A first maybe not, but in the most recent edition of the Muse, a student paper of Memorial University of Newfoundland, the undergrads give a ringing endorsement of General Rick Hillier for Chancellor.
The spokesperson for the undergrads (and apparently now a spokesperson for the William's government as well?) sees no problem with having a general as the head of the University. Not only that, but she even claims that there is no opposition at all to this appointment, saying:
Hillier’s appointment has yet to cause any waves.
“It hasn’t been negative and it hasn’t been positive, it’s more of a ‘whoa what’s going to happen’ kind of thing,” said Penney. “I don’t see him and his being in Afghanistan having anything to do with this; I see that as two separate things.”
Penney agrees with Campbell’s view that Hillier’s popularity can bring attention to the University and says she hopes he upholds the Williams government’s views on education.
Seeing, firstly, that most Canadians oppose their country's involvement in the American occupations overseas, and secondly, that students traditionally are more likely to be against war that the average citizen, it seems bizarre that Ms. Penny can't find opposition to his appointment on her campus. Turn off the ol' blackberry? Poke the ol'd noggin' out the office door?
Or if this is a bit much, perhaps the policies of her organization might provide a guiding light (they're officially anti-war and have been pretty much throughout their, and for that matter the entire student movement's, history).
She sees Hillier's appointment and his role as head of the Canadian occupation of Afghanistan as two different things, as if it is just some fluke that the person, presumably randomly selected from the citizenry to be chancellor, also just happened to be the guy who oversees foreign occupations in his spare time. Seeing Ms. Penny can't draw the connections, I thought I'd help here a little.
Melissa, generals should not be moving from occupations to the head of our educational institutions. Hillier has been a great living example of the saying that 'the first casualty of war is the truth' in his defense of Canada's role in the American-led Central Asian and Middle East project. He has consistently misled the Canadian public about the war and our role in it. He has no place in an institution which has truth as its aim.
Melissa, a man who is being examined by experts as a possible war criminal is not a good person to have as a representative for your university. Your union needs to encourage the selection of candidates that support your values. Hillier does not. It doesn't matter how much Danny likes him. Nope, not at all. He doesn't matter. Your members do. Resist the urge. It's your job to support the policies of your union and make sure things like this don't happen, not encourage it. You can vote for Danny in secret later -- noone will know. Remember, sucking up is not a lobbying strategy.
You see, others may not understand you when you try to separate his roles. They might just think you're a pro-war apologist. Your peers might do what they did to one of your predecessors when he started shooting his mouth off contrary to the official policies of the organization you're supposed to be speaking for. They decided it was best to have his office vacant rather than occupied. Search Gilbert Salam when the Muse archives goes online again.
There are, of course, fears that this appointment will lead to an increased relationship with the military in terms of research and recruitment. It likely will, of course. This is a guy who turned the Chief of Defense Staff into an openly political (with a capital "p") position. But if you had missed this we'd forgive you. This is beside a more pressing point: that Hillier is an inappropriate symbol for Memorial, which should continue as a reminder of the horror and sacrifice of the First and Second World Wars, and not as recruitment tool for current ones. Get it?
Posts
