Spoofing “overblown zealotry”
A dissenting view of the "No Means No" controversy.
Letter to the Editor
Re: " 'No' now really does mean 'no' "
I read the article about the “No Means No” campaign, and I remember reading about it when it happened. As with my time at Queen’s in the ‘70s and my parents’ time in the ‘30s the ArtScis were always full of themselves with their self-righteousness.
We all know the ArtScis want inclusiveness and diversity, except when someone pokes fun at their overblown zealotry. I remember when the campus was celebrating the Year of the Woman in 1975 with its “Why Not?” campaign. Our response was a “Why Bother?” spoof, and I’m sure if the ArtScis had behaved as badly as Penelope Hutchison and her friends did, my parents would have laughed in their faces.
I notice that the ROFF group had no problem hunting down and exposing the people who made fun of them, but they were not brave enough to show their faces. Can anyone say “inquisition?”
I remember the ArtScis trying to shut down all the campus cafeterias and serve only milk and rice, “because that is what so many starving people need to subsist on.” I also remember the ArtScis shutting down the campus pub to highlight drinking and driving. It didn’t matter to these bandwagon jumpers that almost no students drove to campus. This was a blessing in disguise as we engineers opened Clark Hall pub and made a killing; this in spite of the ArtScis trying to prevent us illegally from getting a liquor license.
I remember when my brother was at Queen’s and there was a voluntary student fee of $50 to support some heterophobic organization. He declined to pay it, and so the next year the ArtScis made it mandatory. No lack of tolerance there.
I doubt very much that the Review will publish this letter because it would offend the senses of the delicate flowers. These opinions are my own. Other engineers’ opinions may differ, but they would most likely be just as sarcastic.
James Heath, Sc’75