Letters to the editors
Students, alumni comment on AMS elections
Dear Editors,
Re: “AMS Campaigns Gets Personal” (Journal, Jan. 23, 2009)
Since graduating from Queens I have had the opportunity to view the Queens culture through the eyes of an outsider. There is a very clear disconnect between the Queens bubble and the rest of the world. This has become very apparent through the series of events at Queens that garnered the attention of the national media. This latest racial incident involving a candidate for the AMS leadership seems to follow in the same vein but shows a different reaction by the Queens community, or at least by the Journal.
As a person of African descent, I am always insulted by the use of terms that are derogatory to any minority group, regardless of who is making use of the words. Not only am I appalled that this VP candidate used the term, but I am just as shocked that the Journal would actually repeat the comments made. My biggest concern, however, is that the original insult was not the focus of the article written. Irrespective of how the comment was discovered, the use of the n-word is a deplorable action.
The Journal should not be afraid to call a spade a spade. It should not be afraid of being seen to side with a white individual over a person from a visible minority in a matter of race relations. Simply because he is also from a visible minority does not give him the right to make blatantly racist comments. It does not matter how long ago these comments were made. The simple fact that the racist comment was made should be a very good indication to the voting students of the character of this individual. I am glad that someone had the courage to bring forward this comment.
Glen Arthur
Sci ’08
Dear Editors,
Re: “AMS Campaigns Gets Personal” (Journal, Jan. 23, 2009)
It’s tempting to look to the past for guidance on an issue this complex and emotionally charged. It’s easy to draw comparisons to events from last fall and infer what the correct response must therefore be. But true leadership seeks guidance from the past—not to stay consistent with it but rather to learn what events tomorrow may ultimately transpire from our choice of actions today. The past teaches us lessons; it does not dictate our future.
Instead of striving for consistency with what has been done before, I think that a better decision is made by trying to answer two questions: “what sort of community do we want to live in?” and “what paths will take us there?”
To the first question, I think mistakes should be treated with understanding, not indignation, and that a community where apologies are welcomed and accepted is infinitely stronger than one in which they are scorned. I also think that our student leaders should be judged by the quality of their ideas, the strength of their work ethic and their capacity for growth rather than the dirt that can be found on them if someone goes digging. This is the community I want here at Queen’s.
And to the second question, I think that we will come closer to achieving this community if Suhail’s apology is accepted than if it is not. To me, that is leadership.
Regardless of who you support in this election, Suhail Panjwani should be treated with the respect that he deserves. This is someone who has willingly subjected himself to intense scrutiny and put his reputation on the line in order to participate in public debate and offer his services towards making Queen’s a better place. Well done, sir.
John Manning
AMS VP (Operations) 07-08
ArtSci ’09
Dear Editors,
Upon reading the various platforms of the teams running for faculty society executives, student trustee, senators, year presidents and whatever else, there are two things I’ve concluded. The first is that these positions lack transparency and overall clarity. What exactly is the role of year execs and senators? When I look up the candidates, I expect to find a platform. Instead, I find their ego padded autobiography. That’s all dandy but what is your vision for the role, how will you fulfill it to its utmost capacity and what reason do I have to believe you will represent me? That’s what I’m looking for when I look up a candidate; their lifelong aspirations are not priority information.
The second thing I’ve noticed is the utter rhetoric regarding “diversity” that laces these platforms. Many of them boast ideas to make Queen’s more open and accepting by addressing issues of intolerance and discrimination. As someone who spent much of her semester doing exactly that, I wonder where the heck these candidates were then? We could have used their support. And as someone who has experienced discrimination at Queen’s, these promises of working to enhance inclusivity mean nothing to me because these candidates were seldom, if at all, present during QUMSA’s Campaign for a Hate-Free Campus. Most candidates did not bother to endorse QUMSA’s statement condemning hatred and discrimination, though more than 300 other individuals from both within and outside Queen’s did. All these are telling factors that voters should consider before buying into political rhetoric.
That said, I have faith in both AMS teams. Prior to the campaign season, candidates from both teams demonstrated genuine concern over issues of discrimination and provided support to me and the clubs which attempted to address such issues. I cannot say the same for any others.
Safiah Chowdhury
ArtSci ’11
