RE: “There are words we can live without”
I think the important thing here is context. Everyone has different views on what is and what isn’t offensive. An academic institution is not a place for language some people consider inflammatory, as it can be considered aggressive and isn’t productive for reasoned discussion. However, what one may say in situations with people one knows well I would say anything goes. We have to remember that words are just grunts we have assigned meaning to, many words can be entirely inoffensive in one context and vulgar in another. If one uses the term “bitch” at a dog show its perfectly fine, but used in anger against a lady it is a verbal attack.
RE: “Protecting students should be a priority”
You’re unhappy with the lack of danger on campus, so you’d like U of T police to start widening their net? U of T is such an option right in the middle of Toronto, yet we have such a low rate of incidents that most people don’t even stop to think about it. Plus, widening the net to the west end is like police officers from other regions publishing statements about issues in other areas that other police officers take care of. It makes no sense.
U of T students commute from a lot of places. While I do see that Christie and Bloor’s attacks are closer to U of T, so were the Kensington attacks in the summer. I guess the student newspaper should keep printing stories to keep the student body informed, instead of having the U of T police write 10 sentences on an area they are literally not allowed to work in. Imagine!
RE: “You and me forever with they”
As a parent who has actually seen the poster, polyamory was the last thing I thought of. And I haven’t heard about any parent who is particularly upset about the content of the posters. That some in the conservative, religious right are upset is to be expected and is just something they were bound to start whining about. The largest complaint I’ve heard is that kids don’t fully understand why there needs to be a safe space. Feeling that if ‘they’ get one, why can’t we have one. But it’s my understanding that this is a small minority. On the whole it seems that kids are receptive of the idea.
“If the polyamrous can demonstrate that they can stay with their people, raise many children, and show that this arrangement is capable of making useful contributions to society as a long-term effort, then showing the next generation TDSB’s ‘love has no gender’ poster will be perfectly appropriate.”
As opposed to supposedly monogamous relationships and marriages? Let’s face facts, 90 per cent of monogamous relationships end-up in the trash, and then half of the 10 per cent that make it to marriage end-up getting divorced.
Your argument is invalid.
I grew up being raised by two moms and constantly hearing about the “gay lifestyle” being incompatible with children. Bigots would rant about the promiscuity of gays and lesbians, and their relationships never last, it’s impossible for them to raise children, and they all die early from AIDS, drugs, and too much meaningless sex. I was confused and would look at my own family contradicting everything they said, but I could never seem to convince them that my family existed.
This is deja vu. Now I have my own poly family and we’ve solidly been together for 14 and for seven years. One of my partners was raised by poly parents. Yet once again I have to deal with ignorant people claiming that my family doesn’t exist and anyone like us must be sex-crazed and incapable of healthy lasting relationships. That it’s coming from someone who is gay and likely has been exposed to this same style of bigotry is additionally upsetting.
What level of “proof” do you require? Is our existence not enough? Are your false assumptions the only things you will trust? Do you realize there are still those demanding “proof” that gay, lesbian, and bisexual folks can have meaningful relationships? They will likely never be satisfied. It seems you may be headed on the same path.
By your standards monogamy shouldn’t be on the poster either. It certainly hasn’t met your criteria for “successful” relationships. My advice would be to do a little more research on polyamory. From what I’ve read here, you have a very poor grasp of it.
RE: “Munk School hits its stride”
As a student of the MGA program, I can wholeheartedly agree with the analysis made by Graham Smith regarding the lack of political tilt in the classroom. I have never felt like my academic experience has been in any way impeded by the corporate donation by Peter Munk. As much as I’d like to be sympathetic to those who are so whole-heartedly opposed to the Munk school, I simply cannot without feeling like in some way I’ve given up my integrity and admitted to being a fool.
Please, those who are outside of the program, actually talk to those of us going through the program before spreading your own form of slander. The quality of my graduate education is no less than the quality of graduate education available through any of the other faculties at the school, and I’d like to think of us as one big happy U of T community rather than an isolated subgroup subject to a zealous group of opponents.
I may not personally agree with everything Peter Munk does, and I most certainly don’t believe in everything Barrick Gold does, but I find it extremely difficult to have any sympathy for those militant groups so opposed to the school. I have learned more, both about myself and about the world at large, in my brief time at Munk than I did throughout my entire undergraduate career.
One thing I hope to take from my time at the MGA is an ability to increase universal access to education. It seems odd to me that in a country like Canada there would still be those who seek to restrict the education of some based on personal values and beliefs.