“Backwater” backlash
Re: Group seeks to change ‘racist’ course choices, March 26
With all due respect to the Critical Area Studies Collective, the group is undermining its credibility by claiming that the U of T is an “institutionalized, racist university.” What exactly is so shameful about a Western university having a predominantly Western-centric curriculum? If CASC’s goal is to increase the number of non-Western courses offered, it should focus on building student interest in those areas of study, not grousing about “institutionalized racism.” If it then becomes apparent that there is high student demand for courses emphasizing non-Western perspectives, I’m sure the administration would be happy to alter its curriculum accordingly.
Veiko Parming
• I was glad to see coverage of last Friday’s Critical Area Studies conference in The Varsity. It is gratifying to see students taking an active interest in their education and taking the university to task for a chronic problem of its own making: the underfunding of area studies programs.
When interviewed by The Varsity earlier this year, I noted that activist-minded students could best affect change if they coordinated their efforts with faculty and administrators eager to see additional funding flow to area studies. Indeed, the moment is precipitous, as the Faculty of Arts and Science is in the midst of an intensive curriculum review and renewal exercise.
“If we have students speaking articulately, loudly and consistently,” I stated, “we’ll get there sooner rather than later.”
As much as I applaud the student leaders of the Critical Area Studies Collective’s efforts to make their voices heard, I was dismayed to read Noaman Ali’s characterization of New College as a “backwater.” This ill-chosen term, coupled with his inaccurate notion that U of T students don’t know about the college or its area studies programs, is the opposite of the articulate and informed voice I anticipated.
Far from being a “backwater,” New College is a dynamic institution that historically has nurtured interdisciplinary academic programs from their inception to positions of strength. Women’s Studies, for instance, began its life as a fledgling college program, growing until recently it was elevated to EDU 1 status. The three area studies programs in the college-African Studies, Caribbean Studies, and South Asian Studies-have relatively small numbers of majors and minors, but they have large numbers of students taking the courses they offer. Much of the curriculum is funded by New College itself, evidence of our commitment to these programs.
We undoubtedly need additional resources to help these area studies programs develop. But the way to leverage these funds is first of all to speak in a careful and informed way, taking care not to take gratuitous swipes at one’s allies. We at New College have a strategy to move our academic programs forward. We wish Mr. Ali would exhibit more of a collective spirit and assist us with this task.
Professor Rick Halpern
Principal, New College
• I was quite angered by The Varsity’s coverage of the recent CASC conference. In particular, I took offence at the sentence, “The group has called for widespread protest among the student body, suggesting dissent and “throwing pies in [the administration’s face].” Mr. Spurr certainly chose to take that comment wildly out of context. What was suggested was not “pie throwing” in the literal sense. Instead, “pie throwing” was in reference to throwing pie charts, statistics, and facts at the administration to back up the group’s argument about the university’s narrow, Eurocentric pedagogical focus. Furthermore, while dissent may be evident in student’s efforts, those interested in curriculum changes are by no means reckless and blinded by anger, as the article suggests. Mr. Spurr did not do justice to the CASC conference, which not only brought these concerns to the forefront, but also fostered healthy and productive debate and critical thinking among the attendees.
Sayema Rawof
SCSU refuses to hear student out
Re: No pomp and circumstance for SCSU, March 26
If I had my way, Raj Gunaratnam, SCSU president, would be writing a letter apologizing for violating SCSU by-laws. Instead, after the board of directors voted against putting my reprimand on the agenda, I’m the one writing.
An advertisement for executive re-elections was printed in The Varsity on March 12. Raj placed this ad after the SCSU board of directors rejected the previous election. By printing an ad before the board set and voted upon the times of the election, he knowingly violated policy.
Bringing this motion, I hoped that directors, regardless of political affiliations and diverse opinions, believed that they must adhere to the rules that students elected them to follow. If someone violates these rules then they must be reprimanded, or else we create an organization within which someone can do whatever they like as long as enough directors are on their side. Further, the board of directors is only useful if they have power, which is removed if one person makes a decision that directors are supposed to make collectively. Upholding this type of rule maintains the integrity of the board.
Almost the exact same group of directors who voted against the first executive elections voted against putting the motion on the agenda. You can only reject an election if the election violates policy. To fix the fact that, after throwing out the election results, SCSU had no executives for next year, the president decided to violate policy himself. According to these directors’ votes, somehow, that is okay. Raj, as one of these voters, also voted against adding my reprimand to the agenda, despite the fact that he had an obvious conflict of interest.
Out of the dozens of meetings I’ve attended, I’ve never seen an item that is in order not put on the agenda. When a student brings something to the board of directors, the student is asking directors, who represent them, to listen to their concerns. Directors could have voted against the motion, but they did not have to silence the idea.
Oh, and that first election that the board of directors did not approve? Two weeks later, the chair deemed the elections to be approved based on the first vote which was in favour. There will not be another election, at least for now. Congratulations to the winners. I have a revolutionary idea for you: listen to what your members want by doing what they’ve told you to do. Follow your own rules, please.
Gillian Reiss
