Home Blog Page 1306

SFU researcher looks to cell processes to treat cancer

By
EIC
-
0

4376905598_6acb35c440_b

Stopping cell “self-eating” may make cancer treatment more effective

By Kristina Charania
Photos by Yale Rosen

Lab research conducted by SFU associate professor Sharon Gorski suggests that cancer therapies can become more effective through the inhibition of a Pac-Man-like mechanism in eukaryotic (non-bacterial) cells. “A cell can consume parts of itself to help it survive until conditions are more favourable,” Gorski said in an interview with The Peak.

Autophagy — which literally means “self-eating” — is a basic mechanism that breaks down unwanted or unusable products generated in active cells. Vesicles act as waste containers that envelop parts of the cell’s interior cytoplasm or whole organelles during vesicle formation.

These vesicles fuse with the cell’s lysosome, which provides enzymes for the breakdown of each vesicle’s contents. “Autophagy is not simply just a degradation mechanism. It should more accurately be thought of as recycling,” Gorski explained.

The processed products are then released through pores in the lysosome and refuel the cell with necessary nutrients or participate in other cellular activities. This preserves the cell’s catabolic levels for homeostatic maintenance and allows the cell to adapt to self-stress or other environmental impositions.

Gorski’s current project examines the role of autophagy inhibition in chemotherapy treatment. The chemotherapy analyses focus on aggressive, treatment-resistant triple negative breast cancer, which has fewer treatment options than other types of cancer. In response to radiation, cells turn up autophagy in order to help the cell adapt, survive, and cope with the extra stress.

By observing breast cancer cell lines that are resistant or sensitive to chemotherapy, Gorski found that autophagy inhibition greatly increases the success of anti-cancer treatments like chemotherapy. “A lot of the time, a tumour will not respond to treatment or they will initially respond and then become resistant.

That poses a very significant clinical problem,” says Gorski. “[Autophagy inhibitor during chemotherapy] could be a particularly promising approach to treat this form of cancer.” In collaboration with SFU chemistry professor Robert Young and SFU molecular biology and biochemistry professor Steven Jones, Gorski is also testing proteins with the potential to halt autophagy in order to find the best inhibitor for the process.

Appointed as an SFU associate professor in the Faculty of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry in 2008, Gorski began researching autophagy mechanisms as part of her post-doctoral and PhD studies. She completed her bachelors of science degree in biology with honours at SFU and earned her master’s degree in genetics and PhD in developmental biology at UBC and Washington University School of Medicine, respectively. During her initial lab studies, scientific literature on autophagy was scarce. After years of attending conferences and directing research, Gorski now conducts her research at a lab in the BC Cancer Research Center. “I found [autophagy] very interesting and exciting,” Gorski notes. “And, most importantly, I saw that there was a lot of potential to further explore the process, particularly in the areas of cancer and human health.”

The senior scientist recently explained her findings at the third segment of Cafe Scientifique, entitled “Dining in: investigating cellular self-digestion for cancer therapy.” This informal discussion forum is hosted by SFU, co-sponsored by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and intends to raise awareness of public health problems while linking them to research conducted by local researchers.

“It’s important that the public understands what we’re doing and why we’re trying to do it,” Gorski concludes. “Our hope is that we can make a contribution to society that will help people in the long run.”

TWU under fire for proposed law school

By
EIC
-
0

Opponents point to the university’s “community covenant”

By Leah Bjornson

Trinity Western University’s proposed law school has come under heavy criticism from the Council of Canadian Law Deans (CCLD), who argue the school discriminates against homosexuals and is therefore “fundamentally at odds with the core values of all Canadian law schools,” according to Bill Flanagan, president of the CCLD, as quoted by The Vancouver Sun. At issue is the Christian university’s “community covenant,” which all faculty and students must sign. Along with stipulations that students “cultivate Christian virtues” and “support other members of the community,” they are also obligated to abstain from lying, stealing, and “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” Students are expected to follow these expectations both on and off the TWU campus.

In response to TWU’s plan to create the law school on its Langley campus, the CCLD sent a letter to the Federation of Canadian Law Societies (FCLS), whose National Committee on Accreditation is involved with the administration of Canadian law societies. Bill Flanagan, president of the council and dean of law at Queen’s University, said in an interview with The Toronto Star, “In our view, this is a covenant that clearly contemplates discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation . . . and it permits disciplinary measures against gay and lesbian students up to and including expulsion.”

This is not the first time that the university’s policies have been questioned. In 2001, the British Columbia College of Teachers rejected TWU’s application for certification of its teachers training program because its covenant was not congruent with the BCCT’s anti-discrimination policy. This rejection was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, who found that “the Council of the B.C. College of Teachers . . . erroneously concluded that equality of rights on the basis of sexual orientation trump freedom of religion and association. They do not.”

Twelve years later, Trinity’s proposal presents a similar challenge. Despite being “consistent with federal and provincial law”, the Covenant’s interdiction of homosexual relationships still faces fierce opposition. “The covenant is deplorable,” stated Dr. Sam Black, an associate professor of philosophy at Simon Fraser University. “This is because the restriction on gay sex is both highly intrusive and discriminatory while also having no conceivable pedagogic rationale.”

Despite similar criticism, Trinity Western claims that it should not be judged on one clause alone. TWU, which just received its seventh consecutive A+ rating for its Quality of Teaching and Learning from The Globe and Mail, released a press statement clarifying the issue: “There is no anti-gay or discriminatory language in TWU’s Community Covenant.”

Furthermore, the release insists that the law school would be a huge asset to BC and to
Canada, addressing areas of real need in Canadian law school education at no cost to taxpayers. SFU’s Dr. Brook Pearson, a professor of humanities at SFU, provides a voice of moderation: “My initial knee-jerk reaction was to be angry and upset . . . but then I took a step back and I thought, there is no such thing as a Christian lawyer. There are lawyers who are Christians. They still have to go through the same process to become accredited.”

“The issue is a storm in a tea kettle,” he continued. “And the fact that it is a storm in a tea kettle is the issue. The place of religion is not something we’re allowed to talk about.” A decision on TWU’s proposal is expected within 6–12 months, and if accepted the university will welcome its first law students in fall 2015.
 

Philosopher’s Café honoured, celebrates 15th anniversary

By
EIC
-
1

image

SFU’s popular program given an award for Best Practices in Higher Education

By Alison Roach

SFU’s Philosophers’ Cafe celebrates its 15th anniversary this Feb. 28, and has been awarded for Best Practices in Higher Education by the two-day World Universities Forum held on Jan. 10–11. The Best Practices award recognizes the most significant higher education practices of the year, and may go to post-secondary institutions for accomplishments in research projects, student services, and innovative curricula.

This year’s World Universities Forum was attended by 25 institutions from around the world. Previous Best Practices Awards have been presented to Plymouth University for their entre for Advanced Inquiry in the Integrative Arts, and the University of the Free State in South Africa for the most significant practices implemented in that year, facing problems of racial division, student failure, and academic stagnation. SFU Philosophers’ Cafe was founded in 1992 by Yosef Wosk, with the goal of bringing diverse groups of people for the Vancouver community together for stimulating conversations on a huge variety of topics ranging from social issues. Since then, over 70,000 people have attended Philosophers’ Cafe.

The program is a part of SFU’s Continuing Studies program, and cafes take place throughout the Metro Vancouver area with talks in venues located in municipalities from downtown Vancouver out to Maple Ridge. Philosophers’ Cafe has even invaded cyberspace, with groups of over a thousand online participants coming together on online platform Second Life, hosted out of North Vancouver.

Cafes take place wherever there is room for a conversation, including churches, community centres, libraries, and the traditional coffee shop. Current director Michael Filimowicz has been leading the program for the past two years. Filimowicz is a SFU lecturer in the School of Interactive Arts and Technology, specializing in media arts.

While philosophers’ cafes may seem archaic to some, Filimowicz has found plenty of support in the community. “As much as people always talk about that we’re in this age of social media and online profiles and media-wikitweets — Tweet-leaks, leakytweets, whatever — there’s no substitute for talking face to face,” said Filimowicz. “People like this experience of having serious conversations or stimulating conversations in an actual space with other real people.”

Philosophers’ Cafe also functions as part of SFU’s overall goal of engagement. “[Philosophers’ Cafe is] probably the university’s flagship program for community engagement, as part of the university’s overall goal of engaging Vancouver,” said Filimowicz. He went on to say that one way to better engage to community is to have more SFU faculty be part of the program.

In his time as director, Filimowicz has focused heavily on expanding the program by recruiting more SFU experts as moderators. “When I started directing the program two years ago, most of the moderators were non-SFU, and now most of the moderators are SFU related people,” said Filimowicz.

SFU moderators include faculty, grad students, alumni, or retired faculty. Since Filimowicz has been directing the program, somewhere around 60 new SFU-related experts have come on board the program as moderators. Philosophers’ cafes are popular in cities around the world, but Filimowicz hailed his program as unique in that it’s backed by a post-secondary education in a way others cafes are not.

“There’s a very strong commitment at all levels — from the president’s commitment to community engagement, Jon Driver VPA’s commitment with getting faculty involved with community engagement, and supporting this as something that the university pays for,” said Filimowicz. “Everyone recognizes that the program generates a lot of good will out in the community and is important in terms of the overall goal in engaging the general public. There’s plenty of support.”
 

What’s the spill about Enbridge?

By
EIC
-
0

Protestors gathered in downtown Van during the first set of Enbridge hearings

By Sarah Campbell

On Jan. 14, 2013 more than 4,500 protestors amassed outside the Sheraton Wall Centre to protest the eight day long hearings of Enbridge. Previous hearings throughout the province were held with full public access, but Vancouver and Victoria’s hearings have barred direct public access. The hearings are instead being broadcasted online through the panel’s website. After breaking the public -barred access during a Vancouver hearing on Jan. 15, six protestors, organized by Defend our Coast and supplemented with Idle No More participants, were arrested.

Rallies were held all over British Columbia, led by Aboriginal leaders and members of the opposition from both Ottawa and BC. “We are concerned about the project because of the risks that come along with it and the limited amount of benefits,” says Terry Teegee of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council during the rally in Prince George: “Our aboriginal rights, our human rights, and our rights as citizens of Canada, we have to stand up for that, it’s much more than just a project, we have to stand up for mother earth. . . .”

A major concern is the potential risk of an oil spill. Former BC Minister of Environment, David Anderson, stated, “it’s always been the same code, the coast is too fragile and the technology is inadequate to make this a safe proposition. Nothing has changed, except that with climate change getting more severe, the level of risk is getting higher.”

Tom Gunton a registered professional planner specializing in resource and environmental policy and professor at SFU stated that regardless of whoever operates the pipeline, a significant number of spills are an inevitable part of the pipeline transport system. Gunton explained that Enbridge has on average 70 spills per year, and the addition of the Northern Gateway pipeline could generate at least 11 further spills per year.

However, according to Enbridge’s website, “Spills are not inevitable and Northern Gateway has placed high priority on both the assessment of risks and the measures required to mitigate those risks, as well as response capabilities and the equipment and logistics support a rapid response would require.”

Enbridge’s “Marine assessment and our first response plan” states that Enbridge will “employ the highest worldwide safety and navigational standards” to prevent a spill. Additionally, Northern Gateway is participating in a voluntary assessment, the TERMPOL review process, (a set of extensive guidelines, which are to be considered when analyzing vessel safety and the risks associated with vessel maneuvers and operations). “Enbridge has stated that as a company it will not accept liability for risks that come with pipeline and oil spills,” Gunton states, “So my question to the public is, if Enbridge thinks the pipeline is so safe, why won’t they accept the responsibility for damages? If there are alternatives with no tanker spills and no risk, why even consider the pipeline?”

Long-term economic benefits are also widely debated. Enbridge claims economic development in BC and Canada will be a direct benefit of the pipeline, projecting new jobs and a combined tax revenue to local, provincial and national government of around $2.6 billion.

They also intend to expand further fuel trade to China. However, Gunton refutes this, stating that the project will only generate 80 direct jobs and 500 permanent ones. Additionally, 8,000–9,000 jobs currently held in BC will be negatively affected. Enbridge proposed the Northern Gateway Pipeline on May 27, 2012 to the National Energy Board. The project includes two 1,172 km pipes between Bruderheim AB and Kitimat Marine Terminal in BC. One pipe, 30 inches in diameter, will carry on average 525,000 barrels of crude oil per day to Kitimat, the other 20-inches diameter pipe will carry back 193,000 barrels of condensate per day to Bruderheim. The pipes will be buried on average one meter below ground, except in water crossings.
 

University Briefs – January 28, 2013

By
EIC
-
0

By Amara Janssens

Three Albertan campuses will receive mental health funding from the province
On Jan. 16, 2013, Alberta’s Minister for Health announced that the University of Alberta, University of Calgary, and the University of Lethbridge will each receive $1 million per year for three years. This funding will provide additional staff for mental and addiction services at the three universities. However, concerns have been raised questioning why other post-secondary institutions, such as Grant MacEwan University, Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, and Olds College, were not included in the funding.

With files from The Gateway

Ryerson Students’ Union renewed membership to the Canadian Peace Alliance
On Jan. 10, 2013, the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) voted to rejoin the national lobbying group, Canadian Peace Alliance (CPA). CPA was founded in 1985 as coalition of social groups and has more than 150 members. The group has lobbied the government on numerous occasions, including Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. Currently, the group is lobbying on a campaign to de-list Hamas and Hezbollah from Canada’s list of terrorist organizations. Although the RSU has no official stance on these issues, they stated that Ryerson students want to RSU to conduct anti-war and peace work.

With files from The Eyeopener

Student loses trial against University of Ottawa’s student union
In Oct. 2012, the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) was taken to Ontario Small Claims Court by student Edward Inch when his student union fees could not be reimbursed. Inch was granted resignation from the SFUO by the then-president Amalia Savva, however his fees of $92.60 were not reimbursed. The Small Claims Court denied Inch’s case because Savva did not have the proper authority to accept Inch’s resignation. In addition, Inch agreed to pay student union fees as part of the terms and conditions one must accept in order to enroll in courses at the University of Ottawa. After the ruling, Inch made a $50 cheque to the Children’s Miracle Network in lieu of the SFUO seeking legal costs.

With files from The Fulcrum

LAST WORD: How Yoga came to the west and lost itself on the way

By
EIC
-
0

WEB-yoga-Mark Burnham

By Ljudmila Petrovic
Photos by Mark Burnham

It seems like no matter where you go in Vancouver, you cannot escape the fresh-faced, mat-carrying yogis that dot the city’s sidewalks and studios. In fact, Vancouver’s 2011 designation as one of the worst-dressed cities is mostly blamed on the excess of yoga pants. Sure, you can call me a hypocrite — my keychains are filled with yoga studio tags — but that’s never stopped me from ranting about something before. Nor can we deny that the practice has become so unlike the meditation yogis thousands of years ago were striving for that it is nearly unrecognizable. No matter how many namastes are exchanged in our over-priced swanky classes, the fact remains that simple spirituality has been replaced with the likes of Yogilates (a hybrid between yoga and pilates) and Power Yoga.

We now have yoga raves — a kundalini class with music and glow sticks — antigravity yoga and harmonica yoga (which is exactly what it sounds like). In April 2011, 21-year-old Jean Wharf was kicked off of a Vancouver Skytrain for refusing to take off her “Fuck Yoga” pin. Yeah, that was a big deal at the time because of freedom of speech, and organizations like the B.C. Civil Liberties Association got involved and so on. Whatever, that’s irrelevant in this context. What matters here is that there is clearly a movement to counter that of yoga’s rising popularity. There is a record label with the same name, and an entire website that sells merchandise emblazoned with the words.

Just as there is an entire army of downward-doggy-styling, wheatgrassdrinking, quinoa-munching individuals, so too is there a group that thinks they’re full of shit.

Not everyone takes such an angry approach. There are also those who feel that yoga has become grossly misrepresented by the styles of yoga that have developed in recent years. The “Not Yoga” group, for example, jokes about this on their light-hearted Facebook page. “[This] group is playfully devoted to the ways in which yoga is misrepresented,” reads their page. “Yoga is now so totally altered that we can cry, get angry, or laugh, and laughing might be the most positive.” Those that subscribe to these ideas are not of the belief that yoga is even being practiced wrong, so much as that its very essence has been misrepresented; its practitioners strive for the poses and have lost the spiritual aspect on the way. “Yoga is primarily a spiritual discipline. I don’t mean to belittle the Yoga postures,” writes Paramahansa Yogananda in The Essence of Self-Realization. “The body, moreover, is a part of our human nature, and must be kept fit lest it obstruct our spiritual efforts.”

Swami Chidananda Saraswati, head of the internationally known Sivananda Ashram, is another proponent of the idea that the familiar poses we view as making up a class are actually inconsequential — or at least minimal — in the grand scheme of an individual’s practice. “Physical posture serves at best as an auxiliary, or a minor form of Yoga,” he has explained.

In recent years, there has also been more media attention surrounding the “Take Back Yoga” approach, headed by the small, but significant, Hindu American Foundation (HAF). The group believes that those practicing yoga should become more aware of the Hindu traditions that lie at the core of the practice. At 2009’s Parliament of World Religions, Suhag Shukla of HAF brought to attention the rising commercialization of the yoga movement and the ways in which this was insulting to its Hindu roots. The following year, The New York Times drew more attention to the cause with the article “Hindu Group Stirs a Debate Over Yoga’s Soul.” Since then, there has been a rise in the discussions surrounding yoga’s roots and whether the West is honoring the traditions of yoga or bastardizing them.

A prime example is that of Bikram Choudhury, an Indian-born yoga instructor and founder of the Bikram stream of yoga. Based in Los Angeles, he is the self-proclaimed guru to the stars, he is filthy rich and unapologetic about it. His system consists of 90-minute long sessions, held in a 105-degree Fahrenheit room. The session involves a sequence of 26 poses and two breathing exercises, which Choudhury unsuccessfully tried to copyright in a recent lawsuit: in July 2011, he sued two yoga instructors that were using the same sequences without his permission; the case finished in December 2012. “The sequence — Choudhury’s compilation of exercises and yoga poses . . . is merely a procedure or system of exercises,” wrote U.S. District Otis Wright about the ruling.

Lawsuits? LA celebs? This doesn’t sound like the yoga that has spirituality at its roots, and yet this is one of the most popular and well-known streams of yoga. So, how can we describe the yoga craze in North America? “It’s a mess,” said Dr. Georg Feuerstein in a 2003 interview in LA Yoga Magazine. “Looking at the Yoga movement today, part of me feels very saddened by it, but then I also see that it contains the seeds of something better.” So, as much as I can bitch about what the practice has become, the fact remains that yoga is what we make of it. You can do it for the sake of Lululemon, you can do it for the physical benefits, you can do it because it’s all the rage, but you can also do it to acquire a calm introspection and become the most spiritual person you can be amongst the everyday bustle.

FIRST PEEK: Keeping it glassy, SFU

By
EIC
-
1

The vessel you use to convey your brew from tap to mouth makes a difference

By Adam Dewji

Depending on how many beers you’ve ordered at any given pub, you might notice that some pubs serve different brews in different glassware. I’m not talking about size. I understand that if you order a sleeve, it’s going to be smaller than a pint. The different glassware used for specific beer serves different purposes.

Yeah, it’s true; it’s not all just marketing. Different types of brews will react differently to different types of glassware. That spells out a lot of variables for someone stuck in math nine, so let me break it down for you. When you pour a brew into a glass, you want to pour it so it doesn’t just hit the bottom and foam up (unless you’re pouring a Guinness out of a can). You generally want to let the beer slide down the inside of the glass and let it foam up naturally, tilting the glass on its side to achieve minimum head.

There are 10 general glass types that a beer can be served in, each serving its own purpose. When a beer is poured into a glass, the amount of head (or foam) that is created releases certain aromas and has minor chemical reactions that allow for better taste, smell, and texture of a beer. These micro-changes can affect the way that a beer tastes overall.

The 10 types are: flute glass, goblet, mug (or stein), pilsner glass, pint glass, snifter, stange, tulip, weizen glass (weizens are wheat beers), and an oversized wine glass. I don’t have space to describe them all, but their purpose is easily googled.

You might be overwhelmed, wondering what you normally drink out of at a pub. If you order an econo-beer, you’re probably being served in a pilsner glass or a pint glass. Some restaurants are starting to carry weizen glassware (like a slim Coke-glass) for macro-brew wheat beers, like a Rickard’s or Keith’s White.

I have always loved the goblet, because it always makes people wonder why I’m drinking out of it. They’re the ones that look like the bro-version of a wine glass, and are meant mainly for Belgian strong ales and IPAs (India Pale Ales). They’re built to generally have around an inch of head, post-pour. They are also built wider at the mouth for deep sips to hit you with lots of flavor at once. Not only that, but they look pretty damn awesome too. You could totally salute the rock gods in style while listening to Dragonforce with one of these suckers.

In Belgium, some breweries actually engineer glassware just for their specific brews. Most craft beer pubs will do the right thing and serve your beer in an appropriate glass.

Next time you’re out for a brew, see what they serve it in and maybe you’ll finally know why some beers are served in differently shaped glasses than the rest.

Watch first, judge later

By
EIC
-
0

ZD 30

The reaction to Zero Dark Thirty has been plagued with unfounded accusations

By Will Ross

Were you not already embroiled in the controversy surrounding Zero Dark Thirty, a political thriller based on the search for and assassination of Osama bin Laden, you may have picked up the impression that it is a finely made film, but one that either implicitly or explicitly condones or even valorizes the US government’s use of torture.

This is an understandable impression for the layman to have, but its widespread acceptance by those who have not even seen the film is fearful. For not only is such a position not founded in actually watching the film — a prerequisite to all rational opinions of art — it is also founded in media pieces that have propagated the claim without having seen the film themselves.

The false-starting gun was fired by Glenn Greenwald in a Dec. 10 article in The Guardian. Having no experience with the film except for reading reviews of it, he concluded that the film glorifies torture by portraying it as having been essential to finding bin Laden.

Backlash was immediate. Greenwald defended his piece by condemning an alleged “blackout on discussing film reviews that appear in major media outlets prior to the film’s opening. “If writers at major media outlets who review the film all say the film shows torture being helpful in finding bin Laden,” said Greenwald, “then people are going to talk about that.”

In fact the film did have defenders who denied any torture glorification, but Greenwald apparently decided that he could accept the perceived majority impression as the true one. When publicly commentating on reactions to art one hasn’t seen, any dissent whatsoever must be fully acknowledged, but Greenwald’s underresearched opinion was taken as legitimate as often as it was taken to task.

Since then, many pieces have surfaced condemning the film for a myriad of faults, without having seen the film — often apparently inventing its plot as they go along. One such piece in The Huffington Post, “Why I Won’t Be Watching Zero Dark Thirty”, baselessly states that the film portrays Muslims in a negative and stereotypical light. That a Huffington Post piece could say the film “capitalize[s] on an already tense environment of suspicion and fear” without the author having seen the film and without a single supporting quotation should be a scandalous breach of integrity. Instead, it has blended into a sea of similar pieces and passed by unnoticed.

Such behavior normalizes biases and ignorance in discussions of art, as if rational consideration of the evidence is unnecessary if someone else has done it for you. It only leads to imposed narratives and confirmation bias; it came as no surprise that when Greenwald did see the film, he did not see the complex allegory that most critics did, but a “cartoon,” one undeserving even of the word “art.”

But art it is, and if more commentators — prosecutors and defendants alike — read the film closely, they would notice a scene that explicitly marks the torture as unnecessary: the intelligence was simply buried in the files all along. Instead, they change course, denouncing director Kathryn Bigelow for evading criticism (she isn’t) and claiming that the film was approved or even funded by the CIA (it wasn’t).

Sadly, condemnatory hearsay comes with the territory of Oscar season. But the discourse around Zero Dark Thirty has ruined a rare opportunity to discuss a movie that actually approaches modern political issues with intelligence and gravitas. Instead of soberly weighing available facts, responses to the film have been driven by passion alone. And while passion ought to fuel discussions of politics and art, it should never touch the steering wheel.

Letters to the Editor – January 28, 2013

By
EIC
-
0

By Travis Freeland and Kyaelim Kwon

Dear editor,

I had to read Jan. 21’s “Student are apathetic and that’s OK” several times before I was confident that it wasn’t a hoax. While I suspect that this article, like a lot of “right wing” writing, is intentionally provocative and controversial,

I will give it the benefit of a response. I believe the arrogance displayed here necessitates it. I know there are many others that share my feelings. To begin, I’d like to dispel any notion that the opinions expressed in this piece can reasonably be associated with a rational, politically “right” mindset. That a legitimate conservative agenda would involve the celebration of apathy is laughable.

Activism was a founding principle of modern conservative politics. I’d like to see the author try to tell the innumerable conservative citizens’ groups and committees that work tirelessly to promote their ideas that “there are no illusions about how pointless protesting is.” Instead, the ideas and arguments presented in this article smack of the aimless, aggressive nonsense we already get enough of courtesy of Fox News and Glenn Beck.

When I’m looking for my fix of dismissive arrogance and underlying hostility, I’ll tune into Kevin O’Leary, thank you very much. The columnist writes about the way we’ve mythologized the “radical past” of SFU, and to some extent, I would agree. What about the past isn’t mythologized? Mythology is a powerful force on any university campus.

Certainly, our “radical past” is viewed in a romantic light by some, but the fact remains that the period in question was a truly defining time for our young institution. Like it or not, the messy formative years of SFU were instrumental in shaping its current configuration. The “apathetic campus” Onderwater celebrates is itself a notorious myth, one that many people here are working to reject.

“The Montreal protests seem more like something out of Egypt or the Middle East, rather than something that could actually happen at a university campus in Canada.” I will side-step the issue of a vaguely racist undertone in this statement in the interest of saving space. Onderwater claims that students no longer need to be radical, since we have it so good now. Tuition and cost of living are soaring, but hey, student loans are easy to get and part-time jobs abound. No need to complain!

This is the threadbare argument used by individuals who don’t face significant boundaries in attaining the education and experience they need to continue their comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. It is rare to hear it coming from single parents, refugees, the differently abled, victims of violence, or people representing racial and gender minorities for whom the process of applying, paying for, and excelling in post-secondary education (a process that is seemingly effortless for so many others) can be challenging and even prohibitive. I know, what a bleeding heart, you must be saying.

Onderwater attributes what he perceives to be a rightward shift at SFU to the eminence of the business program: “SFU is all about training future capitalists in the ways of making lots of money.” I know there are business students out there who are shuddering at the thought of being characterized as a bunch of selfcentered, money-hungry automatons, patiently putting in their four years on the degree factory conveyor belt so they can get out there and start earning at other peoples’ expense.

Onderwater then launches an all-out attack on the “Rotunda Four,” claiming that groups like SFPIRG and the Women’s Centre are relics of a bygone age. This is where my gears really start to grind. Personally, I find it completely disheartening to hear someone malign the core group of people on campus who are actually interested in something other than department socials, intramural sports, and networking wine parties.

The continued work of groups in the Rotunda Four, and elsewhere, as well as our very active labour unions, shows that the spirit of activism is very much alive at SFU. There are people here who continue to strive for a safer, more accessible, affordable, and tolerant place to learn. This kind of unprovoked, unsubstantiated attack, primarily directed at women and racial and gender minorities is what poisons politics and turns many conservative and otherwise-oriented people away from productive involvement.

This article provides us with a rather grim portrayal of conservatism indeed. Well, what do you think, my friends on the right side of the spectrum: is it fair to say that you’re all lazy, business-oriented, and thriving in an atmosphere where no one gives a shit about anything? Tell me this is just an unfortunate and unproductive characterization.

Tell me you don’t really believe in blindly, naively attacking political involvement. Tell me you don’t instinctively resent the funding of student groups because of some misguided attempt at replicating the “anti-big government” debate here, at a government-subsidized institution. We also happen to be paying for The Peak, which this week, unfortunately, served as a platform for dispiriting, ineffectual rhetoric. “Write Wing” indeed.

Sincerely,
Travis Freeland
Graduate Student
Department of Archaeology

 

————————————————————————-

 

Dear editor,

We are young and small, but we do an exceptional job at “engaging the world”. Our students travel the world, studying, volunteering, or working, as ambassadors of SFU and of Canada. Our professors, among the best in their respective fields, come from every corner of the globe, from Norway to Portugal. Our Human Security Report is cited by academics and policy advisors across the globe. Together, with the exceptional staff, we have built an interdisciplinary research and teaching centre of international studies — one of the few in the world.

We, the School of International Studies, are perhaps doing the best job in fulfilling the university’s mandate of “engaging the world.” Indeed, in today’s globalized economy, employers seek for candidates with global perspective and experience.

It explains partly why the School’s programs are highly demanded by the students: currently there are only 207 declared majors admitted with 258 additional students that wish to enter the programs.

This is why it is hard for us to understand the lack of the support from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Since 2006, the number of students has increased over 2000%. Yet, the School has fewer faculty members in 2013 than in 2006. Concretely, it means that less classes are offered; that our students are burdened with more loans in prolonging their studies; and that the faculty have less time to engage with undergraduate and graduate students, or to publish cutting-edge research that gets cited widely and worldly by their colleagues.

To continue engaging the world, by attracting the brightest of minds and sharing the international perspective, the School of International Studies needs the university’s support to hire one more tenure-track assistant professor. For us, one more professor would mean four more classes offered per year for 120 more students!

We will be holding a Townhall meeting on Feb. 6 in AQ3181 at 6 p.m. International Studies students: please come out to air your concerns about the program. All SFU students: please join us to support our cause. One more faculty, to engage the world, together.

Sincerely,
Kyaelim Kwon
Departmental Committee Representative
International Studies Student Association

Protesting the Paramount is completely pointless

By
EIC
-
2

Paramount_BW

Closing down a strip club will not end objectification, but rethinking our relationship to sex might

By Gloria Mellesmoen
Photos by Jan Zeschky / flickr

¬¬Strip clubs and the women who work at them have long been the target of groups preaching women’s rights and/or equality. In the past week, this controversy has struck locally. Students from Dr. Charles Best Secondary School’s Social Justice 12 class are pushing for the closure of New Westminster’s Paramount Gentlemen’s Club, justifying their petition by arguing that the Paramount encourages objectification of women.

Though I cannot deny the existence of objectification at strip clubs, I can quite firmly state that they are not the root cause. Strip clubs are a controlled place for us to delve into fantasy and appreciate the human body. I have to agree with Garbage, the 90s altrock band, whose song “Sex is not the Enemy” chants: “The institution curses curiosity/ It’s our conviction/ Sex is not the enemy/A revolution/ Is the solution.” The ability to enjoy sex and take pleasure in the sight of someone else’s body is completely natural and predates the concept of objectification.

There is nothing wrong with a woman who takes pride in her body and sexuality, whether in private or on a stage. The real enemy is in how we are educated. While I am in complete support of young adults advocating for worthwhile causes, I believe that the students at Dr. Charles Best are misguided. Truly fighting objectification would be seeking to modify the way we are taught to perceive of the human body. Objectification is not surprising in a culture that associates sex with shame and dehumanization. Instead of making sexuality and nudity taboo, we should encourage dialogue to stress important concepts like respect and consent. Shutting down a single strip club is not going to solve anything. Closing down The Paramount will only cause harm for those working there.

Steven Mountford, owner of the Paramount Gentlemen’s Club, has expressed that the campaign to close his business does not take into account that his employees are people, too. The dancers at the Paramount are adults who are working for a living, just the same as anyone else. If we consider all the reasons we have had for working where we do, they tend to look alike: some women are working through school, some truly enjoy what they do, some are just really good at it, and some are only doing it to support themselves.

Regardless of the reason, they have chosen this career. It is hypocritical to claim one is striving for women’s rights while at the same time removing choices of how to use one’s body and which professions are appropriate.

The Paramount is a location that permits women to perform as a means to live in a safe environment. Mountford explained what the dancers do is legal “as a profession in Canada and is included in the list of occupations for immigration.” He is worried that the protesting students have “linked human trafficking and prostitution to [their] cause” and are drawing hasty conclusions that could have serious consequences for those who find employment at The Paramount. None of the involved students or the teacher at the school have tried to contact him.

The Paramount is not the enemy. This all comes back to my belief that we need to change how we educate about sex. These passionate young minds are attacking an honest business and threatening the livelihood of many employees, not just the dancers, because they deal in appreciation for the human body. It is time to stop telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Objectification will always be an issue if we do not properly educate our young, and encouraging them to attack an effect rather than its cause helps no one.

1...1,3051,3061,307...1,417Page 1,306 of 1,417

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

Contact us: [email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society 1965-2024

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

Contact us:
[email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society 1965-2024