Rogers’ comments run counter to respectful dialogue
Dear Editors,
Re: “True Scholars Only” (Journal, Mar. 19, 2009)
While I respect Don Rogers’ efforts (if not always his methods) to encourage students to foster a renewed sense of civility and respect in the Queen’s housing neighbourhood, his suggestion that many students “spend a bit of time attending the odd class and a lot of time partying” illustrates a lack of understanding about the Queen’s student community. These types of baseless, sweeping generalizations are exactly the comments that further distance students from any willingness to engage in a broader, more productive dialogue—one that is so desperately needed and has been called for by Mr. Rogers himself.
It is also concerning that Mr. Rogers has suggested that, “university should be made less accessible to those who are not true scholars.” Although his suggestion that university should be made less accessible is concerning, I understand and respect Mr. Roger’s intent to encourage students to focus on academics; however, I question how he would suggest universities assess which applicants are “true scholars.” Queen’s already has some of the highest entrance standards and is one of very few remaining schools that considers students’ personal character in the application process through the “personal statement of experience.” The reality is that many of the students Mr. Rogers takes issue with are likely extremely strong students in the classroom—if they weren’t, they simply wouldn’t be here.
Neither making university less accessible nor making sweeping, offensive generalizations will foster a respectful, productive dialogue. Instead, we must work together with Mr. Rogers—and indeed all Kingston residents—to identify common interests and objectives so that we may work collectively and respectfully to address them. I hope we, as students, can count on Mr. Rogers to set aside the rhetoric and to begin working with us to foster a more collaborative, respectful dialogue.
David Waugh
Com ’08, MPA ’09
Commerce Society president 2007-08 Don’t sell-out our education
Dear Editors,
Re: “Coke contract a grey area” (Journal, Mar. 19, 2009)
As I couldn’t personally attend the meeting, I was delighted to read that the motion against Queen’s re-signing with Coke was passed. Coke has committed gross human rights atrocities, from the murdering of union leaders to depleting and polluting drinking water in India and Columbia to turning drinking water—a human right—into a commodity. Just as an aside, that Dasani water some pay a ridiculous price for is just Brampton tap water that’s been filtered, and it’s also less regulated than the Kingston water we have the privilege of getting from the tap for almost nothing.
My delight turned to confusion and anger when I read the editorial regarding the motion that mentions “…the university can either re-sign with Coke or seek a new contract with another cold beverage company.” In my mind, we might as well stay with Coke. Any cold beverage company that has the weight to sign exclusive contracts with universities is going to have human rights atrocities under its belt, and when it comes down to it, this university is a public space. Does no one else see the ethical issue with Queen’s jumping into bed with a private, transnational corporation? Yes, campus groups need money but are we really at the point in this country where a university has to sell itself just for campus groups to be able to function?
This state that we’re in is a clear indication of how little the Canadian and Ontario government are really committed to their citizens. One can take a first-year class here at Queen’s that discusses the overwhelming amount of research that shows that a university education leads to healthier individuals and ultimately a healthier population. This information isn’t hidden or difficult to understand, and one would think that a government committed to its people would do everything in its power to create a healthier population. I guess this really isn’t the case here.
Oh, Canada…
Kirié McMurchy
ArtSci ’12
Laing’s response ‘offensive’
Dear Editors,
Re: “Response to ‘Betrayal’ review” (Journal, Mar. 19, 2009)
I found Elizabeth Laing’s letter published Mar. 19 to be boorish, crass and tactless.
Boschman’s duty as a critic is to share her informed opinion of a piece of theatre. Her review of Betrayal did just that. That Laing could not graciously accept Boschman’s criticisms is indicative of a staggering lack of professionalism. One must be able to accept an appraisal of one’s work, no matter how biting, and learn something from it.
How often does Jackie Maxwell or Peter Hinton’s name appear in the newspaper attached to a piece of fuming juvenilia directed at their critics? Never. Professor Kim Renders’ recent production of The Seagull received a harsh review from Boschman. Was Renders’ reaction to publicly lambaste her? No. These artists maintain a level of decorum that Laing clearly does not possess. They let their work speak for itself.
Laing would do well to follow suit. By throwing a childish tantrum in the pages of a student newspaper, she has shattered any sense of professional credibility and artistic integrity she might have had and has devalued the work of the actors and technicians involved in the production. Most offensive, though, was Laing’s assertion that Boschman lacks a “passion for the art form.” First, this is exactly the sort of mean-spirited attack that Laing accused Boschman of making. Second, it is patently false. That Boschman devotes her time to attending and critiquing student productions speaks volumes about her love of the theatre. She is not paid for her work, writing instead out of, ahem, “genuine interest.” I have read many of her reviews and often disagree with them. But for Laing to equate Boschman’s criticism of her directorial choices to a lack of imagination is beyond ludicrous. Who is Laing to presume that Boschman “lack[s] genuine interest” in the theatre? How arrogant. How foolish.
Laing should be grateful that people spent their time and money taking in her production. If she’s going to respond to criticism like a petulant teenager, I would suggest she keep her future endeavours in the rehearsal hall. They’ll be safer there.
Adam Wray
ArtSci ’09
ASUS needs positive change
Dear Editors,
When student representatives are unable or unwilling to hold other student leaders accountable for their actions, there is a serious problem within our student government. Two weeks ago I attended my last ASUS Assembly as a student representative. I left the assembly totally disheartened by the lack of action on the part of student leaders to make progressive change at our school. This is not the first time I have felt this way. I am particularly upset at how ASUS has not done nearly enough to remedy the damage it caused over this academic year.
At the Assembly, I asked Mr. Mantle what he has learned from his efforts to enlighten himself about the importance of diversity on campus. His response was that he has not yet “digested” all the information he has received over the past semester and was therefore unable to report on how his views on diversity have changed. My shock at this answer was only mirrored by a select few other members of Assembly.
ASUS would love to showcase all the work they have done over the past semester and would specifically point to the newly created position of Diversity and Equity Officer as evidence of their efforts. Two weeks ago ASUS Assembly passed policy which places the Diversity and Equity Officer under the directive of the ASUS Executive. What this means is that if the President of ASUS were to commit any oppressive actions, the Officer could be easily silenced by the executive. This motion passed with little resistance from Assembly.
As someone who has served the students of ASUS for two years now, I feel that my colleagues have done distressingly little to make progress on this campus following the outcry against intolerance last semester. To all the progressive individuals who attend Queen’s and are as disappointed as I am in our student leadership, I urge you to get involved with student government and try to enact some much needed positive change on our campus.
Hakim Kassam
ArtSci ’09 ASUS vice-president 2007-08
Climate action needed or students will take ‘direct action’
Dear Editors,
Post-secondary institutions across North America have begun taking responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions and are thus proving to be leaders in the fight against climate change, even as our governments are collectively failing. Yet Queen’s is not keeping up with these other schools and is failing to move forward on this issue. We understand that the Queen’s administration is aware of the magnitude of this problem and that there is support within the Queen’s community for decisive action towards reducing the University’s greenhouse gases. In light of this, we ask for nothing less than a public commitment to climate action by Queen’s University to provide fast and meaningful action on climate change. Queen’s, as an institution of higher learning, is obligated to take a leadership role by acknowledging the need for international action on climate change.
Queen’s, with the help of many students, has begun to take some steps to reduce its ecological footprint, and these actions make social and economic sense. However, strong international action must be the endgame. By taking action before the next round of international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Queen’s will demonstrate to the student body how humanity can and will take on the most important challenge of this millennium.
We are in the midst of a revolution, and its consequences will be greater than any before it. No revolution is easy; none come neatly packaged in a green polyester sack. They are fought by those with the knowledge and perseverance to follow them through to the end.
At the last Board of Trustees meeting we asked the University to to make a public commitment to climate action. We have support from the majority of student leaders on campus, in addition to faculty, staff and alumni. It’s time for Queen’s to step it up, and if the administration won’t, it’s time for students to start taking direct action.
Expect to see us soon.
Jodi Rempel, ArtSci ’11
Paul Hershaw, ArtSci ’09
Queen’s Backing Action on Climate Change
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.