October 21 , 2003  
Volume 97, Issue 28   

Front Page >> Editorial & Opinions > Editorial


> News
> Editorial & Opinions
> Arts & Entertainment
> Campus Life
> Sports


> Archives
> Search Archive:
> Browse By Date:

More Stuff

> Photo Gallery
> Comics
> Contests
> Links

Talk to Us

> About Us
> Submit Letter
> Volunteers
> Advertising
> Gazette Alumni Society



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 quality journalism.

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.

Doug Simmons
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 Card."

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.

Greg Kerr
H.B.A./LL.B. 2005

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.

Scott Legree
Science I

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

Pharmacy II
Vice Chancellor of
the American Playa's Ball Association

Gays are people too, they're just not straight

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 am sorry.

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
Engineering II

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.

Catherine Clune-Taylor
President, Queer Western Organization



Editorial & Opinions Links

© 2003 The Gazette  
BluThng Productions