U of A honorary degree to David Suzuki

[booster]

I must say I am troubled by the response of the University president. If they had actually vetted his name throughout the U of A faculties, engineering, science, etc he likely would have been removed. Supposedly he was with Genetic sciences at U of A years ago and even then the other faculty weren't high on him due to his radical approach of only one way or the highway.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...zuki-1.4633529

[Highlander II]

Huh.

I know he's a polarizing figure with some fairly extreme views but I'm more surprised by the juvenile responses from the Engineering Dean, and some sponsors.

It's a University. Universities don't (or at least shouldn't) avoid opinions or opinionated people simply because they don't align with our short term economic self-interest.

[H.L.]

They are worried donations will go down, or pulled. That's already been declared by some donors.

[East McCauley]

^^

"That the university has aggrieved Albertans with a single decision, demonstrates, I believe, that our university has become, certainly in this process, too disconnected from the people that we are meant to serve."

I don't consider the Dean of Engineering's response above juvenile.

When Suzuki's honorary degree was first announced, it struck me as incredibly tone deaf coming as it does at a time when emotions over the oil sands in general and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in particular are very raw. Dr. Andrew Leach, who outside of Premier Rachel Notley, has faced more slings and arrows over the carbon leadership plan than anyone in Alberta, agrees with the Dean of Engineering in this instance.

[Marcel Petrin]

It's a dumb move by the U of A and incredibly poorly timed, but the hysterics about it are more than a bit over the top.

[Highlander II]

I guess that I don't think that universities should be in the business of telling people what they want to hear.

And it seems like his statement is as likely to inflame those raw feelings as to sooth them.

[kkozoriz]

^^

"That the university has aggrieved Albertans with a single decision, demonstrates, I believe, that our university has become, certainly in this process, too disconnected from the people that we are meant to serve."

I don't consider the Dean of Engineering's response above juvenile.

When Suzuki's honorary degree was first announced, it struck me as incredibly tone deaf coming as it does at a time when emotions over the oil sands in general and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in particular are very raw. Dr. Andrew Leach, who outside of Premier Rachel Notley, has faced more slings and arrows over the carbon leadership plan than anyone in Alberta, agrees with the Dean of Engineering in this instance.

Yes, the University should be in the business of sucking up to mostly American oil companies. Everyone that's on faculty or attending as a student should be throughly vetted to ensure that they support the oil sands. Anything less is treasonous </snark>

[KC]

I don’t really get the whole honorary degree thing in the first place.

But given that, I’m ok with this. Suzuki has performed a lot of public education over the decades. Covered hundreds or thousands of areas of interest.


The engeering prof’s concerns don’t make much sense to me. Almost an irrational rant I’d say.

Biggest crisis at the university in 30 years? Give me a break. This is worse than on campus rapes, sexual harassment and all the other problems? Worse than student fees, cutbacks, etc???

[KC]

EDITORIAL: University of Alberta fails with Suzuki degree | Edmonton Sun

http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/edito...-suzuki-degree


Law firm pulls donation from University of Alberta as Suzuki backlash continues | The Star

https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/201...continues.html

[East McCauley]

^^

"That the university has aggrieved Albertans with a single decision, demonstrates, I believe, that our university has become, certainly in this process, too disconnected from the people that we are meant to serve."

I don't consider the Dean of Engineering's response above juvenile.

When Suzuki's honorary degree was first announced, it struck me as incredibly tone deaf coming as it does at a time when emotions over the oil sands in general and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in particular are very raw. Dr. Andrew Leach, who outside of Premier Rachel Notley, has faced more slings and arrows over the carbon leadership plan than anyone in Alberta, agrees with the Dean of Engineering in this instance.

Yes, the University should be in the business of sucking up to mostly American oil companies. Everyone that's on faculty or attending as a student should be throughly vetted to ensure that they support the oil sands. Anything less is treasonous </snark>

Snide remark, yes. Perhaps even a juvenile response.

The issue is not about sucking up to mostly American oil companies, or requiring loyalty oaths of any faculty member or student attending the U of A. It's about the University Senate's tone deaf decision to award an honorary degree to an almost uniquely polarizing public figure. A person that is not a climate scientist, and whose criticism of fossil fuels goes well beyond reasoned analysis and borders on what some call climate alarmism.

[Marcel Petrin]

He has also said that economic theory is a former of mental illness or brain damage. That's a rough paraphrase. How do economics faculty feel about that?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rticle4602350/

Sure must be easy to feel that way on his private island, sitting on a personal fortune in the tens of millions.

[Dave]

^^

"That the university has aggrieved Albertans with a single decision, demonstrates, I believe, that our university has become, certainly in this process, too disconnected from the people that we are meant to serve."

I don't consider the Dean of Engineering's response above juvenile.

When Suzuki's honorary degree was first announced, it struck me as incredibly tone deaf coming as it does at a time when emotions over the oil sands in general and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in particular are very raw. Dr. Andrew Leach, who outside of Premier Rachel Notley, has faced more slings and arrows over the carbon leadership plan than anyone in Alberta, agrees with the Dean of Engineering in this instance.

Yes, the University should be in the business of sucking up to mostly American oil companies. Everyone that's on faculty or attending as a student should be throughly vetted to ensure that they support the oil sands. Anything less is treasonous </snark>

Snide remark, yes. Perhaps even a juvenile response.

The issue is not about sucking up to mostly American oil companies, or requiring loyalty oaths of any faculty member or student attending the U of A. It's about the University Senate's tone deaf decision to award an honorary degree to an almost uniquely polarizing public figure. A person that is not a climate scientist, and whose criticism of fossil fuels goes well beyond reasoned analysis and borders on what some call climate alarmism.

Personally, I don't have a problem with him getting an honorary degree, but he has said political things that put people off and have not as well reasoned as science is. It's up to the University Senate to award an honorary degree to whoever they want, until the University decides to change that process, but it is a free country and people can disagree with it too, it doesn't mean that they are sucking up to foreign oil companies. If you have to cast those sort of aspersions, you probably have a weak argument.

[Dave]

He has also said that economic theory is a former of mental illness or brain damage. That's a rough paraphrase. How do economics faculty feel about that?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rticle4602350/

Sure must be easy to feel that way on his private island, sitting on a personal fortune in the tens of millions.

I suspect they might not be thrilled about him getting an honorary degree either. Although, I'm guessing Suzuki does not have a degree in Psychiatry, so his remarks would not be considered a qualified medical opinion.

[Marcel Petrin]

They would however, be offensive to those who actually deal with mental illness.

For fun, here's another case of Suzuki misleading the public: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/g...bout-fukushima

Maybe he was an honest and effective communicator of science in the past. Unfortunately, he jumped the shark 10+ years ago. I don't see how he's deserving of an award given his recent record of misinforming the public.

[North Guy66]

Let's just say the U of A has a track record of bestowing honorary degrees to controversial individuals...

March 2012:

Nestlé CEO given honorary degree amid protests

Dozens protested outside the Timms Centre at the University of Alberta on Thursday over the award of an honorary degree to Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.

The university bestowed the honour on Brabeck-Letmathe for his work as a responsible steward for water around the world.
But protesters say that as the world's largest bottled water company, Nestlé is causing water scarcity, not solving it and is trying to privatize a public resource.

"I'm afraid that the university is positioning themselves on the side of the commodifiers, the people who want to say that water is not a human right that everyone has the right to, but is just a product that can be bought and sold," said Scott Harris from the Council of Canadians.

....But some professors were angry enough at the university to join Thursday's protest.

"I'm ashamed at this point, about what the university is doing and I'm also very concerned about the way the president of the university has been demonizing people who oppose this," said English professor Janice Williamson.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ests-1.1178702

Ha ha. Maybe Suzuki receiving one this month evens things up on the U of A Wall of Fame.

[RichardS]

(...)

Snide remark, yes. Perhaps even a juvenile response.

The issue is not about sucking up to mostly American oil companies, or requiring loyalty oaths of any faculty member or student attending the U of A. It's about the University Senate's tone deaf decision to award an honorary degree to an almost uniquely polarizing public figure. A person that is not a climate scientist, and whose criticism of fossil fuels goes well beyond reasoned analysis and borders on what some call climate alarmism.

^this...

As I said in another conversation, the University is extremely callous to its reputation when it purposely juxtaposes what is an honour with what amounts to present day clickbait. I get the whole academic freedom piece, and I fully support that. I am not a person who boycotts or solicits others to do so. ...but, I also subscribe to the reality that freedom of speech is not free...it has consequences. The main issues here are:

•The incredible hypocrisy of the recipient. He does not eat his own dogfood...
•The tone deaf nature of the timing
•What I feel is intentional drama creation to get press (aka clickbait). The U knew what the backlash would be IMO. While this is tone deaf in nature, I have a hard time believing the smart people were so unintentionally stupid. This is intentional...
•...and the question of tolerance/academic freedom...would this be more universally applied if someone they found objectionable was put forth to be a speaker at a convocation...let alone an honorary degree recipient...

I won't disrespect the legacy and history of the UofA. This decision is the responsibility of the current Senate. The fact that so many are speaking up from the student body and faculty is excellent, and demonstrates that at least on the UofA campus, discussion is still relevant.

[Dave]

(...)

Snide remark, yes. Perhaps even a juvenile response.

The issue is not about sucking up to mostly American oil companies, or requiring loyalty oaths of any faculty member or student attending the U of A. It's about the University Senate's tone deaf decision to award an honorary degree to an almost uniquely polarizing public figure. A person that is not a climate scientist, and whose criticism of fossil fuels goes well beyond reasoned analysis and borders on what some call climate alarmism.

^this...

As I said in another conversation, the University is extremely callous to its reputation when it purposely juxtaposes what is an honour with what amounts to present day clickbait. I get the whole academic freedom piece, and I fully support that. I am not a person who boycotts or solicits others to do so. ...but, I also subscribe to the reality that freedom of speech is not free...it has consequences. The main issues here are:

•The incredible hypocrisy of the recipient. He does not eat his own dogfood...
•The tone deaf nature of the timing
•What I feel is intentional drama creation to get press (aka clickbait). The U knew what the backlash would be IMO. While this is tone deaf in nature, I have a hard time believing the smart people were so unintentionally stupid. This is intentional...
•...and the question of tolerance/academic freedom...would this be more universally applied if someone they found objectionable was put forth to be a speaker at a convocation...let alone an honorary degree recipient...

I won't disrespect the legacy and history of the UofA. This decision is the responsibility of the current Senate. The fact that so many are speaking up from the student body and faculty is excellent, and demonstrates that at least on the UofA campus, discussion is still relevant.

Apparently he got an honorary degree from the University of Calgary and a lot of other Canadian Universities before too, but I haven't heard any criticism of that University or the other. In fact, I am wondering if some of the donors who are now outraged may be making their donation to it rather than the U of A. Isn't that ironic?

Yes, it may be a bit tone deaf, but I am thinking they may have made their decisions and notified the recipient well before the recent pipeline controversy blew up politically. I suppose they could rescind it before Convocation if they were inclined too, I think the U of A has done that before, but that isn't very good form. Its kind of like making a gift and taking it back.

[River Valley Green]

What I don't get either is that giving this guy an honory degree is like giving Meryl Streep another Oscar nom. The guy has almost 30 now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_...norary_degrees

Why is the U of A clamouring to giving him yet another one? Aren't there other people - perhaps less heralded - who are also worthy?

[kkozoriz]

Every person or other entity who donates to the University should get a heads up about any upcoming honorary degrees and be given a veto. That way, we won't ever have to see this sort of "outrage" again.

Nettie Wiebe is described by the university as a feminist. I'm sure that ticks some men off.

France Levasseur-Ouimet - Is a francophone. After Quebec's opposition to Energy East, she should be gone as well.

Mark Henry Rowswell - Is too cozy with the Chinese. Out he goes.

Brian Cox Is a physicist but also a rock star. Lots of sex and drugs there. Bye, see ya.

David Matas - Advocates for human rights, interfering with the ability of companies to take advantage of the poor. Bye-bye

Ralph Haas is known in the engineering world as “the father of pavement asset management.” - Obviously in the pocket of "big auto".

Stephen Kakfwi has devoted his life to advancing the Aboriginal land and self-government rights of the Northwest Territories, Dene, Métis and Inuit. - Apparently he believes in "special rights" for natives.

Helen Clark served as prime minister of New Zealand from 1999 to 2008. Under her leadership, the government pursued policies aimed at reducing inequalities, protecting the environment, fostering arts and culture, and settling historical grievances with indigenous people. - Sounds like a lefty. 'Nuff said.

Nahlah Ayed is Palestinian, obviously that means she's an enemy of Israel. Out she goes.

https://www.ualberta.ca/why-ualberta...ree-recipients

---

I'm sure that if you polled the faculty, staff, students and alumni of the U of A, you could find people that would agree that one or more of the above people shouldn't be honoured with a degree. Better safe than sorry.

[AShetsen]

I was going to rave about how right Suzuki is, but most of my post got eaten up. So let me say it just a bit more calmly.

Suzuki is right from the human and moral point of view.

You are blind and foolish for refusing to do anything to diversify from oil production.

The world really does not want your oil, though it may need it; but you are woefully blind to that fact.

And the irritation you feel at his point of view is just the remnant of your conscience scratching at the places in your soul you have allowed to be corroded by oil dependence.

Lastly, since you are the people who go on ad nauseam about freedom of speech, your fascist insistence against him is more telling than you realize.

[kcantor]

I find the discussions surrounding the granting of an honorary degree to David Suzuki to be interesting and challenging.

To start with, I disagree with much of what Suzuki espouses, how he chooses to evangelize his beliefs, and how he somehow manages to reconcile his own lifestyle choices with those things. On the other hand, I have had the pleasure of listening to him speak on several occasions and had some of my own beliefs challenged and some of my opinions changed as a result.

This is exactly the sort of interplay and exchange that one would expect a leading university to encourage and foster and we as well as the institution and its faculty and its students should be richer as a result. If that was conducted with an open exchange of thoughts and ideas rather than repeating rhetorical dogma on both sides, this conversation would potentially have the same results.

Would I give Greenpeace or the Suzuki Foundation a dime? Not on your life – I disagree with them too strongly on things both factual and stylistically that are important to me to do so. While I am not a University of Alberta Alumni, I do proudly and happily support them by contributing not insubstantial amounts of both time and dollars to specific programs that do closely match my personal priorities.

The research being done by the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, the work being done in the Faculties of Law and Planning and Fine Arts and Design and Music and Engineering is all as worthy of support today - and will be tomorrow - as it was yesterday. An honorary degree given to David Suzuki doesn’t change that in the least.

Including this year, the University of Alberta will have granted approximately 400 honorary degrees. Do I need to agree with the credentials and “worthiness” of each and every one of them and make my support conditional upon that? Of course not – that would be silly. Interestingly enough, if others had taken that position in the past, we would have no oil and gas sector to speak of to be defending because supporting its development potential threatened agriculture and forestry and coal mining at the time.

Can a case be made that agriculture and forestry are still under threat? Possibly, but at the same time oil and gas has greatly reduced our reliance on coal and continues to do so. The role of a university is to challenge and it is up to all of us to rise to those challenges with them, not surrender in the face of them in some sort of imaginary aggrieved protest.

[faraz]

Nahlah Ayed is Palestinian, obviously that means he's an enemy of Israel. Out he goes.

Nahlah is a woman and a darn good reporter.

[River Valley Green]

I don't think they should rescind the honor, but it was just dumb to give it in the first place.

[RichardS]

^agreed

[kkozoriz]

Nahlah Ayed is Palestinian, obviously that means he's an enemy of Israel. Out he goes.

Nahlah is a woman and a darn good reporter.

Typo on gender, I'll correct and I was being sarcastic. Although there are people that think that way. Just like there are people that believe Israel should follow the biblical borders and there should be no Palestinian land at all.

[sundance]

Yup this is the same David Suzuki that called all economists "brain damaged", can't imagine why the school of business would support him.
https://youtu.be/cpl6Rwz8FYA

[overoceans]

Yup this is the same David Suzuki that called all economists "brain damaged", can't imagine why the school of business would support him.
https://youtu.be/cpl6Rwz8FYA

Well, considering that that particular school of business used to have a "Chair In Free Enterprise Studies" endowed by Peter Pocklington...

[kcantor]

Yup this is the same David Suzuki that called all economists "brain damaged", can't imagine why the school of business would support him.
https://youtu.be/cpl6Rwz8FYA

Well, considering that that particular school of business used to have a "Chair In Free Enterprise Studies" endowed by Peter Pocklington...

they took his money, i don't believe they gave him an honourary degree.

maybe suzuki should consider not accepting the degree in exchange for having the u of a accept a big chunk of his change (cash, not climate ) or is that not what you're suggesting?

[overoceans]

I'm just kind of making a whimsical point about the U Of A Business faculty's functioning brain capacity, or lack thereof, in reply to the point that they might be offended by people slighting it.

FWIW, I don't find Suzuki's blanket dismissal of all economists particularly convincing. That's the sort of anti-intetellecualism that people engage in when they can't come up with any other response.

[Highlander II]

It actually sounds like he's talking about something other than all economists. There are libertarian/capitalist pop-economists that think like he accused economists of thinking. Maybe it's a quote that needs more context?

[overoceans]

It actually sounds like he's talking about something other than all economists. There are libertarian/capitalist pop-economists that think like he accused economists of thinking. Maybe it's a quote that needs more context?

That could very well be. I have to admit I haven't heard of read the comments under discussion.

[Dave]

I'm just kind of making a whimsical point about the U Of A Business faculty's functioning brain capacity, or lack thereof, in reply to the point that they might be offended by people slighting it.

FWIW, I don't find Suzuki's blanket dismissal of all economists particularly convincing. That's the sort of anti-intetellecualism that people engage in when they can't come up with any other response.

Economics is just one part of the School of Business, so I would think it is a stretch to extend a comment about all (or is it just some?) economists to the entire School.

In any event, personally I thought my economics courses and instructors at the U of A were quite good and definitely not brain damaged. I don't think economics is advocating for some of the things Suzuki is so against, as much as trying to explain why they happen. I think either Suzuki does not have a good understanding of economics or his comments have been somewhat misinterpreted, perhaps some of both.

If everyone who ever said something silly was barred from getting Honorary Degrees, we could probably stop giving them out.

[Marcel Petrin]

It actually sounds like he's talking about something other than all economists. There are libertarian/capitalist pop-economists that think like he accused economists of thinking. Maybe it's a quote that needs more context?

What about his fear mongering about Fukushima? Is there more context needed there as well?

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/11/25/...ukushima-fear/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/g...bout-fukushima

And real nuclear physicists (which, full disclosure, I am not) disagree strongly with Suzuki. Many believe he is deliberately exaggerating the risks of the fuel rod removal in particular and the entire Fukushima situation in general. They believe the idea of Japan being obliterated and the US needing evacuation is ridiculous and totally implausible. This skepticism toward fearmongering has been the trend over and over in fields that directly intersect with the Fukushima disaster – nuclear power, radiation, oceanography, medical research. Most of the people who research this stuff for a living believe that the fear being pushed on us about Fukushima has little or no basis in reality.

Granted, he later walked back his comments, but how much attention do you think that got vs. his original highly inflammatory ones? As someone who's primarily recognized for being a "communicator", he has a responsibility to be careful in what he communicates. And he's repeatedly failed to do so.

[overoceans]

Dave wrote:

"In any event, personally I thought my economics courses and instructors at the U of A were quite good and definitely not brain damaged. I don't think economics is advocating for some of the things Suzuki is so against, as much as trying to explain why they happen. I think either Suzuki does not have a good understanding of economics or his comments have been somewhat misinterpreted, perhaps some of both." END QUOTE

Yeah, in the video I watched a few hours ago, he seemed to be saying that because economists treat the environment as an "externality", it means they think we should just abuse it all to hell.

Whereas, I think that what they mean is simply that the environment isn't a direct part of the economic system. But that doesn't mean they're passing a judgement about what we should do with it; rather they're just explaining what the economic results will be.

As a comparison, if I say "It would be better for you from an economic perspective to skip your mother's funeral and work that extra shift at the factory", I'm not saying that you should do that. Just that, insofar as we are talking about your economic benefit, that's the optimal course of action. Whether you value your mother's memory more than the extra cash is entirely a matter of your value system.

[sundance]

Actually Suzuki has stated a lot of very dismissive statements about anybody who disagrees with him, that was the first I can find.

You can find out more of what Suzuki said here;
https://omny.fm/shows/charles-adler-...uki-deserve-an

[MrCombust]

Kermit the frog got an honorary degree, why not David Suzuki?