Re: President Johnson's letter

As an immigrant to Canada, I’ve always found puzzling the tendency to over legislate or overregulate based on exceptional incidents. In this case, as Even Tiffany cites, the foot patrols were not even involved, and yet there is a suggestion to give them access to further instruments of control . . .

Best, Gerardo

Professor Gerardo Otero

School for International Studies
Simon Fraser University
7200-515 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 5K3

Tel. Off: +1-778-782-4508

Website: http://www.sfu.ca/people/otero.html

Gerardo’s YouTube Channel

From: Evan Tiffany <evan_tiffany@sfu.ca>
Date: Tuesday, 16March 2021 at 11:43 AM
To: Lyn Bartram <lyn@sfu.ca>
Cc: Ronda Arab <ronda_arab@sfu.ca>, James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion (academic-discussion@sfu.ca)" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: President Johnson's letter

On a different note, I was puzzled by the second bullet-point: "While foot patrols were not involved with this incident, practices like foot patrols have a disproportionate impact on Black and Indigenous people and people of colour. To mitigate this potential impact, SFU should consider access controlling the Burnaby campus and updating its identification cards so that they contain digital information. This will eliminate anyconscious or unconscious disproportionate identification of persons who are Black and Indigenous or people of colour. Further, this action will have a number of other safety and security benefits."

Does anyone know what she has in mind by ID cards“contain[ing] digital information” and how that is supposed to help? It sounds rather Big Brother-y to me. Like anyone with the right kind of digital reader and access a set of digital information about us.

On Mar 16, 2021, at 11:30 AM, Lyn Bartram <lyn@sfu.ca> wrote:

I agree with Ronda. Dr. Johnson’s letter confirmed that the university took it seriously as part of a larger systemic concern about profiling. May I point out there was another aspect to this - the perceived sense of safety that our vulnerable workers have on campus. It’s really critical that they feel confident in the ability of the institution to respond to their concerns in a timely manner.

Lyn Bartram
Professor | School of Interactive Arts + Technology

Director | Vancouver Institute of Visual Analytics
Simon Fraser University | Surrey
250, 13450 102 Ave., Surrey, B.C. V3T 0A3
T: 778.782.7439 | M: 604.908.9954 | www.sfu.ca/~lyn

<image001.png>

“Be kind, be calm and stay safe” -Dr. Bonnie Henry, BC Provincial Health Officer

From: Ronda Arab <ronda_arab@sfu.ca>
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 11:22 AM
To: James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion (academic-discussion@sfu.ca)" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Cc: Office of the President <pres_office@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: President Johnson's letter

I did not read that as suggesting that President Johnson did not accept the findings of the report. My reading on the seeming discrepancy was that the incident raised a lot of concerns about racism that need to be taken seriously, whether or not the incident involved racial profiling.

Dr. Ronda Arab

Associate Professor of English

Simon Fraser University

pronouns: she/her

From: James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca>
Sent: 16 March 2021 11:02:48
To: academic-discussion (academic-discussion@sfu.ca)
Cc: Office of the President
Subject: President Johnson's letter

Dear Colleagues,

Last Thursday, Joy Johnson emailed all SFU faculty, staff and students, re: the campus security incident that took place on December 11th, 2020. President Johnson’s email contained (1) a link to the summary version of the independent external review she commissioned into the Dec. 11th incident. And (2) her own commentary on the results of the review. I am troubled by what seems to me an inconsistency, on a very important point, between (1) and (2).

Conclusion 10 (a) of the review summary states: “there is no evidence” that “racial profiling” contributed to the Dec. 11th incident. This seems to me very welcome news—indeed quite a relief.

President Johnson, however, seems to see it differently. She states that the Dec. 11th incident “has reinforced concerns about racism on our campuses.”

I frankly do not understand how a non-racist incident can reinforce concerns about racism.

Conversely, if President Johnson holds to the view that the Dec. 11th incident was indeed generated by racism, that would seem to mean she rejects Conclusion 10 (a) of the external review.

This is not an occasion for ambiguity. In my opinion, President Johnson should clarify her remarks—for the benefit of all SFU faculty, staff, and students. She should tell the university whether she accepts, or rejects, Conclusion 10 (a) of the external review.

Sincerely,

JD Fleming

James Dougal Fleming

Professor, Department of English

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby/Vancouver,

British Columbia,

Canada.

Evan Tiffany
Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Philosophy
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Dr., Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6
T: 778.782.6647 | etiffany@sfu.ca | www.sfu.ca/philosophy