If you or your organisation would like to sign in support of this statement, please sign your name here.

Tuesday, April 24, 2023

An Urgent Call to Reinstate the SFU Football Program - Open Letter from a Coalition of Student Organizations

To:

Joy Johnson: President of Simon Fraser University

Wade Parkhouse: Provost and Vice-President Academic

Rummana Khan Hemani: Vice-Provost & Associate Vice-President of Student & International,

Theresa Hanson: Director of Athletics Simon Fraser University

Dear Simon Fraser University Administrators,

The Simon Fraser Student Society External Office (SFSS), The SFSS Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) Representative, the Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG), and the Students of Caribbean and African Ancestry (SFU SOCA) write to you today as Student Leaders within Simon Fraser University to reiterate the deep and growing concern about the decision to terminate the SFU Football program. There is an urgency to develop and preserve sports programs that harbour equitable inclusion, the enablement of personal growth and the removal of structural, and financial barriers to access higher education. We believe that the administrative bodies of Simon Fraser University (SFU) must do more to uphold the widespread movement calling for the preservation of not only the SFU football program but the institution's core values and the democratic processes they've committed to upholding.

We, and signatories of this open letter, acknowledge SFU Football’s rich history dating back to the creation of the team in 1965 that has been an important part of the lives of thousands of students, and our local community, as well as having contributed to national and international sporting excellence. The program has served as a source of pride for students, alumni, and the wider community that supports us. As The Simon Fraser Student Society External Office (SFSS), The SFSS Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) Representative, the Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG), and the Students of Caribbean and African Ancestry (SFU SOCA) we feel that this decision is not in line with the values of our University to be an engaged university, nor to recruit and retain diverse students who contribute to the community.

Decision Making Against EDI & Impacting Marginalised Groups

First, the decision to terminate SFU Football goes against the university’s commitment to the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) policy. SFU Football is one of the most diverse groups on campus and serves as a platform for students to come together and form a community. The decision to terminate this program directly contradicts the values we hold as a university and violates EDI-centred Charters SFU has signed onto which we will discuss below.

Athletes who have now been let down by this top-down decision include several BIPOC students as well as international students who already struggle with inclusion and belonging within a colonial institution;

One student-athlete shared that being a part of the SFU Football team was impactful because they come from a“place where Black men don’t even make it out at the age of 18. Coming here, getting an education, as well as playing football has put me in the position to elevate my life and get myself out of a situation that I would no longer have to worry about. SFU has been a big part of my life and cutting the football program would affect me in so many ways.”

SFU has only recently begun to address the role equity plays in the sports on campus after decades of student and athlete activism resulted in a change to the name of the athletic teams. In the announcement of a new team name in the Fall 2022 term, the university stated that “the new team name would reinforce SFU's institutional commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion.” We as student signatories and student-athletes are now left with only doubts about SFU’s commitment to equity in this area of campus life that is in reality, actionable and not merely symbolic.

Lack of Major Stakeholder Consultation

Second, we want to highlight that Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) invested 10 million dollars through the Build SFU Project where a brand new stadium was built and the contribution to this stadium covered about 60% of the needed funding. Although we recognise that this is a multiple-use playing field, the field is a primary space where the Football team train, practise, play home games, and engage with their community. In this way, we are concerned about the lack of consultation with athletes and the SFSS as a major stakeholder who've created a space for SFU’s community of fans to engage in games and for the Football team to excel within their sport - we are concerned about the deep lack of consultation.

These investments were made with not only the intention of supporting and improving the football program, but also improving overall campus life, family and student engagement, and school spirit. With new residence buildings and more attractive architecture, there will be a higher number of students seeking opportunities to build friendships and participate in activities on campus outside of their academic schedules. Taking away an attraction such as SFU Football can have overall negative campus life experiences for students and for the community. It is disheartening to see these investments to improve community engagement and the program partially go to waste due to the decision to terminate the program.

We are disappointed that the administration made this decision without consulting key stakeholders such as the student-athletes, coaching staff, alumni investors, and the student society. These individuals have invested their time, resources, and passion into the football program, and their voices should have been heard before making such a drastic decision. This has been a pattern we as students have seen in the university’s relationship to consultations, which has included coming to “consultations” with decisions already made, creating barriers to full participation in consultations with Administration, and making decisions at times when students or community capacity are the most limited.

Importantly, we want to acknowledge the very harmful letter which was sent on Thursday, April 20th by two of the SFU Administration (specifically by Rummana Khan Hemani and Wade Parkhouse), which stated that “all parties agree there is no path forward for SFU to play varsity football in the NCAA.” This letter stated that the SFU Football program would not be reinstated. The letter also included language around “parties” and we as complainants against this decision along with the players themselves, are unsure of what parties were consulted. There seems to be a gap here and we would like to make sure that we are included in decision-making herein. The letter was sent not even a full hour after representatives of students including the SFSS External Office, a Member of The Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, alongside a student-athlete affected had a discussion at a meeting with Rummana Khan Hemani. We want to note that the Vice-Provost noted that upon reflection on our discussion, she would need time to thoroughly and carefully consider our demands towards reinstating the program with the concerns raised regarding the immense amount of harm caused and violations against the Charters below. However, the statement sent is contradictory to the conversation with the reassurance of further time needed and careful consideration on the matter, we find this deeply disingenuous. If ‘all parties’ as referenced in the statement included student representatives, student-athletes, alumni, and several other coaching staff who should have been consulted, then we feel misrepresented and believe the statement is untrue.

SFU’s decision is representative of an insidious institutional culture of believing that as administrators, they know best about our futures, our campus, our needs, and our experiences as students without any forms of consultation or outreach. As a publicly-funded institution and an institution funded by tuition, there must be greater accountability for their decisions - this is not your institution alone. On this matter, the Administration (specifically by Rummana Khan Hemani and Wade Parkhouse) must take accountability and do their due diligence to appropriately hold a facilitated and evidence-informed public dialogue like a town hall to present the reasoning for their decision to terminate the program and a space to problem solve and create solutions based on the consultation. This should be done instead of stalling conversations with the community and replacing the Administrative duty to dialogue with the community with a Special Advisor, this would create an unnecessary barrier to reaching the Administration which is responsible for making informed decisions through direct and open communication with affected communities.

Harm Caused

Third, the timing of the termination on April 4th was also concerning. This decision has had a significant negative impact on the mental health of the student-athletes, their performance in exams, and their ability to find a suitable opportunity to apply to universities and join a team elsewhere. It is the University’s duty to consider the well-being of our students when making decisions that affect their academic and personal lives, below we will touch on this in further detail. It is further abhorrent that SFU has intentionally recruited these student-athletes with scholarship packages, creating a reliance on the institution and football program to continue being a student at SFU that has now been betrayed.

In a press release announcing the name change, it was stated that “ behind this revered icon [of SFU sport] have stood generations of athletes and coaches from all over BC, across the country and around the world, who have chosen our University to pursue their passion” many of whom have now been let down by the institution and many of which who have already accepted offers from SFU coming into post-secondary education. Parents of players and community members have decried the decision on social media, expressing significant public concern about the current opportunities and futures of the players and how decisions are unilaterally made by “higher-ups” at institutions like SFU.

Another student-athlete shared that they have “learned how to be resilient as a direct result of what I have learned through being a part of the program. SFU football has completely reframed my perspective on life. It’s given me tools and connections to be able to chase every goal and opportunity I can dream of. SFU Football is more than just a team. We are a family. I can say from the bottom of my heart that I would not be the person I am today without this experience.”

We argue that student-athletes should not have to be resilient because of the decisions of SFU administrators. While President Joy Johnson cited the decision was made due to “ongoing uncertainty" about conferences, SFU’s decision to terminate the football team has created a ripple of ongoing uncertainty amongst recently hired Football staff and student-athletes and newly recruited players. Especially admits an already confirmed NCAA schedule to play in 2023 that the team is now being stopped from playing in by Administration.

We are further concerned and angered by the fact that on Friday, April 21, SFU staff entered the athlete’s locker room and began putting the students’ personal belongings into bags. Student-athletes were given no notice of this occurring and when asked why this was happening, staff were unable to give any reasonable excuse or response. We see this as SFU trying to make the issue go away as fast as possible. However as of right now and as far as we are concerned, athletes still use gear to train and need access to locker rooms without fear of their personal items being taken without notice.

SFU Breaking Commitments to The ‘SFU Strategy’ And Two Signed, EDI-Centred Charters

SFU recently proposed the “What's Next: the SFU Strategy for 2023 and onwards inciting a shared vision, purpose and values for SFU, as well as four priorities that will form the framework for action moving forward. Two of these priorities and several values relate to the SFU NCAA Football Program and the Strategy that should have been used to inform the decision to terminate the program before such an action. Below we will list the priority and discuss SFU’s inability to follow through on their commitments in light of their decision;         

Making a Difference for B.C.

• SFU recognizes” that we have “an outsized impact on the province…We attract learners from around the world and many of our alumni remain in B.C. after graduation, contributing their talents and enriching society…bolstered by our collective attention to community engagement.”
• One of SFU’s Goals for 2023 Onwards: In light of making a difference in BC, SFU aims to “facilitate evidence-informed public dialogue that fosters pluralism and shared problem-solving across the province.” to “ [reinforce their] role as the university for B.C., using our capacity for social and economic change to strengthen the province and connect the world with B.C.”
• Our Critique: As we know SFU is the only NCAA University within Canada which is a central reason for the university’s attraction for learners and athletes domestically and internationally who complete their education at SFU. Several of our successful alumni are SFU Football Athletes, many of which remain in B.C. to enrich our society and are part of the SFU Football Alumni Society as of right now are calling for the reinstatement of the SFU Football Program that impacts several current athletes and one’s who committed to SFU as they were to enter Post-Secondary Education. In light of this decision that impacts our status of attracting athletes seeking education, SFU is yet to hold a facilitated and evidence-informed public dialogue that informs the community on the decision to terminate the SFU NCAA Football Program while also providing space for questions and answers with SFU Admin to problem-solve and created informed decisions in light of this province-wide concern to terminate the only NCAA university football program.

Transforming the SFU Experience

• One of SFU’s Goals for 2023 Onwards: is to “Sustain the excellence of an SFU education, meeting the changing needs of learners through curriculum and service enhancements across our campuses that reflect the importance of mental health, affordability and flexibility.” To do so SFU notes they will need  “To achieve these priorities, we need to put students at the heart of all we do, create the conditions for faculty and staff to flourish and actively embrace possibilities and new ways of doing things. We must focus on the well-being of all those who learn and work at SFU, mindful of preparing students for an uncertain and complex world.”
• Our Critique: Upon a university football program that offers; Equitable access to programming and academics through a wrap-around style of support for athletes which provides skills and spaces that balance athletic and academic careers, personal growth and life skills; Financial support to many through scholarships for athletes who experience financial inaccessibility and inability to access higher education; International recruitment for international students seeking the opportunity to compete in high-level sporting; Without these kinds of programming or the elimination of programming, this inhibits participation amongst several marginalised students who experience barriers to post-secondary education and sporting including low-income households, limiting their opportunities.

Halting programs is bound to impact student-athletes and limit opportunities for several reasons, especially as the decision was announced in such a rigorous way without centring students or urgently providing appropriate support. In order to preserve mental health, affordability and flexibility in reference to curriculum and athletic services and programming, student-athletes should have been at the centre of decisions related to the program, should have been consulted, and informed appropriately in advance of any decision before it was made. However, several student-athletes are forced to grieve this news during final examinations and forced into exploring other options in an uncertain time when other programs may have wrapped up recruitment as we’ve entered Spring camps and training. SFU Administration was not considerate of how this decision would impact student-athletes and further the impacts of releasing this information at a time that could disturb student-athlete semesters and where football programs may not have been recruiting or are scarcely recruiting.

Further, SFU doesn't have the ability to guarantee that all Football student-athletes will be able to be recruited into other football programs upon this decision to cut the program which may expedite athletic retirement quicker than expected or cause an immediate halt in athletic careers until recruited. It is well known that “sport participation is a primary source of identity, self-esteem, motivation, stress-relief, and friendships”, so the inability to be recruited or a pause in sporting careers can both have deep mental health impacts and implications, especially when experiencing the loss of athletic identity due to being sidelined in these kinds of decisions and where “permanently-sidelined athletes have described their grief as feeling as though a part of them has died”,  SFU should have been more careful and intentional about such a decision. Several student groups alongside the SFSS External Office attempted to fill a gap to support athletes affected by creating and distributing exam and assignment exemption letters while SFU SOCA provided a means to book mental health counselling sessions with a racialized councillor - however, these are short-term measures to mitigate harm and are not all encompassing of the tremendous impact this will have on student-athletes.

Due to the above harm, SFU should have actively embraced possibilities and new ways of doing things by allowing the SFU Football Team to move forward in their already approved 2023 NCAA Schedule instead of halting the confirmed schedule and agreement while the university explored other options and avenues for the football team through consultation with key stakeholders - this is SFU’s duty as we will touch on next.

Okanagan Charter An International Charter for Health Promoting Universities and Colleges

The What’s Next Project includes and houses the Okanagan Charter and the guiding principles SFU references in respect to the charter support the project “by promoting and protecting student mental health & well-being” in hopes of contributing to The Healthy Campus Community Initiative. SFU adopted  The Okanagan Charter is an International Charter for Health Promoting Universities and Colleges in order to “[aim] to create an environment where the people, programs, practices, policies and spaces foster well-being, supporting campus members to thrive and succeed at SFU and beyond”. Other additional commitments aside from the Charter can be seen in the Statement released by Andrew Petter, SFU President and Vice-Chancellor at the time of signing.

Further, The Okanagan Charter outlines several actions and due guiding principles that university signatories of the charter adopt to take accountability for the health of the campus community. In this case, the university’s commitment to proper consultation leading up to a possible decision that has implications for the health and well-being of SFU’s students including SFU Student-Athletes. We will outline a few of these to discuss how the university has violated the charter in the decision made to terminate the SFU Football Program but first, it is important to highlight the following;

• Aspiration, holistic approach, and unique role of the university: Within the Charter, it outlines that Signatories shall aspire to integrate healthy practises “into everyday operations, business practices and academic mandates” to “… create campus cultures of compassion, well-being, equity and social justice” and “improve the health of the people who live, learn, work, play and love on our campuses.” Within this Charter, health is viewed holistically, reflecting the "physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity", with it being the university’s responsibility as a whole on all sectors to act in the interest of students and promote health on a holistic level - including in decision making. Further to do this the unique role, “unique opportunity and responsibility” for higher education, is to “engage the student voice, develop new knowledge and understanding” in order to “enhance health of citizens and communities both now and in the future.”
• Our Critique: We believe that the university has not taken a holistic health approach that centres the physical, mental and social well-being of athletes or that acknowledges that it is their role to consult student-athletes by engaging them in proper dialogue before making such a decision that impacts the team of concern and future athletes who were to compete in the future at SFU. However, as reflected above, our view is Student-Athlete health, wellness or mental health was not centred in this decision.

The Charter provides two Calls to Action with key action areas and overall principles that together guide universities to be Health promoting;

• Call to Action 1: “Embed health into all aspects of campus culture, across the administration, operations and academic mandates”

• 1.5 Create or re-orient campus services. Coordinate and design campus services to support equitable access, enhance health and well-being, optimise human and ecosystem potential and promote a supportive organisational culture.

• Our Critique: Under our student services sector we have the athletics department where our SFU Football program is housed. This program does a fantastic job of providing equitable access to higher education and personal health support, enhancing health and well-being, optimising human and ecosystem potential and promoting a supportive organisational culture - we see it as a violation of the charter to terminate this program that is already doing a phenomenal job at advancing this action.

The Charter provides guiding principles for how to mobilise systemic and whole-campus action

• Principles;

• Use participatory approaches and engage the voice of students and others: Set ambitious goals and allow for solutions and strategies to emerge through the use of participatory approaches to engage broad, meaningful involvement from all stakeholders, including students, staff, faculty, administrators and other decision-makers. Set priorities and build multilevel commitments to action.
• Build on strengths; Use an asset-based and salutogenic approach to recognize strengths, understand problems, celebrate successes and share lessons learned, creating opportunities for the continual enhancement of health and wellbeing on campus.

• Our Critique: Both of these principles speak to how it is a duty that the University Administration uses a participatory approach and the engagement of student-athletes, coaching staff, relevant faculty and others including major stakeholders in the creation or re-orientation of the football program. This should have happened previous to the decision made regarding the termination of the football team for the University to make a well-informed decision on the matter. In future, it is also important to consult stakeholders on the re-orientation of the program within the NCAA or other sectors. Within these consultations, the administration should focus on an asset-based and salutogenic approach to recognize strengths, understand problems, celebrate successes and share lessons learned, creating opportunities for the continual enhancement of the health and well-being of the program and folks within the program as well. Instead, within meetings others and ourselves have come to notice very verbatim messaging from administration and a deep resistance to working collaboratively on this matter which is not participatory or centring on other approaches mentioned above - even with possibilities of the program being funded by fantastic donors like the Owner of the BC Lions.

The Scarborough Charter on Anti-Black Racism and Black Inclusion in Canadian Higher Education

SFU has further signed onto the Scarborough Charter on Anti-Black Racism and Black Inclusion in Canadian Higher Education that outlines “four principles—Black flourishing, inclusive excellence, mutuality and accountability—that should be applied to anti-Black racism initiatives, policy-making and actions at institutions moving forward.” In the statement announcing the signing of the Charter, Joy Johnson notes “All Black members of the SFU community deserve to feel safe and included on our campuses, and we can—and must—take tangible action towards that goal.”

There are important parts of this Charter that need to be taken into account in a university that leads with our Equitable, Diverse and  Inclusive (EDI) lens and approach. As Joy Johnson noted, this charter must be used in actions or decisions at our institution which we worry was not the case. There are a couple of areas of concerns we have where we see the university violating this charter with their decision-making on this matter that we will highlight below.

This charter specifically recalls “the urgent reckoning with the persistence of anti-Black racism” and “the depths of Black underrepresentation” within universities and the four principles of centring  Anti-Racism, Anti-Oppression initiatives and Black Inclusion in Canadian Higher Education. It is important to note that “these principles-based commitments to action apply to governance in decision-making processes and structures at all levels of the institution, to research, to teaching and learning, and to community engagement.” Here are a few we’d like to discuss and our critique of SFU;

Principles:

• 2. Universities and colleges commit to fostering inclusive excellence

• 2.1.2.2. “recruit, support career progression and retain Black managerial, administrative and support staff across university and college units;”
• 2.1.2.3 “recruit Black students and support their successful program completion;”

• 2.3. in teaching and learning by

• 2.3.2. “providing scholarships, bursaries, fellowships and related, dedicated support including increased research opportunities, mentorship and alumni engagement to support”

• 2.3.2.1. “Black admission to universities and colleges;”
• 2.3.2.2. “Black enrollment in graduate and post-doctoral studies;”
• 2.3.2.2. “Black thriving through to program completion;”

• 2.4. in community engagement by

• 2.4.1. “developing pathways for access to higher education for Black students, including promoting student outreach with local, regional, national and international communities and providing robust “wrap-around” support;”

• Our Critique:  As this portion discusses commitments to fostering inclusive excellence in the career progression and retention of Black staff, the decision to terminate the program means that SFU is not retaining the only Black head coach within our Athletic Department. As we strive to create a more representative collection of diverse individuals that is founded on inclusive excellence, making sure that coaches reflect several of the players who are recruited is of high priority. Further with the decision to terminate the program, the university is eliminating a wrap-around support program that further recruits Black student-athletes and supports them in the successful completion of their athletic and academic program competition. Further, this program develops pathways for access to higher education for Black Student Athletes and recruits in a local, regional, national and international manner which is the foundation of equitable access. In this case, as well, the university is not supporting the already recruited and playing Black Student-Athletes as they have cancelled their athletic football programs and have halted their success of program completion, violating this charter on the level of inclusive excellence and community engagement of the Black community and other racialized and marginalised groups.

• 3. Universities and colleges commit to enabling mutuality

• 3.4 in community engagement by

• 3.4.1. “requiring Black community prior-impact assessments as part of procurement processes, to move equity initiatives away from risk mitigation toward proactive, sustainable opportunity creation and integrating Black community impact assessments into any restructuring initiatives”

• Our Critique: No efforts were made to engage the community prior to this decision being made which has eradicated an important part of the procurement processes of this decision to mitigate harm and further sustain the opportunity that this program holds in retaining equitable programming which also goes to ignore the very intersectional experiences and impacts that this decision will have on different communities within the team. Due to this, there is a large gap in mutual agreement on the termination of this program and understanding of why this would be a decision the university would make.

Where To Go From Here

The SFU Football program is a source of inspiration for many students, especially those who come from underrepresented communities. The program created opportunities for students to pursue their passion for football, all while developing skills to compete at higher levels. The termination of the program will have a negative impact on these students and the community as a whole.

As students, we demand that;

• Joy Johnson, Rummana Khan Hemani and Wade Parkhouse publicly meet with stakeholders referenced above and address questions that the public may have. Along with CFL Commissioner Randy Ambrosie, Canadian Football League Players' Association executive director Brian Ramsay, BC Lions owner Amar Doman, and Football Canada president Jim Mullin, U Sports and Canada West officials and football coaches - This should be done instead of putting a Special Advisor in the role to consult and report back at a later date.

• This can look like a public town hall (with adequate time) to address public and investor concerns about SFU’s administrative decision to terminate SFU Football. We suggest this as closed-door meetings with administrators can lead to miscommunication, false claims made, a lack of transparency with who parties are and not allowing for public accountability for decisions made.

• We urge the administration to find a way to reverse the decision and keep the SFU Football program alive while also allowing the team to play their remaining games within their 2023 NCAA Schedule. It is important that we work together as a community to find a solution that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. We hope that our concerns are heard and that the administration takes action to address them. We cannot stress enough how important SFU Football is to our community and we hope that this decision can be reversed.
• That a written apology be sent out to student-athletes for their invasion of privacy and the removal of their personal belongings with no prior notice or date and time properly sent via appropriate modes of communication to collect items from the locker room and the ability to do so with locker rooms unlocked.
• Take action upon this letter and take the time to look into the action items and ways the university can redress the harm caused by not following through on their duties as outlined throughout the letter

In President Joy Johnson’s own words, “Since our founding, there has always been something special—something different—about us. In our early days, we were known as the “radical campus,” a university that wasn’t afraid to cause a little trouble and challenge the status quo”, we are here today to raise our voices in a university that has extensively harmed several dear members of our community, and we will continue to stand in solidarity alongside student-athletes, coaches, their families, other communities affected and allies to challenge the status quo of the Administration. We hope for and encourage change.

Sincerely,

In unity, the undersigned,

Organizations

The Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS)

The SFU Students of Caribbean and African Ancestry (SFU SOCA)

Simon Fraser Public Interest Group (SFPRIG)

Mom Squad for SFU Football

Atira Woman’s Resource Society

SFU Residence Hall Association (SFU RHA)

Individuals

*Note: Community Member entails a family member or a person non-affiliated with SFU