Out of the hundreds of faculty members you had at your disposal, the fact that you’ve chosen these three individuals is rather insulting, and I’d imagine that a man in your position would know why:
- All three have currently active human rights complaints filed against them— by me; I am still waiting for your offices to adjudicate these.
- All three have no legal training whatsoever; In a matter of a few months, I will have more legal education than all three of them combined.
- Two of them Have been impugned by the decision recently issued from your institution.
- All three seem to harbour animus towards me on the basis of my persistent pursuit of fairness and equity in this matter.
The irony is that in assigning three individuals that were somehow involved in my matter as the ones reviewing the policies in response, you have already violated the directions given by Professor Elman— specifically the ones related to conflicts of interests.
With regard to Ryan Flannagan specifically, he has been shown to be unable to follow the procedures in the University’s policy, but you still deem it appropriate for him to review the same policies that he is not fit to enact. This would be tantamount to having Harvey Weinstein conduct an inquiry on sexual assault in Hollywood…or more realistically, having you lead an institution that is committed to diversity and equity.
This (Ryan Flannagan) is a man who on September 18th, 2019 outright stated that he “wouldn’t even know” what prejudice would look like in a matter such as this, but went on to state that he was certain that the “race considerations” I was putting forward were not valid. I have attached an excerpt of this recording below for your reference:
Aside from this, there is no shortage of individuals that are:
- Employed with your institution— meaning there would be no additional cost to recruit their services.
- Well studied in law/policy/race (the topics at issue here).
- Yet to be impugned in a decision recently issued by your own institution.
- All together, significantly more qualified for the job.
Understanding that you may not be aware of these individuals— given that you are new to this University— I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest a few names: Dr. Andrew Allen, Dr. Richard Douglas-Chin, Professor David Tanovich, Professor Jill Rogin etc. I’d also suggest you review the immense work that has already been done on UWindsor race issues in the SACDI report (compiled and submitted by Professor Richard Douglass-Chin and Andrew Langille). If you truly believe in your faculty and your University, then you should be willing to lean on the experts you have at your disposal.
In any case, it would seem a rather intentional slight for you to assign the three individuals involved in the mismanagement of my case to be the ones reviewing the policies they broke— especially in a letter that is meant to serve as an apology to me. This decision was clearly not made in good faith and appears to be a passive-aggressive act of performative inaction. Whatever the case, anyone completely committed to transparency and reform should know that the best person for such a “review” is an independent third party. Ideally this third party would have no connection to the matter.
QUESTION 4: Why, out of the hundreds of faculty available to you, is the team of people you’ve chosen to review the policies (in response to warnings of possible discrimination from your own offices) comprised of people who:
- Have been previously involved in the matter that precipitated your directions?
- Have open human rights complaints with OHREA?
- Have broken the same policies they’ve been charged to review?
- Have no educational background suitable for the matters being reviewed?