The Wilfrid Laurier University Graduate Students' Association badly needs a lesson in compassion.

The group's gross mistreatment of the man who until last month ran the popular Veritas Caf� on the Waterloo campus betrays a mentality that is irrational, thin-skinned, self-righteous, self-absorbed and harsh.

If these are the "community values" the association claimed to be defending when it terminated Sandor Dosman's contract to run the caf�, we can only say heaven help the community.

Dosman suffered the most severe penalty possible under the circumstances, namely the loss of the job he had held for nearly five years and the income that went with it and upon which he depended.

And for what? He had run a tongue-in-cheek help-wanted ad that said he was looking for "a new slave (full-time staff member) to boss (mentor) around Veritas Caf�." The ad, which was clearly meant to be funny, also joked about food safety because "we try not to kill our customers."

Humour is often in the beholder's eye. While some laughed at Dosman's ad, others took umbrage. The graduate students' association sided with the offended and said it had to enforce "community values." Hence, the caf� was closed and Dosman was escorted off campus by security officers.

The association may have thought it could banish the ensuing controversy by re-opening the caf� this week with nine of 10 employees back at work, though not Dosman.

But the facts of the matter suggest Dosman was treated unfairly and the students' association at least deserves to be called out for its behaviour.

First, the association never explained why the ad was so objectionable that Dosman's termination was the only option. Did someone conclude the "slave" reference was racist because black Africans were once enslaved in North America? If so, that would have been an erroneous, unsubstantiated assumption. There's nothing in the ad that is racist, sexist or disrespectful to any identifiable group. At Laurier, simply being offended - with or without reasonable cause - now seems to be grounds for dismissal.

Second, even if the ad was problematic, the students' association could have responded in a less extreme fashion.

A stern verbal warning. A letter of caution placed in a file. Even a request for a public apology. If Dosman's action required correction, a gentler correction would have sufficed. Punishment should be commensurate with the severity of an offence. It was not here.

Moreover, Dosman says the students' association had recently renewed his contract to run the restaurant before the furor erupted over the ad. If this is the case, the association was not putting its foot down to solve a long-standing problem - it was reacting in haste to a first-time offence.

Third, even in the face of public criticism and public appeals to treat Dosman more leniently, the students' association remained intransigent.

In the opinion of Samantha Deeming, the association's president, "it's a positive, positive story moving forward," and the angry criticism directed at her "made me a stronger leader."

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

We disagree. This is not about Deeming. This is not a positive story. This is about a man who lost his livelihood for no good reason.

What happened was unjust. It should not be forgotten.