As of January 2024, I am no longer an employee of Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU). Over the last two years (roughly), I have associated my work with the university research centre Yellowhead Institute (YI) based out of TMU Arts. However, I am no longer associated with YI or its work. As of July 2023, I was no longer cultural director of YI. For my part, my policy report “Cultures of Exploitation” remains in YI’s repertoire because it was developed and published alongside community in this way.
I regret that YI led the public astray about a physical space and a gallery that never materialized. However, the choice to announce this space was not mine. My opinion is that YI’s governance is led primarily by admin within TMU Arts, therefore I did not ever feel fully integrated into its core governance strategies or decisions. YI has a habit of advertising growth and development to appear healthy when, in fact, I experienced great turmoil in my work for YI during my entire tenure. My image was used so TMU Arts and YI could posture progress that was not, in fact, real. “Indigenous Studies” does not exist at TMU, by sheer optics alone. Community-based ethics would mean at least an apology for the loss of a centre promised to communities, but I think this is the responsibility of YI’s current directors.
It is not lost on me that this push to bring diverse voices into YI (while always maintaining Dr. Hayden King’s role as ED) came during a developing community accountability process that was well publicized on social media, but never resolved with the community member. Under Tri-Council policy, having no mode of accountability for harm prior to and during research with Indigenous participants is unacceptable. Therefore, I allege TMU Arts, its research office, and TMU HR are also responsible for the lack of remorse and healing within YI.
It is ironic that a research centre that tasks itself with holding the Canadian government accountable for the TRC Calls to Action, themselves, has no accountability measures with Indigenous communities, despite having received complaints about its directors that have still not been addressed. That said, with Non-Native directors, founders, founding board members, and preferred research authors, and in the absence of community healing, perhaps this work should not be considered “Indigenous governance” at all but, rather, identity politics.
During my time at YI, several allegations, publicized on social media, were made against its current directors by colleagues and community members, the latter representing abuse of proximity to community research participants and is unacceptable under Tri-Council law. I allege YI’s current directors were able to protect themselves from allegations, even when it meant the demise of colleagues at the same level. I allege the result was a toxic work environment for Indigenous colleagues. When these publicly available allegations were made, I allege some members of YI were pushed out as faculty of TMU Arts, not just as directors and research associates of YI–namely, trans and racialized peoples–while others remained protected, such as non-Natives, white Natives, and men.
I allege institutional policy, or the lack thereof, was used by YI to avoid its current directors facing any form of community accountability for allegations of harm, despite maintaining operations throughout conflict, and constantly publishing and engaging in social media campaigns to represent the interests of our communities. I allege institutional policy has been used by YI’s directors to silence the claimants who allegedly experienced harm under its operations and research, and indefinitely delay healing with community members and colleagues.
In my short time at YI, there was constant turnover of directors, research associates, and board members. Community conflict would be publicized online, namely on Twitter, during these rifts. I allege daily operations provided consistent breaches to community ethics and community-based principles for justice that were never properly addressed by its current directors. However, under the laws that govern us as public researchers, I do not believe this is the responsibility of community advisors and contract employees; it is the responsibility of faculty, which we should know and enact as public researchers. YI has publicized the fact that it does not need ethics approval from an ethics board because it is a journalistic product (yes, seriously), and its staff are therefore likely ill-equipped and unknowledgeable about the legal, rather than institutional under TMU policy, parameters of their work.
This work is a representation of colonial and Canadian values and ways of relating, not “Indigenous governance”: the Indigenous research industrial complex. If YI refuses to make a space for healing allegations of harm against its directors and about its research projects (even under Freedom School, which is specifically meant for youth), without ever holding ethics approval for its work from an ethics board, or having publicly accessible avenues for addressing harm, I allege YI is not a safe space for Indigenous communities. I know misogyny, masculinism, and alleged abuse in “Indigenous Studies” are not the problems of YI alone. However, I can only speak for the spaces I have worked under. Based on my own hurt and the hurt I have witnessed, I allege YI is not a safe space for Indigenous youth, Indigenous women (especially young and racialized Indigenous women), racialized Indigenous peoples, or trans Indigenous peoples, until meaningful accountability occurs.
I have maintained a Canadian legal framework throughout this statement because I allege this is how YI and its ED have been in relation with me and, thus, is how I must respond to protect myself and my community. However, what has not been discussed thoroughly within instances of lateral violence between Indigenous researchers and community members is all the ways that sacred laws have been broken. To be clear, this healing can, and should still occur. Regardless of the ways the accused portray modes of community justice as “cancellation,” or tone police pleas for justice, all to deny claimants and refuse community processes, healing is always within the power of the accused. Transformative justice thinkers were right when they said “accountability” frameworks put the pressure of justice on victims, while focusing on protecting and representing the accused.
Jas M. Morgan 