Getting to “Know Radical Islam”
Re: Preaching to the choir, Feb. 9
Thank you for including a nice clear picture with your article on “Know Radical Islam Week.” The picture shows two people standing in a Sid Smith theatre and engaged in peaceful and impassioned debate. I never would have expected such dialogue at an event that, the adjoining article claimed, suffers from “a lack of dialogue.”
It seems as though the gentlemen in the picture were not intimidated by the “huge signs” on the doors of the lecture hall [warning of the university’s policy on “disrupted” meetings].
I’m happy that the community brought divergent views to the week’s events. I’m happier still that The Varsity has, in spite of itself, showcased this dialogue.
Patrick Adler
Betar Tagar
Re: Letters, Feb. 9
Sarah Nasser is “baffled” by the university’s alleged inconsistency in monitoring hatred on campus. If I am “baffled” by anything, it’s how the university’s permitting “Know Radical Islam Week” contradicts their earlier cancellation of the Arab Students’ Collective conference in 2003: this conference was problematic because it aimed to filter out and exclude dissent by requiring all participants to sign to controversial, even hateful, tenets.
The week wasn’t canceled for its controversy, but its unlawful method.
Nasser says that “Know Radical Islam Week” seems offensive. But her “taking offense” cannot be allowed to determine what constitutes hate speech, and therefore what is expressed on campus.
Nasser deems the week “a banner of hatred,” but it was intended to differentiate our subject matter of Islamic religious fundamentalism from Islam, precisely “for the sake of religious respect and freedom.” In so doing, the educational week was a tremendous success.
Students who cry “hatred” obscure the real cases of hate speech. Nasser’s admitted discomfort should compel an earnest re-examination of the grounds of her vulnerabilities and convictions.
Rebecca Waserman
President, Middle East Forum at University of Toronto
Don’t drink the water
I was disappointed by the way the Hart House Board of Stewards meeting confirming closure of the Arbor Room was conducted.
These people are elected to act in the best interests of the students, yet attention to student responses to the closure seemed poor. Little notice was given to the petition save for issues with the content and construction of it, and with the exception of a handful of members’ actions, the stewards returned the topic again and again to discussion of deficits and budgets, and their notion of “what the student would want.”
I am sure that students who are following this would question, as I did, how some members of the board use the fact that the Arbor Room is running a deficit to argue for its closure when the water provided at the meeting to the members was professionally bottled and labelled “Hart House” water.
I am glad our money is going to good use.
Emily Victor
• I just attended my first Hart House Board of Stewards meeting. It made me feel physically sick. Though many of the stewards claimed to represent students, their behaviour was repulsive.
Instead of treating the petition with the respect it deserved, stewards made comments regarding its inauthenticity, because it could be signed “on the internet.” The argument was put forward that Fred Flintstone could have written the petition, and thus it was entirely invalid. This disregard for students is appalling.
Even more appalling was the Board’s utter contempt for the student unions at U of T. Frequently deriding SAC in an often disrespectful manner, stewards mocked the ability of unions to reflect the will of their constituencies.
It is remarkable to me that APUS, the GSU, SAC, and their members all stood in opposition to the closing of Hart House Food Service, and yet the Hart House Board of Stewards still made the claim that they represent student will in closing it. I am ashamed of the Hart House Board of Stewards. They do not speak for me.
Rachel Barton
False favouritism alert
Re: Audience-Ignatieff relations, Feb. 6
Brianna Goldberg wrote: “Even fewer [of the questions] came from members who were not Homer-Dixon’s students edging for those extra participation marks!”
Not a single one of the questions that evening came from a current or former student of mine, and only one of the seven questioners was a student associated with the Trudeau Centre.
Your strong implication that I exercised favouritism in recognizing questioners is entirely without basis.
T. Homer-Dixon
