There are many avenues to advocacy, but few make a statement quite like a bottle of pink glitter.
Last week, on Sept. 26, Queen’s held its first Senate meeting of the academic year in Robert Sutherland Hall. Discussion was in full swing until it was abruptly disrupted by six protesters, who came to confront Senate with issues surrounding graduate student funding.
The protestors voiced valid and pressing concerns about student financial equity, ethics, and human rights. But when their blatant message alone would’ve left Senate with enough to ponder on, it was their final actions that left a lasting, perhaps unfavourable, impression.
Following their speech, the protestors chanted for Principal Patrick Deane and Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) Matthew Evans to resign from their positions.
Their demands for Queen’s to divest from arms manufacturers, cut ties with Tel Aviv University, and “address their colonial white supremacist past” all suggest there’s no place for violence, discrimination, nor complicity to them in this institution. If anything, these principles apply to advocacy, too.
Combatting one form of violence with another, regardless of how mild it may have been, shouldn’t be the path to achieving change. What could’ve been a positive step forward for those advocating for responsible spending and investing, and the human rights advocacy movement is now tainted by a negative light.
Not only does the glitter take away all seriousness from these concerns, but it undermines the important demands students have been pushing on the istration. The movement, including each step of action should reflect the severity, through and through.
The senior istration’s decision to consider cutting funding for the Queen’s Graduate Award (QGA) will undoubtedly affect a lot of people—to put it bluntly, it’s a breach on education as a student’s right. Navigating large institutions through financial hardships involves inevitable mass budget cuts but eliminating student funding is the wrong course of action to balance out the budget. Taking away funding will drive out prospective students and put underprivileged or marginalized students in an even tougher position.
Conversations between Queen’s and its students wouldn’t just be easier but more civil if istration were transparent with students about where money is being channelled. Without their and honesty, students are left in the dark and to their own devices.
Because these controversies stem from higher levels, there’s a tendency to paint of istration as the villains and forgo all decency and respect when addressing them, resulting in protests like this one. Outside of their jobs, the istration are real people with real feelings who should be treated as such.
There’s also value in being able to speak with people with whom you share different views.
Students may not side with these istrative decisions, but to evoke policy change we need them on our side, not against us.
Following the incident, Queen’s University Students VS Cuts (QUSVC) shouted out The Journal in their Instagram post commending its “immediate and fair coverage of the meeting.” While this recognition is appreciated, integrity and neutrality are part of a journalist’s job, not a reflection of who they stand with.
In the end, the protestors’ choice to throw glitter, of all substances, remains unclear. The cloud of pink dust may have had its momentary flair, but its damage is irreversible, and the consequences will remain.
—Journal Editorial Board
Corrections
A previous version of this story incorrectly associated Queen’s University Students VS Cuts with the protest that took place at Senate.
Incorrect information appeared in the Oct. 4 issue of The Queen’s Journal.
The Journal regrets the error
Tags
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].