In Response to "In Response to Party Culture"

As most of you have probably heard, Maclean’s magazine recently rated StFX as the “#1 Party School in Canada”.

I picked up the last issue of the Xavarian Weekly hoping to get some varied, clear, and concise thoughts and opinions on our newly achieved honour. Instead, there was only one piece that denied the accuracy of the survey, then conceded to it, accused the faculty of conspiracy and the school as having “a problem”, debated StFX’s image without giving much of an opinion, and finally called for an academic revolution within the liberal arts faculty to regain its prominence over “practical degrees” such as business and nursing.

I hope I wasn’t the only one left scratching my head at this.

I appreciate the attempt to resurrect the extinguished glory days of StFX liberal arts program (I’m an arts student myself), but it is simply wishful thinking. StFX will never be what it was, nor will any other university. The author does admit it is a product of “the flow of the times”, and he is absolutely correct. The university scene is evolving.  People want more than an education from post-secondary institutions. There is a cry for an all-encompassing experience as well as the guarantee of job certainty in today’s turbulent employment market. You can’t blame StFX for changing with the times, and if you don’t like it you can go “invest” yourself in a different university. 

Obviously, I think there were a few issues left unaddressed by the latest article, and wish to clarify, inform, and give you my opinion on what it means to be the “#1 Party School in Canada”.

Under normal circumstances, national recognition of any type would be warmly welcomed by the student body, faculty, and staff with humility and pride, but this news seems to elicit a mixed reaction from the Xaverian community. 

There are people who deny it. They ardently swear StFX isn’t any worse than any other university and that our academics mean more to us than you’d think.

There are those who love it. They will tell you StFX has way more and way better parties than any other school across the country, which is probably true. 

There are those who will tell you, yes, partying is part of StFX, but it’s not all of StFX. Look at our sports teams and our academics. We are so much more than just a party school. This is the message sent by Kent Macdonald in the “We are StFX” video posted to Youtube two weeks after being nominated top party school. 

There are alumni who hate to see their alma mater be slapped with such a title, and there are other alumni who concede to it without much argument. As the author of the previous article mentioned, “Came for the party, stayed for the ring” is not a new expression.  

In my opinion, all these reactions boil down to the same thing: people trying to control StFX’s image. But if there’s anything I’ve learned, there are some things that are out of your control. Yes, we are the top party school. But I don’t think we should flout it, flaunt it, or attempt to assimilate it with the rest of our identity any more than anything else. 

Ultimately, this news in no way changes my experience at StFX. 

Some say, but what about my academic/professional future? How will this “party image” affect the value of my degree? My response to those people is that you were the one to decide to come to StFX. This isn’t the first time we’ve been ranked amongst the best party schools by Maclean’s, so unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past fifteen years, you can’t deny knowing what you’ve gotten yourself into. 

In the end, you came to StFX for a reason. Whether you came for the all-encompassing experience and a practical degree or for the pursuit of higher learning and top-notch professors, you will have the chance to experience all of these things before graduating. And that’s what I think the most valuable part of the StFX experience is - it’s having the choice to be a part of all these things that make StFX great. 

Call Me What You Want

You might be an asshole, but I’m not so sensitive

A two part series. 

I have had the privilege to ring in the New Year with countless forums, discussions, and conference presentations based on the power of language and the potential for oppression via words. Although many conversations entailed the necessary eradication (or potential for re-empowerment) of racially driven, sexist, culturally insensitive terminology, the most common word presented as a topic for debate was slut. 

Slut, in its literal sense, refers to an individual who indulges in the pleasure of sex with varying partners on a frequent basis. Although currently its definition is often ignored when used, there is no doubt its initial introduction was grounded in a gender hierarchy, favouring the decisions of men. However, words and their use evolve, and the extent to which we give them power among a growingly hypersensitive bubble need to as well.

Call me a slut. The word ‘slut’ has grown to possess such minuscule value in comparison to its original meaning and is now applicable to a vast spectrum of scenarios that it’s employed arbitrarily. In fact, sometimes it can even be endearing. 

I have a close friend who primarily addresses me as, “Hey slut!” She wouldn’t casually use this term with a stranger and utters this statement as a form of humor that ultimately solidifies our relationship. 

However, when used by a man in a method to belittle my less than there outfit or my questionable back-wall dance moves, I’m still not compelled to lecture him on its origin. If slut is made to reference my sexual history then the individual’s logic is inconsistent because I am the only one with knowledge of those statistics. 

I am sure of who I am, and acknowledge that my sexual choices are distinctly disconnected from my levels of intelligence, kindness, morality and creativity. Terms like slut, whore, and ugly are not only grounded in superficiality and can only be assessed subjectively but simply put shouldn’t offend you because they aren’t a reflection of your character or influence in the world. Why isn’t it more hurtful to be called vain, vindictive, or boring? These descriptors have powerful definitions that attack an individual’s relationships and person.

So, we’re not friends and you’ve decided to call me a slut. If you’re a boy and we’re at the bar, or my personal fave, yelling it from your vehicle, thank you for helping me identify the ignorant swine lingering on the StFX campus. I now have a mental image of the cowards with whom myself and my friends should avoid romantic involvement. 

Females also like to throw the term out particularly when intoxicated or among a jealous fit, but once again, I’m left unfazed because you’ve only displayed your lack of imagination and weak vocabulary. Your suffering English lexicon has made it look as though I thrive in all other branches life with your decision to use such a meaningless word. 

If you are called a slut, do not cry or worse, whine. Laugh if said by a friend, have an intellectually stunning response if spewed by a meathead, or simply remember that that boy will not have the luxury of having sex with you. 

We need to check our priorities, be confident and orchestrate a symphony of work so loud it drowns out unworthy voices and meritless language.

Are Student Politics a Popularity Contest?

Take the ballot. Mark the box. Chances are you, like so many of us, are not entirely familiar with the platform you are supporting but still feel confident you’re making the right choice. You think he or she will do a good job in x position: you know them personally, they’re outgoing, talented, and a person you’re happy to be acquainted with. Of course, you trust your own character judgment, which compels you to make a decision like voting for your friend in the upcoming student election. 

Now here’s the thing: what if we all did that? Gave into our bias and voted for a friend, but not necessarily for the person who is the best equipped or qualified for the position they are running for. 

If we simply choose the person we trust and know the best, is the election still a fair contest of charisma and leadership skill? Or, at that point, is it simply a popularity contest? More importantly, how does this affect our school and the Students’ Union’s platforms?

From my point of view, most elections, especially those in a small community, are simply matters of popularity. It makes sense. If people love you, they will elect you their leader. This is something that I think most people who went through high school noticed – there was a strange correlation between one’s participation in Student Council and his or her social ties. If you were pop, you were prez. It was rattling for me back then. In reality, however, I’m not sure it was actually such a big deal. I look back on all four years of my high school career with equal amounts of disdain and indifference, but frankly they were all the exact same, or at least very similar. What I take from this, in reflection, is that even if the elections back than were based off popularity - and they were, mark my words - it really did not make any difference in everyday life. 

In my three semesters spent at StFX thus far, I look back on my time here in a somewhat more positive light. The community is certainly more mature, but I dare say we are still subject to the same biases. Frankly, when I asked a few students who they were voting for as Vice-President -since the President is essentially pre-determined - most gave somewhat different answers, but generally the reason was the same: they knew the candidate. 

So while we are all mostly voting for the person we are most comfortable with and trusting of - the candidate we share the closest interpersonal relationship with - how detrimental is that to our school and the Students’ Union? 

When I look back to my frosh year, I didn’t really pay much mind to the U or who was running it. I thought the programs they put on where great, but I was under a veil, a fish fresh out of the pond thrown into the ocean. Everything about StFX was so awesome, simply because it was something new to chew on. For that reason, I can’t really say that who was running the U last year had any effect on my thoughts of the school. 

This year, having been habituated to life around here a bit more, I’m now in a better position to critique, ever so slightly, how this place is managed. As in high school, I feel like when you get down to the nitty gritty, the platforms are all so similar that it doesn’t make a difference who you elect so long as they are the slightest bit competent – or at least that’s what I’ve seen so far. This year has been just as good for me, maybe even slightly better than last year, but I feel like the government of the U has not had much of an effect on this improvement.   

So perhaps yes, when voting in these small, closed community elections we are subject to some bias. Perhaps in the end, it really is just a matter of the candidates’ social network that really pulls in the votes. And to that I say so what? So far this year the U has gotten us a new convenience store in the SUB, which, as opposed to having two outlets that sell clothing, is a huge improvement. At the very least, I do not believe anything crucial to student life has been slashed. So if those who were elected last year were elected out of popularity I would be one to argue that it has not been detrimental to the school. 

Alongside that, the individual I’m putting my money on to win this year is definitely the most popular of the three choices. Without naming said individual, I can’t actually say he or she would do a bad job, because from what I’ve seen of their performance, they seem more than capable of taking on the position. 

This leads me to believe that perhaps being more socially affluent or popular isn’t a bad thing for someone holding such a position. They would certainly be highly sociable, and if people in a community such as ours seem to like them then there must be a reason for it. The only downfall would be that others who may be equally or even better suited for the role may not have the chance to acquire it, due to being caught in the shadow of those more connected. 

I feel like that’s just part of how human society works though, and since the problem is not going anywhere, nor does it seem to cause much harm, I will finish on this note. My proposed solution is simple: vote for whomever you feel truly deserves the position. Whether it be friend, acquaintance, or someone you don’t even know. Often times, our leaders are not chosen, they simply are.

No More Good Cop?

Why I celebrate my father and condemn assholes with guns

I am the granola crunching, anti-Lowell Green, tree-hugging daughter my father was scared to raise. Although I have oscillated dramatically between both ends of the political and social spectrum, I now simply adhere to the facts and policies that best align with my set of national priorities and reflect my continually evolving morals, regardless of the political label they technically earn. 

Whilst engaging in small talk over the last two years, I have found myself hesitant to discuss what my parents “do” whenever the question gets brought up. My father is a former sniper and staff sergeant for a metropolitan tactical unit. He dressed in a uniform that seemed to be the cross of a ninja, soldier, and Inspector Gadget each morning and set out the door with a full heart and clear intentions to get the bad guy. In the past, his career would pump adrenaline through my body when I had the opportunity to profess all the evil he confronted and combatted. However, as increasing stories and videos of police brutality began to flood the media, I began to silence this familial pride.

My rifle-holding father is a feminist - whether he labels himself as one or not - who continually advocates for equal pay, texts me about the latest documentaries on sexual assaults across campuses, and is a major proponent for increased female leadership among athletics. He dedicates hours to ensure raids happen smoothly and without disturbing innocent bystanders. Throughout his entire career, my father has argued for an increase in tasers, not because he believes officers should have more power, but in order to eliminate as many reasons as possible to reach for a gun. 

My father was the first person to oppose the relaxed laws surrounding pedestrian gun use in the United States. His understanding of guns is that they are deadly weapons to be used in times of dire need, not for unnecessary and brutal, prejudiced violence on behalf of those who wear a badge. 

We seldom see the pedophiles he and his coworkers have removed from society, the physical force he didn’t use after being spat at during a protest, the criticism he gave his fellow officers when poor choices were made, or the confrontations he has had with cruel individuals who have yet to trump his bravery. 

My father is a police officer. Michael Slager, Randall Kerrick, Daniel Pantaelo, Ben Fields and those who have unrightfully injured or killed while on the job are not police officers. They have disregarded the written code and ethical standard intended to ensure citizens are kept safe. Their actions speak to a larger issue of institutionalized racism throughout America, but when it comes down to it, they were improperly armed individuals on a narcissistic power trip. 

The media chooses to focus their reports on these cowards and in doing so drown out the voices and actions of those who fulfill their duties with a code of ethics that go above and beyond what is asked of them. In all sectors of society - religion, medicine, politics, or others - the media allows the minority who warp a thoughtful and just framework for their destructive motives to pervade and saturate our consciousness, resulting in the formation of skewed opinions. 

There is no denying that institutions like defense forces must be viewed with a critical eye, but so too do the channels through which we are fed information about them. I acknowledge that brutality by police forces driven by racial privilege persists but I refuse, just as I disregard groups like the Westboro Baptist Church as honest Christians, to identify them as true officers. I once again return to my moderate position. I protest the women and men who wear a badge and inflict inexcusable harm on innocent people, but I celebrate those who like my Dad, who refuse to be jaded and honorably follow out their role as safeguards of justice.