Recent events in the Graduate Student Centre have attracted a great deal of attention and speculation. Unfortunately, given that discussions with the Society's former Food and Beverage Manager, Dale Read, are ongoing, Council and the Executive Committee have been unable to release detailed information pertaining to Council's decision to end Mr. Read's employment on June 25, 1996. While the specific reasons for the dismissal of Dale Read have not been disclosed, much speculation has occurred.
Among the rumours currently circulating on campus are some that cast suspicion upon the staff of Koerner's, the Society's Pub. Pub staff have expressed, and rightly so, their anxiety, frustration and anger regarding these rumours. In order to allay staff concerns, as well as check damaging and irresponsible rumours, the Executive Committee states unequivocally that no staff member employed in its Food and Beverage operations is under suspicion of any wrongdoing whatsoever.
The Executive Committee requests that all parties work together to avoid such harmful speculation in the future.
Kevin Dwyer
GSS President
Today I was dismayed to discover that Dr. Peter Larkin had passed away. To me, Peter Larkin was a wise and caring man in a society that too often moved forward without fully considering all the facts.
I first met Peter when I was a member on the Community Advisory Committee to the proposed UBC Incinerator of which he was chair. Working with Peter on this committee gave me a true appreciation of the definition of busy. In addition to our committee, and his many projects for the Royal Society of Canada, Peter was also studying the case of the missing salmon from the 1992 Fraser River sockeye run.
Perhaps it would be incorrect to say that he changed my mind on the subject of incinerators, but his wisdom helped me to consider that there are always more sides to a situation than may be initially apparent.
Today is a sad day. UBC has lost an outstanding individual who will be sorely missed.
Mary Jean O'Donnell
Waste Reduction Coordinator, UBC
Re: Revised Policy #3: Discrimination and Harassment.
Upon reading this document, I was acutely embarrassed by: 1) its failure to abide by the commonly held precepts of justice in the Canadian judicial systems; and 2) its seemingly contradictory statements or lack of conceptual integration. If I was a member of a street gang or vigilante group, such a document might be acceptable. However, I am not; rather I am a member of a community that supposedly represents and fosters the better aspects of Western civilization such as justice, fairness and due process. Before continuing I would like to state that if "discriminating or harassing behaviours" do occur at UBC, they should not be tolerated and dealt with expeditiously but fairly. My complaint is simply that this document does not meet such criteria.
First, the document does not define what constitutes "proof" of improper behavior. Rather, a convoluted bureaucratic structure for resolution is described without reference to proof. Although an underlying tenet of common law is that one is innocent until proven guilty, this tenet is completely ignored. Moreover, the only reference to proof of innocence/guilt is found in section 77 which states in part: "Anyone who enters into a sexual relationship with a person where a professional power differential exists must realise that, if a charge of sexual harassment is subsequently lodged, it will be extremely difficult to defend the conduct on grounds of mutual consent." This statement highlights the inherent problems with the document in three ways. First, it suggests that the burden of proof lies with the defendant, not the accuser. This position is not consistent with recognized judicial practice. Second, as the public courts recognize mutual consent between two adults as the underlying premise for normal sexual relationships, the university's position is contrary to Canadian law. Third, this section (i.e., 77) appears to contradict section 76 where such sexual relationships are acceptable if the relationship is disclosed to the administrative head.
Although there are many other flaws in this document, the above should highlight some of its shortcomings. In conclusion, I would like to remind the university administration that Kafka wrote The Trial as satire, not as a procedure manual.
Campbell M. Clark, PhD
Associate Professor, Dept. of Psychiatry