people with doctorate degrees to take courses and write the comprehensive examination.
I invite the senate to investigate Lovejoys claims.
Since Shore's and Lovejoys intervention in the mediation process the whole issue of my status was buried. The problems remain unsolved. My issues with York University were compounded when the issue of assessment and evaluation of my "papers" were deliberately created.

Extenuating circumstances under which I worked during the academic year 1999-2000

I had recently arrived at York University in June of 1999, having migrated from France to Canada in April of the same year. The fact that I was schooled in, worked and conducted research in the French academic System I think warrants consideration, it takes time to adjust to the new academic environment obtained in Canada. This consideration was not forthcoming from professor concerned with my academic work. In fact they failed to recognize or take into consideration any such adjustments. The fact of migration always comes with its attendant stress. In my case it was no different. Separated from my children together with the fact of dealing with the emotional and psychological stress induced by the hassles of immigration was hardly conducive to academic life. In view of the circumstances encountered I am of the opinion that I did my best.
The death of my mother in the same academic year (99-2000) only compounded an already trying situation. My coming to Canada brought with it persistent bouts of illness resultant from a change in environment and weather conditions. Being sick for the most part seemed to be my fate. I was the last candidate to be admitted in the program and the first to be 'fired' by Paul Lovejoy. Funding to me was cut off in August of 2000 without any notice or explanations. Scholarship cheques that were destined for me were misplaced or 'lost' almost every month. 'Bungled' cheques has been the norm since the inception (December,'99) of my relationship with York University. For example, cheques for June and July of 2000 were only made available to me in August of 2000. Repeated inquiry and complaints about the disappearance of these cheques to the Graduate school and the financial office were to no avail. I specially lodged complaints, including a written one, against Joyce Searles, the person responsible for getting my cheques ready. To date, apart from
Page 11
one missive from Searles, apologizing for the missing cheques, I have received no response either from Mr. Lawson, the chief (as I was told) of financial services or Joyce Searles. Constant and long delays in receiving funding forced me to abandon the university's accommodation and seek temporary refuge in London and Peterborough, Ontario. These 'forced' moves, a direct consequence of the university's mistreatment only added to my troubles. To add insult to injury the university is now demanding that I pay them nine thousand dollars for tuition fees and housing accommodation. It thinks it is obscene if not ludicrous for the university to ask payment for courses that I did not even need in the first place. The continual billing of me by the university is ridiculous in view of the fact that I have not received any funding since August of 2000. From September to November of '99 the housing office changed my residence no less than seven to eight times. Because of this fact I was constrained to start research only in January 2000. Moreover, in May 2000 I was obliged to leave the university's campus, as I was not paid. The processing of my application for admission leaves much to be desired. Highly improper and questionable procedures were invoked, together with the non- application of existing rules in my case contributed to a flawed and botched process. As a consequence, my status was not properly determined and well defined. This can be directly attributed to the fact that my complaints were not taken seriously by the History department and the Hinterland project. In short, I was treated shabbily by the university.
The academic environment served to frustrate more that facilitate my desire to undertake research. For example, I was coerced into taking courses, deemed mandatory. How these courses were supposed to contribute to my research project is unfathomable. Further professors' recommendation that I study text that I had already perused in the work on my 'doctorat Parisien' is indicative of bias. For example I was asked to read Lamal. S.J. (1949, 1965) and Van Ginste; these are people whose work I was already familiar with, having drew from them in the writing of my doctoral dissertation. Unavoidably this kind of behaviour on the part of professors' cannot fail to elicit questions about the university's motives. Is the university, for example, in effect saying that a doctorate from the Sorbonne in France is somehow not up to Canadian standards? If not, how does one explain this seemingly puerile demand by professors?

Scholarship

9."[scholars] have noted that deliberate misrepresentations and falsification, whether by omission (of oral sources, for example) or commission in the writing of a people's history is a serious human rights issue. The production of inconsistent and fallacious scholarship in the construction and writing of a people's history is constitutive of a serious violation of human rights. This is so because these violations inevitably creates and results in the disorientation of the foundation and installation of history. This is constitutive of nothing short of a tragedy in itself. Genealogical distortions in historical scholarship can and does have serious consequences for peoples whom we are studying. For often history is used to justify atrocities
Page 12
unleashed against a people. For example the European construction, textual and otherwise, of the colonial 'Other' was used to justify on numerous occasions the enslavement and exploitation of colonial peoples. Lamal and Van Ginste are aptly illustrative of this. Their work provides a good example of how Europeans scholarship constructs the 'Other'. These writers called the Suku peoples of the Kongo uncivilized and savage. Yet it is people like Lamal and Ginste who are proffered as authorities on the Suku in the western academies.
[My] work on historical genealogy should be encouraged because interconnection between the centre and the periphery will create power of the people concerned"
My greatest concerns with regard to the Nigerian Hinterland project has to do with the project's methodological approach in dealing with African slavery. I strongly recommended (even before my formal relation with York University) that the oral history of Africa be seriously considered in any historical work. For instance on September 15 1999, upon my arrival on campus we discussed the merits of 'orality' as opposed to written sources and I advocated for the inclusion of the 'oral tradition' in the writing of African history. The next day, Omar, a student at the Hinterland project, approached me privately and recommended that I desist from articulating a position with regard to the inclusion of Oral tradition in the writing of African history. Omar referred to the issue of 'oral tradition' as a 'red button', and indicated the debate surrounding 'oral tradition' had the capacity to 'burn' the whole project. He said that all professors at the Hinterland project avoid 'oral tradition' as it is at the heart of the reconstruction of the "real'' African history. I responded to Omar's narrative by indicating to him that I was prepared to deal with the issue. One wonders whether Omar was sent or he came by himself?

Expected outcome:

Expectation: I am asking that the 'F' grades assigned to my work be rendered invalid. The evaluation of my work was problematic, since the professors did not follow the required academic procedures: (1) I would not have been obliged to take these courses in the first place, had my file been properly processed. I would appreciate if a speedy determination could be made on my status. I expect to be given exemption from these courses, since my earlier training allows me to undertake my research without the necessity of doing these courses.
-I am the holder of more than two advanced degrees in African culture. Since history is but one of the constitutive components of a culture I see the mandating of this course work as an imposition that can contribute nothing to my research undertaking. Slavery is not new but an integral aspect of my area of research.
-Others colleagues who are writing a second Ph.D. were not obliged to take courses.
Alternative option Slavery touches all fields of human life (Human rights, Forced migrations, conflict resolution, Religion, Linguistics, History, Politics etc.) I am prepared to conduct interdisciplinary research under the supervision of more than four professors. I am also prepared to present the findings of my research to the History department if the department is amenable to such an option. My proposal is in keeping with the spirit of finding a workable solution to the problem. Let me say


Page 13
unequivocally that I hold no personal grudge against Lovejoy or any of the other professors or administrative personnel involved in the case.
-The study of slavery should not by any measure be reduced to an exercise in the production of academic verbiage. Because slavery is in the deepest sense the study of people and because African slavery has encompassed so much tragedy, I would like the panel to consider seriously the human dimensions of slavery when reflecting on my argument for the inclusion of oral tradition in writing African history. I am very much disposed to working with Lovejoy, if he sees it fit to incorporate the 'oral' sources in the writing of African history. This approach I contend would bring immense benefits not only to the scholars involved but also to York University, but perhaps most importantly to the African people.

Academic Procedures[?] vs. argumentation by Examples[!]:

The whole evaluative process, specifically the reappraisal of my papers, was nothing more than a pretext to deflect from the real issues surrounding my complaints.
I made it known, in no uncertain terms to the professors concerned that I would be filing a complaint to the senate. Evidence of my intention and articulation of my feeling on the issue to the professors in the history department can be found in an email exchange between myself Lovejoy and Diane. Additional evidence of my intentions can also be gathered from a letter I sent to the department, dated October 23, 2000. May I remind you that the issues revolving around this matter have now consumed the last seven months. To say the least, I have under tremendous moral, financial, intellectual and social stress and anxiety. Moreover the fact of my not receiving any financial assistance during all this time is adding to an already bad situation.

Procedural Blocks

The documentation of this case necessitated that I have access to my email files. However the attitude of the university in this respect (providing access to email) could be described at best as callous. The closing of my account on numerous occasions without any justification speaks to this attitude. For example in September 2000 the account was closed on at least two different occasions. However the real motive for denial of email access can be gauged from what happened in October of the same year. Bettina the head of the history department sent me a letter on October 1 seeking my authorization to conduct a reappraisal of my papers, she give a up to October 2 to reply. She implied that the case would be closed if I did not respond by the given deadline. Simultaneously she ordered the closure of the email account without giving any reason. In January 2001, the email was closed for good. The reason: I had been accused by the university of using 'inflammatory language.' This is a clear demonstration of the spirit in which the university conducts business. By any measure of decency this is unacceptable. The One
Page 14
wonders at the university's blatant double standards with regard to procedures. Academic procedures were always invoked whenever I had to deal with the university, when it was their turn to subscribe to the same they were found wanting.
Email account [kifindi@yorku.ca]: One can hardly fail to come to the obvious conclusion that the university's conduct with regard to my email was nothing less than an attempt to impede my effort at making my case by denying me access to email. I only learnt that Bettina sent me a message on Oct 1 by accessing it through Teferi's computer. In a very deep sense my use of Teferi's computer saved the day. Had I not responded to Bettina's missive, in spite of the fact that she knew my access had be cut, this case might have be finished even before starting.
By perusing and contrasting my email communication dated November 2, 2000 with my letter on October 23, 2000 and my emails of November 6, 2000 together with my letter dated November 6, 2000 to dean John Lennox the reason why I have been denied email access will become apparent. Moreover the evidence of the university's intentions would become clearer if a comparison is made between the letters alluded to above and a letter I received from the senate dated February 7, 2001.
Instead of acknowledging the mistakes made in my case and trying to solve the problem the university's administration it would appear are hell bent on burying their heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, blatantly disregarding procedures and academic rules. The university's manipulation of the rules are so patently transparent that one cannot help but think that university is more interested in the money that the project will attract than any search for truth.

Further Genesis of Issues

The following narration is a chronology of the events that took place and that surrounded the issue of assigning grades to my work.
_ September 15, 2000 was abruptly assigned as the deadline for me to hand in my course work. On September 14, 2000 another rather sudden meeting was schedule for the discussions concerning the evaluation of papers although these papers were not yet handed in. From the above scenario it very obvious that the committee was a calculated attempt to shut me deliberation of evaluation out of the department.
_ During the meeting (September 14, 2000) we discussed the paper that was written for Nick Rogers. On reading Bettina report (October 1, 2000) one cannot help but come to the distinct impression that the marks assigned was a foregone conclusion. This begs the question, why?
_ the meeting ended up in dispute between me and the professors. After the acrimony of the meeting Lovejoy and Trotman assigned 'F' grades to the papers that I submitted after this meeting. How can one lend any credence and legitimacy to such evaluations? These are the very papers that Bettina sought to mail out for reappraisal, without even seeking proper copies from me. Since Bettina is an integral part of the creation of these issues from the inception to date, the question arises as to her credibility in being able to act
_
Page 15

impartially. Normal evaluation procedures should have started at the departmental level. This was not done in my case. Why?
_ At the Hinterland project I was never given a deadline to submit these papers. why? I am of the view that the professors at the Hinterland project were capitalizing on my absence to shut me out of the department. Why?
_ In September of 2000, before even meeting Lovejoy in his office, Gamal Adam whispered to me that I was no longer part of the project. He even commented on the illegality of the procedure and suggested that the project's behaviour is reminiscent of behaviour back in Africa. We laughed over this little story. immediately after Lovejoy entered and Gamal became very 'polite'. If Adam is very frank and not afraid of professors he will be able to testify to this story. The question is, where did Adam get his information, and why was I going to be sent away from the program?
_ Lovejoy behaviour fosters the creation of an intimidatory environment, one that is hardly conducive to the cultivation of academic freedom and debate.
_ From the above facts, how can one even begin to think of procedures, much less their implementation?
_ After this sad fiasco Bettina indicated to me that the professors were willing to give me another year to pursue research. This decision, according to Bettina was based on the fact that: (1) I had recently come to Canada. (2) The fact that my academics backgrounds was French. Why are these maneuvers? I think the maneuvers by Bettina were an attempt by her to prove that she was right. If we recall that she was the person who decided that I needed course work and a special student status in the first place. Behind all these maneuvers lied the basis of my exclusion to any financial resources from the university. By the time the problem of marks arose my fate was already sealed. I think that was the plan.

"Who is a special Student?"

Special Students from York university Faculty of Graduate Studies-FGS p.29 Point.#.6.:
With the permission of the graduate Programme director concerned and the approval of the dean of graduate Studies, applicants who meet the following criteria may be admitted to the status of SPECIAL STUDENTS (faculty of Graduate Studies):
(a) enrolled in the programmes leading to the award of a master's doctoral degree by universities other than York, and who wish to and are authorized to enroll in one or more graduate courses at York university and/or to conduct research under the supervision of a member of the faculty of graduate Studies.
(b) otherwise qualified for admission as candidates for York Master 's or doctoral degrees, but who wish to enroll in one or more graduate courses without credit towards a York degree.

Page 16

ENROLLED in graduate degree programmes.
However, under exceptional circumstances, Special Students whose admission to the faculty and enrolment in a graduate programme is subsequently recommended by a graduate programme may petition for courses successfully completed as Special Student to be accepted as credits toward a Master's or Doctoral degree.
Pp.35.point.#.45.

Language requirements:

A thesis or dissertation normally should be written in ENGLISH but approval may be given to a petition from a student, subject to favorable recommendation from the director of the graduate programme concerned, for a thesis or dissertation to be written in FRENCH.
No one told me about this except from Nick Rogers who at the end of the semester asked me to write in French, if I wanted without mentioning to me that that was my right to do so. The admissions, the department, Lovejoy and his project including the dean help me to make this information available to me. None of them did tell me so.
Pp.39-40.

Fees and research means:

The Graduate Studies Calendar makes it very clear that funding should be given on time so as to facilitate the smooth running of academic life. I was never advised as to the procedures and guidelines covering the paying of fees. It was in May of 2000 that Diane Jenner and Josephine Campenalli presented me with fait acompli: my ability to continue in school was contingent upon my arranging to sign a document indicating that I would be paying. I was forced to live on two hundred dollars a months. So I was forced to leave for Peterborourgh, since even the two hundred dollars promised was delayed for two months. It is palpably evident that the screws were beginning to be tightened. In fact the whole episode surrounding the money was nothing more than a technique to squeeze me out of York University, as it were. Again, my grant was given to me in December 1999 and earlier in August the money was cut off without further notice until today. The months of June and July were paid in August. I got a message from Joyce Searles, in which she apologized for such a long in getting funding to me. I sincerely feel that this financial stress foisted on me deserves an investigation by Teferi Adam.

Lodging:

I have already spoken about my treatment during the academic year at the hands of the university. In September 2000, the office of student housing arbitrarily evicted me from me apartment. It was only the intervention of Josephine Campenalli' that saved the day. Why was I subjected to this kind of hassle? In my view the whole
Page 17

sordid episode was another calculated maneuver to oust me from the school and divert attention from the malicious intentions of the professors.
I succeeded in reversing the special status designation in September 1999 thanks to Lovejoy's support at that moment. But since I raised the issue of 'Oral tradition" as alluded to earlier, Lovejoy felt I was against him and subsequently revoked his support. How have I arrived at this conclusion? Bettina's initial question at the meeting is revealing. She pointedly asked my if I was against the Hinterland project. Curto indicated to me that I had lost the support of the professors. Why is this so?
the professors are giving you another year, if you want!-since you have been working a different environment Busing the French language(1) and also since you just moved to Canada(2).
Please refer to my letter dated Oct. 23, 2000.!
Trotman 's Essay was under print and I was going to give LoveJoy hard copies on the same day i.e. Sept 14,200. The abrupt deadline given to me without earlier notice was Sept 15.2000. It could be asked why didn't they wait for Sept.15,2000 Bin order to organize a meeting? Things went out of their hands and they could not control the situation anymore. Ever since, the professors had to find justifications in order to legitimate their arbitrary actions against me.
I would like to draw the attention of the senate panel to the fact that it is indeed clear that I had been put through the mill, so to speak. I do not want to be put in a position where I am forced to seek redress in the law courts. My fervent prayers and wishes are to be given an opportunity to conduct and bring my research to a successful conclusion in an atmosphere of peace.
After all the bad treatments I underwent during the year (lost cheques, admissions matters not properly dealt with, housing, Lovejoy 's roaring at me in front of all students, undefined deadlines, nobody was sure that I was going to come back on Sept.15, 2000. I got the impression that most people thought that I had quit. But unfortunately for them, I still managed to stay on and complete my "assignments." Have I been fortunate enough to escape all the itemized hardships, I am sure thing would have progressed much better for me. Let me reiterate that I have not received any funding since the inception of this matter that is since August 2000, to date. I do not know of any Canadian student who would tolerate such blatantly shabby treatment. As should be clear to any reasonable person by now, the events revolving around the issues that I have raised seem far from innocent, they take on the semblance of actions that were planned.

Minor Interpretation

-It is my conviction, that Lovejoy, Bettina, Nick Rogers and Trotman emailed me in my absence precisely because they were convinced that it would have be impossible for me to complete the papers. Their actions were geared to justify the 'preemptive' grades that they assigned me. I know that every department has its own yearly reports. I therefore strongly request that the senate inspect the date of the records and what was written in those reports about me. The test for my claim is easy to establish.
Page 18

I was formally invited by Curto to present a paper at a conference that was scheduled for October 15, 2000 and to be held under the auspices of the Nigerian hinterland project. I prepared my paper and had it ready one month ahead of the scheduled time. However, almost immediately after I finished the writing of the paper my name as a speaker, was struck from the conference list by Lovejoy, Curto Trotman and Nick Rogers. No prior notice or reason for the omission of my name was given. Earlier in September, before the department meeting I approached Curto in his office, in an effort to understand why I was sacked from the conference as a speaker. Curto contended that he was not aware of my whereabouts during the summer. He advised me that professors (Curto included) had the power to keep me out of Canadian academia. Specially, he threatened to reduce to a taxi driver if I continue to as he put it to "joke" with him. He also spoke disparagingly of my academic credentials by referring to my qualifications as "your poor diploma from France." I advised Curto to arguments to defend his claims. Apart from other reasons my email access was shut off also because of Curto. Curto's claim cannot stand up to scrutiny. He had my telephone number and email address, yet despite this I never received any message from him indicating that he would like to see me or otherwise. He also reminded me that professors retained the right to decide who stays in the program (History) and who would be kicked out. He demonstrated what he meant by 'kicked out' by cutting a piece of paper with a scissors. I have to say that the demonstration with the scissors leaves very little to the imagination, one knew precisely what the good professor meant. Curto's scissors demonstration was a foreshadowing of the eventful meeting between the other professors and myself. My relationship with Curto worsened since the beginning of April 2000 when he publicly professed in a lecture that, Africans were too brutal. In the logic of Curto Africa remains undeveloped because of Africans brutality. Brutality of Africans according to the learned professor also accounts for the reasons why no one is willing to help Africans. This absolute rubbish in the logic of Curto is what passes for historical scholarship. I immediately let Curto know that I opposed such 'scholarly views' in front of all the students present. This can be verified with any student of his class of introduction to African history. This is an act of discrimination by itself. I am asking Teferi Adam to address the issue properly. And he has been delaying it. Why?
Procedures Violations at the departmental level.
As all of us may see now, many offices brought up the course issue and Bettina Bradbury started it. This meant that she could be objective in dealing with my case anymore that she wanted to bury at all costs. For instance, on Oct, 1,2000- a year later, she reacted to my petition and wanted me to allow her for a re-assessment of the papers, she sent me a letter while she ordered the shutting of my email account-without any further notice. When I went to the Stacie Lab I consulted with Karen, she told me to speak with Bettina first before opening my email account. And that 's the same block of procedure that Dean Murphy did now. My papers, if papers there were should have been dealt with at the departmental level by a neutral committee of independents teachers who were not involve with the case previously. I did not
Page 19
even give new copies for re-appraisal. So, steps were jumped upon at all levels. I did not want Bettina to deal with case-which excluded the possibility of having a new team re-appraise my papers within the department, itself. And again the courses were not even supposed to be there, in the first place, remembering having a new team re-appraise my papers within the department, itself. And again the courses were not even supposed to be there, in the first place. Could the same person who violates the rules be judge of him/herself at the same time?
On October, we had a meeting with Heather and Hammonds(GSA) and a Nigerian law school friend and they asked Bettina whether I got some explanation of what I ought to do. No counseling of some kind was given to me about the deadline and Bettina did not even mind checking whether the rules were followed at history department level. No deadline and no extension for the so-called papers for courses I did not even attend.
There already, one can wonder whether there existed some procedures. If there existed some then, one should say that these procedures were variably designated to suit different individuals in different circumstances. So, we are not far from African countries plagued with oral laws with unexercised democracies. Kongo is one of those.
Violations at the Dean Murphy's level.
(19.). I was the one who asked to speak to both deans, in order to discuss about the issue.

Background of the Investigation

The above stated complaint was filed by Dr. Chris Kifindi Bunkheti at the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Geneva against Lovejoy Hinterland Project and York University. On February 05, 2001 the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Geneva transmitted the documents containing the complaint to the following Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) through Dr. Phillip Ofume. The principal investigators are as follows:

INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR NIGERIAN PEOPLE'S LIBERATION AND DEMOCRACY (ICN-PLD)

ANTI-REFUGEE SLAVERY INTERNATIONAL (INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN PROJECT)

AFRICAN CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION (ACHRA)

NETLINK INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM (NLICS)

Page 20

OIL AND CHEMICAL WATCH INTERNATIONAL (OCWI)

AFRICAN CANADIAN IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION (ACISA)


Also in different letters Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti requested the above NGOs to intervene and investigate his allegation against Mr. Lovejoy Hinterland Project and York University because there is no internal or domestic mechanism to hear or try his complaint. To intervene and conduct effective investigation on the cause of the conflict and the pending dispute at York University, an Investigating Committee made of experts with longstanding experience in academic administration, anti-racism, multi-culturalism, race relation, history, slavery, UNESCO, teaching, research and human rights was constituted but not limited to the following:

DR. PHILLIP CHUKWUMA OFUME - CHAIRMAN OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE

DR. AGNES M. CALLISTE - MEMBER OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE

DR. GODSON ETIEBET - MEMBER OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE

DR. FRANK N. UKADIKE - MEMBER OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE

Due to the longstanding and highhanded persecution and victimization directed against the above listed NGOs across Canada by the Canadian Government and its agencies, majority of the investigators, observers and assessors in Canada requested that their full particulars be kept off record.


Specifics of the Allegation and the Inquiries of the Investigating Committee

(a) Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti challenged and rebutted what he regarded as academic and professional fallacies relating to Lovejoy Hinterland/UNESCO African Slavery Project.

(b) The source alleged that UNESCO/Lovejoy Hinterland African Slavery project has several defects such as writing of Africa History without collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions in Western, Central and Eastern Africa.

(c) The source alleged that the above opinion, which was academic and professional contribution, unfolded series of inter-personal, administrative, academic,

Page 21

professional, etc. conflicts and strained the relationships between Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti and Mr. Paul Lovejoy and created several factions at York University.

(d) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that this scholarly opinion amounted to the formation of gang inside and outside the York University against him to force him to leave York University.

(e) Dr. Bunkheti is a holder of three Master degrees and a Ph.D from the Sorbonne, France, in African languages and cultures. Slavery is one of the African holocaust cultures and experiences (P. Ofume 1994). The First Ph.D., which Dr. Bunkheti earned from France, is equivalent of a North American Ph.D. Dr. Bunkheti's first Ph.D. dealt specifically and profoundly with the marginal residual slavery factors in Africa and its sociolinguistic interconnection and direct correlation to match the application for the second Ph.D. application at York University. Slavery in Africa and African Slavery are some of the core concentrations of Mr. Lovejoy's research and funding sources and resources to York University and his affiliates in Canada and Africa. This is the centre of gravity of the conflict and dispute at York University between Dr. Bunkheti and Mr. Lovejoy and certain faction of the administration of admission opportunity at York University.

(f) Dr. Bunkheti desires to study another Ph.D. Degree in history with a special focus on African slavery. The source alleged that this choice offended Mr. Lovejoy and warned Dr. Bunkheti not to choose any research project on Africa Slavery and History and to remove Dr. Bunkheti from Africa Slavery and History research terrain, Mr. Lovejoy suggested "conditional culture study" for him. Dr. Bunkheti refused to take "culture" and insisted to study Africa Slavery and History.

(g) It was alleged that based on the strained academic and professional relationships stated in paragraphs (a) to (f) above the opposition history professors at York University prevented Dr. Bunkheti's academic and professional qualifications mentioned above from being evaluated and accredited for graduate studies admission and earning a specific and required admission or student status at York University.

(h) The source alleged that in the admission office at York University, the Department of History where Mr. Lovejoy is a "demi-god" prevented the admission office from offering Dr. Bunkheti a specific admission. Each admission officials arrogated personal authorities on him/herself and used the authorities to offer different kinds of conflicting admission to him. One admission official will offer special students admission to him, another admission official will turn round to offer graduate studies, etc. An admission official will cancel the admissions already offered and offer a new admission to beat deadline for a given admission scenario. Another admission officials will emerge to inform him that his file is missing.

Page 22

(I) The stages of different face of admission were deliberately created to make a
specific admission deadline to expire and to dramatize the admission to enable Dr. Bunkheti fall from admission regime to admission regime. The whole thing appeared as if there is no admission office or registrar of admission or a designated administrative system at York University. Admission clerks that have no background to assess and evaluate a Ph.D. degree were allowed to make mockery of Dr. Bunkheti's Ph.D. thereafter considered him for "special student admission status". The special student admission is offered to majority of students who have no Canadian grade 12 or London GCE or French Baccalaureate. The subjugation and infantilization process shocked the Committee. The Committee was disturbed to the extent that a scholar with three Master degrees and a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, France in African languages and cultures is denied admission to study a similar or the same course of study. Sorbonne Ph.D. has been equivalent of North American Ph.D. especially where Dr. Bunkheti's first Ph.D. dealt specifically and profoundly with the marginal residual slavery factors in Africa and its sociolinguistic interconnection and direct correlation to match the application for the second Ph.D. application at York University.

(j) Paragraph (I) above was adapted by the Department of History and other historian professors to create a long and frustrating procedures called grade appraisal and reappraisal. The Committee questioned a procedure, which enrolled a grade appraisal and reappraisal without a definite admission. In confusion, undergraduate (special student) and graduate status were adapted together to enable them - "anti-bunkheti opposition party" to impose courses on Dr. Bunkheti with the hope that once they under-mark him, a long process of serial appeal will commence which would finally chase him out of York University. The Committee found that during this forced reappraisal period, Dr. Bunkheti means of livelihood were stopped and sometimes he finds the process frustrating due to lack of the financial and legal support to pursue the process.

(k) As indicated above in paragraph (j), Dr. Bunkheti was forced to write papers and faculty members who have limited knowledge of the papers which Dr. Bunkheti wrote, were allowed to mark the papers. The source alleged that the internal and external faculty members marked the papers and assigned marks without considering the quality and contents of the paper. The already biased internal and external assessors who have limited knowledge of the papers awarded him failing grades all round to enable him enter into endless legal battle to challenge the failing grades. The source alleged that the Senate Appeals Committee sent the failing grades and the papers to the Canadian friendly universities where the Department of History and the York historian professors have great influence.

(L) The Senate Appeals Committee did not request the admission office to settle the issue of evaluation and certification of Dr. Bunkheti's academic and professional qualifications and admission to enable them know the type of case before them. The York University Senate Appeal Committee did not consider jurisdiction. The Senate Appeals Committee and the historian professors claimed ignorant of the fact that


Page 23

Dr. Bunkheti has three Master degrees and a Ph.D., which is equivalent of North American Ph.D. Dr. Bunkheti, filed list of his academic and professional qualifications including academic and professional transcripts. Dr. Bunkheti's universities and related institutions and his research directors and other assessors wrote to York University. The Committee found that these steps are some of the greatest steps ever undertaken to clear and resolve admission issues.

(m) The Senate Appeals Committee abandoned the case and the file was reopened in haste when the Investigating Committee and United Nations presence was observed.

(n) The source alleged that to enable the appeal of Dr. Bunkheti fail, he was not provided with funding and legal representation. There was no Lawyer to help him prepare the appeal documentation and represent him. The Committee considers that an institution like York University is supposed to retain internal legal aid to help complainants to face this type of legal process.

(o) For several months, Dr. Bunkheti's cheques were stopped without reason and this situation created a downward impact on his entire scholarship, appeal, mobility, etc. inside and outside York University.

(p) The source alleged that Dr. Bunkheti was accommodated in different health hazard apartment and he was unable to do his appeal research effectively.


(q) The source alleged that when the Senate Appeals Committee ruled in favour of Mr. Lovejoy and the historian professors at York University, there was a massive lobby across the Province of Ontario especially the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Lawyer Society and Ontario Legal Aid to block appeals and proceedings on to the Ontario Law Courts. Ontario Human Rights Commission refused to hear the appeal. Ontario Lawyers refused to list the appeal. Ontario Legal Aid refused to extend Legal Aid to him. At this point, all domestic mechanism was blocked. The Committee found that Dr. Bunkheti had no alternative other than to proceed on to the United Nations and related intervenor to pursue his rights.

(r) The source evidenced up on a remarkable documentary proof that the UNESCO which is the grant maker of the funding which has created in fighting at York University, wrote to resolve the problem with clarification that the UNESCO is making effort to implement the opinion of Dr. Bunkheti on the Lovejoy Hinterland Project and other related project. The Committee found that the opinion of Dr. Bunkheti is a mere academic and professional opinion void of encumbrances.

(s) Dr. Bunkheti further alleged that the other opposition parties inside and OutsideYork University such as the Graduate Students, UNESCO, Law students and other professors and authorities suggested several ways to make peace according to


Page 24
the Faculty Procedural Rules and prevailing history of dispute resolution at York University. Specifically, the peace making system referred this faction to the history of amnesty and past concession extended to other students in the past but still the faction supporting the old regime the project and the historian professors who prefer a secret relationship with UNESCO and other grant makers inside and outside Canada refused to make peace.

(t) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that when the Department of History, historian professors and Mr. Lovejoy and admission office frustrated the evaluation and acceptance of his academic and professional qualifications and also awarded a failing grades to him as a mark of intimidation, subjugation, psychological torture and victimization without reason, the Director of Graduate Program (History) forced him to go back to the historian professors and Mr. Lovejoy to beg for high grades. The Committee found that the whole thing was like a gang setup to intimidate and subjugate Dr. Bunkheti and move him to another stage to meet another group in further attempt to force him out of York University.

(u) The situation, which led to offering a minor admission to student (Dr. Bunkheti) in deviation from the longstanding policy of the University, appears to have created an overwhelming confusion in the history of the graduate admission at York University. Without final decision by the admission office courses were imposed on him whom they requested maybe dropped soon as the final decision was made. The officials of the Department of History especially Mr. Lovejoy and the fighting historian professors told him that he has not been admitted to Ph.D. and the admission office say the contrary to create delay scenario and scheme upon scheme to drive the matter to blameworthy deadline.

Documentary Submissions

Prior to the commencement of this Report the Investigating Committee acknowledge receipt of the following list of documents:

(1) E-mail and Attachment from the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Geneva - February 05, 2001.

(2) E-mail from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights - February 03, 2001 and February 04, 2001


(3) E-mail from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to the Investigating Committee - Thursday, 01 Mar 2001

(4) Letter from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to Graduate Program in History - Undated

Page 25

(5) E-mail from Professor Joseph E. Emonds, University of Durham, UK to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - September 11, 1999

(6) Fax from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to Leif Svalesen -10/22/00

(7) E-mail from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to Mr. Paul Lovejoy - October 18, 2000

(8) E-mail from Mr. Paul Lovejoy to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - October 28, 1999

(9) E-mail from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to Mr. Paul Lovejoy - October 27, 1999

(10) E-mail from Diane Jenner to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - October 27, 1999

(11) E-mail from Josephine Campanelli to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - October 18, 2000

(12) E-mail from Jose C. Curto to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - January 18, 2001

(13) E-mail from Nick Rogers to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti -Janauay 18, 2000

(14) E-mail from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to Prof. Bettina - Oct 16, 2000

(15) E-mail from Bettina Bradbury to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - November 01, 2000

(16) Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti's Doctorate Degree (Photocopy - certified copy - November
17, 1998

(17) Appeals Committee - Guidelines for the Consideration of Petition/Appeals by Faculty Committees - Revised April 19, 2000

(18) Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - Article - Forced migrations and slavery as its sources - April 19, 2000

(20) York University Black Students Alliance General Assembly Meeting - October 25, 2000

(21) E-mail Josephine Campanelli to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - October 18, 2000

(22) "pre-rapport de Soutenance sur la these(doctorate degree) nouveau regime de Kifindi Bukheti" - July 04, 1997

(23) Letter from Bettina Bradbury to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - October 03, 2000

(24) E-mail from Mr. Paul Lovejoy to Bettina - September 22, 2000

Page 26
(25) Kifindi : Reconstructing the early African past: Oral and written sources -(undated) 51 pages including Bibliography

(26) History of Conflict between Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti and Mr. Paul Lovejoy and York University - September 1999 - October 2000

(27) Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti's Profile

(28) A 19-page hand written document from Dr. Bunkheti to the Investigating Committee (undated)

(29) E-mail from Chery Underhill - Decision of the York University Senate Appeal Committe to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - April 19, 2001

(30) E-mail from Cynthia Ramsay to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - April 19, 2001

(31) Letter from Andrea Mckenzie to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - April 12, 2001

(32) Letter from the York University Office of Student Financial Services, Collection Department to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - February 15, 2001

(33) Copy of Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti's Application for Legal Aid

(34) Letter from the Area Director of Legal Aid Ontario - April 05, 2001

(35) Letter from James M. Flaherty Attorney General Minister Responsible for Native Affairs to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - December 18, 2000

(36) Letter from Diane Onermuller(Inquiries Services Rep.) of Ontario Human Rights Commission to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - April 10, 2001

(37) letter from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to the Senate and President of York University - January 25, 2001

(38) E-mail from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to Ontario Human Rights Commission - May 03, 2001

(39) E-mail from Amy Secord of Legal Aid Ontario to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - Tue, 1 May 2001

(40) E-mail from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - Tue, 01 May 2001

(41) E-mail from Doudou Diθne of UNESCO Paris to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - 13 February 2001


Page 27

(42) E-mail from Cheryl Underhill(Appeals Committee on your application for leave to appeal - York University) to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - 19 April 2001

(43) Letter from Ms. Shirley Katz(Associate to the Counsel, York University) to the Investigating Committee - March 07, 2001

(44) Letter from Ms. Shirley Katz(Associate to the Counsel, York University) to the Investigating Committee - March 09, 2001

(45) Media Release from Susan Bigelow(Media Relations York University) to the Investigating Committee - Toronto February 22, 2001

(46) History of hate and disconnection inside and outside Diaspora: York University/UNESCO from Paul Nkposi to the Investigating Committee - March 23, 2001

(47) History: Paul Lovejoy from Ms. Shirley Katz(Associate to the Counsel, York University) to the Investigating Committee -undated

(48) Letter from Ms. Shirley Katz(Associate to the Counsel, York University) to the Investigating Committee - March 19, 2001

(49) Letter from Conrad Thompson (President, Graduate Students' Association) to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti

(50) letter from Denise N Hammond, M.E.S (Former President of the Graduate Students' Association) to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - February 27, 2001

(51) Solomon Ukhuegbe, D.Jur candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School wrote on denial of information on student's options under the FGS regime

(52) Telephone discussion between Dr. Phillip Ofume(Chair - Investigating Committee) and Ms. Shirley Katz(Associate to the Counsel, York University) - February 26, 2001

(53) Letter from Ontario Human Rights Commission to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - May 1, 2001

(54) Letter from Ruth Lawson (Vice President, Appeal) of Legal Aid Ontario to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - May 03, 2001

(55) Letter from Simon R.R. Davies, Area Director of Legal Aid Ontario to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - May 04, 2001

Page 28
(56) Decision of Legal Aid Ontario to Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti - May 01, 2001


Method of Investigation

The Investigating Committee reviewed the above listed documents and contacted different representatives and factions at York University for written and oral statement on the conflict between Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti and Mr. Paul Lovejoy and York University.

Following this contact, directly and indirectly the Investigating Committee received oral and written information from Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti; Denise N Hammond, M.E.S (Former President of the Graduate Students' Association); Solomon Ukhuegbe, D.Jur candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School; Ms. Shirley Katz (Associate to the Counsel, York University); and Conrad Thompson (President, Graduate Students' Association). This information was very useful because it unfolded the conflict area and the facts and issues surrounding the conflict. This plan took the Committee to the grass root of the conflict, which are Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti, Department of History and Lovejoy Hinterland and UNESCO Project.

To complete the cycle of the investigation relating to the origin of the conflict, the Committee reviewed the ancillary connection in the conflict such as the York University Special Student Status, Ph.D. and Master Students categories, Graduates Program Regulations, the Faculty Procedural Rules and Admission Office and admission regulations. Review of the North American Ph.D. and European Ph.D. and their equivalent. The Committee investigated whether there was a possible link or connection between the major and ancillary connection in the formation of the conflict. The Committee further discovered that Dr. Bunkheti's initial contact with York University was in 1998 by way of application for admission. In continuous assessment and evaluation of this situation, the Committee discovered that application for admission filed since 1998 has not earned a specific admission. The Committee found that this period of about three years was spent on movement of files and misdirection of files, faculty indecision, misuse of administrative power, hates, development of intra-university mud throwing, wall erection to protect office and related administrative, academic and professional in fighting.

Expert Discovery Examination of Facts and Issues at York University

The Report has specifically examined and deposited to the following conflict and dispute area:



Page 29

* Background and specifics of the allegations and submission by Dr. Bunkheti, Divided York University and Mr. Lovejoy Hinterland and UNESCO.

* Academic and professional relationships between Dr. Bunkheti and Mr. Lovejoy and York University.

* Grade reappraisal cloud in academic office and protection of the Lovejoy Hinterland/UNESCO Project and in fighting

* Are there any Regulations and Procedural Rules on imposition of choice of research theme and focus and Ph.D. program at York University: determination of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia or power tussle and academic office and empire protection

* Brief history of special student and regular student system at York University for the holder of Ph.D. in matching courses: is it a mere act of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia or power tussle and academic office and empire protection.

* Confusion and Conflict of academic administration: admission office, "condition of sheep without shepherd", Department of History, Mr. Lovejoy Hinterla and York University and Dr. Chris Kifindi Bunkheti.

* Settlement and retention program for foreign students at York University with reference to Dr. Bunkheti situation;

* Confusion and Conflict of academic administration: Students' financial administration at York University with regards to Dr. Bunkheti's cheques, housing and research grants or bursaries.

To further get to the root of Dr. Bunkheti's allegation against York University and the position of York University, the findings of the Committee Expert Discovery Examination of the Facts and Issues prevailing at York University, the Investigating Committee found it very necessary to issue interrogatories on York University. Apart from the interrogatories, the Committee wrote to Dr. Bunkheti, Mr. Lovejoy and different factions at York University thus, demanding for their personal and official opinions on the conflict at York University between Dr. Bunkheti and Mr. Lovejoy and York University.

Issuance of Interrogatories on York University

After reviewing the entire situation surrounding Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti's complaint and allegation, position of different factions and committees, admission, graduate studies, etc. the Investigating Committee issued interrogatories on York University
Page 30
across the faction and gave them sufficient time to respond and also opportunity for extension of time. The interrogatory, its definition and guidelines and request for answer and explanation plan are as follows:

RE: APPEAL DOSSIER Dr.KIFINDI BUNKHETI vs. LOVEJOY HINTERLA

The following question and request for explanation were drawn from the list of documents which was brought to the above listed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and Dr. KIFINDI BUNKHETI Mapuya Chris of York University. The list of documents contains series of serious allegations by Dr. KIFINDI BUNKHETI Mapuya Chris against York University and its alleged representatives.

After a careful review of this list of documents, the Investigating Committee, which was appointed by the above listed NGOs, discovered several questions and allegations, which require answer and explanation, and thereafter the Investigating Committee tried to condense the question and explanation to 38 questions and explanations.

Please where necessary you may give answer and explanation and/or answer or explanation to the best of your knowledge. And if possible support the answer or explanation with documentary and/or personal written evidence.

The opinion of the Investigating Committee will be formed from the review of the position of the parties involved in the matter.

Due to the emergency nature of this complaint, the deadline for submitting answer to the question and request for explanation is March 19, 2001 at 4.30 p.m. The delivery of the question and request for explanation to York University will be by fax and e-mail on March 04 or 05, 2001 on/before 4.30 p.m. (Atlantic Canada Time).

The question and request for explanation sometimes are interwoven in eight (8) parts and divided as follows:

(a) Author and Implementation of Admission Regulations and Schemes in all
circumstances at York University;

(b) Past and Present Special Students, Under-graduate Students and Graduate Students Admission at York University with regards to Dr. Bunkheti admission situation;

(c) Resettlement and Retention Program for Foreign Students at York University;

(d) Students' Financial Administration at York University with regards to Dr.
Page 31

Bunkheti's admission, housing, research, etc. situation;

(e) Official relationship between Dr. Bunkheti and Admission Office and Approved
Admission Representatives at York University;

(f) Authentic African history and UNESCO Project at York University;

(g) Experience of Discrimination and/or Conflict of Interest at York University
with regards to Dr. Bunkheti admission situation;
(h) Network or Communication Spying and Abuse at York University
________________________________________________________________________


(1) What admission regulations and schemes exist at York University? Please list these and describe them and their authors briefly.

(2) Admission, retention, resettlement, finance, cheques and housing: which section or branch of York University is responsible for administering these schemes and regulations. How effective has this administration been with due consideration to Dr. Bunkheti situation?

3) What is the main general conditions governing admission especially "under-graduate students", "graduate students" and "special students" within the control of these regulations and schemes? Who are "special students", "under-graduate students" and "graduate students" according to these regulations and schemes?

(4) What level of equity is sustained in the administration of admission at York University? Particularly, in what category is foreign student especially Dr. Bunkheti be classified?

(5) Weighing the strength of these regulations and schemes under what conditions would scholars from France be eligible for admission and qualify to receive scholarship, bursaries, housing, grants, equitable treatment, etc at York University. Is Dr. Bunkheti the first student or French scholar admitted at York University? Is there any past relationship between York University and French academic and professional qualifications and institutions?

(6) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that there were several contradictory letters, instructions and information on his admission at York University. Do you have many Registrars in-charge of admission? Why is it that there are different letter(s) of admission to one person and the letters were saying and unfolding different information and instructions relating to Dr. Bunkheti admission at York University?


Page 32

(7) Before considering Dr. Bunkheti for "special student" did York University consider his past academic and professional qualifications especially as a former holder of three Master degrees and one Ph.D. in African Languages and Cultures? Also did York University consider these qualifications as relevant especially whether they have weak or strong historical core focus and, in fact, could be considered, for York University as equaling a related qualification for his admission in History at YorkUniversity? Did York University peruse his academic transcripts and did York University grant him concession from his course-work?

(8) Further question from paragraph 7 above: in the past, has York University ever granted such amnesty? And is there anything like special permission at York University in response to Dr. Bunkheti's circumstances?

(9) Allegedly, Dr. Bunkheti said that the admission office requested him to send all the transcripts earned in his academic and professional history. What type of transcripts is required in Dr. Bunkheti's admission circumstance at York University?


(10) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that a representative of York University in the admission office advised him that his admission should be kept secret. What maybe regarded as secret or open or unsecured admission and why is that this admission should be kept secret and be classified as "secret admission"? Dr. Bunkheti said that York University punished its representative who announced his admission and at the same time requested him to keep the admission secret. Has York University been keeping certain or the entire admission secret?

(11) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that one of the major aim of York University to offer him "special student admission" was to prevent him from getting funding and that the accessories to this deliberate sanction is that without funding and housing he can not commence his research at York University which will enable him know more about the UNESCO PROJECT and related project. Please explain this allegation to best of your knowledge. Why is it that even when the "special student status" was revoked, York University maintained sanction on his funding, cheques, housing, etc.?

(12) According to Dr. Bunkheti several letters written by the representatives of York University especially the admission office were not mailed to him. Is this issue a usual experience at York University?

(13) What must have necessitated further provisional arrangement especially the attainment of the status of "full time student" with additional courses? Dr. Bunkheti alleged that it was difficult for him to attend classes because he was swamped and buried in bureaucratic red tape which were imposed on him by York
Page 33

University especially in his effort to resolve issues surrounding admission, courses, housing, funding, etc. Please explain this allegation to the best of your knowledge with reference to Dr. Bunkheti situation at York University.


(14) Has York University been admitting and resettling International students? If yes what program was put in place to enable them surmount newcomers' barriers or shock in terms of integration and immersion into the new Canadian cultural and institutional environment in which they find themselves? How has York University extended this assistance to Dr. Bunkheti up to date? Dr. Bunkheti alleged that the failure of this arrangement has shattered or disorganized his study at York University.

(15) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that there were several defective communications and misdirection from the representatives of York University and the same carrying misinformation widening the already wide gap which in terms of instructions to him by the University, appear very confusing and less than helpful to direct him to what and what to do. Has this issue of adaptation and adjustment been the usual complaint by all students especially foreign students who may be trying to adjust themselves to the new environment at York University?

(16) What amount of flexibility does York University adapt to enforce deadline for the writing and submission of papers and what regulation defines time limit for the submission of papers? Did the prevailing regulations and York University representatives specify deadline either by regulation or in writing to students? Is it within the York University (and) regulations that the university representatives should announce suspension as a threat without due legal process within the jurisdiction of the regulations? Please provide regulation in support of this answer and announcement of suspension.

(17) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that his cheques for June and July 2000 were paid in August 2000 that during the year, cheques were always lost. Did the York University enter into any urgent type of inquiry or other form of intervention to reduce the hardship caused by this failure and did York University provide alternative means to assist Dr. Bunkheti prior to the payment of this money?

(18) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that his file for admissions got lost many times with out reason. What must have caused this situation at York University and what alternative effort did York University make to ensure that this situation would not impede the academic work of Dr. Bunkheti at York University?

(19) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that he arrived at York University on September 7, 1999 and that York University deliberately starved him of financial support and because

Page 34

of this starvation he could not commence his research. Please explain this condition to the best of your knowledge.

(20) In June and July 2000 his two cheques were blocked until August as stated in paragraph 13. In August 2000, his financial assistance was terminated without notice. What amount of intervention did York University make and what would have caused this problem?

(21) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that from September 7, 1999 to the present day(February 26, 2001) he was required to change accommodations 7 or 8 times. He was sometimes forced to sleep in the room of the handicaps and always on the floor. At other times, he was sent to a room that had not been cleaned in years. "Everything was done to encourage me to leave," said Dr. Bunkheti. Please explain this situation to the best of your knowledge - documentary evidence required.

(22) Allegedly, according paragraph (10) above Mr. Joseph Courto was the first person who revealed to Dr. Bunkheti that he was admitted to Department of History and this announcement resulted to friction between the Department of History and Admission Office. Consequent up on this announcement Mr. Courto fear being relieved of his job. What must have prompted this situation which was degenerating to a situation of censorship of information and freedom of expression?

(23) According to Dr. Bunkheti, in order to re-evaluate his work in order to get their impression of what he deserves; his papers were not even read at the Department level concerned and with the expertise to know the value of his paper. His papers were given to the "fighting" team among the "Historian professors" who have regarded him as invader imported into York University to dismantle and disorganize the existing empire at York University. Please explain this situation especially what York University did to avert the situation and bring these scholars to work together.

(24) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that he was the last person to be admitted and the last to receive financial assistance and also the very first whose financial support was terminated without notice. Please explain these conditions to the best of your knowledge and outline causes.

(25) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that York University and some People knew that his research witnesses would reveal so many things at York University. What witnesses are conceived that ushered this conflict at York University?


(26) And allegedly Dr. Bunkheti said the misunderstanding started from the historians at York University after his disagreement of approving the writing of

Page 35

history without considering oral traditions. Is there interactive scholarship or learning and learners relation at York University?


(27) What effort did the York University authorities make to intervene and/or investigate the root of the research conflict and/or conflict of interest between some lecturers at York University especially the historians and Dr. Bunkheti? Particularly, Dr. Bunkheti alleged that he requested for the necessity of oral traditions and recommending the incorporation of African witnesses in the background of the authentic African history contrary to the African history being researched at York University.

(28) Allegedly Dr. Bunkheti argued that the regime of Africa history being researched at York University is contrary to the authentic African history from the African oral traditions and genealogical history as recognized by different historians and UNESCO especially the most rampant descriptive and theoretical model used by the scholars at York University to hand down deceitful African history used for harboring racism and slavery inside and outside Africa. This is a serious allegation, what did York University do to investigate this allegation up to the root of the project and lending the expertise of Dr. Bunkheti to get to the root?

(29) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that he is familiar and an expert on the history which the York University is working on and that with this expertise he was very eager to provide York University to other authentic sources, which according to him would convince other historians. In further allegation he said that the authentic sources he knows would have a great benefit for the research and York University. What step did York University take to allow Dr. Bunkheti to invest his knowledge of this history to York University?

(30) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that the York University which has a longstanding secret agenda on this history especially, York University's UNESCO Nigerian Hinterland Project prefers to overturn the actual history of Africa to protect the contemporary or the present slavery in Nigeria, Congo, etc. to continue to float misinformation across the world. Did York University give Dr. Bunkheti and the historians at York University the opportunity to work together to identify the sources of this authentic history especially to inform UNESCO to enable it arrange for allied findings on this topical issue?

(31) Allegedly Dr. Bunkheti said that the African history database at York University, concerning the number of slaves that were taken from Africa is based on a count of the number of slaves on board the vessel transporting these people. That how can York University hope to achieve any semblance of accuracy in establishing the number of slaves taken from Africa when the database is built on false premises and estimations. And that the York University databases has no way of knowing the
Page 36

number of slaves that were on those vessels that sank. What did the York University do to investigate this allegation?

(32) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that paragraph(s) 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 above are the major origin of his victimization, persecution, marginalization, subjugation, and psychological torture and related inhuman treatment at York University. Please explain these allegations from the root of Dr. Bunkheti's problem at York University?

(33) In consideration of the apprehension of possible discrepancies in national and international mail system and most especially for long distance admission issue marked with deadline, what safe and urgent mail system does York University use to send these letters?

(34) In the York University admission requirements, what are the general requirements sustaining Dr. Bunkheti admission category requirements? Please list requirements relevant to this admission circumstance with direct and indirect references to paragraph(s) 1 to 10 above.

(35) How has the issue of "graduate student status" been related with provisional courses and writing of comprehensive examinations at York University? Is admission to the graduate program in history at York University a regulated contingent upon students taking these courses? Dr. Bunkheti alleged that this is a design by York University to control his future academic advancement and fate in academia especially where he would be coerced into legitimizing petty scholarship example the counting of slaves based on fallacious source. And that the historians at York University wanted him to adjust to their manipulation and remain silent in the face of research that was flawed. How is the issue of the theory of universalisation of academic freedom and liberty within the realm of inter-active scholarship treated at York University? And/or is learning inter-active at York University?

(36) Is it within the York University regulation and related regulation that student who filed or submitted transcripts and still have other qualifications in his/her possession to submit to the admission office could be forced out of the program of study even when he/she has such qualifications to file with the admission office? Is it also within the York University regulation that such student could be informed personally or by letter to submit such document?

(37) Why is it that Dr. Bunkheti's admission, courses, funding, housing, academic and professional qualifications, research, expertise, etc. turned round and round the issue of assessment and evaluation with long distance ends?

(38) Dr. Bunkheti alleged that his e-mail and other communication were spied and blocked purposely to prevent his access to the e-mail account to enable him to
Page 37

respond to certain assignments and other program, which requires access to the Internet. What did the York University authorities do to investigate this interference?

Answer to Interrogatories and Factional Intervention

(a) Tele- Gallup Poll at York University

The interrogatories issued on York University were simple, concise and to the point and issues.
The interrogatories are 38 paragraphs and made up guidelines. For the purpose of gathering a personalized information, the Investigating Committee conducted a tele- Gallup Poll on the different factions and authorities involved in the conflict. The written and oral answers and explanations to the interrogatories on the allegation made by Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti against Mr. Paul Lovejoy, York University and UNESCO and Nigerian Hinterland Project were made contradictorily and factionally on the basis of for Dr. Bunkheti (75%) and against Dr. Bunkheti (15%) and 10% abstained.

(b) Answer to Interrogatories

Conrad Thompson President, Graduate Students' Association letter dated on February 26, 2001 and Denise N Hammond (Law School) letter dated on February 27, 2001, etc also show that there was a total break down of domestic mechanism and a serious breach of longstanding procedures and regulations at York University. These letters further informed the Investigating Committee that the faction headed by Ms. Katz which is answerable to and representing the admission office, Senate Appeal Committee and some historian professors including Mr. Lovejoy and Department of History failed to be impartial to look into the matter since 1998 and find lasting solution to resolving the problem, which has received several interventions across the world in favour of Dr. Bunkheti and cost York University some amount of time and money. Extract of the letters and the answer and explanation from different Intervenors is as follows:


(i) Mr. Conrad Thompson - President, Graduate Students' Association

As President of the Graduate Students' Association, I have been helping KIFINDI organize his appeal. In this letter, I hope to say a couple of words in support of KIFINDI BUNKHETI's case. I feel that I have an intimate knowledge of the details of this case, which should enable me to contribute to the fair resolution of this matter. In this light I hope to illustrate some of the various grounds on which KIFINDI was treated in a lesser way than he should have expected. First of all, the
Page 38

issue of whether he needed to take courses is instructive. KIFINDI is arguing that there are reasonable grounds for the providing of amnesty to him from the requirement of taking courses. Granted, it is not normal for students to be exempted from the necessary course work. However, it is clear that KIFINDI status is anything but normal. In fact, his circumstances are quite unusual. He has three Master's degrees and one PHD in African Languages and Cultures. This PHD had a very strong historical focus and, in fact, could be considered, for us, as equaling a PHD in History at York University. Moreover, I am aware that he has also successfully acquired numerous courses on History at other moments in his academic career. Even more telling is the fact that he has been extensively involved in the historical study of Slavery, a scan be confirmed by a simple examination of his transcripts. It seems to me that a question is merited at this point: why is it that he was not granted amnesty from his course-work? Clearly there is a sound basis for the granting of such special permission, given that special exemptions no doubt have been extended in the past. If such exemptions have been granted in other special circumstances, why is it that KIFINDI has not been extended such treatment for his special circumstances? Surely it could not be justly argued that he is not deserved of such status. KIFINDI also deserves another form of special treatment, I would argue, and this is the second point I wish to make. International students face special barriers in terms of integration and immersion into the new Canadian cultural and institutional contexts in which they find themselves. One would hope that special support would normally be provided to such international students. Yet, unfortunately, from the beginning, only bureaucratic reversals and errors have plagued his study (see his appeal for more on that), making it especially difficult for him. In terms of communication to him by the University, these too have proven confusing and less than helpful. He has even at times received incorrect information from different representatives of York University. For the average Canadian student this would add many difficulties, but for many international students the hurdles are even harder to overcome. In terms of the resolution to this case, I would strongly recommend that the special treatment, which lacked in the past, be now granted to him within this current appeal. The third and final point I wish to make regards the status of the courses he was enrolled in. KIFINDI believed that he was to be exempt from course-work pending his approval as a regular student (previously he had been told that first he was a regular student, which include crucial monetary benefits, and then he was told he was merely a 'special student' without such benefits). KIFINDI argues that he was informed by the then Secretary of the Department of History, Ms. Diane Jenner, that upon acquiring regular student status, he would be dully provided with an exemption from course-work. Acting on this advice, KIFINDI then only sporadically attended class. Now, it may be that Ms. Jenner gave incorrect advice, or possibly even that KIFINDI misheard what in fact was said. This is all part of the past and unfortunately difficult to retrieve. However, I would like to think that this appeals committee can go beyond the differing claims over this issue and give KIFINDI the benefit of the doubt. After all there is no doubt, in my opinion, that KIFINDI acted and believed this was the
Page 39

case (as can be noted by his irregular appearance at these classes). I feel that given his irregular appearance at such classes, (because of communication difficulties), KIFINDI can not be fairly graded in these courses. I believe that KIFINDI was unfairly disadvantaged in the writing of these papers and no doubt was impaired from achieving his normal level of proficiency. It is also true that KIFINDI was at no time given a fair deadline for the completion of these papers. He was, in fact, only told very abruptly that he needed to hand his papers in, or risk expulsion from the program. No proper extensions were given to him either, which would have given him a decent chance of submitting high quality research. Proper process was therefore not followed, which I think in itself should be sufficient to convince this committee to provide KIFINDI with another opportunity to be a part of the History department once again. To sum up, I have three interrelated points that argue in favour of wiping KIFINDI's record clean and letting him begin his PHD a new. I believe it was reasonable for KIFINDI to believe that he could be exempted from course-work given his unique circumstances, and given that such exceptions have been granted in the past at York University. Second, KIFINDI is an international student and thus faces added hurdles that regular Canadian students do not need to deal with normally. On this count, it seems that this committee should deal with his case with exception; a certain level of flexibility (and benefit of doubt) should thus be granted to KIFINDI. The last point revolves around the issue of due process. KIFINDI was not fairly notified of the relevant deadlines for his papers and no extension was given to him. In this instance, a faulty process is the concern. Given his situation KIFINDI should have been granted an extension for his papers, and questions need to be raised as to why this failed to happen. Only with a fair process can we guarantee a fair result. For KIFINDI this process was far from fair -- can we then justly respond that the result, thus far, has been fair? I trust that this committee will come to a resolution that is fair and just. Thank you for your time in the consideration of this matter.

(ii) Denise N Hammond, M.E.S : Faculty of Graduate Studies Petitions Committee - February 27, 2001

I am writing to you today in hopes that I may shed some light on the
complexity of Chris Kifindi's case. During the month of October 2000, acting
as President, I was invited by Mr. Kifindi to attend a meeting with him,
Battina Bradbury of the History Department and Heather Dryden of CRER.
During this meeting it became clear that throughout Mr. Kifinid's term there
was both miscommunication and lack of communication between himself and the
Department.
The glaring hole of information was particularly evident by the
acknowledgement of Mrs. Bradbury, who indicated that Mr. Kifindi was not
given notice, warning or information about FGS petitions guidelines
pertaining to extensions. This lack of information on the academic rights of
students occurred not only because there was a lack of dialogue between

Page 40
members of the Department and Mr.Kifindi, but also as a result of
unacceptable and problematic mishaps which occurred during the early days of
Mr. Kifindi's acceptance by the University and his registration.
Secondarily, in the matter of deadlines for final papers, I find it
unacceptable that the Department failed to acknowledge and respect the
verbal agreement Mr.Kifindi had with a professor. Instead the Department
demanded that a paper be turned in immediately and more importantly, at no
point was Mr. Kifindi made aware of his rights to petition for a formal
extension.
The Department's lack of acknowledgement of the pre-arranged agreement with
a Professor, which is typical of numerous students in various Departments,
and insufficient communication is one of the reasons that Mr. Kifindi should
be granted an academic petition and thereby be able to re-submit his paper
and enroll in the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
If you require further information on this matter please contact the
Graduate Students' Association at 416-736-5865, and they will be able to
reach me.

(iii) The clarification of UNESCO dated 13 February 2001shows that Dr. Bunkheti was merely issuing an academic and professional advise to Mr. Paul Lovejoy and UNESCO and Nigerian Hinterland Project. UNESCO has made it clear that it has never published any oral traditions and made a similar correlation on collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions. The UNESCO sent copy of the following letter to Mr. Lovejoy.

13 February 2001

cc: Prof. P. Lovejoy

Subject : Appeal Dossier Dr Kifindi Bunkheti vs.
Lovejoy's Hinterland Project

Dear Dr Bunkheti,
In answer to your e-mail of 27 January 2001 regarding the above-mentioned subject, I would like to inform you that, at its first session (Whydah, Benin, 1994)
the International Scientific Committee for the "Slave Route" adopted, among other priority activities, a Program on "Archives, Documentary Sources and Oral
Traditions". The documentary sources of the slave trade and slavery comprise both archives and oral traditions. As regards oral traditions, a meeting of experts was
organized in Conakry, Guinea from 24 to 26 March 1997 on the theme "Oral Traditions and the Slave Trade". The proceedings of the meeting are being prepared for

Page 41

publication. The collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions in Western, Central and Eastern Africa are under way. The results of this work will be published
in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Doudou Diθne
UNESCO - Paris


(iv) Ms. Shirley Katz - Professor at York University

Ms. Shirley Katz represented the Senate Appeals Committee, Mr. Paul Lovejoy and admission office. Ms. Katz gave summary response to the 38 interrogatories and explanation to York University. Ms. Katz wrote to the Investigating Committee to request that all information concerning the Committee investigation on Dr. Bunkheti complaint against Mr. Lovejoy, admission office, UNESCO/Nigerian Hinterland Project should be sent to her. Ms. Katz spent quite a lot of time in arguing whether the Investigating Committee has jurisdiction to intervene and other time was wasted in pre-judging and infantilizing Dr. Bunkheti and uplifting the reputation of the opposition such as Mr. Lovejoy without initiating internal mechanism to make peace at York University since 1999.

Each time Ms. Katz requested for clarification and so often the clarification sort was not relevant to the issues and facts of the matter brought to her by the Committee. In response, the Investigating Committee issued series and periodic clarifications to Ms. Katz. Each clarification usually contains the Committee's previous letters and material references to her but suspected as a delay tactic or inability to respond to some of the interrogatories, she repeated several questions to the Committee and the Committee was responding to her questions from time to time.

Ms. Katz failed to comprehend that the complaint has been pending since 1999 and that Dr. Bunkheti has suffered severe hardship and is in acute danger and there is express need for URGENT ACTION to change his deteriorating situation. The York University and Ontario service providers such as telephone, financial office, housing, Internet company, etc. were stopping his cheques and over-billing him and issuing series of notices to discontinue their services.


Lately and indirectly, Ms. Katz issued a summary answer and explanation to the 38-paragraph interrogatories in the style and manner of mud throwing as follows:

Page 42

"At present time, Dr. Bunkheti is living on campus, although he has not been an active student since the summer, 2000. While his appeal of his failing grades to the Senate Appeals Committee is pending, he is being allowed to remain in residence, his lack of student status and debts to the University notwithstanding."(Ms. Shirley Katz Associate to the Counsel, York University, March 09, 2001).

While dumping Dr. Bunkheti in "hell" above, Ms. Katz turned round to Mr. Lovejoy and elevated him to "heaven" as follows: "You(Dr. Phillip Ofume) are no doubt aware that Professor Lovejoy is one of the first recipients of the federal government's Canada Research Chairs, which recipients were recently announced by Prime Minister Chretien. I attach the media release announcing this most recent honor accorded to Professor Lovejoy."(Ms. Shirley Katz Associate to the Counsel, York University, March 09, 2001).

In a counter-response Dr. Bunkheti said: " I arrived at York University on September 7, 1999 and that York University deliberately starved me of financial support and because of this starvation, I could not commence my research. In June and July 2000 my two cheques were blocked until August 2000. In August 2000, my financial assistance was terminated without notice. From September 7, 1999 to the present day (February 26, 2001) I was required to change accommodations 7 or 8 times. I was sometimes forced to sleep in the room of the handicaps and always on the floor. At other times, I was sent to a room that had not been cleaned in years. Everything was done to encourage me to leave,..."(Dr. Bunkheti February 2001).

In conclusion Ms. Katz said: "Let me conclude by observing that Dr. Bunkheti's persistent attacks on Professor Lovejoy are particularly problematic at the instant time"(Ms. Shirley Katz Associate to the Counsel, York University, March 09, 2001).


Findings of the Investigating Committee

Personality and professional scourges and clashes based on rivalry and act of protectionism a situation drifting to wall building around office, lawlessness and anarchy. In a careful review of these clashes, the Committee found that there was some amount of cold relationship between Dr Bunkheti, admission office and Mr. Lovejoy on/before September 15, 1999 when Dr. Bunkheti attended an African slavery lecture at York University and he challenged the longstanding Lovejoy Hinterland and UNESCO Project on the basis of erecting a pattern and system of history without the collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions in Western, Central and Eastern Africa. The sources alleged that the entire lecture hall was in a state of confusion and disarray and hate ensued.


Page 43

The Committee found that the result of this troubled lecture hall and the originating conflict had created "two major conflict area" firstly when Dr. Bunkheti challenged the UNESCO/Lovejoy Hinterland Project on African Slavery and secondly when he persisted in his desire to study another Ph.D. degree in history with a special focus on African slavery. The intervention of UNESCO, Paris on February 13, 2001 is in support and confirmation of Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti's research and investigation good-will position on the Lovejoy Hinterland and UNESCO Africa Slavery Project. According to the sources, the UNESCO intervention in support of Dr. Bunkheti's position, there was no collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions in Western, Central and Eastern Africa in African History and the UNESCO and Lovejoy Hinterland project. The UNESCO intervention, confirmed that Dr. Bunkheti's academic and professional opinion on this project is being considered and in the process of publication.

At this level, Mr. Lovejoy and York University would have no any alternative other than to collaborate with Dr. Bunkheti to restructure this project and incorporate Dr. Bunkheti's opinion into this project in the esprit of professionalism. The source alleged that Mr. Lovejoy and York University have built partnership with the majority of the Universities and related institution in Canada and that they have control of about 80% of this type of research project. At this point, Mr. Lovejoy and score of the fighting scholars at York University would have created a vast research collaboration with Dr. Bunkheti instead of fighting him with grade under-marking; internal serial legal action and appeal thereafter; admission and financial austerities; and related cruelty to push him out of York University. This led to instantaneous deliberate confusion and personality clashes which further drifted to imposition of special student or regular students' status on Dr. Bunkheti without iota of recognition of his three master degrees and one Ph.D. This is a total upside down of academic and professional conduct and ethics.


The clashes which were expressed in different correspondence amounted to dictation and policing up to dissuasion and imposition of course of study on Dr. Bunkheti contrary to the project (African Slavery) he intends to study at York University and contrary to the Faculty Procedural Rules. The sources alleged that this was a direct action to remove the project from the list of the projects relating to the Lovejoy Hinterland and UNESCO project to create more scholarship empire for the historian professors at York University and their associates inside and outside York University. According to the sources this is a secret plan to enable the African slavery project partnership with UNESCO, York University and other national and international agencies to stabilize in the hands and control of Mr. Lovejoy and York University. York University especially Department of History and admission office created unprofessional scheme upon scheme through scenario upon scenario against Dr. Bunkheti to produce a long delay tactic leading to multiple frustrating procedures in a long and endless frustrating drawn out legal battle.

 

Page 44

Different sources alleged that certain Blacks, First Nation, Metis, Inuit and Arabs in Canada on social assistance or welfare and other conditions have been compelled to enter into frustrating long and durable legal battle without the assistance of Lawyers and legal aid and without hope to get justice. That due to lack of legal aid and representation, they are forced to abandon the legal action thereby impeding the course to get justice and their rights. The Committee agreed with these sources with reference to the admission matter of Dr. Phillip Ofume and McGill University Faculty of Law Montreal Canada and the suspension and dismissal lawsuit of Mrs. Maureen Ofume vs St. Joseph's College of Early Childhood Education, Halifax Nova Scotia Canada. In April 2001 the Committee discovered that the intervention of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the above listed NGOs' Investigating Committee and series of petition from different part of the world had compelled part of the divided authorities at York University to hear Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti's Appeal and complaint which has been put on hold since 1999. But instead of returning the complaint to the York University Admission Office to settle the longstanding issue of a specific admission status for Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti, the Senate Appeal Committee rushed into decision against Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti.

At York University, the oral and documentary submissions by Dr. Bunkheti; Conrad Thompson (President, Graduate Students' Association); Denise N Hammond, M.E.S (Former President of the Graduate Students' Association) and Solomon Ukhuegbe, D.Jur candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School show that no one claimed responsibility for why the admission office issued several and different admission categories to Dr. Bunkheti stemming from low and to conflicting admission to special student and graduate student. The Committee found that the aim of this procedural delay tactic, proliferation of admission status and confusion which was compounded with imposed financial austerity was to frustrate Dr. Kifindi Bunkheti and finally to cause his exit from the Department of History and if possible York University. These submissions dissented on the violation of procedures, amnesty and concession, which were applied in the past to facilitate the admission of other similar students at York University. The Committee reviewed all these submission and discovered that at this stage of confusion and delay to offer a specific admission to Dr. Bunkheti, it appeared as if there was no administration, Registrar of Admission and Admission Office at York University.

Admission and grades issues could not be established because the admission office and graduate studies could not establish one type of admission for Dr. Bunkheti. Issues of substantive or graduate studies and special student status were a mere mud throwing design to cloud Dr. Bunkheti status and to frustrate him. York University especially admission office and graduate studies were not organized to deal with the situation prevailing to date. This lack of effective academic administration led to a situation of contradiction of decision and correspondence by different officials of the university to Dr. Bunkheti. This situation compelled Dr.

Page 45

Bunkheti to be in possession of different admission status and information all with condition governed by prepositions and promises and contradiction.

The Committee found that grades appraisal and reappraisal have no lien or visible location with the situation of Dr. Bunkheti at York University and are not supposed to exist in the chain of the conflict of student status and proliferation of admission status. A grade appraisal or reappraisal is supposed to originate from a well established educational program driven by a definite admission with name and orientation which was not established at York University for Dr. Bunkheti. This situation ought to have been resolved from the proper evaluation and certification of Dr. Bunkheti's academic and professional qualifications to match him into a specific academic program. The Committee was unclear about the sudden emergence of grades appraisal and reappraisal when there was no specific admission offered to Dr. Bunkheti at York University. The Senate Appeal Committee sat to hear a complaint of grades appraisal and reappraisal without returning the complaint to the admission office to first of all offer a specific admission to Dr. Bunkheti. The Investigating Committee discovered that the York University Senate Appeal Committee spent time and money to deal with a complaint that has no foundation. The foundation was evaluation and certification of Dr. Bunkheti's qualifications and offering him an admission with name and status. The correspondent between Dr. Bunkheti and Lovejoy and Department of History show that the theme of Ph.D. project and area of study were not settled when the issue of failing grade and grade allocation, appraisal and reappraisal automatically emerged to create serial internal legal battle.

The Committee examined an intra-faculty and the "police centered under-coordinated academic administration conflicts". The Committee found that there is iota of faculty member and related authorities within the Ontario Education Regulations and York University faculty procedural rules which requires that instructors or teachers have the right or empowered to impose research project and course of studies choice on students. When Dr. Bunkheti refused to accept the imposed Ph.D. research choice, which was imposed on him by Mr. Lovejoy, Dr. Bunkheti alleged that that was part of the major beginning of the problem between himself and Mr. Lovejoy and admission office and other opposition inside and outside York University.


The issue of conducting African Slavery Project without collection, recording and exploitation of oral traditions was some of the UNESCO research opinion, which gave credit to Dr. Bunkheti's scholarly opinion against the position of Mr. Lovejoy Hinterland Project. The contra-opinion of the sponsor (UNESCO) of this project is sufficient for Mr. Lovejoy to collaborate with Dr. Bunkheti to redesign this project and correct the error, which the sponsor (UNESCO) has observed from Dr. Bunkheti's opinion.


Page 46

Lately, the York University Senate Appeals Committee initiated emergency
return to the 1999 Complaint in May 2001. Dr. Bunkheti's complaint in 1999 to the York University Senate Appeals Committee was abandoned without reason. As the work of the Investigating Committee is advancing to a close, the Senate Appeals Committee a faction among other faction at York University which has abandoned the complaint since 1999 rushed into hasty hearing and handed down a decision without returning the complaint to the admission office to first of all settle the issue of admission which it clearly indicated does not relate to the duty of the Senate Appeals Committee. Every resolution on this issue has to begin with the definition of a particular admission status for Dr. Bunkheti because without admission, the issue of a specific grade appraisal or reappraisal will not be before any Senate Committee and related intervenor at York University. If the Senate Appeals Committee has no jurisdiction to deal with the problem of admission but assume the responsibility of reappraising grades, the Committee found that this is a misfire of procedure. Admission determines student status and further stands to define course range and level. Therefore, without level where is grade reappraisal issue in academic setting. For example, Dr. Bunkheti has not been admitted to a specific level or program of study at York University. What grade would the Senate Appeals Committee be appraising and reappraising with the amount of money it has spent to find external grade appraising and assessing institutions across Canada.

Recommendation

The Investigating Committee repeats the fore going and advises that Dr. Kris Kifindi Bunkheti scholarship and entire research rights be reinstated at York University immediately and that his academic and professional opinion on Lovejoy Hinterland/UNESCO Project be considered due to its relevance to this important project.


FOR THE ABOVE LISTED NGOs AND THEIR
INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE

 

PHILLIP C. OFUME, Ph.D.

CHAIR, INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE