Volume 94, Issue 86

Tuesday, March 6, 2001


Letters to the Editor

Tales from a cell shocked columnist

Letters to the Editor

Another beef posted on the Brescia debacle; reader ties up loose ends

Re: Hopeful disqualified over posters, Mar. 1.

To the Editor:

As a member of the Brescia College Students' Council, I am honoured you feel our issue is important enough to make front-page news. However, I think your newspaper does not feel that accuracy of facts is a priority in informing the student body of campus news.

First of all, the disqualified candidate is Sou Xaysy, our VP-administration is Christine Chipchase, and we do not have a Campaign Commissioner.

Above all, I think it is misrepresentative that you failed to acknowledge the steps taken by the BCSC to resolve the issue, and instead chose to falsely state that our council "voted to ignore the petition."

Besides the hours spent by our executive members examining our constitution and making sense of events, we endured a three-hour meeting to debate the most effective course of action. After much careful deliberation, we felt that an open forum would be the best way to educate students and address concerns.

In addition, two committees have been formed. They include members of council and students at large who reform aspects of the constitution dealing with courses of action in regards to infractions of rules, as well as the addition of a referendum protocol clause.

It is disturbing that misinformed people feel that it is wise to ignore rules and make exceptions to candidates who break regulations, despite being aware and signing waivers acknowledging these directives. The constitution is what holds us together and helps us govern the school.

As council members, we pledged to uphold these rules in order to best serve the students in a fair and unbiased manner. If rules are carelessly ignored, where does council draw the line? Would it not be unfair to other candidates to allow such rules to be broken?

Sarah Firth
USC Environmental Commissioner
Social Science I

The clarions are sounding: To arms!

Re: Supply is demanding, Feb. 27.

To the Editor:

Should students be upset at proposed tuition hikes for deregulated programs? Yes, absolutely. Students should not stand by and accept these proposals, contrary to the suggestions of The Gazette's editorial staff.

The fact is, higher tuition means a greater lack of accessibility to education. In medicine, we have seen a precipitous decrease in the proportion of students from middle and lower class families. This means less diversity in the medical school class, and therefore less diversity in the next generation of doctors. Yet quality health care is made easiest by patients having doctors they can relate to.

We cannot allow financial standing to be a barrier for students during any part of their post-secondary education.

Is it a trade-off between low tuition and high calibre of education? Can't we have both? The fact is, all Canadian medical schools produce high quality doctors (unlike schools in the USA, where quality varies considerably). Yet tuition ranges from $6,500 for a three-year program to $14,000 for a four-year program.

Is it an unattainable dream for students to be able to plan on stable tuition fees? It shouldn't have to be. Financial planning is one part of the preparation necessary to apply to medical school. How can a student in the first-year of their undergraduate degree budget for a medical education if tuition three years from now might be $25,000 a year?

Should we be upset? Yes, we should. Particularly for the sake of students aiming at entrance to professional programs. We must fight, for the sake of accessibility.

Wendy Lai
Medicine II

So, you say you want a revolution?

To the Editor:

If you are not living on campus at an affiliated college, I would like to draw your attention to the unfair profiteering that each of us are subjected to each day with respect to residence dining.

The trouble is that universities are run by people who go home every night and eat two thirds of their meals at home with their families. Just having a cafeteria there in the first place satisfies their obligation to us, but they are oblivious to how inefficiently it is being run. Variety store prices, inadequate hours, long line-ups and frustratingly poor selection are the principal reasons why I would recommend that any first-year students instead find a house nearby.

If we are to be forced to purchase a meal plan, here are a few suggestions to improve conditions:

1) Standardize all student cards and student card readers. A student from any of the affiliated colleges should be able to use their meal cards at any other on campus cafeteria/food court.

2) Eliminate contracts and overhead fees which guarantee profitability to businesses and simply lease out cafeteria space at market prices. Inferior restaurants would fail; better ones would take their place. I like to call this concept "capitalism."

3) Sell student card readers to any interested London restaurants and let any meal plan use them without limit. This way if you miss the 7 p.m. closing time, you can walk down to the restaurant by the main gates for some food.

Aaron Burns
Administrative and Commerical Studies I

To Contact The Opinions Department:

Copyright The Gazette 2000