Colin Hansen "Rewarding" History of Sexual Harassment at SFU

Rob,

You're claim that my article "flat out accuses someone of something" is a misrepresentation.  There is no such "someone" in the above post on NowPublic. You may have seen male professors who were alleged members of the sexual harassment ring named elsewhere on the internet but not on NowPublic. 

Your claim that I am accusing this someone "without any sort of proof" is also not accurate -- and NowPublic editors know that.  There are records in this case, including correspondence with SFU and Emily Carr College of Art and Design.  I have the names of several women who were sexually harassed or had sex with professors, and two men who were closely linked to women who had sex with professors and have spoken about it.  These people, some of whom have never spoken to one another, have provided details about the sexual harassment which lend credibility to their stories.  The woman who dropped out over the sexual harassment is willing to take a polygraph, although she recognizes it would not be admissible in court. 

Not all of the sex with students at the Center was a secret.  One professor accompanied a Dance student with whom he was in a sexual relationship to her dance performance at SFU.  (His wife, incidentally, accompanied him to the Center dance held at the downtown studio.)  The art scene was small and incestuous with students and professional artists socializing with one another.   People knew one another's business.

And Rob, please don't attribute motives to me.  I am not, as you claim, repeating the same story to gain attention.  If at nowpublic one hand knew what the other hand was doing, you would know why the stories on the SFU sexual harassment scandal on this site seem blandly similar.  A staff person at nowpublic deleted extensive new information posted on this case without even having the professionalism to ask me about my sources.  Then he sent me one of your 'canned' comments saying something like, "Hi, Hope you are well...." and keep posting!  [It was this sort of unprofessionalism that resulted in two of the best contributors from the Downtown Eastside to quit nowpublic. Both felt disrespected.]  

I am not going to 'out' the women who were sexually harassed or who had sex with professors, or the males who have spoken about what happened to in one case a friend and in another case a sister. 

I would encourage you, Rob, to model on the professionalism of seasoned journalist Mark Schneider, who has apparently left NowPublic.  When Schneider had concerns about a story I wrote last year, he contacted me privately to get a sense of how strong my sources were.  He chose to continue to run the story.  He took into consideration not only the strength of my sources but the fact that I had not named anybody.  

Rob,

I agree with jr that this ongoing reposting of the same story has crossed from journalism to editorializing.  You present no new facts here.  You just look for new angles to hang this old story on.  Now it is Colin Hansen?  What the hell did he do wrong?  Rewarding sexual harassment?  Give me a break. 

If we use your criteria our universities would never get any funding.  Nor would many of our high schools.  I understand that some interns have sex with the doctors who oversee them.  I suppose you would advocate withholding funding of our hospitals too?  In Richmond there was apparently sexual harassment in the fire department.  Should the good people of Richmond go without firefighters so that the fire department can be punished?  .  I am pretty sure that the students of SFU (who did not participate in this alleged sexual harassment) are pretty happy to be getting this new funding and you just rain on their parade because you have an axe to grind.. 

What I would like to know is the reason for your passionate pursuit of this single issue.  Sexual harassment happens all the time in University.  I saw it in the economics department of SFU when I was a student there.  I am sure it happens in every faculty of every university.  Why then not either bring up new information or move on since you have stagnated.  If these women want justice then they should pursue legal alternatives.  Maligning an entire university over this issue seems a bit out of proportion.  Did one of these profs sleep with you girlfriend or something? 

eastvanry,

Your analogies are flawed. 

You write for example, "In Richmond there was apparently sexual harassment in the fire department.  Should the good people of Richmond go without firefighters so that the fire department can be punished?" 

No one is suggesting that the Center for the Contemporary Arts be deprived of the base funding it has had for years.  But questions have been raised about why the Center is being provided with $50 million in additional 'special' funding, accompanied by press releases chalk full of accolades, expensive celebrations, and public relations/media events, while the sexual harassment scandal remains unresolved. Policiticians have never tried to score political points at the Richmond Fire Department the way Hansen is doing at the SFU Center for the Contemporary Arts. 

I also take issue with your claim that I keep repeating the same story.  I report on this issue when there is a new development.  I repeat contextual information in each article for the benefit of readers who have not been following the story.  The previous story that I wrote on this subject, for example, was based on a letter written to the SFU Board of Directors requesting that they ensure that donors were briefed on the unresolved sexual harassment issue.  That recent letter constituted new information that no other media was privy to.

You accuse me, Eastvanry, of "passionate pursuit of this single issue."  My nowpublic page shows that I have passionately pursued other issues.  One is the barring of a homeless man from Carnegie Center for free speech. 

I am certainly not in favour of defending sexual abusers.  I think they should all be brought to justice.  It just seems that you have nothing new to offer but new context rather than new facts.  JMO.

I like your coverage of the Carnegie story.  Keep it up.  I lived in that area for 5 years and know about the systemic abuse of these people by the very institutions that they are supposed to be helping.  That, sir, is Good Stuff!

CENSORSHIP at NowPublic:

I would like to make nowpublic readers aware that commentators at Nowpublic who appear hostile to posts on the SFU sexual harassment issue are being given a voice while Dave Keating who labeled this story "GOOD STUFF" and wrote, "I like this story, jr." was CENSORED by Nowpublic.  His comment was deleted by NowPublic some time between yesterday and today, presumably by Rob Walker who substituted a rather hostile comment.

I think Walker could have at least mentioned the deleted comment by Keating so that readers could see that there is mixed opinion on my sexual harassment story, that not all the men at NowPublic took exception to it.  

Censorship?  That is definately not cool.  How can we have an informed debate when we don't have all the opponent's arguments. 

I had nothing to do with a deleted comment, as long as it falls under the terms of use people can say what they want.

I'd like to point out that I am actually an editor with NowPublic, I've been a full time member of the team since October, so it's very easy for me to check if any nowpublic editors are privvy to some sort of information you haven't included in your posts.

Also, you claim "There is no such "someone" in the above post on NowPublic. You may have seen names pertaining to this case elsewhere on the internet but they are not on NowPublic."

The title/headline of the story *starts* with someone's name. Someone you submit no proof against, except an anonymous source. I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds dangerously close to libel to me.

You also say you only post when there's new information...like the board ignoring a letter, again anonymous, talking about the sexual harassment. Who wrote the letter? Is it the same person related to your earlier stories?

It just seems like you have a set agenda here, haven't bothered to interview the other people involved (you use his name in a headline, did you call him to ask his opinion?) and are generally re-hashing the same old story.

Your allegations from third party sources is what's known as 'hearsay' and can never be used in court, and should not be used for reporting as it is unreliable and impossible to prove. You have anonymous people who claimed to have relationships with people who claimed to have been harassed...this is all very vague.

I think these stories have degenerated to the realm of personal attacks and libel, and probably shouldn't be on the site.

To address the GS flag issue, the original GS flag was added in error, and was deleted shortly afterwards. Sorry for the confusion.

Rob,

More evidence of your lack of professionalism Rob.  You claim my stories on the SFU sexual harassment scandal are "libel", without ever having questioned me about my sources. Most people don't want their names publicized because they have seen how sexual harassment survivors get villified.  You don't really believe these stories are libelous, though, or you would have deleted them. 

Further, you completely ignore the fact that there is documented evidence to support this case as well, material that has accumulated over a period of years. 

You claim that my reporting on B.C.'s Minister of Economic Development is "dangerously close to libel".  That's nonsense and you know it.  That article was well within the boundaries of "fair comment" about a public figure.  The sexual harassment issue is in the public domain and is certainly known to the Liberal government. It dogged Premier Campbell on his trip to India to promote the SFU Center for the Contemporary Arts.  It will be up to voters to judge whether Hansen should have ensured the issue was investigated before he publicly praised the Center and handed it another $13.3. million in special funding.   

You reduce my stories on the SFU issue to "hearsay" from third party sources, AGAIN WITHOUT ASKING ME HOW MANY OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT VICTIMS I HAVE ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO.

You attempt to strengthen your accusations against me by omitting key information.  You write: "You also say you only post when there's new information...like the board ignoring a letter, again anonymous, talking about the sexual harassment." You avoid mentioning the fact that the letter contained new information in the case and revealed that donors were now being dragged into the case.  I'm sure philanthropists are glad I made the content of that letter public.  I did not name the person(s) whose names appeared on the letter as I am not at liberty to name survivors of the alleged SFU sexual abuse ring or others who had knowledge of it at this time.  But again, you made no attempt to contact me to find out what you could before attacking me.       

needs improvement:

Rob is right, 1000%. This isn't news, and it isn't even substantiated clearly nor well. Now Public is an edited site, and anything you post here is subject to flagging and editors' commentary. Period.

Censorship is imposed by governments. This is a commercial website that has its guidelines clearly published. If you willfully publish material outside those guidelines, you are not being censored. You are properly being told that your material does not meet the minimum guidelines, as determined by an editor or editors.

PEP, I suggest you actually read my comment before you respond.  I did not claim that I was being censored by nowpublic.  I claimed that a staff person who posted the statement, "jr, I like this story" was censored. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Downtown Eastside Enquirer continues to publish new details of the alleged sexual harassment ring that operated at SFU.  Even the version of the "Colin Hansen Rewards History of Sexual Harassment at SFU" story that appears on that site has much more detail than the version on nowpublic. 

Bloggers at the Enquirer did what nowpublic failed to do.  They reviewed the sources and documented evidence in the case and eliminated concerns about libel.   

Anyone who wants the full story of the alleged sexual harassment ring at SFU and new details as they are published in future, is advised to keep an eye on the downtowneastsideenquirer.blogspot.

Why is this alleged harassment referred to as a "ring"?  Is the author implying some sort of collusion on the part of the faculty?  If so please provide your evidence of such collusion or stop using the term "ring".  As I have said this type of harassment is all too common in many organizations.  Commonality and prevalence does not prove a conspiracy.  If you believe there is a conspiracy to sexually harass then show us the proof.

Wow!  A year or two?  Why not release the info now if you have it?  If you do not have it how do you know it will be forthcoming?  And why not post it here if it is new info?