After more than five years of abusive grievance and arbitration processes, the #FrancesWiddowsonCase is finally going to be public. For those who are unaware of the nature of this case, this post provides a concise summary. Those who want to read a more in depth treatment are encouraged to look at two areas of this website – the “Arbitration Decision” and “MRU Frances Widdowson Firing” sections.
This post is to provide a concise treatment. The first thing to understand is that there are two aspects of Widdowson’s case. The first is the justification of discipline (firing) and the second is the failure to reinstate due to MRU arguing, and arbitrator David Phillip Jones agreeing, that Widdowson’s employment relationship with MRU had become “unviable”.
THE JUSTIFICATION OF DISCIPLINE (FIRING)
This justification was based on the principle of “progressive discipline”. Widdowson had been suspended without pay for two weeks in May 2021 because Widdowson was found to have harassed the trans activist D.A. Dirks and the indigenization activist Gabrielle Lindstrom (who now goes by her maiden name Gabrielle Weasel Head).
The finding of harassment concerning Dirks constituted one Tweet, which did not mention Dirks by name. This Tweet satirized a cartoon about the concept of “misgendering fatigue, as well as poking fun at the LGBTQ initialism (Widdowson referred to it as TGBQ2SLMNOP).
The finding of harassment concerning Lindstrom/Weasel Head was two Tweets responding to Lindstrom/Weasel Head’s harassment of Widdowson when Widdowson had posted a response to the satirical character Titania McGrath that had nothing to do with Lindstrom/Weasel Head.
Because Widdowson was suspended without pay for two weeks, the next strikes against her were perceived as justifying firing. These strikes concerned a finding of harassment against Widdowson from a complaint filed by indigenous scholar-activist Renae Watchman and a complaint filed by Widdowson against non-indigenous scholar-ally Tim Haney that was deemed to be frivolous and vexatious and not made in good faith.
The complaint by Watchman was investigated by Geoff Hope, and the findings were known as the “Hope Report”. In this report, Hope found that six Tweets of Widdowson constituted harassment, even though only one Tweet mentioned Watchman.
This was why additional discipline was argued to be necessary.
MRU’S ASSERTION THAT THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP WAS UNVIABLE
In making this assertion, MRU provided 12 “examples” in its termination letter (in the left hand column below). In the arbitration, the arbitrator, David Phillip Jones found only that #7, #10, and #12 were substantiated (yellow). Arbitrator Jones refuted #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8 (blue) and did not comment on #5, #6, #9, and #11 (pink). On the right hand column is the “evidence” that MRU provided in its submission in January 2024.
Example #4, was reviewed in detail in the video “Mount Royal University Murders Academic Freedom”.
The December 13, 2021 meeting, whereby Widdowson explained why she could not accept responsbility or show remorse for her conduct is embedded below. This formed the basis of examples #10, #11, and #12 of Widdowson’s termination letter.
In his decision, Arbitrator Jones did not consider these highly prejudicial actions of Mount Royal University. Instead, he argued that there were nine reasons for not reinstating Widdowson. Number 6 – the rearranging of furniture – was made up by MRU and was accepted by this glorified notetaker of an arbitrator. Arbitrator Jones also did not consider the mobbing to which Widdowson was subjected, and argued the same MRU talking points about her not “accepting responsibility” and “showing remorse”.
