All Posts Tagged With: "Queen’s University"
Students vote to impeach Queen’s rector
Referendum results show 72% of students want Nick Day gone
Undergraduates at Queen’s University have voted 72 per cent in favour of making a recommendation to the university to impeach rector Nick Day.
A referendum was held from March 22 to 23 where students were asked to respond to the question:
Shall it be recommended to the University Council of Queen’s University that Nick Day not continue to hold the office of Rector of Queen’s University at Kingston? Yes ___, No ___.
A total of 3803 students voted (out of an eligible 14244): 2714 votes were in favour of the recommendation (72 per cent), while 1061 of votes were opposed (28 per cent).
The Alma Mater Society (AMS) at Queen’s University immediately released a statement saying, “Since the result of this Special AMS Student Vote are in the affirmative, the Society therefore recommends to the University Council of Queen’s University that Nick Day not continue to hold the Office of Rector of Queen’s University at Kingston.”
Day recently came under fire for writing a public letter defending Israeli Apartheid Week to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and signing with his official university title. Noting in his letter that that he “was elected to represent the approximately 20,000 students of Queen’s University,” Day claimed that Israel was guilty of genocide and is acting as the perpetrator of “perhaps the biggest human rights tragedy of my generation.”
Day was also formally censured by the AMS Assembly back in November for statements he made during a Remembrance Day address.
Queen’s grad society critical of impeachment process
Referendum would not be ‘representative of the entire student body’
Queen’s University’s graduate student society released a statement earlier today criticizing the impeachment process undertaken against rector Nick Day. As rector, Day represents both undergraduate and graduate students.
Here is their release:
The Executive of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students (SGPS) would like to clarify that our students are in no way represented by the actions of the Alma Mater Society (AMS) against Mr. Nick Day, Rector at Queen’s University (Kingston). The SGPS represents all graduate students and the majority of professional students at Queen’s, with over 4000 members. Any AMS referendum is limited to its membership, primarily undergraduate students, and is not representative of the entire student body. We ask the AMS, the Office of the Principal and all parties to cease referring to the process begun against Mr. Day as representative of all students. The process undertaken against Mr. Day is an AMS process with neither the input nor the consent of graduate and professional students at Queen’s. Given the grave importance of this issue, the SGPS is carefully evaluating the options to determine the course of action that best reflects the interests of our members.
Queen’s rector faces impeachment
Students furious Nick Day used his title when defending Israeli Apartheid Week
Queen’s University rector Nick Day now says he regrets signing, with his official university title, a public letter to Michael Ignatieff that accused the Liberal leader of being complicit in “genocide.” On Monday, Ignatieff released a statement condemning Israeli Apartheid Week, calling it “an attack on the mutual respect that holds our society together,” and adding that “It is a dangerous cocktail of ignorance and intolerance.”
On Wednesday, Day issued his response calling Ignatieff’s statement “deeply unethical” and accused Israel of being responsible for the “biggest human rights tragedy of my generation,” and further stated that there is a “genocide happening in Palestine.”
As result of that letter, Day could find himself removed from office. Last night, the Queen’s Alma Mater Society voted unanimously to hold a referendum on Day’s impeachment after a petition signed by more than 2,200 students was submitted to student council.
At issue is that Day, who was elected to represent students in “matters pertaining to education” signed his letter as “Nick Day, Rector, Queen’s University, Kingston,” implying that his letter to Ignatieff was an official position of either the office of the rector, or the university itself.
In his statement to Ignatieff, Day also wrote that “If I ever used the influence of my office and the power of my public voice, as you have [. . .] I would have a very difficult time sleeping at night.”
A Facebook group setup to organize the impeachment drive states that what is “most troubling” is Day’s “claim that he was merely speaking for the students.”
Even Queen’s principal Daniel Woolf entered the controversy. He met with Day on Thursday, and then issued his own statement which read, “Mr. Day’s views do not and should not be seen as being representative of those of the University or Queen’s students.”
When campus paper, The Journal, interviewed Day, he said he regretted signing the letter as “rector,” but added that he was concerned that the substance of his argument was being ignored. “I have a need to publicly talk about Israeli Apartheid Week. I think that the letter receiving any more attention about what the rector is doing is detracting about what we should be talking about.”
Students will vote on whether or not to impeach Day March 22-23.
Queen’s rector abuses his title in letter to Ignatieff
Rebuffs Liberal leader’s condemnation of Israel Apartheid Week, saying Israel is guilty of genocide
Remember the Queen’s University rector who used a Remembrance Day address to air his own political pet peeves?
Well it seems Rector Nick Day is back at it. After Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff recently released a statement condemning Israeli Apartheid Week, which is taking place on Canadian and international campuses this week, Day released some words of his own, calling Ignatieff’s statement “deeply unethical” in a note posted on his Facebook page and sent to Rabble.ca.
UPDATE: Queen’s Rector faces impeachment
In his letter to the Liberal leader, Day does make some fair points about the right to hold open dialogue on the Israel/Palestine issue, but also delves into his own personal position on the issue, arguing that Israel “operates a discriminatory judicial system in Palestine” and is the perpetrator of “perhaps the biggest human rights tragedy of my generation.” (Was the Rwandan genocide last generation?)
He goes on to slam Ignatieff’s original statement, cautioning the Liberal leader that if he continues to condemn “critique of the genocide happening in Palestine, you and the party you lead are complicit in that genocide.”
Curiously, he also adds:
I was elected to represent the approximately 20,000 students of Queen’s University. If I ever used the influence of my office and the power of my public voice, as you have [. . .] I would have a very difficult time sleeping at night.
Shall we play “Spot the Irony?”
Nick Day has every right to hold any political position he desires, and the freedom to express his opinions openly. The problem, though, is when he signs his name as “rector,” he no longer just speaks for himself. And when speaking for 20,000 students, it is negligent and unjust to take a strong position on an issue that is so politically divisive.
Day could’ve sent the exact same letter in response to Michael Ignatieff’s statement. But instead of signing it, “Nick Day, Rector,” he should have signed it, “Nick Day, student.”
Queen’s Remembrance Day soapbox
Why pay tribute to war veterans when you can make divisive political statements instead?
Today is Remembrance Day, where citizens across the nation pay our respects to the men and women who have served for Canada. Many people wear poppies as silent tribute to the war dead, pause for a minute of silence, and deliver ceremonial addresses in honour of Canada’s veterans. In some areas of the nation, however, these addresses tend to stray just a smidgen from the main point. Yup, just a smidgen. And on to campus . . .
Nick Day, Queen’s University’s student rector who has been elected to represent student views on social and financial matters to the university, delivered his laundry list of political talking points Remembrance Day address this morning at a Queen`s university-wide ceremony. Day began by telling the audience how his grandfather served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, fondly recalling passed-down war memories contained in an old, cracked cigar box. And then, according to the transcript Day posted on his Facebook page, he diverted:
The armies of the developed world have an unprecedented technological ability to create death.
What? Did you miss something? Maybe you were fiddling with your red poppy, you jingoistic, war-glorifier you.
I believe [my grandfather] would have a lot to say about several things that, in today’s fragmented world, are left unsaid. He would certainly speak up about the continuing violence done to the First Nations of Canada, who are plagued by disproportionate poverty, crime and incarceration, poor health, and who are disproportionately also the victims of violent crimes.
Day goes on to lament global inaction during the Rwandan genocide, and the so-called “international silence” on Palestinian human rights. (Understandable—perhaps the glare from someone’s white poppy was blocking out most UN declarations on Palestinian issues from the past several decades.) Day finishes off by with a quick stab at the Israeli Defense Force, exaltation of Romeo Dallaire, and then back to his grandfather.
Remembrance Day is a time to honour and remember the nobility of the principles defended by the brave citizens of Canada who have come before us. To honour those principles today, I think, requires us to recognize and stand against the atrocities committed at home and abroad.
In order to truly honour the sacrifices of those who fought for justice, we are now required to speak about new forms of injustice, perhaps ones that are harder to see, harder to recognize, that punctuate the lives of the many abused people of this planet.
No, Mr. Day. In order to truly honour the sacrifices of those who fought for justice, one has to actually deliver more than a line or two about those who fought for justice.
Unfortunately, crass and opportunistic hijacking of public addresses is becoming somewhat of a theme on university campuses. Last month, University of Winnipeg valedictorian Erin Larson used her convocation address to slam Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. Her divisive political statements came off as ill-timed, to say the least, but Day may have taken the cake with this one.
Divisive political points have no place in a Remembrance Day address. A ceremony intended to honour the memory of war veterans should do exactly that. To deliberately look the other way demonstrates an inordinate lack of gratefulness towards previous generations, something for which I, as a member of this younger generation, am personally ashamed. Next year, I should hope Day and like-minded individuals wait until the 12th to clear their social consciences.
Against specialization
Remember when choice and flexibility were good things?
With Nova Scotia’s O’Neill report in the books, and a similar report just released in Ontario, specialization is the new watchword for Canadian universities. Thus Bonnie Patterson, President of the Council of Ontario Universities: “the funding realities mean we’re going to have to build on the differences that already exist.”
Setting aside the question that the so-called funding realities are really funding decisions, the emphasis on specialization is troubling from the point of view of quality higher education.
Of course, some specialization is inevitable, or at least practical. Not every university can have a medical school, and a law school, and a major in South American Urban Geography. Fine. But I worry when I hear people like Harvey Weingarten, President of the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario say things like this: “If Ryerson were to say its priority is undergraduate programs that graduate the next wave of entrepreneurs, for example, it might be that the U of T wouldn’t have a program exactly like that.”
Setting aside the fact that if Ontario really wanted to save money it could eliminate a few of these education councils, Weingarten’s comments hint that specialization is all about output. If Ontario needs graduates in various areas, the implication runs, it doesn’t need every school to fulfill that need. Put another way, if a student wants program x, she only needs one school to offer it and she can go there.
But the underlying assumption is that a university education is designed only, or mainly, as an economic investment. Universities are understood like factories, turning out useful products and thus should be specialized so as to be more efficient.
Setting aside the fact that it is inherently repugnant to think of people as products (the report calls for graduates who, like iPods should be “highly valued and competitive” [p.15]), the specialization perspective assumes that students know what they want to study when they go to university and will stick to that field of study all the way through. Anyone who teaches at a university knows that these assumptions are actually false, and idealists like me see them as deeply troubling.
For one thing, circumstances mean that students are not infinitely mobile. A student in Sudbury may not feasibly be able to move to Windsor to study. Consequently, specialization means limiting choices. The report claims that “differentiation” will mean more variety of programs overall (p. 6) but later reveals that claim to be false by insisting that universities must work with their existing programs (p.10). In other words, the Kingston girl who might have been a world-class artist may end up toiling as an accountant because Fine Arts was only available at Western, not Queen’s. Such things may happen even now, but they become more likely the more specialized institutions become.
The beginning of the end of frosh week
The tragic death of a Queen’s student has renewed calls for a crackdown that is already well under way
Natasha Zapanta, a cheery first-year Queen’s University business student in a perfectly manicured first-week outfit, won’t be telling her grandchildren about any Old School-worthy hijinks. Frosh week for this 17-year-old involved scavenger hunts, a video dance party and “Commerce Cares”—random acts of kindness visited upon unsuspecting fellow students by commerce freshmen. “There was nighttime partying,” she admits, “but we just stayed in the residence hall.” Most of her friends are also 17, below Ontario’s legal drinking age and, while alcohol is readily available, they’ve been warned not to indulge.
For biochemistry major Connor Forbes, the week was so low-key it threatened to dampen that famous Queen’s school spirit altogether. The gloom extended even to the engineering faculty, where students were this year banned from the school’s ancient move-in day tradition, in which engineers paint themselves purple and taunt incoming freshmen. Engineering society president Victoria Pleavin, citing complaints, sent an email to all engineering students warning them that anyone caught engaged in the practice would be escorted off campus. “Move-in day was really an introduction to the fun of the school and gave you a sense of community,” says Forbes. “The event is gone and we don’t know if it’s coming back. They took it away.”
Such moves followed a raft of measures taken by Queen’s administrators aimed at taming the furor surrounding frosh week—and, it seems, everything else too. Last year, the university cancelled its infamously out-of-control homecoming event, which newspapers have become fond of noting cost over $200,000 to police. Queen’s also vowed to curb freshmen excesses by stamping out the likes of “Slosh the Frosh” and “Sauce the Boss” because, according to senate meeting minutes last year, they “put students at risk.” The clampdown is, depending on your politics, already a success. Says John Pierce, interim associate VP and dean of student affairs: “By last Thursday, I was getting reports that, ‘Well—jeez!—frosh is going better than it has before!’ ”
And yet even these stringent measures could not prevent tragedy. Last Monday, Queen’s students on their way to rugby practice discovered the body of Cameron Bruce, an 18-year-old freshman from Connecticut, on the lawn outside his residence, just hours before he was to start classes. The night before, Bruce had attended an engineering banquet—a sort of last hurrah to end engineering frosh week. After dinner, he walked back to residence with friends. What happened next is still shrouded in mystery: police suspect no foul play, and they’re investigating whether alcohol played a role in the incident.
News of the death brought the inevitable newspaper editorial: “Be it the mass drunkenness of Aberdeen Street or young people getting a dubious initiation to booze in peer-pressure-filled orientation activities,” wrote the Kingston Whig-Standard, “the greater community has long quietly wondered: what will it take for Queen’s to do something about this? Does someone have to die?” The incident’s significance was not lost on students: “I think it’s the beginning of the end of frosh week,” one told Maclean’s.
No, actually. It’s the end of frosh, full stop—not just at Queen’s, but everywhere. A generation of children raised in an era so risk-averse that schools ripped seesaws, parallel bars and fireman’s poles from playgrounds has come of age and gone to university. The halcyon days, when freshers set cars and couches ablaze and guzzled beer at university-sanctioned keggers, now grow dim and will soon become distant memories. Many schools have retired the word “frosh” altogether, preferring less festive words like “orientation”; at the University of Ottawa, freshmen are referred to by the tin-eared sobriquet of “101er.” Official first-week events are now mounted sans booze. A handful of U.S. colleges are entirely dry. The University of Guelph this year, for the first time, made residences alcohol-free zones during frosh week. It’s a revolution some students call a “war on fun.”
Student found dead at Queen’s
Cameron Bruce was a model student, warmly remembered
An American teenager who played the trumpet, swam competitively and had a “love for learning” was mourned by his hometown Tuesday as word spread that the first-year student was found dead outside a Queen’s University residence. The bedroom community of Westport, Conn., was left stunned after hearing that Cameron Bruce, 18, died at the eastern Ontario school.
Any adult would “love to have a son just like him,” said John Dodig, principal of Staples High School, where Bruce graduated from. Dodig said he informed the teachers at the school of Bruce’s death and showed them a photo of Bruce from a musical performance, wearing a tie and sporting slicked-back hair. “He looked like he belonged on the cover of GQ magazine, but the Cameron I saw every day always had dishevelled, spiky hair because he spent half his life in a chlorine-filled pool.”
Bruce had swam with the Water Rat Swim Team since he was 7 years old, said coach Ellen Johnston. “The whole thing is just so shocking,” Johnston said. “He’s just a terrific person,” she said, sounding stunned as she added that he had grown up on the team.
Police in Kingston, Ont., said students discovered a body outside the residence hall early Monday, the first day of classes at Queen’s following orientation week for new students. In a release Tuesday night, Kingston police said foul play was not suspected in Bruce’s death, but did not reveal a cause of death. “The investigation is ongoing and police detectives are asking anyone who knows Cameron Bruce or had contact with him during the evening of Sunday Sept. 12,” to contact investigators, the release said.
The multi-talented teen was an inspiration to the school, said Dodig. He played in the jazz ensemble, acted in school plays, and excelled in the school’s most demanding courses. Dodig said when he broke the news to Bruce’s former music teacher, the man could barely stand up.
Bruce’s economics teacher told the principal that after the final school tests last May most students lost interest in school, but not Bruce. “In his case, he showed up after the exam, bright eyed and bushy-tailed and eager for three more months of learning about economics,” said Dodig. More than 1,800 people attended Staples High School, and most knew Bruce, he added.
A page mourning the teen’s death was created on Facebook, and Staples High School’s theatre group, the Staples Players, also created a memorial to Bruce on its blog. Along with his success as a trumpet player with the jazz band, Bruce also performed in a one-act play. “I honestly never saw Cam without a smile on his face. His enthusiasm for life was incredible,” Alan Southworth, a friend, said in an email.
Along with playing in the school band, Southworth and Bruce played in a jazz quartet at local nursing homes. “His willingness to give back to his community with music was inspirational to me and so many others,” said Southworth. Bruce arrived at Queen’s to begin orientation last week, according to people in the community who spoke to Dodig.
The teenager’s father was an alumnus of Queen’s, said Dodig, adding that was one of the main reasons drawing the ambitious teenager to the Ontario school. Bruce’s father was in Kingston during orientation week, helping his son prepare for his first year, and was still in town on Monday, Dodig added. A family friend who answered the phone at the Bruce home in Westport said they did not want to talk.
Dodig said he has heard from the people in the town that the family will postpone a memorial service for their son until Thanksgiving, so his many friends can attend the service.
The Canadian Press
What doesn’t mix sex, violence and tax law, really?
Who else is out there doing this? And do they, also, freely admit the trashiness of their legal texts?
I should have picked Queen’s law:
Art Cockfield is one of the few professors who use sex and violence to help teach the Income Tax Act and international tax law.
The Queen’s University law instructor writes books that combine traditional textbook style information with a fictional case study story that he freely admits are trashy.
His book Manager’s Guide to International Tax contains a murder-mystery novella involving a corporate power struggle set in a Napa Valley winery. Student Edition of the Income Tax Act has a senior partner in an accounting office take her junior associate hostage and threatens to kill him unless he can answer questions about some shady business dealings.
One of the few professors? Who else is out there doing this? And do they, also, freely admit the trashiness of their legal texts? I’d really appreciate it if anyone who’s had Art Cockfield could weigh in on how sexy and/or violent his tax law classes are. Also, whether or not his texts stand up to this guy’s standard for legal writing.
Your grades will drop
How universities and high schools are setting students up for disappointment
Scott Penner was a model high school student. With a grade 12 average of 93 per cent, and with math and science as his strongest subjects, he was poised to be a successful engineering student. That is, until he started at the University of Manitoba. Penner was not expecting to glide through university, though he “was still expecting to do fairly well.” Even by these lowered standards, his first year was less than encouraging. Not only was he receiving an uncharacteristic assortment of Bs and Cs, he failed first-year calculus, a prerequisite to continue on in engineering. “It was a bit of a shock,” he says.
Penner is not alone. The vast majority of students see their grades fall, often dramatically, once they get to university. What is sometimes called “grade shock” can have devastating consequences for students, as they struggle to cope with the fact that they are no longer at the top of the class.
Within the course of a semester dreams can be easily whisked away. “The business program or engineering program that they thought they were going to pursue [is] not an option for them anymore,” says Brock University economist Felice Martinello who recently co-authored a study on the changes in grades between high school and first-year university.
There are also financial repercussions. In 2008, Maclean’s surveyed the rate at which students who received entrance scholarships kept the requisite grades to maintain their funding going into second year. At York University, where fully 60 per cent of incoming students received an entrance scholarship, only 10 per cent kept their funding. At McMaster the rate was 21 per cent. At Ryerson, seven per cent.
As grades have long been known to predict whether students will complete their program, significant grade drops may be contributing to dropout rates, suggesting that students coming in, even with an A+ average, may become discouraged and simply give up. In fact, the best evidence we have suggests that it is the highest achieving students that are most at risk for being disappointed in university.
In his paper, Martinello, and coauthor Ross Finnie, find–consistent with previous research–that on average students see a 10-point drop in their grades once they are in university. Using data from Statistics Canada’s Youth In Transition Survey, the study concludes that nearly half of all students surveyed saw their marks decline by one letter grade. About 23 per cent saw their grades plummet by two letters or more. Only 2.5 per cent of students saw their grades improve, and about a quarter maintained averages consistent with their high school marks.
But, what is novel about Finnie and Martinello’s paper, and pertinent for high school academic stars like Penner, is that the economists determined that “the highest achieving group (in high school) has the largest decrease in grades.” Students entering university with a 90 per cent or higher experienced a drop of 11.9 points. Students with high school marks in the 60-79 per cent range had only a 4.4-point drop. Prior studies tended to assume that even with a drop, that there was a linear relationship between high school and university grades. Finnie and Martinello’s research challenges that assumption.
“You’d think that maybe, oh, it’s the weaker students, that once they go to university, they’re really going to get killed, but it turns out that’s it’s the 90 plus group,” Martinello says.
Recent trends suggest that the challenges of grade shock are only going to become more widespread. That’s because students with average entering grades, in the B or B+ range, are slowly disappearing. And when all, or most, of the students come in with an A or A+ average, many will have nowhere to go but down.
At the University of British Columbia average entrance grades across the university are expected to be 87 per cent this year, a two per cent increase from last year, and up from 80 per cent ten years ago, and 70 per cent twenty years ago. Andrew Arida, UBC’s associate director of enrolment says higher entering grades are simply a matter of supply and demand. “Because students are presenting higher grades, we’ve had to raise our admission averages to avoid over-enrolling,” he explains.
Only a few years ago, UBC was admitting around 15 per cent of students with grades below 80. That number is dwindling fast. Although Arida didn’t have final figures for the fall, he says only a “small number” of students will get in with less than an A. Students entering the two largest faculties, science and arts, will need a minimum high school average of 86 and 85 per cent respectively.
Similarly, the University of Waterloo increased by seven per cent this year over last, the number of entering students with an average of at least 85 per cent.
Schools like Waterloo and UBC, already considered prestigious, are joining an elite club of universities that are inaccessible to all but the highest achieving students. With an average entering grade of 88.9 per cent, Queen’s University rarely admits students with less than an A average. At McGill, the median average entrance grade for Canadian students is 92 per cent.
Queen’s principal wants to ban bottled water
And, in other news, “paternalism” is the new “freedom of thought”
Because you shouldn’t make your own decisions, Principal Daniel Woolf of Queen’s University has pledged to eliminate the choice for you.
According to the university’s website, Woolf plans to end the sale of bottled water on campus within five years. This news comes as relief to thousands of head-scratching Queen’s students who regularly hold up concession lines. (“Coke, or Dasani?! I just can’t decide!)
A plan is to be drafted in the fall, which will include measures to improve access to communal drinking fountains. The initiative has also been championed for providing the opportunity for university administrators to print ambiguous, feel-good phrases and socio-academic buzz words:
The need for ongoing education to foster sustainable and holistic attitudes about water conservation on campus has also been identified [as part of the plan].
The Queen’s announcement comes after Ryerson University pledged last month to become the first bottled water free campus in Ontario. In related news, a collaborative study is to be released from both universities, proving that self-motivated change is more persuasive than imposed accommodation.
Ivana Zelenka, sustainability commissioner of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students, commented on Woolf’s initiative on the Queen’s website. “Principal Woolf’s commitment to sustainability initiatives on campus has truly been amazing and sets up a fertile ground for future collaborations and projects that are bound to move Queen’s University even higher on the sustainability ladder,” she said.
Future Queen’s plans include imposing a “Say Your Prayers and Eat Your Vitamins Day,” and removing all coloured paper options from campus photocopy machines.
Queen’s offended by Sumo wrestling
Student union says Sumo suits are ‘racist,’ cancels fundraiser
What does Shinerama fundraising, dirty bingo, and—the latest—Sumo wrestling have in common?
They’re all activities you’d find on campus during Frosh Week?
Wrong, stupid.
They’re all instruments of oppression, manifesting innocently behind a guise of “harmless fun,” wreaking havoc on the consciousnesses of privileged white students.
Thank [insert name of respective deity] that we have the Alma Mater Society, the student government at Queen’s University, to tell us what we should feel guilty about. Read their two-page apology, and you’ll learn why the “SUMO Showdown,” scheduled during their food bank fundraiser, “fails to capture the deeply imbedded histories of violent and subversive oppression that a group has faced.”
And those puffy Sumo suits? “Caused feelings of hurt,” writes AMS. They were not “being safe on-campus by planning this event.” Well, the pursuit of the jovial obviously blinded these students to their own privilege. “Regrettably,” they write, “those of us who were aware of the event did not critically consider the racist meaning behind it.”
Red-faced, I admit I didn’t see the racist meaning behind it. The bun, the Mawashi, the size of the wrestler–that’s what makes Sumo intriguing and distinctive. The AMS thinks wearing these cultural garments dehumanizes the culture; I think it simply identifies it. Mike Grobe, a spokesman for Queen’s Athletics, didn’t see the controversy either. He told the National Post, “It’s the first time we’ve heard of [the racist aspects].” Queen’s Athletics uses the suits regularly at half-time shows. “They’re pink… No one’s complained.”
I didn’t think our cultural climate was so volatile that any mirth is suddenly menacing. But I guess I was wrong.
The AMS apology further reads, “The event also devalues an ancient and respected Japanese sport.” Well, amen, friends. Someone should also tell Carl Douglas, singer of “Kung Fu Fighting,” to stop devaluing that ancient and respected sport. Poke fun at any cultural traditions–but leave the sports alone.
Making a fuss over Sumo suits–does it trivialize more serious issues of oppression and racism? I’d think about it further, but it’s much easier to just let my student leaders decide for me.
Raise fees!
Queen’s University students propose added fee to boost operating budget
While most students are usually screaming and protesting about exorbitant tuition fees across the province in the annual Drop Fees campaign, two students at Queen’s University are trying the opposite approach.
Students Morgan Campbell and James Simpson a proposing a new $70 opt-outable fee to be paid by students to support services like TAs, maintenance and teaching materials, the Queen’s Journal reported. The fee would have to be adopted via student referendum.
Campbell told the Journal: “The amount our tuition can increase each year does not keep up with the rising costs.” This may be true, as it is not just Queen’s University that is experiencing a shortage in funds projected for this year and next year’s budget. According to the article Queen’s is looking at a projected $8.3 million deficit for their 2009-2010 operating budget.
But while the Drop Fees campaign has never really made any sense in light of these continuing deficits, this new plan to give the university money instead of trying to convince them to stop taking so much from students doesn’t seem to solve the problem either. By Campbell’s own admission, student response to their idea hasn’t been great, as is to be expected when asking students — who already scrape for laundry and beer money — for some extra cash. Though the $70 may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of tuition dollars, it’s extra money Campbell is proposing students aren’t obligated to give, so why would they?
It’s not that they aren’t “aware” of the issues as Campbell argues. It’s that they don’t want to.
The article quotes Campbell as saying their talks with the school’s administration have been more positive. No kidding. You’re telling the university you want to round up some extra cash for them instead of protesting fees on their doorstep. In that favourable turnaround the administration could be nothing but supportive.
While Campbell’s argument is correct in that a boost in the operating budget would go towards improving services that directly or indirectly benefit students, it is flawed in that the money should be coming from students’ pockets.
Even if every Queen’s student contributed $70, which they won’t, the point is that you’re paying into an institution and you’re expecting to receive a certain level of education and services you payed for. Its not a selfish argument, but if students take the approach the university does, that ultimately a university is a business and as students you are its customers, the logic fails. If you pay $1.99 for McDonald’s to make you a cheeseburger without cheese, you wouldn’t throw $5 at them so that they can improve the quality of the burger and make it right next time.
You’d send the burger back. While it’s hard to assess the quality of the deal Queen’s students are getting, paying more for services they already deserve isn’t the answer.
Needless lament for the loss of a name
“Women’s studies” becomes “gender studies” . . . and rightfully so.
What’s in a name?
Is it, “That which we call a rose?” Or, “Bee to the blossom, moth to the flame?” How about, “A history of structural and psychological oppression wrought with prejudice and inequality to capitulate only through ongoing and relentless insurgent pressure?”
Or, maybe it’s just a name.
Related: The National Post editorial board hates women’s studies
Queen’s University has become the latest school to change the name of their “Women’s Studies” program to “Gender Studies.” And some people, such as Toronto Star columnist Catherine Porter, aren’t celebrating the rechristening.
Recalling her time as a student at McGill University, Porter writes:
I’d spent the summer flipping through the course catalogue, stomach down on my bed. There were all the history and English literature courses I would end up taking, the descriptions filled with names including Plato, Charlemagne and Shakespeare.
Then, turning the page, I saw the word that was missing elsewhere — woman. It was empowering.
It still is.
I’m very glad to hear Porter had a fulfilling class selection experience, but I’m more pleased to see universities shifting with the times. If that means swapping “women” for “gender,” so be it.
While I will explain why I’m in favour of the name change, I don’t seek to examine the merits of a women’s/gender studies program, nor do I wish to undermine the history of enormous struggle heaved by the women before me to bring society where it is today. But “today” is just what I’m going to focus on. And, in my opinion, “Gender Studies” is the more appropriate and relevant program title for contemporary study.
I’ll start with the obvious. To properly understand the role of women in society you have to understand the role of men. The history of one gender can’t be contextualized in a vacuum. “Gender Studies” better encompasses that idea; it is simply the more correct term. Furthermore, I think the name change will entice a greater breadth of student applicants. Those who have studied feminist literature know it often goes beyond the study of women, incorporating theory on many other forms of oppression (such as religious, racial and ethnic). “Gender” speaks to a wider audience. It is more inclusive (yes, I’m using that word) and doesn’t reek of an “us” versus “them” dichotomy.
Which brings me to some of my more general views on gender politics. (I’ve touched on some of these ideas in previous posts, but I’ll reiterate.) To be frank, I applaud dropping the “women” from “studies” because in doing so, I think it purges a very unnecessary proverbial “crutch.” Women want to be treated equally, right? So why call for special attention? To be perceived as equal, women need to present themselves as equal. After all, men are disadvantaged too, just in different ways. Women don’t need to victimize themselves by calling for special consideration. I think to do so is to insult all the progress we’ve made.
What a luxury it is to have these nomenclature debates. Nellie McClung, Jessie Gray, Dorthea Palmer wouldn’t believe.
I want my achievements to be successes for me as an individual, not as a woman. But if I keep reminding you how disadvantaged I am as a female, you’ll never see it that way.
The return of ‘voluntary’ retirement
The academic labour market never gets any breathing room
It wasn’t that long ago when the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada was predicting that we would need tens of thousands of extra PhD graduates. It was reasoned that growing demand for university combined with a mass exodus of baby boomer professors, would create a glut in the academic labour market. The message to government was fund more grad school spaces. The message to students was, forget about all that negative talk of spending five years in a doctorate program only to wind up in temporary sessional appointments. Now is the time to get that PhD.
It is not very novel to point out that, in light of the past year-and-a-half, this scenario seems like a sad joke. Students are indeed piling into grad programs, but largely as a relief from a brutal job market. As financial trouble appears to be dialing down in other sectors, problems continue unabated in the higher education sector. Universities have been making changes in response to economic realities that will ensure that a tight academic labour market will remain the norm long after the overall job market recovers.
As one illustration, the Modern Language Association recently reported that there has been a 51 per cent decline in available English positions over the past two years.
Many institutions have said that they will leave open positions unfilled, which can be accomplished by relying on sessional instructors and eliminating small classes, while they wait to see what their respective provincial governments do with respect to funding.
Some universities are picking fights with faculty unions. And unions are having none of it. At Queen’s, the administration requested that faculty take a two per cent pay cut, which was rejected by a vote of 89 per cent earlier this month. Last week, the Lakehead Faculty Association protested administration imposed furlough days, stating in a release: “Employees should not be made to suffer because administrators are unable to manage university finances.”
Unfortunately, this unwillingness to make concessions may lead to even more drastic measures. Forget pay cuts and furlough days, the days of “voluntary” retirement have already returned. Only a couple of weeks after the faculty union at the University of Alberta agreed to discuss the possibility of unpaid days off, the administration announced that it will be offering voluntary retirement packages, the Edmonton Journal reported on boxing day. The U of A has not ruled out outright layoffs, as have happened at other schools.
For example, the British Columbia Institute of Technology has announced that it will layoff five per cent of its staff in the coming year. Layoffs have been announced at the University of Calgary, and Guelph to name a couple others. We should expect much more carnage in the spring as universities finalize their 2010-2011 budgets. While it is easy to blame the economy, or the government, universities while crying cash poor over the past decade have, apparently, not taken many steps to prepare for downturns.
Though voluntary retirement may seem more humane than outright layoffs, it signals much deeper financial troubles than a simple trimming of the labour budget. Begging people to give up their jobs is never a good sign.
The voluntary retirement package was a common theme of the 1990s that, combined with leaving positions unfilled, led to a 10 per cent reduction in the total number of faculty across the country. It took years for the academic labour market to recover. The hiring spree across campuses during the early and mid 2000s was largely a move to reinstate positions lost during this period. The AUCC thought that this trend would continue well into the next decade. That’s just not going to happen.
This is compounded by the fact that, when given the choice, baby boomers simply won’t retire at the rate we have expected them to. It hardly bears mentioning that one of the great ironies of the recession is that while it has encouraged students to recede into PhD programs, it has also ensured that they might not have anywhere to go when they finish.
Town beats gown
Supreme court rules against Oshawa students
It’s after midnight on a Friday in November and two people are sitting on the porch of a house in a college town in Pennsylvania, waiting. They don’t have to wait long. After five minutes a group of loud drunk students stumble by, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are passing bedroom windows long after most people’s bedtime. Five minutes later another group passes, and a student throws a pizza plate onto a front lawn. A little later, at the sound of a noisy crash, our observers rush to the back alley and find two students dropkicking metal trashcans.
The observers have just returned to the porch when a loud scraping begins coming from the alley, a sound which one observer—who lives in the house—immediately identifies as someone dragging a street sign. Sure enough, upon investigation, they discover two men with a seven-foot stop sign. When they return to the front yard, three young women are crouched in a bush, their skirts hiked up, peeing. From the moment the two people began their observation to when they chased the pissing students away, only 35 minutes have passed.
To most people living in most neighbourhoods, this scene probably seems exceptional. Radio producers Sarah Koenig, who lives in the house, and Ira Glass, recorded and broadcast their encounters with drunken students on the show This American Life (which happens to be my favourite podcast), which took place in a town called State College where Pennsylvania State University is located. And while Penn State was voted America’s number one party school this year in online surveys conducted by the Princeton Review, residents living near university campuses from Kamloops to Antigonish deal with similar late night philandering and “town-and-gown” conflicts, a term coined by academics. These conflicts have been plaguing communities all over the world as long as universities have existed—one of the earliest documented when a three-day riot broke out in Oxford in 1355 over a dispute about beer, and left 62 people dead.
Canada, of course, has its fair share of town-and-gown conflicts. Perhaps the most famous party school north of the 49th is Queen’s University, where in 2005 the annual homecoming party turned into a full-scale riot; outnumbered police were pelted with beer bottles, a car was flipped and set on fire and there was extensive vandalism. This year, the homecoming party was cancelled.
Queen’s refocuses amid budget problems
University to shift resources to “brand” programs
Facing ballooning pension costs and shrinking deficits, Queen’s university is planning to cut 15 per cent from their budget over the next three years. The cuts are announced just as Queen’s completed the first phase of a new athletic centre, which will leave the university with an extra $125 million in debt. Though Queen’s Centre is being partially funded through a new student levy, outside donations have fallen short. Phases two and three have been postponed.
To compensate for its budget woes, university principal Daniel Woolf says he plans to scale down the university’s offerings, and shift available resources towards core areas. As reported in the Globe yesterday:
Most Canadian universities, such as Queen’s, are struggling with financial pressures, caused by factors such as rising pension costs and falling endowment income. Several have implemented cost-cutting measures, ranging from dropping courses and banning small classes to laying off staff.
Longer term, Dr. Woolf, a historian and Queen’s grad, believes the school will have to reshape its academic direction to develop what he calls a “balanced academy.” This would ensure that the university shifts more attention to undergraduate education – what he describes as “our brand.”
He is also preaching selectivity: the need for Queen’s to determine what areas are core to the university, and then focus on them intensely. “You can’t do everything at the same level,” he said.
The administration had requested faculty take a two per cent pay cut, with a promise to split the savings between professors own departments and the school’s operating deficit. Queen’s University Faculty Association members voted 89 per cent against the request last Monday. The union is blaming the administration for mismanaging the budget.
At least 23 arrests as Queen’s parties on
Despite homecoming cancellation, booze-fuelled bashes on campus keep police busy
They cancelled homecoming at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., but it didn’t stop the party.
Police say booze-fuelled bashes at on-campus houses in a residential neighbourhood have kept them very busy. Const. Mike Menor says at least 23 arrests have been made on charges including assault police and obstruct police since the parties began Friday evening. But Menor says officers on horseback have helped keep the drunken partygoers from flooding into the streets.
Last year, an estimated 8,000 people jammed Aberdeen Street, and officers made nearly 140 arrests. Twenty-five Queen’s students were also charged with illegally selling alcohol and hospital emergency rooms overflowed with grossly intoxicated partygoers.
The university decided to cancel the fall homecoming for at least two years after medical staff warned that the partying was bound to lead to a fatal incident.
- The Canadian Press
Kingston police brace for another night of partying
Last year, thousands of people jammed the streets and officers made nearly 140 arrests
Kingston police are bracing for another night of revelry by Queen’s University students after nearly two dozen arrests were made Friday night.
The university announced in November that traditional fall homecoming celebrations would be cancelled for at least two years due to safety concerns.
But revellers refuse to give up the partying that accompanies the festivities and continue to throw unofficial “faux coming” parties.
With the football game underway Saturday afternoon, police had already responded to 18 incidents including three rowdy keg parties, numerous liquor violations, an indecent act, a vandalized car, a break and enter, and a report of kids throwing tree branches onto a bus.
Const. Mike Menor says about 23 people were arrested Friday night and early Saturday morning on charges ranging from assaulting a police officer to public intoxication. He adds that partiers threw objects at a prisoner van after arrests were made.
Menor says police have also seen a number of underage drinkers this weekend and that homecoming weekend is always taxing on police and Kingston residents, who are fed up with the resources being poured into the event.
Toronto police on horseback and riot police have been called in to assist local officers in dealing with the influx of debauchery.
But he adds that police expect Saturday night parties to be even more out of control because it is traditionally the major night for celebrations.
Menor says 11 officers on horseback helped keep the drunken party goers from flooding into the streets Friday night.
OttawaU’s “solution in search of a problem”
Editorial says new anonymous tip line will create a toxic workplace for faculty
An editorial in The Ottawa Citizen has taken aim at a local university’s new anonymous tip line.
Last week, the University of Ottawa announced the launch of a new security reporting tool, called ClearView Connects, that will allow employees to anonymously report theft, fraud, vandalism and unethical behaviour, either over the phone or on the Internet.
“It is the duty of each employee to immediately report any incidents of wrong-doing related to University activities,” said a spokesperson for the school. She said the technology was just part of “good governance.”
But the editorial staff at the Citizen disagree.
“The University of Ottawa says it does not have a problem with employee misconduct, yet has created an anonymous tip line for staff to report on one another. Sounds like a classic case of a solution in search of a problem,” reads the article. “Tip lines can be abused to settle personal scores or to make life miserable for unpopular colleagues whose crime is simply that they rub people the wrong way.”
The editorial also highlights the recent furor over Queen’s University’s failed dialogue facilitator program, which intended to catch racist, homophobic, and other kinds of offensive language, after allegations that the program constituted an invasion of students’ privacy.
“The University of Ottawa tip line is different from the eccentric Queen’s proposal, but the effect on the campus community could be similar. This is an idea that would have been best left on the drawing board.”
