Polanski raped a child
To the Editor,
In Anna DeMello’s review of “Polanski: Wanted and Desired”, she described Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old girl as “having sex with her,” and later described his actions as “controversial”.
Drugging a 13-year-old girl and then “having sex with her” while she says no and stop over and over is called rape.
Polanski was charged with rape. He was convicted of rape. That is commonly referred to as “rape”, not as “having sex with” a 13-year-old girl.
As Kate Harding wrote in Salon:
“Let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, ‘No,’ then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.”
As well, the prosecutor admitted he lied in the documentary film:
“The former prosecutor who said in a documentary film that he advised a judge to send Roman Polanski to prison now says he lied in the movie. Former Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells said he lied to the makers of the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired about his role in the sentencing of Polanski on charges of having sex with a minor. The statement became part of the basis for a move by Polanski’s attorneys to dismiss the case because of prosecutorial misconduct.”
I think it’s possible to both review this movie and talk about the case without minimizing that Roman Polanski raped a child.
— Anna Pearce
Division over diversity
To the Editor,
I was sorry to read the prominent headline in The Gazette’s diversity issue (Nov. 20 to Nov. 26) disparaging King’s Foundation Year Programme as a “Whitewashed Foundation” whose “curriculum is low on diversity.”
Certainly, FYP does not try to survey all the world’s traditions, only the Western. Yet it conceives of that tradition as essentially diverse, deeply informed by interactions with other cultures and by contributions from many and often conflicting sources.
The program begins with ancient Egypt in its first section and brings out the recurring indebtedness to Egyptian wisdom by later thinkers.
The former co-ordinator of the second section, Dr. Wayne Hankey, has been especially committed to presenting the ethnic and religious diversity of the Middle Ages. In an e-mail concerning this article, he writes, “Plotinus was from Egypt, Augustine, also from North Africa, had a black mother, Iamblichus was a Syrian (as probably was Dionysius). How can they, al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, al-Ghazali and Maimonides count as white?”
The Foundation Year Programme also does not shy away from exploring the problematic relation between Europe and its Others; this year in the third section, for example, we are reading a number of Renaissance plays that represent its struggles with strangers both from without and within.
The troubling legacy of racism as it emerged later in the West has been the particular focus of the work of a number in FYP’s faculty, one of whom organized a series of symposia on the question last year; others have been involved in developing an upcoming lecture series/course at King’s on the concept of race.
While over the last two decades there has been a substantial increase in ethnic and religious diversity in the FYP student body, we have had more limited success in increasing its racial diversity.
We cannot deny that students belonging to visible minorities can feel self-conscious when part of the foundation year class, and that we still need to find more adequate ways to address this.
To speak to the incident referred to in the article, I was the person teaching Monica Mutale’s tutorial. Although I remember what happened rather differently than what was reported by Sanjay Mathurla, it is true that Monica felt put on the spot by a question I asked her. I realized and regretted this immediately, and apologized to her after the class. That the moment still rankles speaks to my own failure as a teacher, and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to her again.
To summarize, the Foundation Year Programme has increasingly reflected upon the hybridity of the Western tradition, in accordance with the findings of recent scholarship. The issue of diversity has received sustained attention from many at King’s Collage.
FYP’s focus on the Western tradition means that, like any programme of its kind, it is particularly called to account regarding the ambiguous legacies of that tradition: a challenge we take very seriously.
— Peggy Heller, director of the Foundation Year Programme at the University of King’s College
To the Editor,
As it often happens, when excerpts from interviews are quoted, the meaning of our words comes across not entirely in the way it was intended. First of all, I understood the purpose of the news article “Whitewashed foundation” (The Gazette’s diversity issue, Nov. 20 to Nov. 26) to be an assessment of diversity at the University of King’s College in general, especially in relation to overall structures and policies (such as the office of the racial equity liaison), rather than an attack on the Foundation Year Programme.
I made my comments in my capacity as the director and faculty member of the Contemporary Studies Programme, as well as the former King’s racial equity liaison. As such, I do not feel I am in the position to comment specifically on the matters pertaining to the Foundation Year Programme and thus was not quoted accurately in the story. Further, the proposed 2010/2011 lecture series and an upper-level course on the conceptions of race in philosophy, literature and art, mentioned in the piece, is a joint initiative between Contemporary Studies, Early Modern Studies, and History of Science and Technology programmes, with the help of some of our colleagues at Dalhousie. It must be emphasized that this initiative was inspired by a series of symposia on the issues of race and racism organized last year by the members of the Foundation Year teaching staff, as well as by a lecture called “Race in Philosophy” by a prominent scholar of race,
Robert Bernasconi, who came to King’s on the joint invitation by the FYP and CSP. There is a continuity and dialogue between the programs at King’s, and we work together toward improvement, including in the area of diversity.
Secondly, I feel that my words about King’s students coming from “private schools in Toronto” were cited out of context. I would have never wanted to perpetuate this unhelpful stereotype, and on numerous occasions, including during the interview, I have acknowledged the efforts on the part of the registrar’s office, especially in the area of recruitment, to overcome this inaccurate perception of King’s.
Finally, I would not have liked my words to appear under the title that was given to the article. It is divisive and hurtful, while I believe that the only way toward further improvement is constructive dialogue. I would like to apologize to my colleagues and students who may have been hurt or offended by my words as they have been quoted.
— Dorota Glowacka, professor of contemporary studies at the University of King’s College
The Gazette apologizes for any quotes attributed to Dorota Glowacka that may have been taken out of context. Our ethics code states that sources should be treated with respect and portrayed fairly. In the future we will be more diligent in encouraging our writers to follow these guidelines.
Proroguey baloney
To the Editor,
In his piece about the prorogation of parliament, Ben Wedge resorts to two arguments that must be mainstays in the Conservative playbook. The first is to distract attention from the issue with meaningless tabloid-esque nonsense about where the party leaders spent their Christmas break. The second is to somehow pin the issue on Jean Chrétien. Wedge appears to assume that anybody opposed to Harper’s prorogue must have been a supporter of past Liberal governments.
I respectfully remind him that there are more than two major parties in this country.
I had little interest in politics during the Chrétien years, so when he prorogued parliament I had little to say on the issue. As things stand today, I can assure Mr. Wedge that I would stand in opposition to a parliamentary prorogue initiated by any Canadian prime minister.
Of course, the Chrétien government was not twice awarded the “Fossil of the Year” award for obstructing progress on climate change at the international level, nor was anybody tortured under Chrétien’s leadership. So perhaps my outrage is somewhat amplified in the case of Harper’s latest prorogue.
The fundamental issue here is that no politician should be able to shut down the body that holds him or her accountable for reasons of political expediency. It is unfortunate that respect for Canadian democracy has become a crucial swing factor in the national polls, rather than a basic prerequisite for involvement in Canadian federal politics.
Nevertheless, if a viable candidate for prime minister satisfies that requirement, I will support them regardless of where they spent their Christmas.
— Cameron Roberts, fifth-year history of science and philosophy student at the University of King’s College
Recent Comments