Our editorial board’s parting shots and snap judgments on today’s issues.
A town hall in name only
The president of the university, Stephen Toope, held his third annual “town hall” meeting on Monday. While we were more than happy to hear from one of the less accessible personalities on campus, we’d like to point out that calling the event a “town hall” is ridiculously misleading.
We expect a town hall to be an opportunity to give members of a community the chance to ask hard and pressing questions to institutional or government heads.
That Toope is appointed and not elected is a whole other issue. What was infuriating was that community members asked about four questions before the meeting was called to a halt at exactly 1pm.
Fine, you’re a busy man, Toope. But don’t give us false hope of democratic debate and openness if you open the floor for ten minutes before rushing off. This is the one chance a year we get to engage with you publicly, and if you really want to create the spirit of a town hall, or at least want to put a good face on the executive of UBC, you’d spend more time listening and discussing.
Cut the speeches about how great the university is, and leave the introductions by student senators and the administration behind. We don’t need formalities. A real town hall is supposed to be our time.
Personal advisor program will be a boon for students
At the town hall, Toope said that Enrollment Services is working on a plan that would see every incoming student paired up with an advisor that will track them throughout their time at UBC. And to that we say: praise the lord. Also, we say: about damn time. In addition: boo yah.
You get the point. This is a fantastic idea, and one of the best things the university could do to cut through the layers of bureaucracy that cause students to have a less than satisfactory experience with the actual institution of UBC. Our university will always be big. It doesn’t have to be imposing, though, and a personal advisor would go a long way towards curing that.
Pot calling the kettle undemocratic
We couldn’t help noticing a rich bit of irony during Toope’s town hall. When he was asked about TransLink and the UBC SkyTrain line, Toope expressed frustration with the fact that UBC is the second-largest transit destination in Metro Vancouver, but has no representation on TransLink’s board. “It’s a structural governance problem,” Toope explained.
Sorry—is UBC accusing someone else of a structural governance problem? Last time we checked, UBC has thousands of non-campus residents living here and has no democratic governance whatsoever. Instead of a normal municipality with elected councils, UBC skips by Metro Vancouver completely and reports straight to the province in an arrangement that still hasn’t been fully fleshed out.
In other words, maybe the reason why UBC isn’t given fair representation as a municipality is because at every opportunity, UBC goes the extra mile to make it clear to everyone that it doesn’t want to be treated like a regular municipality. Before the administration goes around accusing others of structural governance problems, it might want to take a look in the mirror.
STOP is annoying because they’re well-organized
Seemingly no major UBC event is complete these days without a few people decrying the university’s animal research policies. So it was again when STOP UBC Animal Research commandeered a portion of Toope’s town hall, getting a few noses out of joint.
We get it, they’re annoying. But unless you agree with them, so are most protest movements. They’re supposed to get your attention one way or another, and in this, STOP has succeeded.
Besides, they only seem really annoying because most of the rabble-rousers that traditionally populated this campus are gone.
Clubs need to up the ante
As detailed in our Clubs Days articles, UBC has a great history of outrageous clubs. So this begs the question: where’s the outrageousness today?
Yeah, there are some interesting clubs at UBC—the Varsity Outdoors Club, Ski and Board, the CVC, etc.—but there aren’t enough people throwing massive parties, disrupting the peace and getting yelled at on a regular basis. We used to be able to rely on the engineers to create a ruckus, but as we pointed out last year (rudely but accurately), the days of amazing engineering pranks seem to be over.
Why aren’t there more groups raising hell on campus? The Undie Run, organized by the Ski and Board Club, only comes once a year—and frankly, we need more excuses to get drunk and strip off our clothes. Or, you know, whatever the situation requires.
Vancouver deserved its worst-dressed city ranking, and it’s your fault
MSN Travel recently awarded Vancouver the distinction of being third on its list of worst-dressed cities in North America. And they were absolutely right.
In Vancouver, yogawear—MSN’s main argument for our ranking—has made the unfortunate transition from gym attire to acceptable everyday sartorial choice.
This is not okay. We’re better than sweatpants at the grocery store, no matter what certain coordinating editors of this paper might say.
For Christ’s sake, NEW JERSEY, the birthplace of the spray-tan, ranked better than us. This needs to be fixed, now.
(+4 rating, 2 votes)
Loading ...
I predict before tomorrow afternoon, someone from STOP is going to post in this thread lambasting UBC’s history of animal research.
I also predict it’s either going to be Brian Vincente, Anne, or Grace.
Wanna bet? Tweet me and we’ll talk then.
Timmy, wasn’t it you who predicted Stop UBC Animal Research would be a flash in the pan? Seems like the group is growing bigger not smaller, gaining a following, and even getting some donor support, at least enough to run ads in the newspaper.
Kinda the opposite of a flash in the pan, don’t you think?
Oh, and there is even a new UBC student animal rights club on campus. Seems the movement for animal rights at UBC is spreading.
Not sure what STOP’s donors are doing – STOP has yet to yield any results in terms of getting UBC or various animal research ethics boards to disclose information on what happens in the labs.
Donors should be careful about throwing money into this black hole one calls STOP UBC Animal Research.
The Animal Rights Club – that’s an interesting one. One could argue that it was a direct spawn of STOP’s action (or as we’ve seen, inability to produce any action), or it can be seen as a club that got started due to a need for it (much like other UBC/AMS organizations like the SJC, Womyn’s Centre, SASC, etc…)
As an aside, I’m 1 for 2 (50%) in my predictions above, a far better number than STOP’s percentages of getting 0% things accomplished at UBC.
Actually, Timmy, you are incorrect on a number of fronts.
First, Stop UBC Animal Research exposed UBC’s experiments on endangered sea turtles and the university’s plans to kill them, ultimately leading to UBC agreeing to spare the animals and send them to an aquarium.
Second, UBC has released information about its donors, information that Stop UBC Animal Research requested. So STOP has actually had some success getting UBC to hand over a bit of information, even if it is not specific to animal research.
Third, while UBC has yet to disclose any information, Stop UBC Animal Research has filed formal complaints with the provincial government and those complaints are in the review process. Stay tuned.
Fourth, a new student animal rights club has formed at UBC, the first of its kind. And this year there is a lecture series being held at UBC on the use of animal research.
Finally, before STOP there was very little, if any, attention focused on UBC’s animal experiments. You may disagree with STOP but you nor anyone else can deny that they have brought a lot of attention to UBC’s animal research program. And that is why you keep slamming the group. You can’t stand the fact that STOP has shed light on animal experimentation at UBC, especially after the university has spent years keeping it sealed behind closed doors.
And Timmy, you sure spend a lot of time ranting about STOP. If they are so ineffective, why do you waste your time responding to them?
because as ineffective as STOP is, their sensationalist message is getting to misinformed people who think animal research is just about slicing up dogs’ and cats’ brains. it’s not – this type of research affects humans so much more than just as an article in the papers or as a donation to a university.
Let me tell you a basic story on animal research: scientists used rats to find that the onset of Parkinson’s Disease is due to a lack of dopamine in the body. Using this information, researchers then found many ways to either treat the disease, or to allow patients to cope with it (some examples include L-DOPA, dopamine agonists, MAO inhibitors, etc). 1 million US citizens are affected with this; 6.3 million worldwide.
First of all I want to thank you for mentioning “Stop UBC Animal Research” and how well organized we were. The issues of animal research and vivisection are extremely important for all of us to be aware of and to have discussions about.Research on animals for the sake of humans is grossly over-exaggerated! 92-95% of the lab tests on animals is irrelevant to humans!That’s not even touching on the pain,torture and abuse. I would also like to add that I was very disappointed that Prof. Toope would have the gall to say that UBC is no longer testing on cats and dogs!Like cats and dogs are more important than primates,turtles,mice and so forth. I think a larger debate is in order and would love for Prof.Toope and UBC to take us up on this!
As an UBC alum, I’m deeply troubled that UBC refuses to release information about its animal research. After all, a university is supposed to be a place of open dialogue, critical thinking, and debate.
How can the UBC community, and the general public at large, have an informed discussion about animal research if UBC declines to provide details about its experiments? How can we fully evaluate UBC’s animal research, determine if it correlates to real improvements in treating human disease, assess its impacts on individual animals, decide if such experiments are necessary or if they violate society’s ethical standards about animal care, if UBC hides its research behind closed doors?
I’ve stopped donating to UBC because I do not want to contribute to cruelty to animals. And I can’t support an institution that refuses to be transparent. I want to know how my money is being used.
I have also withdrawn my donations to UBC.
We, the public should decide if vivisection is warranted. Does UBC consider us dumb and stupid – than why refuse to share information. Its more likely that ppl will not approve of the business of animal research and that is why they want to keep hush hush about it.
If your writing skills are any indication, the biggest problem facing UBC today is quality of education and not animal research.
An engineer talking about writing?
That made my morning.
Sometimes I wonder if all the people who say they stopped donating ever really gave anything of significance in the first place.
Anon, I
Anon, see my comment post below about donations. I had accidentally hit the “post comment” button in my previous reply to you. Sorry for the confusion.
I was at the town hall the other day and I must say I was impressed with Stop UBC Animal Research’s protest. They were dignified, respectful, and courageous. They made a very powerful statement. I hope UBC officials are listening.
People only stop donating because of animals? Why donate in the first place?
I think one of the categories they used to decide on worst-dressed cities was “Residence of Justin McElroy?”.
The STOP thing was rather sad actually. Like Jehovah’s Witnesses reading from the bible on street corners, it’s a one way monologue with no possibility of rapprochement. It’s not about communicating it’s about fulfilling the self-imposed imaginary requirement to be seen to doing something for god or monkeys.
Absolutist movements tend to be ineffective largely because to outsiders they seem boring, obsessed, dull and ultimately irrelevant. They also smoke their own exhaust all day so there’s no point engaging with them unless you are prepared to accept their views 100% – there is no compromise possible.
Animal rights, pro-life absolutists, JW’s, Zionists, antisemites, islamophobes, the Tea Party – pick your cause, it’s the same kind of people. Ears wide shut.
As Voltaire said: “Il n’y a rien a gagner avec un enthousiaste”.
I don’t know, Panama. I was there and I thought the protest was powerful and moving. Those around me agreed the STOP action was respectful.
You may not agree with their message. But they sure did a good job of delivering their message the other day. They’ve got class and guts.
What was disrespectful was asking Professor Toope a question and not bothering to listen to his answer.
If they want someone to listen to them, they need to listen when asking questions of the University as well. Respect is a two way street.
Wow longest article thread ever
Sorry bout that. Hit the “post comment” accidentally.
Anon, I have donated funds to UBC every year for many years. Not a large amount. Around $5,000-10,000 each year. But ever since I learned about UBC’s animal research I have donated those funds to other charities.
I have urged my family and friends to cease their donations to UBC, which in some cases have been much more significant than mine.
There’s many options to donate to UBC, and ask that your donations not go to animal research (or more specifically, ask that the donations go to a program that you were part of in your student years).
By not donation to UBC, you are cutting off funds that enhance the student experience and make students better leaders both on and off the campus, allow students to be partners with various community groups (ie. Humanities 101), and lastly cutting off access for students to learn in a 21st century physical learning space (ie. Buchanan studying lounges, IKBLC, Ladha Science Centre)…
Timmy, I won’t contribute to a university that sanctions cruelty.
Yes, one person supports animal cruelty, therefore all 50000 students must also support animal cruelty
Who supports animal cruelty?
Not sure, but Marion makes it sound like everyone at UBC is responsible
Timmy-
You asked: “Who supports animal cruelty.” I suggest you read the analysis below of UBC’s experiments on monkeys. “Cruelty” doesn’t even begin to describe what is being done to these poor animals.
Below is a summary of UBC’s non-human primate experiments prepared by Dr. Nedim Buyukmihci, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California-Davis:
*Six rhesus macaques were deliberately given electric shocks. Electrodes were applied to their heads through which the shocks were given, apparently to cause seizures. For this the monkeys were only given a sedative and a drug to paralyze them. There was no mention of pain relief. The sedative would not cause complete loss of consciousness and inability to feel and, therefore, the concern is whether they were capable of feeling pain and terror. Because they were paralyzed, they would not have been able to show outward signs of suffering. The animals were also subjected to the unpleasant consequences of repeated doses of anesthesia. There is no mention of what happened to the monkeys.
*Six rhesus macaques were deliberately blinded in one eye by cutting the optic nerve and allowed to live after this brutal mutilation. A second group of monkeys had one eye deliberately damaged by laser to cause a painful increase in pressure known as glaucoma. The animals were allowed to survive this surgery and kept alive, without pain medication, for weeks before being killed.
*Three pregnant rhesus macaques were used, probably off-campus at a facility in the US. A tube was inserted into the abdomen of the monkeys and then into the fetus where harmful particles were injected into the kidneys to cause damage. A few weeks before the fetuses would have been born, the mothers were subjected to abdominal surgery, the fetuses then removed and killed after which tissues were collected.
“Non-human primates are highly intelligent and sensitive animals. It is unacceptable that they should be subjected to such shockingly cruel and invasive experiments,” said Dr. Buyukmihci. “Moreover, despite the suffering and tragic loss of life, the findings in the monkeys are not relevant to humans. Elegant and sophisticated methods exist currently to study, in an ethical manner, human patients in an effort to gain knowledge that will be of benefit to them,” he said.
Not sure you understood my question, Audrey. I asked who at UBC SUPPORTS animal cruelty, not who can copy and paste the most info onto the Ubyssey.
Typical “if you’re not for our cause, then you’re against it and therefore you suck” mindset…
No, I don’t understand anything since the researchers also injected harmful particles into my brain to cause damage.
And UBC’s experiments on piglets:
Healthy newborn piglets were experimented on for over four hours. They were anesthetized and, despite the fact that they were breathing naturally, the research team began to ventilate their healthy lungs mechanically. Tubes that supplied the forced breathing air were inserted through a hole cut into the piglets’ throats. Additional instrumentation – for example a catheter through the jugular vein – was then applied to their bodies to monitor the level of oxygen their forced breathing was still supplying to their blood. As these were healthy piglets the researchers needed to injure the piglets’ lungs to study breathing failure. Researchers achieved this by repeatedly filling the piglets’ lungs with salt water, on average 13 times per piglet. Thirty minutes after the lungs had been injured the piglets were treated. To compare the results of three different types of treatments, three groups of piglets were formed and each of the groups given a different treatment. Some of the piglets showed some improvement, though their lungs remained badly injured. One piglet died before the four-hour study period was completed. The remaining eleven piglets were killed by intravenous overdose of pentobarbital after the four hours and their livers were analyzed.
“Vitamin A is systemically bioavailable following intratracheal administration with surfactant in an animal model of newborn respiratory distress.” Pediatr Res. 2010 Jun; 67(6):619-23.
BTW, ignore the other Audrey. Instead of commenting directly on the substance of the UBC monkey experiments someone else decided to use my name and post an insult. Typical – shoot the messenger when you don’t like the message.
And more on UBC monkey experiments:
Proteasome inhibitors are drugs that block the action of proteasomes, cellular complexes that break down proteins. Dr. xxxx’s current experiment uses rhesus monkeys which are receiving injections of proteasomal inhibitors into their brains. Head-holding devices have been surgically implanted into the monkeys’ brains, and protrude from the top of the monkeys’ heads, to be hooked up to frames when the researchers want to totally immobilize the animals presumably for injection of drugs and for scans at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The monkeys have been scanned after implantation but before injection, for baseline (or starting point) information. Some animals are to be killed at 6 months, some at 12 months.
Proteasomal inhibition, aging and Parkinson
Progress Report – Experiment No. L91 – Active (Stage 2) Date Submitted: 2010-04-12 09:49:21
http://mis.triumf.ca/science/experiment/view/539
So back to the actual question (you’d think it would have been answered in 4 posts), you’re saying we should all be mad at “Dr. xxxx”?
The personal advisor program sounds interesting. No more dealing with bitch secretaries (I can think of a few)