Terahertz

19Mar/0911

An open letter re: the Iron Ring

The following is the letter that I have sent regarding the Iron Ring ceremony:

An open letter to the Corporation of the Seven Wardens Inc., the University of Alberta Faculty of Engineering, and APEGGA

I write to address my disappointment in The Corporation of the Seven Wardens Inc. (CSW), the University of Alberta's Faculty of Engineering, and of APEGGA. This disappointment stems from the exclusive and outdated language that remains in the Obligation for the Ritual Calling of the Engineer. I refer specifically to the explicit assumption that all engineers to be obligated hold a belief in the existence of a higher power.

On 9 March 2009, I was refused the ability to sign the Obligation without violating my conscience. I had requested the option to strike the line “God helping me” from the end of the Obligation, and was denied. As such I could not sign the document Possessing no belief in God, it would be dishonest for me to be obligated under the same ceremony that asks repeatedly for my Honour and to disobey my own beliefs. Further, I feel personally offended that the aforementioned organizations would suggest that I ought to betray myself in such a way.

Each of the CSW, Faculty of Engineering and APEGGA is involved in this systematic discrimination against those who hold no belief in God. The Faculty, through repeated endorsements in ENGG 100, 101 and 400, as well as the use of space in ETLC for Obligation signing and Iron Ring sizing, has inextricably tied itself to the CSW. Similarly, APEGGA has offered similar endorsements to the Iron Ring through its website.

"Like many established symbols, in recent years, the iron ring ceremony has come under criticism. It is viewed by some as sexist and by others as archaic. Some argue that the ceremony should be public. Others suggest it relies excessively on Judeo - Christian principles. Some feel that language should be changed to reflect current times by eliminating any reference to gender or to God. Others simply state that the overall tone is inappropriate for these enlightened times."

However, they merely respond that "...the value of the ceremony and the obligation and the reason why the heritage of the iron ring ceremony should be valued and preserved." This utterly fails to adequately address any of the concerns addressed in the cited paragraph.

What value does tradition and ceremony hold if they are unable to grow with our culture? When the ceremony was devised in 1925, the language reflected the times. It also reflected the biases and discriminations that existed then. In 1925, women had had the ability to vote in Canada for less than 10 years, while First Nations and members of specific races and religions could not vote. Were the Iron Ring ceremony of 1925 not to be open to the Chinese would we continue that practice today in the name of tradition? A truly meaningful Obligation is one that everyone feels comfortable and proud to sign, not one where potentially up to one third of the signatories are disregarding or excluded by portions of the wording.

Many similar arguments to these being presented by the CSW and its allies were heard in protest of the requested change the convocation charge at the University of Alberta. However, realizing that human rights were being violated, they agreed to a change, and took the opportunity to draft a charge that could be viewed as truly inspiring to all students. The new charge incorporates historical aspects, as well as recognition of the rights of freedom from religion and freedom to religion. Specifically, University of Alberta President Dr. Indira Samarasekera, one of Canada’s leading metallurgical engineers, states:

"In the past, Albertan society used to encapsulate this idea with the words 'to the glory of God.' Now, Albertan society has changed and different words are needed. This does not mean that we are abandoning long-standing values. By echoing the words of our founding president, Henry Marshall Tory, and the U of A’s motto, the new wording of our convocation charge is both a nod to tradition and a response to the need for change. And, fostering change in critical awareness of the past, in my view, is another goal that every great university should strive to achieve, and another reason why I take pride in how our community handled this issue."

Seeing as the APEGGA Code of Ethics demands that engineers respect human rights relating to matters of religion, it seems hypocritical for the organization to endorse the Iron Ring, without requiring that the ceremony be open and respectful to all practicing engineers.

I urge the Faculty of Engineering at the University Alberta and APEGGA to lobby the CSW to alter the wording of the Obligation, and the ceremony itself to reflect the diversity of viewpoints that are present among their constituents. If the CSW is unwilling to perform these changes, as is their right, then, as public organizations, APEGGA and the Faculty must remove their support from the CSW and Iron Ring, thereby recognizing the principle of the separation of church and state.

With my graduation is rapidly approaching, it is my desire to participate in the rituals with the friends and colleagues that I've spent the past few years with, but I refuse to compromise my principles to partake in this ceremony. It must be understood that were I to have signed the Obligation as it remains written, it would have been rendered meaningless to me.

Instead, I shall pledge to myself, not upon Cold Iron, but upon my honour, that I will abide by the intention of the Obligation, which, I believe, requires no belief in God and instead asks that every person perform to their utmost in their duties, and in failing that, be willing to admit their own faults. By refusing to modernize the Obligation and ceremony, the CSW appears to have lost sight of the meaning of the words in a stubborn adherence to traditionalism.

I remain optimistic that I will be allowed to sign a modified version of the Obligation, so that I can have the same right as every religious graduate of engineering.

Sincerely,

Ian Bushfield

The text of the Obligation for the Ritual Calling of an Engineer (from ENGG 400 course notes http://www.engineering.ualberta.ca//pdfs/ENGG%20400%20Week%203%20-%20Compliance,%20Engineering%20Organizations,%20Iron%20Ring.pdf)

The Corporation of The Seven Wardens Inc
Custodians and Administrators of
The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer
Obligation

I, ________ in the presence of these my betters and my equals in my Calling, bind myself upon my Honour and Cold Iron, that, to the best of my knowledge and power. I will not henceforward suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an Engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.

My time I will not refuse; my Thought I will not grudge; my Care I will not deny towards the honour, use, stability and perfection of any works to which I may be called to set my hand.

My fair wages for that work I will openly take. My Reputation in my Calling I will honourably guard; but I will in no way go about to compass or wrest judgement or gratification from any one with whom I may deal. And further, I will early and warily strive my uttermost against professional jealousy or the belittling of my working-colleagues in any field of their labour.

For my assured failures and derelictions, I ask pardon beforehand of my betters and my equals in my Calling here assembled; praying that in the hour of my temptations, weakness and weariness, the memory of this my Obligation and of the company before whom it was entered into, may return to me to aid, comfort and restrain.

Upon Honour and Cold Iron, God helping me, by these things I purpose to abide.

Also referenced:

Share
17Mar/098

I’m not buying it Gary

Gary Goodyear wouldn't comment on evolution this morning, and he's now added that it's "irrelevant" to his role as Minister of State Science and Technology.

That's right, the minister of science thinks scientific facts are irrelevant to his job.

His quotes in the first article to the Globe and Mail:

"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate"...

"Obviously, I have a background that supports the fact I have read the science on muscle physiology and neural chemistry," said the minister, who took chemistry and physics courses as an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo.

"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. ... I think we need to recognize that we don't know."

Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.

So evolution necessarily entails a religious question for him? The only people who agree with that statement have interesting ideas about the age of the Earth.

Further, who's claiming to know everything already? Not the scientists, or else they'd be out of work. There are some who claim to have the ultimate truth though...

But this is clearly the liberal press attacking a True ChristianTM, let's see how he cleared this all up a little later on CTV's Power Play (in the midst of continually dodging to try to plug Harper's science plan):

Jane Taber: So you do believe in evolution. You believe in the theory of evolution. Let’s just get this off the table right now.

Gary Goodyear: We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment. But that’s not relevant. And that’s why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong…

Wait, say what?

Does he think the theory of evolution is used to explain why people change shoes when it's hot or cold out? I agree that isn't relevant to your job - but knowing what the theory of evolution and modern science actually says is completely relevant to the Minister of Science.

There are many creationists in Harper's theocon caucus, and I think it's high time to expose the anti-science bias that exists within the governing party of this country.

This isn't a matter of religion, it's a matter of public policy being based on evidence and reason.

Share
16Mar/091

You shouldn’t be finance minister if you can’t add

Edmonton Journal reported Trish Audette reports from a budget meeting this morning in Edmonton that Iris Evans expects Alberta to lose only 15,600 jobs this year, when in Jan-Feb we've already lost 29,400.

That's right, either our finance minister can't add, read the paper, or is somehow under the perception that Alberta is going to come out of this recession before this summer, and get all those people jobs again by December.

Wow.

Share
15Mar/093

It’s not anti-semitic to criticize Israel

Chrystal Ocean at Challenging the Commonplace posted the following letter from a number of prominent Jewish Canadians regarding censorship over criticism of Israel. It has been denied publication by the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, so in response, I'll help get the word out here.

Share
14Mar/092

Repost: On why today isn’t a day for pi

(From one year ago)

Many around the world spent today celebrating the widest known mathematical constant, that share's it's name with a tasty treat:

π

The celebrate today because as March 14, or 3.14, it is a representation of π.

However this is wrong.

π in decimal (base-10) is 3.14159..., however, the calendar is not based on a base-10 system. So when is the real "pi day?"

We could consider a year to be like a circle, in that at the end (December) it connects right back to the start (January). In this representation we could represent the total number of days in a year (365.25) equal to the total angle of a circle (360 degrees, or 2π radians). This system would make "pi-day" to be approximately July 1st (or 2nd on a leap year, which also helps deal with rounding errors). This would also give us a 2π day on New Year's Eve.

Or perhaps we should use the year's total number of days as a base of counting, in which case π would have to be converted to that base and that would be the date. (Check my math perhaps) I think this date works out to April 24th or 25th (depending on leap years again).

However, explaining to people why you're calling April 25th, or June 1st pi day and eating pie (which I did indulge in today), might take longer than the brief amusement provided by the idea.

Share
Filed under: Fun, Parody, Science 2 Comments
10Mar/095

Overly sensitive

Last Saturday @michaeljanz organized the first ever Edmonton IDEAfest.

This event featured a diverse range of presentations which were submitted by students and members of the community. Topics ranged from atheism to Twitter to "The one thing George Bush did right." Daveberta has a writeup and links to a couple other people who sing the praises of a conference that was developed through social media (Facebook and Twitter) over two weeks.

Now, this event didn't come without criticism. One presenter (who I'll call X since he/she has since deleted their post, Twitter account, and locked the blog after saying a gratuitous good bye to the blogosphere - if you care it likely won't take you long to figure out who X is) was especially unimpressed with what X perceived to be a lack of diversity in the speakers and attendees of the event - both in terms of gender and race.

Share
9Mar/0975

I reject the Iron Ring

Upon graduation every engineering student (in Canada) is encouraged, nay expected, to partake in the "Ritual Calling of the Engineer." At this ceremony, overseen by the Corporation of the Seven Wardens Inc., these graduates receive the famed "Iron Ring."

The ring has much lore and history and most engineers look forward their entire degree to getting this symbol of their commitment to the profession of engineering.

While not required of engineers, the ceremony is attended by the vast majority of graduates, and the faculty and peers highly push students to partake in the event.

Today I took a stand and rejected the Iron Ring.

Some background: The ceremony originates from a poem by Rudyard Kipling. It continues what the overseers find to be "traditional" wording and the obligation (see slide 26 of this presentation) all Iron Ring wearers take contains the following that I object to.

...I will henceforth, not suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an Engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.

This passage I could let pass as I see the intent behind it, but the following (which is at the bottom), which they refused by request to strike out, was the dealbreaker:

Upon Honour and Cold Iron, God helping me, by these things I propose to abide.

They claim to have debated this wording before but have decided to stand firm and reject calls for change. As such I reject the calling and urge you to as well (or at least ask any friends you have in engineering).

If I can take a stand for the convocation at the University of Alberta, I will take a stand here.

Share
8Mar/090

Sunday News Briefs

Because linking to news stories with minor commentary is easier than actually writing posts:

And if that's not enough to keep you reading, follow me on Twitter where I try to post most of these short links.

Share
5Mar/090

2009 UofA SU Election Results

I called it 6/6.

Your 2009/2010 SU Exec is Mathewson, Eastham, Trueblood, Fentiman, and Dehod, also the Health Plan passed.

(h/t @chudleighvotes)

Share
4Mar/092

It’s not too soon to prorogue right?

Ignatieff is threatening to put a bill forward in the House calling for accountability over a surplus $3 billion that Harper wants spent right away with the accountability to come later. Harper is threatening if he doesn't get his way we'll have an election.

I really doubt there will be an election this soon, none of the parties will look good for it.

Harper will look bad for not willing to be accountable for the money, Ignatieff for forcing an election in an economic crisis, and Layton, albeit innocent in this confrontation, would get the usual media shaft.

Okay, I guess the Bloc will look good again, and that's always good for federalism.

So if there won't be an election, what will happen (in order of likelihood)?

  1. Harper backs down and accepts modest accountability.
  2. Ignatieff backs down and signs another blank cheque to Harper (like the LPC has done countless times already).
  3. Harper prorogues parliament.

I'm sure the third option is highly unlikely, and the Governor General would probably be obliged to not heed that call, however, she has yet to show any willingness to stand as a check against the PMO.

So here's to another proroguation, we all know Harper works better without that pesky House of Commons to answer to.

Share