Letters to the Editors

Faculty society executives debate ComSoc counsellor

Dear Editors:
Re: “Shorter wait for business students” (Journal, January 26, 2007).

The commerce program’s access to counselling has received some rather controversial press in
the Journal over the last week. As a fourth-year commerce student and a member of the ComSoc
executive, the amount of attention that this service has received comes as a surprise to me and many of my fellow commerce students. Hence, I would like to take this opportunity to provide some background.

In winter term 2005, it was brought to the attention of ComSoc that there were long waits to receive counselling service through the traditional Health, Counselling and Disability Services (HCDS) channels. Two commerce students then proposed that ComSoc fund an initiative to bring a part-time
counsellor to Goodes Hall using the CORE fund.

The CORE fund is an endowment that is funded by an annual $50 opt-outable fee which can then be used by commerce students to fund projects and initiatives for commerce students. The CORE fund has made numerous projects possible including purchasing projector screens and loaner laptops.
ComSoc funded the first 12 months of the counselling program, which were met with tremendous success. All counselling spots available were filled quickly. From this, I think it is clear that there was (and is, the appointments still fill up fast) a need in commerce for these services—it was not simply a matter of convenience. By no means do I think this demand is unique— students from all programs face stress and other emotional issues. However, because ComSoc was fortunate enough to have the
resources, it took the opportunity to fill this need. Taking on this initiative was, quite simply, ComSoc fulfilling its mandate as student leaders to better the lives of commerce students.

Since the first 12 months, the project has been funded by the School of Business and has enjoyed continued success. This initiative should be viewed as a pilot project that, if successful, could be initiated in other programs across the University. If it is financially feasible, I would encourage all programs to consider something similar. I would encourage others to look to this initiative as an
option, not a roadblock, and direct their attention to real issues of controversy.

Claire Marchant
Vice-President Internal
Queen’s Commerce Society

After-hours child care needed now

Dear Editors:
Re: “University with a baby” (Journal, January 23, 2007).

I commend the Journal for paying attention to child care at Queen’s. Katie Drummond’s article did a good job of covering the challenges facing student and faculty parents who are in need of affordable child care services. While in the long term the number of available spaces must increase dramatically, an after-hours service is desperately needed now. All Queen’s community members should work with their representative bodies—SGPS, AMS, QUSA, QUFA—to advocate for more funding.

This being said I would like to point out an inaccuracy in the article, which states: “When the AMS cancelled the after-hours child care service, the SGPS was unwilling to contribute more money to the program.” This is untrue. The service was effectively cancelled without consultation, and our organization was completely incapable of providing the necessary funds to make up for this shortfall.

Andrew Stevens
President, Society of Graduate and Professional Students

Spoiling ballot is no solution

Dear Editors:
Re: Letter, ‘Response to Tom Woodhall’s column’ (Journal, February 6, 2007).

I find it ironic that Chris Horkins, in his rebuttal to Woodhall’s column, uses similar tactics to those being implemented in his defense, calling the piece an “unprovoked attack” and “uninformed vilification.” This is exactly the stance Woodhall seeks to criticize. The Other Campaign is advocating spoiling ballots for the sole purpose of protesting their perception that the two AMS candidate teams are not paying any attention to the issues they have broached—what practical purpose will this serve?

Any at all?

The issues being raised by the Others won’t magically become part of the winning team’s platform under the weight of a few spoiled ballots, will they? This just means the Commission of Internal Affairs will have that many fewer ballots to count when the election is over. What is truly laughable is that Horkins doesn’t see, or at least choose to see, that Woodhall is right on the money when he says the Other Campaign lacks legitimacy by not fielding their own team. How easy is it to just sit back and criticize? Woodhall never said the Others are banned from having and voicing their opinions but that if
they were actually willing to effect the change they wish to see, they should become active members of the process rather than a group of malcontents and anarchists who could do no more than print off flyers to insert in copies of the Journal.

I, for one, will not be spoiling my ballot because I would rather be part of the solution than part of
the problem.

Julian Morey
ArtSci ’07

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.

When commenting, be considerate and respectful of writers and fellow commenters. Try to stay on topic. Spam and comments that are hateful or discriminatory will be deleted. Our full commenting policy can be read here.