Response to ‘Betrayal’ review
Dear Editors,
Re: “Strange infidelity” (Journal, Feb. 26, 2009)
I would like to offer a response to the review, written by Sisco Boschman, of our production of Harold Pinter’s Betrayal. As the play’s director and the main target of Boschman’s rebuke, I feel compelled to answer the reviewer’s fatuous critique. The tone, content, lack of genuine interest and awareness of the environment within which she serves is reprehensible. Her piece seemed to me on first glance to be the product of a young person flexing intellectual muscles, honing her caustic pen and having a little fun at her peers’ expense. Three weeks later I feel exactly the same way. It is not my intent to offer an apologia but to reject in the strongest possible the vacuous drivel offered by Ms. Boschman.
This production of Betrayal was an independent endeavour by a small group of ionate theatre students who worked incredibly hard to bring this complex and delicate play to life. The effort and commitment of the three main actors, Ashley Peoples, Ryan Laplante and Nathaniel Fried, with the on and off stage of Kalanthe Khaiat, was remarkable. To suggest that the actors were too young and inexperienced to carry the roles is to miss the point entirely. The department was delighted that the “lamentable” room was being used once again as a theatre. The lights were up on the grid, the sound system operative and an empty space was waiting for our stamp. To describe a classroom in a school “replete with desks and chairs and blackboards” as inappropriate and the visibility of “unused props” (all props were carefully selected and utilized) and “set pieces” as an “indiscretion” is ludicrous. Ms. Boschman lacks imagination and a sense of wonder, qualities that cannot be taught or found on the net. The play was not chosen as a “tribute to the late author,” but as an acting project incorporating production and technical teams, an artist and a musician, all of the Queen’s community. The reaction from fellow students, parents and friends reflected the spirit of the show. The review was unnecessarily caustic, unkind and opportunistic. A theatre reviewer must have a ion for the art form and an appreciation for those who devote so much energy and love to their craft and not come crashing in looking for ways to sharpen their intellectual fangs.
Elizabeth Laing
Toronto-based actor/director
Wiener’s comments ‘shocking’
Dear Editors,
Although I am not a Queen’s student, I attended the recent AMS Annual General Meeting because there were a number of issues on the agenda that mattered to me. Although I was very favourably impressed by the general level of discussion, the experience was marred by a violent and ill-considered speech by Kevin Wiener, who is apparently a student senator-elect for the Arts and Science Undergraduate Society.
I do not pretend to understand the subtle machinations of student politics on this campus, and therefore do not know how Mr. Wiener, who is a first-year student, has already made so many enemies that he narrowly escaped impeachment before he’s even started his stint as a student representative. But I do know that I was deeply disturbed by the lack of understanding he displayed when he disparaged the work and person of Ashanti Alston, a renowned activist and invited visiting speaker to our campus. It was particularly shocking to hear Mr. Wiener equate Alston’s community-based politics of liberation with violent nationalism and terrorism. Racial and Professorial privilege will certainly shield me, as an ‘out’ anarchist, from the likes of Wiener. But those who do not share these privileges, and indeed anyone who commits the crime of Being at Queen’s While A Bit Radical and Unwhite, cannot count on the same protection. Given the climate on this campus, I am very concerned to hear a student-leader-in-waiting fanning the flames of hatred in order to further his own dubious ends.
This is bad enough, but there is a deeper, wider, problem here. Wiener’s comments on the Harper government’s refusal to allow Alston to enter this apparently ‘free’ county to give a talk at Queen’s obscure the history of Black liberation struggles in North America and perpetuate the hegemony of Whiteness right here at home. I have had the honour of hearing Ashanti Alston speak several times. He is a wonderful man, who remains open, caring, wise and giving, despite years in prison, despite facing constant harassment once he had been ‘set free.’ Kevin Wiener could learn a lot from Ashanti Alston, if he were able to unclog his eyes, his ears and, most importantly of all, perhaps, his heart.
Richard J.F. Day
Associate professor sociology, global development studies, cultural studies
Wiener unfit to represent students
Dear Editors,
I write to express my disappointment at the failure of the vote at the AMS Annual General Meeting regarding Kevin Wiener’s fitness to be a member of our student government. Some people may try to portray this debate as an anti-conservative tirade but they are deliberately mischaracterizing the accusations made of Kevin Wiener in order to spell him out as the victim of political bias. Here is the reality: Kevin Wiener clearly stated his intent to use his position in student government to deny OPIRG funding because he disagrees with their politics. This is on the record; we have proof. This is not a character assassination; this is straight from his mouth. If this clearly articulated intent isn’t just cause for removal from office, then I don’t know what is. By voting no for this motion, we, as the student body, have set a precedent that such an abuse of power will go completely unpunished. We have made clear that any and all of our student government will face no repercussions for explicitly articulating their intent to use their positions to marginalize campus groups with which they have an ideological opposition.
This is not a “learning experience” for Mr. Wiener. He wasn’t making a mistake. It was deliberate, and we let it go by without repercussions. That is a failure for us all.
Kamal Reilly
ArtSci ’08
ability should begin with the OPCCA
Dear Editors,
I find it pretty hilarious that calls for increased ability on the part of non-governmental organizations that receive student funding, such as OPIRG, comes from a plot hatched in secret by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party as a ploy to undermine progressive student organizations on university campuses. That’s called irony or something, right?
ability is one of those words that can easily be de-politicized to hide one’s true motives. The recent motion to impose greater “financial ability” may seem harmless, even beneficial. But the very fact that these organizations are not strictly student- campus groups likely means that they are already more “financially able” than other student groups. They have a board of directors and their own annual audits that are probably more comprehensive than anything the AMS might choose to embark on.
If people want ability, then maybe we should start with the Ontario Progressive Campus Conservative Association (OPCCA) and ask them why they can’t be upfront and honest about their motives. Maybe it’s because their motives are ridiculous and they know that if they came out and said them, people who no longer be willing to entertain their silly motions about “ability.” Isn’t anyone curious why the motion was specific to organizations that employ staff or provide honorariums? What about lavish end of year dinners, weekend retreats, advertising? Are those not are possible areas in need of greater ability? I wonder why Kevin Wiener chose to word the motion in that way. Maybe it was related to the fact that unlike many student groups, OPIRG has a paid staff person. Maybe this was a tactic he learned at recent workshops held by the OPCCA which gave tips on how to take over student governments and take away student funding from OPIRG.
This isn’t about ability or transparency. This is about attacking any progressive space or organization on campus that might actually bring about some real progressive change on this campus and in this community. There is some really good momentum building on this campus to recognize problems of oppression and hatred. We shouldn’t let this derail or distract it. And to you Conservative kids who hatched this plan: sorry, we’re not that stupid. Better luck next time.
Amanda Wilson
ArtSci ’07
True scholars only
Dear Editors,
Re: “Great expectations” (Journal, Mar. 6, 2009)
Professor Peter Taylor’s observation is right on the money. The time has come to reassess the policy of the provincial government that virtually any student who wants to attend university can attend university.
This current policy means that many of today’s university students, even Queen’s students, are not scholars in the pure sense of the word—committed to seeking knowledge and understanding. Many are at university to spend a bit of time attending the odd class and a lot of time partying, drinking and socializing. This is unfair to those true scholar students, as well as to the community and to Canadian taxpayers.
Perhaps, in light of these findings, university should be made less accessible to those who are not true scholars. Those attending university should be students who truly seek knowledge and understanding and, more importantly, are prepared personally to invest the considerable time and effort needed to achieve that lofty goal.
Don Rogers
founder, Save Our Neighbourhood Action Group
Food fight participants should grow up
Dear Editors,
To everyone who partook in the “festivities” in Leonard Caf on Saint Patrick’s Day: You are Animals. You are filthy, vile, revolting and undeserving of the school you attend. Your actions are those that can be expected from someone in preschool and if the world was fair that is the only school you would be allowed to attend. You have shown that you have no respect for this school, its facilities or its students. You have desecrated our image and personally horrified me with your barbarism. Wipe the smirk off of your face, smarten up and act like you belong.
Craig Herring Sci ’12
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].