Almost a year ago now, I was a prospective student touring McGill for the first time. I remember the excitement, the nerves, and the shock of seeing more than a hundred people protesting outside the Sherbrooke gates. For the dozen students on my tour, it was our first impression of McGill and, to be honest, it was a bit of a deterrent. I recall a parent of another student on the tour inquiring how disruptive the protestors were for classes—it had been a serious concern of theirs and many others. Of course, we were assured that it was not disruptive at all, and that the protests had very little to do with McGill. That alleviated the concern in my mind, but I am sure that it was not the case for others.

In the past few months, I have been receiving emails from friends back home who are currently in their graduating year of high school, and are now attempting to navigate the confusion of choosing a university. While I have gotten the classic questions—“How are the professors?” “What’s the nightlife like?”—the one theme that keeps coming up is the student movement. My friends’ concerns include not only how protests affect classes, but whether they are violent or too intense. I have assured everyone asking the questions that the protests are not an issue; they stay out of McGill’s way, they are not violent, and they do not affect the classrooms. Despite my assurances, many still expressed doubt and declared it would still be a consideration in their decision. These kinds of questions show a consistent perspective that protests are a major deterrent and one that seriously influences students’ choice of school.

In the World Reputation Rankings of 2013, McGill has been ranked in 31st place—a serious drop from the previous year’s 25th. These rankings are subjective, but they seem to accurately show the international opinion of a university’s reputation. Reputation is a serious factor—not only for decisions of attendance, but also job prospects for McGill graduates. If McGill’s reputation continues to fall, the consequences could be serious. Such a fall calls into question what, precisely, led to this slip in rankings and what we can do to help fix it and repair McGill’s reputation.

The continued concerns of potential students may be indicative of this issue. Universities, in part, gain their reputation from the amount of demand from students. If students no longer choose McGill, and would rather attend a university of lower ranking to avoid the complications of protests, it would be surprising for McGill not to experience a fall in rankings. Students are a key resource for a university to prosper, and when they choose to attend other institutions, it becomes an issue the school must address.

Certainly, the protests have a cause; they are not senseless. Looking at the issues at hand, they are not an unreasonable reaction. The unfortunate reality, however, is that these protests are hindering, rather than helping McGill’s situation in the long run. A fall in rankings because of protests can lead to lower interest in enrollment at McGill. This decrease will lead to an even larger fall in rankings, and even less money and resources for McGill and other universities—the precise issue many are currently protesting. It becomes a vicious cycle that should be stopped sooner rather than later. The protests do, of course, combat real issues; but in order to help fix the situation, there needs to be a different, more cooperative way to help repair it. The protests are simply causing more damage than they’re worth.

White smoke billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel on Mar. 13, declaring to the world that the papal conclave had chosen a pope to succeed Benedict XVI, who resigned after declaring his inability to govern in old age.  Pope Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, represents many firsts for the Catholic Church’s papal legacy: he is the first to take the name Francis (after Saint Francis of Assisi), the first pope of the Jesuit order, and the first coming to the Vatican from the Americas—specifically, Latin America.

From one perspective, Pope Francis is representative of significant changes within an essentially static 2,000 year-old institution. The majority of practicing Catholics live the southern hemisphere, as more and more Catholics leave the church in Europe and North America, where secular society increasingly defines politics.  Demographic shifts characterize today’s Church, and with the appointment of Pope Francis, its political motives are increasingly evident.  While the Church has indicated its acknowledgement of its most ardent followers—South American Catholics account for 80.66 per cent of South America’s population, and 27.87 per cent of the world’s Catholics—the appointment is, nonetheless, indicative that the Church’s motives aren’t so much geared toward reform as they are toward policy.

Though some cite “laziness” or “youthful rebellion” as the reasons for which increasing numbers of young people are leaving the Church, this can be linked to shortcomings on the part of the institution itself.  Social issues like gay marriage are important to younger demographics today, but the inability for women and married men to become priests also limit the Church’s accessibility, as well as its potential for growth.  While going to church is not exactly every college student’s ideal Sunday morning, their lack of incentive is enhanced by outdated Church doctrine. According to CNN’s Belief Blog, one in 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic.  2001 census data shows that more than 80 per cent of Quebecers still declare themselves Catholic, but only about 6 per cent of these declared Catholics attend mass weekly, demonstrating the increasingly popular ‘pick and choose’ approach to modern faith. The child sex abuse scandals which the Church has been slow to address have certainly not encouraged “fallen-away” Catholics to return either.

Even as it trends away from institutionalized belief, the Western world celebrated the newly chosen bishop of Rome.  Church bells rang out mid-afternoon in Montreal, the press was abuzz worldwide, and even Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a statement welcoming the new pope.

Despite growing tension between the spiritual individual and the institution, and general indifference toward religion in Europe and North America, we appear to celebrate, and in fact, amplify an event that will not affect many of us at all—Catholic, non-Catholic, or non-religious.

Given the decision to elect a pope only nine years younger than Pope Benedict, it doesn’t appear that the Vatican is interested in making any major differences to the papal post.  Though we can only speculate right now, it is likely that the views of the man leading the Church will not align with North America’s 173 million Catholics.

If this gap widens, and the Church fails to address issues facing Catholics in North America and Europe, only more followers will lose touch with their faith.  While perhaps a decisive geo-political move, the accumulating ignorance toward Western social changes will inevitably hinder the Vatican’s political and religious power in these locations should Pope Francis follow in Benedict’s, and others’, footsteps.

It has long been said that the social structure of the job industry must grow to better represent minorities. However, this institutional change has come too slowly, and notable improvements in female-to-male ratios in the workforce have failed to manifest. Nonetheless, according to Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, there is real change that women can realize in their own lives.

Sandberg recently made the cover of Time Magazine for her new perspective on why fewer women are attaining high-level positions in the workforce. Sandberg invites women to take an introspective approach by calling attention to three points.

“Sit at the table”: women tend to attribute their success to external factors, underestimating their capabilities, and thus do not negotiate for themselves in the workforce.

“Make your partner a real partner”: in society, men are pushed more to succeed, whereas women tend to take responsibility over house and childcare. This engenders imbalanced relationships, and yields women who are not as invested in their work in contrast to their male counterparts.

“Don’t leave before you leave”: when women start to think about having children, they lean back, Sandberg says. They start making room for their child at work when they may not even be pregnant yet. Thus, they do not take on new challenging projects, or accept promotions with more responsibility. As a result, says Sandberg, women find themselves disengaged in their job and have less incentive to return once they become mothers.

Reflecting upon my own life, I have been accountable for my own unrealized potential because of behavioural humility. After working as a lifeguard for my municipal district for a year, my boss called me into his office to offer me a promotion to the position of supervisor. To my own surprise, I rescinded the offer because I lacked confidence in my lifeguarding skills, and the failed to realize I was in the ranks of my superiors. In retrospect, I realized that the reason he was offering that position was due to his confidence in my abilities, and belief that I was an asset to the staff. Whether I exhibited the same symptoms that Sandberg diagnosed is debatable. The fact is I don’t have a legitimate reason as to why I turned down that promotion. A few weeks later, a less experienced male took the position instead.

There is much-needed institutional and social change, so that an employee’s ability is not negated by complacent behaviour. However, these changes will not occur as immediately as it is needed. Sandberg’s points offer us suggestions to remedy these partial constructs. She gives us a quick-fix in which we can change our approaches and attitudes. Sandberg asks us to be aware of ourselves—not just girls and women, but everybody whose behaviour is shaped by society—and calls for more self-vigilance. This is what is needed for more successful careers, more deserved recognition and a more representative demographic in every job industry.

Women are, without question, the most oppressed group in the world. In any society, women have had to overcome disadvantage, prejudice and underestimation. Sandberg’s points address something that is unjust, yet real: certain socially manifested tendencies are constraints to women’s advancement in the workplace, and these preferences are deeply embedded in the employment industry. Thus, one interprets Sandberg’s advice as a change from the inside-out. Once those disadvantaged come into a position of power in which they can change the institutions that oppressed them, social progress can happen.

This is very important. Top-tier jobs are an undoubtedly influential factor in the future of invention, innovation, and development. If we continue to dismiss the misrepresentation of minorities, and fail to address the social issues so deeply sanctioned in society, much needed potential progress will be lost in negligence. This is progress we can no longer afford to lose.