Questioning #uWaterloo’s #Bikinigate Decision
With this term slowly coming to an end, I've found some time to actually write a blog post for the first time in four months (yay!). Unfortunately, it's not under the best of circumstances and you'll soon find out why. I find it is best to voice my opinion here, as well as what I've heard from others, rather than through a slew of 140-character tweets.
If you've been living under a rock (or under books if you've been studying for exams) for the past week, or two, or even three weeks, then you've probably missed out on what may be the most absurd decision the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Waterloo has made this term. To sum it up, the Formula SAE (FSAE) team was suspended until June 1st after the administration discovered photos of one of the team's female members posing in front of the team's car in a bikini. The photos were meant to be part of the female member's application for a charity calendar to raise money for breast cancer research; to the best of my understanding, these photos were not going to be included in the calendar itself.
I'm going to try my best not to repeat what Erin has already brought up, but there may be some overlap (note: read Erin's blog post if you haven't already). In this post, I'm going to question the arguments the University has been using to support their decision, as well as voice my disappointment towards the University for how the administration has handled this whole situation and blown it completely out of proportion.
First and foremost, instead of simply giving the person involved or even the entire team itself a warning, a "slap on the wrist", if you will, the University administration decided to suspend the whole team, preventing them from competing in an upcoming competition. While I do agree that the Student Design Centre (SDC) may have been slightly misused, this alone does not justify the University administration's decision to suspend the team. Concerns over safety, the "unauthorized use of [sponsor] logos," and the production of "an 'inappropriate and denigrating' photograph" in the "unauthorized photo shoot" were apparently all part of the decision too, as well as the fact that the SDC is a lab.
What safety concerns?
From what I understand, the photo shoot that took place involved moving cars around and using a leaf blower (dramatic effect?), both of which probably produced exhaust, something the SDC's ventilation system was built to handle. If part of Engineering 5 cannot be used for the purpose it was designed for, what good is it? Perhaps it was the actual moving of cars that was a safety concern, but then again only experienced drivers would know how to do that. I'm going to assume here that if most students are like me, then they probably have a driving licence and several years' worth of driving experience behind them. So I ask, out of all of the people that were involved with this photo shoot, was an experienced driver not present?
Was it because the photo shoot was unsupervised?
From what I've read, there was no supervision done by a Faculty member during the photo shoot. I can understand why those involved may have chosen not to have someone from the Faculty present during the shoot, but what I'm unclear on is whether or not there is actually someone from the Faculty present when the FSAE team actually does work on their car. My guess is probably not, but I may be wrong (and if I am, please feel free to correct me in the comments). The team is made up of almost all students, with the exception of Professor Lambert, the team's Faculty Advisor. Now, I don't know Professor Lambert, but if he is like any other professor on campus, I suppose he may usually be busy with his own research and may only have some time dedicated to advising the team, so it would make sense for the team to do work unsupervised, which wouldn't make the photo shoot any different. While I haven't actually done work in the SDC, I can't comment on whether or not supervision is actually required in this lab.
The "Unauthorized Use of Logos"
The "unauthorized use of logos" argument is still something I'm quite confused about. I mentioned earlier that the photos taken during the photo shoot were meant to be part of an application for a charity calendar; the photos were not going to be included in the calendar itself. While the photos did have sponsor logos and a University-owned research project (the car) present in them and were not going to be used for monetary gain, I don't see how this is an issue. It is no different than taking a photo of someone holding a can of Pepsi in front of a University building or in front of the FSAE car and posting it up on a personal blog as far as I'm concerned. Neither the photographer nor the female team member were doing anything commercially-related with the photo, so I don't see why either of them would need permission from the sponsors or the University; they were personal photos, so to speak. Even if the photos were to be included in the calendar, the funds raised from selling them would have gone towards cancer research. Free advertising for the sponsors and no harm done, in my opinion.
The "Unauthorized Photo Shoot"
After discussing this with some of my photographer colleagues and friends at the University, as well as after skimming through some of the comments regarding this issue, it seems the University has no strict/clear/formal policy on what can and cannot be photographed on campus, which makes it hard for them to support their decision with this argument. What prevents me from taking a photo of anything belonging or directly related to the University from a sidewalk that is not along Ring Road and not on University property (i.e., city property) and posting it all over the Internet?
"An 'Inappropriate and Denigrating' Photograph"
Grow up, administration! There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING wrong with a photo of a woman wearing a bikini. For God's sake, there are women in bikinis in PG-rated movies! How is this photo any different? The female team member even stated that she was trying to "celebrate her femininity". By calling this one photo "inappropriate and denigrating," you are, quite simply, putting down feminism. If anything, that comment is sexist and I'm truly disappointed and disgusted that something like this would come from the University, the University that I attend, at a time when it is trying to deal with and eliminate the anti-female posters that have been popping up all over campus since the beginning of the term. It is no secret that the majority of students in engineering are male, which is even more of a reason for you to promote feminism at this school. By making arguments like this one, you are causing prospective female students to re-evaluate what school they should attend for their post-secondary education. Women need not leave their femininity at the door when they enter this school!
Conclusion
I'll keep this short and to the point. There was definitely some misuse of the SDC, but there is no reason the University administration should have been so harsh in punishing an entire team. Many of the arguments the administration brought up after the announcement of the FSAE team's suspension was made to engineering students are quite questionable, which leads me to believe that they are either trying to cover up their original argument for suspending the team or are perhaps questioning their own decision due to the international attention and criticism this story has already received. UW: Please get your story straight! You are trying to promote discovery (check your own homepage!), innovation, risk-taking, and unconventionality. How can you promote this if you won't let students do so without facing harsh consequences?
April 17th, 2011 - 01:29
Well said.
April 17th, 2011 - 09:48
Between the university’s feeble response to the posters (which were reported on inter/national media) and the university’s heavy handed response to this (also reported in inter/national media), you’d think that the university is trying to promote a bad image of itself. Someone on Twitter mentioned that the university may have been trying to protect its image, but I argue it’s worse that they did something so heavy handily.
In addition, I don’t think the sponsors care, and are more outraged with the university’s decision. The “Car sponsors decry UW decision on bikini photo” article in the Record suggests as much.