Throwback Thursday: SFSS Fall Kickoff
As the semester comes to a close, here’s a quick look back at one of the bigger events that kicked off our school year.
Created by Brandon Hillier
Professor under fire after critiquing African economic data
An SFU professor’s newly released book critiquing African statistical data has caused an uproar across Africa, resulting in his explusion from two international conferences this year.
Morten Jerven, an international studies professor who has spent four years researching in Africa, met great resistance from several powerful African officials after launching his book, Poor Numbers, earlier this year. Since then, Jerven has been called a “hired gun” of the West who must be “stopped in his tracks” before he completely discredits African governments.
Poor Numbers’ main conclusion points to the lack of knowledge people actually have about economic development in Africa due to poorly collected economic data. Although issues with recording such data occur in every country, Jerven argues that there is a radical difference when you consider a third-world country because much of the important economic activity is not properly recorded or reported.
“Some of the economic statistics is pure guesswork. A lot of it is completely meaningless.”
– Morten Jerven,
SFU professor and author
Jerven explained, “Some of the economic statistics is pure guesswork. A lot of it is completely meaningless, and there is no way you can for instance download the data and pretend you’re saying something useful.”
The problem with these discrepancies is that measures like GDP are used to decide whether a country is low-income or not. This data can help a country decide whether to pursue a specific policy — if it proved successful — and can also serve as a benchmark for benefactor nations or the World Bank.
However, with poor statistical reporting, the data can be skewed one way or another to the country’s benefit, argues Jerven. “If a country like Southern Sudan wished to under report its income so that it continues to be classified as a poor country, so that it continues to get support from the World Bank, it can do so at the expense of another country that could have got that money,” said Jerven.
Jerven uses the example of Malawi, which according to his findings overstated its agricultural growth for many years to the extent that maize production was assumed to be 50 to 60 per cent higher than it actually was. “That’s many many meals,” said Jerven. “The practical implication is that we might go around thinking that someone is well-fed and that they’re going to school and they’re out of the poverty line when they’re actually not.”
Jerven’s book has been praised by the IMF, the African Development Bank, and even Bill Gates, who says the book “makes a strong case” for casting doubt on official GDP numbers. However, not all feedback has been positive.
African officials have called Jerven a “hired gun” of the West who must be “stopped in his tracks.”
Jerven’s critics, led by South African statistician-general Pali Lehohla, pressured a United Nations commission to remove him from the speakers list at a conference in September in Addis Ababa, threatening that no South African delegates would attend otherwise. Jerven was also prevented from speaking at a conference in Paris in May, where his session was moved to be behind closed doors.
Zambia’s central statistical office has also joined the debate. In a 13-page statement, the office accused Jerven as having a “hidden agenda” to “discredit” African officials. It also accused him of “sneaking in” to government offices and “taking advantage” of junior statisticians.
Jerven replied to these comments on the site African Arguments, saying, “The allegations that I am a ‘hired gun’ or ‘that I have not done my research’ are of course ridiculous and entirely false. With Lehohla putting his emphasis on “stopping Jerven in his tracks” before he “hijacks the African statistical agenda” the immediate danger is that good initiatives will be suspended and cancelled. In the long term, statistical offices in the region may struggle for survival.”
Although many are still angry, it seems that tides are turning in favour of opening dialogue. In December, Jerven will attend the ninth African Symposium on Statistical Development in Gaborone to have an “open and frank discussion” to resolve his differences with some of Africa’s most important statisticians.
“That invitation was written by the people who are the angriest at me,” said Jerven. “It will probably be me and nine officials on the other side of the table with their cannons aimed at me, so we will see . . . it’s going to be fun.”
Leaving a Digital Trail
What if I told you that digital privacy doesn’t exist? That every website we search, every keystroke we make, every text message we believe to be private is being monitored, or can easily be traced back to us? That these notions we hold of the protection of our privacy are completely pointless? That we are virtually helpless to protecting ourselves, and that our attempts have always been in vain?
Surveillance programs and government agencies across the globe have the power to track everything that we say and do online. They know virtually everything about us — they even have the power to predict our online movements before we make them. Our society cowers helplessly under the weight of digital technologies and the ghostly unseen who control them. What’s worse is that we’re barely aware of it, as I so dauntingly learned at the film screening of Terms and Conditions May Apply, during this year’s Media Democracy Days on Nov. 8–9.
The film reveals the truth of today’s digital communications by revealing what we really submit to when we click “I agree” to the terms and conditions for website services, such as Facebook and Twitter.
Our lack of critical thinking is what feeds Internet services and propels them to take advantage of us.
Terms and conditions are gateways for the world wide web to steal our Internet souls and use them to lurk in the shadows behind us, take advantage of the ways we think, and manipulate us. So, what do we agree to when we mindlessly click the “I agree” button? How exactly is our privacy being violated? Read on and you shall find out.
We allow Internet services to use our personal data.
If you’ve ever read Google’s terms of agreement — and I’m willing to bet you haven’t — you’ll know that Google’s terms allow the service to track user Internet cookies. Cookies are the bits of data we leave behind on every website we visit. Using these cookies, Google creates an algorithm that learns over time which websites we visit most frequently. This means that whenever we search for something on Google, the top results will always reflect websites the search engine believes we will be more inclined to enjoy than others.
Every time we use the Internet, we essentially leave a breadcrumb trail for Google to stalk us with! Feel free to test this for yourself: Grab a few of your friends, pull out your smart phones or laptops, and individually search the same topic. Most likely, your search results will be slightly different from the person next to you, reflecting the website content you, personally, favour.
How does this invade our privacy? Google employees, not to mention countless other website services, can track our movements online through our website histories and predict what we might search for next. They can research what we say, what we do, and, in a sense, what we think. It’s disturbing to think that a simple Internet search engine has the power to execute this, and downright terrifying to think of the billions of Internet users who are being taken advantage of by Google every single day.
We allow services to change terms and conditions at any time.
We as a society have adapted far too easily to the default settings on Internet services. If the default setting is set to public, most of us are unlikely to bat an eye. Our lack of critical thinking is what feeds Internet services and propels them to take advantage of us. In many cases, these websites are so confident in our online acquiescence that they decide to silently change their terms and conditions — from right under users’ noses.
Take Facebook, for example. In 2009, Facebook knowingly changed the fine print of their terms and conditions, without alerting any of its users. As a result, information that had been private suddenly became completely public — all except the user’s birthday and contact information. These changes sparked an angry outcry from Facebookers who felt their privacy had been violated without their consent.
But this wasn’t the first time Facebook had taken steps to make its users’ information more public — it’s only the most prominent. Since 2007, the site has gradually been altering its terms of service so that increasing amounts of information become public each year, violating the privacy of millions of users. For a social network that prides itself on connecting us with our “inner circle of friends,” it’s worth noting that Facebook seems intent on connecting us with pretty much everyone else, too.
We allow services to make our information “anonymous.”
Take note of the quotation marks on the word anonymous. Any terms that include the word anonymous, or claim that you are an anonymous user of their service, are outright lies. Nothing on the Internet is anonymous — it’s just not how the web works.
For example, in 2006, AOL spontaneously turned over a plethora of anonymized searched records from its users. Within only a few hours, reporters had decrypted exactly who many of these users were. They did so by matching user numbers with the different search terms the users had typed into the system. As a result, reporters were able to decode user names, ages, locations, and contact information. It seems like once we’ve made our contribution to the net, we’ve been carved into it forever.
Furthermore, it may make you more than a little uneasy to know that Facebook has a record of everything that has ever been posted on their network. Within seconds of deleting content, Facebook employees can check their archival data and pull up whatever you’ve attempted to trash. Your attempts to make yourself anonymous are futile, as all the underlying data is still there to be decoded.
We must shine the light on the issue, raise awareness of these surveillance programs and spark debate.
Those angry break-up messages you sent to your significant other, then promptly deleted? The ones you thought were gone forever? Just imagine Facebook employees huddled around a computer, laughing at them, while you’re sitting here reading this article!
We allow services to show our information to the government.
Let me begin by stating that there is no guarantee our information won’t be disclosed or accessed by the Canadian government. Popular social networking websites employ surveillance workers who search user profiles and private information, 24/7. If governments have reason to suspect any illegal activity, they can, and will, gain access to our private information.
Chances are, you’re aware of the National Security Agency (NSA) scandal that occurred in the United States this June. Edward Snowden, an ex-NSA employee cum political fugitive living in Russia, leaked classified information about the NSA that some have gone on to argue has been one of the most significant leaks in US history. Snowden revealed that the NSA had been secretly tapping into phone lines and intercepting online communications across the globe.
The leak sparked outrage with many digital technology users, whose eyes were opened to the fact that their privacy was being violated. At least now they know to say “hello” to the NSA whenever they answer the phone.
We allow the government to use our data to prevent private communication and protest.
Did you know that there is microscopic software in all of our phones called Carrier IQ? This software is designed to document every keystroke we make on our phones. It keeps a detailed record of our personal communication, and retains the ability to divulge every photo, video, audio, text message and password we have, or have ever had, to service providers and, if need be, to the authorities. Carrier IQ has recently been the cause of major controversy with regards to the data it gathers, and its lack of transparency in using this information.
In 2002, the American government began a surveillance program called Total Information Awareness (TIA), which was designed to track every single web transmission ever made. With enough data, TIA believed it could easily spot and track potential criminals. Many of these “criminals” weren’t actually criminals at all, and were only targeted because they had posted supposedly suspicious messages online.
Following public criticism, TIA was shut down permanently in 2003, but this has not deterred governments from acting against what they think is suspicious illegal activity.
The film Terms and Condition May Apply, which focuses on the touchy subject of Internet privacy, tells the story of a European man about to fly to America for a vacation. Before leaving for the airport, he posted a message on Twitter joking that he was ready to “destroy America”.
By this, he meant that he was ready to consume excessive amounts of alcohol while on his long-awaited vacation. To his surprise, once he arrived at airport security, he was taken aside by police and questioned about his online activity. After attempting to explain himself, he was handcuffed and taken to the police station for further questioning.
I don’t know how familiar you are with George Orwell’s classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which a dystopian society is constantly under surveillance due to government paranoia. But the case of the misinterpreted tweet, which calls to mind the “thoughtcrimes” of the novel, is downright Orwellian. Through our use of digital technology, we run the risk of being arrested on the grounds of tweeting. As a member of a proud and civilized society, you have to ask: how are government forces getting away with this?
Nothing on the Internet is anonymous — it’s just not how the web works.
There is no question as to whether privacy still exists in our society: it’s been dead for years. In fact, one may have trouble believing that any concrete form of privacy has ever existed in the digital world. The societal illusions that tell us to make sure we are protecting ourselves online are nothing more than smokescreens. Virtually every action that we make, no matter how subtle, has the potential to be tracked, and this notion is one that should truly terrify us.
But, as with every dystopian story, one might argue that the antidote to our current predicament is transparency. We must shine the light on the issue, raise awareness of these surveillance programs and spark some much needed debate. These are the beliefs that surround Media Democracy Days in Vancouver each year, as well as other media awareness campaigns. It has been suggested that a parliamentary debate should occur to promote transparency on privacy rights — and I, for one, am on board.
Ultimately, increased awareness of the pitfalls of our Internet privacy could be the primary step in breaking free from a world of power-hungry control-freaks, and ensuring our own independence.
SFU entrepreneurs get cozy
SFU student entrepreneur Eleanor Li and alumna Rachel Cheng are currently drinking to success — and it’s pretty steamy. The two have won SFU Bookstore’s Next Top Product Competition with their line of hand-knitted cozies, or “Snugs,” for mugs and tumblers, meant to keep your hands cool and your beverages hot.
“It all began when Eleanor had one hour of free time, some knitting needles and four colourful balls of yarn. She had seen knitted mug cozies online and got all excited,” said Cheng, one half of the business duo. The first knitted cozy went to Li’s aunt, but now that they’ve won the contest, cozies will be stocked in the SFU Bookstore as well.
The grand prize of the competition was a $500 initial purchase order for their product from the SFU Bookstore, which includes promotion and exposure in all three campus locations as well as the online bookstore, as well as professional product photography.
“We find inspiration in our everyday lives,” said Cheng. “Maybe it’s something someone doodled on the textbook before us, maybe it’s something we saw while window shopping downtown. From there, Eleanor pulls together the perfect colour palette for the Snug. After buying yarn, which always makes us feel like Christmas came early, Eli hand-knit cozies for either 11 oz mugs or coffee to-go cups.”
Li is currently in her fifth-year in biomedical engineering at the university, while Cheng has graduated with a degree in systems engineering. In the finals of the competition, they found themselves up against two business students with their products: Joy’s Lip Balm and Hench Wallet.
For Cheng, the experience of winning the competition was a chance to see their business take form.
“It’s a great way to increase our presence . . . and what better way to do so than right here on our own campus.”
– Rachel Cheng, Onana Knitted Accessories co-owner
“It was an incredible experience for us as this is the first time our Snugs will be sold at a physical retail storefront,” said Cheng. “It’s a great way to increase our presence in the marketplace, and what better way to do so than right here on our own campus.”
Li first started the business, which she dubbed Onana Knitted Accessories, two years ago after she posted a photo of a mug cozy on Facebook and began receiving requests from friends for cozies of their own. She later asked Cheng to take on the social media aspect of the business, and the two are now co-owners of Onana.
The cozies are largely produced by Li herself, but the two have looked for outside help in the form of three hired knitters when demand is high, as during the Christmas season. The two also have an online Etsy store that was launched this year, and have since found customers in Europe.
As for the future, the two plan to look globally. “If we could find communities that [are] the right fit with our company, we would love to teach women how to knit and help them create a platform in which they can provide a fair wage income to support their families,” said Cheng.
Cheng and Li will be selling Onana’s wares at the annual Simon Fraser Student Society Christmas craft fair at the Burnaby campus this week, and expect to have their mug warmers — in SFU colours — in SFU Bookstores by early December.
Remembering the Children of Air India
From her early beginnings as an undergraduate, BC poet Renée Sarojini Saklikar’s journey began much like that of many in the arts: hard work compelled by nothing but passion.
Saklikar earned a BA in English Literature and, in the late 80s, an LLB at UBC. She then began working with “three remarkable people at SFU”: Jerry Zaslove, Stephen Duguid and Michael Manley-Casimir. It was here at SFU that Saklikar began planting her own artistic seed, studying social justice, the humanities, and education programming.
Years later, she has tended to that seed and it has grown into a collection of poems, offering a revealing commentary on one of Canadian society’s most traumatic events. Children of Air India: un/authorized exhibits and interjections is Saklikar’s first work, and judging by the packed room at its launch at SFU Woodward’s Campus, the poems have touched many.
After her time at SFU’s The Writer’s Studio in 2009, Saklikar discovered the words to describe her intimate connection to Canada’s traumatic history. With the loss of her aunt and uncle, who were among the passengers during the bombing of Air India Flight 182, Saklikar looked further into the event’s details to make sense of it all.
Of her research on the subject, Saklikar remembers two things distinctly, “[Firstly], the persistent haunting of the voices of those 82 children under the age of 13 who died in the bombing; and secondly, the discovery that the bomb was developed and tested in the woods outside a beloved heritage country: Paldi, BC, located near Duncan on Vancouver Island.”
The poems are based on — and contain excerpts from — actual records and the resulting work is artistically haunting and unsettling to read, as if the reader is privy to very private material.
Having learned that her home was so closely tied to Flight 182, the 82 children “spoke” to Saklikar and compelled her to write an ode to them in a way that is close to her heart: poetry. The poems are based on — and contain excerpts from — actual records and the resulting work is artistically haunting and unsettling to read, as if the reader is privy to very private material.
She says that “[a] kind of aphasia descends in contemplating [the poems].”
To Saklikar, the action of breath is essential to reading poetry, how it connects to rhythms, sounds, and the beats of lines. In the case of her book, breathing plays a critical role in allowing the reader to feel the raw emotion of the bombing of Flight 182.
“If we think of the breath as related to a poetic line, then in this book length sequence, the breath wrote itself out, jagged, interrupted, curtailed, compressed at time, and, at other times, strung out, disconnected, disintegrated,” she says.
In the tightly packed room of the launch, it was as if our own breathing synced with Saklikar’s as she spoke passionately about her writing process. Saklikar says that talking and writing about the experience made her realize how truly important sound was in the exploration of trauma. “The deeper I ventured into the Air India archive, the more sound became paramount, rather than meaning: through that process of listening, I jettisoned many earlier iterations of the work.”
Drafts and drafts later, the premiere of Children of Air India, in her home province, is certainly an experience all on its own, bringing up memories of inspiration for Saklikar. “The influences I channel come from all over. The Fraser River is a muse, for sure, having grown up in New Westminster. Also, the fact that I take Skytrain everywhere . . . what comes through are the sound and rhythm-motion of the train, the inside architecture of the individual cars, the way the body experiences a journey on the line, east to west and back again.”
Student athletes deserve pay
Does the name Andrew Wiggins ring a bell? If not, it should.
He is the new main attraction in NCAA college basketball, and he is Canadian. Last month, not only was he featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated alongside Kansas legends Wilt Chamberlain and Danny Manning, but he was also the lead story for ESPN The Magazine’s college hoops preview, and had a photo shoot with GQ Magazine.
Due to NCAA regulations, he has done all of this advertising without earning any compensation in return.
Recently, there has been some discussion regarding whether or not college athletes should be paid while they are in school. A common argument is, “They’re already getting a scholarship! That’s more than anybody else!”
However, a scholarship doesn’t necessarily equal cash in a player’s pocket. Let’s look at how much a scholarship is actually worth.
Without athletes, we wouldn’t have millions of fans buying tickets for games.
On average, a full Division 1 scholarship is $25,000 per year. That’s $100,000 over four years. This may seem like a lot of money, but it really only covers the basics. It covers thousands of dollars in university fees, tuition, housing, a meal-plan, and multiple hundred-dollar textbooks.
Contrary to what naysayers believe, being a student-athlete is a full-time job. Being a NCAA student athlete myself, on a typical day, I will wake up before classes, get to the gym at 6:15 a.m., practice from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., try to get an extra weight or conditioning session in two to three times a week, go to class, have individual sessions with my coaches, watch films of practices or games and then study for my classes. On top of this, I work.
However, once the season starts up, I can’t have a job anymore. Every two weeks, we are on the road from Wednesday until Sunday. Sometimes we are gone for two straight weeks if we make playoffs. The professors let us do our work from the road, but my job isn’t going to pay me just because I was playing basketball on a road trip.
Even though the athletes make no money, the NCAA basketball tournaments, or “March Madness,” have become a huge business. As Forbes’ Chris Smith wrote, CBS and Turner Broadcasting make more than $1 billion off these student games — due in part to 30-second advertisement spots costing $700,000 during the Final Four.
Athletic conferences, as well, receive millions of dollars in payouts from the NCAA when their teams advance deep into the tournament. Same goes for the coaches of the final squads standing. The NCAA, as a whole, makes approximately $6 billion annually.
Contrary to what naysayers believe, being a student-athlete is a full-time job.
People should ask themselves, who generates this excitement? The players. And they are not allowed to receive anything from the billion dollars they generate every year while they risk career-ending injuries every time they step onto the court, field, or rink.
Why shouldn’t collegiate student athletes be paid? The billions of dollars that collegiate athletics generates would be non-existent without them, on the field or on the court, performing and entertaining millions of college sports fans. Without athletes, we wouldn’t have millions of fans buying tickets for games, or people buying sports gear, jerseys, and video games, usually bearing the likenesses, and often the autographs of their favorite college players.
We should re-evaluate the system as a whole. The main purpose to play NCAA sports used to be to get a good education. Now, elite prospects like Andrew Wiggins go to school for one year and make the jump to the NBA. What if an amateur league existed in which the players would get compensated, alongside the NCAA league, in which students could play college sports without missing on an education?
Until then, college athletes are just like all other hard working people, who should receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
Dave Johnson relieved of duties
The year 2013 was supposed to be the season it all came together for the Clan football team. Despite a promising 2–0 start to the campaign, the team laboured to a 3–7 record; on Tuesday, SFU Athletics announced they were letting head coach Dave Johnson go, as well as members of his coaching staff, including defensive coordinator, James Colzie III.
Johnson spent seven years at the helm of the football program, but struggled to find wins. In those seven seasons, Johnson compiled an 18–46 record overall, including a 12–29 record since joining the National Collegiate Athletic Association in 2009.
“After carefully reviewing all aspects of our football program, we have decided it is time to seek a new leader for Clan football that will achieve the goals we have set for the program,” said Milt Richards, SFU’s senior director of athletics and recreation in a press release.
“I want to thank coach Johnson, his family and his entire staff for all of their hard work. We all wish him and his family the best as they begin the next chapter of their life,” he finished.
Looking at wins alone, the move may not come as a complete surprise, but Johnson was a players’ coach who managed to keep the locker room in good spirits despite the on-field struggles. His players, who were informed of his dismissal via email, were shocked, and were vocal in their opinions of the matter.
“Clearly someone isn’t thinking about the program when he fired all the coaches,” said Dylan Roper, a defensive end who finished his Clan career this season. Roper wasn’t alone in his sentiments.
“They fired the whole coaching staff? You gotta be kidding me smfh,” tweeted running back Chris Tolbert, who finished third in the Great Northwest Athletic Conference in rushing.
In another tweet, the Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC) newcomer of the year added, “Honestly don’t even know the AD [Milt Richards] but he obviously doesn’t care about us or this program either.”
Tolbert, along with quarterback Ryan Stanford, were among a slew of newcomers who were poised to lead the Clan offense that last season led the GNAC. But injuries to Stanford and superstar wide receiver Lemar Durant derailed the Clan’s early season momentum, and Johnson was unable to find a way to get it back as SFU stumbled toward the season’s finish line.
Colzie III, meanwhile, was brought in to fix a defense that had perennially been at the basement of the GNAC rankings. However, the Clan’s defense also stumbled after a hot start, and finished second last in the conference, giving up over 425 yards a game.
Four years removed from their first foray into the NCAA, the Clan was expected to make significant steps forward. They had finally begun to attract star players on both sides of the ball, and were coming off a breakout year where they upset a number of teams. But in a year that had so much promise — and was even highlighted by nine players earning all-conference honours — it was Johnson and his staff’s inability to deliver that, fair or not, ultimately cost them their jobs.
Sweet Symphony
The SFU men’s soccer team took to the pitch on Friday, in near-freezing Denver, CO weather to face off against the University of California-San Diego Tritons. The winner of the game was to be crowned the NCAA Div. II West Region champion, and would punch their ticket to the final three rounds of the tournament.
Trailing 1–0 late, three minutes from a heartbreaking end to their season, the SFU men’s soccer team orchestrated a comeback in the dying minutes to eke out a win — and a trip to the Elite Eight.
The Clan entered the game with 69 goals on the year, leading the entire NCAA Div. II. But the Tritons, who had scored just 27 goals on the season, potted the game’s first goal. In the 26th minute, Triton Alessandro Canale fired a shot past SFU keeper Brandon Watson, forcing the Clan to play catch-up for the rest of the game.
SFU’s attack came in waves, outshooting UCSD by a 2–1 margin, but the Clan couldn’t find the back of the net. As time ticked away, it looked like the Sweet 16 would be the end of the road for the Clan. But in the 87th minute, Jovan Blagojevic fired home a ball off a throw-in to knot the game at one apiece.
Blagojevic is making a name for himself by scoring big goals. Earlier this month, he scored a double overtime goal to clinch the Clan’s spot in the tournament and win the Great Northwest Athletic Conference. This goal saved the Clan’s season — but he wasn’t the only hero on the night.
After 90 minutes of regulation ran down, the two teams were headed for Golden Goal overtime. The two 10-minute halves were representative of the game as a whole: the Clan got most of the shots, but couldn’t bury their opponent. After 110 minutes of play, the West Region champion would be determined by penalty kicks.
The shootout wasn’t for the faint of heart. The teams traded goals, posts, and saves, and after the first five shooters, everything was even at three goals apiece. In the sudden-death sixth round, UCSD’s Will Plesko pushed his shot wide left, setting the stage for SFU’s Jules Chopin to clinch the win for the Clan.
Chopin stepped up to the proverbial podium, and fired a shot low to the left corner that got behind Triton keeper Josh Cohen. And just like that, the Clan, off the foot of Chopin, had advanced to the Elite Eight, and were crowned West Region champions for the second straight year.
SFU has had its fair share of dramatic victories this year. From Blagojevic’s goal against Seattle Pacific to win the conference, to Basso’s own double overtime goal in the round of 32, and now this, the Clan are playing memorable soccer. But, the biggest moments of the season are still to come.
Alleviating fear through education
Coming out three years ago was one of the most terrifying yet satisfying experiences of my life. The ability to express one’s identity with confidence and joy to the world is what I consider the ultimate freedom for an individual. Living in a city like Vancouver — usually regarded as a liberal and gay-friendly metropolis — it is not difficult to feel safe and recognized most of the time, in the same ways that I imagine a heterosexual person does.
Growing up however, I moved around a lot due to my Dad’s career. A couple of years into elementary school, the Spice Girls dominated the pop charts, and became an important topic of conversation on the playground. Seeing the young boy fighting with the girls over who got to play which Spice Girl had my homeroom teacher worried. I vividly remember my father that evening insisting that my girly toys be removed from the storage box. This was the first time I had ever felt like my Dad was ashamed of me.
The idea that a teen’s identity issues can be dealt with through song is not accurate.
By high school, I was used to feeling like the outsider; the days were rare when I was not attacked verbally or found my locker decorated with homophobic slurs. Fear kept me closeted throughout my teens.
Not once during my childhood did I read any books or watch any television programs that showed anyone other than straight people being treated fairly in a classroom setting. Being unable to see anyone like myself represented in my education of the world led me to fear that there was no one else like me.
Acting to the best of my abilities like the other kids ensured some level of security. Moving away from the small town that I grew up in for university provided me access to the community I needed to establish my identity as a gay man.
Even though the media landscape directed at youths today offers representation of teens identifying outside of heterosexuality, these images are not cohesive with the actual experiences of youth in elementary and high schools across the country. The idea that a teen’s identity issues can be dealt with through song, or that a young gay teen can go from a bullied, closeted kid, to an emblem of the LGBT community, is not an accurate vision of men and women who must decode and place themselves within the straight world.
In high school, the days were rare when I was not attacked verbally.
Instead of encouraging the ideal that waiting through grade school in fear is the solution to youth identity problems, one solution should be including comprehensive gender education programs in elementary schools. These would focus on preventing homophobic, transphobic, and heterosexist oppression at younger ages, thereby instilling a sense of pride in identities in the same ways that heterosexuality is honoured.
Efforts of such education have been made in BC with the passing of policy 5.45 in Burnaby in 2011, which provides legislation to combat homophobia and heterosexism in schools through increased knowledge of those defining outside of the heterosexual norm.
However, starting education at an earlier age of those who are not heterosexual would likely reduce the discrimination caused by silencing questioning youth.
Vancouver may offer a safe environment to an extent in presenting oneself as a gay person, but fear remains in many situations, which do not incite the same trepidation for heterosexuals. Non-heterosexual people must survey their settings prior to holding a partner’s hand or stealing a kiss. Fear could be eliminated entirely if these were actions we were accustomed to seeing all people as free to perform, whether in liberal Vancouver or a small-town in Alberta.
