Sai Kit Lo resigned from his position as vice-president internal for the Federation of Students on Wednesday February 7. A soft-spoken individual, his demeanour stands in striking contrast to the heated and often antagonistic controversy his time in office prompted among students. The latest crisis, emerging in little over a week, spilled onto internet forums like Facebook and left Lo at one point fearing for his physical safety. “Everyone’s very angry at me,” he told Imprint on Monday. “I almost expect someone to come up and punch me on campus.”
The critical issue arose from the Women’s Centre’s request to show The Vagina Monologues in the Great Hall. Vice-president internal (VPI) is an executive position that gave Lo, among other things, the responsibility of approving the venues campus clubs use for their events, so the decision to accept or turn down this application lay with him.
He stated that because the show features sexually explicit content and the Great Hall is a public place, he could not approve the Women’s Centre’s request. “While I have no problem with the show being shown in closed spaces like the multipurpose room or Bomber,” he explained, “I have an obligation to protect students, staff and their families from that kind of environment in a public setting.” Lo added that he fully supports the positive political messages of the show, citing those elements pertaining to women’s rights and promoting an end to violence against women as being very important messages.
Finding nothing in the Ontario Human Rights or Canadian Criminal Code to support Lo’s argument, and much to support the freedom of expression, the Feds Board of Directors overturned Lo’s decision on Tuesday, February 6. Kate Daley, arts councillor for Feds, added that the Feds council still has to deal with the issue. “When it was clear that the Human Rights Code would not be violated, Lo refused to reconsider his decision, and continued to publicize it on behalf of his office and the Federation, in person.” For this reason, she made a motion for censure to the Feds council later that night.
Lo resigned the next morning. “It’s not a problem if I’m overruled by the board; that happens,” he said. “But I would have had to represent that decision afterwards, and I cannot say something I strongly disagree with. So I resigned; I decided to stand by my decision.”
Reflections on Lo’s year in office
Asked how Feds felt about Lo’s resignation, acting president and vice-president Renjie Butalid said, “It’s unfortunate, but we believe we will be able to move forward with ongoing projects. Sai Kit has done a fair job and wish him the best of luck, wherever he may end up.”
Feds president Michelle Zakrison returns next week after the Feds elections conclude, at which point, the board of directors reconvenes to decide who will take over the position of VPI for the rest of the term.
While campaigning for re-election, Feds policy requires her not to pursue her duties as president, citing a possible conflict of interest. Until such a meeting can be arranged, Lo’s duties will be divided among remaining members, and another board member will step into his role. This will stretch the Feds’ resources a little thin, but Butalid is confident it will not greatly impact their quality.
As for Lo, he looked markedly more relaxed when Imprint met with him on Wednesday, February 7. “I feel very relieved now that I’ve resigned,” said Lo. “I’m only sorry about the things I didn’t get to finish.”
Lo referred especially to his latest project, a club awards system, that he hopes the next VPI will continue to pursue. “We have programs to award academic excellence,” he said, “but what about clubs and services, especially when they work so hard to create a sense of community on campus, and for no real reward?”
Of his work to date with Feds, Lo added that he felt he had his share of successes. “When the Tamil Association was being attacked in the media last September, I maintained close contact with them and supported them fully,” said Lo. “I have also lobbied with the administration about room bookings, because they used to not allow musical instruments being played in classrooms. Now there are compromises.”
Perhaps most interesting of Lo’s actions was the introduction of a freedom of expression motion to the council, opposing censorship after university administration expressed concern with students wearing fraternity letters during clubs day. “Some people have told me already that they will be sad to see me go,” said Lo. “And if someone is sad to see me go then, well, I must have done something right.”
A campus divided
But the concerns raised through this Vagina Monologues issue and Lo’s pursuant resignation are not so easily summarized. A tremendous sticking point lies in the taboo consideration of Lo’s personal beliefs, which many clearly believe have motivated his decisions since entering office.
In his post-election commentary last February, Imprint’s editor-in-chief, Tim Alamenciak, stated quite frankly of Lo’s victory: “When you’ve got the support of one of the larger (and more political) fraternities on campus and all the Christians — things definitely tend to go your way.”
Thereafter, however, the question of religion remained pointedly — reproachably — unvoiced. Even as critics made allusions to the personal biases they felt motivated Lo’s decisions, even as students disseminated concerns that Lo was making certain minority-issues groups on campus uncomfortable with any mention of prayer and repenting, even as general gossip grew saturated with stories of Lo purposely setting obstacles for clubs supporting student issues Lo did not personally endorse, no one dared to throw the question of religion directly into the arena — to address it, in other words, in a public forum. Lo attributes a general polarization of the student body and government, and a consequent loss of student confidence in Feds efficiency, to this lack of open dialogue.
“I think a lot of people are suspicious because I’m a Christian,” said Lo. “But because I’m a Christian doesn’t mean I’m against The Vagina Monologues or the feminist movement in general; however, because I’m Christian, people should expect me to be upfront about what I agree and disagree with. If I use my authority to push a secret agenda, or even to have a secret agenda, that would be contrary to everything I believe.”
Lo added that there are many Christian clubs on campus, each with a diverse representation of Christian denominations. “It’s interesting,” he said. “Christians at this university don’t get together on the basis of what their denomination is or isn’t, but what their personal interests are, just like anyone else.” As for his personal relationship with religion, Lo explained: “I feel I’m a sinner, so I focus on what I can do to improve myself. I don’t have time to judge others.”
Lo expressed an especial concern that his decision regarding The Vagina Monologues would reinforce stereotypes about what a Christian is.
“I know many people may see me as the embodiment of the obstacle they’re trying to get rid of, but I really hope they won’t continue to feel that way. [The Vagina Monologues issue] was not a simple decision; there were many factors, and I want people to know that I have no secret agenda to go against what the Women’s Centre is trying to accomplish.”
More questions than answers
In the case of The Vagina Monologues, UW’s Policy 33, on ethical behaviour, refers under section two to “a ‘poisoned environment’ (or one that is intimidating, hostile or offensive).” The document further states that such an environment “can be created based on any of the prohibited grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and can be described as comment or conduct that is contrary to the aims of maintaining a supportive, respectful and tolerant environment.”
The differing viewpoints that arose from The Vagina Monologues issue are especially difficult when one considers this latter phrase, “respectful and tolerant” (emphasis added), which can prove pointedly contradictory in practice.
Respecting the diversity of student life, and its inclusion of family units, would here imply intolerance for women’s issues, whereas tolerance for the expression of all content, under the understanding that in today’s world the personal is often political, would preclude respecting that the Great Hall is a public space often frequented by children and others who might be intimidated by such sexual content.
But the controversy extends further. As VPI, Lo ultimately measured his decisions by whether they felt legally just to him, and whether they reflected the majority of student interests, as he interpreted those to be. In the end, he did what he felt was right — which is all that can be asked, perhaps, of anyone.
The question thus remains: Will the rest of the student body do the same? Social fears about the intersection of church and state have only heightened in recent years, but to reflect this fear solely on those in charge ignores personal responsibility. The student body voted Lo in last February, and thereafter only indirectly expressed fears about whether or not Lo could be trusted to separate personal belief from public duty.
If anything can be learned from the case of Sai Kit Lo, who never made an effort to hide who he was from the student body, it is that students must vote with more consideration in the upcoming election.
They must then follow up that civic duty with more honest and straightforward public discussion — the kind that holds our representatives immediately accountable, which allows them to respond directly to student concerns and which thus eliminates any room for a culture of fear and intolerance towards anyone in the University of Waterloo.
; "Image")
; "Image")
; "Image")
; "Image")
