On another occasion, 2 July 1993 at noon, Mrs. Boyd is said to have reported that 'His door was open, his jacket was on the floor, ... he was lying on a daybed behind the door .... She was worried because his breathing was loud and irregular.' This was during the summer break. I had worked with David Astle, the authority on banking, late into the night before, and was having a catch-up nap the next morning. I was suffering from bronchitis at the time which explains my breathing; my coat I had put on the back of the couch and it had fallen to the floor. The complaint is exaggerated and seems 'manufactured'.
Mrs. Boyd has several other comments quoted in the Summary, broad generalizations based on precious little evidence. In September my collaborator in my second book gave her a copy of the video on which the book was based. A day or so later it seems as if an 'unidentified man' approached Mrs. Boyd about the video and, in addition, she received an anonymous telephone call at home. At least that is what she reported to Principal Boyle.
Principal Boyle wrote to me in great concern about this, saying how 'extremely distressing' this was for Mrs. Boyd and how 'terrifying' it had proved. I gave him my account of what had happened:
What happened was as follows. Cleo Boyd came to the door of my office, or was passing by - I am not sure which. I told her about my new book, The New World Order in North America: Mechanism in Place for a Police State. She said: 'What you really need is somebody to market this marvellous material,' or some words to that effect. 'Would you be able to help with that?' l asked anxiously. 'I might,' she replied enthusiastically, 'I will make some enquiries tonight.'
'I happen to have the video on which the book is based,' my collaborator interjected, 'Would you like to see it?' 'Oh, yes,' she said, and he gave it to her.
Do I have responsibility for what happened after that? Am I accountable for an anonymous call Ms. Boyd received at home or for 'unidentified' men she may have encountered in the market place. Since late September the aforesaid video has been circulating widely in the United States and Canada. How did the 'unidentified' man know she had the tape? I did not tell anybody about the tape my collaborator had given her! He didn't! She must, therefore, have told somebody who told the 'unidentified' man, or maybe, albeit unwittingly, the 'unidentified' man himself. Am I culpable for that? ... What evidence do you have for concluding that 'there is reason to believe that the content of the
tape is likely to be offensive or distressing'? Is it within your prerogative as Principal to direct what I should read, what I should write, or with whom I should associate?
Since the Principal was giving me a second-hand report of what had happened in my office, and since the third-party present [my collaborator on the second book] had verified my account, I faxed a copy of my letter to Mrs. Boyd, asking where my account differed from her memory of the matter. The Principal wrote back to me on 22 November: 'By faxing her the second page of the letter faxed to me on the night of November 15, you violated that reasonable request [not to contact her].' l was rather bewildered by this and on 29 November communicated to the Principal a full account of my rather brief professional relationship with Mrs. Boyd. At the same time I explored the broader philosophical implications of what happens when colleagues are banned from communicating with colleagues:
I have had nothing but the most pleasant personal and professional
relationship with Mrs. Boyd until you entered the picture. Mrs. Boyd helped me with the preparation of The New World Order and the Throne of the antiChrist, drawing my attention to the tenth-century Play of
AntiChrist which I hadn't heard about before. She lent me her own annotated edition of the work and it was with that I prepared this section for my book.
Mrs. Boyd also helped me with the preparation of The New World Order in North America: Mechanism in Place for a Police State. Mrs. Boyd drew my attention to the medieval essay on 'antiChrist' by Adso. I had seen it before but had not realized its full significance. In several conversations in my office and in hers and - if I remember correctly - in a couple of conversations in the corridor, Mrs. Boyd impressed on me again and again the value of the essay for the book I was preparing. Again she lent me her annotated edition, and again that section of my book is totally indebted to her.
In late September Mrs. Boyd suggested that she investigate ways of
marketing my 'marvellous' work.
And that is when, Principal, you entered the scene. Things have never
been the same since.
I shall for the moment resist the temptation to say - but it has been
said - that Mrs. Boyd may be a pawn in your hands for your investigation of me and to the determining as to whether or not I am 'free of the discrimination that would create a hostile and intimidating atmosphere.'
I will not resist the temptation to ask you NOT to stand between me and my colleagues. It is the interfacing between personnel in casual, in seemingly aimless and unplanned conversations that the intellectual current of a University is ignited: it is that which leads to the breakthroughs of thought that result in animating our lectures to our students and to the pages of research that we publish in the
great academic journals abroad. A university, I am convinced, is the one place in society which makes possible the ‘reconciliation' of polarities of thought and conviction. It can, if nurtured properly, be like a variegated garden in that it represents all shades of opinion, all nuances in the spectrum.
The Principal's response was curt: 'the College considers insubordinate your communication with Mrs. Boyd,' that is my earlier fax to her.
But again it can clearly be seen how in the 'Summary of Investigation' the consequences of an act have been inflated: the lending of a video to a colleague in September has, by December, been exaggerated into an act of 'insubordination'.