Letters to the Editors

SGPS mindful of principalship review’s integrity

Dear Editors,

Re: “AMS stance brave, rash” (Journal, March 14, 2008)

Last week’s editorial alleges a “role reversal” in the way the AMS and the SGPS have chosen to participate in the discussions relating to the re-appointment of the principal. This reversal, according to the Journal, can be seen in the “brave” and “vocal” stance adopted by the AMS, and the presumably un-brave and un-vocal position of the SGPS, which, according to the Journal, has been to distance itself from the motion in question.

Although scrutinizing and criticizing the performance of not only the principal, but any administrative or academic office of the University, for that matter, is well within the rights of all students, this must be done a manner respectful of the review process already underway. The reservations we have expressed pertain only to the manner in which the AMS has chosen to voice its position, and not necessarily to the substance of the motion passed or the sentiments expressed therein.

While the Society of Graduate and Professional Students reserves the right to adopt a position in accordance with the views of its membership, we shall do so in a manner consistent with the parameters of the process already in place, being mindful of the importance of maintaining the integrity not only of the review process in place, but also of the offices of the institution and the individuals who occupy them.

Arash Farzam-Kia

President, Society of Graduate and Professional Students

Philosophy PhD candidate

‘Rosy’ portrayal of animal testing shocking

Dear Editors,

Re: “The ins and outs of ethics” (Journal, March 14, 2008)

While reading your article, I was shocked by Dr. Beresford’s rather rosy portrayal of current ethical guidelines on animal research. In particular I would like to contest her claim that “the animals’ welfare is looked after at all steps before, during and after the research project.” I fail to see how the poisoning, vivisection and killing of sentient beings is compatible with consideration for the welfare of those beings. The very fact that there are guidelines for animal research demonstrates that many scientists believe animals are capable of suffering. The fact that these guidelines are woefully inadequate demonstrates that many scientists simply don’t care. While it’s true these guidelines have been improved in recent years, we mustn’t confuse lesser abuse with no abuse or lesser immorality with morality. For anyone interested in an alternative perspective on the moral status of animal experimentation I would recommend Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics or Mark Rowlands’ Animals Like Us.

Adam Sproat

ArtSci ’09

Snowball-fight ‘chauvinism’ not justifiable

Dear Editors,

It’s amazing how some leaders of tomorrow still believe drinking justifies harassment, assault and outright disrespect. On Saturday, March 15, I walked along Johnson Street by a snowball fight. As I passed, one of the male participants yelled: “Hey, you have a vagina—you’re not welcome here!” I informed him I wasn’t interested in staying. They responded with “you cunt,” and “you bitch,” followed by a barrage of snowballs. I stopped and asked them to repeat what they had said. They continued throwing throughout our exchange.

“This is the easiest target ever,” their apparent leader said. I stood, unwilling to move. We’re told feminism is no longer needed, equality has been reached, these arguments are out-dated, yet a woman can still be pelted with snow for standing in defiance of male dominance and intimidation. It makes me question whether decades of advances in salaries, careers and sports leagues for women merely mask deeply rooted paradigms that have yet to shift.

And while I will remain enraged, they probably won’t even remember—they’ll shrug it off as a drunken moment, as would many of our supposedly highly educated peers.

To the Johnson Street boys hiding behind their snow-fort, I bid you good luck surviving in the real word, where alcohol won’t justify your embarrassing chauvinism.

Keira Loukes

PHE, ArtSci ’08

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