Maggie Knight: President

From renegotiating the MoA to leading the charge on GA reform to assisting pepper-sprayed students on Nov. 10, Maggie Knight has been the face of SSMU throughout the semester. Her clear vision, approachability, and determination have helped voice students’ concerns to administration in this politically-charged semester. 

The Tribune especially commends Knight’s diplomacy and political tact since she took office. She has managed to navigate controversial situations like the MUNACA strike and MoA negotiation while remaining objective and always putting the needs of her constituents above her personal views.   

Knight has a clear version of SSMU—one that is democratic, transparent, and accountable. Knight has done everything in her power to uphold one of her campaign promises: a commitment to increasing transparency. This semester’s strategic summits and town halls—while often sparsely attended—have proven to be an excellent forum for discourse. However, the GA lost quorum and the strategic summit to reform the GA was under-attended. Despite Knight’s best efforts to reform many parts of SSMU, students haven’t reciprocated, and these events have been sparsely attended, leading some to wonder if student apathy is here to stay.

Carol Fraser: VP Clubs and Services

Carol Fraser, SSMU’s VP Clubs and Services, has done an excellent job with such a broad and expansive portfolio. She’s been very informative and fulfilled her duties effectively in the face of a number of challenges this year, including the MUNACA strike and SSMU’s new Memorandum of Agreement with the McGill administration. She has worked closely with clubs regarding name changes, advanced room bookings, and information regarding building hours under the strike. She has also been very accessible, holding office hours and keeping in close contact with heads of clubs, and has been a source of positive energy in a tense and stressful semester.

Shyam Patel: VP Finance

Shyam Patel has been an effective VP Finance so far. Earlier in the year, Patel stated that he wanted to make the budget more accessible, and he has done just that. Patel’s presentation of SSMU’s budget was almost as clean as his suits. Earlier in the year, Patel had plans for a student-run café and claimed that he would resign if it didn’t come to fruition. The café seems to still be under-wraps, but for the pure sake of keeping Patel around, we hope it opens soon. Students should hope to see more of this hands-on VP in the semester to come.

Joël Pedneault: VP External

Although the Tribune has had a difficult time deciphering the correct pronunciation of the VP External’s first name, Pedneault has demonstrated a strong capacity and dedication to the fulfillment  of his portfolio. Communicating as eloquently in French as he does in English, Pedneault is a competent representative of the undergraduate student body. He campaigned extensively on the issue of tuition increases, so his strong work promoting accessible education this year comes as no surprise. He has appeared multiple times this semester in local and national news, discussing the MUNACA strike, the disciplinary action levelled against him, and the police actions of Nov. 10.

From his work with the Mob Squad and other activist groups, it is clear that Joël is immensely passionate and works incredibly hard for the causes he believes in—including workers’ rights as it pertains to the MUNACA strike and tuition hike increases. The Tribune appreciates Joël’s commitment to these issues and commends his work thus far as an executive who can clearly articulate students’ concerns.

That said, next semester we hope to see a clearer bigger distinction made between his personal activism and his role as a SSMU exec. The VP External represents the student body to the outside world—a diverse group of over 20,000 students who have differing views. As an example, while it was important for him to speak at a press conference for MUNACA in early October, his unwavering support for MUNACA’s demands may be at odds with the views of some of the SSMU members.

Emily Yee Clare: VP University Affairs

This semester, Emily Yee Clare, SSMU’s VP University Affairs, faced several challenges in terms of negotiations with the administration. Along with Maggie Knight, Emily played a pivotal role in the negotiation of SSMU’s Memorandum of Agreement and the Shatner lease with the administration. In particular, she fought hard to keep the use of “McGill” in the names of clubs and services. The Tribune commends her decision to abstain from the Council vote on the MoA. As a negotiator, she believed she had a vested interest in the matter.

Throughout the semester, Clare demonstrated tremendous commitment to SSMU activities and was a regular face at the many strategic summits, town halls and consultation events the executives have organized. She has been effective in establishing dialogue with different sectors of the administration. Finally, the Tribune admires Emily’s dedication on the night of Nov. 10, when she spent several hours at the SSMU office providing support and company to students who were affected by the riot police. She has demonstrated that she cares for students and deserves recognition for her dedication. We are confident that whatever curveballs next semester brings, she will face them head-on.

Todd Plummer: VP internal

You might recognize the name Todd Plummer (aka “Plumm Sauce”), SSMU
‘s VP Internal, from the listservs he periodically sends to all SSMU members. This year, he changed SSMU listservs from a long email with too many ads into a brief paragraph with a link to the SSMU website, containing all the week’s notices for those interested. The Tribune really appreciated the new system, and was somewhat confused as to why halfway through the year, he returned to the old system.

Todd also oversaw Frosh, now called Orientation Week, and successfully implemented the administration’s new rules on alcohol consumption. Four Floors, one of SSMU’s staple events of the year, also occurred smoothly and successfully, and Homecoming was a much smaller event this year—probably for good reason. Overall, Plummer has done a great job in fulfilling his portfolio. We look forward to the exam time puppies he has promised throughout the year during Council. The puppy event is now just a general dog event, where students can come to pet dogs to de-stress, but we appreciate it all the same.

On Nov. 24, McGill’s Mob Squad held a communal assembly to discuss McGill’s governance and to propose changes to the way the university is run. 

Democracy and accountability were the major topics of the night, held at Café Alternative on Parc Ave., where the newly formed McGill Governance Reform Project (MGRP) met. The MGRP, a working group comprised of 15 students, was created in response to the events of Nov. 10th. Around 100 people attended the meeting, which was held off-campus so that MUNACA members could attend. The event included large numbers of students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community members, all of whom expressed concern about the way McGill operates.  

Set up like a town hall, the meeting began with a discussion of McGill’s current governing system. The group went over the guidelines of the MGRP, using Robert’s Rules to allow anyone in the room to motion to make changes, most of which were semantic. The end goal of the meeting was to allow nominations for the 12 spots on the commission and vote on them; it was required that the commission contain at least one undergraduate and one graduate student, one non-academic staff member, one faculty member, one alumnus or community member, and one francophone. These quotas were to account for the diverse array of perspectives that form the McGill community. 

Niko Block, former news and features editor of the McGill Daily and a founder of the MGRP, discussed the proposal they planned to present to the university on how to best restructure McGill’s administration. 

“[The goal is to] create a viable commission that will do research and prepare a proposal by Jan. 31, 2012 that everyone will stand behind and benefit from,” Block said.  

The general consensus was that in order to have a Board of Governors (BoG) that represents the needs of the McGill community, key decision making must be done by faculty, and the rest of the McGill community should also have a say. 

Daniel Simeone, a former McGill senator, member of the BoG and VP Internal of the PGSS, described McGill’s BoG as a place where people “don’t feel comfortable to speak their mind,” and pointed out that “the budget wasn’t presented in as much detail as it should have been.”  

“This lack of granularity stemmed from an increasing disconnect between the interests of the [Board of Governors] and the interests of the faculty, staff, and students, who interact with McGill on a daily basis,” Simeone said.   

A faculty member who wished to remain anonymous noted that this disconnect “reflects the fact that the real decision makers at McGill are no longer faculty members as they once were, but corporate executives who have little do with McGill.”  

“Since [2003], the McGill administration has become increasingly corporatized,” MFLAG member Kristin Norget said.

Upon its completion, a general assembly open to the entire McGill community will be held to ratify the proposal. It will then be petitioned, and when enough signatures are collected—it was suggested that the aim should be in the thousands—it will be presented to the McGill administration. Fraser added that possible public demonstrations similar to the ‘We are McGill’ gathering on Nov. 14 may be organized if the administration does not recognize the petition’s requests.

Attendance dwindled after the two-and-a-half hour debate over finer points in the commission’s statement of purpose preceding the election. When it came time to share nominations, there were only about 15 people left in the room and, as the group was about to elect 12 people to the commission, it was deemed inappropriate to hold such a vote with so few people present. After three and a half hours of deliberation, the organizers decided to adjourn and conduct the nominations and elections this week.

The McGill student body is large and diverse, with a multitude of different interests that infrequently overlap. Rarely does an event on campus carry enough weight and importance to unite the entire school in  discussion.

Thursday, Nov. 10 is an example of such an event. On that night, the occupation by 14 students of Principal Munroe-Blum’s office quickly devolved into something larger. Riot police were deployed onto McGill’s campus for the first time since 1969. Students—protesters and library-goers alike—were tear gassed, pepper  sprayed, and by many accounts, hit, shoved, charged at, night-sticked, and intimidated by police in riot gear.  

The sequence of events remains difficult to decipher. The administration has condemned the actions of the police but cites reports of intimidation and violence by the occupiers; a police representative denied any knowledge of the incident in a Nov. 11 interview with the Tribune. Occupiers claim security services initiated the use of force, and students cry “police brutality!”

When the administration publishes accounts of student violence and the occupiers are pointing at the security guards with masks (allegedly) clenched in occupiers’ upraised hands, the truth must  be somewhere in between. This article is not intended to provide yet another account of exactly what happened on that night: McGill Dean of Law Daniel Jutras is conducting an independent inquiry, at the behest of the principal, that aims to do just that. An independent student inquiry is also in the works. 

This article will instead examine a few of the issues surrounding the events of that evening. The following days and weeks have found groups on campus divided on many different levels: on the specifics of the occupation, on the decision to call the police, on expectations of what’s next. The Tribune takes a look at these different opinions point by point. 

 

Police on campus 

The events of Nov. 10 have been a source of ideological division among and within many groups on campus. However, a consensus has been reached by almost all of the McGill community on one issue: to use Principal Munroe-Blum’s own words, the presence of riot police on campus was “shocking.” However, the exact sequence of events leading up to the use of riot police is where disagreement occurs.  

The reason behind the deployment of riot police on campus is unclear, though it was likely in response to the congregation of students around and in front of the James Administration Building. The riot squad was likely deployed by the police who were already dealing with the occupiers and the crowd around James Administration Building. Even this action has received mixed reactions from the McGill community.

Political science Professor Jacob Levy condemned the actions of the riot police, but attempted to explain—not excuse—the chain of events that led to their presence. 

“It is true that the occupiers were there illegally and that it is legitimate for the university to use security to try and remove them,” Levy said in an interview with the Tribune. “And it’s also true that the protesters in support of the occupiers were moving in on the bicycle police in a way that really predictably triggers police looking for other police back up.”

“Clearly, the police handled the situation badly,” political science Professor Steve Saideman wrote on his blog, Saideman’s semi-spew. “Sending in the bike cops … was absolutely the wrong thing to do, as people tend not to take them very seriously.”

 

Calling in the police 

Although the tactics of the Service de Police de la Ville de Montreal (SPVM) have been questioned, the decision to invite them onto campus has been the target of a debate more connected to broader issues on campus. It’s unclear what the university’s plan of action is when a protest turns violent and spirals out of control. However, anyone on campus has the authorization to call in the SPVM.  

 “[W]hen you call in the police, they don’t let you tell them how to do their job,” Principal Munroe-Blum said in an interview with the Tribune, the McGill Daily, and le Délit. “And I might add, as well: anyone can call the police. Anyone can pick up their cellphone and call [911].”  

However, it remains unclear what contingecy plans exist between the police and the university once the SVPM are deployed. 

“Hopefully, the investigation will reveal exactly what the position of the administration [is] when there’s something going on on campus: are they responsible for calling the cops?” said Prof. Saideman. “Do they actually have a chance to say no to the cops, or are they completely out of it? We have no idea who has what responsibility.”

 

Occupons McGill 

What led to that phone call was a planned occupation of the principal’s office that quickly went off-book. Different accounts have surfaced since that evening: an anonymous letter from the 14 occupiers, some of whom have since come forward, and a letter from seven employees who were in the office at the time. Many groups and individuals at McGill have been throwing around terms such as “confrontational” and “masked,” clearly at odds with other accounts (“nonviolent,” “legitimate”).  

“There are reports that some of the students’ faces were covered and I think that introduces a wholly different element to it,” Arash Abizadeh, a professor of political science, said in an interview with the Tribune. “I think there’s responsibility on a lot of different sides, depending on exactly what happened.”

Matthew Crawford, arts representative to the McGill Senate and a self-identified occupier, spoke about the debate surrounding the nature of the occupation. 

 “Three people went in with masks … as in a bandana covering just the lower half of  their face … Once we were in, only one person kept on their mask,” he said. “One of the words that’s being bandied about is ‘overpowered’ … The idea of ‘overpower’ is so strong as a verb that it seems to conjure up this idea that we were pushing up against the door and knocking people over, which is not the case. We simply moved o
ur way in and used our bodies to block doors from people closing them on us.”

However, others believe that, masked or not, peaceful or not, the occupiers have some responsibility for what came next.  

 “I think that whatever they were doing inside the building, whatever their intentions were, they were making the situation more complex and potentially more violent,” Prof. Saideman said. “I think the best nonviolent protests are exactly that: nonviolent protests where you put the onus entirely on the other side, and part of the problem with doing it inside the building is it takes away the key advantage of the protest, which is the visibility of it all … I think that’s what the mistake was; you go into a building, and then it’s your word against theirs.”

Most can agree, however, that whatever processes were in place to deal with such an event were entirely unsuccessful on Nov. 10.  

 “What I think that this action serves to do is that it highlights an alienation between students and administration. They didn’t know how to deal with a peaceful protest; nobody in the office, not security, not the administration, clearly,” Crawford said. “This does not mean that they’re wrong about everything; it simply means that there is a disconnect—this is what we wanted to highlight through our occupation, although not through what happened [later].” 

Professor Levy saw the devolution of control within the context of a broader movement across North America. 

“If I’m the head of security at a university, and I see a student protest movement that explicitly links itself to the occupy movements … I’m more nervous than I would have been a month ago,” he said. “I think I’m probably quicker on the trigger—and I use that word deliberately.”

 

Looking forward 

Beyond the policy or legal implications that any investigations may have, Abizadeh said that there is a “sort of moral responsibility of leadership … and I think that was what many of the faculty are hoping [the administration will address]—and we have good signs from the administration that they’re taking on that responsibility—so we’re hopeful.”

The inquiry’s results, to be released on Dec. 15, intend to address many of the questions raised by students, faculty, and administrators alike. An indepdent student inquiry will do the same, perhaps with different results. 

“My concern is to make sure that the other [legal] processes are also put into place,” said Abizadeh. 

“The proof is going to be in the pudding of ‘what does the university do?'” said Saideman. “That’ll probably be about the report, but it’s also going to be what’s not in the report … because you can have all the reports in the world but if you don’t change the behaviour, you don’t change the rules, you don’t change the training, you don’t change the doctrine, all that stuff, you’re just going to be repeating  [what happened] down the road.”