Here’s what you missed at SFU’s Geek Week. With booths from the Earth Science, Chemistry, Statistics, and Biology departments, Geek Week 2012 was a huge success!
Dan Savage undeserving of protester savagery
By Esther Tung
“Please read this on the man you’re about to go and listen to,” said a young woman, as she held out a bright pink pamphlet with Dan Savage’s face Xeroxed on the front, and then moved onto the next person in line to enter the Vogue. The pamphlet detailed the Savage Love sex columnist’s various phobias, denounced his attitudes towards transgendered, disabled, HIV-positive, and fat people, among others, and also contained a sachet of potent glitter. The claims themselves didn’t seem outlandish, though I still took it with a pinch of salt, since I certainly found it hard to believe he was transphobic, having featured the likes of Buck Angel on his Savage Love podcast.
It was a few days later that I read in Xtra West that these people were behind the third glitterbombing of Dan Savage. One particular protestor, who dubs herself the Lavender Menace, said this: “[Savage] is part of a broader [group] of gay, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied gay men focused on gay-marriage priorities. We want to say those priorities are messed up.”
I want to say this opinion of hers is messed up, unless it’s somehow been taken wildly out of context, but since it’s Xtra West, of all publications, I’m sure they know better than to do that.
Dear Lavender Menace: how are a gay man’s priorities out of whack when he chooses to advocate for the issue of gay marriage? Same-sex marriage is not a right that only a geographically privileged bunch are allowed.
What is even more disturbing about this quote, however, is how Miss Menace can use the terms “cis-gendered”, “able-bodied”, and even “gay” pejoratively, as if having his gender identity line up with his biological sex is grounds enough for suspicion that he can well be ‘the enemy’.
Parallel to this is when feminists use ‘straight, white male’ as grounds for dismissing someone’s argument, or when people express their solidarity with the ‘voluptuous’, fuller-figured women by way of skinny-bashing, saying things like, “That cricket chick is probably just jealous that you have breasts.” This is just me taking a moment to be bitter about personal experiences, but if I have to hear a variation of “Real women have curves” one more time, I’m going to a shit a baby right into that person’s bathroom sink.
I am not the enemy of size- 14s. Dan Savage is not the enemy of transgendered people. In his talk, he addressed the claims of transphobia. He first notes that featuring adult filmmaker Buck Angel, and Kate Bornstein, on his podcast has allowed for a greater understanding of the transgendered perspective in the mainstream. He continues by saying that he, as well as other writers and bloggers, do tend to shy away from going too deeply into discussing trans issues, probably to avoid unpleasant confrontations with glitterbombs.
Creating horizontal hostility by attacking Dan Savage and handing out pamphlets to people who, by virtue of having already paid to see him, are going to be far less receptive to your cause anyway, just doesn’t seem like the best tactic, either way.
Trans activists have condemned Savage’s use of the term ‘shemale’, yet Savage claims that his own trans friends approve of it. What they see as insults, others see as accurate portrayal. Gender is complex and tricky, far more than the binary and our current language could ever hope to cover, but it’s clear that even those with a more sophisticated and personal understanding of it have trouble agreeing on the terminology as well.
Alien parasites and perestroika
By Will Ross
Few things are more fertile to distrust than paranoia, and few eras were less paranoid than the Cold War. In the face of literal annihilation, both East and West responded with fervent political condemnations. Never before in history was so much of the world delineated as ‘us’, and the rest as ‘them’. By the time the Berlin Wall came down and globalization kicked into high gear, distrust was shared equally among all.
Few films illustrate this change better than Howard Hawks and Edward Nyby’s The Thing from Another World (1950) and John Carpenter’s remake, The Thing (1982). The two films straddle opposite ends of the Cold War, each with their own perspectives on how fear germinates and how we respond to it. Though their plots differ, they share a similar premise: a group of men are stationed in a polar research station and discover the wreckage of an alien spacecraft. After bringing an inert creature into their camp, it breaks loose and begins terrorizing the remote station. Besides survival, the men face the risk of the alien multiplying and conquering Earth.
Another World’s creature is humanoid, but irreconcilably different from human beings: it is a plant. As such, it cannot be reasoned with, fully empathized with, or regarded as an equal. Its objective is to incubate seedlings that will grow more creatures; their hostility and seeming invincibility makes them a clear threat to the world. Carpenter’s Thing differentiates itself from its predecessor starting with its truncated title: The threat’s not truly “from another world”, but at least partly within: the alien is a shape shifter that assimilates and mimics its victims, then deforms into a grotesque monster when attacking. As a result, more time in The Thing is spent in fear of fellow men than real monsters, and there is as much risk of the men killing each other as the thing doing it.
What is the thing, though? In the original film, it is a clear allegory for communism and its incompatibility with western ideals. Intellectuals, too, are lambasted. A scientist who nurtures the seeds and insists on communicating with the alien race in the interest of knowledge is dismissed as a well-meaning fool, and the men set out to burn the creature to death. The characters of Carpenter’s film know there is a threat, but cannot distinguish it from themselves, aren’t even sure that those infected by the thing are aware of it. Whose head will turn into a killer spider next? There seems to be no way to tell. Those men grapple with the question of how to circumvent an impossible paradox: the only way to avoid being killed is for everyone to die. The Thing from Another World lacks this paradox. Instead, its response is a more comforting “Kill Communism with fire!”
Granted, it’s not reassuring to exchange political zealotry for despondent nihilism. The 1982 Thing doesn’t promise that paranoia will bring security. But for all its pro-survival posturing, the 1950 film’s militaristic conclusion, a broadcast that pleads, “Watch the skies! Keep looking! Keep watching the skies!” is far less empathetic than the end of its 1982 sibling, wherein two people face freezing to death. They sit and watch, and each studies the other and wonders how to live — or die — together.
Roadmap for a new SFU needs student voices
By Jeff McCann
I have an idea. A dream really, but that introduction has been used before. I believe in SFU. I believe there is a future where students are so engaged as part of their university experience that Clan pride oozes from them. What do we need at SFU? Where is the void that creates a barrier of interest for students to leave the commuter campus attitude behind us. There must be a solution to this overwhelming dilemma.
My answer: more student space.
Student space is anywhere and everywhere that students like to be outside of class. It’s the couches in the AQ, the SFPIRG lounge, The Highland Pub, Women’s Center, Out on Campus, athletic facilities, and DSU space. I didn’t always know this but I do now. Student space is everywhere but nowhere at the SFU Burnaby campus. There are not enough places to eat, study, nap, hangout, or meet people. We know this because the hip hop club dances in a cafeteria, the chamber orchestra practices in the hallway, and constantly, students leave campus for lack of reasons to stay.
Campus organizations have spent the better part of 2011 competing for student space, in survival mode to protect their space and prove the worth of their service to the campus community. We are all trying to prove to students what we think is important and why we are more worthy than the next. This is backwards. We all have the same goal of a better SFU, so why compete? Lets stand on the same side of the line and compete only against the clock for what we can accomplish. Lets pool our resources and commit to something larger than our four or five years here.
Whose responsibility is it to make these changes — the university or the student society? I don’t think it makes a difference; it’s all our responsibility. At other schools, alumni reflect on their experiences and say that their best times were at the game, at a club event, at a pub night. So what do you want your story to be about? Tell somebody. Don’t just complain; here’s your chance to make your voice heard. I believe we need adequate facilities for athletics and student life that match our rival schools. We need a stadium. We need a student union building.
The SFSS and the university have put up money already to get plans drawn. We have combed over countless years of documents leading to this moment. There have been reports on the relationship between student wellness and physical space and we know that other universities prosper with their student union building and stadiums as focal points for the campus. It is a fact that a higher student engagement will make your piece of paper more valuable, your resume more robust, and leave SFUs reputation bolstered.
Now we need student voices to join this conversation. We invite you to speak your mind and say what you would like to see on campus. Let’s not just talk about it, let’s build it. We have created the opportunity. Imagine the possibilities.
My vision, my dream, is one project that puts every student and student group on the same team to realize our dream of an unparalleled university experience. Wednesday February 1 in Forum chambers we will unveil the beginning of the future of this campus. Come be part of the conversation.
Now we need student voices to join this conversation. We invite you to speak your mind and say what you would like to see on campus. Let’s not just talk about it, let’s build it. We have created the opportunity. Imagine the possibilities.
My vision, my dream, is one project that puts every student and student group on the same team to realize our dream of an unparalleled university experience. Wednesday February 1 in Forum chambers we will unveil the beginning of the future of this campus. Come be part of the conversation.
University education is not a right
KELOWNA (CUP) — If only university tuition were free.
I, for one, would like that very much. Not only that — I’d enjoy my university experience even more if the textbooks were free as well. And if I’m completely honest, I’d prefer not paying for my food either. Free lunch in the caf, anyone?
Unfortunately, as they say, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Someone’s got to pay. And, as a student, I have to pay for both my lunch and my tuition. But is that fair? Should I have to pay as much as I do to attend university?
According to the Canadian Federation of Students, students have to pay more than they ought. They point to the rising levels of student debt, and the decreasing levels of government funding. All yearly increases in tuition are to be resisted. The slogan and rallying cry of their cause: “Education is a right!”
Now, I have no problem with questioning how much we have to pay as students. Who wants to pay more than is fair? If someone tried to charge me $20 for a hamburger, I’d tell him . . . well, “No, thanks.” But I wouldn’t yell in his face, “Fast food is a right!” and demand a lower price. That would be absurd. That said, a university degree isn’t a Big Mac, and a right is not a dietary preference.
Nor is a university education a right.
A right is a just claim to something: in keeping with the principles of justice, each is given his or her due. There is some confusion in this use of ‘rights’ as applied to our education. First off, all rights are not equal. A right may be either positive or negative. Negative rights — like the right to free speech — require nothing of others. If someone wants to speak his mind, I don’t need to lift a finger. I simply let him speak. Positive rights, by contrast, place obligations on others to provide the right. If education is a right, someone is morally obligated to provide it to us.
This raises the very important question of who, exactly, must provide us with an education. The government? Well, that means they have to pay for it — the cost of buildings, professors’ salaries, and so on. And where does the government get their money? Quite obviously, most of it comes from taxpayers. That means, in part, the working families of B.C. and Canada are obligated to pay for your education. (By the way, they already pay for a large chunk of the cost.)
Also, if our right to an education places the burden of paying for it on others, how far does their obligation extend? Most of us have been educated for free from kindergarten through grade 12 in the public school system. How much more education should others have to pay for? Your bachelor’s degree? Your master’s? Your PhD?
I’m aware that education has what economists call a “positive externality”. It has more value to our society than just the value to the individual being taught. For example, the more doctors Canada has, the better off we all are. And this is at least part of the reason that government already heavily subsidizes our education. We all benefit from having intelligent, skilled people fixing our teeth, designing our roads, and teaching our classes.
But those dentists and engineers and professors are rewarded for what they do, and chances are, we will be for what we do, as well. Our potential future earnings are higher than the earnings of those without a university degree, which makes our degree an investment. Also, universities have limited seats. We were admitted. Others weren’t. So shouldn’t we be willing to foot at least part of our bill, instead of insisting that others — including those who didn’t have the privilege of being admitted — pay for it?
If we are going to make demands for lower tuition, we should set aside the rhetorical language of rights. It isn’t honest, and it places unfair demands on others. And if an education is really as valuable as we are claiming, why shouldn’t we be willing to make some sacrifices and work for it?
Veggie Lunch changes owners, menu
By Erika Zell
New owners bring a wider variety of lunch options to the table
Veggie Lunch, an SFU lunchtime institution, changed hands last semester, but the new owners have high hopes for the humble meal.
Formerly cooked, delivered, and served by Jocelyn Fournier, a practicing Hare Krishna, Veggie Lunch has been passed on to the Vancouver chapter of the international charity Hare Krishna Food for Life. Kalarupini, the new coordinator, walked The Peak through the new menu options and explained the philosophy behind the food.
“We’re working with a four-week rotating menu,” said Kalarupini, or Kala, “So even if you came every day for a month you wouldn’t get the same meal.” While the options still take their cues from Fournier’s set lunch, Kala explained that the group was trying to integrate a wider variety of vegetarian dishes into the rotation. “We have basmati rice everyday, one curry or vegetable dish, and two different kinds of sweets, as well as a Persian dessert.”
One of the biggest differences regular patrons will notice is the different types of green salad as a break from the usual carb-heavy fare. “We’re trying to do a salad option once a week, on a different day every week so hopefully everyone can catch it at least once,” said Kala.
Like Founier’s menu, everything is freshly prepared the day it’s served, and is completely meat-free and “karma-free”. Karma-free, Kala explains, means that it has been prayed over and blessed for consumption. As well, organizers hope that at $5 per plate the meal will be an economic and healthy option for students.
“Hare Krishna Food for Life operates out of several Downtown Eastside charities,” said Kala, “as well as supporting a school in India. For $5 you get a really big meal, but it is also a donation, which makes it more meaningful. I think it’s a good combination of charity and enjoyment, because you get something back too.”
Hare Krishna Food for Life is an international vegan and vegetarian food relief organization. The Vancouver branch works with several local shelters, as well as coordinating relief efforts in many Indian cities. All meals are vegetarian friendly (SFU diners should ask the day-of about vegan options) and are sanctified, or sacrificed and offered to god, before serving. Meat, fish, and eggs are not eaten as a part of the Hare Krishna faith, and so cannot be sanctified or served through Veggie Lunch. Hare Krishna Food for Life is a registered charity, and the Vancouver branch has been in operation since 1980.
Veggie Lunch is served weekly Tuesday through Thursday in Forum Chambers. The suggested donation per meal is $5.
SFU breaks Burns reading marathon records
Robbie Burns Day returns to SFU with bagpipes, haggis, rapping, and a poetry-reading marathon
Does listening to Scottish literature for four hours sound like your idea of an excellent way to celebrate Robbie Burns Day? On an appropriately clammy Vancouver day just such an affair took place. At the SFU Tech Gallery in Harbour Center on Wednesday, January the 25, a Robbie Burns Day poetry-reading marathon occurred with over 100 in attendance throughout the day.
The marathon beat a previous world record set in Hungary four years prior, which spanned an hour in length; SFU surpassed that record by going for four hours, nine minutes, and 24 seconds. Throughout the day, readers, who had to RSVP online, took turns reading from selected pieces by Scotland’s favourite son, each of which were five-minute portions of spoken literature.
The turnout was considerable with over 100 onlookers. “They had lots of different people reading poetry, singing, dancing, and snacking on Haggis,” observed one school administrator. “It was a nice change to have some festivities in the mezzanine between classes,” related Jeremy Ma, a student at the Harbour Centre campus. News of the record-setting event made Scottish news media as well as Canadian television broadcasts such as CityTV.
The event was packed with such notables as SFU president Andrew Petter, who kicked off the proceedings with Burns’ well-known poem “A Man’s a Man for A’ That”. Others in attendance included Vancouver Whitecaps president Bob Lenarduzzi, Bard On The Beach artistic director Christopher Gaze, and a distant relative of Burns himself, Teresa Margaret King. Students from the Centre for Robert Burns Studies at the University of Glasgow also took part in readings via Skype, reading their favourite excerpts virtually to the gallery.
SFU alumnus Todd Wong was another participant. Wong is known for the blending of Robbie Burns Day and Chinese New year in “Gung Haggis Fat Choy” celebrations of previous years. Wong participated by reading, as well as performing a Robbie Burns Day rap, which, upon conclusion, a spectator remarked: “You brought Burns into the 21st century”.
Concurrently, at SFU’s satellite campus in Surrey, a smaller celebration took place in the mezzanine area at 11:00 a.m., breaking into the scheduled Clubs Day agenda. “Some guy with a Scottish accent recited some poetry and then they gave out haggis around noon,” recounted Mikaela Osmak, a Surrey student.
Burns day is a mainstay at SFU as Scottish heritage is important to the university’s brand as well as the Canadian identity. The student institution of SFU has had a reputation for its radicalized activism, its left-leaning stance on social inequality, and its progressive standpoint on gender roles; all of which were subjects of Robert Burn’s compositions over 250 years prior. It is ingrained in the institution in the colours of the crest, which match the blue and red from the Fraser tartan to the group of sports teams designated as the Clan. Notables of Scottish-Canadian History include explorer Simon Fraser; first and second prime ministers of Canada, John A. MacDonald and Alexander McKenzie; first governor of British Columbia Sir James Douglas; and the first and current mayor of Vancouver, Malcolm McLean and Gregor Robertson, respectively.
The year previous, the university did not put on any Robbie Burns Day celebrations, citing budgetary restrictions. After a public outcry from the SFU community, measures of correction were made to ensure Burns Day would take place the following year. At a board of governor’s meeting last week, Petter stated that “it was a great morning and a really positive reaffirmation of the fact that we have strong connections, through our Scottish studies program, but also historically, to the Scottish community.”
“[Burns Day] is a part of culture and life at SFU, it’s very essential,” commented Wong, who created Gung Haggis Fat Choy as a Simon Fraser student in 1993. “It’s how I became Toddish McWong. I was a tour guide at SFU.”
Petter highlights shift of global R&D from North America to Asia
By Graham Cook
At a board of governors meeting last week, President Andrew Petter addressed the importance of a liaison between Simon Fraser University and the provincial and federal governments. He indicated that they have begun to develop a more conservative and strategic approach when it comes to the plan for government relations. However, he reminded those present that there is still a lot of developmental work to be done.
Petter also outlined a recent report by the U.S. National Science Foundation that contains “some very scary numbers, not just for B.C., but for North America, in terms of showing how the share of global research and development is shifting away from North America and towards particularly Asian countries.” He continued to share that between 1996 and 2009 North America’s portion of global research and development decreased from 40 per cent to 36 per cent.
Meanwhile, the so-called ‘Asian-8’ countries including India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan saw their share rise from 24 to 31 per cent. In addition, during that same period, the United States exported 28 per cent of its high- tech manufacturing jobs. Petter summed this up by stating: “The gap that used to exist and we used to take for granted based on our literacy rates and our education system is no longer a gap we can take for granted.”
In addition, SFU’s current vice-president, academic, Dr. Jonathan Driver, discussed the possibility of updating the school’s “archaic system of evaluating faculty members” citing the fact that the process has not been changed in over 30 years. Driver also announced plans to launch a research project on the same topic to decide the best course of action.
The board of governors will meet again in March.
University Briefs
Recovered UVic hardware comes with strange apology
A piece of financially sensitive hardware that had been stolen from the University of Victoria’s administrative offices in early January has been revealed, along with a cryptic note that has police puzzled. The note indicated that no information from the hardware was compromised and that “criminals were human before they were criminals.”
UBC overhauls entrance scholarship program
The University of British Columbia has decided to redistribute $6.1 million previously earmarked for the President’s Entrance Scholarship program to other university programs. The university cited recent studies showing that the scholarship did not contribute to a potential student’s decision to study at the university as reasoning to redistribute the funds.
UofT censors anti-racism poster
A poster advertising an anti-racism theatrical performance at the University of Toronto was censored by administration over worries that it might be ill-received. The poster depicted a Jewish man wearing an afro hairstyle and an African man wearing traditional Jewish clothing.
UVic remembers student who died of meningococcal disease
A funeral was held last week for Leo Chan, a student at the University of Victoria who died of bacterial meningitis on January 18. Health authorities encouraged friends to be tested for the rare disease which is passed through saliva such as on drink cups or cigarettes.
York University reports third bathroom voyeur incident
Women at York University in Toronto are being warned of a peeping tom in lecture hall bathrooms in recent weeks. The suspect, described as a 21-to 23-year-old male has been reaching his cell phone under stall doors then fleeing once the victim calls out or reports him to campus security.
-Ariane Madden
Rio: no more flicks?
By Sam Reynolds
The projectors may not be out for long at East Vancouver’s only movie theatre.
In a statement to the press, Solicitor General Shirley Bond said the province is investigating the possibility of changing the laws that prevent the Rio Theatre from being able to both hold a liquor license and screen films.
“We are aware of the challenges that these establishments have faced with current regulations and in fact over the last several months have been examining the policy implications and are currently considering what changes may be appropriate,” Bond said in a press release. “We look forward to having to more say about this in the near future.”
Currently, provincial law prohibits movie theatres from holding liquor primary licenses due to a clause regarding concerns around alcohol and audience members who are minors.
“We are working to try and balance the desire to assist business owners in being successful with the responsibility of regulating liquor in the interest of public safety,” Bond’s statement continued.
In mid-January, the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission announced it had amended its rules to allow liquor to be sold in movie theatres. The minister responsible for the liquor commission, Gord Mackintosh, said the changes were part of Manitoba’s new “hospitality strategy”.
The Rio — an East Vancouver landmark — has a storied history. Originally built in 1938, it was re-opened in 2006 after a $2-million renovation. In May 2008 the theatre changed hands, after being purchased by a group of investors and former restaurateur Corinne Lea.
When Lea, who is also the general manager, took over in 2008, she sought to counter dwindling ticket sales and revenue by having the theatre alternate between a movie house and live performance venue. As unlicensed live events were only marginally profitable, Lea sought a liquor primary license to allow alcohol to be served at shows.
Some movie theatres in British Columbia do allow alcohol to be served on the premises, albeit under different conditions; Ciniplex’s Silver City “VIP” cinema in Coquitlam operates a licensed lounge, and the Vancouver International Film Centre is licensed as a club as opposed to a theatre opened to the general public.
Lea received the license on January 19 and intended to begin serving alcohol at live events, and continue to screen films without alcohol service. According to media reports and a press release issued by the Rio Theatre, it was Lea’s understanding after consulting a liquor inspector that the theatre would be able to screen films when the license was not in effect — before 6:00 pm.
On January 20, the province informed Lea that as the Rio was now a licensed venue it was “not to show movies or any type of cinematic screenings at any time.”
In an interview with the Vancouver Sun, the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch’s general manager Karen Ayers clarified why the Rio was not allowed to serve liquor, even when it was operating as a performance venue and not a movie theatre.
“In order to screen motion pictures (in any number whether only one a year or very many) an establishment is required to hold a license through Consumer Protection B.C. and by law they become a movie theatre according to the Motion Picture Act. The Rio Theatre has such a license. Therefore they are a movie theatre, which also offers live entertainment,” said Ayers.
Lea has repeatedly contested the Rio’s classification as a movie theatre, claiming the establishment is a “multimedia venue”. She has also argued that facilities such as B.C. Place or Rogers Area are allowed to serve alcohol at events where minors attend.
The Fraser Institute’s Joel Wood, who recently penned an op-ed in the Province about the Rio’s plight, explained to The Peak by email that while the first revision of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act passed by the outgoing NDP government in 1975 was seen as a “huge step forward” in liberalizing B.C.’s liquor laws, successive governments have changed that.
“The regulation in question was likely crafted in 1976 by an incoming Social Credit Government that indeed wanted to placate a small, but vocal group of supporters that were morally opposed to alcohol consumption,” explained Wood. “It appears that the original intent of the regulation was to restrict alcohol consumption for moral reasons, despite the act itself being a big leap forward in B.C.”
Wood continued to argue that such “subjective” enforcement of the rules ultimately hinders businesses, and this was an unnecessary intrusion of government into the actions of individuals.
Support for the Rio has come from all levels of government, and in the case of Vancouver city council has been a bi-partisan affair.
NDP MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert presented a petition with 2000 signatures to the B.C. legislature calling on the province to change the laws, while fellow NDP MLA Jenny Kwan has publicly taken up the fight for the theatre.
Vision Vancouver city councilor Heather Deal has publicly announced plans to introduce a motion to city council calling on the province to update its liquor laws.
NPA councillor George Affleck told The Peak that he is very supportive of the motion.
“I was going to submit a similar one, but the councillor beat me to it,” said Affleck.
