Positive space, Carl Pollock Hall, and the Imprint office
For a few years there's been a conflict between the University of Waterloo administration, Feds, and GLOW about the positive space campaign. Feds (and GLOW, obviously) are in favour of a queer positive space program, while the UW administration has been against it. The UW's administration's argument has been "If we denote certain places as positive space, that implies there is negative space."
A lot of queer folk have described the university's stance as "ignorant". I remember in particular Andrew Falcao ranting about how "ignorant" the administration was, that it was "ignorant" of them to not adopt a positive space policy. But Falcao, and everyone else so far, has failed to describe why the university's stance is ignorant. Maybe someone will do better in the comments.
But so far, I have to concede that the administration has a point. I personally am uncomfortable designating certain areas as being "for" rights which should exist everywhere. That's why I'm against "free speech zones". (There are differences between "positive space" and "free speech zones", but fewer than you might initially think.)
So I thought the university stance was logically consistent. Until I saw a sign yesterday in Carl Pollock Hall, just outside the engineering C&D.
Text of the plaque:
Zero Tolerance - A faculty of engineering policy
It is the intention of the faculty of engineering to provide an academic and work environment that is free from any form of discrimination, including harassment, that that respects the dignity, self-worth, and human rights of every individual.
Engineering is a profession that is built on foundations of ingenuity, integrity, cooperation and professionalism. It follows therefore, that equal treatment of peers, faculty, staff and students is expected of all our constituents.
Confirmed instances of harassment are subject to disciplinary action.
The sign raised two questions with me.
One day in the summer of 2009, openly-gay Imprint staffer Travis Myers was upset. I don't recall what in particular made him upset, but he was furious about something. It was definitely a gay rights issue - I've never seen him so passionate as when gay rights were at stake.
Anyway, Travis' furor compelled him to print out a "positive space" poster and stick it to the Imprint door. Complete with inverted rainbow triangle and everything.
As editor-in-chief at the time, I could have stopped him. Or taken it down after he left. But I did neither. This post might have given you the impression that I'm against the positive space campaign outright, but that's not true. I'm staunchly pro-freedom of expression, and firmly believe someone shouldn't get different treatment based on who or how they like to screw. But I do have some academic problems with the current incarnation of the "positive space" campaign. On the balance, when it comes to this specific campaign, I just don't care strongly either way.
So I left the sign there. Even though I was nominally in charge of that office, I wasn't going to interfere with the sign either way. It was an experiment for me.
The sign was mentioned at a Board of Directors meeting shortly thereafter. One of the board members at the time (the openly gay one, incidentally) expressed concern that the "positive space" sign would earn the ire of the UW administration, given their stance on the campaign. But I wasn't worried about that. The Student Life Centre (the building which houses the Imprint office) was built with student money. It's not under the same administrative thumb as nearly every other building on campus.
Do you know what happened? The sign stayed up for months, and nobody mentioned anything about it to me. Sure, Travis brought up that he posted it a few times. But nobody ever walked into the office and complained about or commended the positive space sign. It might have coloured a few people's opinions as they walked in, but it never came up in discussion with me.
I suppose the moral of the story is, "nobody pays attention to signs". So maybe that sign in Carl Pollock Hall is irrelevant anyway.
It'd be hilarious if the sign was still posted on the Imprint office door. Which is why I'm sad to report it's not. I don't know who took it down or when, but there was no positive space sign on the door yesterday.
My main problem with the positive space campaign is it becomes untenable if every group follows suit. What if next year, the Canadian Islamic Congress launches its own "positive space" campaign, with signs declaring that women won't be asked to remove their Niqāb in the designated spaces, for example. Taken to silly but plausible extremes, any given person has to check the local signage to see who their current location is positive for. "Okay, this is queer positive space. And it's Islamic positive space. I'm good here if I'm vegan, I'm Asian, or if I'm a Jew. And there's the sign that says I'm okay if I'm a geek. Crap, there's nothing about a person who voted conservative in the last election. I'm probably unwelcome here."
A lot of queer folk have described the university's stance as "ignorant". I remember in particular Andrew Falcao ranting about how "ignorant" the administration was, that it was "ignorant" of them to not adopt a positive space policy. But Falcao, and everyone else so far, has failed to describe why the university's stance is ignorant. Maybe someone will do better in the comments.
But so far, I have to concede that the administration has a point. I personally am uncomfortable designating certain areas as being "for" rights which should exist everywhere. That's why I'm against "free speech zones". (There are differences between "positive space" and "free speech zones", but fewer than you might initially think.)
So I thought the university stance was logically consistent. Until I saw a sign yesterday in Carl Pollock Hall, just outside the engineering C&D.
Text of the plaque:
Zero Tolerance - A faculty of engineering policy
It is the intention of the faculty of engineering to provide an academic and work environment that is free from any form of discrimination, including harassment, that that respects the dignity, self-worth, and human rights of every individual.
Engineering is a profession that is built on foundations of ingenuity, integrity, cooperation and professionalism. It follows therefore, that equal treatment of peers, faculty, staff and students is expected of all our constituents.
Confirmed instances of harassment are subject to disciplinary action.
The sign raised two questions with me.
- Would this pass muster as designating the area as queer "positive space"? If anything, saying no discrimination of any kind is allowed is more inclusive than singling out one group for freedom from discrimination. Surely the message of anti-discrimination is the important part of the positive space campaign, and not the queer branding … right?
- Truth be told, the sign offends me a little. Why are the engineers being held to a higher standard? That's special treatment, and that's discriminatory. I resent that the University of Waterloo thinks less of me because I chose to be a science student, not an engineer.
One day in the summer of 2009, openly-gay Imprint staffer Travis Myers was upset. I don't recall what in particular made him upset, but he was furious about something. It was definitely a gay rights issue - I've never seen him so passionate as when gay rights were at stake.
Anyway, Travis' furor compelled him to print out a "positive space" poster and stick it to the Imprint door. Complete with inverted rainbow triangle and everything.
As editor-in-chief at the time, I could have stopped him. Or taken it down after he left. But I did neither. This post might have given you the impression that I'm against the positive space campaign outright, but that's not true. I'm staunchly pro-freedom of expression, and firmly believe someone shouldn't get different treatment based on who or how they like to screw. But I do have some academic problems with the current incarnation of the "positive space" campaign. On the balance, when it comes to this specific campaign, I just don't care strongly either way.
So I left the sign there. Even though I was nominally in charge of that office, I wasn't going to interfere with the sign either way. It was an experiment for me.
The sign was mentioned at a Board of Directors meeting shortly thereafter. One of the board members at the time (the openly gay one, incidentally) expressed concern that the "positive space" sign would earn the ire of the UW administration, given their stance on the campaign. But I wasn't worried about that. The Student Life Centre (the building which houses the Imprint office) was built with student money. It's not under the same administrative thumb as nearly every other building on campus.
Do you know what happened? The sign stayed up for months, and nobody mentioned anything about it to me. Sure, Travis brought up that he posted it a few times. But nobody ever walked into the office and complained about or commended the positive space sign. It might have coloured a few people's opinions as they walked in, but it never came up in discussion with me.
I suppose the moral of the story is, "nobody pays attention to signs". So maybe that sign in Carl Pollock Hall is irrelevant anyway.
It'd be hilarious if the sign was still posted on the Imprint office door. Which is why I'm sad to report it's not. I don't know who took it down or when, but there was no positive space sign on the door yesterday.
My main problem with the positive space campaign is it becomes untenable if every group follows suit. What if next year, the Canadian Islamic Congress launches its own "positive space" campaign, with signs declaring that women won't be asked to remove their Niqāb in the designated spaces, for example. Taken to silly but plausible extremes, any given person has to check the local signage to see who their current location is positive for. "Okay, this is queer positive space. And it's Islamic positive space. I'm good here if I'm vegan, I'm Asian, or if I'm a Jew. And there's the sign that says I'm okay if I'm a geek. Crap, there's nothing about a person who voted conservative in the last election. I'm probably unwelcome here."