Letters to the Editors

Open debate with Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad isn’t possible

Dear Editors,

Re: “A (closed) New York state of mind” (Journal, Sept. 28, 2007)

In your editorial, you defend Columbia University’s decision to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and deride those who opposed his appearance as having closed minds. You state: “There’s a huge rift between Western ideologies and those promoted by leaders such as Ahmadinejad, but that rift won’t be reconciled unless open discussions are welcome on both sides.”

How can one have reconciliation between an ideology of freedom and one of oppression? The rationality, liberty and individualism that make Western civilization great represent the polar opposite of the barbaric theocracy in Iran. Does it make sense to speak of “open discussion” with a regime that ruthlessly silences all dissent? Furthermore, what makes you think Ahmadinejad is interested in reconciliation? The man is an Islamic supremacist with an apocalyptic vision of the future in which the entire world is forced to submit to Islam. One cannot engage in rational debate with that kind of base fanaticism.

Congratulations Columbia! You succeeded in legitimizing an evil dictator and handing him a huge propaganda victory.

Of course, the supreme irony here is that none of this high-minded rhetoric about free speech mattered very much to Columbia when the speaker in question was Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project. In that case, the University allowed left-wing thugs to shut down the speech with violence and subsequently cancelled a future speaking engagement. To the editors of the Journal, of course, this was probably a laudable example of “student activism” coupled with the University’s praiseworthy desire to maintain an environment free of expression that might be “offensive” to some members of the community.

Douglas Treilhard

ArtSci ’10

Department refuses to take responsibility for low ECE enrollment

Dear Editors,

Re: “Electrical engineering loses $250,000 in cuts” (Journal, Sept. 25, 2007)

It is disappointing that enrolment in Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) has fallen so low that faculty positions need to be eliminated. But it’s clear from the department head’s comments that they still refuse to take responsibility for their failures over the last 15 years.

Computer engineering did not drop from 150 students a few years ago to 13 students this year because the Faculty of Applied Science does not offer a direct-entry program or teach ECE material in first year. The real problem is the computer engineering curriculum itself, which was already irrelevant when it was introduced without student consultation almost 10 years ago. The decision-makers in the ECE department were never interested in what their students needed or wanted to learn.  It should come as no surprise that students, in turn, are no longer interested in what they have to offer.

Gabriel Desjardins

Sci ’99

Carens-Nedelsky’s claims misinformed, inaccurate

Dear Editors,

 Re: “Brown overreacts about ‘non-event,’ party theme ‘not the issue’ (Journal, Oct. 2, 2007)

Michael Carens-Nedelsky has not only completely missed the mark in his claim that Brown overreacted about offensively themed off-campus parties, but should consider getting his facts straight before publishing.  First of all, Carens-Nedelsky states, “the AMS has no right or responsibility to interfere in the events of students that are held off-campus.”  In fact, the AMS has both that right and that responsibility since its mission statement is, “to serve and represent the diversity of students at Queen’s,” while one of its operating statements is, “to be non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic and otherwise inclusive and non-discriminatory.”  Furthermore, Section 2.01.02 of the constitution states that one of the objectives of the Society shall be “to represent Queen’s students within the University and externally … ” (ie. off-campus, if need be.)  Regardless, the opinion piece was merely a recommendation for students to think about their actions.  And for the record, the AMS itself did not actually “interfere” with any party; the University did.

Next, the Journal must not take blame for this piece.  The opinion-editorial is not a reflection of the Journal’s opinion, is not meant to be news, it’s meant to be a forum for discussion, and often discusses an overlooked issue—all criteria for which are met in Brown’s piece.  Carens-Nedelsky can rest assured that the Journal has remained a “source of news” and is not “a soap box for the AMS.”  Now, it’s just wonderful that the organizers apologized for their offensiveness, but the issue addressed in Brown’s piece is that the organizers had previously thought this to be a fun(ny?) theme, and that this is clearly not an isolated incident.  Brown’s aims were never to alienate the organizers—and please note that names were never mentioned— it was to target all those past and present that have thrown, considered throwing, or considered attending such parties.   Calling Brown’s piece an overreaction is denying the experiences of racism felt time and time again on this campus.  I applaud him for bringing to light this often overlooked issue.

We are past the period in history in which the public and private spheres are divorced. It is vital for public figures to remark on the realm of the private (especially when such private affairs are made public on Facebook), in order to ensure that the rights of their constituents are being met.

 
Talia Radcliffe

ArtSci ’08

Green Party proposals reward efficiency, help environment

Dear Editors,

Re: “Green Party’s health-care scheme unrealistic; NDP makes costly promises” (Journal, Oct. 2, 2007)

The misleading article by Brandon Thao should not be called an “election analysis” but more correctly “party criticism.” We find it puzzling that the Journal would print such an overtly biased article that targets Ontario’s two smaller political parties instead of using an unbiased approach to analyze all parties. Queen’s students deserve at least that.

Mr. Thao argues that the Green tax shift will drive manufacturers away from Canada. This could not be farther from the truth. The Green Party is proposing a tax shift that will move taxes equally away from business income and onto resource use. Indeed, the tax shift will provide manufacturers with rewards for increasing their efficiency, while also leading to a better environment for all Canadians.

He also argues that Canadian society doesn’t have strong support for healthy living campaigns. If this is true, then why do only 19 percent of Canadians smoke today, compared to 50 percent in 1965? Also, with increasing numbers of smog days, asthma rates that are 20 times higher than they were 20 years ago, and an estimated 1,900 premature deaths due to bad air quality, wouldn’t it make sense to address the sources of air pollution?

The Green Party believes in investing in preventing the causes of illnesses, and that includes more than just telling people to stop smoking and eating McDonalds. Green politics emphasizes a holistic approach—the environment, healthcare and the economy all tied together.

Once our environment becomes cleaner to live in, our health will improve naturally while reducing the burden on the health care system. Our approach is the only one in Ontario that is forward-looking. This approach is incredibly important for us students, in order to maintain well-being and stability for our future.

Liz Spang, MA ’09

Michael Paskewitz, ArtSci ’09

Queen’s Greens Co-Chairs

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content