EDITORIAL & OPINIONS
Trent alum not pleased
Re: "Trent? What the fuck?," Oct. 16, 2003
To the Editor:
All The Gazette has to offer concerning the notion Trent University
is in several important ways superior to Western is the survey
was flawed? What's more - and this is the really funny part
- to support that position, you cite the opinion of a first-year
psychology student? What was the problem? Worried if you asked
anybody who may have a well-informed opinion on the subject
they may not tell you exactly what you wanted to hear? That's
If you will forgive my insolence (after all, I have only the "equivalent
of a kindergarten education"), I have some opinions of
my own. The difference, however, between myself and The Gazette
and their first-year, state-of-post-secondary education correspondent,
is I have a legitimate basis for comparison. I've been a student
at both universities; I know what the hell I'm talking about.
It would accomplish very little to tell you about the high
level of instruction I received at Trent. It really was excellent
and everything I've seen since I've come to Western has only
served to support that observation. But for the purposes of
this letter, that doesn't really matter; nobody here gives
a rat's ass.
The interesting point, however, is I knew I was getting a
great education. I knew it without requiring a survey, some
dumb ass campus newspaper or a first-year psychology student
to tell me so. I knew it because at Trent, more than any other
university I can speak knowledgeably of, you learn to think
for yourself. It is high praise for Western to be mentioned
in the same breath as Trent when it comes to quality of teaching.
Ph.D. IV Chemistry
Trent Environmental Sci/Chemistry '99
To the Editor:
With all the hype generated by publishing rankings of universities
and their faculties and programs, The Globe and Mail has released
its second annual student-developed "University Report
I'm sure many have heard the news Trent and Brock possess
the best quality education in Canada, but perhaps what you
might have missed - it being nestled far in the back of The
Globe's insert magazine - was that the University of Waterloo's
law school has a reputation which exceeds that of our own faculty
of law here at Western and the popular Osgoode Hall at York
University. Good for Waterloo in getting their name out there
and letting Canadian undergrads know of their presence. Here's
the thing though - Waterloo has no law school.
Come on now Globe and Mail; this "Report Card" really
deserves an F.
How to trick the Big X
Re: "Wet/Dry controversy has yet to dry up... or wet
up," Oct. 15, 2003
To the Editor:
The Wet/Dry policy was weak to begin with. All debate about
its reinstatement aside, the policy's security structure relied
on two things: the Big X and forgetfulness. Neither of these
features can prevent underagers from drinking.
If you have an X on your hand, no problem - get your friend
to buy alcohol for you. However, now you are drunk at the bar;
the final obstacle is to make sure nobody finds out. All you
must do is remember to pick up your Wet/Dry Card upon exiting.
Most underage drinkers who are taking advantage of this privileged
bar experience will remember to get the card.
Even if they don't, the policy draws a direct proportion between
forgetfulness and drunkenness, which is ineffective. There
is no way to prove the card was left behind due to drunkenness
because pure forgetfulness is an option - I forgot my card,
sober as can be. However, the policy considers the bearers
of the lost cards to be the underage drinkers. Great! Now the
accused appeals to a committee that has no way of proving guilt.
The Cards are then returned.
After travelling through this maze of regulations, we have
determined abusing the Wet/Dry system was one of the easiest
things ever to be done in university. When I first read the
policies, I thought "Is this for real?" My confusion
was soon satisfied by the shut-down of the system.
Cheers to everyone who enjoyed the ride, too bad it's over.
Word up, G
Re: "Huh?," Oct. 15, 2003
To the Editor:
If you see shoes hanging from power lines it usually means
a drug dealer is operating in the area. You'll see this more
often in larger urban settings in the United States. Stay away
from these areas, they're wickity wack. Holla!
Mike "Orangjulious" Ramp
Vice Chancellor of
the American Playa's Ball Association
Gays are people too, they're just
To the Editor:
In response to the recent political issues emerging from the
Canadian judicial system and the passing of Coming Out Week,
I wanted to clear up some of the barriers existing between
Christians and homosexuals.
Christians today have a stigma against them when it comes
to the issue of homosexuality and rightly so. The church promotes
love for all people, but that is often not the message heard
by the gay community. For this, on behalf of Christians, I
I would also like to clarify a few misconceptions. As a Christian,
I follow The Bible as absolute truth, inspired by God who created
us and knows what is best for our lives. The Bible tells us
gay is not OK because God created man and woman to be together
(Rom. 1:18-32, Gen. 1:26-31). So as a believer of The Bible,
asking me to condone the practice of homosexuality is like
asking a Jew to eat pork.
My convictions, however, do not tell me a homosexual person
is any less a human than a heterosexual person and the way
they are treated should be no different. The difference is
in understanding the separation existing between the person
God created and the sin existing in their lives (like sin existing
in different areas of my life). Christians should love homosexuals
just like a parent still loves their disobedient child, because
we are also disobedient at times.
I want to apologize for the lack of love and forgiveness we
as Christians experience, but do not always demonstrate.
P. Matthew Hessel
Re: "Deep focus," Oct. 15, 2003
To the Editor:
Groups such as Focus on the Family function on two false premises.
The first is homosexuals are incapable of loving, committed
relationships equal to those of their heterosexual counterparts.
Following this, they intimate families headed by a homosexual
couple are incapable of being healthy and functional. There
is no evidence children raised in a homosexual home are any
more psychologically inept than those raised in a heterosexual
home, despite what this group hopes to imply.
The second premise is homosexuality is a choice or an unfortunate
psychological disorder people can somehow be "cured" of
or at least taught to deal with. Such a claim arrogates that
homosexuality is unnatural, whereas history teaches us differently.
While I am glad Ms. Shona Black and her friend had such a
heartwarming experience at the recent conference held by Focus
on the Family in Toronto, I hope in the future these experiences
come from other places, preferably those not quite as biased
and close-minded as the one in question. I also suggest in
the future those looking for information about homosexual life
go to experts on the subject, namely actual homosexuals, rather
than those who hope to rid society of its presence.
I hope those who feel homosexuals are not their equals, those
who pity homosexuals for their unfortunate "choice" and
those who feel homosexuality is eroding the moral fabric of
society one day open their eyes and minds and catch up with
the rest of us.
President, Queer Western Organization