Student outrage at Senate's Women's Studies cut

Wednesday, April 8, 2009


Written by Andrew Garvie

Last night, April 7, the UofG's Senate voted to put the final nail in the coffin of the Women's Studies program, despite massive student opposition from the visitor's gallery. The vote from the Senate floor was approximately 60/40 against a motion that would have saved the program for another year and allowed for time to reevaluate the BUGS decision for its elimination. The motion was shot down right at the tail end of a marathon four hour senate meeting where a similar motion to save the Organic Agriculture program had been passed just an hour before. Immediately after the votes were counted the meeting erupted with shouts from the students, faculty and community members in the gallery.

The move to eliminate the Women's Studies program has met with unprecedented student opposition and accompanied by calls from across the country addressing the University of Guelph's administration to retract their support for the removal of the program. There has also been solidarity rallies held in Peterborough and as far away as Winnipeg ( video ). Students and faculty spoke passionately in support of the program but the majority of the Senate's membership were not swayed.

Many students were felt that a clear reason for the elimination of Women's Studies has not been made. Originally the UofG's administration cited financial concerns and pointed to the 16 million dollar deficit that they are running heading into an economic crisis. President Summerlee began last nights meeting with a preamble citing the unfortunate economic circumstances the University was in and the need to make hard decisions. However this was not the central reason given last night for the cut. When it was widely reported that the proposed cut would only end up saving .17% of the overall deficit, many students felt that the University changed its approach. Now the administration and the Dean in charge of Women's Studies is pointing to a stagnation of the program's curriculum, low-enrollment and a lack of clarity of its future after consultation with its faculty. Faculty in the visitor's gallery last night made it clear that they did not feel that there was meaningful consultation. There were meetings where the future of the program were discussed and where several possibilities of changes to the curriculum were made but it was not understood by the attendees of those meetings that a lack of concrete decisions would result in the elimination of the program.

Many voices from the gallery expressed a view that the UofG was being dishonest in portraying itself as a progressive institution where environmental concerns and issues of social justice are central to its mandate. They saw the cuts as a move away from programs committed to sustainable agriculture and programs committed to providing an academic forum for discussions surrounding racism, sexism and homophobia. The general attitude was that low-enrollment was not a sufficient determinate of a program's worth and that even if it was, both programs have a chance to grow in the future. Organic Agriculture was saved using arguments that the program would serve an up-and-coming industry dedicated to solving the planet's most urgent environmental problems. Apparently the argument that Women's Studies enrollment would grow due to the fact that more and more high schools are offering Women's Studies classes for the first time did not go over as well with Senate members.

The administration was not the only target of the student's disgust last night. Many felt particularly betrayed by their representatives who ended up voting against the motions to save Women's Studies. Both the incoming and outgoing CSA Academic Commissioners, Nathan Lachowsky and Christi Garneau-Scott, decided to vote against the CSA's Board of Directors decision to oppose the elimination of Women's Studies. This was in spite of the fact that CSA bylaws state that Executives are bound to take direction from the Board and that the Board had specifically directed the Academic Commissioner to vote in favor of continuing Women's Studies. Also, previous Board meetings had already censured Garneau-Scott for not following through on a decision where she was to lead the Executive in writing a condemnation of the proposed cuts. It seems that although students used their speaking rights as observers of last night's meeting, not all of their representatives on the floor could be counted on to present their opinions and vote accordingly.

Organizers of the campaign to "Save Women's Studies" have vowed to explore other avenues to continue the fight and "the Cut the Cuts" campaign will undoubtedly continue to remain relevant as the economic crisis shows little evidence of letting up and more cuts are planned.

For more info on these issues check out a recent article in Western's student press here

For pictures of April 7th's happenings click here

| More


Back to Top
  1. Posted by: Sarah Lewis on Apr 9, 2009 @ 8:50am

    First of all, the fact that the program has so few students in it (20?!) is an indication of i) its popularity; ii) it's awareness (of lack of rather) - both suggesting it's not an integral part of the school's programs.

    What drives someone to pursue "women's studies" anyway? Isn't today's world about equal opportunity and reducing gender issues? I only see this kind of study as further promoting gender segregation and unnecessary focus on female/male differences.

    If there's a Women's studies program, then why isn't there also a Men's studies program as well? Having just the one and not the other seems to be advocating gender differences as something that is okay and acceptable, when really it should be.

  2. Posted by: George on Apr 9, 2009 @ 9:11am

    Good for the incoming and outgoing Academic Commissioners, vote how you want. You’ve been elected to exercise your free vote, the CSA Board can be a bunch of quacks anyway.

    Now that Women’s Studies program is gone, hopefully we can stop hearing all the complaining about it. And those that feel the university is so “unjust” in their approach, there’s a simple solution, go to a university that serves your purpose better.

  3. Posted by: a feminist on Apr 9, 2009 @ 9:33am

    There is a Men's Studies program. It's EVERY OTHER DISCIPLINE. White male history and discovery is the central component of every discipline. There are some that have a greater focus on women and minorities, absolutely, but not one speaks about their experience in the universal way that the white male perspective is used. Today's world is NOT about equality. Today's world is still very much unequal, as evidenced by racial profiling, wage gaps, sexual violence, the criminalization of poverty, and so much more. And for those reasons and many more, people study Women's Studies.

    And to the second comment, the "complaining" has only just begun.

  4. Posted by: just a thought on Apr 9, 2009 @ 10:52am

    I understand the reasons for Women's Studies and Im sad to say that I only thought like it said "women" when it does deal with other social issues in society. I think that another name rather than "women studies" should have been used to create a more larger recruitment of students into the program. Maybe that is what the answer is to change the name to create a larger enrollment for more money for the university than deleting a course that touches on the realities of the world.

  5. Posted by: sad on Apr 9, 2009 @ 12:55pm

    im sad we lost classical studies as well :(
    beautiful languages of old...my boyfriend was trying to do a minor and now...he cant >:(

  6. Posted by: fail on Apr 9, 2009 @ 3:18pm

    "You’ve been elected to exercise your free vote"
    Governance FAIL.

    Yeah, yeah - good for the academic commissioners. When you're listening to an uninformed moron like George, you know you're a star!

    George, do you EVER feel like learning what you're talking about before shooting your mouth off?

  7. Posted by: itshardtopost on Apr 9, 2009 @ 5:31pm


    I don't see what's wrong with his point. They were elected to BUGS as individuals, not as CSA mouthpieces.

    How would you feel if they were bound by a BUGS vote to affect CSA policy in a certain way? Wouldn't be so great then, would it?

    PS, which one of the CSA exec are you anyways?

  8. Posted by: Sarah Lewis on Apr 9, 2009 @ 8:16pm

    reply to "a feminist""...

    I would have to disagree with your statement that every other discipline is a "Men's Studies" program.

    While it may be true that many scientific discoveries have been made by men, the courses that teach them are not exactly focusing on the aspect of WHO discovered it, but rather that it was a great discovery. There are many female scientists as well - they are credited justly for their contributions to advancements in their respective fields.

    The things is, since many more contributions have come from male individuals it just feels like we're only exposed to them when in fact it's due to the fact that there is such a greater number - credit is given where it is due though, regardless of gender.

  9. Posted by: Dear Sarah, on Apr 9, 2009 @ 9:11pm

    Why have many more contributions come from male individuals?

  10. Posted by: fail on Apr 9, 2009 @ 10:09pm

    "They were elected to BUGS as individuals, not as CSA mouthpieces."
    Stakeholder FAIL

    Try looking up the BUGS membership roster sometime.

  11. Posted by: itshardtopost on Apr 9, 2009 @ 10:40pm


    Just did, and I will freely and fully admit I was wrong. Turns out Garneau-Scott is there as a representative of the CSA.

  12. Posted by: Sarah Lewis on Apr 9, 2009 @ 10:44pm

    What is the question you're asking? How do you even know the gender of these people since none of them use their names..

  13. Posted by: John L on Apr 10, 2009 @ 4:27pm


    If all the other courses, other than Women's Studies, are "Men's Studies" does that mean that the vast majority of female students not majoring in Women's Studies are simply too stupid to see it? It strikes me that's a profoundly arrogant attitude; only those who advocate for Women's Studies are able to understand how vital it is!?
    Looks more like a hangout for those who feel intellectually superior to just about everyone else on campus. That sort of smarmy self-righteouness doesn't do a lot to gain support for the "cause".

  14. Posted by: Jas on Apr 10, 2009 @ 5:15pm

    I agree with "Sarah Lewis" that if this world is supposed to be an "equal" place, something like Women Studies shouldn't even exist.

    Whats even more stupid is that feminists think that this cut is to deny education to women, when its not. Its because its too costly. Organic Agriculture is only offered in Guelph, so continuation of it makes more sense. If you really want to take Women Studies, you can acquire it online via other Universities.

  15. Posted by: dear feminist on Apr 10, 2009 @ 7:50pm

    Can you please define what "white male perspective" is?


  16. Posted by: a REALISTIC feminist on Apr 10, 2009 @ 9:08pm

    I think this vote was completely just. The board is supposed to vote on what they feel is best and I would agree that they did. The women's study's department didn't even have a single tenured faculty and didn't really have much of a reputation as a reputable program. It's too bad to loose any program but its a fiscally responsible thing to do and completely justified and I commend their decision, it's nice to know that they can make the right decision without being swayed by uneducated propaganda. Also I would love to see a men's studies class or maybe african american women's studies class or even a minority leaders class, I would take that.

  17. Posted by: saddened on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:02am

    Originally when news broke out about cutting Women's Studies I was genuinely disappointed over that plan, much to the difference of my close friends. Any addition we can make to the university programming is a good addition regardless of the subject, but Women's Studies also has special sentimental worth. Then I saw the facebook group and how much hate and finger pointing there was directed towards the university, and later when things looked bleak, to society being too male-dominated to allow Women's Studies. At this point the argument turned into a "us against them" crusade and I got turned off from it and stopped giving my support.

    How come you never tried to form a union with people from the other majors/courses that were cut that night? They're just as important too. You would have majorly improved your numbers, increased your weight and maybe even swung the vote.

  18. Posted by: saddened pt. 2 on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:03am

    How come when I read in the Ontarion yesterday that only 3 people attended 2 seperate meetings each by the Dean of Arts when the initial planning took place? You had the ear of the Dean in a casual meeting and you didn't take advantage of it? Talk about dropping the ball. There were certainly more than 6 people in favour of keeping Women's Studies at the Senate meeting, hundreds more at the rally.

    Worst of all, the next morning a person from the Women's Studies major made an internet post about getting over it, to which another Women's Studies major replied saying they were a disgrace and that the university shouldn't let them obtain their degree. I hope that made you feel better, pointing fingers at your own when there's no one left to point fingers at. It's a shame Women's Studies was cut but at the same time I'm not surprised it did.

  19. Posted by: on Apr 11, 2009 @ 12:31pm

    i heard a theory once that explained why women get paid less than men and it was because of the liberation of women and their rights.

    in the 1970s, women made huge progress in terms of their rights. this included joining the workforce. when women were 'able' to join the workforce this effectively doubled the labor force while the number of jobs remained the same. twice as many workers chasing the same amount of jobs led to wages falling. hence, women and men would now face lower wages. i suppose, in a small way, this remains true still today and is just one of the reasons women get paid less (if you compare salaries going back several generations).

    p.s. a question for everybody: do you feel slighted by your CSA yet? hahaha! oh, student government! the jokes on you, the students.

  20. Posted by: sick of people not doing research before they say shit on Apr 11, 2009 @ 12:52pm

    I love how people keep on defaulting to 'it was a financial decision' when it was clearly stated at the Senate meeting that it wasn't. And BUGS CAN'T make financial decisions.

    And also, saddened (pts 1 and 2); the women's studies folks allied with the organic agriculture folks. So yes, they did form a union with other programs that were being cut. They also allied with CUPE.

    And who else should they be targeting if not the university/senate? I'm kind of unsure of who else had made the decision to first put forward the proposal to cut those programs, as well approve the cuts...

    Finally; with regards to the 2 separate meetings, I heard on a CFRU show from someone who was a women's studies major that the meetings were held at inaccessible times, with short notice.

    I really do suggest that anyone who is at all interested in understanding how Senate meetings are facilitated in order to silence any opposition or criticism should seek out the CFRU archives for the RADIOPIRG show from last thursday, from 12-1:30 pm.

  21. Posted by: and you call yourself a realistic feminist... on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:20pm

    you clearly do not know what feminism is. also you should do some proper research before you make posts.
    Women’s Studies has been chronically underfunded. The program began in 1979 but did not receive stable funding for more than twenty years. In 2007, Women’s Studies received a favourable report from an external review committee. That report indicated that the program was under-resourced, and that the administration refused to provide additional resources.
    The only reason you could say Women's studies isn't a reputable program is because the university never gave it a chance.
    The fact is, our president is making more than Barack Obama, and $100,000 more than our prime minister, yet he is cutting our education and raising our tuition.
    The reason no students were in the meetings is because no one knew about them. That is for the same reason the meetings about raising tuition are held in the summer. The administration does the best they can to shut the students out of the decisions that affect us.

  22. Posted by: and you call yourself a realistic feminist...pt 2 on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:21pm

    And the fact that you all ask for a men's study just proves how ignorant students can be without women's studies. Every other course is taught in a male perspective and to deny that is just naive. Without the feminists, and women's movements you learn about in women's studies, none of the female students at Guelph would even be in a university. You wouldn't even have the right to vote as a woman.
    Also, the fact you think more men made contributions to inventions and discovers is just bullshit. If women weren't allowed to have the education that men had, then of course men would be making the discoveries.
    shame on all of you who don't have student solidarity and who think the fight for gender equality is over.

  23. Posted by: cutting women's studies has nothing to do with money on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:27pm

    Cutting women's studies was estimated to save $78,000 dollars. This is less than 0.17% of how much actually needs to be saved...close to nothing. Also, since women's students one half of a faculty member's salary is 60% paid for by the history deparment, and 40% paid for by women's studies, the rest would be paid for by history which cuts the cost down another $40,000.
    This means saving women's studies would cost $38,000. still seem like a lot?
    well the page long advertisement in the globe and mail for the university costed almost $46,000. Our president got a $90,000 dollar raise making his anual salary over $400,000. Over 400 faculty members make more than $100,000.
    Where are the school's real priorities - your education... or their salaries?

  24. Posted by: men's studies on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:36pm

    think about the history class you took in high school... learn anything about women's history there?
    i think not... we learned about white european male history.
    could you name one revolutionary woman who fought for women to have the same rights as men?
    this is why we need women's studies...

  25. Posted by: KNOW YOUR FACTS on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:43pm

    To Sarah Lewis and Jas: I do agree with you that in the science courses that I have taken “are not exactly focusing on the aspect of WHO discovered it, but rather that it was a great discovery.” But, would you like to know why men have more scientific contributions then women? It is because women were not allowed to receive a higher level of education; similar to that you are receiving now. Even when some women were strong enough to oppose men and with great struggle were allowed to learn and possibly practice and research, their discoveries were not taken into account.

  26. Posted by: KNOW YOUR FACTS on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:43pm

    Barbra McClintock is a perfect example of this. Not only did she understand DNA and how it works better then anyone of her time. She discovered “jumping genes” in the 1940s. Her discoveries however were not “credited” until 40 YEARS LATER. After Watson and Crick, two MALE scientists “discovered the DNA double helix” They received their Nobel Prize in 1962, and only after “men discovered DNA” were Barbra McClintock’s discovery “credited” in 1983 by receiving a Nobel Prize.

  27. Posted by: KNOW YOUR FACTS on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:44pm

    Jas: in the BUGS meeting Women’s studies was addressed as a separate issue because as we all know, it is a separate issue. Women’s studies was described as an “impasse” which is defined as: a point at which no further progress can be made or agreement reached.

    This clearly states that the cutting of woman’s studies (which saves less then 0.17%) was not a financial issue. If you think the fact that 1 of 3 women are sexually assaulted (by men) before the age of 18 has no relevance to the inequality of men and women, that women’s studies, and feminism, that gender equality and tolerance are NOT issues. Then you are mistaken, and you need to take a women’s studies course to see beyond you own ignorance. Women studies should be implemented in all schools all universities, to evoke change and awareness and tolerance, which I’m hoping I will do by posing this.

  28. Posted by: KNOW YOUR FACTS on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:45pm

    To “Not my CSA” did you know that pediatricians get paid less, because it’s a female dominated job? That bank tellers started to get paid less when women started working there? I don’t think that has anything to do with having “twice as many workers chasing the same amount of jobs leading to wages falling”. If that were true, we would equally get paid less, not men more.

    I’m sorry if I came off as angry in any of my posts, and I agree with “saddened” that there should be more unity in the students, as well with the faculty. It’s hard not to point fingers when there is such a lack of communication between these people making all the decisions and the students, the people for which the decisions are being made for. Its also hard to think these people are doing their jobs correctly, when we have our tuition raised ever year along with all their salaries, which btw, Alister is making close to 500 000 a year.

  29. Posted by: to jas on Apr 11, 2009 @ 2:56pm

    "If you really want to take Women Studies, you can acquire it online via other Universities."

    that is the worst solution i've ever heard.
    that's like saying...sorry university of guelph is a racist school.. if you don't like it.. you can go somewhere else...

    please please please use logic before you post, i actually feel bad for you.

  30. Posted by: to jas on Apr 11, 2009 @ 4:35pm

    sorry i was angry...

    i realize now why you might think you could just take a course somewhere else. the thing this ignores is accessibility. not everyone has the money or the ability to just go to another school. this might be the simplest solution for you, but i can assure you that it is not for everyone.
    imagine if someone said that about your program. women's studies is fundamental. in my opinion its like saying, if you want medical care you can just go to another province. it needs to be at university of guelph just like accessible medical care needs to be in guelph as well.
    i hope you can understand that better than my last analogy.
    the fact that the women of guelph still do not have the choice over their own reproductive systems just shows how much we still need progressive programs like women's studies. university of guelph would be at a great loss to not offer this program any longer.

  31. Posted by: itshardtopost on Apr 11, 2009 @ 5:04pm

    "the fact that the women of guelph still do not have the choice over their own reproductive systems"


  32. Posted by: Sabastian on Apr 11, 2009 @ 5:14pm

    Perhaps there's "no choice over their own reproductive system" because one side of the argument is constantly being censored...

    Either that, or they are being forced to make one decision over another (but I don't know how seeing as how I believe in free will and the like...)

  33. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 11, 2009 @ 5:57pm

    re: know the facts

    i sorry, but i'm having trouble understanding your syntax. it must be because i'm male, didn't take women's studies, and can't relate to their eternal struggle.

    i'm not saying it's good thing women get paid less than men. i'm just trying to understand why it is that way. what i mentioned above was a theory i heard, not a proven fact. and i was careful to choose those very words.

    another theory is that in some jobs women get paid even MORE than men! i also wonder, if women do the same work for less money, why not hire all women on staff and save money? i think these days if a woman wants to earn the same as a man she can. she just has to negotiate the same terms and conditions.

  34. Posted by: to not my csa on Apr 11, 2009 @ 6:06pm

    women do do the same work for less money, but that doesn't mean it is ok...
    what this means is that there is still inequality... and a need for women's studies

    "she just has to negotiate the same terms and conditions."
    try being a woman and "negotiate" with someone who is sexist. you say "she just has to" as if this is a fact, but this is an assumption (a horribly wrong one at that).
    and therefore... "know your facts" should dismiss you all together.

    and to "itshardtopost"
    reproductive choice is referring to abortion.. in which there is no accessibility to abortion clinics in guelph...but this raises another controversial issue altogether. this issue is brought up in women's studies though... maybe you should all take the course before you can so easily say it should be cut.

  35. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 11, 2009 @ 6:13pm

    just to add...

    not only CAN a woman earn the same as a man if she wants to, but i expect that in 99.9% of the cases, on average, she DOES earn the same as a man (or more), provided you control all the key variables.

  36. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 11, 2009 @ 6:28pm

    re: to not my csa

    if a woman can't even negotiate with her boss the terms and conditions equal to her male counterpart, perhaps that's an indication of something.

    most bosses i know aren't blatantly sexist. if they are then sue their ass! bosses can be female, too, by the way! i suppose female bosses deliberately pay their female employees less, too, huh?

    but, anyway, my point is that jobs that do exhibit pay discrimination are probably just as accommodating when it comes to negotiating fair deals as the next one. there does, after all, exist that possibility of litigation which most firms work hard to avoid. and, i assume, most jobs offer standard salaries based on the position before hand anyway.

    finally, the fact that you have to stand up for 'know your facts' by telling her that she (at least i assume it's a she) should dismiss me altogether shows that you, yourself, are discriminating against her. do you believe she's weak and needs to be told what to do?!

  37. Posted by: to not my csa on Apr 11, 2009 @ 6:41pm

    "but i expect that in 99.9% of the cases, on average, she DOES earn the same as a man (or more), provided you control all the key variables."
    again you say "i expect" which is not fact. if you can't back up any of your arguments with true fact... then they are worthless.
    even try google searching... you'll find lots of information about how women make up more than half the worlds population, do 2/3s of the work, and get paid less than 10% of the worlds income.
    seriously... KNOW YOUR FACTS if you're going to speak.. you keep making yourself look more and more unintelligent.
    and by assuming the person who is weak is a female... you are being sexist, not me. I said they should not even reply to you because you DON'T know your facts.. and their name implies that you must.
    again you have put your own foot in your mouth.

  38. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 11, 2009 @ 6:47pm

    re: to not my csa

    in addition (again), i never said it was [okay for women to get paid less for the same work].

    three posts ago, i said "i'm not saying it's good thing women get paid less than men". in what part of that do i say it IS okay for women to get paid less for the same work?

    you then go on to say, "what this means is that there is still inequality... and a need for women's studies".

    however, is there still inequality and a need for women's studies, or, is there still women's studies and a need (i.e. a reason) for inequality? we don't offer black history as a program either, but i'd say black people are discriminated against even more than women these days. where's the campaign to defend them? and, frankly, i get the impression you're just looking for a fight.

    finally, if you have issue with my choice to use the words, "she just has to" negotiate... then you can substitute them for "she has every right to" negotiate... either way, stop splitting hairs and wasting my time having to defend myself.

  39. Posted by: to not my csa on Apr 11, 2009 @ 6:59pm

    actually women's studies also looks at the problem with bourgeois feminism and then teaches many theories of black women's movements aswell. you learn about black feminists such as bell hooks and audre lorde who critic other white feminists.
    i agree there should be more in our education system for black history, but that in no way means there shouldn't be women's studies then... this is a different issue. i would easily also argue that native studies should be mandatory in high school... again has nothing to do with cutting women's studies.

    one more thing... women's movements are not just women's fighting for equal rights... they are people fighting for equal rights. but women ARE the largest minority of the world.
    you can quote stephen lewis on that one.

    i'm not looking for an argument, i'm simply giving the proper facts so people who read this can have everything they need to understand the issue

  40. Posted by: KNOW YOUR FACTS on Apr 11, 2009 @ 7:13pm

    First I’d like to say, that if you ever noticed in the work force, your pay rate is a hush hush issue. Not discussed. Many women could be making less then their male equals and not even know it. How then, do you expect a woman to negotiate with their boss if they don’t even know there is inequality?

    For instance, my mom is a pharmacy technician, a field which is dominated by women. She worked for two males and did more for that company then any other technician there. She implemented new programs that brought in a great deal of money, and was continuously promised she would receive a raise or a percent of the money earned. As the months went by, there was still no mention of a raise, she, being brave, continuously asked her bosses about what they had promised. Finally after months with no change, and constant questioning of her money, they casually mentioned to her that she is easily replaceable. There are so many other women pharmacy technicians that will do her job with out complaining, and that if she wanted her job, she should just be quiet.

  41. Posted by: KNOW YOUR FACTS on Apr 11, 2009 @ 7:14pm

    Obviously this was said in a much nicer way, so they would not get into trouble. So she finally quit.

    This is the reason it’s not that easy to just negotiate with your boss for more money, if you do, you run the risk of being fired. And not everyone has the money to hire lawyers to sue their boss. And even if they do, you run the risk of not getting another job, due to your behavior with your previous boss.

    Also I can speak for myself, I am not weak and I do not need to be told what to do. I never got that impression form “to not my CSA” I just felt that they had the same views as me. And as I SHOULD be studying right now, I was relieved they had said the things I wanted to, so I don’t have to waste more time. However, I did get that impression from you, as you said those words. Assuming I am a woman is very sexist of you, and assuming women are weak is even worse. If you want people to “stop splitting your hairs” try not stating facts that are not true, and not being oppressive in any sort of sexist, homophobic, racist, anti-ablest, classist, ageist, or any other way.

  42. Posted by: John L on Apr 11, 2009 @ 7:17pm

    As has already been pointed out Women's Studies is only one of several programs being cut so the issue isn't particularly about how much, or little, will be saved by cutting it, rather the issue is how much will be saved by the cuts in total. Now we're in the millions.

    On the issue of it being "underfunded" that looks like a sort of a dog chasing tail concept; we'll commit more funds to the program than the numbers merit, which may, or may not, attract more students which will, in turn, justify more funding.

    Ultimately the issue is that an absolute handful of many thousands of women on campus chose it as a programs and there's no evidence that they're any less aware of the issues facing them than the ones who did, right?

    You can only milk the same dubious arguments so many times, folks, particularly at a university level.

  43. Posted by: to john l on Apr 11, 2009 @ 7:31pm

    Actually the number of women's studies students is not just a handful. they did not count the many many minors, the undeclared majors and minors, the people shadowing women's studies and international development studies whose emphasis is gender development.
    next year there is also more prospective women's studies students then the cut requires. this means the program is only growing. it is not fair to cut it for people who haven't been given the chance to take it.
    they are cutting all classes in this major except wmst 1000 even though the other classes have more people than the requirement for cutting classes as well.

    there is evidence that people who haven't learned about gender equality are less aware... and example are many of the people arguing there should be a men's studies and the people who think women get paid as much as men.

    i do agree that even though women's studies saves almost no money... it does at up in the end.
    however, the university could easily save just as much money with out cutting our education.
    i do not understand how anybody is ok with this. education is a right.

  44. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 11, 2009 @ 7:34pm

    re: to not my CSA

    "women make up more than half the worlds population, do 2/3s of the work, and get paid less than 10% of the worlds income".

    if you use the '10% of world's income' number that implies you're including the billions of women living in third world countries, which (as much as it helps your point) really doesn't illustrate how it is in canada. yet there's an implication that that is how it works here, in canada. now i'm not saying there isn't income disparity between canadian men and women, but it is not as drastic as you make it sound by using skewed data, involving countries whose cultural traditions are different than our own. many of these countries haven't had a women's rights revolution yet and some still practice genital mutilation.

  45. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 11, 2009 @ 7:34pm

    but, in canada, women have come a long way even in just the last century. they can work, they can vote, they can opt not to have children and not be ostracized. that's pretty good progress considering where we were originating from. as for income disparity, the numbers are improving. many women are the boss in most cases. and the legal avenues exist for leveling the playing field in cases of discrimination. if women feel they are being treated unfairly they have a right to take their employer to court. in my opinion (which is one of the things i'm still entitled to) that's pretty fair.

  46. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 11, 2009 @ 7:37pm

    re: to john l

    i suppose it depends on how big your hands are. if you had, say, huge man hands that estimate might be correct.

  47. Posted by: to not my csa on Apr 11, 2009 @ 7:53pm

    you are right... i was not implying those facts are for canada.. which is why i said.. 10% of the WORLDS income.
    i used this fact because women's studies does not just look at women in canada. yes many country's haven't had women's rights revolutions and still practice genital mutilation... and women's studies educates students on these issues too.
    people in canada have the education and the power to implement women's rights in places where there aren't any.. with out knowledge though.. how will they do this?
    i'm not trying to skew the data, i am just proving that women are the world's largest marginalized minority.
    just because women have the vote in canada doesnt mean they should stop fighting the other battles such as gender stereotypes and sex roles.
    women are not the bosses in most cases... and not every one can just take their employer to court. i'm not going to re-argue this point since, if you read what "know your facts" said, you would know.

  48. Posted by: John L on Apr 11, 2009 @ 8:16pm

    Apparently there's a set of criteria determining who will/won't be considered when crunching the numbers for all of the programs under review. Reportedly it looks back at the numbers for several previous semester

    Folks with a tenuous link or who may make it their major in the future won't make the cut. If you're claiming the criteria for WS is different from the other programs go for it, however I'd imagine that'd be a hard case to make.

    On the issue of how the university really should be saving money they've been inviting suggestions for months now from anyone who'd care to contribute. What do you propose, exactly?

  49. Posted by: Joel H on Apr 11, 2009 @ 8:41pm

    I feel that cutting the program was the right thing to do. If 0.17% of the deficitis seen as to small, take into consideration that it's only got 0.001% of the students! If these large groups of protesters feel that women's studies is so important, then why aren't they already taking it? I find it ridiculous that the number of people protesting and making a fuss about cut is tenfold greater than the number of people actually in the program. It is being cut because not enough people are wanting to take it.

    As a less serious sidenote, I understand the desire for gender equality and all, but is this program REALLY at all important in the big picture? Is our women's program the reason females are seen as equals? Females make the MAJORITY of the student population. Are people suddenly going to be unaware that there are females and that they are equally as smart/capable as males?

    In my personal opinion, I doubt that this program has much of a function in "making women equal", I think the reason for women's social change towards equality is simply because we already ARE equal, and society is finally developing to be intelligent enough to see beyond culteral status-quo's and recognize the fact.

  50. Posted by: Joel H on Apr 11, 2009 @ 9:00pm

    Sorry for my last post!
    I didn't read the above information that clearly stated the numbers are only coming from declared majors and do not accurately represent women's studies students.
    Also, I realize that the protesters who aren't in women's studies care about students as a whole, and it was wrong for me to think students in other majors shouldn't help each other.

    Obviously women's social change towards equality is not because we are already equal. That doesn't even make sense! Why would they need to change towards equality if they truly were equal?
    I think next time I should take a women's studies class before I state things that are a product of my opressive male ignorance. I need to have more respect for women, and now I am on the proper road to do this.

  51. Posted by: to john l on Apr 11, 2009 @ 9:33pm

    actually alistair summerlee posted a video blog saying there would be dicussions held.. but there never were. the only time students voices were ever heard was if they got put on a speakers list for the BUGS or senate meeting. in which case they were not allowed to bring the same point up twice or talk for longer than two minutes. that is hardly a discussion.
    and before these meetings, barely any students knew about the cuts. the administration hide this decisions from the students.

    also, it is not the students job to find funding for the school. like mentioned earlier.. there are over 400 faculty members that make over $100,000 and our pres who makes close to half a mil.
    if there is such an economic crisis... why is our education being jeopardized but not their salaries. if you want money... that's where it is.

  52. Posted by: re: to john l on Apr 11, 2009 @ 9:47pm

    I dunno, I recall being invited repeatedly over facebook to the budget townhall meetings that Alistar talked about in those YouTube videos. The invitations stated each and every time slot for discussions, where they were held and for which college. And you know who invited me? Christi Garneau-Scott, the woman you can't wait to tear a new one for "not doing her job"! But wait, those meetings were given "such short notice". Yet somehow I was able to attend. Don't blame others because you had no clue what was going on. We knew programs were going to get the axe way back in January, but I guess you just never followed up on it until now.

    As for the wages of professors, yeah they have to be high, otherwise we would never attract good professors. Would you rather spend the time and effort in getting a degree and learn from shitty professors or good professors? As for Alistar, he really should move on to greener pastures and go into the private sector with his smarts and 47 page resume. He'd be getting more money and not have to deal with a bunch of 20-somethings.

    Good try though.

  53. Posted by: to john l dropped the ball on Apr 11, 2009 @ 9:57pm

    "The university is facing significant fiscal challenges for the next four years. Each college has been assigned a differential target to reduce spending and increase revenues to help manage the budget. The President and Provost are hosting a townhall meeting for each college to inform members of how the situation will impact their particular area. Students are encouraged to attend the townhall for their college, meet with their college student leaders, and ask questions. All meetings will be held from 12:00pm-1:00pm. Rooms and dates are listed below.

    Ontario Veterinary College
    March 4th - OVC Room 1434

    College of Biological Science
    March 6th - Peter Clark Hall, UC Basement

    College of Management and Economics
    March 10th - OVC Room 1438

    College of Arts
    March 11th - UC 103

    Ontario Agricultural College
    March 18th - UC 442

    College of Physical and Engineering Science - NOTE CHANGE OF DATE
    March 19th - 1511 Science Complex

    College of Social and Applied Human Science
    March 25th - ROZH 101"

  54. Posted by: re: re: to john l on Apr 11, 2009 @ 10:04pm

    Don't try to intimidate me with your condescending tone. You know as well as i do that these "bunch of 20-something" are the future. Someone had to deal with you when you were 20-something. but since you clearly have no concern for us 20-something students, why does our education concern you?
    If you spent any time talking to students you would get a consensus of people who were left in the dark. It is not just me who wasn't aware of the cuts or didn't have a platform to discuss on. Karen Wendling in philosophy even spoke for her department which had no discussion either with its 80 some faculty left in the dark about their cut.

    what good is attracting professors if you can't get a degree? what good is building up the faculty if you don't care about the students? you honestly think that a man making over $400,000 needs to make more money?
    you care more about one man.. who is clearly making enough of a living.. than the youth who haven't had the chance yet?

  55. Posted by: Matt C on Apr 11, 2009 @ 10:16pm

    Why didn't they send that email to the list serv of all the students? I've never seen it before.

  56. Posted by: anne on Apr 11, 2009 @ 10:18pm

    well john l, i don't recall getting that email/facebook invite once. Nor do I know anyone else that did.
    i would have loved to go...

  57. Posted by: Not_My _CSA on Apr 12, 2009 @ 1:51am

    re: to not my csa

    here's a link about a book you might find interesting, or not.


  58. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 12, 2009 @ 1:55am

    interviewer: "but apart from the 25 nonsexist reasons men earn more, isn't sexism still a factor?"

    author: "there are instances of discrimination against both women and men, but on average, no. if you knew you could hire a woman for less than an equivalent man, you'd hire women to get a price advantage over your competition. do you think businesses so hate women that they hire more expensive men even though they'd lose so much money?"

  59. Posted by: Not_My_CSA on Apr 12, 2009 @ 1:57am

    maybe the question isn't why do women, on average, get paid less, but why men get paid more?

  60. Posted by: a very concerned student on Apr 12, 2009 @ 11:50am

    You can't even try to empathize with what it is like to be oppressed and discriminated against EVERY DAY can you?

    It is upsetting to read the garbage that is put out in these posts.
    I don't care what "bankrate.com" (a highly refutable source) says about the 23 CENT WAGE GAP.

    Look at any other statistic. If women are equal in Canada why are there thousands of rapes and instances of sexual assault against women in Canada every year? Why are 99% of victims of abusive relationships women?
    There is a reason the Guelph Women in Crisis center exists and why Women's Studies is important and has to be offered in universities.
    There is going to be Women's Studies implemented in high school levels in Guelph. It is just so shameful that we are cutting it from Universities.

    "The Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women found that 38% of sexually assaulted women were assaulted by their husbands, common – law partners or boyfriends."


  61. Posted by: John L on Apr 12, 2009 @ 3:54pm

    Actually, if you check the U of G homepage, not a difficult chore, you'll see a series of budget updates, calls for meetings, etc?

    I believe there's an expectation at the university level that members of the Unigoo community keep on top of current events.

    As an aside I've yet to hear anyone actually explain how the vast, vast majority of women on campus, who aren't in the WS program are any less sensitized to, aware of, or committed to the various issues the ones who are claim to be so concerned about. Anybody...?

  62. Posted by: cut the bullshit not the budget on Apr 12, 2009 @ 4:14pm

    you can argue that women of this campus know they are being subjected to sexism everyday who aren't in women's studies if you like, but how does that make it less important to take?
    we are all aware of the two world wars that happened... should there not be a history major then?
    if we all speak english at guelph, should there be no english department?

    women's studies does not just address women's issues just the same as english does not just address the language. women's studies teaches critical thinking and challenges societal constructs. and yes actually before some people take women's studies, they are less sensitized or aware of various issues. a lot of people in my seminars didn't know there was a difference between sex and gender, or know what it meant to be a person who is transgendered etc.

    again.. if they wanted students to know.. why wouldn't they send it out on the list serv? there have definitely been more students who agreed they were not aware of this information.

  63. Posted by: John L on Apr 12, 2009 @ 5:34pm

    I'd love to be a fly on the wall when it gets suggested to the Faculty Association that if every one of them, or even the ones in the 100k club, took a pay cut...it'd be sooo much fairer than cutting underenrolled programs ;)

    Anyway, I think I've satisfied any concerns I had on the WS issue for the time being so I'll bid you all adieu

  64. Posted by: Molly on Apr 12, 2009 @ 7:50pm

    I'd love that for you too, John L the capitalist.

  65. Posted by: Kevin on Apr 12, 2009 @ 8:16pm


    ??? What's the point ??? Where did you come up with that?

  66. Posted by: Molly on Apr 12, 2009 @ 9:09pm

    John L said "As for Alistar, he really should move on to greener pastures and go into the private sector with his smarts and 47 page resume. He'd be getting more money and not have to deal with a bunch of 20-somethings."

    More money than $464,014? He really needs to privatize and make more than that?

    Capitalism: "unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability"

    Our tuitions were being raised while Summerlee was receiving a $90,000 raise.

  67. Posted by: justaquestion on Apr 13, 2009 @ 4:16pm

    Just a question for those who have argued that a large number of Faculty are making in excess of $100 000/year...

    Would you be the same people who supported unions on this campus (blindly), even when they were threatening to go on strike? Keeping in mind that the faculty themselves are unionized and underwent negotiations just last year.

    Sometimes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

  68. Posted by: Kevin on Apr 13, 2009 @ 7:23pm

    Pretty hard to know what constitutes a "fair salary" for the Prez unless we know what his peers are making. Simply saying "he makes too much" is meaningless.

    I don't think the quote attributed to "John L" is his. It was someone responding to him.

    You make a good point; the salaries of faculty are the end result of bargainning between them and the uni; I'd hate to think we're against that!

  69. Posted by: too much on Apr 13, 2009 @ 10:47pm


  70. Posted by: Jason on Apr 13, 2009 @ 10:59pm

    As a recent graduate, I find this decision appalling.

    To those poor ignorant souls who honestly believe that inequality no longer exists – that women are treated fairly and given equal opportunity – I challenge you to provide reliable statistical evidence to support your claims. Gender inequality in society is a fact, not a debate.

    While I’m sympathetic to the financial constraints faced by the administration, the decision to cut women’s studies was misinformed and ungrounded. There was limited transparency in the decision making process (both among students and faculty) and the evidence presented in favour of the cut was questionable at best (for a variety of reasons – too many to list!).

    The incorrect way to resolve this deficit is to push an ideological agenda based solely on financial considerations. This should be a university, not a corporation. Although hard decisions will no doubt be required, they should not be at the expense of students’ education. Decisions such as this place constraints on the pursuit of knowledge and, as a matter of principle, are unjustified and morally unacceptable.

  71. Posted by: Carolyn on Apr 13, 2009 @ 11:43pm

    a very concerned student:

    "Look at any other statistic. If women are equal in Canada why are there thousands of rapes and instances of sexual assault against women in Canada every year? Why are 99% of victims of abusive relationships women?"

    By some fluke of nature, one sex of a species is typically larger and stronger than the other. The stat you mention is like that because the average woman can't physically overpower the average man. Therefore men beat us in the sexual assault count. If we were physically of equal strength the stats would be different.


    Don't criticize someone for speaking with due consideration to our societal conditions. We live in a capitalism. What you said here is completely irrelevant: do you expect the university to be a happy little commune? Remember that the University is a corporation.

  72. Posted by: Carolyn on Apr 13, 2009 @ 11:55pm

    "The incorrect way to resolve this deficit is to push an ideological agenda based solely on financial considerations. This should be a university, not a corporation."

    Why do you think a Canadian university should not be a corporation? How else could it operate? Obviously big bad capitalism doesn't sit well with any of us. It's one thing to hope that a place of "higher learning" can be the stronghold for its idealistic students, but it does have to interact with the real world sometime.

  73. Posted by: a very concerned student on Apr 14, 2009 @ 10:45am

    Carolyn, just because men are typically larger and stronger does not mean it is ok that they abuse, rape, or assault us. There are plenty of men who are bigger and stronger who don't. it is the ideology that they can just because some of us may be smaller or weaker.
    by your thinking, we should just turn away from helping the bullied because they are smaller so what can we do?

    what kind of woman are you to say it is ok because they are larger and stronger. in an equal world, no matter what size you are, you would not be beaten and sexually assaulted.

  74. Posted by: Daniel C on Apr 14, 2009 @ 10:51am

    To Carolyn:
    I am a man. I happen to also be very strong and larger than most women. I DO NOT BEAT OR ASSAULT WOMEN.
    The excuse you just gave many men is very dangerous and frightening.
    Size and strength is not an excuse. Ff women were seen as equal it would not happen (or at the rate it does anyway).

    Oh and by the way, there are men who are smaller and weaker who rape and assault women too.

    If it was just based on our size, why are women constantly subjected to verbal or emotional abuse by men?

  75. Posted by: I'm not john l damnit on Apr 14, 2009 @ 10:53am

    "I don't think the quote attributed to "John L" is his. It was someone responding to him."

    Finally, someone who wasn't retarded enough to figure that one out.

    To all the people who bad-mouth capitalism, you live a VERY comfortable lifestyle because of it. Me and my family immigrated here from Eastern Europe when "communism" was alive and well. You have no idea what privileges and options you have because of such a free society. Travel, read a book, something, because you all sound like ungratefuls typing away at your shiny white macbooks listening to your shiny white ipods all the while lamenting how cruel capitalism is. Then they wonder why we're constantly called an expectant youth generation.

  76. Posted by: Molly on Apr 14, 2009 @ 11:01am

    You contradict yourself.
    "Obviously big bad capitalism doesn't sit well with any of us"
    But then you tell me not to criticize someone who is a capitalist. It obviously sits very well with you.

  77. Posted by: to i'm not john l dammit on Apr 14, 2009 @ 11:08am

    although i disagreed with many of your arguments before, i still somewhat respected you because you put up a hard debate.
    after your last comment, all respect has diminished.
    "retarded enough"? now you're just as awful as all the other ignorant people who post on here.
    i am a student who immigrated here from taiwan. i do not own a macbook or an ipod. when you use generalizations you make yourself sound less credible and less intelligent.
    you've made it very obvious you don't care about our generation ("bunch of 20-somethings", "ungratefuls"), yet it seems like you waste a lot of your time arguing with us. seems like you have something to prove.

  78. Posted by: not john l on Apr 14, 2009 @ 11:32am

    lol, "after your last comment, all respect has diminished.", and that's suppose to make me feel bad? I doubt you had respect for my viewpoints anyway.

    Here's another reason why I think you're retarded, I'm 22 and in 4th year, maybe "you shouldn't make generalizations" either

  79. Posted by: to not john l on Apr 14, 2009 @ 12:24pm

    Right... there's something wrong with me because you don't care about your own generation. "you've made it very obvious you don't care about our generation"... I didn't say "our generation not including you". you made the generalization about yourself.

    Ps what makes me lose respect for you is when you use "retarded" with negative connotation.

  80. Posted by: itshardtopost on Apr 14, 2009 @ 4:31pm

    is there any way the word "retarded" can have a positive connotation? ...cause i don't think it can.

  81. Posted by: Emily on Apr 15, 2009 @ 12:37am

    actually the word was to describe people with mental retardation until people started using it as an insult. now it can be offensive to say mentally retarded. it is also referring to people who have mental retardation to being stupid or dumb.
    It's called being politically correct and if you're going to be taken seriously on a post you should consider it.

    itshardtopost should change their name to itshardtothink

  82. Posted by: itshardtopost on Apr 15, 2009 @ 8:38am

    you're a clever one, Emily.

    mental retardation is actually still a clinical term in the DSM-IV, look it up. personally, i think this whole campaign for removing the term retarded is moronic. seems like every word that has once been used to describe intellectual disabilities (am I being politically correct enough for you?) has been turned into an insult.

    idiot, dumb, invalid, etc...

    there's nothing wrong with political correctness. however, i've got to say that some of these people that make it a point to be chronically offended at anything are downright insufferable.

  83. Posted by: George on Apr 15, 2009 @ 11:53am

    Just get over it, the Women’s Studies program is gone and for good reason, had low attendance and really doesn’t help Guelph in the rankings or to receive substantial grants.

    The CSA can just add it to the list of “Reasons They’re Pissed Off at the University” and waste student fees reminding students of it every year with more frivolous campaigns.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the current list includes such topics as Hospitality food prices, UC space, CUPE contracts, tuition costs, corporate grants, and $100K+ salaries.

    To "fail" and some others on here, get over yourself and get back to work, you've obviously csa commissioners, Caily Campbell hard at work!

  84. Posted by: thoughts on Apr 15, 2009 @ 1:06pm

    I didn't think Carolyn was saying that M-to-F sexual assault was acceptable due to natural differences in physique.
    I did think she was sort of implying that if males and females had the same physique/size/strength there would be just as many sexual assaults on men as on women. If I am correct in that this was what she was saying, I disagree. While not well-educated in the stats/history/psychology of intersex violence, I would be hard-pressed to believe that our historically patriarchal society and the residual social psyche does not significantly factor into the motivating factors of sexual assault (and why victims are most often female).

  85. Posted by: thoughts on Apr 15, 2009 @ 1:11pm

    In my above post I meant inter-sex, between the sexes, as opposed to trans- etc. individuals.

    Also, not to be a troll but Jason "I challenge you to provide reliable statistical evidence to support your claims. Gender inequality in society is a fact, not a debate." Seems somewhat hypocritical, given some people likely genuinely believe the days of gender inequality have passed, shouldn't you heed your first statement as well?

  86. Posted by: Carolyn on Apr 16, 2009 @ 8:01am

    to A Very Concerned Student and Daniel,

    I was explaining the statistic. That is WHY it happens, not a reason for its justification. Only a complete idiot would say 'it's morally okay to hurt people smaller than you'. I'm saying that yes, the statistic shows that for the most part only men are physically abusive to their partners, but the stat is like that because it COULDN'T BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

    I wanted to point out that there are other factors involved with gender and power. It's not a huge conspiracy to keep women down.

  87. Posted by: Carolyn on Apr 16, 2009 @ 8:04am


    Our culture is capitalist. Be realistic in your expectations. What you personally do is your decision, but every institution has money in their mind.

  88. Posted by: George on Apr 16, 2009 @ 10:47am

    “Our culture is capitalist”..oh wow, big shocker! Carolyn, are you saying that you don’t have money on your mind? I’m sure from day to day you’re trying to maximize your income, minimize your expenses, and gain the best value for what you buy. Institutions do the same thing, so we careful to criticize that they only have money on their minds..because WE ALL have money on our minds.

    I guess there’s a bit of “capitalism” in all of us ;)

  89. Posted by: Carolyn on Apr 16, 2009 @ 1:24pm

    "I'm not John L Damnit" makes a pretty good point, without necessarily meaning to..? North America is pretty nice, all things considered. (Yeah I'm aware it sounds hypocritical. I didn't stop to consider that there is no "system" that sits well with us when we are educated enough to point out its bad side, but not educated enough to know all alternatives.)

    so anyway...
    Would we like WMST more if it addressed more obvious problems of oppression?
    What about the sex trade in places like Taiwan? Or why not advocate for women's safety in the Middle East? (Or is that too far out of the comfort zone?)

    ps, George, way to take that out of context! But yeah.

  90. Posted by: Patrick on Apr 23, 2009 @ 4:23am

    re: to not my csa

    a few quotes from your posts:

    "women make up more than half the worlds population"

    "but women ARE the largest minority of the world."

    ""i'm not trying to skew the data, i am just proving that women are the world's largest marginalized minority."

    so which is it? are women the largest minority or the majority of the worlds population?

    also, in regards to the article:

    "Both the incoming and outgoing CSA Academic Commissioners, Nathan Lachowsky and Christi Garneau-Scott, decided to vote against the CSA's Board of Directors decision to oppose the elimination of Women's Studies. This was in spite of the fact that CSA bylaws state that Executives are bound to take direction from the Board and that the Board had specifically directed the Academic Commissioner to vote in favor of continuing Women's Studies."

    Nathan Lachowsky wasn't actually in office for this position yet...so why he's being denounced for not obeying the puppeteers on this one is a little bit odd...

  91. Posted by: cc on Apr 23, 2009 @ 8:18pm

    maybe if we cut that program, there will be less feminists to complain... universities usually cut the most useless programs... do any job postings actually say: needed a B of A in Women's Studies?

Share your thoughts

Bookstore First Year