Remembering a dear friend
As a past president of Zeta Tau Omega sorority, I am writing this
tribute to Peter Feidelberg, who perished in the tragic disaster of
terrorism in New York on September 11.
I woke up Saturday morning, November 17, 2001, in a great mood. One
of my best friends from Montreal, Stephanie Shaffer, a sorority sister
of Zeta Tau Omega, had come to stay with me for the weekend. I had
my 2-year-old daughter, Alexis, climb on the bed to wake up Stephanie
at about 10:30 a.m. By 11:00 a.m., Jodi Firestone, another Zeta Tau
Omega sorority sister now living in Toronto, rang the doorbell with
my Toronto Star in her hand. While living in Montreal, Stephanie,
Jodi and I were considered the three inseparable musketeers. It was
the first time we were all in the same city at the same time in almost
a year, and we were really looking forward to a fun day together.
But that fun day quickly turned into a sad and emotional one when
we each took a section of the newspaper to look at while having brunch.
Jodi had noticed that the paper had created a two-page spread dedicated
to various Canadians who were never found after the tragic events
of two planes purposely crashing into the Twin Towers in Manhattan
on September 11. Having already lost one distant relative to this
devastating act of terrorism, the paper confirmed that a colleague’s
son, Ralph Gerhardt, had not yet been found and was presumed dead.
Yet that wasn’t all. At a quick glance I thought I recognized
another person in one of the pictures. I quickly grabbed the paper
out of Jodi’s hands and when I saw the name in print, I felt
like I couldn’t breathe. The name Peter Feidelberg confirmed
that this was in fact an old friend whom I went to high school and
Concordia with. Peter was also an alumnus of the fraternity Theta
Sigma. I then went on to read how both he and his new bride, Meredith
Ewart, also of Quebec and Concordia and both employees of Aon Insurance,
were both presumed dead. The article about them was beautiful, and
although I never met Meredith, it described Peter perfectly. He was
a fireball, he always had a vibrant smile and a warm personality that
glowed like the rays of the sun. The article described him as a fun-loving,
open-minded person always on a mission of constant self-improvement
and a quest for new knowledge, as well as being a caring individual,
an adventurer with a love for sports and the outdoors.
To those who knew Peter, they would agree that this description of
a warm and caring individual fit him to a tee. As the shock set in,
my eyes glued to his picture, shivers ran through my veins and tears
down my face. The picture was quickly burned right into the memory
of my brain. The day turned into a reflection of our fun-filled university
days, and the more special memories we rehashed from our unconscious,
the more we remembered sharing them with Peter. All I could see the
entire day and night was the special smile Peter always had on his
face. I even found myself crying while driving to the restaurant for
dinner.
I am writing to tell others who knew him that the terrorists may have
taken his life away from this earth, but they can never take away
the special memories we all shared with Peter from our minds or from
our hearts.
Debbie Heller-Raphael, BFA 88
Toronto
Backing the CSU
I was very disappointed to see Concordia University Magazine turned
into a vehicle for the administration’s campaign against student
activists at the university (“Concordia
Moves On,” December 01).
You reported that “after Concordia Student Union (CSU) VP Laith
Marouf was caught painting graffiti on Concordia property a second
time, he and fellow CSU member Tom Keefer allegedly roughed up security
guards and Keefer allegedly uttered a death threat, witnessed, in
part, by Vice-Rector Services Michael Di Grappa,” but failed
to mention that the Concordia property in question was an abandoned
building slated for demolition or that witnesses to the full incident
say it was the guards who assaulted Marouf.
I cannot help but think that the main motive for the radical decision
to expel the CSU officers without due process and the administration’s
subsequent campaign against the CSU leadership was not the dubious
reasons cited above but rather the political stance Rector Lowy spells
out in the remarks you quote: “You can criticize the government
of Israel, for instance, without advocating violent uprising.”
Many people believe it is legitimate for Palestinians to resist Israel’s
illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Dr. Lowy is
entitled to a contrary view. But instead of arguing his position,
he has chosen to use his authority as rector to try to quash opposing
voices and to selectively target supporters of the Palestinian resistance
in the university community. (Thus far, Rector Lowy has not extended
his criticism of the advocacy of violence to pro-Israeli groups on
campus, which defend Israel’s far greater use of force.)
To my knowledge, no other university in Canada has ever attempted
to constrain the expression of opinion by members of the university
community in this way. The administration says it is defending Concordia’s
good name, but in the long run this unprecedented assault on freedom
of speech on campus can only tarnish the university’s reputation
as an institution of learning that respects principles of academic
freedom and disgrace Concordia’s long and proud tradition of
pluralism.
John Detre, BA 81
Pierrefonds, Que.
Equality first
Your Editor’s
Voice (December 01) says, “We will be forced, as a society,
to decide what’s more important: our physical safety or our belief
in justice and equality.” But if this was truly the only choice
available then surely nobody with an ounce of ethics could possibly
choose personal physical safety over justice and equality. Sometimes
you have to stand for something even if it means taking a chance.
David Hunt, attendee 85
Toronto
Wanting names
Dennis Murphy is Executive Director of University Communication
and an associate professor of communication studies. I suggest he
start to communicate. With one stroke of a very broad, critical brush,
Prof. Murphy — in The
Last Word (December 01) — paints a very negative picture
of a report about Concordia that was presented by one of the national
television news services.
But which “respected national news provider” was he talking
about? Who was “the anchor”? Who was “the reporter”?
Prof. Murphy denigrates all national newscasts, all national anchors
and all national reporters by his curious lack of specifics. His argument,
while perhaps valid, loses legitimacy because of these omissions.
How come?
Norris McDonald, S BA 69
Ontario Editor, The Toronto Star
