Canada’s Caribbean Opportunity
Faculty and students associated with the University of Toronto’s Caribbean Studies Program were dismayed by last Monday’s article “Canada’s Caribbean Opportunity.” The piece claimed that Caribbean people reject independence as a failure, and that this presents an “opportunity” to “open the [Caribbean] region up” to Canadian influence.
The article is a thinly veiled argument for an imperial relationship between Canada and the Caribbean. This absurd idea has surfaced occasionally since the 1800s. In a crass bid for votes during 2004’s federal elections, a Conservative politician proposed that Canada take over the Turks and Caicos. Journalists called upon knowledgeable people to participate in what could otherwise have been an unconstructive sensationalist exercise. University of Toronto faculty gave interviews in the national media dismissing that proposal.
The University of Toronto has an internationally respected Caribbean Studies Program. Faculty who research the Canada-Caribbean relationship teach in several departments. Faculty research interests are available on the University’s list of media ‘experts.’ which is updated annually, and on departmental websites. The Varsity contacted no faculty members, and it seems no editor recognized that this piece was too inflammatory and poorly researched to merit publication.
Student journalists can and do express opinions that might offend members of the University community, but should any newspaper publish material that fails basic tests of journalistic competence? Being in a newspaper’s ‘Comment’ section is not a license for laziness. U of T students have the opportunity to learn about the Caribbean and its relationship with Canada. Varsity journalists should use that privilege.
— Kevin Edmonds, Doctoral Candidate in Political Science; Sean Mills, Assistant Professor of History; Melanie J. Newton, Director of Caribbean Studies and Associate Professor of History; Néstor E. Rodríguez, Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese; Lahoma Thomas, PhD Candidate in Political Science; D. Alissa Trotz, Associate Professor of Caribbean Studies and Women and Gender Studies; Representatives of the Caribbean Studies Student Union: Jodi Arthurton, Raquel Brown, Mark Chatarpal, Elesha Daley, Kevin De Silva, Lincoln Defreitas, Alyssa-Marie Doopan, Leslie-Ann Fullerton, Naregh Galoustian, Samra Hasnain, Darren Jordan, Chantal McFarlane, Sharifa Patel, Melissa Sobers, Sarah Taluy, Ronique Williams
I am a former co-president of the Caribbean Studies Students’ Union (CARSSU) who is writing in response to the article “Canada’s Caribbean Opportunity.” I was extremely unnerved by the fact that the writer in question is casually making claims which would suggest Canadian neo-imperialism is a way of benefiting the Caribbean. Comments below the piece online, likely not from students who are Caribbean, still express dissatisfaction over the recklessness of the author. Caribbean history is riddled with cases of Western domination which have harmed indigenous Caribbean development projects. Caribbean initiatives have more often than not been stunted, not helped, by Western “free-trade” arrangements and other mechanisms which would seek to rule the region. That this was glossed over, or that this position was not expressed alongside this piece in The Varsity is very problematic.
It’s also a bit outlandish that an author could write in really highfalutin terms that under this scheme “As the standard of living rises, greater integration could be pursued with the express desire of bringing the region into Canada’s confederation…,” essentially claiming that these countries should become appendages to Canada or provinces. This claim is obviously disrespectful, lazy, and may be illustrative of the misconceptions of Canadian university students toward the region. That a student could also coolly write about the fate of a vast space that many Caribbean students call home (and still see as a space that has promise) in terms which would benefit Canada, suggesting in effect that they should be colonized, speaks in part to under-representation in your staff and a laxidasical attitude towards serious journalism. In all seriousness the article has put off not only a sizeable portion of the student body, but many U of T faculty members to The Varsity as a campus newspaper.
— Kevin De Silva
… I might not always agree with Shaun and the exec, but the second last paragraph of this article is extremely problematic. The author seems to feel that when Shaun spoke about his mental health issues he lost the “ethically higher ground,” was unprofessional, legitimized hecklers and apparently failed to live up to the author’s standard that student politicians must at all times remain “stoic and calm.” In choosing to make these ethical judgements the author has chosen to publicly de-legitimize and undermine Shaun solely on the basis of factors relating to his mental health; factors which are beyond his control. Whatever the merits of the rest of the article, this section is completely unacceptable as serious journalism… I’m all for freedom of the press, but just because you have the right to say something does not mean you should. I would suggest that an apology is appropriate here, not just to Shaun, but to those many students on our campus who have their own struggles with mental health issues.
— Dylan Moore (from web)
This is a joke. All the president has done is perpetuate the divisiveness that he supposedly doesn’t condone. When you make close to 30k a year paid for by the students, you unfortunately aren’t afforded the sympathy you seek by having a breakdown during an address to the union or by declaring yourself the spokesperson against the criticism of your peers, and then misleading people by referring to legitimate criticism as “bullying.” As a person, I wholeheartedly sympathize with the toll that’s been taken on the president’s mental health. But as a voting member of the union who’s seen nothing done to establish any meaningful reform in 4 years, I feel nothing but spite and frustration towards this bold op-ed. The president is calling for student solidarity. Well, sir, there IS student solidarity, and that solidarity is what allowed for the members of the union to finally take a stand against the corrupt practices of the union’s executives, acting to maintain the grip the CFS has on Canadian universities. I truly can’t believe Mr. Shepherd was afforded the opportunity to make good with the union after a failure of an AGM, and did not mention a single detail of the reform he is clearly aware is being tabled. Shaun: Why will you not address the topic of online voting?
— Mike Cowan (from web)
Blues rugby teams face possible downgrade
This is a good article, but the headline is wildly misleading. The Varsity Blues rugby teams aren’t being “downgraded” — under the proposed models, they’re being killed outright. The sport might be “reclassified” on campus but Blues rugby would be as dead as the proverbial parrot. Intramural rugby is fun in its own right but it’s no substitute for intercollegiate competition. Let’s dispense with (deliberately?) obfuscating terms like “downgrading” and “reclassification” and call it what it is.
— Jim Nicholson (from web)
