On December 3, 2021, Memorial University’s administration took the extraordinary and draconian measure of banning me from campus following my silent protest against then-president Vianne Timmons. To justify that decision, the university publicly told the media:
“For interim measures to be applied there has to be a perceived risk to the safety of individuals.”
More than three years later, on April 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismantled that justification. Associate Chief Justice Rosalie McGrath wrote:
“The information before the Student Code of Conduct Officer [Jennifer Browne] and the evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the Event do not suggest the Student posed a potential risk of harm to any person.”
The false narrative was developed by General Counsel Scott Worsfold and Chief Risk Officer Greg McDougall, who also served as the complainant, and was relied upon by Conduct Officer Jennifer Browne to justify the campus ban. To portray a student as a dangerous threat without any evidence to support such a claim, for the purpose of silencing that student, constitutes serious wrongdoing by university officials.
The campus ban has long since been lifted, and the sanctions imposed by Browne have also been removed. In 2024, Memorial University determined that the Chief Risk Officer position was redundant and terminated McDougall’s employment. Timmons was also removed as president in 2023. Yet Worsfold and Browne remain in their positions, without accountability for their roles in one of the most troubling abuses of authority in Memorial University’s history.
Why should university officials who falsely portrayed a student as a safety threat without evidence remain in positions of authority?
Leave a Reply