Swearing off the Review
Letter to the Editor
Re: "No" now really does mean "no"
I am offended by the current overuse of expletives in our society and, quite frankly, the Queen's Alumni Review was one of the last places I expected to see unsavoury language.
Remembering the "No means no" story when it broke 20 years ago, the article on page seven was the first one I read. I was frankly unimpressed that the author felt the need to spell out the "f" word. She could very easily have blocked out the offending letters and readers would still have had a clear understanding.
I am just glad that none of my children got hold of my magazine before I did, as often happens; I certainly would not want them thinking that using foul language is acceptable in a publication such as this.
Please remove my name from your subscribers' list as I am not interested in reading trash.
A. J. Martin, Ed'98
The Review staff discussed the question of whether or not to censor Penelope Hutchison’s article. In the end, we decided not to do so.
The rationale was twofold: It’s a safe assumption that our readers, which almost exclusively made up alumni (ie. ages 18+), all would know the word that “F” suggested and would fill in the blanks unless we deleted the word entirely; and secondly, the widely known moniker of the protest group that occupied the Principal’s office and the writer’s mention of it were measures of the heated emotions surrounding the “No Means No” debate at the time—and to this day—and of the issues involved. Censoring Hutchison’s words would have been a move to whitewash history.
Were we wrong in our decision?—Ed.