| The question shouldn’t be whether the University has the right to mandate vaccines or mask wearing, since it seems very clear based on precedence that they can, but whether they should. In order for the university to impose mandates they would need to have a good justification for why those mandates are necessary. Mandates with little or no justification lead to totalitarianism but on the other hand no mandates lead to anarchy. Protection of others well being and health is generally an acceptable reason for mandates as long as the threat is non-significant. But as can be seen with anti-terrorist legislation sometimes they are overreaching.
I agree with you Dan that ideally social pressure would be the best solutions, however, there are always “cheaters” and a policy without teeth doesn’t do much. Therefore, as mentioned mandates are sometimes necessary. It has been shown both by history and evolutionary models that a society or population can not successfully exist without punishment for bad behaviour. Every traffic law is designed to coerce “good” behaviour. Penalties for drunk driving are designed to get people not to drive under influence and without them they’re would be way more intoxicated drivers on the streets. Banning of smoking in public places, regulation of pollution by companies, penal code, are examples where society it trying to coerce “good” behaviour. It is very clear what happens when those regulations are relaxed.
My feeling is that the negative response to the travel restriction were because there didn’t seem to be good enough reason to implement it, while the mask or vaccine mandates seem to have a better justification. So the debate should be on the risk assessment and how having no mandates may put vulnerable people at the university at risk. It’s a balancing act as other posters have explained much better.
Eirikur
This to me raises an interesting point. We are used to creating classroom policy that tells students how to behave in our classrooms, and students are used to acquiescing. There is a power relationship at play and we (rightly or wrongly) take advantage of that in some cases. That said, what happens if an unmasked colleague enters the classroom, or a staff member or an administrator? In that case, we don’t have the power to force them to mask up—and that would then weaken our power to continue to require students to mask. So really, we need that broader, university-wide, mandate.
Part of the challenge in asking for a mask and vaccine mandate, though, is that we are asking the administration to create policy that requires everyone at the university to behave in a particular way, and giving the administration to power to enforce those mandates.
On a recent thread we were (rightly) concerned about the university being able to sanction faculty for failure to comply with travel policy. Now we are asking the administration to take on the power to sanction us for failure to wear a mask or provide proof of vaccination status.
I’m not against mask or vaccine mandates (push comes to shove, I think I’m for them), but I am aware that what we are asking is for the university to take some of our freedom and create an enforcement mechanism to change our behaviour. What happens to the person who refuses to mask, who forgets to put on their mask prior to entering class, to the person who accidentally leaves the mask at home, etc. Enforcement will need to be done with care if we go that route.
I do like the approach that uOttowa is taking: if you choose not to vaccinate, you face "frequent testing, wearing masks and other PPE, if necessary, as well as other possible measures to be announced at a later date.” I don’t like that open ended ending, but I do like the balancing of freedoms—the freedom not to vaccinate counter balanced by the inconvenience of frequent testing and PPE.
Generally I come from the perspective of, “You can’t (and shouldn’t try to) coerce good behaviour.” I think I’d rather see our student union, APSA, CUPE, and SFUFA all work together to ask all of their members to voluntarily mask at all times on campus, and get to vaccinated (including in campus-available vaccination clinics), until the Province moves to Phase Four (business as usual) of the pandemic restrictions. Organized social pressure to me will be more effective and at lower risk to our freedoms than asking an authority to force us to change our behaviours.
A further note on SFU being in a position to require something stronger than the bare minimum of voluntary masking: there are all kinds of ways in which we already require more of students than the floor set by law. There are lots of times, places, etc. where people are expected to comport themselves in ways that go beyond what is required in order to guarantee minimum freedoms. Quite often in classrooms settings, people tell students not to eat during class; they make policies about laptop usage. We set deadlines that students are penalized if they miss. All of these are for pedagogical purposes, and involve keeping the learning environment safe for everyone, not just a few. Masking inside a classroom at least fall squarely in this purview.
The SFU Honour Code is a much better model for thinking about masking than constitutionally guaranteed rights/duties. Students already have to socially distance when taking final exams, so no one can look over another student's shoulder. There is nothing illegal about plagiarizing papers, but they commit to not do so, and accept censure if they are caught submitting plagiarized work. They accept higher standards of integrity and respect for others in a shared learning environment than the basic minimums required by law.
I will be using the Academic Integrity and Honour Code approach to let students in my lecture course know that the expectation is that they mask up while we are all in the classroom together, regardless of what they do in the hallways. There is no way to safely distance in there, and we are together for a longer period in close quarters than the guidelines technically allow for unmasked gatherings. There is no violation of any students' freedom to expect them to treat other students in the same learning space, and their professor as well, with basic mimum of respect. Since many people in the room will have immuno- issues, and many of us children too young to be vaccinated, that basic minimum respect means they are expected to mask or stay home.
cheers, Holly Philosophy
From: Derek Bingham <derek_bingham@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 10, 2021 11:55:58 AM
To: Martin Hahn; Bernhard Riecke; Lucas Herrenbrueck; Nilima Nigam; James Fleming
Cc: Eirikur Palsson; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable Martin - I suspect that infectious disease modellers and epic folks had nothing to do with the recommendation fro UBC-AMS. I would not read too much into that.
DB
Derek Bingham Professor Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science Simon Fraser University
From: Martin Hahn <mhahn@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:48:01 AM
To: Bernhard Riecke; Derek Bingham; Lucas Herrenbrueck; Nilima Nigam; James Fleming
Cc: Eirikur Palsson; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable One might add that UBC's AMS must have not have found those stats reassuring. They argued for a vaccine mandate based on the stats that 96% of the student body would be fully vaccinated by September?!
On 8/10/2021 10:04 AM, Bernhard Riecke wrote:
As Derek already pointed out, it's hard to reliably generalize from surveys, especially if response rates are much below 50% as in the UBC one. There are also likely response biases (e..g, vaccinated people might be more likely to state their vaccinated than non-vaccinated one, especially knowing that "being vaccinated" is the hoped-for answer.
So while I agree that surveys are useful, I don't think we can rely on them (alone) to assess risk/safety and ensure a safe return-to-work
cheers
Bernhard
On 2021-08-10 09:48, Derek Bingham wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps pressuring SFU to partner with Fraser Health to hold clinics is a useful avenue. If clinics can be held at my local rec centre, then they can be held in the gym. I am surprised the Uni has not announced this already.
Derek
Derek Bingham Professor Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science Simon Fraser University
From: Lucas Herrenbrueck
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 9:41:45 AM
To: Derek Bingham; Nilima Nigam; James Fleming
Cc: Eirikur Palsson; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable Great point Derek! I've also heard that this is the very reason McMaster scrapped their planned vaccine mandate.
So: what on earth is SFU waiting for? Why don't they commission such a survey asap?
And another factor that our UBC colleagues brought up in their open letter: many incoming international student's won't have been vaccinated, or with less effective vaccines. If they get vaccinated in early September, they won't have full protection until the end of October. That's one of the reasons why we might want to start with a mask mandate, and fingers crossed really hard that we can lift it at some point.
From: Derek Bingham <derek_bingham@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 10, 2021 9:36:39 AM
To: Nilima Nigam; James Fleming
Cc: Eirikur Palsson; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable Hi,
I do not want to derail this discussion, but here are some stats that might be of interest. The UBC Alma Mater Society (AMS) reported, in their Return to Campus Survey Report, on the results of a survey of roughly 8,000 UBC students (81% undergrad and 19% grad). Here are some results that might be relevant to this discussion:
Vaccination Rate: 96% of respondents have been vaccinated with at least one dose or have immediate plans to be vaccinated 0.7% are unable to receive vaccines due to cultural or medical reasons 0.5% do not have access to vaccines 1.2% choose not to be vaccinated
Breakdown of the 96% Respondents: Within BC: 67% Outside BC (within Canada): 13% Outside Canada: 20%
As a statistician, I am a little skeptical of surveys where I do not understand the data collection method. However, for those filling out the survey, roughly 96% of students look like they will be returning to UBC campus vaccinated. Suppose this is optimistic, and the percentage of students who come to campus is 90%. That seems pretty impressive. If SFU were to be proactive and hold on-campus vaccination clinics from mid-August-October, perhaps this number could approach 95%.
With these numbers in mind, I wonder if a vaccine mandate is necessary at all? It appears that the students get it.
Cheers,
Derek
Derek Bingham Professor Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science Simon Fraser University
From: Nilima Nigam <nigam@math.sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 9:19:00 AM
To: James Fleming
Cc: Eirikur Palsson; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable I'm intrigued by this discussion.
James, would you be willing to help me to understand your perspective on this issue?
Did you similarly find the closure of campus a violation of our freedoms over the past few months? After all, PHO restrictions on indoor gatherings were lifted some time ago (then reinstated, then removed, ....) Were we to abide strictly by these orders, we'd be opening, closing, re-opening, easing back, etc.
Or is the objection to acquiescing, without debate, to mandates *in general*? If so, and if this discussion is the desired debate, then that's of interest.
We cannot yet assert that the vaccination program is 'complete' with reference to the SFU campus as of Fall - we have students from a range of provinces and countries, and are not asking for proof of vaccination. It is possible (or I don't have information to rule out) that by virtue of their age, the students will be vaccinated at a lower rate than the stated population-level average in BC. We haven't been given information about the efficacy of ventilation systems on campus.
In the absence of these crucial pieces of information - actual rates of vaccination of people returning to campus, and status of ventilation systems - the *least* invasive measure in strictly mathematical terms to reduce the risks oft transmission/outbreaks would be a masking mandate.
At any rate, it would appear that it's up to the Ministry of Advanced Education in BC to determine whether universities can institute their own policies. Were this to be agreed upon, would you still object to vaccine or masking mandates at this point?
thanks Nilima
I would be interested to see the SFU policy that says "no nakedness." If there is one, I doubt it would survive a Charter challenge. (The convention of wearing clothes is a diffuse anthropological norm, not a legal mandate.) Meanwhile, and more importantly: the notion that wearing a mask just to participate in the university is the same as wearing a shirt just to enter Shoppers Drug Mart--this I think is the kind of notion of which we need to beware. Let's take a step back. Covid-19 had the potential to kill perhaps 1% of the world's population (~80 million people). A horrendous prospect. It was in order to prevent the latter that we accepted unprecedented restrictions on our bodies and our lives. Now, however, we are coming toward the completion of a vaccination program that is, by all accounts, extremely effective against this virus. Many of the hygienic practices people have taken on over the last 18 months, including widespread masking, will probably continue for a long time on an inertial basis. But I don't think there is a strong case for continuing to make them mandatory. And, in any case--to come back to my original point--I question whether the university can even do that, on its own authority. Compare a public library. Bonnie Henry says "no more masks." But the librarian, out of an abundance of caution, etc., says you still need a mask to enter the library. Somebody refuses to comply. Can the librarian bar the door? I doubt it. JDF
From: Eirikur Palsson <epalsson@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 9, 2021 10:19:35 PM
To: James Fleming
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable Yet you don’t seem to have any objection with the university requiring everyone to cover “sensitive” parts of their bodies. It seems banning people from walking around naked would also be a clear restriction of free movement and _expression_ (mostly for prudish reasons).
The bottom line is no society is completely free as lots of restriction are put on individuals to “protect” the rest of society, whether it be for health reasons, religious reasons or puritanical reasons. Even stores have policies that state “No shirt, no shoes, no service” or restaurants requiring ties and suits.
Eirikur
Very good! But I wd answer: An obligation to cover one's face, not in specific contexts, but in general social movement, is a clear restriction of free movement and _expression_. Probably (as per my previous), governments, even those committed to the protection and conservation of such freedoms, can nonetheless validly restrict or suspend them under certain circumstances. But only governments can. By that token: As long as government is saying "you guys don't have to wear masks all the time," I question whether SFU (e.g.) can legally say "you guys have to wear masks all the time." If not, then there is little point in calling on SFU to say that. JDF
From: Steve DiPaola <sdipaola@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 9, 2021 7:22:05 PM
To: James Fleming
Cc: Christopher Pavsek; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable Surely you have a point - but my general pushback is your term "constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms" as opposed to basic university safety rules and regulations. Can you smoke within a classroom - no - why because of a safety regulation? Must you both be trained and use safety goggles and PPE in a univ. chemistry lab - yes - why because of a safety regulation. How different is it to be required to wear a mask during a pandemic to protect those around you? How different is a vaccine requirement than the current requirement for MMR (measles ...) vaccines to attend school? These are safety rules not "constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms" in my view - ones that are very similar to what we already require throughout the university. Surely requiring you to not smoke indoors because when you do dangerous secondhand smoke can move through the air and affect others, is so similar to you must wear a mask so COVID virus particles do not move through the air and affect others inside a building - they are about the same in my view. I do not see these requested requirements much different from what we do for safety now - except of course that we need to enact them quickly and temporarily for this X-months covid event. - Steve DiPaola, PhD - -
- Prof: Sch of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT); - Past Director: Cognitive Science Program; - - Simon Fraser University - - -
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.
|
A legal question (with preamble). Over the last 18 months, our society has broadly accepted restrictions on basic rights (notably of free movement, and association) that have, quite clearly, been constitutionally extraordinary. We have, I think, tacitly agreed that desperate times have called for desperate measures. To be sure, it has been disturbing that governments at both national and sub-national levels have temporarily suspended constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms *without,* as far as I am aware, any attempt to articulate a legislative basis for so doing. (Compare the War Measures Act in October 1970.) Nonetheless, they probably could have, if they had wanted to. Which is to say that the restrictions were legal, if they were, only and precisely because they were imposed by government. Is it possible that a sub-governmental institution, such as a university, could legally impose, on its own authority, restrictions of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms? I struggle to see how. JD Fleming James Dougal Fleming Professor, Department of English Simon Fraser University Burnaby/Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. A grateful mind / By owing owes not -- Paradise Lost
Hi All—I thought I’d share this. UBC’s fac. association has taken this stance:
https://www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/member_notice/message-president-update/
The salient point, in Rumsfeldian language: “In light of the known knowns, known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, and in the absence of any risk analysis brought forward by the University, we now believe that a robustly precautionary approach is most appropriate. We therefore call upon UBC to adopt an indoor mask mandate in all its spaces and a vaccine mandate for all its employees and students (subject to the normal legal exemptions) in advance of the September reopening. This course of action will not only do the most to alleviate well-founded anxiety but will also allow the most secure planning of teaching and research activities.”
So it would seem that pressure around this issue in the province continues to rise.
On Aug 4, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Martin Hahn < mhahn@sfu.ca> wrote:
That line: " you protect yourself by getting vaccinated" drives me bats! It shows such a profound misunderstanding of what vaccines are for in an epidemic.
How short is our memory? When Covid vaccines were being developed, epidemiologists were saying that anything over 60% effective would be really good. Why? For personal protection from disease, that is not much better than a coin-toss. But it is enough to do what vaccines really need to do: bring down the R0 - the rate of transmission Protecting your kid from measles is not the main reason to get them vaxxed, it's to stop the spread of an incredibly contagious disease which, like polio before it, does not have a devastating effect on most people who get it, but is deadly to enough that letting it spread would be disastrous. With Covid getting more transmissible, the percentage of fully vaccinated population needed to bring it under control keeps going up. Canada has some of the highest vaccination rates in the world. But it is not enough. Making vaccines mandatory is probably too draconian, but the interim measure is to make the life of the unvaccinated not as free as of those who get the shot. Want to go to a cafe? Work at a certain company? Go to university? Get vaccinated. Even Andrew Coyne, surely a man with stellar libertarian credentials, thinks that is the way to go. US universities and companies are going that way and so are European countries.
But BC universities? Well, they are currently behind in their understanding, and more afraid of public backlash, not just than US universities and European governments. We have now fallen behind poultry processors in Arkansas! Embarrassing.
Martin
On 8/4/2021 12:51 PM, Lyn Bartram wrote:
I asked a question in senate about the weakness of the plan, and the answer was “ you protect yourself by getting vaccinated”. But of course this is not the only answer - you protect others by getting vaccinated. I agree with universal masking. It may be the only achievable solution - except for residences. And a number of schools are already mandating it. It’s the least e should do.
Sent from my iPad Can I offer the simplicity of universal masking? The US CDC and others are back on that plate for medium term solutions.
Yes, something to work around in the context of lecturing, etc. but a few "Madonna" microphones (a mere $70 at your local London Drugs) could go some distance to mitigating the muffling. Masking would also provide a substantial degree of safety in small group activities.
Even with the small "break through" rate of fully vaccinate people, our students' age cohort are at very high risk because they tend not to realize they are sick unless they're very sick, and then they afraid to affect their grades by taking a day at home. Also given the relatively high number of our students who have their own (unvaccinated, off at day care) kiddies, I am really, really nervous about the kid-young adult vectors putting (grannie-aged) me in harms way.
I, too, wish I had confidence in our ventilation systems. But given that Dr. Bonnie and Health Canada denied that coronaviruses are airborne for a very very long time, all of our Universities are way behind any possibility of mitigating that aspect of the problem.
In long, we're far from out of the woods.
From: Bernhard Riecke <ber1@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 4, 2021 8:22:13 AM
To: Sam Black; Behraad Bahreyni; Lyn Bartram; Baharak Yousefi
Cc: Christopher Pavsek; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable An increasing amount of universities in Canada and beyond are requiring vaccinations (at least when living in dorms), e.g., https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/universities-grappling-with-whether-to-require-mandatory-vaccines-for-students & https://www.fierceeducation.com/best-practices/many-universities-requiring-students-to-get-vaccinatedso it can't be completely impossible. It's indeed a tricky balance between "personal freedom" and "safety", but certainly worth pushing for a safe work environment (I'm already thinking of bringing my own HEPA air purifier to lectures to protect students and myself... something that imho SFU should more seriously consider providing) cheers Bernhard On 2021-08-03 15:24, Sam Black wrote:
I too was puzzled by the response Chris received,
"there is no requirement for proof of immunization under the University Act, making it impossible for the university to establish such a mandate"
For the record, there is a requirement for proof of immunization -- but not for covid immunization -- for incoming students in many Canadian Medical schools, including UBC and the University of Ottawa:
The University Act neither requires, nor prohibits schools from demanding proof of immunization. Under the University Act it is permitted for schools to demand proof of immunization: as UBC's Medical School has done. So I believe that the question of whether SFU should demand proof of immunization for covid should be debated on its merits by the SFU community. I very much doubt that debate is pre-empted by the jurisdictional argument Chris was given.
Best,
Sam
Sam Black Assoc. Prof. Philosophy, SFU
I respectfully acknowledge that SFU is on the unceded ancestral and traditional territories of the səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish), xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) and kʷikʷəƛ̓əm (Kwikwetlem) Nations.
From: Behraad Bahreyni <bba19@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 3, 2021 2:27:59 PM
To: Lyn Bartram; Baharak Yousefi
Cc: Christopher Pavsek; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: RE: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable Here is another article on the same subject: __________________ Behraad Bahreyni, PhD, PEng
Associate Professor, School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering
Associate Member, School of Engineering Science
SFU Simon Fraser University | | Surrey campus: MSE 4176, 250-13450 102nd Ave, Surrey, BC, CANADA V3T 0A3
Burnaby campus: ASB 8855, 8888 University Dr, Burnaby, BC, CANADA V5A 1S6 |
I think there is a lot of bafflegab here. We know other Canadian universities are requiring more stringent ,measures. And I foresee a lawsuit where someone pits the safe workplace requirement against being made to go back to campus. Hi Chris, Thanks very much for following up on this and sharing the information with us. What the Covid-19 Response Team at SFU is saying re the impossibility of a mandate seems to contradict what Dr. Henry said on July 27th: “ . . . And universities are looking at what are the measures they need to take in their setting to make it as safe as possible . . . that may mean if you’re living in residence that you need to have proof of immunization.” Part about post sec is at about 42:12 to 43:12. Baharak Yousefi (she/her)
Librarian for History, International Studies, Graduate Liberal Studies, & Political Science Belzberg Library | Simon Fraser University | 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1G4 Occupied Xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) & Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Territories | #LandBack
From: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 3, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Baharak Yousefi
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable Hello--I was curious about this and queried the president's office/VPA. I specifically asked if the University or the Province had made the decision to forego a vaccine mandate. I got a response from the Covid-19 Response Team at SFU. "Regarding mandatory vaccinations, there is no requirement for proof of immunization under the University Act, making it impossible for the university to establish such a mandate, which would also be difficult to enforce. There are no universities in British Columbia currently requiring proof of immunization. All post-secondary institutions continue to monitor the advice of the province and will take the Provincial Health Officer’s direction on this." My reading of this is that the university could mandate more than the province is recommending--masks, or distancing, or other measures perhaps?--but not vaccines. I thought this might clarify things a bit.
My understanding is that yesterday Dr. Henry said it is up to each university/college to set their standards above and beyond provincial health orders. Baharak Yousefi (she/her)
Librarian for History, International Studies, Graduate Liberal Studies, & Political Science Belzberg Library | Simon Fraser University | 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1G4 Occupied Xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) & Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Territories | #LandBack
Regarding frustration with the university's lack of a vaccine requirement: my understanding, which might be incorrect, is that SFU must follow provincial direction on any vaccine mandate. That direction comes from the Ministry of Health and the Min. of Adv. Education, or whatever it's called these days. So if faculty and staff want to pressure the university to implement a vaccine requirement, pressure would have to be applied to the university and to the relevant levels of government. Such requirements are common in the US.
On Jul 29, 2021, at 10:46 AM, Lyn Bartram <lyn@sfu.ca> wrote: Dr. Lyn Bartram
Professor, School of Interactive Arts and Technology Director, Vancouver Institute of Visual Analytics Simon Fraser University | SRYC
250 – 13450 102nd Avenue, Surrey, B.C. V3T 0A3
v 778 782 7439 f 778 782 9422 m 604 908 9954 <OutlookEmoji-15753042296078dab3b27-0b5a-41a0-b6d6-ebe6e14c0dc9.png>
**************************************
Christopher Pavsek, Ph.D., MRM-Planning
Associate Professor of Film
Simon Fraser University
149 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 1H4
Canada
cpavsek@sfu.ca
I respectfully acknowledge that I work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
**************************************
Christopher Pavsek, Ph.D., MRM-Planning
Associate Professor of Film
Simon Fraser University
149 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 1H4
Canada
cpavsek@sfu.ca
I respectfully acknowledge that I work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
-- Nilima Nigam
Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Simon Fraser University
|