IAW dishonest
Re: “Israeli Apartheid Week ‘turning up the heat’” (Mar. 5, 2010).
Dear Editors,
It seems as if the Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) has learned from their mistakes.
In drawing Palestinian Holocaust analogies two years ago in the JDUC, they drew the emotional response they were looking for, but only from the people who would be most upset by the analogy.
Much in the same way, to promote the “Israeli Apartheid” theory is to oversimplify a situation that’s undeniably much more complex.
You can also promote Wakefield’s theory linking autism to infant immunizations, Aristotle’s theory on the nature of matter, or Glenn Beck’s theory on anything—and those who are uninformed will likely believe you as long as you omit every piece of evidence to the contrary.
In the same way, SPHR picks and chooses facts, misleading some into believing the event is truly academic.
It’s one thing to be genuinely mistaken, but to purposefully disregard facts which weaken your thesis is certainly the worst form of academic dishonesty and wouldn’t be acceptable in any legitimate field of study.
This is why “Israeli Apartheid Week” doesn’t belong at my university or at any university.
Alex Goldberg,
Artsci ’08
Queen’s Hillel Co-President, 2007-2008
Condemning hate
Dear Editors,
Re: “Posters beyond provocative” (Mar. 12, 2010).
Both your editorial “Posters beyond provocative” and Jess Fishbein’s letter in seem to concede that at least sometimes it’s acceptable to “push boundaries” or use “outlandish antics.”
Both agree superimposing a Star of David over Nazi flag doesn’t fall within the realm of these special circumstances.
But besides the fact the posters in question were shocking, neither your editorial nor Ms. Fishbein’s letter seem to offer any way of telling the difference between the two.
There’s a hint that one factor is that the outlandish tactic was used promotionally, in a strategic move to sell more tickets.
I’m not saying the posters were appropriate or not appropriate. However, if we are going to start labeling some speech as unacceptable or as hate imagery, at least let us use some kind of objective test that we can then apply universally.
If a particular symbol is hate imagery because the regime it represents murdered millions of a particular ethnic group, then let us equally condemn any artistic use of the Hammer and Sickle, for fear of reminding Ukrainians of their loss at the hands of that symbol’s bearers.
Ben Grant, Law ’12
Logically inconsistent
Dear Editors,
Re: “Federal budget bolsters research” (Mar. 12, 2010).
For the most part, I quite enjoyed Kuper’s article. But I’m quite shocked at the opinions expressed by the law professor Kathleen Lahey.
According to Kuper’s article, Lahey “said one of her biggest problems with the [federal] budget is the gender imbalance it helps to perpetuate.” Lahey backs up her argument with the following logic:
First, women make up a small—21 to 23—”per cent of all the students enrolled in those departments.” Second, the federal government is financially encouraging those same departments. Finally, the federal government is encouraging gender inequality.
In case this isn’t apparent, Lahey’s conclusion doesn’t follow her premises. Financially encouraging the study of a particular subject area doesn’t distort the study of this subject area in favour of one gender over another, unless one is going to argue that men or women are less motivated by money than the other. If a distortion was encouraged, then this would be inequality, unless the distortion sought to balance the numbers of men and women in this particular field, in which case it would gender equality.
But this isn’t even what Lahey defines as inequality. Lahey says “…women have a harder time finding funding for their particular areas of study.”
I believe this statement cuts to the heart of the problem with Lahey’s argumentation. She believes in “particular areas of study” for women.
If Lahey were to argue the budget “will push Queen’s …to fit the conservative ideologies of the [conservative] federal government,” then she would be irrefutably justified, since this is a tautology.
If the federal government is conservative, then of course they a conservative standpoint. But argument, which attempts to how this would be detrimental to Queen’s, isn’t logically consistent—she argues in of gender equality on the basis of a belief that gender equality seeks to eliminate.
Jesse Waslowski
Artsci ’13
AMS should share responsibility
Dear Editors,
The article “StuCons operate illegally” was an inaccurate and exaggerated view of an istrative error, which trivialized the excellent work the StuCons have been doing all year.
The Journal failed to mention the complicated and meticulous process necessary to receive a security license, in which a collection of applications can be rejected through a third party’s minor error. Since the 40-hour training session required for all security licence applicants isn’t in effect until the end of the school year, these licenses serve no purpose other than providing the provincial government with $80 per application. While it’s an unfortunate error that the StuCons weren’t licensed, it isn’t exactly front-page news.
Having worked as a StuCon for three years, it’s evident this service requires a close relationship with the AMS. I find it hard to believe that the Head Manager’s supervisors in the AMS were unaware the StuCons weren’t licensed, and only discovered this upon the Head Manager’s departure from the service. The AMS should be a team environment where student managers receive a great deal of . If the AMS was unaware of what was going on with the StuCons, then they clearly weren’t fulfilling their duty as supervisors.
As elected leaders, the AMS should have accepted its share of responsibility. Instead, the individuals who spoke to the Journal decided to place the blame on one person. They not only minimized their role in this issue, but also rudely dismissed the contributions made by the Head Manager since last May.
Arminé Willis-O’Connor
ArtSci ’09, Law ’12
Not to blame
Dear Editors,
Re: “Students operate illegally” (Mar. 12, 2010).
I declined to comment about StuCon licensing last week in the hope of putting the situation behind me, with my former supervisors’ assurance the article was to discuss moving forward rather than asg blame. As that was unfortunately not the case, I wish to clarify the matter.
When facing difficulties ensuring everyone was licensed over the summer, I approached my supervisors to suggest we shut down the service until all StuCons were licensed. My supervisors in the AMS instructed me to keep the unlicensed StuCons working, as day-to-day operations were the priority.
I subsequently made more attempts to license StuCons, but I never completed this task. Throughout the process, my supervisors understood that StuCons were working unlicensed—not only had they advised me to proceed in this manner, but I reminded them that licensing wasn’t complete in my mid-year review in January, and they themselves had worked shifts as StuCons without licenses. I was never approached to remedy this situation.
Just before reading week, I was dismissed “without cause” and without warning— nobody expressed concern or disciplined me regarding the failure to license StuCons prior to this meeting. I can only guess the AMS suddenly decided it was problematic StuCons were unlicensed, and terminated my employment rather than offering and working together to remedy the issue.
I take responsibility for not ensuring the StuCons were licensed, and I am very sorry for any inconvenience this has caused to students.
But I’m disappointed the AMS has chosen to blame me entirely for the problem. The fact StuCons were unlicensed wasn’t, in fact, discovered after I left the service—on the contrary, my superiors were fully aware StuCons had been working without licenses throughout the year.
I commend the StuCons who are working so hard to keep the service running in the face of these difficulties. I enjoyed my time with them and deeply regret that my actions have contributed to the challenges ahead.
Jonathan Morris-Pocock,
ArtSci ’10
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].