And your own point is…
(Re: “Editorial misses a point,” letter 14 January 2002)
Mr. Irvine’s letter demonstrates a clear error of logic. He states that since 40 percent of university students come from wealthy families, tuition increases to all students will necessarily assist the poorer 6 percent based on their needs. He does not, however, cite any statistic showing how current public subsidies of education are equally distributed to both rich and poor students, yet infers it.
If the distribution of education funding favours richer students, that is a separate issue which will not be fixed by increasing tuition fees.
His assertion is contradicted by his own supporting premise.
If you want to address the needs of poorer students, then identify them and lower their tuition fees. To make an analogy between tuition and income taxes by introducing the word “progressive” is very contentious, but not in the way Mr. Irvine is intending.
A progessive tuition system would, by definition, suggest richer students should pay more than poorer students.
Higher tuition may assist universities with their operating budgets, but they will not help poorer students unable to pay increased tuition and attend university.
J. Wang
There is no justification for murder
(Re: “Israel and terrorism,” letter 14 January 2002)
The letter points out that the September 11 terrorists were not motivated by a hatred of western democracies, but were responding to Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the argument implies that suicide, coupled with the murder of innocent people, is a legitimate response to the actions of the state of Israel.
With respect to September 11, it is not relevant whether the motive was a hatred of democracy or a hatred of Israel, since there can be no justification for the murder of innocent civilians.
Eric Stutz
Arab nations have not helped the Palestinian people
(Re: “Israel and terrorism,” letter, 14 January, 2002)
I am thoroughly unconvinced by Mr. Deineka’s explanation for the attack on the World Trade Center in his letter. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is grave, but it is certainly not the cause of all suicide bombings. The idea that the situation in Israel would drive Saudi, Iraqi, Lebanese, and Egyptian men to attack the United States is absurd. Why would they care?
In fact, it is a well-known fact that these countries have done nothing to help the Palestinian people. When Israel was created by the UN in 1948, every surrounding Arab country immediately declared war on the fledgeling nation. It was they who encouraged the Palestinians to leave their homes and wait for the “Jews to be pushed into the sea”. When this did not occur, the Palestinians remained displaced and no Arab nation has extended their
hand to help the impoverished people that they have created. I take deep offence at Mr. Deneika’s many misrepresentations of Israeli history and his distortion of historical facts.
Zvi Halpern
Toronto Regional Director of Bnei Akiva Zionist Youth Movement
Casting first stones at St. Michael’s College
(Re: “St. Michael’s College compromises the Christian ethic,” 14 January 2002)
I will admit my bias right off the top. I am the daughter of the stubborn ground supervisor who has little regard for safety (however, I just call him Papa). After I reading this article I was upset with St. Michael’s College (SMC). I was upset that they would graduate a man who can’t even make an intellectual argument.
To my recollection, there is no commandment that states, “Thou shalt return university students’ damage deposits by the first Monday after the school term!” Then again, I have been too busy studying to have read the most recent edition of the Bible.
I also don’t understand how hiring subcontractors compromises the Christian ethic. There is nothing in the Bible that states one can’t be a businessman.
Enough about what I don’t know. What I do know is that the Basilian fathers have always put students before anything. I know many students are grateful to have a security job (subcontract or not) and I know trying to publicly crucify the entire administration of SMC is not very Christian.
Perhaps Mr. Pereira should start looking at things from a much brighter perspective. Instead of wondering how security is being paid, he should be grateful that SMC protects us.
I am truly offended by Pereira’s attempt to mask his personal attacks at SMC employees with religion. Perhaps the next article he writes should lead with “Forgive me, father, for I have sinned.”
Gina Pugliese
Open letter to the AC Programs Manager
(Re: Women’s only hours at the Strength and Conditioning Centre)
Dear Susan Lee (Manager, Athletics Centre Programs),
Once again denied access to the Strength and Conditioning Centre (SCC)! I really have to complain about the overly-obtrusive women-only hours you seem to support at the SCC. I have a full course load, a job and a volunteer position, which leaves me little time to work out. It’s very irritating that when I do have the time, I’m frequently unable to complete my workout because I am male. Incidentally, I also pay full-time student fees which keep the Athletic Centre running, and I don’t appreciate being discriminated against.
This is a public university, so the very idea of gender-based discrimination is already questionable, but the fact that the schedule places women-only hours at times that seem most convenient for all students only compounds the problem. The expansion of the SCC, which otherwise is fantastic, saw the relocation of many of the Nautilus machines to the new room, which even further limits the range of exercise options I have during these hours.
I don’t understand what the “needs of women from all walks of life” are that you refer to in the schedule.
Presumably, they need protection from obnoxious men who can’t behave properly.
As a gay male, I can say that I have never felt that sort of intimidation, even though gay men are arguably more maligned than women by chauvinistic males (constant “fag” jokes, etc.).
If I did have a problem, I would be adult enough to point it out to someone I assumed could handle it.
If your staff aren’t enforcing the code of etiquette, that should not result in my being denied access to the facility.
If you feel you must hold on to these discriminatory policies, I suggest at least changing the hours to times that are less interfering, such as the first or last hours of operation of the centre.
John Ratcliffe
University College
I take no pride in Dean Daniels’ decision
In response to the recent Divisional Court decision in Shank v. University of Toronto, Provost Adel Sedra declares that “[t]he university is proud of the Code and its implementation and the manner in which Dean Daniels and the Faculty of Law handled these difficult matters.” (“Court Confirms University’s Right to Sanction,” by Susan Bloch-Nevitte, posted on the university’s website.)
Lest we forget, the result in that case was an order quashing the decision of the dean and setting aside the finding of guilt and the imposition of the sanction. Dean Daniels punished Shank on the basis that she admitted to committing an academic offence. But the court found that “[t]he evidence does not objectively support the Dean’s conclusion as to the admission of the offence for which [Shank] was disciplined and the conclusion therefore may be considered patently unreasonable.” I for one am not proud of Dean Daniels’ patently unreasonable conclusion, much less with his decision to act without jurisdiction and suspend my classmate.
Greg McIlwain
In-Graditude: an open letter
(Re: contents of the Graditute packages)
Graditude,
Upon opening your “Graditude” package yesterday, I couldn’t help feeling incensed at the expensive, gimmicky contents and at the moronic representation of student life and achievement portrayed therein.
It’s insulting to depict graduation through a buffoon holding a degree between his teeth, as though the item were simply another junk-food morsel to be rapidly ingested by an already-bloated clown, or a bone thrown to an obedient and “faithful” dog.
Have you considered the sort of message you’re conveying, both to students and to the general public?
It’s also disturbingly revealing that your campaign can summarize the taking of a degree in quantitative terms limited to pseudo-“studying” and “pub nights.”
Not only is this cynical description found in the glossy, and probably pricey, brochure, but it’s also inscribed on a cheesy refrigerator magnet that I’m certain many people will want to add their kitchen decor.
Is that arithmetic equation what you believe comprises an undergraduate university education? I, and many others, don’t.
At a time when tuition fees are on the rise and many of us are entering the workforce with debts in the neighbourhood of $25,000, do you really think anyone (especially when called upon in such a laughable manner) will blithely contribute?
University has already been, in material terms, an arduous experience.
How deep is the snow-hole in which you have your head buried?
Antonio Pilla
