Women only hours explained once again
(Re: “Open letter to the AC Programs Manager,” letter, 22 January 2002)
To answer your specific question as to why we have programmed Women Only Hours during busy times rather than at the start or at the end of the day, we have aimed to decrease the barriers for women who are interested in training after work or after school. The Women Only Hours are staggered throughout the week to allow for morning, afternoon or early evening workouts. We try not to schedule late evening activities for women, whether in the SCC or intramurals, to increase the personal safety of our female members.
Women Only Hours’ participants have chosen to use these hours for personal, cultural or religious reasons, to exercise in this more comfortable environment, rather than in the co-ed hours. There is still a need for Women Only Hours in the Strength and Conditioning Centre (SCC), as indicated by the show of support and re-affirmation of the Faculty’s policy on Women Only Hours at the November 2001 meeting of the Council of Athletics and Recreation Equity Issues Committee. Another success indicator shows that the participation rate during Women Only Hours has been increasing due to interest, promotion and media exposure. One hour per day was deemed a very reasonable policy to accommodate the extensive diversity of our current membership.
The Athletic Centre is open for 94 hours per week during the fall and winter terms, and we have scheduled a total of seven hours per week for Women Only Hours. The perceived inconvenience by some members translates to a mere seven per cent of the total facility hours.
We are constantly addressing issues regarding changing the culture of the SCC to make everyone feel welcomed while exercising. Until we fully reached this goal, we ask that all AC members respect the needs of other users, who may require special arrangements to strength train.
Susan Lee
Program Manager
Athletic Centre
Harris has us where he wants us
Your issue focusing on education funding and debt was much appreciated.
One thing that seems to be absent from discussions of student debt and the Harris government’s underfunding of education is the fact that the current situation has been designed by the government and its pro-free-market buddies to make Ontarians more capitalistic.
The argument against the imminent increases in law school tuition is that almost every U of T law grad will be obliged to take the highest-paying corporate job they can get. This ensures the aggressive capitalists a steady stream of highly active minds strongly motivated by money, which is exactly what they want. Furthermore, it keeps any anti-capitalist energy that might be in the law class from having time to surface, meaning a double victory for the profiteering ethos.
This same strategy already holds across the board, however. Forcing students to take on a large debt in return for their education means there will be fewer slackers, which is to say, fewer people using up university resources who aren’t serious. As a 36-year-old fourth-year PhD student and long-time TA here and at Trent, I can with all confidence say today’s students are significantly more competitive and concerned about grades earlier in their academic careers than were students in the late 80s. This isn’t a bad deal at all for teachers, who are naturally disheartened by people who routinely don’t show up for class.
The major social drawback is that the time after graduation, which ought to be a time of great social activism on the part of the educated mind, has become a time of obligatory service to the capitalist system. Harris and his buddies didn’t get where they are for nothing. And now they’ve figured out a way to keep themselves there. There are only two ways around it, really— to seriously disrupt the system, or to boycott it entirely. If I were 18 today, I’d be thinking twice about seeking any post-secondary education at all, unless I were simply planning to default on my OSAP loan.
Brent Wood
Let’s get this straight
(Re: “Israel and terrorism,” letter, 14 January 2002)
In my last letter I said the main reason behind the September 11 attacks was Palestinians’ treatment by Israel, not their hate of the Western democracies. This enraged certain people, who accused me of siding with the terrorists. I have but one reply to these people—do not put words into my mouth. If you would like to clarify exactly what I said, you are welcome to read my last letter more closely. The basis of Palestinian hostility towards the West and Israel is the fact that during the creation of Israel, their opinion was never asked. In fact, the Zionist terror campaign to drive them out of Palestine was already well under way. Eventually, more than 700,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homeland and live in the refugee camps where they remain to this day. Their land and property went into the “National Jewish Fund” and was declared by law to be “Land of Israel.” The UN General Assembly resolution affirmed the right of Palestinians to return to their home. However, Israel has systematically and juridically made it impossible for the Palestinians to come back.
Despite the treatment of Palestinians, the US continues to blindly support and aid Israel. It must reexamine its policy and bring justice to the Middle East.
Stan Deineka
Socialist’s sympathies questioned
(Re: “Forum on Palestinian land claims sparks lively debate,” 7 February 2002)
I hope Abbie Bakan was not representing the true view of the International Socialists by proclaiming her solidarity with the Palestinian Intifada. No socialist, no human being, should align themselves with a movement to kill innocent civilians, blow oneself up, and perpetrate terrorist attacks against women and children. We should all have the right to go to a pizzeria without the fear of ending up in bits and pieces on the linoleum floor.
Adam Cutler
An open letter to our president
Dear President Birgeneau and Ms. Cecil-Cockwell:
Imagine the shame felt by a parent who lacks the financial means to provide an education for his/her child.
Imagine the fear felt by someone who, at the end of a four-year undergraduate program, is faced with a $20,000 debt.
Imagine the anxiety felt by a student who cannot cope with his/her studies, but has no choice but to work in order to afford tuition and the bare necessities of life, such as shelter, clothing and food.
Unfortunately, many people do not have to imagine these scenarios because they are a reality. Tuition in Ontario is TOO high, and if it continues to increase at the alarming rate it has been, more and more people will be shut out from a university education.
It may be argued that tuition increases are necessary to ensure that U of T remains competitive among universities in North America. But at what cost?
U of T may be able to attract high-calibre professors and obtain research grants and prizes, but with sky-high tuition it will be unable to attract students—the most important people on the campus.
Marilena Liguori
U of T grad (2001)
