Last Friday, Students for Palestinian Human Rights Chair Dana Olwan wrote about how Palestinians commemorate Al-Nakba in the face of Israel’s 60th anniversary. On March 20, Queen’s Hillel Co-chair Alex Goldberg wrote about how the Israeli state’s 60th anniversary is a cause for celebration and the culmination of the Zionist dream. Here, professors and students discuss the situation in Israel and Palestine. To add your own comment or question, e-mail [email protected] .

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.

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.

The Feb. 29 issue of the Journal states, “Vice-Principal (Academic) Patrick Deane said the University doesn’t involve itself in political issues and has no official stance on the Lovelace case.” Patrick Deane’s claim is blatantly false; recent history holds at least five cases where the university publicly held political positions. On Sept. 21, 2005, the University returned David Radler’s $1 million gift because “the integrity of this gift to the University has been compromised.” Again in 2005, the University strongly opposed a T.A. union drive and engaged in public communication denouncing the proposed union.

I’d like to remind Thompson and the Queen’s University community that guilt, denial and defensiveness (as evidenced by Thompson’s unfounded accusations) towards reports of racism aren’t productive and instead one must work beyond these initial reactions towards a more productive anti-racist state of mind. Additionally, everyone has an obligation to read a book and become educated on matters of race and racism before they decide to say or write reactionary rants that further shut down sincere dialectic.

With last week’s editorial and Feb. 12’s “More defaced posters found,” it has become clear to me that the Journal cares about nothing more than gross sensationalism. When not provided with the racist messages from the istration, the Journal found it fit to seek out these messages and display a photo of them in the paper.

I am writing with respect to the article published in the Journal on Feb. 5, 2008 regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs within CIS sport programs. I can appreciate the interest in covering the issue of drug use in sport given the attention this topic is currently receiving in the U.S. with respect to professional baseball and with the revelation of three positive tests that have occurred during random screening procedures carried out by Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) on CIS athletes this year.

To clarify what was written in the Journal about a Western Football player testing positive for using illegal substances: the telephone interview I had with the Journal covered a wide range of topics linked to drug use in sport. I was asked to comment on the events at Western and answer questions about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in competitive football. I itted in the interview I didn’t know of the player in question, and to be honest, at that very moment I couldn’t whether the individual had played in the OUA quarter-final against Queen’s. Subsequently, I learned that the Western player didn’t, in fact, play in the quarter-final.

In this past Friday’s issue, the Journal decided to present an extremely misleading article on the orientation faculty bills from 2007. Orientation Round Table (ORT)’s budget is within the Campus Activities Commission of the AMS and is overseen by the vice-president (university affairs), who also approves all expenditures. This article appears to be more of an attack the ORT position and is “ed” with several completely fabricated points.

In this Tuesday’s Talking Heads, the Journal decided to comment on the 20th anniversary of the legalization of abortion in Canada. As I read through the responses, I was irritated (though not surprised) to see the responses were entirely pro-choice. When the Journal decided to ask students about after-hours childcare, they managed to find people who commented on both sides of that issue; yet with this controversial issue, they could not manage to find a single person on campus who would comment on the pro-life side of the abortion debate.