U of T pension fund should invest in student housing Turf war over fate of uc back field
With regard to the article by Theodore Yan called “Turf war over fate of uc backfield” that appeared in the February issue of The Varsity, I would like to discuss this inequitable issue. I am a fourth year student at the University of Toronto and have personally used this field for many of my athletic activities. For a while now there has been deliberation over the outcome of this particular field. Although I agree that the field does need some work done, I believe it should be done so with the thought of all users involved.
The Varsity Rugby team has been using the backfield for years, along with the numerous intermural teams, and sports clubs that are held at the university. Rebuilding a field that could potentially only benefit one or two specific sports teams (i.e. field hockey) is undeniably inequitable. Going forward with the reconstruction will cost a great deal of money, will decrease accessibility for all student athletes, and ultimately alter students’ experiences at the University.
The fate of this field is important. The special artificial field that is to be created will be deemed dangerous to all contact sports and will result in restricted access. In the case of contacts sports, when engaging in activity, coming into contact with the AstroTurf will cause more damage than that of a natural field. This will reduce playing time and practice time for many sports teams, as well as freedom to participate in leisure activities on the field, while allowing very few teams, depending on the level of competition, to use the field more periodically.
The University of Toronto is a school that continuously promotes equality and inclusion, but in this situation that is not the case. I believe the student athletes of the university would greatly benefit from an alternate course of action. Within the article itself a solution was mentioned that involved the field hockey team using an already existing field hockey pitch that is accessible to the team for both practice and competition. That being said, this can be something to consider and could potentially avoid the unnecessary use of money.
The ultimate outcome of the backfield dilemma should not be overlooked and should be reconsidered. If the maintenance of the already existing natural field would yield more participants in physical activities and sports teams then why change that? We should all be looking to enhance and increase participation and equitability at the University of Toronto instead of limit it.
— Danisha Payne
Once again I am completely at a loss to understand this pipe dream of “pedestrianizing” St. George street. Its like the UTSU wants to turn utsg into some happy utopia where everyone drives around on segways on rolling green grass hills, finally free of those oppressive cars!
This campus was designed to have major arteries running through it. We are in the middle of downtown Toronto. City planners would never let the massive square that is utsg be turned into a deadzone for traffic, making all the streets around it more congested.
But more importantly, there are a number of buildings and parking lots that are only accessible through St George street, because it was DESIGNED to be that way. The new multi million dollar commerce building being one of them. Do you really think they are going to let you render their brand new parking garage, which only goes out onto St George, completely useless? How exactly are buildings like Sid Smith and Morrison Hall going to be supplied with food and equipment?
Its not just that its a stupid idea, its that these people are apparently going to waste their valuable time and my money on a totally fruitless venture, instead of focussing on goals that are actually achievable. Sadly a common trend that happens every year in these elections.
— Chris Edwards (from web)
Telomerase therapy hopes to remove cap on life expectancy
Are we not going to broach the ethical issues here? Life is given meaning because it is fleeting. If you can only die unnaturally, all that matters is staying alive. You’d focus solely on not getting hurt. Us mere mortals know that death is inevitable, and thus can live.
— Dante (from web)
Speaking out against small acts of homophobia
I feel that separating between small acts of homophobia and “big” acts of homophobia can be problematic. I feel then that big acts/small acts are separated when in fact they stem from the same issues. At the same time – you looked at the big victories as “institutional” — things that happen on a institutional/governmental level yet at the same time a lot of queer and trans people do not experience those victories (some could care less about them). Homophobia is homophobia.
— Queer (from web)
In reply to Queer:
I agree with you that homophobia is homophobia. But I do think there is a distinction — the big victories reflect the elimination of de jure discrimination, whereas the small acts are de facto discrimination. The elimination of the latter lags behind the former, and it’s sad that it will take a long time for it to really catch up.
— cantab (from web)
Colleges schedule March referenda on severing financial ties to UTSU
Sometimes I feel like the UTSU wants to give people reasons to be so upset, like a quota they need to fill every year. There is literally no other reason to not hold a referendum, not even attempt to implement online voting, and then send threatening letters to the colleges that are clearly unhappy with UTSU — a union they pay fees to.
I don’t know if someone could possibly have handled this worse. So much for “Unity”.
— Oh, Come On! (from web)
I’d say the biggest problem with this article is it ignore Shaun’s justifications for his positions. He argued (At the vusac meeting) that in his experience as President the majority of students do identify with his positions and that opposition disproportionately comes from college governance (and others closely alligned with colleges). UTSU is no a federation of colleges but a collection of students, and I like many would likely to continue my membership in this union and don’t by into the hyperbolic demonization of our union President and his team.
— Z.M (from web)
In reply to Z. M.:
Then if you feel that way, pressure UTSU to host the referendums and put it to the membership. If UTSU win, it proves what you are saying, if otherwise, it proves you are wrong. Either way, let this be democratically decided.
— Leon The Alumni Lion (from web)
