Letters to the editor

Send your letters to editor@themanitoban.com or drop them off at 105 University Centre

Carson Jerema should resign
I miss a time when I could grab our student newspaper and browse articles relevant to most people in this university community. Despite their job description to do just that, Carson Jerema and certain other staff at the Manitoban have turned it into a medium for slander and attempted conspiracy theories. One such theory follows Caitlin Brown, chief returning officer (CRO) for the upcoming UMSU elections, and her supposed bias in this process.

So far I’ve only heard some past connections that assume Jerema’s own theory, but nothing that signifies a legitimate claim. Although he mentions that he has no quarrel with her, his continuing hate for the students’ union representatives suggests otherwise.

I fully support the Manitoban’s ability to criticize whomever they wish, however I don’t support someone’s crusade of slander.

I don’t know when or how Jerema’s vendetta began, but it should not have spilled into his work. Someone with less bias, greater integrity, and more respect for the students that pay for this service would no doubt do a better job. I’m tired of this soap opera and politely ask that Carson Jerema resign his position as editor-in-chief.

Marcel Lennon
Fourth-year science student

Jerema again!
Yet again, your aspiring “journalists” neglected to consider all the information before tormenting students with their so-called news and opinion pieces. As a member of the CRO selections committee from 2005-06 and 2006-2007, I am surprised by all the misinformation in your last issue in regards to the editorial “UMSU CRO should resign” (Feb. 21).

Amanda Aziz did in fact sit on the committee as a non-voting member, but disclosed to the committee that she knew Caitlin Brown from previous work together in the province and thus Amanda stepped out of the decision-making process of the committee. In no way did Amanda try to influence the decision of the committee, and in fact, did the opposite by removing herself from the process.

Furthermore, prior to 2005, the president and vice-president of UMSU were both voting members of the CRO selections committee, with the president chairing the committee, until council repaired the bylaws during Amanda Aziz and Cathy [Van De Kerckove]’s terms. So from your non-trustworthy point of view, this process was actually made more open and transparent with council members and students-at-large being the sole decision makers.

In fact, it is always council’s role to select the CRO, and if there has been some part of the process that Carson Jerema finds unfit, then it’s council that’s responsible; not the current CRO nor the current or past executives.

Personally attacking or calling for the resignation of our CRO is not only ridiculous, but also vicious in intent. She is afterall a staff member of the union. Issues and concerns with her performance should be brought to the body that hired her: council, not aired in the student newspaper.

And if there is anyone that should resign, it should be Carson Jerema and Tessa Vanderhart for their lack of journalistic integrity, including not finding all of the facts before spewing their opinions in pieces apparently considered “news.”

Christen Roos
UMSU councilor 2004-07

Divide-and-conquer campaign by universities
I am a second-year student in the department of geological sciences and have been following with great concern the huge tuition fee increase the faculty of engineering wants to impose on students.

I know I don’t get a chance to vote, for what it’s worth, but I really think that all students need to be concerned about this engineering referendum. I know my education is a personal investment, but I just can’t afford a 40 per cent tuition fee increase, and I’m not buying the argument that the university is going to close its doors if we don’t accept fee hikes.

I have also heard from some friends in Brandon that students there are being asked to pay some kind of additional fee too. I guess the divide-and-conquer campaign is in effect by the universities and I really hope UMSU continues to expose this. The fee increases are always justified with a diatribe about how the tuition fee freeze is ruining the university and we don’t have any other option (it hurts us more than it hurts you), but this routine is wearing a little thin. The university could use more funding, but provincial funding is going up by at least five per cent next year. How come it’s all of a sudden a crisis? In engineering, students already pay an endowment fee of $175, and in my department, we also pay endowment fees. The faculty of engineering has two new buildings, so what’s really going on here?

With so many questions up in the air, I think that the only way we can stop the fee increases is to band together more effectively and run a campaign to cut through the nonsense. If universities want more funding, why don’t they cooperate with students for once, instead of trying to pit us against one another?

Aisyah Abdkahar
Second-year student, department of geological sciences

Still on the referendum in engineering
The upcoming referendum in engineering is fraught with confusion and leaves any result as unclear and irrelevant. The poor wording of the first, and main, question cannot be answered in any sense that could be deemed valid. Further, the second question is simply an opinion response that by itself is not concise and when combined on the same ballot becomes an external influence for the main question. For these reasons, the final outcome has to be suspect of any reflection of reality, as reality cannot be determined from the actual referendum questions.

With regards to the secondary question, the response rate for positive answers is not reflective of just one determination. One presumes that a positive response infers that the current funding level is to blame for negatively impacted education, but this also requires that one is able to accurately assess what funding levels are and how it interacts with personal education satisfaction.

A person may have a negative education experience and, not knowing the true underlying reason, respond in the affirmative as this is the only reason provided as related to education dissatisfaction. The options available are not exclusive and exhaustive, but simply presumptive regarding funding levels as the root cause of negative education experiences.

The main question is extremely troubling. The inclusion of multiple understandings is assumptive, not entirely factual, and influences the actual response in an undeterminable manner. The first understanding states that all funds collected will be used for the budgetary shortfall, yet the proposal indicates that one-quarter of the monies will be used towards new and increased bursaries at a four-fold rate and not towards budgetary shortfalls as stated in the question. Another understanding is that the university will approach the province for funding, yet this requires action by an external body not directly bound and attached to the voting group.

The next understanding is that international students will not pay a differential only on the increase, yet the current practice is to charge the differential on tuition as a whole and thus is not administratively guaranteed under the current system. The final understanding requires another referendum if the tuition freeze is lifted, leaving one with having to provide a dichotomous answer to a question that now has four possible actions. How does one respond if, for example, he or she agrees with a current increase but not to an immediate additional referendum or disagrees with a current increase but agrees to a future referendum possibility? The response becomes unclear and therefore the referendum result becomes inaccurate of measuring what it is trying to do and meaningless.

If the one and only question was simply should there be an increase of $40 (or $17), the results could be considered more reliable and valid. The external issues and clarifications would be discovered during the ensuing debate by all campaign team members and interested students. However the referendum as it currently stands leaves any result as questionable at best even before voting begins.

Darryl Draeger
[UMSU chair 2006-07]

Canada’s presence in Afghanistan breeds terrorism
In his article, “Name your price” (Feb. 21, 2007), Michael Silicz urges us to “recall the purpose of Canada‘s role in Afghanistan: to fight the social and economic conditions that breed terrorism.” Mmmm, that’s a good irony. The fact of the matter is that it is precisely Canada’s role in Afghanistan that breeds terrorism.

The current situation in Afghanistan is abysmal. Warlords dominate the countryside, many of which are allied with the Afghan government. The opium trade is on the rise. Child-selling runs rampant as farmers try to pay off arduous debts. Increasing poverty has forced many Afghan women into prostitution (a practice eradicated by the widely hated Taliban), increasing the chances of women being raped. This is what the U.S.-installed government has brought about, and what Canadian forces protect and spread.

All of this has led people to channel their frustrations into supporting the only group that is armed and organized enough to effectively confront the occupation of NATO forces: the Taliban. That’s right. The occupation is so hated that the people of Afghanistan increasingly see the Taliban as a lesser evil. And now the Taliban is growing in strength and numbers.

What the occupying forces in Afghanistan hope to accomplish is to stabilize or subdue two of the most strategically important areas in the world (the Middle East and the Caspian Sea) for the benefit of Western imperialist powers, such as the U.S.A. and Canada. The people of Afghanistan will not benefit at all as their resources are sucked dry and they are tossed aside. Hamid Karzai and Western-friendly warlords are two of the best tools at their disposal for this task.

Silicz asks “to all those who oppose Canada’s role in the NATO mission in Afghanistan: what do you wish to see in NATO’s place?” Well, what I‘d like to see is the people of Canada supporting an Afghan movement that allows the people of Afghanistan to be free of imperialist domination and Islamic fundamentalist oppression. This is not a two-sided coin. We don‘t have to choose between two different fundamentalisms. There is a third way, the way for and by the people.

Matthew Nightingale





Volume 94 Issue 22	The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website	Febuary 28, 2007

Home About Us Advertise Contact Staff Current Issue PDF Employment Letters to the Editor Meet the Staff Online Archives Personals Volunteer	Font Size Respond Email Print-Friendly Letters to the editor Send your letters to editor@themanitoban.com or drop them off at 105 University Centre Carson Jerema should resign I miss a time when I could grab our student newspaper and browse articles relevant to most people in this university community. Despite their job description to do just that, Carson Jerema and certain other staff at the Manitoban have turned it into a medium for slander and attempted conspiracy theories. One such theory follows Caitlin Brown, chief returning officer (CRO) for the upcoming UMSU elections, and her supposed bias in this process. So far I’ve only heard some past connections that assume Jerema’s own theory, but nothing that signifies a legitimate claim. Although he mentions that he has no quarrel with her, his continuing hate for the students’ union representatives suggests otherwise. I fully support the Manitoban’s ability to criticize whomever they wish, however I don’t support someone’s crusade of slander. I don’t know when or how Jerema’s vendetta began, but it should not have spilled into his work. Someone with less bias, greater integrity, and more respect for the students that pay for this service would no doubt do a better job. I’m tired of this soap opera and politely ask that Carson Jerema resign his position as editor-in-chief. Marcel Lennon Fourth-year science student Jerema again! Yet again, your aspiring “journalists” neglected to consider all the information before tormenting students with their so-called news and opinion pieces. As a member of the CRO selections committee from 2005-06 and 2006-2007, I am surprised by all the misinformation in your last issue in regards to the editorial “UMSU CRO should resign” (Feb. 21). Amanda Aziz did in fact sit on the committee as a non-voting member, but disclosed to the committee that she knew Caitlin Brown from previous work together in the province and thus Amanda stepped out of the decision-making process of the committee. In no way did Amanda try to influence the decision of the committee, and in fact, did the opposite by removing herself from the process. Furthermore, prior to 2005, the president and vice-president of UMSU were both voting members of the CRO selections committee, with the president chairing the committee, until council repaired the bylaws during Amanda Aziz and Cathy [Van De Kerckove]’s terms. So from your non-trustworthy point of view, this process was actually made more open and transparent with council members and students-at-large being the sole decision makers. In fact, it is always council’s role to select the CRO, and if there has been some part of the process that Carson Jerema finds unfit, then it’s council that’s responsible; not the current CRO nor the current or past executives. Personally attacking or calling for the resignation of our CRO is not only ridiculous, but also vicious in intent. She is afterall a staff member of the union. Issues and concerns with her performance should be brought to the body that hired her: council, not aired in the student newspaper. And if there is anyone that should resign, it should be Carson Jerema and Tessa Vanderhart for their lack of journalistic integrity, including not finding all of the facts before spewing their opinions in pieces apparently considered “news.” Christen Roos UMSU councilor 2004-07 Divide-and-conquer campaign by universities I am a second-year student in the department of geological sciences and have been following with great concern the huge tuition fee increase the faculty of engineering wants to impose on students. I know I don’t get a chance to vote, for what it’s worth, but I really think that all students need to be concerned about this engineering referendum. I know my education is a personal investment, but I just can’t afford a 40 per cent tuition fee increase, and I’m not buying the argument that the university is going to close its doors if we don’t accept fee hikes. I have also heard from some friends in Brandon that students there are being asked to pay some kind of additional fee too. I guess the divide-and-conquer campaign is in effect by the universities and I really hope UMSU continues to expose this. The fee increases are always justified with a diatribe about how the tuition fee freeze is ruining the university and we don’t have any other option (it hurts us more than it hurts you), but this routine is wearing a little thin. The university could use more funding, but provincial funding is going up by at least five per cent next year. How come it’s all of a sudden a crisis? In engineering, students already pay an endowment fee of $175, and in my department, we also pay endowment fees. The faculty of engineering has two new buildings, so what’s really going on here? With so many questions up in the air, I think that the only way we can stop the fee increases is to band together more effectively and run a campaign to cut through the nonsense. If universities want more funding, why don’t they cooperate with students for once, instead of trying to pit us against one another? Aisyah Abdkahar Second-year student, department of geological sciences Still on the referendum in engineering The upcoming referendum in engineering is fraught with confusion and leaves any result as unclear and irrelevant. The poor wording of the first, and main, question cannot be answered in any sense that could be deemed valid. Further, the second question is simply an opinion response that by itself is not concise and when combined on the same ballot becomes an external influence for the main question. For these reasons, the final outcome has to be suspect of any reflection of reality, as reality cannot be determined from the actual referendum questions. With regards to the secondary question, the response rate for positive answers is not reflective of just one determination. One presumes that a positive response infers that the current funding level is to blame for negatively impacted education, but this also requires that one is able to accurately assess what funding levels are and how it interacts with personal education satisfaction. A person may have a negative education experience and, not knowing the true underlying reason, respond in the affirmative as this is the only reason provided as related to education dissatisfaction. The options available are not exclusive and exhaustive, but simply presumptive regarding funding levels as the root cause of negative education experiences. The main question is extremely troubling. The inclusion of multiple understandings is assumptive, not entirely factual, and influences the actual response in an undeterminable manner. The first understanding states that all funds collected will be used for the budgetary shortfall, yet the proposal indicates that one-quarter of the monies will be used towards new and increased bursaries at a four-fold rate and not towards budgetary shortfalls as stated in the question. Another understanding is that the university will approach the province for funding, yet this requires action by an external body not directly bound and attached to the voting group. The next understanding is that international students will not pay a differential only on the increase, yet the current practice is to charge the differential on tuition as a whole and thus is not administratively guaranteed under the current system. The final understanding requires another referendum if the tuition freeze is lifted, leaving one with having to provide a dichotomous answer to a question that now has four possible actions. How does one respond if, for example, he or she agrees with a current increase but not to an immediate additional referendum or disagrees with a current increase but agrees to a future referendum possibility? The response becomes unclear and therefore the referendum result becomes inaccurate of measuring what it is trying to do and meaningless. If the one and only question was simply should there be an increase of $40 (or $17), the results could be considered more reliable and valid. The external issues and clarifications would be discovered during the ensuing debate by all campaign team members and interested students. However the referendum as it currently stands leaves any result as questionable at best even before voting begins. Darryl Draeger [UMSU chair 2006-07] Canada’s presence in Afghanistan breeds terrorism In his article, “Name your price” (Feb. 21, 2007), Michael Silicz urges us to “recall the purpose of Canada‘s role in Afghanistan: to fight the social and economic conditions that breed terrorism.” Mmmm, that’s a good irony. The fact of the matter is that it is precisely Canada’s role in Afghanistan that breeds terrorism. The current situation in Afghanistan is abysmal. Warlords dominate the countryside, many of which are allied with the Afghan government. The opium trade is on the rise. Child-selling runs rampant as farmers try to pay off arduous debts. Increasing poverty has forced many Afghan women into prostitution (a practice eradicated by the widely hated Taliban), increasing the chances of women being raped. This is what the U.S.-installed government has brought about, and what Canadian forces protect and spread. All of this has led people to channel their frustrations into supporting the only group that is armed and organized enough to effectively confront the occupation of NATO forces: the Taliban. That’s right. The occupation is so hated that the people of Afghanistan increasingly see the Taliban as a lesser evil. And now the Taliban is growing in strength and numbers. What the occupying forces in Afghanistan hope to accomplish is to stabilize or subdue two of the most strategically important areas in the world (the Middle East and the Caspian Sea) for the benefit of Western imperialist powers, such as the U.S.A. and Canada. The people of Afghanistan will not benefit at all as their resources are sucked dry and they are tossed aside. Hamid Karzai and Western-friendly warlords are two of the best tools at their disposal for this task. Silicz asks “to all those who oppose Canada’s role in the NATO mission in Afghanistan: what do you wish to see in NATO’s place?” Well, what I‘d like to see is the people of Canada supporting an Afghan movement that allows the people of Afghanistan to be free of imperialist domination and Islamic fundamentalist oppression. This is not a two-sided coin. We don‘t have to choose between two different fundamentalisms. There is a third way, the way for and by the people. Matthew Nightingale


Terms of Use \| Member of the CUP \| RSS Newsfeeds © Copyright 2006 The Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation