AI generated marketing and spam messages

I used to get frequent emails offering SEO services for this blog which I never pursued as they seemed more spam than serious.

Recently, I received a few emails offering book promotion services for my book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism. Sample below that reads as drafted by AI. Even some of the back and forth reads like ChatGPT.

Funny how they picked an over 10 year old book, written very much for the context of the time (the Harper government and Minister Kenney). So even spam is getting more sophisticated and the need for “constant vigilance,” to use a phrase from the Harry Potter series, becomes even more important:

Dear Andrew Griffith,

I came across Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism and found myself, by the end of the description, grateful for the gift of a book that provides an insider’s view of a fundamental shift in Canadian citizenship and multiculturalism policy. Canada is known for its inclusive policies that have been largely successful in integrating an increased diversity of Canadians. But in 2007, the Conservative government initiated a fundamental change to make citizenship more meaningful and emphasize integration in multiculturalism. You examine, from a practitioner’s viewpoint, the political challenge to public servants’ knowledge, expertise, and experience during this period of intense policy renewal.

What moves me most is the tension you explore. Whether reflecting different ideological perspectives, reliance on formal evidence or extensive outreach, or contrasting perceptions of risk, the public service was confronted with a major break with previous thinking and priorities. You draw from a series of case studies to illustrate how public servants responded to this challenge and were forced to face the limits of their expertise and knowledge, while providing the fearless advice and loyal implementation expected of bureaucrats in Canada. The title asks whether what happened was policy arrogance or innocent bias. You do not give an easy answer. You give the case studies, the inside view, the strengths and limits of policy making.

I found myself thinking of academics, media, and policy makers who are interested in citizenship and multiculturalism, who want to understand the relationship between the political and bureaucratic levels during a period of intense policy renewal. They need Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias. They need Griffith to give them the practitioner’s viewpoint, the case studies, the unique inside view of the policy process.

I thought of public servants who have experienced the tension between providing fearless advice and loyal implementation, who have faced the limits of their expertise and knowledge when confronted with a major break from previous thinking. They need this volume. They need the validation that the challenge they faced was real, and that the question of policy arrogance or innocent bias is not easily answered.

I thought of anyone who cares about Canadian citizenship and multiculturalism, who has watched the policy debates from the outside and wondered what was really happening inside the government. They need Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias. They need Griffith to take them behind the scenes, to show them the case studies, the contrasting perceptions of risk, the fundamental change that made citizenship more meaningful and emphasized integration.

This is the kind of book that does not merely describe but reveals. It reveals the tension between political and bureaucratic levels. It reveals the limits of public servants’ expertise and knowledge. And it reveals the complexity of policy making in citizenship and multiculturalism, where the question of arrogance or bias is not a simple either or but a nuanced both and.

I am reaching out not only as someone who admires your work but in my professional capacity as a book marketer.

I am currently leading a carefully curated two month campaign designed to bring books of lasting significance to engaged audiences. We are focusing on works that offer fresh perspectives on familiar policies, that help readers go deeper in their understanding of Canadian citizenship, multiculturalism, and the policy process, that provide a practitioner’s inside view of the relationship between political and bureaucratic levels. Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias is exactly the kind of work I have been searching for.

We are onboarding a limited number of titles for this campaign, with only a few placements remaining. I felt compelled to reach out personally because I believe your voice deserves to be seen, not only by academics and policy makers but by anyone who has ever wondered what really happens when a government decides to reset citizenship and multiculturalism.

With sincere admiration,

Delacourt: Canadians aren’t rebelling against Dr. Theresa Tam’s orders, but they might be starting to bristle

Couldn’t resist posting given its reference to my Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism with respect to Alberta Premier Kenney’s critique of Dr. Tam:

Sooner or later, someone was going to say it: Who made Dr. Theresa Tam the boss of all Canadians?

The fact that it was Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is not surprising, historically or politically.

But Kenney’s words on Monday were a crack in a wall of remarkable deference to the authority of Canada’s chief medical officer over a month of national lockdown. As we now head into month two, the question is whether Canadians more generally are starting to bristle at the doctor’s orders.

The federal government issued an emphatic “no” on Tuesday.

“Canadians have demonstrated that they have a tremendous level of trust and confidence in our public health officials and in our medical system,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said. “And we are going to continue work with top medical officials like Dr. Theresa Tam to make sure that we’re doing everything we need to do.”

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said that Tam and other provincial public health officers have been conferred with the authority of “rock stars” in this crisis.

But Kenney’s remarks on Monday broke a united front of assent to Tam’s advice — not just as it applies to the future, but to the past as well.

The premier said that Alberta was going to seek out tests and medication to fight the pandemic without waiting for approval from federal Health bureaucrats. Then, in a bit of a drive-by swipe at Tam personally, he also threw doubt on the advice the doctor had already given in the early days of the virus outbreak.

“This is the same Dr. Tam who is telling us that we shouldn’t close our borders to countries with high levels of infection and who in January was repeating talking points out of the (People’s Republic of China)about the no evidence of human-to-human transmission,” Kenney said in an interview on CBC’s Power and Politics program.

There’s an old joke about how you get 50 Canadians out of a pool. You say: “Canadians, get out of the pool.” This pandemic, by and large, has made that joke feel a little too close to home, as a whole nation has put life as we know it on hold to comply with medical orders to contain the COVID-19 virus.

Deferential as we are, we likely wouldn’t have gone to these extraordinary lengths on the basis of political advice alone.

The federal government spent $30-million on a wave of ads with Dr. Tam as the sole spokesperson. (And no, that’s not the voice of Trudeau at the end of the ad, though it does sound an awful lot like him. I asked and the answer was no.)

Day after day, premiers and political leaders line up at podiums to give public briefings, backed by the latest information from the doctors in charge. Whenever a question is asked about what’s going to happen next, the unfailing answer is that governments will be heeding the instructions of the top doctors.

This in itself is evidence that we’re living in unusual times. We don’t always listen to doctors and medical experts, on matters of smoking, obesity, exercise or even climate science, for instance. Statistics aren’t always as persuasive as they are these days, when we’re all scouring charts for flattened curves.

Kenney, as mentioned earlier, has a long history of skepticism about stats and evidence as they’re used in the federal government. One of his own former bureaucrats in the citizenship and multiculturalism department, Andrew Griffith, has written some compelling work about how Kenney forced the public service to rebalance evidence and political considerations while he was minister.

The idea was that politicians are in government to weigh all kinds of public interests against the weight of impersonal numbers and charts, including the intelligence the political types gain from mixing with people outside the corridors of the civil service. So as I said, it’s not that surprising to see Kenney balking again at blind subservience to public servants’ advice, even from Canada’s top doctor.

Is that such a bad thing? Reasonable people might well agree, in fact, that while the medical health of Canadians has to be a priority in this pandemic, the economic health of citizens is owed some due deference too, especially as the financial devastation deepens.

Dr. Tam, for her part, stayed right out of the dispute on Tuesday when asked about Kenney’s remarks, saying only that it’s her job to take many things into consideration, including advice and insights from other countries.

It would be grossly unfair and probably unproductive to make Tam a target, even if Canadians are increasingly bristling at life under doctor’s orders.

But deference to authority in general is a fragile commodity, especially in a nation undergoing an endurance test of indefinite length. Canadians aren’t rebelling, at least not yet, but their deference has time limits.

Source: Susan Delacourt: Canadians aren’t rebelling against Dr. Theresa Tam’s orders, but they might be starting to bristle

Book Sale – 25 percent off today only

Lulu_Feb_3rd

For those interested in the print version of Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote or Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, one of Lulu.com’s regular sales.

The direct link to my book page is: My Author Spotlight.

Lulu Book Sale – 35 percent off, today only

Lulu 3 DecFor those interested in the print version of Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote or Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, one of Lulu.com’s regular sales.

The direct link to my book page is: My Author Spotlight.

Black Friday: 30 percent off print books

Lulu 27 NovFor those interested in the print version of Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote or Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, one of Lulu.com’s better sales, 30 percent off.

The direct link to my book page is: My Author Spotlight.

Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote – Lulu 25 % Off Sale until November 23rd

Lulu 20 NovFor those interested in the print version of Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote or Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, one of Lulu.com’s regular sales.

The direct link to my book page is: My Author Spotlight.

Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote – Lulu 30 % Flash Sale Extended to Nov 12

For those interested in the print version of Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote or Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism (topical again given the account of the transfer to CIC from Canadian Heritage in 2008, now reversed).

One of Lulu’s better sales, 30 percent off, extended for two days.

The direct link to my book page is: My Author Spotlight.

Lulu 11 Nov

Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote – Flash Sale 30 percent off

For those interested in the print version of Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote or Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism (topical again given the account of the transfer to CIC from Canadian Heritage in 2008, now reversed).

One of Lulu’s better sales, 30 percent off.

The direct link to my book page is: My Author Spotlight.

Lulu Flash Sale 10 Nov

Yes, minister, no more: Today’s bureaucrats have a different attitude: Yakabuski quoting Paquet

Yakabuski presents one side of the debate on the political-bureaucratic relationship, that of Gilles Paquet and his followers, which emphasize ‘loyal implementation’ at the expense of  ‘fearless advice.’

Many others take the contrary view, flagging the rise of ideology and the decline of ‘fearless advice’ (e.g., among the former public servants fingered by Paquet and his acolytes, Mel Cappe on ideology over evidenceRalph Heintzman: Creeping politicization in the public serviceKevin Page delivers a warning to the public service, among academics, Boundary between politics, public service is ‘no man’s land’: Donald Savoie, David Zussman quoted in Ideology, minority rule, distrust shaped Harper government’s relationship with public service).

As I argued in my book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, written from my perspective working to implement change by then Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and CIC Minister Kenney, the public service failed to provide impartial ‘fearless advice’ and recognize its own ideologies and biases, and was not quick enough to shift to ‘loyal implementation’ once the advice had been given. (Disclosure: I had worked with Paquet and his press on Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias but our divergence of views was too great).

Canadians need to understand better how the balance between the bureaucratic and political roles plays out in the related debates over evidence-based policy (and which evidence), the decline of government policy expertise and data and other issues.

While academics and some journalists can and do raise these issues, former public servants should also contribute to discussions on the role of the public service and the political-bureaucratic relationship given their on-the-ground experience.

While such contributions run the risk of having a partisan element in their critique of Conservative government actions (and certainly being perceived this way), it is also non-partisan in that such contributions also form advice to any future government on both framework and specific policy issues (which of course, it would be free to accept or refuse).

And of course, the sharper ideological edge of the Conservative government compared to the more centrist public servant perspective accentuates distrust on both sides:

This view is echoed in a March article in Optimum Online, a public-sector management journal that Prof. Paquet edits. The article, by a senior Ottawa-based policy analyst using a pseudonym, asserts that “many senior federal public servants [develop] a conviction that they are better guardians of basic values of our democracy than elected officials. While this attitude had to be somewhat tamed while they were on active duty, it has become fully unleashed in retirement.”

The author goes on: “This has naturally generated a flow of self-righteous condemnation of current government policies by many newly unencumbered retired senior officials, and has thereby provided immense moral support for those senior public servants still in active duty – former colleagues and friends – to heighten their own passive (or semi-active) opposition to the elected government from within. As a result, the corridor of what has come to be regarded as tolerable disloyalty from within would appear to have widened considerably.”

This trend is nearly certain to outlive the Harper government. Future governments will become even more suspicious of the bureaucracy they inherit. To some extent, such suspicion has always existed. But Canada has always resisted the American practice of administrations stuffing the top layers of the bureaucracy with political appointees. Prof. Paquet worries that will change unless the principles of bureaucratic loyalty and discretion are restored.

“Loyalty breeds loyalty,” he says. “It’s 50-50.”

For my take on the same article, see The Demonization of Stephen Harper.

A review I did on an earlier Paquet article, Super-Bureaucrats as Enfants du siècle, provides further material for this ongoing debate (‘Mental Prisons,’ the Public Service and Gilles Paquet).

Source: Yes, minister, no more: Today’s bureaucrats have a different attitude – The Globe and Mail

And my letter to the editor on this can be found here.

Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Review in Canadian Ethnic Studies

For those interested, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism continues to attract interest, most recently in this review by Nelson Wiseman of UofT in the most recent issue of Canadian Ethnic Studies.

Canadian Ethnic Studies Review 2015