Letters to the Editors

AMS let down

Re: “AMS votes down motion to donate to Haiti relief” (Jan. 22, 2010).

Dear Editors,

I’m outraged about the AMS assembly’s vote to not approve the $0.10 donation for the Haiti earthquake relief. I can understand that they didn’t want to combine external issues with the AMS elections, but what does that say about the AMS?

I believe it’s our moral responsible for assist those in Haiti. The AMS is constantly talking about diversity and equality and this donation would have been a perfect opportunity to exemplify that. I had been an avid supporter of the AMS but not anymore because I, for one, refuse to support an organization that cares about their personal political gain than millions of others in need.

Sorry, AMS. You just lost my vote and—more importantly—my respect.

Melissa Shack,

Nurs ’10

Partisan politics

Dear Editors,

It’s that wonderful time of year again when campus is abuzz with debate over the upcoming AMS executive election. It’s an exciting time for anyone who has any interest in politics or government.

But let’s not kid ourselves—a large portion of the Queen’s community couldn’t care less. Why? Apathy, frustration and ignorance, to name a few reasons. While there’s an effort to keep students interested by the teams and the AMS, I believe it’s the inabilityof the executive teams to critically assess opposing platforms during debate which limits the popularity of the electoral process.

Being critical when investigating a platform, sometimes negatively coined as partisanship, is crucial to any political system.

A lack of partisan politics takes away possible legitimate controversy with regard to the election. Did the teams put effort into their vision? Or are their platforms a rhetorical contribution in their race for another bullet on their resume? The only controversy on this campus is of an incriminating Facebook post, which is hardly newsworthy at all.

Aside from controversy, the silencing of critical thought in our ‘Carebear’ debates limits the education of voters regarding the teams’ platforms. Most of the time, teams will scrupulously investigate the opposition’s platform—denying their right to voice their concerns on this matter is severely detrimental to the voter.

This year we are again presented with two capable executive teams. A critical debate could play an enormous role in winning undecided votes and thus effectively tip popular opinion one way or another.

A critical debate is in the interest of both the AMS teams and the average Queen’s student. Not having a critical debate makes little sense and is a major disservice to the community.

Rather than trying to change some of the rules of an AMS debate, let’s have a real debate.

Teams would write a series of questions concerning the their opponents’ platform. The moderator would then ask the questions to the appropriate candidates. Personal attacks wouldn’t be permitted. This debate would help to educate voters, demonstrate if candidates can defend their vision and spur voter interest in the electoral race.

This is a modest suggestion, but I believe it would go a long way in getting students excited and politically active.

David Sinkinson,

ArtSci ’11

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