News
Honorary Degree Creates Firestorm of Controversy Between University Administration and Students' Association
Opposing Camps Cast Madeleine Albright as both Sinner and Saint
Vivian Belik
In an open letter addressed to University of Winnipeg President Lloyd Axworthy on October 13, UWSA president Kate Sjoberg outwardly denounced the University administration for its decision to award former US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright an honorary degree at this past Sunday's fall convocation.
Sjoberg was direct in stating in the letter that Madeleine Albright was not worthy of receiving the degree because "as Secretary of State in the administration of President Clinton, Albright was responsible for serious crimes against humanity and for upholding an unjust and brutal foreign policy."
In her letter which speaks on behalf of the UWSA, Sjoberg points to three specific instances to illustrate her point; namely, "the US-led sanctions campaign against Iraq"; the US's "illegal, unprovoked and unjust war against the Republic of Yugoslavia; and the US's support for President Suharto's dictatorship whose brutal regime was responsible for "the killing of tens of thousands of East Timorese civilians".
Calling the administration's move "appalling", Sjoberg asked the university to rescind its decision to grant Madeleine Albright an honourary degree.
In addition to sending the letter, the executive members of the UWSA agreed to spearhead a protest outside of Duckworth Centre on the day of the University's 80th convocation, in which Albright was set to receive her degree. Acting quickly, the UWSA blanketed the university with posters and gave out handbills depicting a photo of a sick Iraqi baby in an attempt to urge students and community members to protest against the university.
On October 14, two days prior to the convocation, the University released an official statement in response to the UWSA's letter. In addressing the UWSA, Pamela Harrod, the corporate secretary and general counsel to the University of Winnipeg, implicitly indicated that the UWSA had no grounds to contradict the presentation of the honorary degree to Albright because there was student representation throughout Albright's entire nomination process.
Harrod claims that the Honorary Degrees Committee which puts forth recommendations to the Senate about whom should be chosen to receive honorary degrees and fellowships is "comprised of various constituents from within the University, including students". She explains in her letter that during Committee and Senate meetings, all members are allowed to object to any of the nominations that are made and are "free to debate on the suitability of any proposed nominee".
The most striking statement from Harrod appears in the last paragraph of the letter in which she addresses the UWSA's failure to object to Albright's nomination.
"Our records show that (Matt Gagne, 2004/2005 CFS liason and current Vice-President Advocate of the UWSA ), as well as Sarah Amyot (2004/2005 UWSA president and current UWSA general coordinator) and John Forrest, were involved in the Senate meeting and Derek Palson participated in the Coommittee meeting," the letter reads. "Our records further indicate no objections were raised by students or faculty at that time. Indeed our records show unanimous support."
When asked why the UWSA would have allowed such a nomination to pass only to demand that it be rescinded a short while later, Andriy Michalchyshyn, Vice President of Student Services for the UWSA , who spoke on behalf of the UWSA, made it clear that those in attendance at the Senate meeting last year "didn't actually vote on [the Albright] decision- they were at the meeting but didn't stick their hands up in favour."
In regards to the abstention made by Amyot and Gagne, Michilchyshyn stated that at the time of the meeting, neither Amyot or Gagne were sufficiently knowledgeable about the situation to voice their opposition.
"When Albright was Secretary of State for the United States, we [the executive of the UWSA] were in high school - we were not 100 per cent informed about who this person [Madeleine Albright] was".
When asked whether it is the responsibility of members of the Senate to adequately inform themselves about issues on the agenda before attending Senate meetings, Michilchyshyn speaking on behalf of Amyot who would not comment on the issue, revealed that it is indeed "everybody's responsibility to do their research [before meetings]" and perhaps the UWSA "dropped the ball" by not having done so.
Even though the protest and letter were seen as actions done after the fact, Michilchyshyn believes that nonetheless "it is never a bad time to speak out about an issue."
The UWSA believes that the letter sent by the administration on October 14 does not at all address the issue of student opposition to the honorary degree and the the reasons behind it. According to Michilchyshyn, the letter was nothing more than a "bullying tactic to suppress dissent at the university."
The letter, Michilchyshyn believes, is part of a larger issue that has been brewing between the UWSA and the administration for some time.
"[the UWSA] feel[s] that the atmosphere in the university ever since President Axworthy has been in power has not been accepting of viewpoints that oppose his." Michilchyshyn continued by saying that "the administration has been hostile to those who speak out against [Axworthy]."
In a last minute decision on Friday, the administration of the University decided to invite members of the media to a press scrum in which President Axworthy and Madeleine Albright were both present.
Speaking with much admiration for President Axworthy, the late US secretary of state called Axworthy a "close friend" and stated that she was "very pleased when [Axworthy] told [her] she had been awarded an honorary degree."
When asked why the Committee and Senate chose Albright for the honorary degree, Axworthy preempted his answer by stating that "the decision on honorary degrees is made by the entire university." Reiterating what had been written in Harrod's letter, Axworthy emphasized the fact that the decision to nominate Albright "was a unanimous decision [by those in attendance at the committee and Senate meetings] including students." Axworthy then continued by saying that Albright is a person "who has made an important difference in the world" and that "she led a lot of us [in the international community] to stop a lot of suffering and a lot of authoritarian actions on the part of other governments." He also added that as a woman, Albright's highly respected position as US Secretary of State emphasized the need for women to be involved in global decision making processes.
When asked why he thought certain students were opposing the degree, Axworthy said that "everybody has a right to express their opinion and therefore those who want to oppose [the awarding of the degree are] given their full right to do so." Axworthy did not refer to any of Albright's much contested track record as Secretary of State when answering the question but instead directed his thoughts back to the UWSA's role in the nomination process.
"The only thing that I found a little ironic [in regards to students opposing the degree] is that the Students Association, which is leading this, was in fact part of the decision to award the degree to Secretary Albright both at the committee and the senate [meetings]. If there were objections at the time they should have been raised properly when the opportunity was there. They were part of the unanimous decision making."
Axworthy may not have addressed the supposed "serious crimes against humanity" that Sjoberg spoke of in her letter to the University, however, the question was put forward by the media for Albright to answer herself.
When asked how Albright felt about a statement that she had made nine years earlier in which she said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was "worth it", Albright quickly and adamantly stated that it was "the stupidest thing [she] ever said".
Albright felt compelled to clear up certain misconceptions related to the statement which she feels have been blown out of proportion. She pointed out that she was not in fact Secretary of State at the time- she was actually an ambassador to the United Nations - and that "what has always been misunderstood by the general public is that there never were sanctions on food or medicine - on humanitarian goods, ever."
Albright quickly added that "I didn't impose [the sanctions] - they were imposed by the previous administration as a result of the fact that Saddam Hussein had invaded another country."
"This statement seems to have a life of its own," emphasized Albright, "and it doesn't matter what I say - no matter how many times I've said it was stupid or said that if there is anybody that has ever asked me that question that has never made a stupid statement themselves I wish they'd speak up."
Sjoberg was direct in stating in the letter that Madeleine Albright was not worthy of receiving the degree because "as Secretary of State in the administration of President Clinton, Albright was responsible for serious crimes against humanity and for upholding an unjust and brutal foreign policy."
In her letter which speaks on behalf of the UWSA, Sjoberg points to three specific instances to illustrate her point; namely, "the US-led sanctions campaign against Iraq"; the US's "illegal, unprovoked and unjust war against the Republic of Yugoslavia; and the US's support for President Suharto's dictatorship whose brutal regime was responsible for "the killing of tens of thousands of East Timorese civilians".
Calling the administration's move "appalling", Sjoberg asked the university to rescind its decision to grant Madeleine Albright an honourary degree.
In addition to sending the letter, the executive members of the UWSA agreed to spearhead a protest outside of Duckworth Centre on the day of the University's 80th convocation, in which Albright was set to receive her degree. Acting quickly, the UWSA blanketed the university with posters and gave out handbills depicting a photo of a sick Iraqi baby in an attempt to urge students and community members to protest against the university.
On October 14, two days prior to the convocation, the University released an official statement in response to the UWSA's letter. In addressing the UWSA, Pamela Harrod, the corporate secretary and general counsel to the University of Winnipeg, implicitly indicated that the UWSA had no grounds to contradict the presentation of the honorary degree to Albright because there was student representation throughout Albright's entire nomination process.
Harrod claims that the Honorary Degrees Committee which puts forth recommendations to the Senate about whom should be chosen to receive honorary degrees and fellowships is "comprised of various constituents from within the University, including students". She explains in her letter that during Committee and Senate meetings, all members are allowed to object to any of the nominations that are made and are "free to debate on the suitability of any proposed nominee".
The most striking statement from Harrod appears in the last paragraph of the letter in which she addresses the UWSA's failure to object to Albright's nomination.
"Our records show that (Matt Gagne, 2004/2005 CFS liason and current Vice-President Advocate of the UWSA ), as well as Sarah Amyot (2004/2005 UWSA president and current UWSA general coordinator) and John Forrest, were involved in the Senate meeting and Derek Palson participated in the Coommittee meeting," the letter reads. "Our records further indicate no objections were raised by students or faculty at that time. Indeed our records show unanimous support."
When asked why the UWSA would have allowed such a nomination to pass only to demand that it be rescinded a short while later, Andriy Michalchyshyn, Vice President of Student Services for the UWSA , who spoke on behalf of the UWSA, made it clear that those in attendance at the Senate meeting last year "didn't actually vote on [the Albright] decision- they were at the meeting but didn't stick their hands up in favour."
In regards to the abstention made by Amyot and Gagne, Michilchyshyn stated that at the time of the meeting, neither Amyot or Gagne were sufficiently knowledgeable about the situation to voice their opposition.
"When Albright was Secretary of State for the United States, we [the executive of the UWSA] were in high school - we were not 100 per cent informed about who this person [Madeleine Albright] was".
When asked whether it is the responsibility of members of the Senate to adequately inform themselves about issues on the agenda before attending Senate meetings, Michilchyshyn speaking on behalf of Amyot who would not comment on the issue, revealed that it is indeed "everybody's responsibility to do their research [before meetings]" and perhaps the UWSA "dropped the ball" by not having done so.
Even though the protest and letter were seen as actions done after the fact, Michilchyshyn believes that nonetheless "it is never a bad time to speak out about an issue."
The UWSA believes that the letter sent by the administration on October 14 does not at all address the issue of student opposition to the honorary degree and the the reasons behind it. According to Michilchyshyn, the letter was nothing more than a "bullying tactic to suppress dissent at the university."
The letter, Michilchyshyn believes, is part of a larger issue that has been brewing between the UWSA and the administration for some time.
"[the UWSA] feel[s] that the atmosphere in the university ever since President Axworthy has been in power has not been accepting of viewpoints that oppose his." Michilchyshyn continued by saying that "the administration has been hostile to those who speak out against [Axworthy]."
In a last minute decision on Friday, the administration of the University decided to invite members of the media to a press scrum in which President Axworthy and Madeleine Albright were both present.
Speaking with much admiration for President Axworthy, the late US secretary of state called Axworthy a "close friend" and stated that she was "very pleased when [Axworthy] told [her] she had been awarded an honorary degree."
When asked why the Committee and Senate chose Albright for the honorary degree, Axworthy preempted his answer by stating that "the decision on honorary degrees is made by the entire university." Reiterating what had been written in Harrod's letter, Axworthy emphasized the fact that the decision to nominate Albright "was a unanimous decision [by those in attendance at the committee and Senate meetings] including students." Axworthy then continued by saying that Albright is a person "who has made an important difference in the world" and that "she led a lot of us [in the international community] to stop a lot of suffering and a lot of authoritarian actions on the part of other governments." He also added that as a woman, Albright's highly respected position as US Secretary of State emphasized the need for women to be involved in global decision making processes.
When asked why he thought certain students were opposing the degree, Axworthy said that "everybody has a right to express their opinion and therefore those who want to oppose [the awarding of the degree are] given their full right to do so." Axworthy did not refer to any of Albright's much contested track record as Secretary of State when answering the question but instead directed his thoughts back to the UWSA's role in the nomination process.
"The only thing that I found a little ironic [in regards to students opposing the degree] is that the Students Association, which is leading this, was in fact part of the decision to award the degree to Secretary Albright both at the committee and the senate [meetings]. If there were objections at the time they should have been raised properly when the opportunity was there. They were part of the unanimous decision making."
Axworthy may not have addressed the supposed "serious crimes against humanity" that Sjoberg spoke of in her letter to the University, however, the question was put forward by the media for Albright to answer herself.
When asked how Albright felt about a statement that she had made nine years earlier in which she said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was "worth it", Albright quickly and adamantly stated that it was "the stupidest thing [she] ever said".
Albright felt compelled to clear up certain misconceptions related to the statement which she feels have been blown out of proportion. She pointed out that she was not in fact Secretary of State at the time- she was actually an ambassador to the United Nations - and that "what has always been misunderstood by the general public is that there never were sanctions on food or medicine - on humanitarian goods, ever."
Albright quickly added that "I didn't impose [the sanctions] - they were imposed by the previous administration as a result of the fact that Saddam Hussein had invaded another country."
"This statement seems to have a life of its own," emphasized Albright, "and it doesn't matter what I say - no matter how many times I've said it was stupid or said that if there is anybody that has ever asked me that question that has never made a stupid statement themselves I wish they'd speak up."