Could anyone elucidate the origins of the SSMU “male/non-male” policy, whereas all General Assembly debate must alternate between male and non-male speakers? It’s equally laudable and ludicrous. Laudable, as it’s vital that we hear from those on both (rather, all) sides of the issues. Ludicrous, as only in a limited range of cases is gender the most pertinent variable.
The motion re: discriminatory (pro-life) groups? Sure. But what about the protracted debate over whether to specify the occupied Palestinian territories in the motion re: human rights? No connection with gender, but a solid connection, potentially, with ethnicity. So let’s go with “Arabs/non-Arabs.” (And/or “Jews/goyim.”)
And consider the motion re: self-funded tuition model, discussion of which centred upon the inability of certain individuals to afford university. Again, sex ain’t got nothing to do with it. But income brackets certainly do. How about “rich/non-rich?”
Oh, and what about the argument over whether to reinstall $5 ATMs? (Yes, this was actually debated.) Try “assholes/non-assholes.” Granted, none of these categories are super politically correct. Some might even take offense. But all offense would be taken in the name of justice!
“Male/non-male” is a solid start, but next time, let’s give it up for the non-Arab assholes in high tax brackets. All or nothing, amigos.
Jay Alexander Brown
U3 World Religions