Letters, March 11
How you remind me of ignorance
Re: “How you remind me of bad music” (Opinions, Feb. 25)
JUST TO PREFACE this argument with a statement: anything in this article about Roadrunner records and the bands they represent are care of the “Explore Music” blog hosted by Allan Cross; I don’t want to get expelled for plagiarism by not mentioning that, so here we go.
This is a response to Mike McCabe’s article, “How you remind me of bad music,” which discussed Nickelback and how they do not represent Canada’s music well. I agree with most of the things Mike said in his article—I have never enjoyed a Nickelback song from 2001 to 2010; that being said, Nickelback is a very important piece of the dying music industry.
Nickelback has sold 20 million albums in the United States and this is the sole reason they are an imperative band for modern music. Here’s how it works: in the States, Nickelback is signed to Roadrunner records, who also have Lamb of God, Killswitch Engage, and Trivium signed. Because Roadrunner is supported by bands like Nickelback and Megadeth, and because generic bands like these manage to sell millions and millions of records, Roadrunner can supply the world with many other great bands. If there are any Billy Talent fans reading this, Roadrunner is Billy Talent’s rep in the States, and if you didn’t already know, Billy Talent is popular in two markets, Canada and Germany. So without Nickelback, Billy Talent stands no chance in the United States.
The point is that, no, Nickelback is not worthy of half the press and record sales they receive, but who goes out and buys a Nickelback album expecting a riveting lyrical expression of life and love, war and peace? There have always been bands like Nickelback, which support better bands who cannot sell millions of records and make the major labels rich and are not respected years later (bands like Styx and Air Supply come to mind).
And as for the Canadian staples you mentioned (Tegan and Sara, Matthew Good, Stars, Broken Social Scene, and Metric), do you really think that the only good band in Germany is Rammstein? Or that the only good band in Finland is Children of Bodom? The thing is that there isn’t really a huge market for indie bands outside of their home country, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. These Canadian bands seem perfectly content to be in the position they are in, and being a musician myself, I know that I would give an arm and a leg to be in that position, as a Canadian unknown.
In short, Nickelback isn’t a great band; they don’t write great music. But the fact is that in an era where record stores all over the world are closing their doors, record companies need bands like Nickelback or there would be no music available outside of your local market.
Austin Webster, First-year history and political science student
On Israeli Apartheid Week
I WAS UNDER the impression that a university setting is ideal for political discussion of world issues. University clubs rely on this environment to present opinions with the goal of better understanding world issues and beginning constructive dialogue.
It has come to my attention recently that anti-Israeli Apartheid Week posters have been plastered throughout campus. There are several different templates with phrases like “Everyone should feel safe. No IAW.” These posters likely speak to Israeli Apartheid Week, an international week of events to raise awareness about human rights violations inflicted on Palestinians. The ultimate goal of the event, and the entire Palestinian solidarity movement behind it, is peace and justice.
My first problem with the anti-IAW posters is their failure to expand upon the acronym IAW, which can be confused with Islam Awareness Week. While the timing of these events was purely coincidental, this message is hurtful to organizers of Islam Awareness Week. Their natural reaction was that a group of students intentionally spoke out against learning about another religion. While I’m sure the posterers did not intend an anti-Muslim sentiment, I cannot help but point out their inevitable effect.
Furthermore, the anti-IAW posters were put up in place of Israeli Apartheid Week advertising posters. Students organizing Israeli Apartheid Week went to the trouble of having posters stamped and legitimately posted them so that students could hear about their events; yet, within hours, most were ripped down and replaced with anti-IAW posters that were not stamped and thus are not even allowed to be posted in the university. To my knowledge, no club other than the one organizing Israeli Apartheid Week has to put up posters every day in the same places because posters are ripped down in petty “guerrilla” tactics that have no place on a university campus that sanctions free speech.
Finally, I want to briefly address some concerns expressed in the posters. As an organizer of Israeli Apartheid Week, I oppose the human rights violations and illegal military occupation perpetrated by the state of Israel, and I firmly believe that Israel should not be equated with Judaism. We do not have a problem with any form of Jewish state or any part of the religion. In fact, Israeli Apartheid Week has many Jewish organizers who feel perfectly safe within the movement. The organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week are not advocating for the destruction of Israel, as has been claimed. We simply want the international community to know what is happening to innocent civilians and to open up dialogue to ultimately resolve this problem, while highlighting the responsibilities of the Israeli government and its international allies, such as Canada. I urge everyone with doubts about Israeli Apartheid Week to attend one of the lectures and gain a better understanding of the event and the Palestinian solidarity movement.
Jenny Doswell, Third year health sciences student
Overheard at the U of O
THIS LETTER IS in regards to what I've overheard during the last three years that I've been in undergrad studies here at the university. It’s appalling how homophobic the discussions can be that go on in both the Montpetit and Sports Complex gyms. I've been working out and making use of the gym facilities since I started my program here and every year, with almost every gym visit, I get to overhear at least one gem of a conversation where presumably straight males are making fun of “fags” and talking about how disgusting they are. I'm also bisexual. I haven't visited the campus Pride Centre and I haven't discussed this with a female friend to see if girls are just as bad in their own locker rooms, so I'll leave that to anyone who can shed light on the subject.
It’s just a sad showing that the university community is still filled with immature bigots who have no place discussing such things in public. If I went around bashing the large Middle Eastern, Francophone, or other such communities on campus, I'd likely face some kind of sanction. So should these guys. I hope that Sports Services or the community at large will actually do something rather than laughing along with jokes meant for high school.
Francis O'Brien, Third-year criminology student
Open letter to the Fulcrum Publishing Society
IN EARLY JANUARY 2010, I released a documented report about former Fulcrum journalist and editor Maureen Robinson’s alleged work to covertly gather information about me and several students for the university administration between 2006 and 2008 while she was still associated with the Fulcrum and immediately following her work with the Fulcrum. On Jan. 18, 2010, I filed a complaint with the Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS) ombudsman about related unethical and unprofessional behaviour at the Fulcrum.
My complaint has seen two investigative committees dissolved, heavy-handed interference with the ombudsman by the FPS Board of Directors (BOD), and suspension and removal of the ombudsman in mid-investigation. Yet my complaint remains substantively unaddressed with no indication from the BOD as to the next steps.
It is scandalous that the Fulcrum has not yet printed a news article on these and related dramatic events of concern to all Fulcrum members (all students) and to all Fulcrum readers.
The interrupted ombudsman’s investigation discovered that Fulcrum business manager Frank Appleyard had breached the conflict of interest policy of the FPS constitution by accepting a job with U of O President Allan Rock’s office while retaining his position and salary as business manager. This occurred after Mr. Appleyard wrote a highly critical opinion editorial about me that attracted national media attention, thereby appearing as though the job with the university administration was a reward—what is known as “cashing in.”
The FPS has claimed that this was only a “technical breach” due to “typos” in the constitution and stated that “In an effort to clarify its policy, the Society is in the process of making amendments to the constitution.” This is highly implausible. One would think that a vocation which depends so heavily on editors would have sent its foundational document around for a proofread or two. This appears to be a transparent case of changing the rules to suit the behaviour.
The media profession stresses the importance of separating its business and editorial functions to avoid undue business influence on the editorial function. This legitimate and constant concern is exactly why business staff cannot receive outside benefits any more than editorial staff. The BOD has turned this logic on its head and proposed that business staff can receive outside benefits because business staff should not influence editorial content and it has further proposed that the constitution should be changed to allow this! The fact that the Fulcrum has not covered these matters in print shows that the business side and BOD have a strong influence on editorial decisions at the Fulcrum. It’s time for the Fulcrum to reinstate its much-needed ombudsman and apologize.
Denis Rancourt, Former U of O physics professor
Chocolate vaginas?
AFTER A HIGHLY neuron-consuming midterm on Friday, I was on my way to Tim Horton’s for a cheer-me-up snack, when a table full of chocolate in front of the Women’s Resource Centre caught my attention. As a chocoholic, I couldn’t resist. But I was dumbfounded when I got a closer look: for the first time in my life, I was repulsed by chocolate! These were no ordinary chocolates; they were “vagina chocolates!”
I thought I could rely on the Women’s Resource Centre to promote and defend women’s dignity and empowerment, but apparently we have very different concepts of both words.
By selling these, they think they are helping women liberate from their “fears.” They forget, perhaps, that an empowered woman is one who is self-assured enough to keep her intimacy for herself without feeling guilty about it.
I felt truly sickened by the thought of students walking around our campus “enjoying” the taste of the objectification of the woman’s body. I know, and share, the goal of raising money to help women in need around the world (end to which the funds of The Vagina Monologues will be directed to), but clearly the purpose and the means undertaken this time are quite contradictory. Have we fallen so low that our voice can only be heard if it is transmitted through our vaginas?
Fellow female students: let’s stand up for our dignity, and not let ourselves be fooled by a so-called liberation that is in fact a degradation.
Finishing my coffee, I decided to act after this singular moment of my life: being revolted by chocolate!
Alejandra Martinez, Third-year commerce student
Open letter to the FPS and heads of the SFUO, GSAÉD, and U of O
I WAS THE Fulcrum Publishing Society (FPS) Ombudsman until the start of March 2010, when I was removed by the Board of Directors (BOD). This was the build up of a sequence of events launched by the investigation of a formal complaint by Denis Rancourt. BOD members gave me two choices: obey them as a subordinate or pack up.
Nick Taylor-Vaisey, the FPS president and a friend of Frank Appleyard, insisted that I call an investigative committee when a committee member would be away for a substantial period of fixed time for an investigation.
This would have been crippling. He also leaked Dr. Rancourt’s complaint to his acquaintance, Carson Jerema, an editor for Maclean’s. The BOD also selected a BOD member’s “partner” to be on the Committee and asked for my complicity, which I refused. Rancourt’s communications in this matter would later be improperly forwarded to Taylor-Vaisey by this Committee member!
Appleyard breached the FPS constitution by simultaneously working for Allan Rock and the FPS. This was a conflict of interest. Appleyard claimed that this was okay, because the Board had authorized this violation. The BOD has no such power! This violation is also a mismanagement of FPS funds, which are obtained through student tuitions. The constitution clearly says “no employees” can work for the FPS and either the university administration, SFUO, and/or GSAÉD at the same time. This is to prevent political influences from biasing Fulcrum reporting.
The Board now proclaims there was a “typographical” mistake in the constitution. If there was no problem with Appleyard working for both Rock and the FPS, then why would he need Board authorization? There would have been no need to approach the Board. The BOD minutes mention nothing about this. Appleyard also went on to accuse me of personal attacks and false statements, which Board member Scott Bedard informed me was a reason for my suspension.
The grounds for my suspension were pretense to eliminate me from my post. Reasons for my suspension were altered when I repeatedly asked the BOD for justification. The Fulcrum, hereto, has imposed a media blackout on this scandal. My position is that a cover-up has been underway. A public inquiry is in order.
Appearances are pertinent for judging conflicts of interest. Did Allan Rock forget about the conflict of interest code in Parliament? Rock should have been aware that hiring Appleyard, after Frank wrote critically of Rancourt, would appear like a reward and was an infringement of ethical norms expected for the governance of a publicly funded institution. Rock has damaged his credibility and is unfit. As such, I am publicly asking Allan Rock to resign as President.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya , Former FPS ombudsman
Ombudsman report
DEAR MR. ROCK,
My repeated requests to your office for an independent, full investigation into allegations that the previous administration hired undergraduate U of O student Maureen Robinson to conduct covert surveillance of activist groups on campus and of professor Denis Rancourt have been met consistently with the same response: that the matter is the subject of legal proceedings and you could not comment on it. I understand that the university administration now refuses to participate further in the legal proceedings required by an APUO union grievance of the matter made by Dr. Rancourt. Therefore, I think that addressing my concerns with a public explanation of the university’s actions in this matter as well as a full, independent investigation is completely in order. There are no more excuses, Mr. Rock. In fact, it seems that Denis Rancourt is conducting his own investigation of the covert surveillance allegations, and the U of O administration is not looking very good, so it is in your interest to clarify the situation.
The U of O administration is alleged to have obtained illegitimately, through Maureen Robinson, an audio recording of a guest lecture that professor Rancourt gave at Queen’s University. It has come to light that the U of O administration made legal submissions to the IPC (Information and Privacy Commissioner) stating that email exchanges with Maureen Robinson about the audiotape were a matter of legal client-solicitor privilege and therefore not subject to Freedom of Information Request legislation. Now the administration claims that Ms. Robinson was hired purely for clerical duties. However, the university had also provided documentation showing the extent to which Ms. Robinson reported to U of O legal counsel Michelle Flaherty on the activities of Denis Rancourt and student activists. Things just are not adding up here. I think it is pretty low to stoop to the level of using the student whom evidence suggests the university hired to perform covert surveillance as a scapegoat. How can anyone possibly believe that Maureen Robinson produced numerous reports for the administration of her own accord while employed as a clerk? I think an explanation is in order, Mr. Rock.
The ombudsman of the FPS (Fulcrum Publishing Society) concluded recently that Maureen Robinson had acted unethically, according to the Fulcrum’s editorial constitution. For such a report, this ombudsman was fired by the Fulcrum’s Board of Directors. If nothing is wrong with the actions taken by the U of O administration, then why did the ombudsman report the opposite? Why was he fired for doing so?
The cover-up is getting deeper and as president of the university, you risk being implicated in it. In the name of transparency and accountability, I therefore urge you to provide a fuller response and to release the audiotapes.
Wayne Sawtell, Biology master’s student
