Sometimes you have to give in order to get.

That’s exactly what SSMU’s Legislative Council did last Friday by voting in favour of signing a new Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), (see “MoA”, page 1). This particular MoA has been in negotiations for a long time, mainly because of a section that seeks to limit how student groups can use the McGill name. 

Knowing that the administration was firmly committed to stopping student groups from explicitly using the McGill moniker in their names, the council voted to accept the MoA, even though most of its members are politically and philosophically against what it stands for.

By doing this, council has gained two important things: one, they’ve gained concessions on the use of the McGill name, including one significant improvement from 2006’s MoA, which stipulated that no new student group could use the McGill name in any way. Under the new MoA, many student groups can continue to use the McGill name, as long as it is qualified by “students(‘),” “SSMU,” or “@.” Secondly, the unsigned MoA was a barrier to a new lease agreement being reached between SSMU and the administration for the Shatner Building. The lease expired on May 31, 2011.

Later on Friday, the SSMU Legislative Council voted not to sign a 15-year lease extension which would have necessitated SSMU taking over utility payments for the building on a gradual basis, which they do not currently pay. There were concerns that the lease as proposed would require an increase in students’ SSMU fees.

Under the terms of the new MoA, up to 130 student groups will be forced to change their name to conform to the new standards. Since many will be faced with the cost of new domain names, merchandise, etc., McGill has agreed to give $25,000 towards these varied expenses.

The administration’s reasons behind the changes are twofold: limiting liability, and guarding reputation.

Though it’s difficult to speak on the legal implications of the name change, the second argument is questionable at best. There is no way that any scandal involving a McGill student group won’t be instantly tied to the university by the media—regardless of whether it’s the “McGill Hooligans” or “Student Hooligans at McGill.”

The “We are all McGill” campaign had the right idea, but the realities of the situation, and the extent to which universities, like McGill, will go to control their brand proved too difficult to overcome. 

This is not uncommon, as, for example, Queen’s athletic website has a section devoted to a “Visual Identity Guide” for their sports’ teams clothing and restricts not only which teams/clubs can order Golden Gaels’ brand athletic wear, but also the dimensions of the Queen’s logo, and even the proportion of colours on the jerseys (for home uniforms, it’s 75 per cent gold, 20 per cent blue, and 5 per cent red).

Though agreeing to the new MoA may prove to be an unpopular decision, SSMU’s Legislative Council did the best they could for the student body when confronted with an impossible situation. SSMU couldn’t have achieved better terms by holding out; therefore, the Tribune applauds the Council’s decision to vote yes to signing the MoA, even if we, or they, aren’t entirely satisfied with it.