Editor, the Gauntlet,
As a regular reader of the Gauntlet, I have been following the debate about the creation of a women's centre between Michael Jankovic and others. I would like to state that I am not for or against a women's centre. Rather, I understand the legitimate opinions of both sides.I do not think, however, that having or not having a women's centre is the real issue.
The real issue is discrimination on the part of the Students' Union. I am referring to the SU agreeing to a religious centre to be built on the third floor of Mac Hall, and their hesitance to agreeing to a women's centre.
I see no difference between the two. Both centres pose to have a special private place away from the general university public where people could feel safe to pray/talk.
As university students we pay fees to go towards the maintenance of such centres. I would much rather have my money go towards a women's centre than a religious centre, based purely on the fact that women make up 51 per cent of the population on campus.
I pose the SU this question: How can the SU say "yes" to a religious centre and even think to say "no" to a women's centre? You can either have both or have none. Having one without the other is discrimination.
Comments
"51 per cent of the population on campus" may be women, but in excess of 90 per cent have a religious affiliation.
Also, you are confused about the location of the future prayer space. It will likely be built in 3MSC when the Chaplain's Centre moves there.
I pose to you this question: How can you make such sweeping and inaccurate comments and criticize the SU for not responding to an issue you don't even understand. Bashing the SU for acting improperly when you do the same is hypocrisy.