🚀 go-pugleaf

Exhibit 1

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Path:
newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!und
ergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!neumann.uwaterloo.ca!alopez-o
From: alopez-o@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Subject: Re: Fabrikant Files
Message-ID: <CBwwIn.3HE@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References:  <165302Z15081993@anon.penet.fi>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 16:30:23 GMT

After the publication of "The Fabrikant Files" I cannot see how anybody
could still give Fabrikant the benefit of the doubt.  Am I correct to
assume that some of the people defending him haven't read said files?
(published by the Montreal newspaper Gazette).

Alex


Exhibit 2

I present below some of the most colorful quotes from "Fabrikant Files"
(each
line of the quotes start with symbol ">"), and then I give my comment.  I
intentionally do not correct the falsities, I just show that what is
written
goes against common sense.   I also compare several phrases from different
places to show that at least one of them is false, since they are mutually
exclusive.

  >Fabrikant was on the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering. But he knew
  >almost nothing about mechanical engineering. He was a mathematician
  >with degrees in mechanics and electrical engineering.
  >[...]
  >Fabrikant's school record show he excelled in all courses in primary,
  >secondary and university studies, graduating with honors.
  >[...]
  >At the Ivanovo Power Institute he wrote three research papers. On the
  >strength of these papers, the Moscow Power Institute accepted him into
  >its graduate school without the requirement of entrance exams. He
studied
  >under one of Russia's foremost engineers, V. V. Bolotin.
  >He graduated in 1966 with honors. It was then that the trouble began.

These statements are self-contradictory.   All my education,
undergraduate and
graduate, was at technical schools, no formal mathematical education, and
I
nevertheless managed to become a "mathematician". Everybody studies
mechanical
engineering at a technical school, and I graduated with honors, this means
that I supposed to acquire at least some knowledge in this field. 

While still an undergraduate student, I "wrote three research papers".
What
were these papers about? Since Moscow Power Institute has accepted me
into its
graduate school "on the strength of these papers", one might assume that
these 
papers were in my field of study, namely, engineering, not in mathematics.

Last, but not least, I made my Ph.D. dissertation under supervision of
"one 
of Russia's  foremost engineers, V. V. Bolotin". Since Bolotin was highly 
respected at  Concordia, one should assume that he was a mechanical
engineer. 
How "one of  Russia's foremost engineers, V. V. Bolotin" has managed to 
graduate a Ph.D. (myself) who "knew almost nothing about mechanical 
engineering"?   Should not  Bolotin be interviewed and asked this
question? 
Is not it amazing that it  were the reporters who themselves "knew almost 
nothing about mechanical engineering" had managed to discover that I 
"knew almost nothing about mechanical engineering"?

  >Twenty-six years old and unable to find a job in Moscow, Fabrikant was 
  >forced to seek employment in the boondocks of Russian Academia.

There was no such thing as a job in Moscow for someone who was not a
resident of
Moscow.  Only Moscow residents were entitled to be hired in Moscow, this
was
the law.

  >About 15 years younger than Fabrikant, Galina [Fabrikant wife] had
  >been his student. She had idolized him. She had championed his causes,
  >supporting him in his numerous battles with the Soviet academia.
  >She stuck with him from job to job.

Let us do some computations: I was 39 when I emigrated, my wife at that
time
must be 15 years younger, so she must be 24. Since she was my student, I 
could not have married her before her graduation, which is 21-22, so I
must 
have married her in 1976, when I had my last job in Ivanovo, so how could 
she possibly "stuck with him from job to job"?

There is no evidence in the "File" of "numerous battles with the Soviet 
academia". This is what we know about my job in Rybinsk:
  >
  >He took a minor position at the Institute of Aircraft Technology. Two
  >years later he experienced his second set back. For unknown reasons
  >he was demoted to the position of programming analyst at the nearby
  >Aviation Engine Manufacturing plant.   
  >
What exactly was this "minor position "? In Canada the lowest position
for 
a Ph.D. is Assistant Professor. Was it a Soviet equivalent of Assistant
Professor? One does not have to be a genius to assume that Soviet
university 
positions are different from Canadian ones. Should not serious reporters
address this issue? If they spent their time, energy and printed space to 
describe how Galina was dressed at a worker's dance, they could address
this
issue, at least, as equally important.

I started working "at the Institute of Aircraft Technology".  Sounds like
an 
engineering, rather than mathematical institution. What was I teaching
there? 
Was it mathematics? No answers.

We read further "For unknown reasons he was demoted ..."  What happened
with
the Institute? It no longer exists? Where are all my former students and
colleagues? Would not it be nice to interview them, so that they could
tell 
the stories how I abused them, threatened them, etc.? What were those
"unknown 
reasons"? Why not to interview the Institute's Rector and find out? Could
it
be that I was fired as dissident for explaining to my students that
Communist
Party and communist regime were not the best in the world? 

One can be "demoted" within the same institution. How could I stop
working for 
the Institute, start working at a nearby plant, and be "demoted"? I must
have
been fired (or quit) at one place and hired (into a lower position) at a
new 
place.  One does not do such things at its own volition, so what happened
in 
Rybinsk?  Was there any "battle with the Soviet academia"?

This is what we know about Ulyanovsk:

  >He left under a cloud in 1970 to take a job
  >as an instructor in theoretical mechanics at the Polytechnic
  >Institute. [...] According to his records, he was considered a "gifted
  >scientist". Two years later, in 1972, he was promoted to an assistant
  >professor. But that didn't last long. Suddenly, in 1973, he quit. His
  >records show that he "left of his own volition".  But as subsequent
  >events would prove, this was an euphemism for being fired.

Can anyone explain what it means "left under a cloud"?  Was there some
irregularity in my new hiring? If yes, it should be exposed.  I was
considered
a gifted scientist, well, in what field?   According to reporters, I knew
almost nothing about Mechanical Engineering.   Where are the interviews
with my
former students and colleagues?   Did not they tell the reporters numerous
horror stories how I "threatened them and frequently flew into violent
rages"? 
And if there were no horror stories, why was the euphemism for being
fired used?
Could it be that KGB approached me in Ulyanovsk and suggested that I
become
their informer, which I refused, and after that I just had to get out and
quickly?

  >But when he decided to emigrate, Fabrikant discarded her. He divorced
  >her because she couldn't have children and he wanted to start a new
  >family in Canada. Still, Galina promised to take care of his aging
  >mother and alcoholic brother and she loyally came to say farewell
  >[to Fabrikant who was emigrating, July 1979].
  >[...]

Where is an interview with either Galina or my brother? Both are still
alive. 

  >According to the institute records and to witnesses the proceedings   
  >became legendary because at one point Fabrikant attacked Scheinberg  
  >and tried to club him with a chair.    

Where is an interview with Scheinberg himself, who would be the best
witness?

  >Institute records show that Fabrikant complained to the KGB and the
  >regional  and  central  committees  about  colleagues   conspiring 
  >against him. 

How on earth complaints to KGB could end up in institute records?  KGB
never
share this kind of documents.   What KGB has to do with it?   If it was
conspiracy against government - this is their field.   Where is an
interview
with KGB ?

  >His colleagues said Fabrikant often cited speeches by Brezhnev or
  >Lenin to prove that they were anti-communist and threatened to
  >denounce them to the authorities.
Who exactly ?

  >Fabrikant even antagonized the medical staff at a local clinic.
  >He was determined to have children. When repeated attempts failed, he
  >went to a clinic to have his sperm tested.   Galina Osokina, an
Ivanovo 
  >doctor, complained that Fabrikant became  belligerent after receiving
the 
  >results of his sperm test.
  >"The results of the test didn't satisfy him and he started writing
  >complaints to the health care department about the improper work
  >of Dr. Osokina. He also began to make regular visits to the
  >poly-clinic, bringing a medical reference book, and he would try to
  >teach the staff how to run a sperm test. He was a pain in the ass",
  >Liakishev said.
Again, why is it Liakishev describing my complaints against Dr. Osokina,
rather than Dr. Osokina herself ?

  >His bosses all told the Gazette that the leading scientists at the
  >Ivanovo Institute colluded  to vote him out because of his  
  >threatening behavior.
  >The institute offered him a lesser position as a senior engineer at the
  >same salary. But Fabrikant refused and launched a lawsuit.

Who are these bosses ?   What was the point to vote someone out and offer 
lesser position at the same salary ?   If someone is threatening, you do
not
keep him at the same salary.

  >The civil trial took place in December 1978 [...] What eventually
  >sank Fabrikant was the evidence of his previous job performances, which
  >showed, according to the record, an uninterrupted pattern of abusive
  >and belligerent behavior. It proved that he was forced to leave his
  >teaching job at the Ulyanovsk under similar circumstances.
So, what exactly happened in Ulyanovsk?   Who did I abuse there?  And who
did
I abuse in Rybinsk?

  >With his disastrous work history, he was unable to find a job.
  >So, for the first time he began thinking of emigrating to the West.
The right to work was a constitutional right in the old USSR, every
drunkard
was entitled to a job, no matter what was the job history.  Only the
dissidents could not find a job.   It is well known.

  >So eager were the soviets to get rid of  Fabrikant that the KGB
demanded
  >he sign a form [to leave the country].
Wow, stupid "refusniks", all they had to do to leave the USSR - to be
nasty and
threatening like Fabrikant!

  >Fabrikant, however refused. He told the KGB he had changed his mind and
  >wanted to stay.  [...] The regional party secretary, who knew all about
  >Fabrikant's from his constant complaints and court actions, told him
he had 
  >to leave because, without a job, life would be too difficult in the
  >Soviet Union.
Getting even more funny: party secretary is trying to convince Fabrikant
to
leave.  Again, poor "refusniks", they just did not know how to behave.  
Where
does this information come from ?  Did they interview the party secretary?

  >But Fabrikant grabbed the offer. Sankar was more than pleased. He
  >told himself it would only be temporary. But for at least a few months
  >he could rely on an experienced researcher at a bargain price. As
  >for Fabrikant, he had what the wanted: a foot in the door.
I am an "experienced researcher", this is nice.   In what field? 
Remember, I
knew "almost nothing in Mechanical Engineering"!

  >Sankar continued to work with him because of his ability to generate 
  >research efforts in collaboration with Sankar and others.  
Did I collaborate "with Sankar and others" or did I fight with them,
making
enemies ?   What does it mean "generate research efforts"?  To get
important
results?  In what field ?   Contact problems, are they a part of
Mechanical
Engineering?

  >Fabrikant denounced the teacher because she smoked in class.
Teacher was not supposed to smoke in class.   Why is Fabrikant a "bad
guy",
and not the smoking teacher ?   I was kicked out of class, and this is
what
complaint was about.

  >From 1982 to 1989, Fabrikant published 56 papers. In 37 papers
  >he was the only author. This low level of collaboration is unusual
  >in engineering, where a collaboration of varied expertise is needed
  >and expected, all engineering experts contacted by The Gazette said.

Does this mean that my papers were of low quality?  So, how come top
journals
around the world have published them ?   Could it be that I have all this
"varied expertise" in myself?

  >One reviewer criticized Fabrikant['s paper] for claiming that a
  >mathematical technique was original when in fact it had been employed
  >in 1881. Another criticized him for including scientific references
  >that were "hopelessly out of date". The problem Fabrikant was
  >claiming to have solved was solved by another researcher in 1961, the
  >reviewer added.

If this is all true, how come so many papers were published?

  >These criticisms infuriated Fabrikant and he demanded to know the
  >reviewer's identities. When editors refused to release them he
  >flew into rages.
Reviewers' identities are protected.  It is nonsense to ask for
identities. 

  >Fabrikant approached several Concordia engineering professors and
  >suggested joint research projects. But when Fabrikant became
belligerent
  >and abusive, each of them ended the relationship. His conduct annoyed
  >angered or shocked one colleague after another.
Give the names.  If my articles are single-authored, why would I need any
collaborators?

  >To help him along, Sankar arranged in 1982 for Fabrikant to obtain
  >an honorary title of research assistant professor after Fabrikant 
  >complained that no university would hire him because he was only
  >a research assistant.
>From Cowan's report:
"He was just as much a Research Associate Professor in 1983
as he was in 1989. Suggestions to me by University officers that pre-1985
situation was phony or courtesy rank are unworthy."

  >Fabrikant claimed he had a gun and intended to kill Concordia rector
Patrick 
  >Kenniff, engineering dean M.N.S. Swamy, mechanical engineering
chairman Sam 
  >Osman, Professor T.S. Sankar and several others.
  >Haines duly warned them. The university hired security [for them].
If I did all that, why was I recommended for promotion and tenure-track
position?

  >He abused secretaries, technicians and faculty alike. He called them
  >scum, shams, frauds. 
Names?   No secretary or technician ever complained about me.

  >Despite his threats and abusive behavior the engineering department 
  >promoted Fabrikant on June 1, 1990, to research professor (!!). It was
  >one step removed from a full-time faculty position.
Is not this amazing?

  >He also lied when he said in his resume that his doctorate degree was
  >in mechanical engineering, which deals with machines and the production
  >of power. His Russian scholastic records show it was in mechanics,
  >a different field that is the basis of physics and astronomy.
  >Osman examined Fabrikant's resumes. He found discrepancies between the
  >two resumes Fabrikant had submitted since coming to Concordia in 1979.
  >[...] Russia was more open and the documents were available, so he
  >asked Fabrikant to obtain them.  [...] Concordia general secretary
  >Berangere Gaudet wrote Osman in January 1992 demanding he drop his
  >investigation into Fabrikant's credentials, saying it was unreasonable
  >and possibly bordering in harassment).

>From Cowan's Report:
Page 25:
In fact, much has since been written about Dr. Fabrikant falsifying
elements
of various CV's over the  years. I have compared them, and the 
differences
are largely explicable, if one examines the  differences in academic
ranks and
degree granting systems between North America and the former USSR. Thus
his
"upgrading" of his USSR academic ranks and subsuming of "Mechanical
Engineering" within his degrees in Mechanics and Applied Mathematics in
post-1983 CV's are not uncommon reinterpretations made by such emigres
once
they fully understood Canadian equivalences, according to a number of
them I
consulted.

  >Without realizing it, the committee had Fabrikant trapped. He was in   
  >danger of being uncovered as a fraud.    He was not a mechanical
engineer 
  >as he had claimed. He could not teach advanced courses in the subject
in 
  >which he had fraudulently claimed he had a PhD.
>From Cowan's Report:
page 28:
It is well understood that Dr. Osman wished Dr. Fabrikant to demonstrate a
greater topics breadth in teaching before being considered for tenure,
but it
seems likely that the choice of design was intended to put some extra
pressure. A number of engineers have indicated to me that there were
better
and fairer choices of courses which could have been used to demonstrate
adequate breadth.

  >[...] Fabrikant did not have the right or permission to take a
  >sabbatical.
>From Cowan's Report:
Page 25:
He was, in my view, eligible to be considered for a sabbatical leave.

  >McGill computer services [the gate for Concordia] pleaded with 
  >Fabrikant to stop repeating a programming mistake that often sent
  >45 copies of the same letter to the same place. But Fabrikant couldn't
  >believe he'd made a mistake, and announced that McGill, too, was part 
  >of a conspiracy to make him look crazy, which he described as an old
  >communist trick.
Anyone, who ever sent an E-mail knows, that this is nonsense: no
programming
is needed to send a message, and therefore no programming mistake could
have
been made.

  >[Students started complaining about the marking] so Osman collected
  >all the exam books from the professors and gave them to an outside
  >consultant to analyze [...] The consultant, who is a mechanical
  >engineer and whose identity the university has kept secret, filed
  >his report in July 1992:
  >-Fabrikant had marked wrong answers correct for his students
  >-When Fabrikant added up his students' scores he fraudulently
  >bumped up the marks 12 to 20 per cent.
If this is all honest, why would they keep the identity of "consultant"
secret?
I have requested, according to the Access to Information Act, the report
of
this consultant from Concordia University.   Their response was that the
document does not exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the publication of Arthurs and Cowan's reports, The Gazette
continued
to deliberately mislead its readers.  I present below some quotations
from The
Gazette and the related quotes from both reports.

The Gazette, 22.04.94, page A4, J. Kalbfleisch: Fabrikant lied about his
academic qualifications.   The same quote on 15.05.94, page A3.

Editorial on 18.05.94, page B2: The inquiry on Mr. Fabrikant employment
record 
... was set up to examine flaws in a system that allowed him to lie his
way
into a university job.

27.05.94, C. Adolph, page A2: Fabrikant ... killed four colleagues ... to
draw
attention to his disputes with the university.   "Word of Kenniff firing
came
after two closed sessions of the Board of Governors. The content of the
governors' discussions is still secret, but those who attended the meeting
said the atmosphere within was heated, raucous and "very strange"."
<<
La Presse, 28.05.94, Andre Noel, page A9: "Valery Fabrikant est ce
professeur
de genie qui a tue quatre collegues sur le campus de l'universite, en
aout 1992,
pour attirer l'attention sur la fraude dont il se pretendait victime".
<<
The Gazette, 31.05.94, C. Adolph, page A1: "Valery Fabrikant remained at
Concordia University despite a phony resume and a long history of abusive
behavior because of a serious of bureaucratic gaffs and lapses of
leadership,
an independent investigator has found."   "He (Cowan) mentions that
university
administrators "caved in" and agreed to pay for an $8,000 computer printer
Fabrikant has ordered without approval".
<<

The Gazette, 1.06.94, C. Adolph and P. Wells, page A2: Cowan: "I don't
know
the details of the conflict between Kenniff and board of governors" Should
those details be made public?  "In this instance, probably not".
<<
The Gazette, 3.06.94, J. Sheppard, (Canadian Press) page A4: "...the
Supreme
Court agreed with a lower court's ruling against restarting the trial".
"The
appeal court upheld the judge's decision."  "The report said Fabrikant
falsified his academic credentials".

The Gazette, 9.06.94, editorial, page B2: "... administrators ... did not
even
check out Mr. Fabrikant's misleading curriculum vitae. They even gave him
tenure, despite his record of abusing colleagues ..."

The Gazette, 9.06.94, J. Kalbfleisch, page A1: "Cowan identified a series
of
administrative gaffs over several years that allowed Fabrikant ... to
stay on
at the university despite his disruptive behavior and dubious academic
credentials".

The Gazette, 18.06.94, Review, page B1: "... Cowan report identifies
administrative mistakes over several years that allowed Fabrikant to stay
on
at Concordia despite his behavior and questionable academic background".


                                                Exhibit 3

>From Cowan's Report:

Page 19:
In the spring of 1990, Dr. Fabrikant was refused promotion to the rank of
Research Professor despite good external reviews and the positive 
recommendation of the Department, the Faculty, and the Dean. No reason was
given in the file for the refusal, and no one interviewed can now recall. 
Fabrikant appealed to the University Appeals Board on June 26, but by
early
September various parties had concluded that Fabrikant's rights did not
extend
to the use of UAB, which was the first indication that his parallel
rights of
recourse were really not parallel to those of the Bargaining unit
members. I
believe this decision to be wrong.

There is a key misinterpretation which appears to have led the University
to
making wrong decisions in a number of matters relating to Dr. Fabrikant,
and
that centers around the counting of time. The University maintained to
the end
that only Fabrikant's service from 1985 onward counted towards promotion
sabbatical and tenure consideration ( he was, of course, not eligible to
be
considered on sabbatical or tenure until he joined the bargaining unit in
1990). This appears to be wrong interpretation. Dr. Fabrikant became soft
funded non-unionized faculty member in 1982. The shift to Actions
Structurantes program in 1985 changed the source of the soft funds. but
not
his rank or status. He was just as much a Research Associate Professor in
1983
as he was in 1989. Suggestions to me by University officers that pre-1985
situation was phony or courtesy rank are unworthy.

Page 23:
When Fabrikant later argued that the collective agreement gave him the
right
to be considered for tenure in 1991-1992, the Vice-Rector Academic paid
scant
attention, but in fact he was correct.

Page 25:
He was, in my view, eligible to be considered for a sabbatical leave.
.....................
In fact, much has since been written about Dr. Fabrikant falsifying
elements
of various CV's over the  years. I have compared them, and the 
differences
are largely explicable, if one examines the  differences in academic
ranks and
degree granting systems between North America and the former USSR. Thus
his
"upgrading" of his USSR academic ranks and subsuming of "Mechanical
Engineering" within his degrees in Mechanics and Applied Mathematics in
post-1983 CV's are not uncommon reinterpretations made by such emigres
once
they fully understood Canadian equivalences, according to a number of
them I
consulted.

Page 26:
On April 13, the Internal Grievance Committee inexplicably upheld the
University position on Fabrikant's requests to be considered for
sabbatical
and tenure...  On May 25, the Rector, though he had doubts about the
correctness of those decisions, confirmed all three.

Page 28:
Dr. Osman has also determined that he would get Dr. Fabrikant to teach two
design courses among his four course load for the next year.
...................
It is well understood that Dr. Osman wished Dr. Fabrikant to demonstrate a
greater topics breadth in teaching before being considered for tenure,
but it
seems likely that the choice of design was intended to put some extra
pressure. A number of engineers have indicated to me that there were
better
and fairer choices of courses which could have been used to demonstrate
adequate breadth.

Page 34:
It is my view that improper or mistaken decisions on eligibility for
promotion, promotion, sabbatical eligibility, date of tenure
consideration,
counting of service and on how to handle Dr. Fabrikant's research ethics
complaints were all related to his behavior.


>From the Arthurs' Report

Page 36:
Board referred these [Fabrikant's] allegations to the Rector Dr. Kenniff
who,
by Memo dated February 19, 1992, asked Vice-Rector (Academic) Dr. Sheinin
to
investigate these charges. Dr. Sheinin defined her task very narrowly; she
conducted her investigation with circumspection so extreme as to be
self-defeating. Her report indicates that she read documents "relevant to
the
contract" which was the subject for allegations - but not apparently the
contract itself; she did not speak to several individuals she ought to
have
spoken to, including people from Transport Canada and in the 
University's own
Office of research services; she failed to search out, or at any rate to
obtain, the actual contract and other relevant documents; she did not
comprehend the significance of documents she did read; she seems to have
either been misled by Prof. S. Sankar or to have misunderstood him; she
did
not extend her investigation or her report to other conflicts of
interest; and
she dealt with the issue of authorship by reference to general principles
rather than specific facts.

Page 39:
Dr. Kenniff wrote to Dr. Fabrikant on May 14, 1992, stating that, on the
basis
of Dr. Sheinin's second report, "no further action will be taken at this
time". When he wrote that letter, in effect, no proper investigation had
ever
been made of either first or the second set of allegations. Dr. Sheinin
ought
to have realized that her report might expose herself, Dr. Kenniff, the
Board
and the University to justifiable criticism.   And for his part, Dr.
Kenniff
ought to have realized that the report he had received from Dr. Sheinin
and
forwarded to the Board was not based on proper inquiry.