Mamma, don't let your babies go to University in Ontario....
Have Ontario Universities become bastions of unthinking, left-wing groupthink?
In the last few months we've seen Queens set up campus Thought Police. What next, the Junior Anti-Sex League?
Then we had the ever tolerant Carleton University Student Association who were forced to back down from their withdrawal of support of Shinerama on the basis of it being a "..disease that affects primarily white males" after a widespread backlash from their student body (well done Students of Carleton U), Carleton Alumni, and the wider public.
Last week we had a committee of so-called academics attempting to impose Human Resources and academic policy for all Universities in Ontario this wonderfully tolerant, and enlightened motion.
I guess the students at Guelph were feeling a bit left out. How else would you explain this? To Scott Gilbert, I would respectfully suggest that you consider what you write prior to publication. The people whom you so glibly mouth off about and blithely compare to Paul Bernardo are doing far more for this country than you ever have to this point. Given your attitude, I expect you will likely finish school with your Liberal Arts degree, go join some NGO that lives off the government teat. There, you will spend your days attending forums and conferences with others of your ilk talking in circles and decrying the evils of the military-industrial complex as you complain that the US, NATO or the Canadian Government isn't landing troops in whichever hotspot that has categorically stated that they will shoot at them if they do.
Note (h/t Raphael): I have since learned that Mr. Gilbert is studying Environmental Engineering. As an Engineering grad myself, I am doubly disgusted. Given his propensity for hyperbole, not to mention his obvious inability to dispassionately parse facts, I wouldn't want him anywhere near any project with which I was involved. I still stand by my remarks that he will end up working for an NGO.
Guelph Alumni, I hope you are paying attention here. The next sound that the administration of the University should be hearing is the boom of a thousand alumni chequebooks slamming shut. At its best, the concept of a University is that it is supposed to be a place to explore ideas and foster discussion. Recycling marxist ideology, painting those with whom you disagree as War Criminals, and attempting to suppress discussion of all points contrary to your dogma of the day is the antithesis of this.
7 comments:
He's a student with an opinion writing for a student paper. Just calm down.
What is with the incessant need to find everyone with a dissenting opinion - even some guy writing for a student paper - and assume that the state of Canadian society is in terminal decline because of the person's message? Jeeeeesus.
David, in the real world words like "War Criminal" (for example)have both meaning, and consequence attached to their usage. Anyone using this kind of inflamatory language, particularly if they are attending a so-called institute of higher learning, should realize that it must be backed up by more than their own politically motivated opinion.
Why do 'students' challenging the status-quo seem get their own backs up (as you have so kindly demonstrated)when they are themselves challenged? I do not dispute his right hold to an opinion, nor his right to express it. I do, however, question the wisdom of the Cannon's editorial staff in choosing to publish it.
It does not appear to enter your calculus that there will be alumni who will be disturbed that the school appears to be sanctioning this type of polemic and will react accordingly.
People have a right to their opinion, but they must also take responsibility for the resulting fallout.
It's ridiculous. No one cares about a student paper except you guys.
The kind of nonsense that is bandied about on BT blogs about Liberals, left-wing professors and, in general, people who don't share your particular beliefs is pretty much at the same level as this.
It really was a slow news week, when you ignore Harper's flip-flop on his Senate position, and his plans to run massive deficits.
It does not appear to enter your calculus that there will be alumni who will be disturbed that the school appears to be sanctioning this type of polemic and will react accordingly.
No it doesn't, and why should it enter yours? Do you work for the university? Are you an alumni? Aren't you just jumping on a cause-of-the-moment and creating indignation so you have something to post about?
should realize that it must be backed up by more than their own politically motivated opinion.
I didn't read the article, but I suspect he backed up what he said.
Why do 'students' challenging the status-quo seem get their own backs up (as you have so kindly demonstrated)when they are themselves challenged?
You don't know a thing about me. Doesn't everyone get their backs up when they're challenged? What exactly do you call 'getting your back up', and how have you not done it here as well?
David, in the real world words like "War Criminal" (for example)have both meaning, and consequence attached to their usage.
I should add that this is true, insomuch as the 'real world' means a place where such a charge might actually lead to anything serious; i.e., when it's said by someone more important than the editor of a student newspaper. If Gen. Hillier feels as strongly about it as you and the rest of the madly raving sycophants and sequacious bootlickers, I'm sure he can follow through legally, and he doesn't need your misplaced indignation to help him out. He's a capable guy. On the other hand, they're not going to hang him high based on what some guy from a mostly unknown university in Ontario said.
David, I must say that I find your latest comments rather sesquipedalian. Given your predilection for syllogism, if I were to hazard a guess, you're likely some Masters student with time on your hands, based on your apparent lack of reading comprehension.
You have obviously failed to read the follow up post on this, wherein I discuss my premises more fully.
If I had not read the article, I would not have commented on it. I did so because it provides a clear illustration of the consequences of a lack of editorial oversight in a media which is no longer limited to a small audience who have a context for the party putting it out. You, on the other hand, have admitted that you have not actually read the article in question, but yet you come here in high dugeon looking for a fight.
No, I am not an alumni of Guelph, but I do have friends who are. I have written for publication at my own alma mater and quite frankly would have never dreamed of submitting such an ill considered, poorly written piece. Someone at Guelph obviously had second thoughts about the publication decision since the article has been removed pending review.
Sesquipedalian? I just like the word 'sequacious'. It came up on a word of the day a few years back.
Look, I get where you're coming from, but I just don't understand why this even matters to anyone. And you're right, I didn't read the followup post, because I imagine it's more of the same: justification as to why this IS actually a big deal, and then evidence as to why you must be right, because of either comments on the paper's website, or decisions by UofG with respect to the editorial itself.
I also didn't read the article other than to flip over to it and glance at it, because I don't really care. I'm in the Reserves, and I don't think this is going to bring about a sea-change in Canada's opinion about Gen. Hillier. I also don't know who Gen. Hillier is as a person, so I don't have that much of a vested interest in his hurt feelings as apparently everyone else does; what's more, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about any of this. I have respect for him in his capacity as a General in the CF, but that's as much as I know.
It just comes down to the fact that it seems like a load of false righteous indignation. Given the predilection of those to the right end of the spectrum towards accusing their opponents of whining and false indignation, I thought it would be worth it to point out how needlessly argumentative this all is.
I do have one question though: What would you do to him? What should be his punishment? What should come of this? Should UoG remove the post, and if they do, what should happen if he writes another one calling someone else a bad name?
David, I do appreciate your comments, and in answer to your question, the only thing I would have done in this case would have been to remove the posting and have offered him the opportunity to re-submit it in 72 hours, after he has taken some time to think about what he is trying to say.
There were some points he made that were worthy of discussion, but presenting them in the manner he chose pretty much destroyed any credibility he might have had with an otherwise neutral audience in making them.
Everyone makes mistakes, and a lot of times in the digital universe, too many people pres publish without actually taking a moment to take assess their writing. This is unfortunate, because in a gotcha digital age, this stuff can come back to bite you as many people are coming to find. These kinds of lessons are best learned early. I just hope that he takes what has happened to heart and takes the time to present his case in a more thoughtful and mature manner.
There is already too much name calling on the net, and in this case I certainly got a bit hotter than necessary. I am passionate about clear writing and a good debate, however, that is no excuse to be nasty.
Post a Comment