Following the Civil Rights movements, a change began in the way people viewed one another. Specifically, American citizens were treated as equals—at least constitutionally—and there was a worldwide trend in the direction of equal opportunity, regardless of race. There was a general consensus that racism would no longer be tolerated.

However, the issue of racism has taken new forms today.

Today, the term ‘mixed’ is colloquially employed to indicate someone of multicultural heritage. The term itself completely strips the person of their association with any other race. It does not signify any ethnic identification, and it ignorantly gives a shallow label for an entire growing population. Furthermore, this label has proliferated into a commodity. Being of mixed race has turned into something of an asset; an adapted form of racism through the commodification of physical traits, dismembering people from their cultural identity. Countless times, I have heard people saying they want ‘mixed’ children or wish they were ‘mixed.’ This interpretation of someone from a multi-ethnic background has thus morphed into a status symbol. Physical traits that are ‘racially ambiguous’ have become sought after, or favoured. The estranged, exotic, and sometimes alien-like perception of multi-ethnic people is a mystified reaction to a lack of information.

Although there is a counterargument that this is a form of praise rather than discrimination or oppression, much of the praise is due to an absence of comprehension. I personally come from a multicultural background—my mother is ethnically Vietnamese, and my dad is Kenyan (specifically Kikuyu). I have found that the terminology of being ‘mixed’ and the connotations behind it end up masking much of my identity. For me, being Kikuyu-Vietnamese represents how two cultures, though incredibly different in customs and values, can come together not only in tolerance, but in love, celebration, harmony, and learning.

Furthermore, many caucasian Canadians and Americans come from diverse backgrounds. People often explain that their heritage has several origins. Ranging from Scottish to Aboriginal, there is a clear illustration that many North Americans come from more than one ethnicity; one could argue that they are much more ‘mixed’ than I.

This new mode of racist labeling is echoing throughout the world. Arbitrary racial categorization has manifested itself in the form of new taxonomy. Words such as hapa, for someone of Asian heritage; hafu, in reference to a racially mixed Japanese; halfie, a slang a term for a biracial person; or the more commonly recognized ‘mixed.’ These terms do not give the complete story; instead they convenience demographic surveys, and simplify categorizing racially diverse people into a single mental checkbox. Not only does this arbitrarily group people of varying and dissimilar ethnic backgrounds, it completely dismisses any identification with their original heritage. Checking off that you’re ‘mixed’ is like identifying as racially ambiguous, not belonging to any ethnicity. For many people, including myself, this is oppressive.

With increasing globalization and immigration, people are interacting with a more diverse environment. There is no value in categorically assigning someone to a single racial group. Let us not take a step backward and proliferate racism in a new articulation. Discourse shapes not only the way people comprehend one another, but how people perceive themselves. Further interconnection and transnational cohesion will call for the integration of foreign cultures. In this process, it is worthwhile to take the time to understand one another in a manner that is effectively illustrative, rather than categorically convenient.

Dartmouth College recently announced its decision to stop granting credits for high Advanced Placement (AP) scores, starting with the class of 2018, after a nearly unanimous faculty vote.  This new policy has caused a lot debate among students, faculty, and administrators at various universities about whether or not advanced standing credits should carry over to university. Dartmouth’s decision is based on the claim that AP courses don’t match the academic rigour of the programs at their Ivy League institution. Their plan, therefore, is a sweeping change in policy in which they would stop accepting AP credits completely.

With tuition costs at an all-time high, and bachelor’s degrees depreciating in value, many students are looking for ways to cut down on some of the time and money spent on their undergraduate degrees.  AP courses provide a cheap way for talented and motivated students to earn university credit in high school, and potentially exempt themselves from a semester, or even an entire year at university.  This could save students tens of thousands of dollars on their educations, and reduce the high levels of student debt that lurk over so many students upon graduation.

In addition, despite Dartmouth’s claims, many students who scored well on their AP tests may, in fact, possess equal or even greater knowledge to that which they would have acquired at a university. The small settings of AP classes in high schools, and the close attention that teachers are able to provide often result in students who are tremendously knowledgeable about the subjects that they study.  If universities stop accepting AP credit, many students may be forced to take classes for material they have already learned.

McGill’s current policy requires students to report all the AP exams they have taken, and students are usually granted credit for scores of 4 or 5.  As a result of this rule, many incoming students to McGill are granted U1 status in their first year.

While entering McGill as a U1 certainly has many advantages, it can cause some students to feel overwhelmed, as they are expected to declare their majors earlier, take more challenging courses right away, and complete their program in three years. The Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) recently addressed this issue in a general assembly motion, calling for the AUS to lobby the faculty of the arts to change the advanced credit system. The proposed reform would allow students entering with 24 or more credits (the number needed to enter as U1) to instead enter as U0 if they so desired.  Students would still have the option to use advanced standing credits to avoid prerequisites. Since every student is different, this would be a more personalized and flexible way for students to apply their advanced standing credit towards university, and it could help ease the stress that many students face when they enter as their first year.

Dartmouth’s decision, however, brings to light an important concern.  Universities shouldn’t be expected to accept advanced standing credits if they aren’t compatible with their standards of education.  However, advanced standing credit is beneficial to students for a variety of reasons, and shouldn’t be done away with.  The main purpose of APs is to allow students to tailor their education to their own needs.  Therefore, the solution to how universities should treat advanced standing credits is to adopt a more personalized system.

As the AUS motion proposed, students should be able to choose whether or not they want their advanced standing credits to carry over to university.  Universities, too, should be able to tailor the system of advanced credits to their own requirements by administering placement tests to ensure that students who are “advanced,” according to their AP scores, do indeed meet the requirements to enter certain higher level courses.  There is no need to stop accepting advanced standing credit as Dartmouth plans to do.  A much less drastic change is required: a more tailored system that takes into account both the needs of individual students and university standards.

Earlier this month, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty convened with senators in Ottawa to discuss lowering import tariffs in an effort to combat a persistently “irritating” American-Canadian price gap.  Despite the two currencies residing at near-parity, there is a price gap between Canadian and American retailers, compounded by an even larger discrepancy between sales tax rates. As a result, Canadians flock across the border in droves every bank holiday, and even on the casual weekend to reap the bountiful harvests of American consumer products.  With import tariffs as high as 18 per cent, Canadian retailers—as well as consumers—feel ripped off by impediments to selling and buying products with stark competition just across the border, and many feel the federal government should do something about it.

This great southern migration is a phenomenon with which I am quite familiar. Torontonians at McGill may be well aware of my particular case study: the Walden Galleria Mall.

A haven for thrifty Ontarians, the Walden Galleria includes over 200 stores, 11 sit-down restaurants, a movie theatre, and is located just outside of Buffalo, New York—my hometown.  While local mall-goers, myself included, enjoy complaining about the widely foreign-dominated parking lot, how “the Canadians” steal our post-Christmas deals on “Boxing Day,” and how they must have taken all the remaining size fours from the Urban Outfitters sale rack, the truth is, we love you guys. Honestly, we couldn’t live without you.  Aside from the poorly groomed waste of a tourist destination which is the American side of the Niagara Falls, the Walden Galleria is just about all that western New York has going for it right now.  With a slumping job market, continued population decreases, and as one of the most impoverished American cities, Buffalo is (almost) economically nothing without its loyal, Canadian fan base.

But Canada isn’t simply here to help out economically depleted, former rust belt American cities.  Business has no sympathy: there are winners, and there are losers.  And right now, Canadian businesses’ heels are digging into the mud, and the rope’s bristles are slowly gnawing at their feeble, clenched hands.  But does the exchange rate mess have to be a tug-of-war?

As an American international student in Canada, I can’t quite devise a solution to promote Canadian business without keeping my home country in mind.  So perhaps, from a third-party, politically unmotivated, expatriate perspective, there is, rather, a North American system of respect and compatibility to be celebrated.  While the U.S. thrives on consumerism, Canadians benefit from federal social welfare, such as healthcare—in place of really cheap clothes.  In America, you get clothes, and then you die.  In Canada, you get clothes from America, and then you don’t die.

According to Numbeo, an online cost-of-living database, consumer prices in the U.S. are 18.31 per cent lower than in Canada.  While the Canadian federal government could certainly lower certain tariff burdens, making domestic products lower for consumers, and businesses more competitive with their American counterparts, it seems unlikely that Canadian retail prices will be able to rival those of the United States any time soon. The Canadian and American economic systems are fundamentally different; the partial compensation of a tariff won’t affect any great reversals. Ideologies will persist until they come to an improbable halt; so please, Canadians, continue to cut me off in the parking lot, and take the next spot closest to the entrance.

Today’s generation is a product of the internet, having grown up with this technology and the wealth of information that it provides. They are encouraged to constantly build upon previous ideas, and they share their wealth of knowledge through this easy-access medium. Epitomizing this generation was Aaron Swartz—an entrepreneur, co-creator of RSS and co-founder of Reddit, and a prominent internet activist on the side of internet freedom and unrestricted access to information. In July 2011, Swartz entered MIT and downloaded a large number of academic articles from JSTOR, a popular digital library, in protest of inaccessible academic information. He was caught and arrested. When trial began, federal prosecutors sought to give him decades in prison, and up to a million dollars in fines—a punishment many have called disproportionate. Sadly, on Jan. 11, 2013, Swartz took his own life, causing wide-ranging dismay in the internet community.

Academic articles such as those that Swartz downloaded are a vital part of the learning process. Students at institutions that subscribe to such publishers as JSTOR are fortunate enough to have the information; but what about those who cannot access it? There are many people who are equally interested in learning, but do not have the opportunity because they are not part of such a community. This is not an appropriate course for a society which claims to encourage learning and seeks to foster an environment of innovation. Simply due to circumstance, many people with a potential to innovate are restricted by the lack of resources made available to them. If we truly want to create a society of continued progress, we should share knowledge with all those who wish to access it.

There is an ever increasing number of young internet entrepreneurs who were self-taught. By restricting previous research papers and access to knowledge, we are hindering similar potential innovations in all fields. In this age of entrepreneurialism and self-initiative, it is counter-intuitive to restrict the resources that are necessary to promote such ambition. This limitation on learning has given rise to the freedom of the internet debate. Information that is at students’ fingertips has made life easier; and so, much like a public library, shouldn’t it be free for all who seek it?

Swartz stood for something that is extremely relevant in students’ lives. It is a battle that needs to be fought and, with Swartz’s death, has lost an essential fighter. This is an era of phenomenal growth and change, and we must constantly be aware that we are setting precedents for the freedom of information online. If the laws created now tighten copyright restrictions, they will be incredibly challenging to change later on. Now is the time to demonstrate the importance of open access ,and the continuing development of technology and knowledge.

The rise of the internet has unlocked a myriad of opportunities, which restrictions and censorship will only decrease. With the accessible and credible repositories of knowledge online, those who previously never had the opportunity to learn now can. People are finding new skill sets that are incredibly applicable to modern day, and would be irrelevant without the internet. We must take advantage of this potential instead of limiting it, as it will ultimately foster returns for our society. None of this is possible without open access to information, something that Aaron Swartz fought for, and something we must continue to protect in years to come.