Hello everyone,
Regards the recommendation for ID cards “contain[ing] digital information” I agree there are definitely
privacy concerns when we digitize personal information and allow a system to track movements. However, there is an issue with SFU ID cards that does need to be addressed.
Currently, SFU ID does not have an expiry date on the card - it is impossible for security to determine if someone who presents ID is a student or alumni, or a current employee or former
employee. Therefore, the current policy of only permitting current student, staff, and faculty on campus is unenforceable. Simply put, security cannot know someone's 'status' by looking at there SFU ID. This means
that security asks questions - at their discretion - when people present their cards. This creates an inequitable system that is open to targeting and profiling.
I have raised this issue with Campus Public Safety and administration, but there has not been (to my knowledge) any movement to address this very basic issue of inadequate ID.
Thank you,
Leanna
Leanna Jantzi
Head, Fraser Library | Simon Fraser University | Surrey
Unceded Kwantlen, Katzie, and other Stó:lō Nations' Territories
leanna_jantzi@sfu.ca | 778.782.7417
www.lib.sfu.ca/surrey
My pronouns are she/her/hers.
From: Gerardo Otero <otero@sfu.ca>
Sent: 16 March 2021 12:01
To: academic-discussion (academic-discussion@sfu.ca)
Subject: 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
“Be kind, be calm and stay safe” -Dr. Bonnie Henry, BC Provincial Health Officer
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.
Associate Professor of English
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.
Professor, Department of English
Evan Tiffany
Associate Professor and Chair
|