I was misquoted or the person heard wrong - the term is “mug-wump” I have included an explanation of what the term is and where it originated from.

“This archetypal American word derives from the Algonquian dialect of Native Americans in Massachusetts. In their language, it meant “war leader”. The Puritan missionary John Eliot used it in his translation of the Bible into their language in 1663 to convey the English words duke, officer and captain.

Mugwump was brought into English in the early nineteenth century as a humorous term for a boss, bigwig, grand panjandrum, or other person in authority, although often one of a minor and inconsequential sort. This example comes from a story in an 1867 issue of Atlantic Monthly: “I’ve got one of your gang in irons — the Great Mugwump himself, I reckon — strongly guarded by men armed to the teeth; so you just ride up here and surrender”.

It hit the big time in 1884, during the presidential election that set Grover Cleveland against the Republican James G Blaine. Some Republicans refused to support Blaine, changed sides, and the New York Sun labelled them little mugwumps. Almost overnight, the sense of the word changed to turncoat. Later, it came to mean a politician who either could not or would not make up his mind on some important issue, or who refused to take a stand when he was expected to do so. Hence the old joke that a mugwump is a person sitting on the fence, with his mug on one side and his wump on the other.

There is also a slangy sense — less known these days, I believe — of a person who has been persuaded by his possession of a minor official position into a sense of self-importance, often becoming obnoxious as a result.”  from World Wide Words http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-mug1.htm.

This term was introduced to our class in my 4th year Issues of United States History class. I felt after the number of board meetings I attended as a student and watch the voting of board members last year, that this term suited a number of them.  I hope you enjoyed reading this.

I will address the issue of campaigning.  There is email, facebook, and word of mouth as avenues to campaign. This is also alot better for the environment.  Also, all you have to do is look at the bulletin boards to realize that adding posters will only contribute to the cluttered look of the boards.  There is very little space on these boards and currently no one is designated to attend to these boards from LUSU.  With only 15 people running for 14 positions, I believe that is why people were less enthusiastic about campaigning.  For me, I would like to see the term for Board of Directors run parallel with the Executives in the spring.  I believe then the board can be more effective for the school academic year.

Finally, although I did not talk to you, I have attended a few of the centres to discuss issues.  As well, I spoke with someone in your office one evening and asked questions about the Argus - distribution and readership, funding and budget losses.  I also enjoyed dinner one evening at the Residence Cafe to see what the experience was like for students living in residence.  I never took the opportunities as photo ops, but did them in earnest to search out first hand information about issues I have heard students talk about.

It is always great hearing your point of view and thanks for listening to mine,

Louise Haukeness

Board of Directors

Lakehead should become Canada’s first naked university.

Robert Carty

Whether we like it or not we all must live in a world of constraints; in fact, this rule perhaps can be considered the fundamental constraint.  Some of these constraints we face are socially constructed like rules and regulations, while others still are imposed by the natural environment such as physical laws.  Most constraints have a clear function; however, others for one reason or another can serve to make life more difficult.  Constrains act upon individual behavior, cognitions and affections, while placing limitations on us psychologically and socially.

An example of a constraint that everyone must conform to due to both social and natural pressures is the wearing of clothes.  We wear clothes as a social norm in adherence or observation of cultural standards of decency, and also not to violate the law.  In this way it is a social convention, however, we also wear clothes due to environmental conditions that we require protection from such as intense heat, cold, light, rain, snow, and hail.  Clothes help our bodies maintain homeostasis and keep us alive and well.

It is not clear whether it was social construction or natural conditions that first led to the wearing of clothes, but it is clear that the clothes we wear are now more greatly influenced by social construction.  Clothing can be used to define our identities and may reflect social status, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, age race and countless other constraints that the social world places on our identities.

It is to liberate us from these constraining articles of identity formation that I propose that Lakehead University become the first ever naked university.  However, before continuing on this exposition let me assure you that this is not an idle fantasy generated by the base desires of a sexual deviant; I am merely a student of critical sociology.

Clothing is a technology that imposes often unattainable and unreasonable standards of beauty that may actually be male defined on individuals which can lead to various psychological pathologies such as low self-esteem.  It also individualizes and builds the ego, as every morning when we dress for school we must consider our social-self and take the place of the other when we consider if we are dressed appropriately.

Clothes also represent the repression of desire that post-modern critical theorists attribute to modern industrial hyper-capitalism. It’s not a coincidence that it was the production of cloth that ushered in the current mode of industrial production. When we consider the constraints modern capitalism places on us and prevents us from having healthy relationships with each other, perhaps the argument can be put most simply by saying:  if we weren’t so concerned with sexualized outer appearances and with seeing what we conceal inside our clothing, we could all concentrate more on what’s on the real inside.

It is for these reasons that I make this wholehearted appeal to our school’s administration that they take the first and most obvious step and immediately and without hesitation change the name of our university to Nakehead.

I had intended to let the controversy over the Professor X article play itself out on the pages of The Argus without any intervention on my part. But I have been compelled to respond by the anguish that many faculty, particularly some female faculty, have expressed.

Healthy debate is the underpinning of a university, whether that debate takes place on the floor of Senate, in the corridors, lecture halls or offices of the academy, or in the more public realm of the media. All are entitled, indeed encouraged, to articulate their views, without the fear of ridicule or other disparagement. Whether Professor X crossed any line is open to individual interpretation. The primary point is that all are entitled to express their opinions, one hopes in a respectful way, and that includes Professor X’s supporters and detractors. Often controversy is a vehicle to facilitate a meaningful, open sharing of thoughts and thus healthy debate.

Professor X has used his/her pen (or keyboard) to castigate me in the past and I always viewed it as his/her prerogative to do so. The combination of irony, humour and pointed jabs often makes for interesting, albeit sometimes controversial, reading. At the end of this discussion I hope that everyone casts aside the heat of the moment, considers what was said and what wasn’t (but inferred in some peoples’ minds), and then be thankful that we live in a society where everyone can express their views without fear of retribution. Lakehead University, as an important symbol of our society, must be a place where we value, indeed cherish, freedom of expression. The Argus, as an independent student newspaper, has been serving its role by reporting all opinions in this situation. I believe the editor has reasonably responded to the criticism surrounding publication of the piece. It is up to others to point out their particular issues with the content. Such is the role of debate in a democratic society.

Frederick F. Gilbert

President

Everything you need to know about Scotland’s greatest gift to mankind.

Andrew WC Brown

“I love scotch. Scotchy, scotch, scotch. Here it goes down, down into my belly‚” is Ron Burgundy’s opinion of the smokey drink. If that Anchorman’s opinion isn’t enough to convince you that this is a worthwhile experience you should indulge in, let me wet your whistle in a world you’re never imagined.

The basic rules for anything bearing the label of scotch, is that the drink must be distilled in Scotland, and have matured for at least three years and one day in oak casts, be at least 40% alcohol by volume, and other technically elaborate requirements. If you’re concerned about the legitimacy of your scotch, I strongly recommend asking your nearest internet search engine, as they are the best resource.

Much like wine, the region in which it is made identifies scotch. There are four regions: Highland, Lowland, Islay and Campbeltown. Scotch from Islay may have the strongest smell, scotch from the Lowland will generally be lighter, and scotch from the Highlands will be sweeter.

It is recommended you use an old fashion glass when serving scotch, so you can grip it firmly below and swirl it, like a true millionaire with a trouble past who sits in his study where no studying ever occurs but just the sound of faintly echoing unfulfilled childhood dreams.

We have two scotches to talk about today to bring you into the world that is well known by all the high and lowlanders (and log throwers). The first is the PEAT MONSTER (a favourite of Ed’s) distilled by Compass Box Whiskey Company. 46% alcohol by volume, you can pick this bottle up at your local LCBO for around $65 CAD. It’s a very, very smokey blended scotch.

If you’re new to scotch, you may be thrown off by its overwhelming audacity. When this beverage passes your nose, you’ll know its much stronger tasting than your average scotch, but experiencing this taste will assist your palette in knowing the distinction of a very strong scotch.

Our second selection of scotch is BOWMORE ISLAY Single Malt, which is my favourite. The title says it all for this scotch. It’s distilled by BOWMORE, on the island of Islay. It’s at 40% alcohol by volume and you can pick this bottle up at your local LCBO for around $55 CAD. It’s smooth, very well balanced and very rich in flavour. It’s a very safe choice and an enjoyable experience.

Whether you like Scotch or not, be respectful of the drink, and remember what Lt. Archie Hicox of Inglourious Basterds said: “There’s a special rung in hell reserved for people who waste good scotch.”

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to Professor X’s mean-spirited column of September 14. The Strategic Plan has obviously generated strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Regardless of one’s position, however, I would hope that all participants would recognize the right of others to express their point of view and fully participate in a debate such as this, which concerns the future direction of Lakehead. Both those in favour of and against the Strategic Plan are good people who care deeply about Lakehead and its students.

Rather than making a meaningful and productive intervention in the debate, however, Professor X makes demeaning, despicable, and sexist comments about a fellow faculty member, and casts unjustified aspersions on those who oppose the Strategic Plan, suggesting that they are simply a bunch of lazy, incompetent profs trying to preserve their perks and privileges. Nothing could be further from the truth, as many of those who have been most vocal in challenging the Strategic Plan are amongst the hardest-working faculty members that I’ve encountered in my time at Lakehead.

From what I have seen, moreover, on either side of the debate the focus has not been about preserving or restricting perks and privileges, those are matters for collective bargaining, but about the decision-making process, the balance between teaching and research, determining university priorities, and being financially responsible without making unacceptable pedagogical sacrifices, etc. These are important issues that deserve debate, not anonymous character assassination and juvenile drivel.

I am embarrassed to have Professor X as a colleague.

Yours,

Dr. Douglas Ivison

Department of English

Dear Ms. Cameron,

I am writing to express my concern about this week’s column by “Professor X” and in particular the The Argus’ decision to publish it. The column is, in the writer’s own words, a “rant.” It is also a fairly transparent attempt to sway student opinion on the proposed strategic plan by misrepresenting both the concerns expressed by faculty and students, and the nature of the discussion and vote at Senate.

Equally concerning to me is that the writer has chosen to do this by insulting, in a sexist and demeaning fashion, colleagues who do not agree with him/her. The stereotypes and language used — lazy, full figured,” cackling voices — are insulting to all of us and don’t belong in a publication associated with a university. And the fact that the writer encourages the reader to imagine how one of the women he/she disagrees with would look “should she fall from the fifth floor to the parking lot” is both chilling and sinister.

If the aim of column is to educate students about the importance of being engaged in the strategic planning process, a more useful way to do that would be encourage them to do a careful reading of the proposed plan, think about it and discuss it with their peers and colleagues and convey their informed opinions to the Strategic Planning Committee and their student representatives on Senate.

I would strongly suggest that The Argus either cancel Professor X’s column or insist that it actually be signed so that the writer cannot use his/her anonymity to misinform students and insult colleagues with impunity. This is standard protocol for most newspapers and should be adopted by The Argus.

Sincerely,

Pam Wakewich,

Professor, Sociology and Women’s Studies