Prince Charles Partners with SFU despite "Sexual Harassment Ring"

generaldecay,

This piece can't be reduced to "opinion".  It is loaded with factual information.

FACT:  The Prince visited the SFU Wosk Center for Dialogue yesterday and his Foundation has entered a partnership with SFU, while complaints of SFU's alleged operation of a sexual harassment ring remain unresolved.

FACT:  SFU President Michael Stevenson has been asked to address the issue of the sexual harassment ring, an issue that has been outstanding for years.  I have seen the written material confirming that he has been asked to address it.  It is also a fact that this issue has been a matter of public record for some time.

FACT:  President Michael Stevenson has not responded to requests to address this long outstanding matter.

FACT:  The Prince visited SFU for a seminar that his Foundation organized jointly with SFU.

FACT:  An memorandum of agreement was to be signed after the seminar by the Prince and SFU.

FACT:  An alleged victim of the sexual harassment ring plans to write to Prince Charles and the Queen about the royal endorsement of SFU while this issue is ignored.

I could go on and on ....

Jr. Can you get off this one trick pony for once?

Wow!Good hard hitting article.I still remember the student harassment case of Rachel Marsden; where she harassed a swimming instructor at SFU.I am an alumnus and have never heard of this before.  Perhaps it should be brought up at an Alumni meeting?

James Croft,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll pass it on.

Eastvanray,

This case has been dragging on for years and it will continue to drag on, and I will continue to cover it....just as I have covered the cases of other victims of alleged abuses of power over the long term, such as the case of William Simpson. 

(Remember Simpson?  He is a homeless man who got elected to the Board of the City of Vancouver's taxpayer-financed Carnegie Center, only to learn that the City had promptly overridden the voters' choice and banned him from the building, denying him entry to Board meetings. The official reason the City gave him in writing was that he operated a website which carried a link to a blog which criticized their staff. But when City staff were on the hot seat for this banning, they suddenly claimed to the media that Simpson had created a safety risk for women in the building.  That claim appears to have been a complete fabrication.)

jr: Although I fully support an investigation of this alleged incident, you seem to be confusing several things. An allegation does not equate to a fact! generaldecay is right in that this is an opinion piece.Your basis for this article depends on this one allegation from the alleged victim whom I suspect is either you or someone you know personally. Yes, you are stating many factual statements in your article, but your premise is an allegation, and yet you conclude your article as if you've reached a far-ending conclusive truth.Upon a quick bit of research, it seems that all published articles online about sexual harassment at SFU originate from you or another user known as"janefromvancouver" (who uses straw man arguments like "President Obama Promotes Canada’s Top Sexual Harrassment Apologist"). I've also noticed that your alternative alias is the blog downtowneastsideenquirer.blogspot.com. Every article from these sources quotes an unknown "drop-out" living in the East side. All you do is quote this "person".This makes me suspicious as to how you are all related to each other, or if they are even the same person. It further makes me question if you were indeed the person involved in the alleged harassment, and are publishing these articles to bring some light to the situation.Of course, if you are all related or are one person, then it should be obvious that there is tremendous bias in regards what you are reporting. You're not reporting facts. And quite frankly, it's almost akin to libel.I am criticizing you not because I think this story is necessarily false, but because I believe you're not reporting this with any integrity. You're talking about the allegations as if they were a fact, and attacking the credibility of people. What you're doing is nothing more than what FOX News does everyday. You masquerade your own opinions as facts in all of your articles; there are so many that I could quote the list would go on and on (c.f. downtowneastsideenquirer.blogspot.com/search?q=sfu - these are all opinionated lies, not facts. The irony is that you author them using the pen name "reliable sources")The way you're writing about this situation does little more than to polarize a situation that already has little dialogue between the two parties. If you are indeed the victim of this alleged sexual harassment, then I would find more concrete and productive ways to bring this issue to light. If not, then I find even less pity for you. You should devote your time to something more productive.

seeing how my post was not formatted properly, i'm going to repost.jr: Although I fully support an investigation of this alleged incident, you seem to be confusing several things. An allegation does not equate to a fact! generaldecay is right in that this is an opinion piece. Your basis for this article depends on this one allegation from the alleged victim whom I suspect is either you or someone you know personally. Yes, you are stating many factual statements in your article, but your premise is an allegation, and yet you conclude your article as if you've reached a far-ending conclusive truth. Upon a quick bit of research, it seems that all published articles online about sexual harassment at SFU originate from you or another user known as"janefromvancouver" (who uses straw man arguments like "President Obama Promotes Canada’s Top Sexual Harrassment Apologist"). I've also noticed that your alternative alias is the blog downtowneastsideenquirer.blogspot.com. Every article from these sources quotes an unknown "drop-out" living in the East side.All you do is quote this "person". This makes me suspicious as to how you are all related to each other, or if they are even the same person. It further makes me question if you were indeed the person involved in the alleged harassment, and are publishing these articles to bring some light to the situation. Of course, if you are all related or are one person, then it should be obvious that there is tremendous bias in regards what you are reporting. You're not reporting facts. And quite frankly, it's almost akin to libel. I am criticizing you not because I think this story is necessarily false, but because I believe you're not reporting this with any integrity. You're talking about the allegations as if they were a fact, and attacking the credibility of people. What you're doing is nothing more than what FOX News does everyday.You masquerade your own opinions as facts in all of your articles; there are so many that I could quote the list would go on and on (c.f. downtowneastsideenquirer.blogspot.com/search?q=sfu - these are all opinionated lies, not facts. The irony is that you author them using the pen name "reliable sources") The way you're writing about this situation does little more than to polarize a situation that already has little dialogue between the two parties. If you are indeed the victim of this alleged sexual harassment, then I would find more concrete and productive waysto bring this issue to light. If not, then I find even less pity for you. You should devote your time to something more productive.

bruice,

"Your basis for this article depends on this one allegation from the alleged victim...."

The strength of this case is that there are multiple victims and multiple witnesses.  It is not dependent on the testimony of the woman who dropped out of SFU after she lost her ability to concentrate when allegedly targeted by the sexual harassment ring.  You would be aware of that fact from reading previous coverage. 

In the above post, I did rely on commentary from the "drop-out" alone -- she lives in the vicinity and happened to find herself in the midst of police motorcyles during the Prince's visit -- but this post was intended to be a follow-up from previous posts. 

You have left comments about this case on the internet previously, although you haven't used the name Bruice.  I recognize you as your commentary tends to follow a certain theme. You smear the "drop-out" as deceptive, while deflecting attention from the fact that the case that a sexual harassment ring operated is not dependent on her testimony.  A case of involvement in sexual harassment can be made against each of the three professors in the alleged ring operating in the Visual Arts section of the Centre for the Contemporary Arts, without the testimony of the drop-out. [Then there are peripheral cases, such as the one in the Film section, which had nothing to do with the "drop-out". A man says his sister, while a Film student, got seduced by a Film professor.  Eventually she got knocked up.  Eventually he left her on welfare. And eventually Prince Charles showed up to endorse SFU as a university the world should look to.)

I do know the "drop-out".  I've never concealed the fact that she lives on the Downtown Eastside and that I live there too.  The Downtown Eastside is like a small town; people know one another.  But I would not have reported on her case if corroborating testimony had not been available.  

You mention that I write for the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog.  "Reliable sources" is the name under which multiple people contribute stories to that blog, but the editing results in most posts ending up with the same style. 

You refer to the entire body of stories on the Downtown Eastside Enquirer, including those on the alleged SFU sexual harassment ring as, "all opinionated lies".  It is you who is lying, Bruice.  If you are familiar with the stories on the DTES Enquirer, as you claim to be, you would be aware that serious allegations are supported by a paper trail of correspondence (from the City and other sources), audiotapes, and witness testimony.  You would be aware that the story about a female City employee who was having sexual relationships with troubled male clients, some of whom were ending up attempting or succeeding in committing suicide (although we were careful not to say she was the "cause"), was thoroughly tested for accuracy.  City lawyers examined the blog but found nothing they could use to shut us down, and eventually City management arranged for police to intimidate bloggers into muzzling ourselves.  But after investigating, police sided with us.  Police, who were specifically asked to muzzle us about the female sexual harasser, concluded that the story was true.  And an elected official on the Downtown Eastside, as reported on the blog, "poured over" the posts and said she did not see content that she would consider libelous. These people are in a better position than you, Bruice, to know whether that blog is all "lies."  Not surprisingly, you provided not one example to support your claim. 

Bruice, you're obviously emotionally invested in this case.  I think it's time you disclose your relationship to the alleged harassers.  

Unfortunately for you, I am not someone who is involved in this alleged incident. So no, I don't have a vested interest in this topic other than the fact that I am a student at SFU. I don't know why you correlate people who disagree with you as being the harasser.But because I am a student, I disagree strongly with the way you assault the integrity of SFU and the libelous information you mention about my university. I'm proud of this university, and the education that it provides (cue your sensationalist and fallacious headline "SFU student supports sexual harassment ring in university" or something of the like). So yes, I suppose in this sense I am "emotionally" invested as you call it. But are you also not "emotionally" invested in this case, perhaps, many more times over than me? What's your relation to this "drop out"? Perhaps it is you who should disclose your relationship with the drop out. I do not see how you can report this incident fairly and with impartiality on your part; your headlines make it seem clear whose side you're on.This is the first time I have actually taken the time to comment on your articles, but I have seen your articles many times before, namely because I am doing a paper on SFU itself, and your articles inevitability pop up in my internet searches. I originally didn't give much thought to them, but I became interested in commenting after seeing your repeated smearing of SFU.I again stress that I am not discrediting the fact that the incident may have occurred, but feel that the way you report these articles fall short of representing real fact. Headlines like "Prince Charles Partners with SFU despite "Sexual Harassment Ring" is without a doubt (and I think you'll agree with me) a red herring headline. You use guilt by association in this and many of your other articles, and fall short of telling us anything inherently useful about this incident. The reason I even bothered to comment at all in the first place is to point out that all you do is smear SFU's reputation. And as a student, I find that offensive and demeaning to me and the 35,000 undergraduates and teachers who have no relation whatsoever to this incident.I understand that you want to report the truth about this incident. But this isn't journalism. It's just a smear campaign.

Bruice,

 You make false statements, the following being one of them: 
"I don't know why you correlate people who disagree with you as being the harasser."  
I have never done so.  Never once. You don't provide an example to support this allegation because, of course, none exist.

You fabricate a bizarre headline and then attribute it to me as a means of making your case:
"...your sensationalist and fallacious headline "SFU student supports sexual harassment ring in university"....".  

Rather than doing a quick internet search for a list of my headlines, you chose instead to simply qualify your fabricated headline with "or something of the like".  Neither this headline or anything of the like was ever published by me.  Neither I nor the "drop-out" or anyone else involved in this case has ever claimed to know an SFU student who "supports" a sexual harassment ring. 

You continue to demand that I answer a question that I answered in my previous response to your comment:"What's you relationship to this 'drop-out?"  Did you even read my comment?

You accuse me of damaging SFU's reputation with this story.  Yet you conspicuously avoid criticizing individuals in positions of power at SFU, such as President Stevenson who has damaged SFU's reputation by evading this issue, a fact touched upon in the post. For years Stevenson has evaded every attempt by at least one victim to communicate with him about this case; he and his predecessors had years to deal with this case before it ended up on the internet. The ultimate source of damage to SFU's reputation though, has been professors who used their classrooms to recruit nubile sex partners. 

• I would like to address all the points in your previous comment. 

•  A.You make false statements, the following being one of them: "I don't know why you correlate people who disagree with you as being the harasser." 
• I am going to freely admit I am wrong here. I jumped the gun. I made the mistake of not talking about the issue which I wanted to address which is this one: "I don't know why you correlate people who disagree with you as being related to harasser."

• B. Yet even though I am wrong above, you also but you too make these false statements; case in point:

• "You have left comments about this case on the internet previously, although you haven't used the name Bruice.  I recognize you as your commentary tends to follow a certain theme."

• "I think it's time you disclose your relationship to the alleged harassers."

• Obviously, you pulled these out of thin air, and as you have said about my statements, you "don't provide an example to support this allegation because, of course, none exist." I think it's fair to say that in the heat of debate, it's easy for both of us to make assumptions about each other. And for that, I apologize.

• C. "You fabricate a bizarre headline and then attribute it to me as a means of making your case:"

• I suppose it is difficult for you personally to interpret sarcasm on the internet, but my mock headline "SFU student supports sexual harassment ring in university" was an obvious sarcastic reference to your article's bogus headline "Prince Charles Partners with SFU despite "Sexual Harassment Ring"". See the similarity between the two? I'm not making any case here or saying YOU said it, just pointing out the ridiculousness of your article headlines, and how you use guilt by association and not real headlines. You're obviously taking this too literally for your own good. And Again, I think you'll agree with me that your original headline is very deceiving. (thus my sarcasm...)

• D. You continue to demand that I answer a question that I answered in my previous response to your comment:"What's you relationship to this 'drop-out?"  Did you even read my comment?

• Yes I did read your comment, and I continue to demand a more concrete answer from you. All you say is that you "know the drop out" because you live in the East side.  I have disclosed my status as an SFU student and rational for commenting here, and you should clarify what interests you have in this report. You report articles as if there is a professional journalistic line between you and the "drop-out", as if you were impartial to the whole situation. You are emotionally attached to this case, possibly (and I am making an allegation here) because you are a friend of this drop-out. That is all I wanted you to confirm and to put out there. You are dealing this as a personal matter and not in a strictly non-biased journalistic way. It's obvious to me that this is more than just a journalist-interviewee relationship here. If you can put that out there, then I will be satisfied with your answer.

• E. Yet you conspicuously avoid criticizing individuals in positions of power at SFU, such as President Stevenson who has damaged SFU's reputation by evading this issue.

• I don't know what Stevenson has done regarding this issue, which is why I never commented on him. Really, you are the only source that says he has been avoiding the issue, and so there is no other avenue of research I can pursue in this area. I grant you that if he has indeed been avoiding the issue, it is something that I have absolutely no expertise over, and so I have no points to talk about. But I am sure you  and the drop out know this situation much better than I do. So why are you not talking in depth about that then? All you're doing is using people like Prince Charles and the Governor General and framing them with faulty headlines. I think you know exactly what you're doing. I know you want to stir up this issue by using headlines that grab people's attention, and this is exactly the problem that I have with your articles. You are being a LIAR by wording your articles like this. I think you're doing this the wrong way. I say again: what you're doing is WRONG. (And am thinking that a possible response from you may be: "But hiding the truth of this harassment issue from the public is WRONG". My reponse? Two wrongs don't make a right. Give some integrity to your own article first, and stop using lies as your headlines.

• F. The ultimate source of damage to SFU's reputation though, has been professors who used their classrooms to recruit nubile sex partners.

• I like how you are effectively summarizing my very own thoughts here. Indeed! It is these few professors that are responsible (and in your opinion, Michael Stevenson's responsibility), NOT THE ENTIRE SFU. Yet you use the name "SFU" in a very grandiose manner, as if to say that everyone in the university is some part of a sex ring. If you feel this isn't the case, then you should seriously consider reading your own article headlines: case in point:Prince Charles Partners with SFU despite "Sexual Harassment Ring" and "Colin Hansen "Rewarding" History of Sexual Harassment at SFU" etc..... What person reading that wouldn't think otherwise? I again think that this is nothing more than propaganda, and you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. If you had worded your headlines fairly, I would not be so harsh on you.

I think I've spent way too much time on this debate, and while I look forward to future developments in this case and ultimately hope that the drop-out and the professors come to a resolution, I don't feel I can ever convince you from defaming my university with your deceitful and libelous headlines.