Nothing like three exams (almost) in a row that you know you’re going to screw up to make you feel insecure.

Last night as I came home from downtown, the driver was announcing the station names in peculiar, unique and funny ways (doesn’t happen as often as it should, I think). There were some young folks and children in the car I was in, who particulary appreciated the novel method — but the rest of us got (more than) a few chuckles out of it. I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if I were going back with someone but, alas, I was alone.

I have three exams in two days (Monday and Tuesday), one of which I am sorely unprepared for –my preparation for the other two is only mediocre.

I’m screwed.

On Wednesday, ASSU held its spring social. This time around, the President of UofT, David Naylor, also attended.

Preethy and I were standing there discussing something when Naylor came up to us and started asking us about our majors. At one point his cell phone started ringing and he excused himself for a moment. He then came back to us and spoke to us about how his car was in for repairs, and he complained about his $700 rims.

That’s got to be one of the most insensitive and stupid things a university president can say to two students, after he’s quite vocally called for tuition fee increases. It’s like he’s rubbing it in. Someone get the guy a clue.

I’ve been attending a few of the Betar Tagar‘s “Know Radical Islam Week” events. Overall I think the way Betar is handling this is remarkably stupid. I don’t see anything constructive, at all, coming out of this event — if the aim is to start a dialogue with Muslims. There are very few Muslims at these lectures, indeed most of those attending seem to be Jewish.

Much of the content of the events is actually meaningful — at least, the lectures I’ve attended were — but the medium (“Radical Islaaam”) obscures the message. I’ve told them that a much better title would be “Extremism within Muslim society,” and they acted as if that were a novel idea (and don’t they wish I was in their planning committee) but I find it hard to believe that the issue of alternatively naming it didn’t come up.

How much more meaningful would it be if they had the MSA on board to condemn radicalism in Islam? Probably a lot more. I’ve spoken with several members of the MSA, including the President and the Academic Affairs Coordinator, they both told me that a) they were not calling for a boycott, and b) they were never consulted at any time throughout the organization of this event. Betar e-mailed certain members of the MSA in the days leading up to the events, though, to receive mixed messages that they touted as “cooperation.” From what I’ve heard, members of the Thaqalayn Muslim Association are also unhappy about the way things are being carried out.

The kinds of organizations that are on board? The UofT Objectivist Club, the Toronto Secular Alliance, Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum, etc. That really seems like a group dedicated to fostering meaningful discussion (I’m being sarcastic).

Moreover, how can you even begin to describe radicalism within Islam — a religion of over a billion — as some kind of hegemonic entity? It’s not. Different factors have contributed to the rise of radicalism in Islam in various regions of the world. Taking the historical and sociological context into consideration is tremendously important for any analysis. This is sorely lacking in Betar’s activities.

Anyway, today I attended one of Betar’s lectures given by Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh. Abu Toameh reports for the right-wing Jerusalem Post.

What he said, though, completely undercut the message that the Betar folks were trying to get across. It seemed to me that they were trying to depict “radical” Islam as somehow censoring the reporting of things in Palestine. Abu Toameh quite unequivocally stated, several times, that it was not Hamas and Islamic Jihad that censored journalists, nor would they, but it was the Palestinian Authority (run by the PLO — Arafat and Abu Mazen’s folks) every single time, and the West supported this.

That made me want to laugh and clap out loud.

He also talked about how Arafat was a big hypocrite, sitting in mosques while stealing billions meant for Palestinians.

Also, in a remarkably stupid move, Jyllands-Posten has apparently offered to publish cartoons that a remarkably stupid Iranian newspaper is aiming to publish that make fun of the Holocaust.

It’s stupid enough of the Iranians to want to do something messed up like this, and stupider still for the Danish to want to reprint those cartoons. How stupid do people get? I imagine we’ll see extremist agenda-driven Muslims torch the Iranian embassies in protest for printing such offensive cartoons? I think any decent and right-thinking human being would find it even more offensive to make fun of the deaths of six million people than to make fun of a prophet. I suggest all Danes engage in a meaningful boycott of Jyllands-Posten and demand that the editor be replaced with someone who is less remarkably stupid (and that’s the theme of my post).

Here’s a transcript of part of an ANA301 lecture, Dr. Wiley is responding to a girl who’s just told him that he forgot to shut off one of the projectors (he uses two):

You need to tell me that if I do that — if I forgot to shut off one or the other projector you’ve got to tell me because I can’t see what’s going on behind me. If you can’t read my writing you’ve got to tell me, if you can’t hear me you’ve got to tell me, if you have a question you have to … ask it. (Laughter.)
And I tell this to all my classes: if you want to get my attention call out, okay, don’t put your hand up because I won’t see you if you put your hand up. I did see her because she’s got a yellow shirt on there (laughter) in the middle.
But it may look like I’m sweeping my head around and engaging the audience and all that kind of trap (laughter) — this is the thousand yard stare. Okay, I’m just as nervous as you would be standing in front of a large group of people and I have all the insecurities that you have (some laughter) in front of a large group of people. And so, you know, I’m not really looking to see if you have your hand up.
Not a long time ago somebody told me keep moving your head around during a lecture and don’t just look in the same direction all the time so that’s all I’m doing. (Great laughter.)….

Wiley isn’t a spectacular lecturer who jumps around and throws his arms in the air. Nothing like that. He’s a solid lecturer, who knows how to engage an audience. If you don’t know what the course is about, or if you’re an arts student, you’d walk in and fall asleep. He peppers his speech with “okays” and “you knows”. But for a science student, Wiley is probably one of the best lecturers they’ll find — even in a huge class like ANA301. Other lecturers should take tips from him.

This is part of the reason why the Anti-Calendar keeps returning rave retake values (over 90% everytime) for Wiley’s two courses, ANA300 and ANA301.

The editor of the Varsity got back to me and said he’d like to publish the comic strip. It’ll appear in the Varsity beginning Monday, I think.

I think it would be useful for me to make some clarifications on my post down there.

I don’t think I’m capable of “giving up” — but I am capable of becoming lethargic from disillusionment, taking forever to get things done. That’s already happened as I haven’t taken concrete action on some issues pertaining to ASSU this winter, which (though I didn’t really have much time this winter pursuing other goals, such as comics, and dealing with family issues, like visiting New Jersey) I could have focused on.

Ultimately, I am a romantic — a hopeless romantic. Idealism is sometimes impractical, and to be idealistic is often to wish impossible things.

One of my goals has been to see a significant portion of the student body to move around a significant issue.

But it seems to me that the vast majority of students are either too apathetic or too passive or too disenchanted or too disillusioned to attempt to affect any kind of change.

Perhaps it’s an issue of leadership. I remember at a meeting of the Council of Student Unions (where I typically represent ASSU), voting on endorsing a tuition freeze movement. I wanted to amend the statement to read something like endorsing the tuition freeze as a “positive step toward the eventual elimination of tuition fees.” This didn’t seem to go well with anyone else there (two Vice-Presidents of SAC, the President of VUSAC, and a representative from St. Mike’s whose name I’ve managed to forget, as well as a representative from the Faculty of Music — although Paul, President of SAC, was there and maybe would’ve supported the principle of elimination, he was quite literally checking up on the pizza while this particular discussion came to take place). It really struck me that student leaders were unwilling to pass a resolution endoring the tuition freeze as a positive step toward the eventual elimination of tuition — this being a resolution that no one will give a damn about anyway (not the Varsity, not the university, no one but perhaps overzealous conservatives and right-leaning Liberals trying to discredit leftists as impractical).

Perhaps it’s because of the issues on hand. Most of them are long-term, it takes a while to get things implemented. Something immediate like tuition, while many students do feel strongly about it (but not strongly enough to take action it because they can get by), seems to be unstoppable — hence, any resistance would be stereotypically futile.

There also seems to be a general sense of malaise as far as activism is concerned. We’re at university to get an education, but that’s all it’s about now. Getting the marks and getting the extracurriculars on our resumes, and spending the rest of the time doing inane and random things. The focus has been shifted from getting the government to get things done, to doing things by one’s self. Hence, rather than kicking the government for not moving on social housing, one may join Habitat for Humanity. I’m not criticizing the latter, not in the least, I have a great deal of admiration for folks involved in that, and reference my several posts criticizing myself instead for my lack of action as far as that is concerned. But kicking at the government is an important part of this, and while the leadership of organizations does seem to focus toward this, the rank and file don’t seem to digest it.

Many other students don’t seem to care even about that. It’s more about the iPod and the boots, or something. The focus has been shifted from being a nonconformist for the sake of getting things done to becoming a nonconformist to conform to popular notions of nonconformism, hence really becoming a conformist anyway. Conformity or lack thereof should be a matter of ideas and action, not just clothing and accessories. (The only reason I have a Che t-shirt is because someone gave it to me as a gift, not because I actively seeked one.)

Lobbying has taken precedence over direct activism, and while lobbying may make some difference it should be conceded that our lobby is nowhere near as effective as, say, the auto insurance or oil industries’ because we don’t have money. (One of my gimmicks as I campaigned for SAC to get students to vote in the tution referendum was to tell people that there are only two things politicians listen to: money, and votes — putting up my index and middle finger respectively — and that since we don’t have the money, we should give them the votes — putting down my index finger and leaving my middle finger up.) But we do have numbers, if we choose to mobilize those numbers. Like the students in Quebec did last year.

It was remarkable, I wanted to move to Quebec at that stage. It was inspiring. I wrote an article on it, that was published in the Varsity in a hastily-edited (not by me) format, and rather than responding to the substance of what I wrote, people largely criticized my style (because the opinions editor managed to leave out some integral parts of my article, like the thesis). The mainstream media largely ignored the Quebec student strikes and pretended they didn’t exist or barely mattered, but this was the largest mobilization of students and unions since the sixties.

Many of the students who are involved politically are partisan hacks (including several student leaders). Whether this hackery be for the Liberals (who seem to have the largest hack to member ratio I’ve ever empirically experienced), the NDP or the Conservatives. Being a party ideologue may be fine as long as that party conforms to your ideology, but once it shifts, or manages to deviate remarkably from your vision, means that you should try to change it while voting for someone else. Being a member of a party isn’t the problem, having blind faith in its ultimate righteousness despite its failings is. If the coat doesn’t fit or is falling apart, you have it repaired and wear another coat for a while.

I don’t usually bother with Conservative hacks because, well, they’re on the other side anyway (that doesn’t mean that they have nothing meaningful to contribute to discussions and debates, or even that their motivation is in the wrong place). But Liberal and NDP hacks really get me ticking. The Liberal party has become something that is anything but liberal, and is in fact difficult to distinguish from the Conservative party (except on certain human rights issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion). Nevertheless people refuse to see this.

In looking at all of these things, I’ve also seen my role in not doing much about it. For instance, I don’t call my MPP and MP every week (not that it would make much a difference, living in Markham) to complain about poverty or education, although I’ll join the occasional protest and wear buttons to improve the lot of Sodexho workers. But I really don’t do much beyond that.

I haven’t tried to reach out to others to build the kind of consensus needed to get the ball rolling on a mass movement (I wouldn’t know how to begin). And getting a massive student movement going, even a year from now, is most probably something impossible. El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido is simply my mythology. “To wish impossible things,” as the Cure once sang.

More on this later, maybe.

It’s kind of odd when you’re stuck in that place where your spirit is thoroughly broken but your mind refuses to stop thinking about things. Where you’re entirely disillusioned but refuse to acquiesce. I guess one could call it a no man’s land.

I find myself going through this kind of thinking quite often — nearly a year ago I made this post.

A commenter named patlajica left this message:

because you have no other choice! people like you, who refuse to be swallowed by ignorance, have no other choice but to think and fight. you are cursed with a brain that will not shut down, a mind that will not stop asking questions and eyes that will not look away when wrong-doings or abuse happen. your very existence is tormenting but there is nothing more beautiful than your cause.

She summed it up quite well, and in fact that reflects my first paragraph.

I’ve done a lot of thinking this winter, perhaps one of the worst I’ve had (and conversely perhaps also one of the best I’ve had). I’ve seriously considered resigning from ASSU to take a break from it, even as I’ve seriously considered running for a seat on Governing Council — all the while I’ve also come up with some thoughts and ideas to do something about both.

In one capacity or another I’ve been involved in just about every level of student government on campus, from course unions (HBSU and APSS) to a faculty student union (ASSU) to the university student union (SAC). The one that I haven’t stuck my nose in is the Governing Council.

One issue that really bothers me is the fact that there is no public accountability of the University of Toronto (or indeed, at an Ontario university). The results of its internal audit are never made public, the Audit Committee of the Governing Council has no student members (for what reason, I do not know) — it reports back to the Business Board (which has two student members, and the reports are publicly viewable) but many of its items are confidental and undisclosed. The web site for the internal audit serves as a “resource” for members of the “University community” — of course student societies don’t get audited by this ‘Internal Audit’ (so are we members of this “University community”?) and we aren’t given the most important resource of all: the results of the audit.

The very structure of the Governing Council also bothers me. 8 students out of 50 members. That’s one less than the number of alumni (eight plus the Chancellor), four less than the teaching staff (12), eight less than the provincial appointees (16). At the very least, I feel there should be more students on the Governing Council — substantially more — than there are alumni. Sure, they contribute to the “University community,” but really, we’re the ones who go through the crap here on the ground. To change this, one would have to go to the provincial government, because apparently the Governing Council is rooted in Ontario law (hence the 16 provincial appointees).

And that just brings it round full circle. The University of Toronto is established in the law, by the province, and yet it has no public accountability.

Many of the committees on the Governing Council co-opt unelected students. This is a route to get “in” — so to speak — but not being elected isn’t my thing. I used two negatives. I would rather be elected than be co-opted or appointed. (During ASSU’s March 2005 elections, I was acclaimed an Executive Member rather than being elected because not enough people ran for anything. Had I not stood against Yaser for the presidency, he too would have been acclaimed. At that point I didn’t want to become President, but I wasn’t happy at all about the lack of choice and the automatic acclamations.)

I’ve also noticed that no full-time undergraduate student representative on the Governing Council has reached out to faculty student unions — at least not to ASSU. If they had I probably would’ve known about it by now. Of course, I and ASSU have certainly not reached out to them either, despite their contacts being public information. Neither of us initiated anything.

I’ve been thinking a lot more about a lot more (more on that, hopefully, later). And although sometimes I feel like walking away, I think Shawn summarized it best when, in March responding to my post, he said “keep fighting b/c you probably won’t give up either way..”.

Sometimes, though, it just gets awful lonely when yours is the only voice you hear, regardless of how much you like listening to the sound of your own voice. Perhaps you’re not listening, or you’re not listening in the right places. But that just makes you feel even lonelier.

The fact that I can kind of half-speak French is annoying. I know enough to string together basic sentences but advanced speaking is hard. Also, understanding people who speak in French (i.e., native speakers) is difficult unless they slow down.

It’s annoying because, say I’m sitting in the subway or at the back of an Air Canada plane and people are speaking to each other in French, I can understand enough of it to pique my interest and keep my ears trained on the conversation and yet not enough for me to truly comprehend what’s being discussed.

I also remember several weeks ago, a girl came into the ASSU office to inquire about a French course and I gave her my card, saying, “Mon carte.”

“‘Ma carte’ you mean,” she corrected me.

I already had to grapple with my sleepy brain to come up with the French word for “card” in the first place and then ended up using a wrong term anyway.

It would be nice if I could consistently practice my French and keep a grasp on it. That won’t happen anytime soon though, watching French television, reading French comic books and listening to Francoise Hardy is no substitute for speaking French.

Before I left for New Jersey I managed to squeak out 13 comic strips. I’ve e-mailed the editor-in-chief of the Varsity, and am now awaiting a reply. I’m probably going to have to keep reminding him.

I spent a lot of time working on comics at the expense of working on two essays that are due immediately after the break, and I now have to spend all my time focussing on that. It wouldn’t be too bad if I werent going to Windsor for the Canadian University Science Games on January 11 (until the 14th).

It’ll be my first time in Windsor, and — with the exception of Peterborough and Collingwood (does driving through Barrie count?) — the only place outside of the GTA I’ve ever been in Canada.

Here’s to hoping Windsor doesn’t suck and that we actually win something.

Sometimes I believe that they hire university bureaucrats at a moron convention. This is slightly different from the idiot convention from where they get politicians. However, it shouldn’t be a surprise that many university bureaucrats and politicians are practically interchangeable (consider that many folks wanted to appoint Bob Rae as the President of UofT).

Recently, I received an e-mail from a UofT Arts & Science student about a problem he was facing with the bureaucracy. He was running late for an exam because of the TTC, and having arrived he placed his pencil case on his desk and began to write his essay exam. The pencil case contained a calculator. One of the invigilators, who had gone around his desk several times finally spotted it and accused him of possessing an unauthorized aid. The calculator was confiscated.

The student had brought the calculator to school in the first place to study for an exam he had the next day which would require the use of a calculator. Now that it was confiscated, it would be difficult for him to study or to write the exam.

The university bureaucracy, when he talked to them about it, told him that he had brought in an unauthorized aid to his essay exam, and that he could reclaim it by a) admitting that he’d brought an unauthorized aid, b) admitting he took it back, c) agreeing to have it appear on his transcript for six months/meeting with the Dean’s designate for disciplinary measures.

What’s absurd is that there is no way possible that the calculator could be used as an aid of any kind on an essay exam, and even the presiding instructor who created the exam said this. To me, it’s no different than taking your digital watch off and putting it on the table — something many of us have done on several occasions.

Nevertheless, the bureaucrats are sticking behind this. This student, and I give him credit for this, refused to admit that he had brought an unauthorized aid, and is going to meet with the Dean’s designate to discuss this issue. I wish him all the best.

It frustrates me tremendously that this kind of unnecessary action is being undertaken. Apparently, these bureaucrats have nothing better to do with their time, and so are taking upon these kinds of trivial issues — that can have an immense impact on the transcript of a student (particularly if he or she wants to use it to apply for research or other positions). If deterrence is truly their intent then this is not the way to do it. It’s stupid and inane.