Lack of student pictures on new website upsetting
Dear Editors,
Apparently the new face of Queen’s is Karen Hitchcock, and only Karen Hitchcock? The previous website with a diversity of pictures was much more fun to log into.
Kimberly Ronson
ArtSci ’06
Campus diversity is relative to some
Dear Editors,
RE: “Lack of diversity on campus a reality” (Journal, Oct. 6, 2005).
Upon reading Fathima Cader’s letter blasting Queen’s for its lack of diversity, I couldn’t help but be offended. I would like to remind Fathima that diversity is relative.
I attended high school in the United States, in small towns, areas where diversity was virtually non-existent. At my high school in Vermont, I counted no more than 15 students out of a total student body of over 600 who weren’t white.
For me, coming to Queen’s was a relief to finally see a more accurate reflection of the real world. An area does not have to be as cosmopolitan as Toronto or Vancouver for it to be classified as diverse.
More bothersome to me however, is the way Fathima characterizes Queen’s as “surprisingly and disturbingly white.” What exactly does she mean by “disturbingly white?” What if I were to describe a population as “disturbingly Chinese” or “disturbingly black?” I’m fairly sure that making such a statement would be dangerously close to racism.
Patrick MacDonald
ArtSci ’06
Discussion of reasons behind Homecoming important
Dear Editors,
RE: “Justification for students’ behaviour shameful” (JournalPlus, Oct. 4, 2005).
In the Sept. 27 issue of the Journal, I was fortunate enough to have my article, “Aberdeen a protest against authority,” published, and it was later commented on by a number of letters to the editor printed online on Oct. 4.
My op-ed did not attempt to justify the activities on Aberdeen but instead to understand their cause.
Some of the letters commenting on the op-ed appear to have totally missed this point by portraying my argument—falsely—as offering excuses for certain acts that my article clearly said were reprehensible. These letters do nothing to advance discussion of this important issue—what caused the behaviour on Aberdeen—by their resort to personal abuse.
Nor is the discussion advanced by implying that I made arguments that I did not make, such as the suggestion of one writer that I was saying that what the students were protesting was as important as the issues protested during a G8 summit. What I did say was that the physical acts of the students were ones that we have become accustomed to seeing at a G8 summit protest.
The low point in the letters was reached by the assertion that writing about the causes of the behaviour during Homecoming was “more shameful than anything done by a drunken reveller on Aberdeen this past weekend.” We are not going to move forward from the situation we were in at Homecoming unless we engage in reasoned discussion of the causes of what occurred.
David Zarnett
ArtSci ’06
Students should take responsibility to find solutions to Aberdeen
Dear Editors,
Obviously Adèle Mercier’s comments inspired some student passion. Finally, it seemed, we students had something to say. I was starting to believe that Queen’s students were just going through the motions of their education, and, to extend Mercier’s comments, were “intelligent people who gave up their responsibility to think.” Mercier claims her “remarks were meant to provoke self-critical reflection” and I think she achieved her goal. However, I think that this critical reflection has just begun.
On Oct. 12, a Queen’s professor hosted a symposium to discuss the issues surrounding the Aberdeen aftermath; about 10 students attended. It was a disappointing number considering how many students seemed outraged by the whole affair.
Unlike the recent symposium composed mostly of Kingston residents, professors and elective representatives speaking “on behalf of the students,” why don’t we have students speaking for themselves? Please, let us reclaim our “responsibility to think.” Queen’s students desperately need to come together to discuss not only what happened at Aberdeen that night, but how we responded, and why. To deny this discussion would be to deny your education; aren’t we paying to learn how to think critically? How can we be ‘the best and the brightest … global leaders of tomorrow’ (an identity thrust upon us) if we won’t even take leadership in our small university setting?
Despite the amazing efforts and good intentions of the “Our School, Our Responsibility” fundraiser—which to date has raised almost $2,000—I think that an intellectual element is necessary to complement the monetary. Why don’t we use our minds to come up with solutions as opposed to just throwing money around?
The so-called “Aberdeen Riot” was not only about mob mentality and the flipping of a car, it was about race, class, respect, culture, community, privilege and social obligation. We have a responsibility to use our education for what it was meant for and think critically. Thus I propose the creation of a student-run symposium. Anyone interested in helping to organize the event is welcome to contact me at 2fd1@qlink.queensu.ca.
Let’s face it, it’s not about Aberdeen, it’s about identity. Aberdeen and Mercier inspired us. In fact, I believe them to be the necessary catalysts to bring about positive and active change. However, this is not solely the responsibility of the University administration and the student government.
Frances Darwin
ArtSci ’06
Response to Mercier’s letter
Dear Editors,
RE: “Mercier clarifies letter published in Toronto Star” (JournalPlus, October 4, 2005) and “Mercier responds to students” (Journal, Oct. 6, 2005).
To the irrefutably insufferable and morally disgraceful Adèle Mercier, I offer these famous words of wisdom: it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
But if you absolutely insist on polluting the pages of the Journal with your asinine opinions then please, for the love of God, learn the virtue of brevity.
Steven Seligman
ArtSci ’05
Elementary students respond to garbage on lakeshore
Dear Editors,
Our class went down to the shore of Lake Ontario to clean up the shoreline on Sept. 14. We did this for the Shoreline Cleanup, which happens all around the world. We picked up thousands of cigarette butts, hundreds of plastic beverage bottles, a microwave and lots more. But on Sept. 25 the shoreline was covered again with litter, beer bottles, soda cans, cigarette butts, and even a trash can knocked over everywhere and much more. Over Homecoming the shore was covered again with trash. We welcome people back but we don’t welcome the trash. Who will take responsibility of cleaning the shoreline this time?
Mr. Candela’s Grade 5/6 class
Winston Churchill Public School
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.