The position of president of the Student Society of McGill University (SSMU) was decided by just 23 votes in the winter referendum, announced on March 14 in Gerts. With 40.9 per cent of the vote, Engineering Undergraduate Society President Josh Redel defeated Shyam Patel, current SSMU VP Finance and Operations, who received 40.5 per cent of the vote.

“I feel very happy. It was an extremely close race and I think that speaks [volumes],” Redel said. “I have a lot of work to do but I’m really excited that I had a big support group out and a really awesome campaign team, and obviously it made the difference.”

Voter turnout was 29.1 per cent, eight per cent higher than last year.

“I’m glad we had a good turnout, it’s better than last year … and better than even two years ago which was the last time it was more contentious,” current SSMU President Maggie Knight said. “It’s good that we had so many candidates [and] no uncontested positions.”

“I thought it would be close, I didn’t think it would be that close,” she commented on the race between Redel and Patel.

The position of VP Internal had the most candidates, with seven in the competition. Michael Spzejda won the position with 18 per cent of the vote. Christina Sfeir came in a close second, with 15 per cent of the vote.

Robin Reid-Fraser was elected VP External with 37.8 per cent of the vote and Haley Dinel won the position of VP University Affairs with 33.8 per cent of the vote. JP Briggs won VP Finance and Operations with 37 per cent of the vote, and with 46.5 per cent of the vote, VP Clubs and Services went to Allison Cooper.

Winning candidates seemed overjoyed and the crowd cheered with each winner. Cooper appeared overwhelmed by the results. When asked how she felt, she only said, “That’s a good question.”

“I’m feeling pretty rotten about it because throughout this campaign [to] which we gave everything there was not a single articulated voice of opposition,” Niko Block, chair of the ‘Yes’ committee and undergraduate representative to the Board of Directors of CKUT, said of the result.

“It means that we’re going to have to continue struggling with deficits, we’re going to have to struggle continuing to pay our employees a fair living wage at CKUT, [and] we’re going to struggle to meet our basic expenses for the next little while,” he said.

The option to run a referendum question in the next fall semester is a possibility; however CKUT has yet to discuss what its next step will be.

Sam Reynolds / McGill Tribune

Sam Reynolds / McGill Tribune

Arts undergraduates voted against entering an unlimited student strike at a special General Assembly (GA) held on Tuesday, March 13. The motion, which was defeated by a vote of 609 to 495 and included 16 abstentions, would have allowed the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) to join the Quebec-wide student strike against tuition fee increases.

The GA was scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m., but was delayed for three hours because the SSMU cafeteria, originally scheduled to hold the event, did not have the capacity for all students who wished to attend. By 6:30 p.m., the lineup extended from the Shatner University Centre to the Schulich Library of Science and Engineering.

In the ensuing hours, the AUS opened the SSMU Ballroom, EUS Common Room, and Thomson House to accommodate the students. Many students waited a few hours in the cold before they were relocated.

“I think it was a bit disappointing because [people] keep saying that they want more students to participate democratically, but then we realize that they don’t have the means in place,” said Colleen Alkalay-Houlihan, a U1 math student in arts who arrived early at 5.45 p.m. and waited for three hours.

At about 8:30 p.m., students lined up outside Shatner were moved to Leacock 132, which can hold 600 people. Students in the EUS Common Room and Thomson House were then relocated to Leacock 132.

AUS president Jade Calver said that the AUS had not expected the huge turnout.

“We had considered [the possibility of needing more rooms], but we honestly were not expecting this much of an overflow … I was thinking 500 or 600 [students] would come,” Calver said.

The AUS GA officially began at 9:00 p.m. Debate was held in the SSMU cafeteria and was livestreamed to the SSMU Ballroom and Leacock 132 through TV-M.

After the agenda was approved, the movers of the motion to strike presented their motion and addressed its implications for the McGill community.

“We’re not fighting with the McGill administration over this one, we’re fighting along with every other Quebec student against the tuition hikes, and we’re fighting against the [provincial] government,” Amber Gross, co-mover of the motion, said.

Afterwards, the assembly heard three students in favour of the motion and three students against. Student Brendan Edge said that the students who attended the GA were not an adequate representation of the upwards of 6000 arts undergraduate students, and that voting in favour of a strike would be a misrepresentation of the students’ will.

“I am not going to put my education on the line,” Edge said. “I am not going to put my summer job on the line for this.”

Those in favour of the strike, however, pointed out that an unlimited student strike in Quebec has never caused the cancellation of a semester, and that a SSMU Solidarity Fund would give financial aid to students affected by the strike.

“This is our only option, and this is our only opportunity to say “We’re going to stand up: McGill is not going to be the only institution that doesn’t care enough, [that] is not aware enough, to get involved,” Jamie Burnett, U2 Economics and Women’s Studies and co-mover of the motion, said.

Another student, who could not be identified, argued that a general strike was financially impractical for students who would have to pay for rent and lose time at summer jobs if the strike resulted in an extended semester.

Following the speakers for and against, Speaker Ben Lerer received five amendments to the motion, but soon after heard a motion to end the debate and vote on the question. Students in all three rooms voted in favour of voting on the motion to strike without further debate.

“I thought a large part [of why] they voted to cut debate was because everyone who was at the GA had already made a decision,” Alkalay-Houlihan said. “I didn’t really think the debate was going to be convincing that many people.”

Students then voted on the motion to strike. The results from all three rooms were pooled. Shortly before 11 p.m., Lerer announced that the motion had been defeated with 495 students for the strike, 609 against, and 16 abstentions. After the motion was defeated, all three rooms holding the GA quickly emptied. Although there was a motion to remove speaker Lerer, the motion failed because Lerer had not violated the voting procedure.

Students then voted against adjourning the GA, and the remaining students relocated to the SSMU cafeteria. However, the GA’s attendance dropped to 119 members, less than the quorum of 150 people, which meant that further motions could only be passed by the assembly as a consultative body. The assembly finally moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m.

Jérémie Duké-Laviopre, a student at the Cégep Vieux-Montréal and member of the Coalition large de l’Association pour une Solidarité Syndicale Étudiante (CLASSE), the main organization behind the unlimited student strike, who attended the GA as an observer, said that general assemblies in French institutions were different from what he witnessed at the AUS GA.

“[Debates in French institutions] are more structured. We take more time to discuss the motions,” Duké-Laviopre said. “[This] result is pretty sad for the movement.”

Alkalay-Moulihan suggested that the large turnout was due to student concerns with the practical aspects of a student strike.

“I think pretty much everyone who voted no would have gone to class [if the strike motion] had passed. People were upset by the idea that they might be physically blocked from going to class,” she said. “Furthermore, I think a lot of people don’t feel the GAs really do represent them. That’s why so many people came out tonight, because there’s this idea that all the radical students are going to the GA … so the votes that are passing through aren’t really representative.”

Gross said she was frustrated by the lack of coordination between the different rooms and the AUS’ unpreparedness for the large number of students who attended.

“Obviously it was disappointing… that the vote was so close and it ultimately failed, but 44 per cent of arts students voted in favour of striking,” she said. “I was really excited to see how many people came out. The fact that we had a line stretching all the way across campus was the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen on McGill campus.”

This winter, McGill’s Office of Sustainability launched a year-long project, Vision 2020, to ensure sustainability on campus and to promote student participation and awareness in sustainable initiatives. The idea behind this project is that interactive planning and intra-community collaborations will make long-term sustainability more effective and feasible. The project also presents an opportunity to work towards a common goal and reform how the administration consults students.

“Consultation around sustainability issues has become increasingly strong in recent years on campus,” Maggie Knight, president of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), said. “Ideally this will provide an example of best practices in collectively shaping our campus. As with most projects, it could use some more people hours to get it to where it needs to be. However, there are several clever people working on this, so I have high hopes that it will produce strong results.”

The project will include an external consultant, Sustainability Solutions Group, offering its expertise in sustainability planning as well as a Vision 2020 Steering Committee which aims to draw a vast range of opinions and perspectives from McGill’s students, academic staff, operational staff, and administration.

Jim Nicell, McGill’s Associate Vice-Principal, will chair this Vision 2020 Steering Committee and jointly select members for this committee with SSMU Sustainability Coordinator and the Office of Sustainability.

“I feel this is an idea with real potential,” Daniel Perrett, U1 geography, said of Vision 2020’s creation. “We need to be forward thinking as we engage with today’s environmental issues, such as the lack of awareness for appropriate means for composting on campus. There are obvious concerns regarding the long-term fruition of the project, but I feel that with sufficient leadership and student engagement, future McGill students can feel as passionate as we do about these projects.”

This project will involve three stages. The first involves a situational analysis of McGill’s on-campus sustainability performance, the second aims to set goals and objectives for sustainability within a 10-year timeframe, and the third will implement the concrete action items of a five-year action plan.

As a part of the project’s effort to achieve an open, consultative, and interactive planning process, students will be able to easily access the planning process and offer their opinions through online social mediums such as Facebook and IdeaScale, a website for posting and rating suggestions. Some popular ideas emerging on IdeaScale include “Encourage Sustainable Procurement Practices” and “Collaborative Student Research.”

“This project matters for students because they are really getting a chance to share their opinions about what McGill will look like in the year 2020,” Sean Reginio, an intern at the Office of Sustainability, said.

Reginio added that members of the administration have proposed that, if successful, this initiative could become the new model for student consultation at McGill.

“With all the events this year that have caused disagreement and turmoil on campus, I feel that a shared vision towards the future is something important to discuss,” Reginio said. “More importantly, though, I believe that this shared vision is possible, very possible. I truly believe in this community. It’s really time to collaborate.”

/- The first Vision 2020 event is a community conversation that will be held this Friday, March 16 in the RVC dining hall at 2:00 p.m. To contribute your ideas to Vision 2020, visit http://mcgillvision2020.ideascale.com /

Last Tuesday, SSMU hosted its second annual Forum on Undergraduate Education . The forum allowed students to propose and discuss ideas about the role of undergraduate students at McGill.

“This is the second year that we’ve had the event,” Emily Yee Clare, SSMU VP University Affairs, said. “It was started last year [in order to] create a forum where [students] would come together and talk about academic issues and how undergraduates [at McGill] are basically placed within a research-intensive environment.”

As a research-intensive university, McGill emphasizes the involvement of graduate students, who are able to engage in original academic research. This raises questions about how undergraduates fit into the process. Not having been properly trained to contribute to research, it may be difficult for them to contribute to the research.

The forum began with two public speakers who discussed how undergraduates can be more effectively integrated into the world of real academic research.

“The opportunities for undergraduate students to have some engagement in research provides opportunities really to engage in [certain] fundamental [aspects of research] … that are really important outcomes of an undergraduate education, [and] can be difficult to get within the standard course structure,” speaker Laura Winer, Associate Director of Teaching and Learning Services, said.

Speakers discussed the necessity for undergraduate students to have the opportunity to engage in authentic academic research in order to develop certain skills necessary to make real contributions to future research.

“When you engage in research, you understand how knowledge is created and refined,” Winer said. “People have to learn these skills and how to apply them in such a way where the fruits of their labour will have a certain validity.”

During the second part of the forum, students had the opportunity to put forward their own ideas about how McGill could better integrate the average student into more advanced levels of research. This raised topics such as the allocation of study space on campus, the quality of lectures, and the practicality of undergraduate degrees in general.

The forum differed in structure from the previous year’s. Rather than having a long period for students to make comments and ask questions to the speakers, students chose this year to sit at one of five tables, with each table focusing on a different issue of discussion while SSMU representatives wrote down points that were raised. After fifteen minutes, students were asked to move to another table to talk about a different issue. After three rotations, the forum was over.

“We found that the format of round-table discussions … really allowed for students to have a good understanding of the issues,” Clare said. “It really allowed us to get some concrete ideas from students and allowed students to be very honest about how they felt about different issues.”

While the speakers focused specifically on how to promote undergraduate engagement in research, the table discussion period allowed for a wider range of issues to be discussed without drifting very far from the general theme of research and how it can be facilitated.

Although organizers of the event felt that they received a lot of information to work with in order to improve undergraduate research at McGill over the next year, some students who attended did not receive the impression that much is actually going to be done for them.

“It was nice to get my feelings out, but because I’m in my second [to] last year, I don’t feel like any of the things that I’m saying are really going to be effective for me,” Mathura Ravishankar, U2 arts and science student, said. “To be honest, we raised a lot of issues but did not come up with practical solutions.”