Dear Editors,
As former rectors of Queen’s University, we add our voices to the understandable and growing concern expressed over the letter written by the current rector in his official capacity with respect to the State of Israel and his for Israeli Apartheid Week.
The position of rector at Queen’s dates back to 1913, and is unique to Queen’s in Canada. The position, at its core, involves serving as representative and ombudsman for all of the student body.
In discharging this role, it is imperative that the rector be, and be seen by all of the student body to be, a “trusted safe house” where impartial and disionate advice can be sought and offered.
Taking a highly political position renders the rector unable to serve as this impartial ombudsperson and representative of all students.
We’re disappointed that the rector would use the office to promote his own personal political views, and in doing so compromise the effectiveness and honour of the position. We, who have had the privilege of serving as rector of Queen’s, reject Mr. Day’s hijacking of the office in furtherance of his own political agenda.
We hope that in the referendum the current students of Queen’s will recognize the importance of preserving the integrity of the position of rector for all students.
Alan Broadbent, Queen’s rector (1969-72)
Gary Gannage, Queen’s rector (1972-74)
Morris Chochla, Queen’s rector (1976-78)
Hugh Christie, Queen’s rector (1978-80)
Jeremy Freedman, Queen’s rector (1980-82)
Richard Powers, Queen’s rector (1984-86)
Kelley McKinnon, Queen’s rector (1986-88)
Dear Editors,
I’m writing to express my indignation at the decisions of both Principal Woolf and the AMS to sanction Rector Day. This amounts to nothing less than a silencing of dissident opinions.
We are told that he is not being impeached because of his opinion, but rather because he expressed this opinion in his capacity of rector.
Does anyone really believe that the Campus Liberals, Conservatives or Israel on Campus would otherwise not have jumped at Day’s criticism of Israeli policies?
This distinction between ‘individual citizen’ and representative of the Queen’s community doesn’t exist, of course. When Michael Ignatieff made the comments Day reacted to, he did not make these as an individual citizen, but as a representative of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Should Ignatieff be impeached?
When Principal Woolf ignored calls for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions involved in an illegal occupation or when he ignored calls to complement his trip to Israel with a visit to a university in the Occupied Territories—so that he could experience the indignations of checkpoints—did he not do so as Principal rather than as an individual?
It’s not beyond the purview of student representatives to take a stance on political and social issues. Did student leaders, in that capacity, not take the forefront in the 1968 protests? Did student representatives not climb the barricades to protest South African apartheid?
It’s not the fact that Day signed off as rector, but his actual opinion, that’s causing this commotion.
After all, almost every time I pick up the Journal, I find that I have disagreements with statements made by representatives of the AMS and of the Queen’s community, made in that capacity. However, I don’t seek to remove them from their positions.
Make no mistake: this vote is not about whether Day could make these comments as a representative. If that were the case, we would be having such votes every single week.
What you will be voting on is whether it’s allowed to criticise Israeli policies on the Queen’s campus.
Ralph Callebert, Ph.D ’11
Dear Editors,
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is arguably the most Canadian document in existence. It lists a variety of rights that we, as Canadians, all have.
Most Canadians—myself included— this document and the rights that it entitles us to. Freedom of speech, habeas corpus and democratic processes are things that are only argued against by those on the political extremes.
Unfortunately, it would seem defenders of Nick Day’s latest exploits are on the political extreme, or perhaps, are simply blind to the ways in which these freedoms affect the constituents of Queen’s University.
One of the rights that the Charter grants all Canadians is that of freedom of association—or, as the Supreme Court has decided, the right not to associate.
Thanks to the University’s policy of mandatory student unionism, students are associated with Rector Nick Day and his comments regardless of whether they the comments or not.
I personally believe that Mr. Day, in his role as a private citizen, is entitled to whatever beliefs he so chooses—so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.
However, as a leader at Queen’s University, he should be conscious that he’s not only speaking for himself, but speaking for literally thousands of students who have never met him, and have never chosen to voluntarily associate themselves with him.
Former Rector Grant Bishop was right to suggest that Nick Day breached the trust of Queen’s University; unfortunately, he also breached your Charter rights.
This past November, AMS Assembly formally censured “Rector Nick Day for his disrespectful comments at the Remembrance Day ceremony.” The rector has a record of using events as a political soapbox and suggesting that he speaks for you.
Indeed, if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has any meaning to the students of Queen’s, they will vote for a recommendation of impeachment. Nick Day has a right to free speech, but you have a right to freedom of association. Drop Nick Day.
Stuart O’Brien, ArtSci ’12
Dear Editors,
In our society, it’s fairly common practice to see an elected official resign from his or her elected position. Reasons for resignations can be related to conflicting views, or most commonly, after the eruption of a scandal.
Rector Nick Day has no doubt brought about the outbreak of a scandal on campus with his letter to The Honourable Michael Ignatieff. Day should follow the lead of fellow elected officials—such as Maxime Bernier—accept responsibility for his actions, and resign from his post.
The issue at hand has virtually nothing to do with freedom of speech as some are alleging it to be. Day made controversial statements, which by all means he is allowed to, but that brought about terrible publicity to our institution.
His job as an elected official at Queen’s University is to fulfill his duties, and because of the scandal it has been uncovered he does a remarkably poor job of doing so. Day regularly misses required meetings and virtually never files the necessary rector reports.
Nick Day is abusing his elected title while failing to uphold his electoral duties. Moreover, his comments tainted Queen’s image nationally, the very opposite goal of what an elected official’s comments should do.
This is the second scandal Day has brought about and should save the students of Queen’s the trouble of voting and simply resign before the March 22 referendum.
Riley Milavsky, ArtSci ’13
Dear Editors,
The recent IAW controversy at Queen’s is deja vu for me.
As a student at Queen’s in the late 1970’s, I the hard-fought struggle of anti-South African Apartheid students and groups trying to pressure the University Council to have them divest the University of millions of dollars it had invested in apartheid-ruled South Africa.
This lack of social conscience at the highest levels at Queen’s was surprising and shameful to me at a time when other nations and organizations were doing the right thing by pressuring the regime.
Fast forward to 2011 and we have a Principal coming down hard on the wrong side of history again.
At least now, unlike then, we have someone of position at Queen’s with a functioning moral conscience and the courage and eloquence to express it. Thank you, Rector Day.
That’s not a lot of progress for 30 years, but at least it’s progress. I hope that today’s students at Queen’s will take the time to visit the Israeli Apartheid Week event and judge for themselves which side of history Queen’s should be on today.
Rick Burrowes, PhysEd ’81
Dear Editors,
I’m writing to urge students to vote in large numbers to defeat the pernicious attempt to remove Rector Nick Day from office.
Nick Day is being targeted because some students disagree with his political views on Israel and Palestine.
The groups behind this impeachment attempt are motivated, not by honest concern for the quality of a Queen’s education but instead by their desire to silence free and open debate on a pressing political issue of our times.
These groups are free to advance their political viewpoint. They are not, and never should be, allowed to use democratic mechanisms such as impeachment to impose their views of the conflict on others, making blind of Israel’s brutal policies into the only allowable position in universities and public forums more generally.
As a Queen’s alumna, I value my Queen’s degree in large part because of what it stands for. It’s precisely because of Queen’s reputation for academic excellence and open, informed debate that Queen’s graduates are highly valued in the job market and elsewhere. A vote to impeach Nick Day for his political views is a vote against free debate and reasoned argument among Queen’s students. The vote you will cast in four days’ time will send a signal about the kind of university education available at Queen’s.
Will Queen’s continue its long tradition of excellent and open debate, or will Queen’s become more like a technical school where graduates are unprepared to engage with the questions of our age?
Andrea Summers, ArtSci ’01
Dear Editors,
I’d like to share with you my thoughts on Mr. Day’s response to Michael Ignatieff’s condemnation of Israeli Apartheid Week.
What you have to know about me is that both my parents immigrated to Canada, my mother as a refugee and my father under his own free will. My mother was born in , as her parents were displaced from Poland after World War II. Both my maternal grandparents suffered through and survived the Holocaust.
They faced a true genocide, not like the fictitious one occurring in Israel. My grandparents were rounded up like animals and forced onto cattle cars that brought them to concentration camps where their people were gassed. That, Mr. Day, is genocide, the systematic and deliberate murder of a people.
Now I would like to tell you about my father. He was born in South Africa and unlike my mother, left his country by choice. South Africa, as you may know, from 1948 until 1993 was under control of the National Party who implemented the institutionalized separation of blacks from whites, known as Apartheid.
From a young age my father felt disdain toward his government, toward the people that instilled such racism and hatred into such a beautiful county.
He tells me stories about the separate housing, beaches, parks, busses and much more that troubled him as a young child.
This was true apartheid, separation of people based purely on skin colour. My father—who has actually experienced true apartheid—knows better than I do that there is no such thing going on in Israel.
The Palestinians, unlike the blacks of South Africa, have the power to vote, and as a people voted in leaders that refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist and instead strive for its destruction.
I’ve been to Poland and seen the remains of the concentration camps where my grandparents suffered. I’ve been to South Africa and seen the reverberations of almost 50 years of racism and hate.
Finally, I’ve been to Israel and seen a country that thrives and celebrates its diversity. Have you been to these countries, Mr. Day? If so, you would have seen what I have seen.
I spent six weeks in Israel this past summer volunteering for their national ambulance service, Magen David Adom. I can tell you firsthand that we treated every patient with the same consideration and respect regardless of whether they were Jewish, Muslim or any of the other many religions of Israel.
Before my volunteering began I was prepped on the rare occasion of getting an emergency call into a Palestinian settlement. I was told that we would have to switch to a bulletproof ambulance and have soldiers lead us in.
This was because when Israeli ambulances enter Palestinian territories, to lend aid to Palestinians, they are usually shot at. Tell me Mr. Day, how do you consider Israelis risking their own lives to save Palestinians as genocide? How do you consider it apartheid?
You, like everyone else, are entitled to your political opinion and you are also entitled to make your opinion public. However, you have no right to say you represent me, as a Queen’s student, when voicing such opinions.
You have not only offended me but you have offended my history. You do not speak for me; you have abused and disgraced your office.
Kerry Mendelsohn, ArtSci ’13
Dear Editors,
Principal Woolf’s actions promoting the impeachment of Mr. Day for defending freedom of expression bring discredit to Queen’s University and Canadian academe. I urge you to reconsider your position and to stand with Mr. Day and the basic freedom that should be available to our students to advocate for political positions, even ones as controversial as Israeli Apartheid Week.
Mr. Ignatieff as an elected member of parliament in a pluralistic democracy should have known better than to speak so hypocritically about student activism on Canadian campuses. Canadians have long ceased to expect any better from Mr. Ignatieff, who can’t be bothered to pick on someone his own size but apparently prefers to throw his weight against campus activists.
Mr. Day did the right thing in speaking up for the rights of students. He should be ed, not threatened. The atmosphere of intimidation that appears to be gaining ground on your campus is a threat to the integrity of Queen’s University. As Principal, I urge you to take concrete steps to restore a sense of decency to your campus.
Yaser M. Haddara, Associate professor, electrical & computer engineering McMaster University
Dear Editors,
The article by Grant Bishop is highly misleading.
Day’s letter to Ignatieff was not so much a “soapbox” for his own political views as Bishop alleges, but a substantiated rebuttal to the baseless claims by Ignatieff that IAW “tarnish[es] our freedom of speech” (and other assorted slander)—the inference being that IAW should not be permitted on Canadian university campuses.
When Bishop claims that “no aspect of his rectorship requires writing missives to federal politicians, pronouncing on foreign affairs” he is either being deliberately misleading or he hasn’t actually read Day’s letter.
The substantive matter of that letter is first intended to critique the flawed grounds by which Ignatieff condemns IAW, and then, to rebuff Ignatieff’s ostensible attempt to marginalize and exclude IAW from Canadian campuses.
Is it not the business of every university representative to stand against attempts by governments or political parties to limit or suppress academic debate? This is the actual point of Day’s letter: “I [Day] accuse you [Ignatieff] of deploying simplistic truisms and rhetoric to mobilize frenzy, stifle debate and insulate Israel, an internationally recognized violator of human rights, from criticism.” I suppose Bishop, as a former rector, knows better than I do, but still I must ask: is it not within the purview of the rector, as a student representative, to speak out against government interference in academic debate?
Bishop’s article misses all of this and instead seems to be narrowly based on the single line where Day mentions “20,000 students.” Again, Bishop seems to be misreading it.
Day doesn’t claim that his views are that of the student body, but rather uses his position as rector to rhetorically illustrate the gravity of public leadership for Ignatieff’s sake.
Bishop has chosen to base his entire response on a misreading of this one line while allowing the substantive content of Day’s letter to elude him.
Bishop’s article is a gross disservice to thoughtful debate on this matter, but worse, the whole affair in general is an indication of the sorry state of Canadian democracy today.
Syed Imran Ali, Sci ’06
Dear Editors,
Recently, we’ve witnessed the fall of Queen’s Rector Nick Day from public favour. Day—who has a history of controversial political statements—disagreed with Mr. Ignatieff’s condemnations of Israeli Apartheid Week, and stated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the “biggest human rights tragedy of my generation.” Anger has since flooded the Queen’s community—and beyond—with a vocal front advocating for his removal as rector.
Many believe he had no justification to use his position in the letter, which implied his views represented those of the Queen’s community, while others found the content of the letter itself as offensive.
In an interesting comparison, John Galliano, touted fashion designer for Dior, has been seriously reprimanded for racist and anti-Semitic comments made in this past February. Dior has since fired him, retailers have refused his merchandise and criminal charges have been laid.
Day’s situation and Galliano’s situation share similarities, but are very different, especially in severity. I must stress that I’m not condoning Galliano’s anti-Semitic comments, nor am I comparing Day’s actions to Galliano’s.
However, I draw comparison between these two public figures as follows: both Day and Galliano are in positions of power, positions that are inherently public.
Despite acting on issues that are completely separate from their positions, their opinions and actions do fundamentally reflect the institutions with which they are d.
As we prepare for the referendum, let us be reminded of some important facts and not let our emotions get the better of us. Principal Woolf stated wisely that “the views in the letter are not the issue—agree or disagree, he is entitled to them—it’s the context in which he communicated his personal opinion.”
Day’s personal opinions reflect learned, thought-out and rational criticism regarding a political and ethnic conflict. They were not negative racial accusations, unlike Mr. Galliano’s.
We’re not voting to impeach Rector Day based on whether or not we agree with the content of his letter, but for whether or not we agree with the context and means through which he published it. Don’t forget this.
Julia Stevens, ArtSci ’11
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].