Volume 29 - Number 15 - Thursday, April 24, 1997


Letters

To the Editor:

In his last Principal's Column (Reporter, April 10), Principal Shapiro stated that the reduction in provincial funding for Quebec universities would be "$100 million for 1997-98" assuming "that student numbers from outside Quebec and around the world...remain at their current levels."

However, in her presentation to Management Forum on April 15, Vice-Principal (Administration & Finance) Phyllis Heaphy asserted that if student numbers from outside Quebec remain constant, the Quebec government had indicated that the proposed cut for 1997-98 would be reduced to "only $83 million."

E-mail discussions with Principal Shapiro have confirmed that his column was not entirely accurate: "If the number of out-of-province students and the number of international students remain stable, the cut will be as described by VP Heaphy."

Given the concern on campus over proposed solutions to the current financial difficulties (e.g., increasing additional session fees for graduate students and introducing a new "academic/administrative" fee of $255/year) it is worth noting that this smaller cut would mean as much as $2.5 million more revenue than predicted for McGill in 1997-98. The additional session fee increase would raise just $0.9 million in this same period--however this assumes that student numbers remain at their current levels, an unlikely scenario according to the administration.

The impact of the additional session fee increase on graduate students will have a severe impact on our ability to complete our degrees in a timely fashion (if at all), but will bring in a relatively small amount of money to McGill. Instead of publishing in journals and presenting at conferences (and hence bringing kudos to McGill), graduate students will instead be forced to spend their time searching for part-time work.

International students (who are prohibited from working off-campus) will either go further into debt, work illegally or simply leave McGill and return to their countries with negative memories of the University, Quebec and Canada. This is hardly a desirable outcome for the University at a time when international competition for students is increasing.

As a result of this "new" information concerning the projected cuts for 1997-98, I would implore members of Senate, the Board of Governors and the administration to reconsider their decision to increase additional session and other fees. The impact on graduate students is too great, and the need is less pressing than suggested by the Principal.

Hugh Potter
PhD student, Geo-environmental Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics


To the Editor:

The McGill Tribune's issue of April 8 contains a full-page notice entitled "You Have the Right." The notice attempts to inform students of their right to fair evaluation of course work, their right to a quality education and their guarantee of protection against "vindictive" action by professors.

It advises them to "fight back" and to "get the education [they] deserve" by contacting the Ombudsperson, the Legal Information Clinic, their departmental chair or the dean of their faculty, or Don McGowan, SSMU Vice-President (University Affairs).

Since the notice appears in the last issue of the Tribune for the semester, I do not have the opportunity to respond to it there. For this reason, I am turning to the McGill Reporter.

The notice does not appear in the name of any individual, office, or administrator. As chair of the Department of English, I can say that my department was not consulted prior to the publication of this notice. Despite all his or her explicit advice, the author of "You Have the Right" misrepresents one of the fundamental aspects of due process in speaking anonymously.

The notice makes three unsupported allegations. The first allegation concerns a "professor of Canadian Poetry" who is said to be a "manipulative jerk." Four professors of English teach Canadian poetry. I wish to express concern that any one of them should be singled out for anonymous insult. Insult on top of anonymity--is that how students are to be guided in the exercise of their rights? I am struck by the gap between the author's rhetoric and the language of clarity, material fact and responsible writing that is the basis of student grievances in the student code.

It would be instructive to compare the definition of due process, fundamental and academic rights and protections in The Handbook of Student Rights and Responsibilities with the confrontational rhetoric of the anonymous author of "You Have the Right."

Gary Wihl

Chair, Department of English


To the Editor:

The April 8 edition of the McGill Tribune carried a full-page announcement entitled "You Have the Right-Fight Back!" The purpose of my letter is to state the following:

1. As Ombudsperson for Students I was not aware of the announcement prior to its publication.

2. If I had been consulted, I would not have agreed to be associated with the adversarial approach of the announcement, especially the listing of hypothetical targets. In all my work, confidentiality is assured.

The Ombudsperson for Students, as the announcement stated, is available to help mediate student problems. This is accomplished through a process that respects the rights of all members of the McGill community to arrive at a fair and equitable problem resolution.

Estelle Hopmeyer
Ombudsperson for Students


To the Editor:

I am writing in response to an article entitled "Negotiating a cellular cease-fire," which appeared in the April 10 Reporter.

It seems that McGill professor Dr. Polychronakos, along with one of his grad students, is making some fascinating headway in the study of diabetes. It was further stated in the article that "thymus insulin production was studied in aborted, healthy human fetuses."

There is "adult" diabetes in my family. I value attempts that are made to conquer diabetes in any of its forms. However, I am of the opinion that research on "aborted, healthy human fetuses" is unethical.

Presumably human fetuses were used in the research for the simple reason that they possess something which cannot be found in any other type of fetus, namely a human thymus. So, on the one hand, these researchers are saying that this life form is unique among the millions of life forms represented on this planet. Of all the expired fetuses which could be used for research purposes, this is the only type of fetus which contains human organs.

On the other hand, the researchers seem to be saying that it is of no interest to them how this life form came to be dead. Through legal means, the expired fetus was procured and that's the end of the story. Regardless of any personal views on the issue of abortion, it is now after the fact, so let's get on with research.

I do not see how, in intellectual and ethical fairness, these two views may be held simultaneously. I see, rather, a chain of ideas or logical steps which can be followed backward.

If these fetuses are of value for research, it is only because they have developed human organs. If they have developed human organs, this can only be because they are in essence human beings. If these fetuses are human beings, then one must be concerned with how they died. If these fetuses are provided through a systematic process of elimination of unwanted, living, healthy individuals, then one is constrained to cease procuring these fetuses. To do otherwise is to tacitly give approval to the elimination process and to corrupt oneself utterly.

I am not suggesting that this is a comprehensive treatise on the entire issue of abortion. What I am saying is that a medical researcher seeking to procure aborted fetuses finds himself or herself in an untenable position.

I am suggesting that medical research on "aborted, healthy human fetuses" is unethical. I am requesting that Dr. Polychronakos, and indeed any other researchers undertaking or considering the use of aborted fetuses, refrain from this practice.

Mark McBratney
PhD2, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering




URO Central



Front Page



Contact us



Back issues