Looking back the day after Homecoming, most students are not particularly pleased, or proud, of what occurred. It seems this year was especially chaotic. The destruction of property to the extent that we saw Saturday night is usually characteristic of heated political protest rather than student partying (not to say that student partying is not at times destructive). The police presence seemed reminiscent of the riots we associate with the G8 conferences in Seattle, Quebec City and, most recently, Edinburgh.
Most will be quick to view what happened Saturday night as a reflection of students “gone wild” under the influence of alcohol and possibly other dangerous drugs. However, this view seems too superficial. Homecoming this year was as much a protest against Kingston authorities as it was an act in defense of an established tradition and student privilege to crowd a short, narrow street called Aberdeen on one night of the year.
In the days and weeks before Homecoming there was media coverage on what the police response was going to be on Saturday night. Kingston Police developed and refined a plan that they believed would reduce the likelihood of problems occurring. Authorities in Kingston, including the Queen’s istration, feared that by crowding Aberdeen Street, ambulances and fire trucks would be unable to through and reach those in need of help. To crowd such a street would be put at risk the very people doing the crowding. However, it is quite clear that the Kingston Police remarkably failed in their effort to prevent Homecoming chaos.
Even with increased police presence, it seems as if Aberdeen was still jam-packed with partiers while destruction of property—specifically, a flipped and burning car—according to my own observations, was at its highest since 2002. What is the relation between an increased police presence near Aberdeen and the continuation of the Homecoming tradition as all Queen’s students know it? The relation is that Homecoming transformed beyond just an annual party and turned into a grassroots, spontaneous defiance against authority. It was a random and unwanted occurrence that a car was parked on Aberdeen at night. We all may wonder whether, without that car being turned over and subsequently bursting into flames, this Homecoming would be viewed with as much fanfare. The fact that the car was destroyed in the face of such a police presence only a few feet north and south of the car seems to further illustrate the point that Homecoming was more of a protest than a party.
Attempts by the University to distract people away from Aberdeen at night failed this year as they did last year. No student was going to be denied of their desire to party on the street. This is shown in the fact that as the police tried to seal off the Aberdeen “region” of the student Ghetto, the street got more crowded as the night went on. I know of no student who after being told that they could not enter William Street or access Aberdeen simply went home and called it a night. There were generally three responses to the police blockade. One was to argue with the cops and attempt to convince them to move aside. I heard one student remark that it was his taxes that paid for the street and no one had the right to deny him entry. The second response was to attempt to run past the police blockade. This approach was far more risky and resulted in a harsh and sometimes excessive physical response by the police. The third approach, one which I think was the smartest, was to go through backyards to access the street. This on the whole was successful as it would have been very difficult and required many more officers to completely seal off all access points to Aberdeen. All three approaches to the police blockade are indications of a student protest against what they see as an infringement on their rights.
Overall, the police presence did nothing. Few students were going to wholeheartedly abide by the orders of the higher authorities. Nor were they going to be duped into attending a concert in an effort to keep us away from the mecca of Homecoming celebrations. The Queen’s students’ response, although reprehensible in many ways, was a protest against authority aiming to deny us an experience that students before us have enjoyed.
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].