Re: Questions regarding the Vaccine Resistance Network Event @SFU on March 12

[Anke Kessler <akessler@sfu.ca>]

I concur with Sam and Paul that engaging VRM at the event itself is a sensible response to the situation. We can use the fact that the VRM rented space at the SFU campus (rather than at a hotel, say) as an opportunity to expose & debunk the pseudo-scientific arguments they put forward.  

My original post was meant to alert the academic community to the event. I was fully aware of the fact that the group was merely renting the space, so my wording of 'hosting the event' was somewhat unfortunate I suppose.

Having said this, however, I am less certain about not putting any value judgement on rentals. After all, SFU is a brand name, and the group very likely chose a university campus for a reason. 
Surely, there currently are (implicit) limits to what groups we are renting University-owned space to? Or are our values measured in dollars only…engaging the world means 'anyone is welcome as long as they pay cash'? I would like to know whether someone is responsible for filtering and if not, I believe that at the very least we should have a discussion about where we stand on this issue. 


Anke Kessler
Department of Economics
Simon Fraser University

akessler@sfu.ca
+1-778-782-3443





On 2013-03-02, at 8:51 AM, Sam Black <samuelb@sfu.ca> wrote:

> I very much agree with the principle articulated by Paul Percival. (The strategy of managing media publicity is something I know nothing about.)
> 
> The anti-vaccine movement has been around for quite a long time to poison the minds of credulous parents. The best way to advertise our ideals as a University to the broader community is for some knowledgeable faculty members to attend the session and debunk the junk science. This would also be a public service -- that might even save some children who would otherwise become very ill. 
> 
> As Paul also rightly emphasizes combatting error with argument is better than any available alternative mechanism for approving talks held in University-owned space.
> 
> Sam Black
> Philosophy  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul W. Percival <percival@sfu.ca>
> To: Stacy Pigg <slpigg@gmail.com>
> Cc: JD Fleming <jfleming@sfu.ca>, Nienke Van Houten <nvanhout@sfu.ca>, John O'Neil <joneil@sfu.ca>, academic-discussion@sfu.ca, Anke Kessler <akessler@sfu.ca>, Justin Ankenmann <ankenman@sfu.ca>
> Sent: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:14:46 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: Questions regarding the Vaccine Resistance Network Event @SFU on March 12
> 
> I sincerely hope that there is no value judgment of venue rental 
> requests.  Who would you trust as the arbiter of what is acceptable?  I 
> agree that this group, Vaccine Resistance Movement, is spouting 
> dangerous nonsense, but I defend their right to do so.  The original 
> post by Anke Kessler gives the wrong impression with the phrase "an 
> event that our institution is hosting".  Space is being rented by SFU, 
> nothing more.
> 
> Nienke van Houten suggests that the University might make a statement 
> disassociating itself from the opinions expressed by this group.  In my 
> opinion that is not appropriate. Rather, I suggest one or more of the 
> following strategies:
>   Knowledgeable individuals might attend the event (without paying; the 
> ad says that no one will be turned away) to challenge false claims made 
> by the speakers;
>   Individuals or groups may choose to protest (peacefully) outside the 
> venue;
>   The Dean of Health Sciences and other expert faculty could offer 
> media interviews and write opinion pieces or letters-to-the editor 
> providing evidence to counter the claims of the anti-vaccine lobby. 
> Surely this is what we should do as academics: provide reasoned 
> arguments, not outrage.
> 
> There is a danger, however, in making any response, namely that it might 
> bring publicity to a group whose message we would rather went unheard. 
> So be prepared, but play it gently, I suggest.
> 
> Paul Percival
> 
> 
> On 01/03/2013 4:49 PM, Stacy Pigg wrote:
>> As JD Fleming points out, this does appear to be a situation of the
>> free-market renting of space. This is why I am curious to know whether
>> such venue requests are somehow considered or judged or evaluated
>> (whether SFU ever declines to rent space to groups on the basis of the
>> content of the event).
>> 
>> SFU is a "brand" (as we know by the major financial investment in
>> rebranding that has occurred). Is the SFU brand being appropriated here?
>> Is the SFU brand affected by hosting this group?
>> 
>> Stacy
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, JD Fleming <jfleming@sfu.ca
>> <mailto:jfleming@sfu.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Glancing over the event website, I do not see any indication (unless
>>    I am missing something) that this group has been invited by SFU
>>    event planners or is claiming any academic association with SFU. My
>>    assumption would be that they are paying for the very fine
>>    conference space and services offered at market rates by SFU MECS,
>>    just as many other non-academic and non-SFU groups do. However, this
>>    case certainly does raise some interesting questions as to whether
>>    SFU MECS may associate the university, willy-nilly, with groups that
>>    do not pass smell test.
>> 
>>    JD Fleming
>>    English
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr Paul Percival
> Professor of Chemistry
> Simon Fraser University and TRIUMF
> percival@sfu.ca
> percival@triumf.ca
> http://chemistry.sfu.ca/people/profiles/percival
> 
> 
> -- 
> ***********************************
> ***********************************
> Sam Black
> Associate Prof. Philosophy, SFU