����ֱ��

Mandate 

• Develop a communication strategy for the report and the implementation of recommendations.
• Prioritize the recommendations.
• Create strategies and plans for the implementation of recommendations. The strategies and plans must include: 
  • Timelines 
  • Resources required 
  • Education and training requirements 
  • Community engagement plans 
  • Expected outcomes 
  • Implement strategies/plans AND/OR assign responsibility and oversee implementation.  
  • Provide regular updates/progress reports to Senior Leadership and other university partners as required.

Committee Composition 

Executive Director, Risk and Safety Services, Chair 

Director, Campus Security and Emergency Services 

Deputy Provost (Academic Operations and Inclusion) 

Associate Vice-Principal (Human Rights, Equity, and Inclusion)  

Associate Vice-Principal (Indigenous Initiatives and Reconciliation)  

Assistant Dean, Student Life and Learning 

Senior Director, Employee and Labour Relations

Executive Director, Housing and Ancillary Services or delegate 

AMS representative

SGPS representative

Questions or comments can be directed to csesreview@queensu.ca 

Queen’s has initiated an external review of its Campus Security and Emergency Services (CSES). The review's purpose is to understand and expand the unit’s expertise and capacity to respond to all issues that have implications for equity, diversity, inclusion, and Indigeneity (EDII) on campus. This aligns with the university’s Declaration of Commitment to Address Systemic Racism.  

The review will evaluate formal and informal processes within CSES related to the department’s responses to incidents involving underrepresented and marginalized communities on campus. It will also look at the department's overall level of engagement with, and understanding of, the university's EDII commitments.

The review will be conducted by a pair of external experts. Reviewers will meet with campus stakeholders, including senior administrators, EDII-focused departments and services, as well as a broad range of student government and equity-seeking groups.

The initiative is set to run from April to July 2021, after which reviewers will issue a report that includes recommendations for policy, protocol, training, and procedural improvements.

Feedback and comments from the community are welcome and can be submitted, in confidence, to csesreview@queensu.ca. As of November 2022, submitted emails go to the Office of Risk and Safety Services.

Consultant Biographies

 is a Professor in the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities at Ontario Tech University, and the Director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism. She has written extensively on social justice generally, and hate crime specifically. She has also published in the area of Native American victimization and social control, including one book entitled The Silent Victims: Native American Victims of Hate Crime, and Policing Race and Place: Under- and Over-enforcement in Indian Country. She was the General Editor of a five-volume set on hate crime (Praeger), and editor of Volume 3: Victims of Hate Crime of that set. Dr. Perry continues to work in the area of hate crime and has made substantial contributions to the limited scholarship on hate crime in Canada, including work on anti-Muslim violence, hate crime against LGBTQ communities, the community impacts of hate crime, and right-wing extremism in Canada. She has also published in the area of campus hate crime. She is regularly called upon by policymakers, practitioners, and local, national, and international media as an expert on hate crime and right-wing extremism.

 has been working in the area of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) since 2011. He currently works as Director of the Office of Human Rights, Diversity, and Equity at MacEwan University, and in this capacity, he leads the development of human rights, diversity, and equity initiatives within the institution. He has held numerous roles within the EDI space including project leadership positions with the City of Edmonton’s Racism Free Edmonton project and the Edmonton Local Immigration Partnership; advisory positions with the Edmonton Police Service Chief of Police Diversity Recruitment Committee and Chief of Police Community Advisory Committee; the Alberta Hate Crimes Committee, as well as committee roles with Public Safety Canada’s Expert Committee on Countering Radicalization to Violence.

Summary of Final Report

Background

In 2021, in response to some equity-seeking groups’ concerns with the way Campus Security and Emergency Services (CSES) had responded to hate-motivated incidents on campus, the university commissioned an external review. 

The reviewers were asked to evaluate formal and informal CSES processes related to the department’s response to incidents that involved or targeted underrepresented and/or marginalized communities on campus. 

The reviewers were also asked to assess the department's overall level of engagement with, and understanding of the university's Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Indigenization (EDII) commitments. 

The mandate of the review was to identify recommendations for expanding the expertise and capacity of CSES so that its staff are properly equipped, resourced, and prepared to respond to campus safety incidents that have EDII implications, including hate crimes and incidents of hate.

External Reviewers

The two reviewers engaged to perform this review, Dr. Barbara Perry, and Mr. Irfan Chaudhry, brought extensive experience in the areas of EDII and hate crimes. 

Dr. Perry is a professor and the Director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism at Ontario Tech University. She has written extensively on social justice generally and hate crime specifically. Dr. Perry has published on campus hate crime, and recently completed a pilot study of law enforcement responses to hate crime in Ontario. She is regularly called upon by policymakers, practitioners, and local, national, and international media as an expert on hate crime and right-wing extremism.

Mr. Chaudhry works as the Director of the Office of Human Rights, Diversity, and Equity at MacEwan University in Alberta. In this capacity, he leads the development of human rights, diversity, and equity initiatives within the institution. Mr. Chaudhry has held numerous roles within the EDI space including advisory positions with the Edmonton Police Service Chief of Police Diversity Recruitment Committee, the Chief of Police Community Advisory Committee, and the Alberta Hate Crimes Committee.

Methodology

In developing the recommendations for CSES in the area of hate incidents/hate crime, the reviewers used archival and qualitative approaches, including a literature review on campus hate crime; an environmental scan of hate crime media reporting in Kingston and the surrounding area; a review of Queen’s employment equity data; a review of reporting and case files on relevant campus incidents over a three-year period; a review of relevant university policies and procedures; interviews with campus associates (n=26); and a review of training records, plans, and programs for all CSES staff. The review was conducted between March and July 2021. The final report and recommendations were submitted in August 2021.

Recommendations

From their analysis of the data/information, the external reviewers identified eight themes and provided recommendations for action against each theme. There are 27 recommendations in total.

1. Awareness

A major theme identified by the reviewers based on their interviews was the overall perception that CSES, and Queen’s administration, do not have the broader awareness or context to understand the impact of hate-motivated crimes and incidents on the community. The reviewers noted a lack of awareness of EDII at Queen’s and within CSES specifically, which gives the perception that there might be limited capacity within CSES to recognize and acknowledge an incident as being motivated by hate – real or perceived. Discussions with collaborators also revealed the perception that there is a lack of awareness and understanding of the impact of an incident on the victim and the broader community, and that such awareness and understanding would enable the delivery of services that are sensitive to the cultural needs of the victim’s community and empower victims and potential victims.

Recommendations

1.1 Create a standing committee on hate-motivated crimes and incidents at Queen’s University

This group will review and be informed on all reported hate-motivated crimes and incidents and will also be a central space to provide guidance on responding to hate-motivated crimes and incidents (see LePeau et al., 2016).  This includes incidents that occur online (such as Zoom Bombing). The committee should be drawn from across the campus community, to include students and staff from frequently targeted communities.

1.2 Establish clear roles and expectations for CSES when responding to a hate crime or incident

This includes setting parameters on the role of CSES, as well as other partners (such as Residence, 4 Directions, and/or the Office of Human Rights) during and after a reported hate crime or hate incident.

1.3 Include CSES within EDII work at Queen’s University

Having CSES actively involved in EDII work will ensure that University initiatives are also permeating within CSES.  Opportunities of involvement could include CSES as part of current EDII working groups or committees to ensure there is continuity and consistency with this work at the operational level for CSES. For example, an online reporting mechanism for hate incidents is currently being developed, but CSES is not part of that conversation. This is a significant gap.

2. Communication

The reviewers noted a general sense that information about hate incidents was not consistently shared among relevant offices on campus. They reported that CSES is usually not among the first units to be contacted when hate crimes or incidents are reported, and there is no standard protocol for hate crime or incident reports across units. Where CSES took primary responsibility for managing hate incidents, interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with the way those affected are kept informed of progress. Additionally, they expressed a need for reciprocal dialogue between impacted individuals and CSES once a case is closed.    

Recommendations

2.1 University-wide protocol for reporting, responding to, and recording hate incidents as well as hate crimes

In the interests of coordinating awareness of and responses to hate incidents, a formal set of guidelines on protocols and reporting should be developed.

2.2 Consistent and ongoing updates

Individuals impacted need to be kept up to date on how investigations are proceeding on a regular basis, even weekly in the case of significant incidents. Updates should be provided to all individuals, groups or units that are affected.

2.3 Debriefing

Follow-up on hate crimes and hate incidents should include a dialogue with all relevant partners and impacted parties at the conclusion of cases. This is an opportunity to inform the community about the outcome, but also to reflect upon how it was managed by CSES and other campus offices.

2.4 Further enhance the relationship with Kingston Police

CSES has made taken great efforts to build rapport with Kingston Police. As with all external stakeholder relationships, ongoing relationship-building can help strengthen these connections. Communication with Kingston Police (KP) should be ongoing in the interests of furthering a stronger connection between them, Queens University, and CSES specifically. This is intended to ensure that KP also takes reports of hate crimes seriously and that the feedback loop is kept open.

3. Presence/Visibility

The interviewees reported that CSES is perceived across campus as low-key and typically visible only when there is trouble or an emergency. They felt that there is little awareness among the campus community about the roles of the different levels of security on campus. Consequently, they perceived CSES to occupy an ill-defined liminal space, wherein they are considered more than ‘security guards” but not quite peace officers. The new uniforms of CSES also received mixed reactions from campus community members interviewed. While CSES staff welcomed the new uniform as a welcome step toward professionalization, there were other community members who found them to be intimidating.

Recommendations

3.1 Clarity, transparency, and public promotion of CSES mandate.

CSES should engage with stakeholders across campus, including students and student groups, with the explicit intent of informing the community about their mandate, and about their role, responsibility, and boundaries around hate incidents and hate crimes.

3.2 Visibility at campus events, unrelated to security role.

Informal attendance at campus events is intended to demonstrate a commitment to community engagement outside of their official capacity. It can also provide opportunities for staff to learn more about the experiences and challenges of marginalized groups.

3.3 Redesign uniform to be less paramilitary in style.

This was noted by several interviewees to be a crucial area for change. The new uniform is thought to be intimidating for some communities.

3.4 Revisit the potential for reinventing CSES in the style of those campus services that include Special Constables.

This was recommended, with a strong rationale, in the 2017 review of CSES. Such a transition is in keeping with most large Canadian universities and would serve to provide a clearer framework for CSES operations.

4. Trust

In the discussions with the individuals interviewed, the reviewers determined, that due to a widespread lack of trust, CSES lacks the ability to fully understand and respond to hate incidents on campus and they noted that this is not unique to Queen’s.

There is consensus that CSES has not recognized that they need to have much higher visibility and contact across campus to develop the foundation for informed responses to hate incidents. Although the CSES director, in taking steps to build trust, has encouraged his staff to attend campus events informally and engage staff and students in casual conversations at events during patrols, most respondents reported that they have had very little informal contact with CSES. Additionally, CSES established a working group on Campus Community Engagement in 2019 to promote community building between CSES and the broader campus community, however, the individuals interviewed were not aware of this committee. Some interviewees also highlighted the need for CSES to apply a human-centered approach in discharging their duties. The reviewers recommend workshops and training sessions focussed on community and individual engagement to enable CSES staff to hone their people skills.

Recommendations

4.1 Expand and resource the Campus Community Engagement working group

The role of this committee would be to engage regularly and meaningfully with students, staff, and offices across campus, and to allow for consistent awareness of relevant campus events (see Recommendation #3.2).

4.2 Emphasize and train in empathic communication skills

Hiring should be done with an eye toward the communication skills of candidates. This should be followed up with training around trauma- and victim-centred interviewing. This should also include training on inclusive language, which is perhaps embedded in anti-oppression training as it is currently offered.

4.3 Introduce restorative approaches to hate incidents

CSES can partner with other offices on campus to develop restorative justice approaches in the case of hate crimes and incidents. Even if cases are handed over to Kingston Police, the potential remains to engage affected parties in strategies intended to heal the harm done.

5. Response, Follow-up, and Support

One of the major challenges identified by the interviewees was the feeling that CSES’s responses to hate were ad hoc. This left the interviewees feeling like the onus to address the issues rested on the impacted community at the same time the community was trying to grieve and process being targets of the hate. Participants stressed the need for CSES and other areas of the University to apply a stronger victim-centric approach when responding to hate-motivated incidents and crimes. The reviewers also observed a clear disconnect between how CSES sees its role when responding to hate-motivated offenses and how the campus community sees its role. Specifically, CSES sees its role as documenting occurrences, investigating incidents, referring affected parties to support, and reporting relevant updates to internal and external parties. Other community members, however, expect CSES to also act as a liaison with various areas of campus affected by hate and to provide continuity, safety planning, and follow-up.   

Recommendations

5.1 Build out an “anti-hate” strategic plan

This will ensure a methodical approach to preventing and responding to hate crimes. It should include concrete strategies, accountability measures, and timelines, and should not be restricted to CSES’s role alone.

5.2 Refine and implement Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for responding to hate incidents and hate crimes

A draft SOP was shared for the purposes of the review. We have read the work in progress and shared our suggestions for refinement. We have also shared some strong examples of police SOPs and encourage CSES to engage with those services for guidance.

5.3 Proactive development of a safety plan for groups at higher risk of hate victimization

In the interest of timely support and transparent expectations, a safety plan would help ensure that information is shared in a coordinated effort to make students, staff, and faculty aware of what to do or who to call in the event their community is impacted by hate. This would also help clarify the role of CSES, as well as other Queen’s University units when addressing hate crimes and incidents.

5.4 Develop a university-wide Bias and Discrimination support guide program for students, faculty, and staff

To ensure there is coordinated awareness of how to respond to reports of hate and bias at Queen’s University, it is recommended that a Bias and Discrimination support guide program be implemented. Like Sexual Violence Support Guide training available at many Canadian universities, a Bias and Discrimination support guide program would equip members of the university community to respond to reports of hate and discrimination in a human-centered way that considers how to support victims of these incidents.

5.5 Identify Kingston and area resources to which victims of hate crime might also be referred

There is an array of community-based organizations in Kingston that can also provide support and guidance to individuals affected by hate crimes and hate incidents. CSES should identify and engage with these groups and provide contact to victims when needed. In most communities, there has been a recent growth in the availability of services for equity-seeking groups. It is perhaps timely to conduct an inventory of Kingston and area resources. However, the services should also be screened to ensure that they have the capacity to support victims of hate crimes.

6. Reporting and Documenting

The reviewers heard from the individuals interviewed that they experienced obstacles related to reporting and documenting hate crimes and incidents in a uniform manner. One of the main reasons identified was that many times, CSES might not be the first place that individuals contact to report these incidents. They found that Indigenous and BIPOC students were more likely to report to offices with which they had already built a rapport. Recognizing the importance of students being able to report to places they trust, the reviewers noted that it is important to ensure that other university partners are made aware of the appropriate follow-up and follow-through of hate-motivated offenses. The reviewers also noted that there is a need for improvements in the documentation of hate crimes and incidents and acknowledged the work currently underway by CSES to replace the outdated records management system. The reviewers stressed the need for CSES to ensure that all team members are appropriately trained to document and record hate-motivated crimes and incidents. Under the category of reporting and documentation, the reviewers addressed the challenges many victims of hate experience with respect to the reporting of these incidents.

Recommendations

6.1 Annual report on hate incidents/hate crime that includes assessment of trends

This public report will be an integral part of building transparency and trust with the Queen’s community. The data can help support the work of the Standing Committee (see recommendation 1.1) and will also provide a consistent assessment of the climate of hate at the university. The report should also include an assessment of progress toward implementing recommendations.

6.2 Improve current data collection of hate crimes on the CSES website

The current reporting on the CSES website captures hate crime as it relates to the Canadian Criminal Code categories. However, the current setup does not permit the appropriate documentation and reporting of a hate incident. In the new reporting system, it is strongly recommended to have categories within the system that capture hate motivation, and both hate crimes and hate incidents. This will support clear reporting and will provide the required data for the annual report on hate incidents and hate crimes.

6.3 Further development of online hate and bias reporting tool

Work is currently underway to build a platform for the Queen’s community to report hate and bias-motivated crimes and incidents online. It is encouraging to see this project is underway, and as it evolves, it will be important to ensure that there is proper awareness and training provided to those who will be administering the tool. CSES should be involved in this conversation.

Things to consider include (but are not limited to):

• How will reports be validated?
• Who will be responsible for the platform?
• How will information be shared, and with whom?

All staff who will be working with the tool will require intensive training on its use.

7. Recruitment and Hiring

During the interviews, interviewees highlighted the lack of visible diversity within the ranks of CSES and noted the staff do not reflect the community they serve. A lack of historically excluded community members in the more junior positions in CSES is likely to mean there will be no diversity at the higher levels of the unit over the long term. The reviewers identified the need for CSES to enhance the recruitment of applicants from a variety of backgrounds. The reviewers also noted a need for a dedicated resource that can specialize in supporting and following up on hate-motivated incidents and crime, as there is currently no centralized position, area, or department that takes ownership of these types of occurrences and their follow-up.

Recommendations

7.1 Create a hate and bias response community liaison position

This position can be the central place for hate-motivated crimes and incidents to be situated to ensure there is an appropriate follow-up, follow-through, and support options provided for individuals and communities impacted by hate.

7.2 Make obtaining a security license a condition of employment, rather than a condition of applying

Providing this flexibility will likely increase the applicant pool and will also establish an opportunity for CSES to invest in future leaders within the organization to support retention and promotion efforts.

7.3 Continue and expand proactive recruitment to broaden the recruitment pool

In addition to efforts within HR, broader advertisement of positions within CSES will help ensure there is a diverse pool of applicants to select from. Connecting with different Indigenous and equity-serving organizations in and around the Kingston area could support this endeavor.

7.4 Incorporate meaningful EDII questions into the interview process

Ensuring EDII questions are incorporated into interview questions for CSES positions will provide an opportunity to explore a candidate's awareness and understanding of EDII that can equip hiring managers to assess suitability for the role. EDII questions could explore familiarity with things such as Indigenous awareness, cultural competence, or unconscious bias.

8. Training

The reviewers identified the opportunity to enhance and build on current EDII training accessed by CSES and other areas of the university. They focused on opportunities for enhancing the offerings and options related to EDII training that can help support a positive culture shift at the university. It was further noted that these training need to be ongoing rather than a one-off. They also highlighted that there is no specific training related to understanding hate crimes and incidents, supporting victims of hate, or other similar offerings which could help support CSES and other staff in adequately understanding the issue to ensure there is proper response.

Recommendations

8.1 Embed EDII training into the CSES training program

EDII-focused training that is embedded within the overall training program for CSES will establish this content as a standard and baseline for all staff. In its current form, training focuses on operations and not on developing emotional intelligence.

EDII training can be supplemented and enhanced by ensuring CSES staff have an opportunity to build knowledge and practice related to Indigeneity, anti-oppression, anti-racism, inclusive communication, and other EDII-related content. EDII training should be incorporated as a separate module in any training plan to ensure it is part of a broad and robust training program for CSES.

8.2 Increase training on understanding hate crime, hate victimization and supporting victims of hate

There is a current gap in access to this knowledge. Offering education on this topic will provide baseline awareness and understanding of hate crime, hate crime victimization, and other related topics which can help support a more victim-centered approach when responding to reports of hate. This training should be available and accessible for members of CSES, as well as the Human Rights Office, Residence, and 4 Directions. Police services in Peel Region, York Region, and Toronto have agreed to support CSES in enhancing their understanding of hate crime.  One participant noted, “It’s not a one-time presentation. It’s a continuous piece because you always walk away learning something.”

Moving Forward

To guide Queen’s response to the recommendations in the report, a Hate Crime Review Steering Committee (the Committee) was established and has been meeting since May 2022. The Committee members represent a wide range of units from across the university, all of whom have a stake in ensuring the recommendations are addressed. The mandate and membership of the Committee can be found below.

The focus of the Committee’s work to date has been on the recommendations specific to CSES, particularly those related to improving the visibility of the department and its engagement with the campus community. The next area of focus will be on the development of a university-wide protocol for reporting, responding to, and recording hate incidents as well as hate crimes.

As of the end of October 2022, 11 of the 27 recommendations have been reviewed in detail by the Committee, with various initiatives completed or in progress.  The Committee is currently working to identify desired outcomes/measures of success and develop a progress report that will be added to this page in early 2023.

A full copy of the report can be found here.