On July 28, 2021 at 22:35:05, Nilima Nigam (nigam@math.sfu.ca) wrote:
Excellent points, all.
I hope you'll provide feedback and share your concerns around the draft international travel policy (+ the related draft international travel procedures) with Laura Vajanto, Senior Director, Enterprise Risk and Resilience at laura_vajanto@sfu.ca.
Collegial governance is time-consuming and mostly tedious (at least I find it so), but vital to the academic mission of a university. I'm grateful to Dan Laitsch for taking the time to read the draft policies, and drawing our collective attention to these poorly-structured rules.
cheersNilima
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 8:31 PM Steve DiPaola <sdipaola@sfu.ca> wrote:
A comment on the meta issue: Saidly the Univ ( and all of them) are bringing the lawyers in more and more to make sure their legal liability is as low as possible ( chances of getting sued). I get annoyed that they use words like ethics (in this case travel ethics board) when they should just say it is strictly about legal liability of the school.
from the email chain here:" - apparently the intent of the policy isn't to prohibit travel to unsafe places, but to make sure the faculty/student is assuming all the risk in this case. "
They do this in many ways now, the most obvious is trying to get any legal ethics or grant signed by (or who assumes the legal risk) to be the least legally significant person from the University's standpoint. So with our grant signature sheets, our faculty deans must sign off that they are responsible for the issues in the grant ( moving it down from the univ to the faculty), or better yet is to move it down to the the Chair /Dir of Dept, better yet is the individual faculty but best is moving down to the grad student. Which is why now they want a grad student's name on a study or grant before they will issue ethics approval and release funds. Moved to the lowest legal liability level. This travel issue appears to be the same method. If someone, say, gets very sick on travel and says it is the school's fault, they want to make sure they have this form to say we told you not too - or simply that you signed that it was your responsibility. It is the way of the world unfortunately. I think that faculty needs to push back ( on all of these techniques) - they are putting liability on us even though we are doing the very research that gets the grants and recognition for the academic institution (and Canada) and surely we should protect our grad students who probably will not realize, they push liability to them, when we ask them to add their name and sign things to simple do their studies for our school degrees. What I do not like is they call it ethics when it is purely legal liability. Often by the way, these institutional techniques can make the ethics/risks worse. Reread the words in red - they say it all. Legal butt protection masking as ethics.
- Prof: Sch of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT);- Past Director: Cognitive Science Program;- - Simon Fraser University - - -research site: ivizlab.sfu.caart work site: www.dipaola.org/art/our book on: AI and Cognitive Virtual Characters
At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 7:31 PM Gerardo Otero <otero@sfu.ca> wrote:
Just to clarify, what I think both Cindy Patton and Stacy Pigg mean by REB is really ERB: Ethics Review Board – a total overkill.
Best, Gerardo
__
Professor Gerardo Otero
School for International Studies
Simon Fraser University
7200-515 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 5K3Tel. Off: +1-778-782-4508
Website: http://www.sfu.ca/people/otero.html
From: "stacy_pigg@sfu.ca" <stacy_pigg@sfu.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 28July 2021 at 6:22 PM
To: Cynthia Patton <cindy_patton@sfu.ca>, Lucas Herrenbrueck <herrenbrueck@sfu.ca>
Cc: "academic-discussion@sfu.ca" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Urgent, please review and comment on the draft university-related international travel policy
I share Cindy's view of the institutional racism and orientalism embedded across university policies governing research. Experiences with REB do not bode well for a new system where someone in an official position is evaluating the "safety" or "risks" of places and situations they no nothing at all about. Situations where there is actual risk to the researcher or participants gets passed in an afternoon, while manufactured fears based on stereotypes can hold up another less "risky" project for months.
Some others may recall when an incident with an SFU grad student researching abroad led to a policy whereby we as grad supervisors were to be held personally liable and responsible for the safety of our graduate students -- a policy that would push us toward needing professional liability insurance, and that asks us to be able to control the behaviours of adults in the actual lived world in ways that no one can do.
------------
Another way this policy is unworkable in practice is in its assumptions about research funding. Not all research funding is administered by SFU. Some projects happen out of a mix of funding sources, of which SFU-administered funds may be only a small portion. I know from bitter experience that SFU Finance, Research Services, Procurement and Legal will provide no guidance if the project funds are not administered by SFU, but if at a later stage SFU-administered funds become part of a multi-year project, then suddenly procedures that they would not provide guidance on apply retrospectively.
Dr. Stacy Leigh Pigg
Professor of Anthropology
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Simon Fraser University
8888 University DriveBurnaby BC V5A 1S6 Canada
At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Squamish (Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw), Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam (xʷməθkʷəy̓əm), and Kwikwetlem First Nations. I respectfully acknowledge this fact.
From: Cynthia Patton <cindy_patton@sfu.ca>
Sent: July 28, 2021 4:21 PM
To: Lucas Herrenbrueck
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: Urgent, please review and comment on the draft university-related international travel policy
Indeed, they needed to be called out for this and other ongoing manifestations of the institutional racism.
The inter-related issue is that REB has been beating this same "safety" drum for a very long time, and not for entirely different reasons (ie. after the infamous case in Crim 20 years ago, the university wanted to shield itself from liabilities).
I have had numerous students dealing with REB's weird ideas over the years (I note that I served on REB for 3 years). I won't go into details, but a grad student who was doing work on the perceptions/representations of an unnamed racialized group as "violent" was required to produce an incredible "safety plan" to interview people from that (their own) community. It was incredibly racist to require this of X student but not Y student working in a tidy little white world.
Sorry . . . I've had that on my mind for over a decade.
From: Lucas Herrenbrueck <herrenbrueck@sfu.ca>
Sent: July 28, 2021 3:50:48 PM
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: Urgent, please review and comment on the draft university-related international travel policy
My preference would be to have this policy scrapped, but it may not be possible (SFUFA team can judge). Maybe we need to bargain. In that case, I would not find it crazy to have a policy that:
a) required registration of international itineraries, but only in the form of me emailing my itinerary to the department chair or uploading it somewhere centralized, only once (not re-confirmed 72h before), and not requiring approval by admin -- they want to know where we are, and that's fair since we are talking about work trips;
b) required safety plan only in case of travel to actual warzones / disaster areas, or only in case students were taken on a trip (which seemed to be an oddly specific concern of the policy, so I assume this is something whoever wrote this is worried about), and there would be a clause that "approval will not be arbitrarily withheld" or something like that;
c) included oversight on any kinds of penalties, ideally both by SFUFA and the academic unit.
I wonder what you and the rest of our colleagues think about this. If admin digs in, and we are forced to prioritize, it might be good to be somewhat on the same page.
I also find it helpful in general to name things as they are. "An SFU colleague's travel challenges in Colombia" = Ramo got murdered coming out of a bar. So "the intent of the policy is ... to make sure the faculty/student is assuming all the risk in this case"? Ramo had all the risk! Laura is basically saying "Ramo got SFU in a lot of trouble by getting himself murdered", and I think it really needs to be called out in those words to show how offensive it is to his memory.
Lucas
From: Cynthia Patton
Sent: July 28, 2021 2:47:13 PM
To: Nilima Nigam; Lucas Herrenbrueck
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: Urgent, please review and comment on the draft university-related international travel policy
Nilima:
Thank you so much for doing this on our behalf.
I think we probably all noticed the 2020 update, but given that we were all in some state of confinement, not to mentioned burned out, and trying to sort out the pension stuff . . . well, that idea that somehow we had a chance to review this a year ago is kind of cheeky.
We're all even more burned out now, and many of us are waiting to get to research sites (I cannot be the only person who essential blew a whole sabbatical hoping the restrictions would lift.)
So . . . SFUFA folks . . . can you get the admin to cool their jets on this???
Cindy
From: Nilima Nigam <nigam@math.sfu.ca>
Sent: July 28, 2021 12:09:28 PM
To: Lucas Herrenbrueck
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: Urgent, please review and comment on the draft university-related international travel policy
I just got off the phone with Laura.
In summary (apologies, there may be minor errors).
- in response to an SFU colleague's travel challenges in Columbia, the BC Labor Board asked SFU to register where employees are. In response, the University Executive created a draft travel policy which was approved in September 2020. The new policy mirrors the existing one substantially. This is for our community's safety, you see.
- the draft policy was created in some unit within the 'executive leadership'. No formal input from Senate/SFUFA was solicited. The process now involves this public consultation, potentially a new draft, and then onto a Board Committee. Final approval is by Board (perhaps also the Senate). It was unclear from the conversation if the Senate could reject this policy. Basically, wafflegab.
- apparently the intent of the policy isn't to prohibit travel to unsafe places, but to make sure the faculty/student is assuming all the risk in this case.
- I raised the question about a chillingly broad amount of power regarding where/what we do our research work, now sitting with the VP Finance. I'm personally irritated that anyone could threaten me with unspecified 'discipline', for any reason, while I do my academic work. Apparently the Labour Board signed off on this. This is startling, since the draft policy section 4.2 would appear to be in violation of the SFUFA collective agreement.
- I suggested, given the current negative feedback, that SFUFA/Senate members be involved in rewriting the policy. I received more wafflegab.
thanks
Nilima
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:57 AM Lucas Herrenbrueck <herrenbrueck@sfu.ca> wrote:
hi all,
Thanks to Dan and everyone. I wrote in on Monday and again just now.
Boosting Oliver's question: "I wonder if there is a more effective way to protest than just sending emails to Laura Vajanto." In particular, does Laura even have influence on whether this gets approved, amended, or scrapped? It looks like she reports to Mark Lalonde, not the VP Finance. Who else should I email?
Dan: well, can we (you!) just ask the VP Finance where this policy started, and what their plans are for it after the consultation?
Re Cynthia: I agree this smells a lot like Orientalism. Someone in middle management who thinks "university-related travel" is something like Indiana Jones raiding artifacts and running from death traps. We all may wish (for the adventure - minus the orientalism, other problematic-isms, and actual death traps please).
Lucas
From: Nilima Nigam <nigam@math.sfu.ca>
Sent: July 28, 2021 11:37:29 AM
To: Dan Laitsch
Cc: Eugene McCann; Cynthia Patton; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: Urgent, please review and comment on the draft university-related international travel policy
There's always the CBC.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:36 AM Dan Laitsch <dlaitsch@sfu.ca> wrote:
No, based on my understanding of the policy review process (http://www.sfu.ca/policies/Policy-Development_and_Revision.html).This policy came from the Vice-President, Finance and Administration. This is the public consultation process before a formal proposed version is sent out for approval. As a GP policy (General Policy), It is not clear to me whether it would come to Senate for approval or go straight to the board. Given that is affects our research and teaching, I would hope it would go to Senate. That said, since it’s in the VP Finance portfolio, my guess is it won’t, and that it will instead go directly to the Board of Governors. As a new policy, I am unsure of where the work started, but I assume it is not coming from a Senate committee.
On Jul 28, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Nilima Nigam <nigam@math.sfu.ca> wrote:
It would appear that the policy arrogates, to the 'University Executive', the power to disallow work-related travel, for pretty much any reason they wish.
4.6.1. The University reserves the right to disallow University-Related International Travel by Students, Faculty Members, and Staff Members to any international destination, at any time, when the University considers it prudent to do so, based on factors that include but are not limited to Government of Canada Travel Advisories.
Did this go through Senate?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:12 AM Eugene McCann <emccann@sfu.ca> wrote:
Agreed. And the Tri-council & other funders aspect of this also occurred to me: How would a policy like this intersect with the mandates of the tri-councils and other funders? If it is incompatible with those mandates (in the way that you suggest, for example) what then?
Eugene
On Jul 28, 2021, at 10:57 AM, Cynthia Patton <cindy_patton@sfu.ca> wrote:
I want to support colleagues' analysis and assessment of this policy. I read it and I couldn't even put pen to paper to make a response. I want to add an additional issue:
There is a bizarre (or maybe just normal for SFU) Orientalism underlying the policy.
For example. . . . what if one is "going home" to conduct research? How can the University imagine that is can prohibit, withdraw financial support, or otherwise sanction a graduate student or faculty member who is returning to their country of origin to conduct research? This pretty much eliminates a form of research that quite a few student come to SFU to train for. Anthropology and Cultural Studies studies, just for starters, often come to us in order to train for research in their country of origin. Nix that??? What about SSHRC funding that has enabled these students to come to us?
There is a bizarrely (or maybe just normal for SFU) Orientalism underlying the entire policy.
From: Dan Laitsch <dlaitsch@sfu.ca>
Sent: July 28, 2021 8:58:39 AM
To: Eugene McCann
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: Urgent, please review and comment on the draft university-related international travel policy
Thanks Eugene, yes, SFUFA is definitely aware of the issues with this policy.
There’s also another point that I forgot to make—there are no due process procedures defined in this policy, nor is there any suggestion of a right of appeal or review. Again, arbitrary and excessive.
Dan
On Jul 28, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Eugene McCann <emccann@sfu.ca> wrote:
Thanks so much, Dan, for taking time to outline these concerns. I admit that I’d not read the original call for consultation (asking for this in August is telling, as you say.)
I’ll read, write a response, and also pass this email on to my dept faculty list, since that may garner a little more attention.
I wonder if SFUFA could be involved in an official capacity, if for no other reason than to advocate for a change in the deadline for responses from August 20th to late Sept or early October?
Eugene
On Jul 28, 2021, at 8:31 AM, Dan Laitsch <dlaitsch@sfu.ca> wrote:
Hi all,
You may have seen the recent e-mail asking for consultation on a new SFU travel policy. Please take a few minutes to look at the policy (http://www.sfu.ca/policies/draft/international_travel_policy.html) and offer your feedback to SFU (via Laura Vajanto, Senior Director, Enterprise Risk and Resilience at laura_vajanto@sfu.ca). Note that feedback is due by Friday, August 20, 2021. This is an atrocious policy that demonstrates substantial overreach by SFU and should be resisted strongly.
Below I highlight just a few problems with the policy, most easily summed up as: SFU can do whatever it wants to you and sanction you as it sees fit, in any way it sees fit.
Dan
Problems: the policy is full of absolute statements allowing no flexibility and that gives the University complete authority to constrain your travel.
1. "All Students, Faculty Members, and Staff Members are required to complete the pre-departure safety requirements as set out in the University-Related International Travel Procedure prior to engaging in University-Related International Travel.” That is, you can’t undertake any travel outside of Canada without first obtaining university approval.
2. "The University will not require or normally regard any University-Related International Travel to any Government of Canada Global Travel Advisory Level 3 or Level 4 destination to be Essential Travel and will not authorize travel to such destinations for Students or Staff Members.” Currently every country in the world falls under the level three designation due to the pandemic. Other researchers have noted this also covers much of the Global South (even without the pandemic restrictions in place), greatly hampering research activities in those countries.
3. Within 72 hours of any trip a faculty member takes we must:
"Confirm that the Government of Canada Global Travel Advisories ranking is Level 1 or Level 2 for the destination country (the Faculty Member must reconfirm the ranking within 72 hours of intended departure). If the destination is ranked Level 3, the Faculty Member may elect to travel to such a destination for University-Related International Travel only when: (remember, you now have less than 72 hours now to do all of the following)
• i the Faculty Member has determined for themselves their desire to travel, as the University does not consider any university-related travel to be Essential Travel if it is to a Level 3 or Level 4 destination. In making their decision to travel, the Faculty Member should consider their interests, familiarity with a country or region, and any other applicable factors;
• ii the Faculty Member has completed educational programming provided by the University about safe travel prior to their departure;
• iii the Faculty Member has spoken to their department Chair, Dean or designate, or Vice-President (as appropriate) about their understanding of the risk associated with the travel; and,
• iv the Faculty Member provides to the University in the approved form their acknowledgment of the risk of such travel (contact risk_srs@sfu.ca to complete the acknowledgement of risk form).
I cannot imagine being able to do all of these things within 72 hours of your scheduled flight (particularly if your flight leaves on a Sunday or Monday).
4. The policy is silent on level 4 advisories—I assume that means travel is completely prohibited. As I read it, that would mean no travel for any reason to Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Chad, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Burundi, Central African Republic, Myanmar, South Sudan, or Venezuela. Again, speaking in absolutes, that would seem overly restrictive.
5. Most egregiously, if you don’t register to go to your conference in the U.S. (as an example), this is what the university is allowed to do to you. Note that there are other unspecified sanctions / punishments the University may decide to level if it feels like it:
• 3.1.9 A traveller’s failure to register or to otherwise comply with the University’s mandatory safety requirements prior to departing for the University-related international trip may result in consequences to the traveller which may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following. The University may:
• Warn the traveller about the consequences of any further failure to comply with the University’s requirements, which may include the following and may include discipline;
• Refuse the traveller’s request for a travel-related cash advance;
• Refuse to reimburse the traveller’s travel-expense claim;
• Inform the traveller that financial support or reimbursement for some or all future University-Related International Travel is denied;
• Impose discipline for failure to comply the University’s requirements;
• Take such other actions as the University considers appropriate in the circumstances.
By way of understatement, this seems to me both arbitrary and excessive, in particular the last bullet that allows any sanction the university wants to level.
6. For any travel, risky or not, the policy now requires us to confirm we have valid health insurance, where as before the university provided us with travel insurance.
Summary thoughts:
My quick feelings are that this is a garbage policy intended to place liability squarely on the faculty member when we are engaging in any international travel.
Given recent changes in policy, I feel like someone in the university is shifting the view of policy from supporting academic work to controlling it. The overarching goal now seems to be limiting university liability in all cases, rather than supporting the academic and research mission of the university (note the policy is overseen by the Senior Director, Enterprise Risk and Resilience). I might also question engaging in this consultation at the end of summer semester, when most faculty are likely to be away from campus and e-mail.
Please take the time to share your thoughts with SFU.
Dan
Begin forwarded message:
From: Office of the General Counsel & University Secretary <gc_asst@sfu.ca>
Subject: [Corrected link] SFU Community Consultation: University-Related International Travel Policy
Date: July 26, 2021 at 11:35:47 AM PDT
Dear Faculty and Staff members,
Please use this link to access the proposed Policy documents: http://www.sfu.ca/policies/draft.html.
Regards,
Bethany Chang
Office of the General Counsel & University Secretary
<image002.png>
The following message is sent on behalf of Martin Pochurko, Vice-President, Finance & Administration.
Dear Faculty and Staff members,
Please provide us with your input on the proposed University-Related International Travel Policy.
SFU is committed to the security, safety, and well-being of its employees and students engaged in University-related international travel. In alignment with that commitment, a new policy on University-Related International Travel is proposed using the framework from the University’s Interim Policy that was adopted in September 2020.
Under this policy, students, faculty and staff are expected to assess, mitigate, and respond to risks associated with travel to international destinations and to fulfill the mandatory pre-departure safety requirements. The pre-departure safety requirements include registration with the SFU Travel Registry, which will enable the University to quickly and comprehensively identify students, faculty and staff who are on University-related international trip in cases of emergency including natural disasters, civil/political unrest, war, rebellion, kidnappings/disappearances, health emergencies and other such events.
Your feedback to this new policy is welcome. The SFU community is asked to review the draft policy and related documents and to submit feedback to Laura Vajanto, Senior Director, Enterprise Risk and Resilience at laura_vajanto@sfu.ca by Friday, August 20, 2021.
Sincerely,
Martin Pochurko
Vice-President, Finance and Administration
<image003.png>
_______________________________________________________
Eugene McCann (he/him/his)
Professor, Geography
Associate Faculty, Sociology & Anthropology
Simon Fraser University
Managing Editor, EPC: Politics & Space
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/epc
Minor Revisions podcast
https://journals.sagepub.com/page/epc/collections/podcasts
Personal website: https://emccanngeog.wordpress.com
Contact information:
Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University,
8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
Unceded territories of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.
Email: emccann@sfu.ca; Phone: 778-782-3321
_______________________________________________________
Eugene McCann (he/him/his)
Professor, Geography
Associate Faculty, Sociology & Anthropology
Simon Fraser University
Managing Editor, EPC: Politics & Space
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/epc
Minor Revisions podcast
https://journals.sagepub.com/page/epc/collections/podcasts
Personal website: https://emccanngeog.wordpress.com
Contact information:
Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University,
8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
Unceded territories of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.
Email: emccann@sfu.ca; Phone: 778-782-3321
--
Nilima Nigam
Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Simon Fraser University
--
Nilima Nigam
Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Simon Fraser University
--
Nilima Nigam
Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Simon Fraser University
--
Nilima Nigam
Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Simon Fraser University