University’s lack of stance on Lovelace an ‘amoral disguise’
Dear Editors,
Re: “Queen’s professor jailed for protest” (Journal, Feb. 29, 2008)
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. The University also adopted a Code of Conduct to govern the manufacturing guidelines of their University-branded apparel. Furthermore, on July 6, 2007 Karen Hitchcock released a statement condemning the proposed boycott of Israeli universities by Britain’s University and College Union (UCU). And this fall, Jason Laker aggressively lobbied students to cancel a “cowboys and Indians” party. You can find statements on most of these issues on the University’s website. Clearly, the istration doesn’t mind taking a stance on political issues when they think it’s in their interest to do so.
However, in the case of Robert Lovelace, the istration claims to have forgotten their history of political stances. Only three months ago, the Principal and Vice-Principals issued a t statement on racism that was unquestionably political.
Apparently their understanding of racism doesn’t extend to the abuse and oppression suffered by Aboriginals. They are not prepared to question a legal system that condemns an aboriginal man to jail for resisting exploitation of land over which his people hold a claim. Why do they quickly condemn the UCU but refuse to take a half step to Lovelace?
This is an issue students care about, the community cares about and the Queen’s istration should care about. Patrick Deane and the rest of the istration should have the moral courage to say what they think, whatever that may be. I challenge them to shed their amoral disguise and tell us what they really think.
Alex Bourne
ArtSci ’08
Piles of leftover papers a ‘foolish and inconsiderate’ waste
Dear Editors,
First of all, I would like to commend the Golden Words team on successfully creating a humorous fake Journal on Feb. 26. The paper was entertaining and, as per usual, full of good wit and sarcasm.
However, it is deeply disturbing to me that so many issues of this farce paper were printed. Everywhere I went on campus, I saw piles of these ignored papers. Since the paper isn’t real, many people aren’t bothering to even read it. In an age where we are constantly threatened by deforestation, pollution, global warming and a slew of other environmental issues, it seems both foolish and inconsiderate to waste so much paper on a gag that has a life expectancy of one day.
There are multitudes of noble efforts by local businesses and groups to reduce their environmental impact (eg. the Tea Room, Coffeeco, OPIRG, etc.) Why is the Journal allowed to get away with such blatant wastefulness? Although I’m specifically referencing the Golden Words’ Journal, I have also noticed how many Journals go untouched, and the amount printed could be easily cut back. An individual person can only do so much; it’s time for big producers such as the Journal to cut back on selfish waste and to start providing examples of environmental initiatives and conscientious production. We all have the opportunity and responsibility to start reversing all the damage we’ve collectively done to the planet, so do us all a favour and clean up your act.
Marianne Vander Dussen
ArtSci ’09
Emptying your fridge won’t make it more efficient
Dear Editors,
Re: “Sizing up your carbon footprint” (Journal, Feb. 29, 2008)
While last week’s Postscript column about reducing energy consumption certainly had the right idea, it gave one piece of misinformed advice. The article suggested emptying out one’s fridge would help it run more efficiently. In fact, the opposite is true. Empty fridges are filled with cold air, which can easily escape whenever the door is opened. This lets in lots of warm air, which then has to be cooled back down. A full fridge has much less air to swap, which means less heat can sneak in while you’re deciding between milk and OJ.
Bryce Daigle
Sci ’06
MSc ’08
Recycling is ‘sexier’ but reducing comes first
Dear Editors,
Re: “Sizing up your carbon footprint” (Journal, Feb. 29, 2008)
I’d like to express that not only should we follow the 3 Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle), we should that reducing comes first. Although it’s much sexier to recycle because we can point to an action we have taken for this purpose, reducing is a more effective way of shrinking our carbon footprint. For instance, buying a hybrid vehicle is a great way to reduce fuel emissions, one of the major sources of carbon in our atmosphere. But what about not buying a vehicle at all? Then we save the atmosphere the carbon released by the amount of fuel a hybrid requires, as well as that released by the construction of the vehicle and by the transport of the vehicle to the purchaser. And that’s not to mention the money we save ourselves. This general principle can be applied to all aspects of our lives: sure, recycling a pop bottle helps the environment, but why not just skip the pop? It eliminates the plastic needed to make the bottle and the carbon released by producing the pop, and leaves more money in your pocket.
“Reduce, reuse, recycle” not only lists the actions we must take to reduce our carbon footprints, it prioritizes them. The cause of climate change is overconsumption—the level at which humanity consumes is unbelievable. Our emphasis on recycling is merely a reflection of that obsession with consumption. We cannot maintain our present level of consumption and end global warming, no matter how much we recycle. That’s why reducing isn’t only simple and thrifty, it’s also imperative that we do it, starting now.
Jody Zink
ArtSci ’10
Christianity’s not a ‘sex-negative religion’
Dear Editors,
Re: “Faith in the bedroom” (Journal, Feb. 12, 2008)
A recent article in the Journal quoted Professor Pamela Dickey Young as calling Christianity a “sex-negative religion” and saying “[t]he reason for marriage is to keep lust under control and procreate.” Young has clearly rejected what she perceives to be the church’s outdated and unsympathetic teachings on sexuality. As a faithful Catholic, I feel compelled to respond and defend the church’s position on sex.
That Christianity is a sex-negative religion couldn’t be farther from the truth. God created us an integral unity of body and soul. The idea that sexuality is bad actually stems from religious teachings of Manichaeism, which were repeatedly and ardently condemned by the church. That the church places restrictions on what we should and shouldn’t do with our bodies isn’t an indication that our religion devalues the body. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The Catholic Church has put a stamp of “handle with care” on the issue of sexuality. The things we handle with extreme care in our lives are those with the most inherent value. Our bodies and sexuality have more value than we can even fathom.
The late Pope John Paul II dedicated a large part of his pontificate to what he called “theology of the body.” The former pope shifted the focus of church teachings from being seen as restrictive to liberating. He argued that understanding and living out the real implications of human sexuality will make one free and able to love and live life to the fullest human potential. A problem with many people today, then—both those that reject sexuality as evil and those who dismiss the church’s moral teachings as antiquated or “out of touch”—is that we don’t value sex enough. Furthermore, our “pornified” culture, which claims to be the culture of sexual freedom, has failed to see how valuable the body and sex really are.
Gabrielle Ferri
ArtSci ’10
Queen’s Alive vice-president
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 journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.