A Letter to the Editor...

Below is the letter to the editor of the Student Newspaper, which was published just this afternoon: 

Dear Editor,

I began reading a poster advertising the I.S. Conference quite literally a matter of seconds after it was posted outside the admissions office. As soon as I read it, my curiosity was piqued, for two reasons: first, because the conference would be addressing a subject which could not fail to provoke lively, productive and interesting debate, namely Alberta’s Oil Sands.  The second reason was a single unassuming phrase on the poster, whose brevity betrayed its significance.

The poster’s description of the conference included the phrase “is [Alberta oil] ‘ethical oil’, as some have claimed...?” Perhaps this means little to my fellow students, so I will explain. Ethical Oil is the title of a book written by conservative pundit Ezra Levant, and published just last year. In it, Levant makes the case that oil from Alberta oil sands, while far from being perfect, is displacing, barrel by barrel, oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran (to name only a few) – countries run by thieves, murderous dictators and fascists; countries who care little for democracy, peace or human rights, much less the environment. Thus, to slow oil sands production would actually be doing a great disservice to the world, by allowing those countries’ governments to continue financing their inhumane regimes by meeting the billions-of-dollars-worth of extra demand for oil created by Alberta’s slowed production pace.

Love it or leave it, this simple argument is changing how the debate over the oil sands is being conducted. To give readers an idea of how influential this book has been in the few short months since its publication: both the Prime Minister and the Federal Environment Minister referenced the main arguments of the book in recent media addresses defending the oil sands. Proponents of oil sands production are laying hold of a new catchphrase – “ethical oil” – coined by Mr. Levant.

Now, given the remarkable influence of Mr. Levant’s book, and given the direct reference to the book on the poster I was reading, I was rather puzzled not to see Mr. Levant’s name appear on the list of speakers at the conference. When I asked Roy Berkenbosch to clarify this dilemma, he confirmed that Mr. Levant had not been extended an invitation. The explanation I received for this was that there simply was not enough space in the two-day conference to accommodate all speakers.

Fair enough. But is this merely a scheduling issue? This same schedule included 4 time slots allotted to professors at King’s (2 for the same professor) whom we have the opportunity to hear from every day while attending school. I don’t mean to disrespect our wonderful professors, all of whom gave us poignant insight. But, then again, we receive their insight daily – would it have been unreasonable to sacrifice time listening to our professors, which could very easily have been made up at some other juncture, to listen to someone else?

What is even more telling to me is that anti-oilsands author and journalist Andrew Nikiforuk was not only invited to speak to us, but was given two 45-minute time slots. Now, Mr. Nikiforuk is an important and influential voice in his own right, and his book Tar Sands certainly merits him an opportunity to speak at the conference. Yet it begs the question – what logical reason could there be for extending a double invitation to a nationally-bestselling author and journalist who writes a book opposing the oil sands, while neglecting to extend an invitation of any kind to a nationally-bestselling author and journalist who writes a book supporting the oil sands, which has now become the crux of the federal government’s argument for the oil sands? What a simple way to promote balanced discussion (as we were repeatedly told the purpose of the conference was) – two men with virtually identical credentials taking two opposing views!

To make matters worse, Mr. Nikiforuk, and later the NDP’s Federal Environment Critic, Linda Duncan, both directly challenged Ezra Levant’s arguments in their own addresses to us. (Actually, while Linda Duncan challenged his arguments, Mr. Nikiforuk saw fit only to throw out an unsupported accusation of Mr. Levant, and I quote, “making stuff up.” But I digress). It is an utterly remarkable paradox: Ezra Levant writes a book which is important enough to be quoted by the highest levels of our government; it is important enough that two oil sands detractors deemed it necessary to directly address its arguments in their speeches; Yet, for all that, the same book is not important enough for the author of that book to make the short list of invitees to the conference! What perverse logic rendered that conclusion? Or, a more pointed question: at what point does administration and logistics end, and censorship begin?

The idea of an Interdisciplinary Studies Conference is a noble one. But among the student body there is often a significant degree of scepticism and ambivalence towards the conferences. One reason often cited by the students is that the conferences seem “narrow” or “one-sided”. Given Mr. Levant’s absence, one can hardly blame them for these sentiments. It is hard to conduct a “balanced discussion” when a voice so significant to a current understanding of the oil sands debate is muzzled, while those who disagree with that voice are given a microphone and a platform.

In short, I consider Mr. Levant’s non-invitation to the conference, at best, a gross oversight. At worst, it is censorship. Either way, it is a failure.

Sincerely,

Jeff Godley        

The I.S. Saga, Part 1

Today was Day 1 of our semi-annual, two-day Interdisciplinary Studies (I.S) Conference. This term's topic was as controversial as they come - the debate over Alberta's Oil Sands.

There are two inter-related stories that I want to tell over the next few posts. The first one began a week or so ago, when I noticed the following phrase on an ad poster for the conference:

Is (oil sands oil) "ethical oil", as some have claimed....?

This was, I assumed, a direct reference to a book by conservative pundit Ezra Levant, entitled Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands - a book which I had recently begun to read (and was thoroughly enjoying). The book's thesis is essentially this: in our oil-consuming world, the choice we face is not between oil from the oil sands and some perfect, emission-free fantasy oil of the future; it's between oil from Canada (a peace-loving, free and democratic society, which cares about the environment) or oil from nastier places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran or Nigeria. Thus, we have to look at which economy we would rather put our money into, not simply whether the oil sands are a perfect operation from a green perspective.

The book was published only last year, but the phrase "ethical oil" has already been used by the Prime Minister and the Federal Environment Minister in their defenses of the oil sands. That's the kind of influence the book is having.

So, given the importance and influence of Mr. Levant's arguments, I couldn't help wonder why his name was not on the list of speakers. Did he decline an invitation, or was he never invited in the first place?

I went straight to the source: Roy Berkenbosch, the director of the I.S. conferences. He assured me that while   he would not be presenting, "his perspective [would] both be heard and challenged." While I was certain that was true, I wondered why Mr. Levant's views were important enough to mention on an ad poster, but not enough to even invite him to the conference? It seemed contradictory, and since the other side of the debate, environmental activists, seemed very well represented indeed, most notably by Andrew Nikiforuk, who is one of Levant's most vocal and unabashed critics.

It seems that, according to Mr. Berkenbosch's reply to my e-mails, there simply was not enough room in the 2-day conference to invite this or that speaker. Fair enough. But it does seem odd that while there is a nationally-bestselling author who was anti-oilsands presenting at the conference (not once, but twice), the idea to invite a nationally-bestselling author who was pro-oilsands, and whose book is being referenced by the federal government, did not occur to Mr. Berkenbosch.

Given the I.S. Conference's track record of highly skewed political debates (I've written about that here), I can't help but wonder whether this is truly logistics, or whether we have crossed over into censorship. Food for thought.

I Wonder if THIS Will be Mentioned...

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” (Gen. 3:8-10, emphasis mine)

What is the root of fear? Sin.

Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, sin enters the world, and as a result, they experience fear.

I'll be waiting for someone at the conference to mention that fear is the result of sin, and that the remedy for sin is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Interdisciplinary Studies Conference Tomorrow...

Tomorrow is the semi-annual Interdisciplinary Studies (I.S.) Conference at King's.

The conference markets itself as "an exploration of a particular topic from multiple perspectives." In my experience, however, it generally takes the form of examining a left-wing issue from a left-wing perspective. Somehow, no matter what the topic of the conference, the themes of climate change, poverty, homelessness and war always come to dominate the discussion. In the words of a former fellow student, one particular conference resembled "a left-wing political rally from the '60's". Well said.

The particular conference this student referred to was the first one I attended, in the Fall of 2008. It was called Invisible Dignity; the premise being that discrimination, poverty, etc. cause a person's inherent human dignity to become invisible to others. One speaker at this conference, Dennis Edney, introduced the University-College to the issues surrounding Omar Khadr. The university almost immediately leapt on the Khadr bandwagon, campaigning for his repatriation to Canada. Now, Mr. Edney is one of Khadr's lawyer - a fact which often seems to be forgotten in all this fuss. Was the picture of Khadr painted for me and my fellow students the whole picture? Hard to say, because no one bothered to check up on the facts. Instead, they accepted this lawyer's statements as the whole truth.

Next came the Truth and Reconciliation conference, concerning the Indian Residential School system in Canada. Now, in this case the topic of the conference was verifiable historical fact - there were residential schools, and the students did endure the abuse of being forcibly taken from their families in order to become Anglicized. I learned a lot of vital history concerning Aboriginal relations. But, the conference seemed to be trying to hard to pander to Aboriginal people - and the Aboriginal story never stayed the same. On the one hand, some said that financial compensation from the government was necessary so the government could demonstrate that it took the victims seriously; on the other hand, others said that the government was trying to buy it's way out of responsibility by simply "throwing money" at the victims in the hope they'd go away. On the one hand, some thought the Prime Minister should offer an official apology for the schools; when such an apology came forth, some condemned it as mere words. There was, of course, no hint that Aboriginals could also be responsible for the strained relations with the government today - it was all the white man's fault.

The next conference was on technology. That's all that I know. I was on the worship team that played during the conference, and thus I did not have to complete the assignment (and therefore I didn't have to attend the conference the parts I was playing for). That was by far my favourite conference thus far.

Finally, the most recent conference this past January concerned homelessness. A worthy topic, to be sure. But the definition of "homeless" was greatly stretched to accommodate refugees from war, climate change, and various other points on the liberal agenda. Of course, homeless people were, one and all, helpless victims of "the system"; and of course, the government was responsible to step in to rectify the situation.

BUT I think that the conference which starts tomorrow might actually be worthwhile. Not because there will be a lack of leftist propaganda. It will be good simply because the topic which cannot possibly be completely messed up, however bell-bottomed the politics may be.

The subject is fear. As I perused the schedule of lectures, I noticed that, true to form, there is a very leftist spin being put on fear: xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia... but it looks as if there will be enough food for thought to stimulate even the interest of a hard-nosed Conservative such as myself.

Even better - I've learned two things about the 3-page paper that is required to get the credit for the conference (it's a course, and you need six terms worth of it for any degree program at King's. I find that absolutely ridiculous, but I also digress):

1. You need only prove you attended enough of the conference to grasp one key concept and blither semi-intelligently about it for 3 pages, and
2. You can vehemently disagree with that same key concept (thereby calling the whole conference into question) and still pass the assignment. 

So, I don't need to be at the whole conference. Almost half of the student body sleeps in on the second day of the conference anyway. I suspect that I could write my paper right now without attending the conference, by disagreeing with a position that I can reasonably assume the keynote speaker is going to take on an issue. For example, it will probably be a pro-gay conference; I could write about a biblical stance on homosexuality for 3 pages and take the next two days off. But, since that's slightly dishonest, I'm instead going to sleep in both days and attend the conference in the afternoons - this will yield ample material to write the assignment with. 

In fact, since Mr. Dennis Edney is back to rally the troops for Omar Khadr, who is currently on trial for his alleged war crimes, a friend and I have jokingly agreed to write anti-Khadr sentiments whatever form the conference takes. So, in a sense, my paper is already written. Maybe I could charge a fee to write I.S. papers for other people - carve out a little business niche for myself, as it were.

Oh wait - that's dishonest too...