On Jan. 25, between 15 and 20 students were temporarily excluded from McGill residences due to alleged violations of COVID-19 residence safety protocols. They were given less than 24 hours notice and were stripped of their meal plans and student IDs, leaving them without access to McGill buildings, including cafeterias. The administration justified its actions by referencing a change in the residence handbook which eliminated the three-strike policy that had previously been in effect until Jan. 13. In excluding its student tenants, the university sent a message to the McGill community: First-year students are nothing more than a source of income to be managed as efficiently as possible.
The past several months have seen the worst of the pandemic thus far in Quebec. Although red zone restrictions have been in place since Sept. 28, several new measures were implemented in December and January, including the closure of non-essential businesses and, most notably, a curfew between the hours of 8 p.m. and 5 a.m. To exclude students now, without allowing them time to find alternative living arrangements, is morally reprehensible. Merely being outside in the evening can lead to police intervention and severe fines—not to mention that January is one of the coldest months of the year in Montreal. Rather than taking concrete actions to curb the spread of COVID-19, this approach only allows McGill to disregard the systemic problems within their residences and leave students to fend for themselves.
Students have been criticizing the Residence Life guidelines since the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year. McGill Student Housing and Hospitality Services (SHHS) initially instituted a three-strike system to limit unsafe social gatherings to curb the spread of COVID-19 in residences. However, many floor fellows have alleged that beyond mask mandates in common areas, rules were few and far between and, above all, poorly enforced. Gatherings and small parties in residences continued with minimal consequences and have now resulted in over 40 cases of COVID-19 in Royal Victoria College residence alone.
To an extent, these violations are to be expected. Students often elect to live in residence in their first year to make friends and experience the social aspects of university. Once there, immediately surrounded by other people and subject to peer pressure, it was inevitable that some would ignore guidelines. Thus, in opening residences—a move almost surely driven by financial incentives—McGill chose to enable risky behaviour. This decision should have only been made with sufficient planning and resources. For example, McGill could improve its system to allow students to isolate should they have symptoms and more clearly define the consequences for violating public health measures.
The university’s negligence has also put floor fellows at risk. Some have reported a lack of proper training, personal protective equipment, and adequate support from their employers. Because their jobs require them to interact with students face-to-face, it is crucial that SHHS properly equip them to simultaneously enforce safety measures and protect themselves. Students must support the work of the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE), which has been working to defend the labour rights of its floor fellows.
All of this said, McGill’s poor decisions do not justify or excuse some students’ unsafe behaviour. Ignoring COVID-19 safety protocols exemplifies a clear lack of respect for one’s peers and the broader Montreal community. There should undoubtedly be punishments for those who place their own enjoyment over others’ safety, which may include fines issued by law enforcement. But excluding students on short notice during a pandemic does nothing to remedy the situation and ultimately puts students at even greater risk.
The pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges that even large institutions such as McGill were unprepared to overcome. But 10 months since the onset of the pandemic, there is no longer any excuse for such irresponsible management of the situation.
Is it not cruel that McGill invited first years back to campus from other cities and even other countries, if the University was COMPLETELY unprepared to house the students(or feed them)? Is it not cruel that McGill provided no social interactions (safely) for these new students far from friends and family, many of whom know NO ONE in Montreal? Is it not cruel that students desperate for some social connection to ward off depression and loneliness are EVICTED from University residences as “punishment” and were forced to live in a hotel (at their own expense), or for those under 18 who could not go to a hotel, go sleep on the couch of someone they barely knew? McGill had an obligation to be at the forefront of legitimate information, testing, contact tracing and being sure that University employees interacting with students were not those in the small but important “high risk” category of elderly or severe underlying health conditions. We cannot hide from this virus; we will either be vaccinated, or develop the virus. Trying to eliminate all cases is not sound epidemiological thinking. Let’s diligently and intelligently protect those in the high risk categories from exposure, and go back to living our lives–yes–in the midst of a pandemic.