Home Blog Page 1385

Undermanned Clan set to move forward

0

By Adam Ovenell-Carter

The Clan are getting used to this whole playing shorthanded thing, and despite recording their first conference victory of the season last weekend, it’s not getting any easier. Javari Williams, who was the leading GNAC scorer, and Matt Ravio, the team’s top point guard, are lost for the season because of academic struggles. To compound their woes, the team’s top rebounder Ibrahim Appiah suffered a knee injury that’ll keep him out for at least three weeks. For those keeping track, that leaves the Clan with seven athletes who can play. Considering five take the floor at any given time, that quite literally leaves the team with little breathing room.

SFU fell 88–81 to Northwest Nazarene on Thursday, but the score is relatively generous given how the Clan played. The team was down 17 points at the half, and did manage to claw their way back to respectability before the final buzzer blew. The team’s fatigue was easy to see throughout, even with the late game comeback. But, the Clan know that a shortened bench is no reason to pack it in, and they’ll know they’ll have to make do with what they have.

“We can’t make excuses,” said SFU head coach James Blake. “Even with seven guys we should’ve done a better job.

“We talked about coming out with energy and enthusiasm . . . we had a game plan that we didn’t really follow.”

It’s tough to maintain a game plan when the lineup is constantly shrinking, so one would expect a player or two to step up. Justin Brown has since taken over the team lead in scoring and has moved into ninth in league scoring. And while Blake says he doesn’t look to one particular player to pull through for the team, it’s clear Brown has done that himself. Blake calls him “a little pinball”, bouncing around all over the court, but his physicality almost cost him — and the team — as he hobbled off on a sore leg to end the first half against NNU.

Had he not returned the situation for the Clan would’ve been, in some twisted way, borderline comical. Fortunately, he did return, and brought the team back within seven points by the game’s end. It’s that kind of drive that’ll keep the team going.

And, with the depleted lineup, a few other members of the Clan are getting ample playing time when they normally wouldn’t. Nickolay Georgiev found the floor more often than he likely would’ve been expecting at this point and the season, and the increased playing time for Jordan Sergent is paying dividends.

A junior college transfer, Sergent has been on fire of late, and along with Brown, has been a main part of the Clan’s engine.

“I’ve found it takes [junior college tanfers] a while to adjust,” said Blake, “but you’ll see him excel the next 10 games, and he’ll be a force his senior year.”

Talk about turning lemons into lemonade. The Clan’s season, with all the injuries and academic ineligibilities, will not go as planned — that much is all but certain at this point. But the silver lining is that players who would’ve been off-the-bench guys are being given the opportunity to lead and star for their team. Win or lose, the team will be closer, and better off for all the adversity they’ve faced this year.

“We’ve had three ACL tears, an MCL tear, a cyst on the brain, ulcers . . . we’ve had everything,” said Blake. “That’s the way it is sometimes. You talk about being a good team with seven guys, imagine what we’d be with nine or 10.

“We’ve got to create a team game with whoever we’ve got, and we will.”

 

 

 

Watch your throne, Kobe

0

By Adam Ovenell-Carter

Greatness is an interesting concept. It carries the implication that a particular person, when compared to others, is comprehensibly or perceivably better.

This is by no means limited to the sporting world — take hip-hop legends Jay-Z and Kanye West, for example. Jay-Z will go down as one of the greatest rappers of all time, but West could find his name in those books at some point too. Much of the same can be said for two hard court superstars as well: Kobe Bryant and Lebron James.

Bryant is nearing the end of his career and has achieved record-breaking recognition while the other is heading down a similar path and could ultimately, like Kanye West, rewrite the books.

Who’s better? Who’s better right now? Who would you want when the game is on the line? Will Kobe win his sixth title before Lebron wins his first? It’s all up for debate, and let’s face it, there is no right answer. The two men have an uncanny ability to put points up and are two marquee faces of the NBA, due in part to their pure talent. Lebron is the all around player who is arguably the most athletic specimen in the world of sports, while Kobe’s resume is well-documented and is often regarded as the one of the closest we’ll see to his airness, Michael Jordan.

The case for James:

James, for all his talent, will always be chastised until he does what other superstars have done: win a championship. But, if you’ll pardon the tautology, Lebron James is Lebron James. He will never be Jordan, and seemingly lacks the competitive edge Kobe splashes on the court, but there has never been a player like Lebron James. Between his skill-set, size, power, and persona, James is a once-in-a-lifetime talent. And finally, James, in his ninth season, is beginning to find his role on a star-studded lineup in Miami. The championship banners ought to rain down in the Heat’s American Airlines arena in the near future and Lebron will be a major reason why.

The case for Bryant:

Kobe Bryant can simply flash his five rings when anyone decides to critique his career. The Black Mamba can reference every NBA analyst as soon as someone decides to disregard the Jordan comparison. The man has ice in his veins and has done it all in his career. Yet, he is striving for more in the latter half of his career. Kobe was once a high-flying highlight reel and has since adapted to develop a strong post-game, similar to Jordan. Kobe’s mid-range jumper is nearly unguardable. If you think his drive might not be there after five championships and 16 seasons, lay those questions to rest unless you know another athlete who is currently taking cortisone shots to his wrist prior to each game.

The verdict:

Can there be one? The basketball heavyweights will forever live in a world where their professional achievements will be compared to generations before and after; it’s a part of the business. Kobe’s competed with past and present stars and has rings to show for it but his MVP days are likely behind him. Lebron is in his prime and should check the same number of items off the list by the time his career is over. Bryant, like Jay-Z, is the older, more successful player in the game, still competing with the youngsters. James, like Kanye brings freshness to the game and aspires to achieve the same as his competitor.

Right now, Jay-Z is still rapping about Michael Jordan. For all Bryant’s greatness, the only one who can change that tune is James. And right now, Bryant has the upper hand on James. James has time on his side, however; Kobe best be watching his throne.

Canucks Tickets Video Contest Results

0

After much deliberation over all of the entries that we received at The Peak, here are the top three that stood out above all of the rest in the Canucks Tickets Video Contest. Thank you very much to all who entered and congratulations to Shehbaaz Jhalli for taking first prize!

Third Place – Majid Refaei Khalghli Mogh

Second Place – Samantha Fung and Kirsten Allen

First Place – Shehbaaz Jhalli

CFS settlement gag order an insult to students

1

By David Proctor

 

I won’t bore you with a history of the legal dispute between the Simon Fraser Student Society and the Canadian Federation of Students; one of the foundational assumptions of this article is that you don’t care. I respect that. You have no reason to.

You don’t need a full understanding of the details of the case, however, to know that something is fishy when the SFSS and CFS agree to end a lawsuit and to refuse to explain the terms of the agreement to their memberships.

This decision, for which I can see no intended effect other than to let those in charge of the SFSS and CFS avoid accountability for their decisions, should surprise no one; it’s entirely typical of the sordid, corrupt culture of student politics.

Even something as fundamental as your membership fees are kept hidden from you: if you’re an SFU undergrad taking more than three credits’ worth of on-campus classes, you pay $32.99 for one semester’s membership in the SFSS, but you won’t find that as a line item in your Go SFU account. Instead, it’s grouped together with many other student group levies (admittedly including The Peak’s) and hidden behind an opaque $65.64 “student activity fee”.

Student politicians may argue that members can find a full breakdown of that fee in the university calendar or the society’s annual financial statements. Nobody’s looking there, though, and I have yet to hear a convincing reason why that full breakdown can’t fit on every student’s Go SFU statement.

In an SFU student election, any voter turnout figure over 10 per cent is considered a miraculous anomaly. The most recent SFSS election had a turnout of 23 per cent, which is better, but still far too low for a legitimate democratic mandate.

Student politicians like to foist the blame for such numbers on the membership. If only people would get involved, they say, things would be better. But what incentive do they have to do so? It’s hard to start a taxpayer revolt when so few citizens are even aware they’re being taxed.

Most of the functions fulfilled by a student society could be better performed by other types of organizations. Why can’t clubs and departmental student unions simply be formed by groups of like-minded people? Is the university not capable of providing study spaces or event supplies? I love the Highland Pub, but would an independent business have any trouble turning a profit selling beer to college kids?

Student societies are also an open invitation to corruption. Consider the Kwantlen Student Society, where 12 board members were impeached in November. Those who were cast out had dropped a lawsuit alleging that former directors and staff had ‘misused’ more than $2 million in society funds. Whatever actually happened — the lawsuit was dropped, so we’ll never know for sure — the thinking is easy to follow: nobody’s watching this organization, so we can take money from it without consequence. If we’re caught, we’ll just have our friends run in the next election and bail us out.

Clearly, the status quo isn’t working. Student unions shouldn’t be allowed to collect millions of dollars from memberships that are barely aware of their existence, and they shouldn’t be allowed to hide what they’re doing with it. I have a hard time convincing myself that we wouldn’t be better off if we did away with the whole concept.

The local dating scene is just fine

0

By Esther Tung

Vancouver Magazine recently published an article titled “Do Vancouver Men Suck?” that’s gained a bit of traction. Upon first skim, it might have put into words the sinking feeling of many driven, urban, and single women in Vancouver — that they are scaring men off because they are too successful or too smart.

The article is poorly written and dubiously researched. For a supposedly prominent publication, it sure seemed difficult to get a hold of an equal amount of male perspective, and not to mention contrary female opinions on the state of the dating scene. It’s clear that the author had an agenda going into it and was, at the very least, doing some cherry-picking on her quotations.

Inevitably, the article touches on the subject of ‘the rise of women’ on university and career levels, and that it somehow is linked to the fall of the male gender, and excuses men for deteriorating into overgrown children. As inevitably, it includes a successful career woman whose advice to Vancouver’s dating scene is: “Men need to take more risks and women need to shut up.”

Insightful.

Here’s what I would have said if the Vancouver Magazine had interviewed me:

The Vancouver men that those other girls keep talking about probably do exist somewhere. In fact, I’m absolutely sure they do, as I’ve seen them the few times I venture up to bars on the Granville Strip or those “chic Whistler bars” they mention.

But honestly, I don’t really know what they’re talking about. Any time that a meeting has been obviously designed as a ‘date’, my companion has turned up with great style, enthusiasm, respect, and an arsenal of brilliant conversation topics. Who opens my door depends on who gets there first. It’s not as if they actually shrink back from the entrance as we approach it. Whether they carry my extra bags depends on whether it means I wouldn’t have a free hand to hold theirs, and it’s not like they’ve ever turned me down when I asked for help.

I know that because we’re socialized by rom-coms and the evil media to think that those are problematic arrangements, and that we’re not really validated unless he throws his coat over a puddle for you, but really, you’ll never find satisfaction until you learn to leave those expectations behind.

The thing is, even though these ‘babyish’ Vancouver dudes won’t drive an hour to pick you up and drop you off (because they have no car), assume that neither will an intelligent, progressive man who doesn’t make annoying kitchen jokes and wouldn’t say “Fuck you, bitch” to a woman who declines to dance with them after he buys them one tequila shot. (True story.)

At the end of the article, the author does manage of insert a couple of lines from a man, who presents the opinion that both sexes share the blame for the current state of the supposedly dead dating scene, an opinion apparently so outrageous that it had be cut off under the excuse that it was “another story”. But it isn’t! It’s exactly the same story. Vancouver women aren’t dating in a vacuum.

For every one immature Vancouver man, there is another unreceptive and cliquish Vancouver woman. This seems to be a phenomenon that afflicts more ‘mainstream’ venues, like the Cambie or the Met, where even I think twice about making some offhand small talk to the girl next to me at the bar — the odds of getting just a pinched, “Who are you again?” smile are high.

Finding romance at ‘artsy’ locales, I’ve found, has been a lot easier and more fulfilling — I recommend art galleries, music festival campgrounds, afterparties at the Waldorf, and ice cream socials.

Leave vegetarian stress behind

0

By Erika Zell

After nearly four years of soy milk and bean salad, I finally took the plunge — I shed the tofu-y confines of vegetarianism, and, depending on who you ask, either stepped back into the light or closer to eternal damnation.

Unlike most lapsed vegetarians, bacon wasn’t my gateway meat. Instead, it was a delicious, cheese-filled, turkey and cranberry sandwich from the Shadow. I’ve since had a burger, maybe some chicken . . . but I’m not really sure. That’s the best part. I never felt like I was limited by being a vegetarian, but by needing to think about my food less, I’m finding that I’m enjoying it more.

I fell into vegetarianism by accident when I first started university: after moving out on my own I didn’t know how to cook meat, and could barely afford it either way. I slowly (unintentionally) phased out meat to the point where I wasn’t eating it at all, so I decided I might as well stick a label on it.

That was where the problems started. Once you join the V-club, there’s no going back. Friends taunt you with seemingly innocuous comments, like, “Still vegetarian?”, which nevertheless goad you forever onwards. It becomes a challenge, but by the time you realize it, you’re past the point of no return. People hold you to vegetarianism unlike any other diet. When was the last person on a low-fat regime judged for taking a break and eating the darn ice cream? For a vegetarian, it’s different. Even looking at a steak is enough to send dinner companions into an uproar.

To compound the problem, vegetarians give as good as they get. We’re a notoriously pretentious crowd, and we rarely pass up the chance to lecture the schlubs on their moral depravities. Mockery is returned with snobbery, and eventually both groups are so caught up in the cycle that neither can concede any ground.

Even those stuck in the middle are ruthlessly labelled. Pescatarians, flexitarians, weekday vegetarians, sometimes vegans . . . all are variations on the same idea, and all are swept up and pigeon-holed for whatever their personal dietary choice happens to be.

And who can blame them for trying their hand at the veg lifestyle? There are many convincing arguments to go meat-free, but they all come with conditions. You say vegetarians are healthier people? I say only if you don’t eat pasta every night because you’re too lazy to find something new to do with tofu. You say animal cruelty? I say make informed consumer choices.

The argument du jour for the veg lifestyle is that it’s more ‘environmentally friendly’. I learned a lot about truly sustainable food systems in my time in the club, the most important being that ditching meat alone isn’t enough to save the world. Did you know that many soy products are grown from clearing rainforests in Brazil? What about how many food miles it takes to ship fresh produce up from California?

After almost a year of pescatarianism, I moved to Honduras to work as a scuba instructor. For four months I stopped eating fish, which would have been roughly akin to eating my livelihood, and instead switched back to poultry and the occasional ham sandwich. Afters years of geography classes, it was suddenly clear: the sustainability of food systems has spatial variability, and what’s viable in one region could have huge environmental impacts in another. Back in Vancouver I made the conscious decision to switch back to Ocean Wise seafood, but only after the careful evaluation of what I could eat with the smallest impact.

I’m not fully off the veg train yet (nothing beats a good chickpea curry after all), but I don’t plan on hopping on again any time soon. If I can eat better balanced meals, and still consider my ecological footprint, what is there to gain? I’ll admit the animal cruelty argument is a tough one to get around, but we do more bad things to animals for their by-products too, and I can’t believe that eating meat once or twice a week is substantially worse than eating none at all.

Moral of the story: I’m stoked to be able to eat whatever the fuck I want, but more importantly? I’m excited that I don’t have to stick a label on it.

Of cowboys and samurai

0

By Will Ross

When responding to a remake, it’s tempting to judge it on a binary comparative: is it better, worse, or as good as its source? While I’d never try to dissuade someone from thinking of, say, Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla remake as abominable, it’s not exactly instructive to stop there. Even disappointing remakes can reveal major ideological shifts or differences across times and cultures.

Take, for instance, Akira Kurosawa’s classic jidaigeki (period drama), Seven Samurai (1954), and its American western remake counterpart, The Magnificent Seven (1960). The plot is easy to adapt: A starving village of farmers is about to be raided by bandits, and the villagers hire seven samurai/cowboys to protect themselves. As they plan their defense, the tension between the farmers and their protectors rises. The seventh member of the ronin/gunslingers further complicates things: he was once a farmer himself and now loathes and resents his former ilk for their weakness. His fellow warriors regard him as an outsider. The films end with the bandits defeated and four of the hired swords/guns dead. Their leader remarks, “Only the farmers won. We will always lose.”

Both films are studies in class divisions. In Samurai, the warrior class — ronin and bandits — are society’s wandering, entrepreneurial opportunists, and the farmers are oppressed workers driven to dishonesty and murder by the warrior class’s greed. Magnificent adds a racial component by casting both the villagers and the bandits who terrorize them as Mexicans and the cowboys as white — save for the ‘outsider’ cowboy, Chico, who is Mexican. Consequently, Samurai’s focus is economic discord and Magnificent’s is ethnic.

One of the only significantly differing plot points between the films comes when the Mexican villagers help the bandits to drive out the seven cowboys. Whereas the farmers in Samurai always acknowledge the ronin as a necessary evil until the final siege by bandits, in the American version they banish their defenders, recognizing that the threat of violence has only increased. At Samurai’s end, Kurosawa’s ronin sacrifice themselves to rescue the oppressed villagers from devastation; in the final battle of Magnificent, it is the ‘protectors’ who invade the village, imposing their moral judgment on the farmers. Before the battle of the western version has ended, the dying bandit leader surveys the carnage on both sides and asks Chris, the cowboy leader, why he would come back. Chris cannot think of an answer. The real marauders of The Magnificent Seven are the cowboys.

When Samurai ends, the outsider has been killed, and a young survivor ronin is rejected by a farmer girl with whom he has fallen in love. The class lines cannot be crossed. The farmers retain their lands and families while, for their compassion for the feudal proletariat, the ronin pay with graves and partake in nothing. Magnificent combines the ‘outsider’ and ‘young lover’ into Chico; he survives and chooses to return to his life as a farmer with the girl of his affections, a conclusion often seen as a typical Hollywood-happy-ending cop out. That’s only the case if you consider the complete division of race that accompanies it to be a ‘happy’ outcome: neither the Mexican villagers nor the European cowboys can reconcile their cultures. Inevitably, they must retreat from one another.

Wear the shoes of a farmer, or cowboy, or ronin, and ask yourself: in our climate of wealth disparity and the multiculturalism that comes with immigration, exactly whose economic cultural interests does one protect? Can economic hardship be stopped by the sacrifice of one’s own interests? Or one culture’s values respected without undoing another’s? Who is responsible to whom? Can we live not next to, but among each other?

Ditching disposables: Reusable chopsticks should be a no-brainer for sushi diners

0

By Larissa Ardis

When our graduate class in resource and environmental management was given an assignment by Dr. Anne Salomon to undertake a conservation action informed by science and report to back to the class about it, we were excited by the opportunity to take on some worthwhile local issue and actually get credit for it. After batting around some ideas, our group chose one that had nagged at us for some time and seemed to offer some unpicked ‘low-hanging fruit’ for the environmental movement: the widespread practice, particularly among sushi restaurants, of doling out disposable chopsticks for dine-in customers.

Unlike with many other difficult environmental issues, this practice isn’t connected to some deep tradition: the disposable chopstick habit is probably no more than a few decades old. Nor is it about economics, for Chinese and Korean food restaurants — which arguably have similar cost profiles to sushi restaurants — tend to offer diners plastic or metal chopsticks and don’t go out of business. It’s hardly political either. As far as we know, our government’s strings aren’t being pulled by the disposable chopstick industry.

We found that most of the world’s disposable chopsticks are produced in China, but that Canada and the U.S. are also getting in on the game. According to the Los Angeles Times, some 100 acres of forest are felled every 24 hours in China alone to meet demand for chopsticks. Considering the climate-regulating, carbon-sequestering, erosion-reducing, and biodiversity- and habitat-providing properties of forests, this is a global issue. And considering that Vancouver probably leads the pack among North American cities for sushi obsession (there are more than a dozen sushi restaurants on an eight-block strip of my Commercial Drive neighborhood alone), this is also a local one.

We also learned that although this issue has attracted relatively little attention in North America, it is gaining ground in Asia. Advocacy for reusable chopsticks is a pet campaign of Greenpeace China. In light of concerns about deforestation, China has imposed a five per cent tax on disposables. In South Korea, disposable chopsticks have been banned at all restaurants above a certain size for more than a decade. In Japan, an Osaka-based restaurant chain successfully ditched the default-disposable habit at all of its 760 outlets. A bring-your-own-sticks campaign has also attracted endorsements from Asian pop stars. It’s even spawned activist art: one Chinese artist engaged 200 university students to collect 82,000 used disposables; he used these to construct a ‘forest’ of life-sized trees. By presenting this exhibit in public spaces, the artist’s team collected more than 40,000 signatures of passersby willing to rethink the disposable habit.

We set to work by setting up a Facebook page with an FAQ and a link to an online petition. That petition collected names of people who endorsed our call for restaurants to stop offering disposables as the default option for dine-in customers, and to consider levying a small fee on disposable chopsticks offered on take-out orders (or alternatively, a small discount for customers that choose to forego these). Just as importantly, the petition collected signers’ postal codes and the names of sushi restaurants they frequent and would recommend. This helped us generate a list of restaurants to approach and provided evidence that we were speaking for their clientele. Signers left some great comments, too: for example, northern B.C. environment management consultant Laurie Gallant suggested that restaurants could label chopsticks with their own logo and sell them as souvenirs.

Armed with the petition results and our growing package of ecological, economic, and cultural arguments for a rethink, our group members paired up during low-business hours and initiated friendly conversations with managers and owners of 12 sushi restaurants on Commercial Drive. This seemed a great place to start because it’s undeniably a green-leaning market. This made it easy for us to make our case in terms that resonate most immediately with businesses. First, customers want reusable chopsticks, and they are cost effective. It makes dine-in establishments look classier and helps differentiate a restaurant from its competition. And, oh yeah: as a bonus, you can do something about that pesky issue of needless deforestation.

Restaurant managers and owners were particularly intrigued when they saw that their establishments were among those recommended by our petition’s signatories. We were pleased to learn that two sushi restaurants on Commercial Drive — Kishimoto and Isshin — were already showing leadership by offering reusable chopsticks to diners-in. Both maintained that there is really no cost advantage in using disposables, and that it was just the right thing to do. Wakaba Sushi in Il Mercato mall pledged to take up our challenge and began offering reusable chopsticks to diners-in. More restaurants, including Sake Maki and Sankyu Sushi and Oyster Bar, conceded that disposables are wasteful and agreed to consider our information carefully.

But not all were responsive: one manager insisted that his customers absolutely require disposables for hygiene reasons — which is a concern that was echoed by others throughout our project. He didn’t have a response when we noted that his well-established, similarly sized competitor across the street uses reusable chopsticks. Moreover, when we pointed out that his customers are probably satisfied that the reusable dishes on which the sushi is served are clean, he said, “Well, those dishes don’t touch their lips. It’s something about touching your mouth, maybe.” We then noted that the washable cups he serves tea in touch patrons’ mouths, and even he had to admit he was stumped for an answer.

Faced with this curious gap in logic, what’s a forest fan to do? Recycling disposable chopsticks should be a last resort; ideally, we want to avoid cutting down the trees and consuming all that energy to produce them in the first place. Taxing disposable chopsticks, while a commendable effort, is a top-down solution that is often too little, too late.

 

In the end, the message needs to come from the ground and work its way up, starting at the neighbourhood level. If businesses hear it enough, they’ll change their tune. Think about it: it wasn’t that long ago that styrofoam coffee cups and free, petroleum-based, wildlife-killing single-use plastic bags were ubiquitous. Today, bringing your own cup is not just acceptable but expected in many places, and plastic shopping bags are banned in numerous countries.

If you love sushi and forests as much as we do, consider this action for your next dine-in Asian feast: ask the server or manager if they have reusable chopsticks for you to use, and if not, would they consider offering them as the default option for diners-in? You could make it easier by just cutting out or printing this article and leaving it with your payment, and be sure to attention it to that establishment’s manager.

Unlike so many ‘wicked’ problems, this really is a no-brainer. And no, it’s not just about chopsticks and sushi restaurants: it’s about rethinking all of our needless uses of resources and energy on a daily basis.

 

Alisha Gauvreau, Nathan Hentze, Sergio Fernandez Lozada, Brennan Lowery, and Larissa Ardis

SFU set to offer new major in labour studies

0

By Reid Standish

The expansion of the labour studies department comes at the perfect time, says SFU prof

The limited labour studies program at SFU will begin growing with a recent donation to the program. This donation will now make it possible for students to major in labour studies.

The history of labour studies at SFU reaches back over 35 years, when the program was created in 1975. However, until recently the program remained on the academic periphery, only becoming available as a minor and a certificate in 2000. A 2010 donation from SFU alumna Margaret Morgan made the expansion of the program possible.

In September 2011, the labour studies program moved from being part of the history department to the Department of Sociology and Anthropology to reflect anticipated demand as the program continues to grow. The next few years will be a transitionary period.

According to Dr. Gary Teeple, director of the Morgan Centre for Labour Studies at SFU, the donation and the expansion of the program are well-timed. Global markets still remain wounded from the 2008 economic crisis, popular protest movements are on the rise, and globalization has changed the way that money, people, and goods interact. All of this has placed the relevance of studying labour under a renewed spotlight. “The labour studies program provides courses intended to shed light on the current trends of neoliberalism, globalization, and the changing nature of work from the point of view of those who must suffer these changes — the overwhelming majority of the world’s population,” said Teeple.

Apart from focusing on wider trends, the program is set to deliver a unique perspective on history and current events to students — one from the point of view of the labour force. “Labour Studies strives to grasp social reality in a critical manner . . . using all the disciplines at its disposal,” explained Teeple.

Rising global unemployment and inequality have perhaps increased the academic relevance of labour. According to a 2011 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report entitled “Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising”, income inequality has been on the rise in the developed world since the 1970s. Moreover, the same authors say that since 2000, incomes have been increasing faster at the top, with earners in the top 10 per cent leaving lower earners more rapidly behind. Rising income inequality comes with various causes, but central to them are regulatory reforms in labour markets. According to the same OECD report, this trend is set to continue — along with some dire consequences. As upward social mobility becomes limited, social resentment and political instability become very likely developments, and in many ways are already underway, say the OECD authors.

Yet, while acknowledging this ominous forecast, Dr. Teeple offered his own prescription: “An entire generation of young people is facing increasing debt, loss of hope, and rising unemployment . . . what better time to take a course in labour studies?”

University Briefs

0

By Arianne Madden

Glitch causes UBC to overcharge students for tuition

An external payment processing company contracted to handle thousands of University of British Columbia students’ tuition and housing accounts accidentally double and triple charged over 500 students in December. The charges amounting to over $2.1 million were refunded to students and the company also promised to pay for overdraft or insufficient fund fees that some students paid as a result of the double charge.

Former board members stage protest against Kwantlen impeachments

Three former members of the Kwantlen Student Association staged a protest at the university’s Surrey campus decrying the impeachment of the entire student association board this past November. The protestors demanded to know why some former Kwantlen students were barred from KSA elections, suggesting that the impeachment may have been racially motivated.

Ryerson issues sex assault warnings

Ryerson University recently issued a public warning to students and community members after a woman was sexually assaulted near the university’s downtown Toronto campus. The woman was picked up by a group of six men in a black minivan and taken to a nearby neighbourhood where she was sexually assaulted. Police are still investigating but have released descriptions of the attackers online.

Carleton opens assault survivor support centre

After years of student lobbying, Carleton University has agreed to open up a crisis support centre to assist survivors of sexual assaults following numerous attacks on campus in recent years. The resource centre and outreach program will be made available in September and will be run by a group of volunteers.

-Ariane Madden