AMS motion lacks representation
Dear Editors,
Re: AMS wants to oust Hitchcock (Journal, March 7, 2008)
We’re writing to express our concern at the AMS’s decision to oppose the principal’s reappointment. The manner in which the AMS decided to offer their statement against the principal shows considerable negligence in consulting with students. AMS Assembly met in a closed-door session, meaning the minutes of the meeting will never be released. While we understand some didn’t want their opinions used against them, we can’t see why the AMS didn’t first have a public forum and then, if necessary, have a closed session. In this regard the AMS has particularly failed as a body for student representation.
After speaking with Assembly we were told they’re student representatives and they know the principal better than most students, making them best suited to speak to what makes a good principal. The latter is particularly troubling because it shows no understanding of what a representative is. Assembly are selected to voice the opinion of common students, not as experts. If of the Assembly know the principal on a working level, which most students don’t, then they’re the least appropriate actors to speak to what an average student thinks makes a good principal.
The AMS accuses Hitchcock of a “failure to understand … the issues that are of most importance to students within the Queen’s community and abroad,” yet they don’t define what these “student issues” are. The Queen’s Debating Union, like many students organizations, has received a great deal of from Principal Hitchcock. Without her assistance, the QDU wouldn’t have been able to attend several tournaments this year. If this isn’t showing dedication to student interests, what is?
We would hope that when it comes to something as important as who runs our school, the AMS take the time to ensure it’s actually expressing the student body’s opinion. Instead what we have is a vague statement that only serves to homogenize the student voice and to further antagonize relations between the students and the istration.
Lisa Jorgensen, ArtSci ’08 Ben McNelly, ArtSci ’09
Queen’s Debating Union executive
University’s stance on Lovelace fair
Dear Editors,
Re: “University’s lack of stance on Lovelace an ‘amoral disguise’” (Journal, March 7, 2008)
Alex Bourne suggests Queen’s istration is behaving amorally by not taking a stance on the Lovelace case. Which position does Bourne think the University should adopt? I presume Bourne inferred a preference for ing Lovelace, placing the faculty in the Mining and Geological Engineering Department and Geology Department in the unfair position of having to publicly oppose their employer. Favouring Frontenac Ventures is equally unfair to the Global Development Studies Department.
There’s hardly a unanimous student opinion that Lovelace’s incarceration is unjust. Among mining graduate and undergraduate students there’s an apparently common opinion he violated a court order and belongs in prison. Even environmentalists among us—yes, we exist in the mining department—believe uranium mining for electricity is the most environmentally friendly generating choice because it doesn’t release greenhouse gases.
I recently read an anti-uranium brochure citing radon gas emission as the major problem with the uranium tailings at the Elliot Lake operation. Keeping in mind this type of tailings pond is impermissible today, the highest source of radon in the United States is the burning of coal for electricity. I’m by no means suggesting alternative energy sources have no place, but they must be applied in appropriate amounts and locations. Goodwin Hall has solar cells. I’m sure this provides many of us with the warm fuzzy feeling we are helping the environment—we aren’t. Solar cell manufacturing requires more energy in production than they return in their lifetimes; additionally, fabrication produces harmful chemical waste. However, at a remote site with lots of sun they could be preferential to diesel generators.
Only coal and uranium have the capacity to be our major source of electricity generation, forcing us to choose. I believe nuclear energy’s the correct answer; development students may believe the opposite. But a university’s supposed to be a forum for the exchange of multiple sides of any issue. Neither side should be placing pressure on the istration to sell out part of its students and faculty for another.
Jeff Colden
Sci ’07
MEng ’08
Lovelace shouldn’t continue to lecture
Dear Editors,
Re: “Queen’s professor jailed for protest,” (Journal, Feb. 29, 2008)
As a resident of the community and a Queen’s student, I have had first-hand experience of the effects of the illegal actions carried out by Mr. Lovelace and other of the Ardoch Algonquin and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations (AFNA). I want to make it very clear that I do encourage the parties involved to form, and have, their own individual opinions on the issues presented regarding to uranium exploration. However, I don’t condone the illegal actions carried out by Mr. Lovelace and AFNA. I was stunned that the prospect of Mr. Lovelace lecturing at Queen’s University was even going to be questioned. I had no idea Queen’s University would even consider allowing criminals to lecture in their classrooms. Last summer’s protest, which lasted several months, forced Robertsville Mine owner Peter Jorgenson to abandon his business, which had been taken over by Mr. Lovelace and AFNA, which he said put him out of business. Keeping in mind that my home is next door to the protest, I was more than able to know, very accurately, what was happening at the protest site, which consisted of various illegal actions I refuse to discuss because I don’t wish to glorify the crimes committed by Mr. Lovelace and AFNA. Is Queen’s University going to turn a blind eye to the actions taken by Mr. Lovelace simply because “I have heard nothing but high praise for Mr. Lovelace … and his professionalism as a teacher is widely acknowledged,” as Principal Karen Hitchcock wrote? If Mr. Lovelace is allowed to continue to lecture at Queen’s, that sends a very strong message to the nation that Canadian law is alright to break. If Mr. Lovelace gets away with this, what else is going to be overlooked? I definitely don’t condone Mr. Lovelace continuing to lecture at Queen’s, and feel that he has lost this privilege.
Christina Riddell
ArtSci ’09
Catholic church ‘negative and restrictive’ when it comes to homosexuality
Dear Editors,
Re: “Christianity‘s not a ‘sex-negative’ religion” (Journal, March 7, 2008)
As a homosexual raised as a Catholic, I disagree with Gabrielle Ferri’s letter. She writes that Pope John Paul II “shifted the focus of church teachings being seen as restrictive to liberating” and argued that “understanding and living out real implications of human sexuality will make one free and able to love and live to the fullest human potential.” I assure Gabrielle that I have understood and lived out the real implications of my sexuality. This, as the Pope envisioned, has certainly made me free to love and to live my life to the fullest potential. However, I have done so in spite of the Catholic Church’s teachings, not because of them. In fact, the church—as a self-proclaimed holder of the absolute truth—although stating that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect”, asserts that homosexual tendencies are “objectively disordered,” and that homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity.” I love how the church “respects” me at the same time as calls me “intrinsically disordered.” The church’s respect for me grows if I love whomever I happen to love; then, I am “evil.” Even better, the church orders me to “chastity.”
More “liberating” is the fact that the church tries to impose its views on sexuality not just to its followers (something to which I would never object) but also to the rest of society. It orders not only Catholics “but […] all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society” to act against the tolerance of homosexual unions by “stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon.”
I think Gabrielle got all the definitions for her letter backwards. To clarify, 1) “positive” means “showing or expressing approval,” 2) “negative” means “prohibitory, as a command or order,” 3) “to liberate” means “to free from social constraints or discrimination,” and 4) “to restrict” means “to confine or keep within limits.” The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality are not positive and liberating but negative and restrictive.
Ana Ortiz de Guinea Lopez de Arana
PhD ’08
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].