Meeting to organize a student response to the Lance


A meeting has been set to organize a response to the Lance’s most recent spoof edition. Among other things, the Lance belittles violence against women, participates in overt racism, and belittles student initiatives.

This meeting will decide what actions students feel need to be taken, and will take place on Monday, March 7th at 3:30pm in the CAW student centre.

It does not matter how involved you have been, or whether or not you believe these issues to affect you directly. These are human right infringements, and as such, we must take collective action. This is a shared struggle.

The featured article, “Last Call,” from the most recent edition of The Lance was launched on March 1st, 2011, and is yet another example of how students at the University of Windsor are unfairly represented.
A group of students at the University of Windsor organized a demonstration on December 2nd, 2010 to not only raise awareness of the discriminatory content within The Lance, but also to address its inadequate news coverage of student concerns and representation. Now, several months later, the Lance has used its authority and resources to not only discredit and mock student concerns, but to
also purposefully misrepresent them.

The Lance’s decision to make its first public acknowledgment of student concerns a spoof, demonstrates the lack of respect it has for the people it claims to represent. In fact, The Lance has yet to make any significant changes to its content, for which the writers continue to remain unaccountable for. Moreover, despite requirements for annual sensitivity training mandated by the Canadian University Press Ethics
Policy, to which The Lance follows, in addition to assurances from the editor-inchief that it would be implemented, sensitivity training has yet to take place—and hasn’t for the last two years.

The Lance has taken advantage of its position and power on campus to unfairly attack students—the very people it claims to represent. This specific Lance article is not only an attempt to seriously undermine legitimate student initiatives, but also works to prevent students from speaking out.

Students will not be silenced— this movement will continue in full force.


24 responses to “Meeting to organize a student response to the Lance

  1. Look, I know I’m probably going to get belittled for this, but I fail to see how the Lance is infringing on human rights. Even the Supreme Court judged that the Westboro church should be allowed to speak their mind (despite how hateful it is) because it’s not infringing on anyone’s rights. I’m an occasional reader of the Lance and I’ve seen the previous protest that was mentioned in its final article. I did not understand where the protestors found the racist comments but I didn’t challenge them because they had the right to speak what they felt.

    But by trying to bring so much more attention to the issue, by trying to shut the Lance down or bully them into censoring their articles needlessly, it seems to be you that are infringing on human rights.

    The Lance’s spoof edition is just that, a spoof. Satire is allowed in today’s society and I found this issue hilarious. But please, if the Lance IS demeaning women and being racist towards others, feel free to show me.

    A female student

  2. Westboro got that in AMERICA. Dr. Brooks, who is a political science prof, made it clear today, that if they had tried that in Canada? They would have been immediately, IMMEDIATELY, stopped.

    Canada is different than America in several fundemental ways, especially when it comes to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the American Bill of Rights.

  3. So since you apparently cannot provide me with evidence of why the Lance is evil incarnate you go for that point.

    I’ve had Brooks as a professor and you won’t ever know will you? Since it didn’t happen here we can never be sure, that is just Professor Brook’s opinion.

    And if Canada is so different then why are you trying to surpress the right to speak freely by attempting to shut down the ONLY student run newspaper on campus?

    • ACTUALLY WBC is banned from canada. that’s why they registered the godhatescanada site.

      It is also not the only student run paper on campus. There is The Issue, The OPIRG newsletter, and the biggest independent newspaper that is not funded by student fees, The Student Movement.

      I think I covered the other stuff in my other post.

      • To the first post: That doesn’t really mean anything because Westboro hates the US as well, yet the US hasn’t banned it. And that’s not why they registered that website, it may be one of the factors but I’m sure they would’ve done it anyways because of our views on homosexuality.

        Well I can’t speak for the Issue since I’ve never even heard of the thing before. But how can you trust OPIRG? It reaches deep into many communities in Ontario, so how can it be trusted to represent our interests? Then there’s the Student movement, it only runs once a month, how can it keep us up to date regarding student issues? It might be good for recapping events but if you want to know something right away, The Student Movement isn’t for you.

        Second Post: No one’s made a joke about that at all. I believe you’re misinterpreting what they are saying. Yes they should be held a bit more accountable for their actions however trying to make them accountable by making accusations of things that are not true about them? That’s just low.

        Out of curiousity, how much are you paying for the Lance? I find it’s not listed in the SIS breakdown, but I take it’s some small chunk of what we pay to UWSA.

        And the thing is, if students were generally, as a whole, not liking the direction The Lance is moving to, and if they had evidence for their claims, I’d be a little less argumentative about this whole thing. But when this whole thing was started by people with ulterior motives? by telling lies? I can’t support something shady like that.

  4. Sorry for the double post, but I’d also like to point out, the reason behind the American judge’s decision was simple; In America you have the right to say whatever you want no matter how stupid, hateful, etc it is, but people who disagree have every right to point out, how stupid, hateful, etc what you said is. That’s why they allowed WBC to continue to do what they do, because they’re going to be panned, attacked, and belittled constantly. And that’s what the 1st Amendment is all about.

    Also no one is trying to shut down the Lance. But there should be immediate consequences. Think about it. If a teacher made a joke that his international students “can’t hold up to Western standards of Hygiene” do you think anyone, would bother to try and protect him or her for that?

    Now to the spoof bit. Don Imus made his infamous “nappy headed hoes” comment a few years back. It was a joke. And he was fired. So was the actor who played Kramer when he made a joke that was, frankly, offensive. The Lance is not a private newspaper. It is paid for by students. Students cannot opt out of paying into the Lance. The Lance’s purpose is to serve as a student newspaper. And if students are unhappy with it then there is more than enough reason for the students to move against this. If the Lance starts insulting the students who pay for it…well, that just ain’t right son.

  5. Mr. Feminist,
    I find your views on free speech very frightening. Also, trying to compare what the Lance has written to Imus’ “nappy headed hoes” and Mr. Richards yelling the N-word just symbolizes what this whole “movement” really is: an overreaction.

    Also, I find it sexist that you wrote “son” at the end of your comment. You wrote, “well, that just ain’t right son.” What does gender have to do with this? Also, why couldn’t you have used the word “daughter” instead? Why does the negative comment need to be addressed to a male reader/listener? I suggest the moderator on this blog take a look at the kind of sexist language going on here.

    Peace and love, people.

    • I agree with you, especially as most of these comments are coming from something that is supposed to be satirical. These people do not seem to understand the meaning of that word.

      As for the “son” comment, I was also very surprised that for someone advocating feminism, he would use the very types of words he claims to dislike. With such hypocritical statements being said, it’s a wonder that this rally got organized.


      • Mr. Feminist

        I use son and brother as words of respect and familiarity, regardless of gender, I would probably use the same words if I met either of you in real life.

        I don’t think the two of you realize that a wide spectrum of individuals are a part of this rally, and I could not hope to speak for all of them. I’m not a chief organizer here, just one of the many frustrated with the Lance.

        So to first answer the question of how much students pay to The Lance: each pays about 4.91 per annum, giving them a budget of about 50,000 dollars.

        Mark, again, look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. the free speech you are advocating is similar to how America looks at free speech, and that’s okay, but the same laws do not apply in Canada. Here we actually respect people and give their freedoms the same thought as we do those who spout filth(aka WBC)

        Regardless of your stance, regardless of whether this was a joke or not, the statement was offensive, and there’s no doubt in my mind that if some international students saw that(certainly not all), they would be offended. And you know what? If I didn’t pay into the Lance, I probably wouldn’t involve myself in trying to make the Lance better. I’d just stop reading it, like 99 percent of this school. But the fact is it’s my newspaper just as it is all of our paper. And this isn’t the first time this “satirical” paper has been sued/criticized for this kind of comment. I think last year or the year before that, The Lance thought it would be just great and witty to call police officers some bad names. They got sued, and guess what? The Lance lost. Were those comments “just a joke”? Of course.

        But a bad joke is a bad joke. An offensive joke is offensive.

  6. 4.91…that sounds like a pretty good deal actually considering how much it costs for other newspaper’s yearly subscriptions.

    “Here we actually respect people and give their freedoms the same thought as we do those who spout filth(aka WBC)”
    Whoa whoa whoa, now you’re the one being discriminatory. You’ve just accused a whole country of being rude and disrespectful. Who’s the prejudiced person here? Certainly not the Lance.

    I certainly do realize you are one person, but that hardly changes the fact you’re fighting for a baseless cause. Innocent people will end up getting harmed through what you’re doing and then it will be you who needs to accept your consequences. Especially if you’re going around making Canadian-Supremest remarks like that. Many people in this city, this province, this country have family in the USA so I should hope you won’t be so rude and discriminatory towards the people who live there in the future. You’re the one being offensive now.

    And look, the Lance has been sued in the past, so what? That was then and this is now. That’s a totally different case. There are different people in the Lance each year and why are you penalizing people who have nothing to do with other people’s mistakes. This sounds like McCarthyism to me.

    Because you seem to forget that the people last year paid for their mistakes, they were sued, that is the end of it. Don’t bring up things that have nothing to do with the here and now. This is getting just plain sad…

  7. I’m not being discriminatory. That is what the 1st amendment is. It protects the rights of ALL people’s free speech. It does not take into account how other people feel about what individuals are saying. Here the Charter(as far as I know) claims all rights are at an equal level. Whether it be Free speech or language rights, etc. All rights are treated equally when brought before the court of law.

    I’m not attacking Americans, I’m just pointing something out about the 1st Amendment. It’s not a supremacist remark, it’s simple fact. You simply cannot apply American law to a Canadian case, in the same way that you cannot apply American law to a Canadian case. These are two different and distinct countries with two different and distinct laws. Sure there might be some overlaps, but for the most part there are differences.

    “And look, the Lance has been sued in the past, so what? That was then and this is now. That’s a totally different case.”
    It is a different case but it’s the same situation. The Lance is responsible for the content they publish, just as I am responsible for my own actions as you say.

    It’s pretty clear we’re going to keep on disagreeing here. Why not come to the meeting on Monday and share your views there?

  8. “But by trying to bring so much more attention to the issue, by trying to shut the Lance down or bully them into censoring their articles”

    We didn’t TRY to bring more attention to this. In fact, we have been in quiet negotiations since early December. We have been publishing article in The Student Movement as updates, and other than that, the Lance has continued operating as per usual. It was only when the Lance mocked those students, insinuated that international students had a “below standard” hygiene, and mocked the traumatic experience of the women residing in Electa Hall that students once again thought that perhaps public action was needed. The Lance brought this up again – not the students.

    “4.91…that sounds like a pretty good deal actually considering how much it costs for other newspaper’s yearly subscriptions”

    Mr. Feminist was not arguing whether or not “4.91” was a good deal or not – he was merely stating that since students fund a large proportion of the Lance’s operating costs, we have the right to voice our concerns. In fact, the students DID voice their concerns, in 2008, and nothing happened. They were sued by the police (in 2009?) – nothing changed. The students protested in 2010, and in response, the Lance makes them apart of their spoof edition.

    “But when this whole thing was started by people with ulterior motives? by telling lies? I can’t support something shady like that…”

    What were the ulterior motives? The students never wanted to shut down the Lance – they even asked the UWSA to remain objective during the negotiations with the Lance so that the government wouldn’t control the media. The students approached the Lance and continued negotiating with them for sensitivity training – which is apart of their ethics policy. Not an unreasonable request. On top of that, the students even connected them to the Human Rights Office – despite the fact that again, it wasn’t the student’s responsibility to have this done – it is within the editor-in-chief’s job description. So, inspite of ALL of this, the Lance feels it is necessary to mock them in the newspaper itself – the first to time to ever address the protest publicly. If you are referring to the editors’ accusations of the students doing this for a “good grade” – why would they remain in Windsor over the winter Holidays to negotiate with the Human Rights Office? Why would they continue to advocate now? The class is LONG over. So let’s just move away from that.

    Talk about shady! That photograph on the FRONT cover of the Lance isn’t even their own! A Visual Arts student, Michael Ngo, took that photo. They used it without permission. When he contacted the editor-in-chief, asking why he wasn’t asked permission to use it – he wasn’t given a response.

    “…fighting for a baseless cause”

    Student representation and holding the Lance editorial board accountable for their content is “baseless?” Like I said, the students are not asking for much – just for the Lance to respect the people it claims to represent – as it states in their mission statement (by the way, a “satirical” one-liner about international students not having “up-to-standards” hygiene/attractiveness does not qualify as adequate representation.)

    “There are different people in the Lance each year…”

    The editor-in-chief has been there for approximately 5 years. After being questioned in 2008 by a group of students, sued by Campus Community Police, and out right protested against by a completely different group of students in 2010 – you’d think changes to the content would be made.

    We’re not trying to shut it down, but while we are forced to pay for it – the Lance WILL hear what we have to say.

  9. *not the entirety of the Winter holidays, that was misleading. I apologize. The students had their last meeting with the Human Rights Office on December 21st, and were able to go home on the 22nd.

  10. @ Mr. Feminist,
    You are probably right that we will never agree on this issue. As for attending Monday’s meeting, it really all depends because your meeting time cuts awfully close to class time which is why I’ve stated my opinion here in the first place.
    As for not insulting the Americans, read over what you said, ““Here we actually respect people.” That is saying that Canadians respect people and Americans do not. That is a prejudiced remark whether you like it or not. And I have no wish to argue with someone who claims to support feminism and racial equality (I do agree that’s what you say you want, even if I think you’re looking in the wrong place with racism), yet 10 seconds later turns around and makes such a discriminatory remark about a country where I have tons of family living.

    First thing before I start getting in the moment and replying to you again. I was curious about how much each student payed for the newspaper, Mr. Feminist just obliged me, I know he wasn’t arguing about whether it was a good deal or not, I was just stating what I felt since I know in the outside world, other newspapers cost 22$ A MONTH. No need to flip your top when all I was being was /impressed/.

    Anyways your first point, calm down and try to reply rationally lady. It sounds like you’re overdramatizing the whole event and I really can’t take you seriously the way you’re wording that point. It is in fact the students that brought it up, however, as the Lance has every right to cheer everyday people up using events that have occured over a year ago. The Lance hasn’t hurt anybody. It didn’t insinuate that Canadians have superior hygiene to all other countries (which just sounds ridiculous by the way) nor are they mocking the people who live in Electa.

    “the first to time to ever address the protest publicly.”
    So now you claim the lance isn’t even allowed to defend itself through satire? What an undemocratic university we live in today…

    “So let’s just move away from that.”
    I’m sure that’s what you want, don’t you? Even though that’s the crux of the issue here and it won’t just go away.

    “Student representation and holding the Lance editorial board accountable for their content is “baseless?””
    I never said that, I said that making things up about the Lance, like your doing, is the baseless cause you’re creating.

    “The editor-in-chief has been there for approximately 5 years”
    The editor in chief isn’t the only one running the place you know. I’m sure he makes an easy scapegoat for you though.

    • I apologize if my comment offended you. I’ll try to be more clear in the future, as I was referring to laws and not the people in the countries. 🙂

      ^——————–that is all I’m asking from the Lance btw, not for the Lance to be shut down, not for anyone to be fired, just an apology, an acknowledgement of the offensive content. Now be honest, is that so much to ask?

      • I accept your apology, and okay. It’s nice to know because lately I’ve been hearing a lot of anti-american things and it seems wrong that Canadians would insult the American populace for doing nothing. If anything, it’s the government. I misunderstood and for that, I’m also sorry.

        Okay, I understand that. I mean, I can’t say I agree with your opinion but I do know that if I felt the Lance has been wronging people, I’d probably want an apology as well. :3

  11. Jessica,

    It is interesting to me that you find me “flipping my top” – I assure you, besides a little exasperation, there is no flipping of tops.

    So, to address your concerns that I am in nonsensical hysterics that are beyond your ability to understand because they are so ridiculous – Which part could you not take seriously? You never specified.

    As for my wanting to move away from the fact that students did it for a “good grade.” Yes, I would, as you say, enjoy that very much! Getting away from that argument for the purposes of this discussion is not the same thing as me saying that “it will go away” entirely.

    I would also argue that this isn’t the crux of the issue, maybe one of many issues you have with this movement, but not the “most important one.” Since, however, it is considered so important, I will provide additional evidence that would contradict this argument

    – The professor for the course is a historian, specifically in religion, who also teaches such courses as “Gal Pals” and “Women and the Bible” and “Women’s Movements in North America” – of all the professors to accuse of being “radical for the sake of it” – Dr. Bondy would not be a good choice. She initially suggested making a pamphlet as a “guide” for first year Women’s Studies students until the students in her class brought the Lance up.
    – Many of the students who protested the discriminatory content in the Lance met up weeks before actually engaging the Lance (in October) to discuss issues about some of the content in the Lance. At that moment, they were mostly going through articles they found to be problemtatic. However, since the students are in their last year of University have, among other things, theses, independent projects, graduation, grad school applications, 4 other courses, part-time jobs, research, etc, they didn’t have the resources or time to approach the Lance – so they asked Professor Bondy if she would allow them to take up the project in her class. That is the only reason it happened.

    The “good grade” argument does not explain why the students who organized it in the first place are taking continuing to take interest with the Lance. Moreover, one of the main students concerned with the content is a writer for the Lance – her article will be in the next issue.

    Moreover, the “good grade” article is pretty irrelevant. It may make students question the motives of 20 out of hundreds of students, but it does not make the content of the Lance any less problematic.

    However, regardless of all of that, to accuse a professor of distributing grades to students because they took issue with the Lance is a pretty serious allegation. I assure you, Dr. Bondy is a very critical professor, but this is something you may want to address with her. She can be reached at

    Before we continue to discuss Dr. Bondy’s lack of ability in being critical of her students, I suggest talking to her. She may have something interesting to say.

    “The Lance hasn’t hurt anybody”
    Oh dear. I will not dwell on this statement, but I would strongly encourage you to attend the meeting or to visit the facebook page for the event to understand the effects of heteronormativity, marginalization, lack of representation, copy right infringements, etc.
    You can do so here:!/event.php?eid=199973520021226

    Additionally, the “good grade” argument is pretty indicative of “hurtful” as it was founded in the spoof article (so much for people taking that as a joke). It is hurtful because allegations that Dr. Bondy is having her students attack – scapegoat even – an organization as well as an individual for “good grades” could possibly put her employment, since she is not a tenured professor, in jeopardy.

    Accusing me of holding the editor-in-chief solely responsible for this:

    I have never claimed that because of him, the Lance has problematic content (although, as you said, that would make things much easier in changing the content if it were true, but it ISN’T), so comments like “he makes a really easy scapegoat” are entirely irrelevant.

    However, he is the editor-in-chief, which means that he ultimately looks over the content before they publishes it. So, if there is problematic content, it is his job to address it. That being said, he didn’t write the articles, which is why the students are reiterating over and over again “holding the editors/writers accountable for the content.”

    Also, many of the editors have been there for more than a year, in fact, they ALL have to start as volunteers before they become editors, so they have all been there for any number of years. I was merely indicating an example of how long some of them have been there.

    About the 4.91 – what I was attempting to impress upon you is that, yes, while it might be a good deal and the majority of students (I would like to think) would like to fund a newspaper, we are nevertheless paying for it, thus, we should have a voice.

  12. “Which part could you not take seriously? You never specified.”
    You’re right about that, if you want to address what I’m saying, you’re probably going to want to know what I was talking about…
    “. It was only when the Lance mocked those students, insinuated that international students had a “below standard” hygiene, and mocked the traumatic experience of the women residing in Electa Hall that students once again thought that perhaps public action was needed.”
    is what I was referring to. It sounds like you’re trying to make yourself to appear as a martyr as the Lance was not mocking anyone. I’m not sure /how/ you can insinuate anything over the written word as emotional expression is impossible in the newspaper as well.

    Anyways, now for my response:
    1. I was not referring to the professor being the issue, I’m referring to the students wanting to raise their grade by a couple percentile and hurting others in the process.
    2. If they didn’t have the time or resources, they shouldn’t have done such a thing in the first place. You guys are only getting one side of the story and apparently, that’s all you care about by this point.
    3. The content of the Lance is NOT problematic
    4. As I’ve said many times, it is the students I have a problem with, not your professor, therefore there is no reason to contact her. My point was that to scan the Lance and ‘find’ racist comments would score you a much higher grade than to scan it and find nothing. So of course they’re going to nitpick and take things out of context.

    Lastly, are you sure you’re not angry? Because it seems strange that I can reply so concisely to your extremely long post…

  13. Jessica,

    Yes my posts are long. I wasn’t aware that “length” indicated anger. I’ll keep them short, my apologies.

    (“I’m not sure /how/ you can insinuate anything over the written word as emotional expression is impossible in the newspaper as well”)

    Did you not argue that the Lance was trying to be funny? How can they convey humour when it is “impossible” for them to convey “emotional expression?” So you agree then that, regardless of the Lance’s intentions, students would take what they say at “face” value? In other words, it isn’t the intention, but the interpretation of the material that is relevant.

    1. I am not a martyr. This is a student issue – not mine, and I realize that. I’m not sure how you could interpret my responses as such when I have clearly indicated that international students and women who have experienced that kind of violation are the victims – since I am neither, and never claimed to be, that argument doesn’t make sense.

    2.Your claims that “the Lance is not problematic” is an opinion. While I respect that, please respect the hundreds of students who would disagree (the Lance has a copy of the petition, if you’d like to take a look).

    3. Surely, if students were “lying” about the Lance and “nitpicking,” Dr. Bondy would be capable enough to notice. Maybe you’re not understanding the grading criteria?

    There was no “mark” for how many articles we found, we were graded on such things as 1) the amount of effort 2) thoroughness 3) working together 4) our purpose/reasoning.

    Quantity is a scary thing to argue here. How many racist article would YOU need before you understood how someone could be offended?

    4. Your point that if we didn’t have resources/time we shouldn’t have done things is terrifying. Regardless of whether or not you believe the Lance to be problematic, students shouldn’t be hindered by their lack of resources. If students feel that their rights are being infringed, they should be able to do something about it.

    5. To your point number four – I told you to contact the professor so she might help you clarify things. You don’t need to have “a problem” with her – ask for a grading scheme.

  14. “Yes my posts are long. I wasn’t aware that “length” indicated anger. I’ll keep them short, my apologies.”
    My point regarding it, since we’ve been talking for a while. It seemed to me that the longer the post got, it got harder for me to understand, which I chose to attribute to anger. I apologize if this was not the case.

    “Did you not argue that the Lance was trying to be funny? How can they convey humour when it is “impossible” for them to convey “emotional expression?””
    They aren’t conveying emotion in the newspaper, they’re using outrageous false facts as a use of satire and ludicrous..ness.

    Reply to 1.
    I never claimed you were a martyr, but in my reply I probably wasn’t clear, it sounds like you’re trying to turn this cause into a martyr by making it sound like the Lance is actively insulting you guys and blowing out of proportion the whole issue.

    My problem with 3 is mostly this quote:
    “Quantity is a scary thing to argue here. How many racist article would YOU need before you understood how someone could be offended?”
    Quality over quantity is what I say. The remarks that were made, if you put them withs its context they are not racist at all; it is just satire, plain and simple.

    Reply to 4:
    However, if you do not have the needed amount of resources, it’s much easier to make a mistake. Especially, as you have admitted yourself, you have not spoken to the people you are trying to ruin. That should HAVE been done first and foremost before you even thought of doing such a project in the first place. Since you didn’t speak to the Lance about what you believe is wrong, they’re feeling attacked and they see no reason why when all your doing is throwing HUman Resources at their face yelling at them to undergo sensitivity training. Why should they when they don’t feel their doing anything wrong? And that because you didn’t speak to them, they feel these claims that someone doing this for a class, is telling them they’re horrible people because they’re being racist. Of course they’ll make the conclusion it’s for the marks, just like I did; it seems obvious and I’m not the only one who thinks that.

    5. Wrong, you told me to email the professor because I apparently, ” accuse a professor of distributing grades to students because they took issue with the Lance is a pretty serious allegation. I assure you, Dr. Bondy is a very critical professor, but this is something you may want to address with her.” You wanted me to talk to you because you thought I had some issue with your prof, NOT because you’re just trying to get me to look at the evaluation of the project. Just don’t even attempt to go there after you threw that at me; it seems fickle, just changing your argument like that.

  15. Jessica,

    a. We did talk to the editors of the Lance, we’ve had several meetings with them.
    b. Why should they? Because it’s in their ethical obligation – mandated by their ethics policy, which they’ve ignored over the last two years.
    c. We have never called anyone racist, only that their content is. There is a very large distinction. If we had believed the editors to be racist, we would have taken very different action.
    d. Throwing human rights in their face? If there wasn’t a human rights issue, than they should have had nothing to worry about. Also, Human Rights Office sent them e-mails asking for them to set up a meeting to undergo sensitivity training, really “throwing” is a slight exaggeration, to say the least.
    e. As for you quoting me about the grades – you clearly have issues with how we were graded, so I suggested contacting the professor. That is all.

  16. Hello again Megan.

    a. If that’s true, why did I have to bring up this point 3 times before you actually said you did?
    b. Yes but since they’ve been ethically sensitive I fail to see how it is a problem.
    c. A writer displays a part of themselves in their writing, if you call their writing racist, you call them racist too.
    d. If that is how you feel, that is fine. But from where I stand, that is exactly what happened.
    e. I have no issues with how you were graded, just how you chose to go about YOUR project. As I’ve said multiple times but no one seems to hear, my issue is with the students.

  17. I’m going to respond to a question posed at the very beginning of these comments, because I think it is a valid question that many students who don’t understand the protest are asking; “I fail to see how the Lance is infringing on human rights.”

    In Ontario we are under the jurisdiction of Ontario Human Rights legislation, overseen by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In a nutshell, the Code applies to those attending school, and covers language that is insulting based on race. The comments published in the Lance regarding international students would be a violation of the Code. The Code also recognizes that it is the effect on those being disparaged rather than the intention behind the comments that carries weight. Therefore “it’s just a joke” or “it’s satire” is not a legitimate defense.

    I was going to post a long reply about the whys and wherefores, but I think the OHRC does a good job of explaining it on their website:

  18. Jessica, I would like to respond to you. I am personally someone that is active within the “Take back the Lance” campaign/movement/group. I have no ties to the class that you are referring or Professor Bondy. In fact, I don’t think I have ever met her even. I am, however, the Coordinator of Out on Campus. I have read many articles in the lance, as well as many advertisements in the lance that I have taken issue with as an member of the LGBT community. Likewise, I have also noticed that some of the articles within the lance have come across very ablist (making those with disabilities feel quite uncomfortable). I won’t speak to the charge of racist content, as I, personally, identify as part of the white majority.

    First, you may want to notice that I didn’t state this was about the spoof issue of the Lance. While there are problems with that issue, there are problems in the everyday reporting of the Lance.

    Second, I am sure that these tones are quite unintentional by the writers and editors of the Lance. However, someone saying or implying that those with disabilities are a lower class of student hurts whether it is intentional or not.

    Third, I am glad that you feel that the Lance represents you as a person or as a viewpoint. I am glad that you are willing to defend something that you feel does fit your view systems. However, I do ask that you reread some of the issues of the Lance from the point of view of someone that doesn’t fit that view. From the view point of a person with a disability, a person that is lower of the economic ladder, a person that identifies as LGBT, a person of colour, etc. I assure you, there is a problem with the Lance for these students and to claim that there isn’t only further marginalizes those who identify in the ways list above.

    So, please take stock of the privileges that you have, and have been born with, and try to understand the points of view of those that don’t have those privileges.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s