Latest News

Arts & Entertainment

Melancholia is more than a singular emotion

by Chris Liu on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

magpictures.com

The apocalypse has never looked so beautiful. Melancholia, the latest from maverick Danish auteur Lars von Trier, is magnificent. With a script that joins human introspection with nihilistic celebration, von Trier creates two hours of rich, thought-provoking and breathtaking cinema. Its long journey from Cannes to Canada now complete, Melancholia is assuredly one of the year’s most compelling films. 

Like Antichrist before it, Melancholia begins with a devastatingly powerful series of near-stills, this time set to a Wagner score. A bride runs, grey gooey tendrils clinging to her legs. A woman carries a child through a golf course that’s turned into quicksand. Electricity rises from fingertips like ethereal vapours. Finally, in a moment of horrifying beauty, Earth collides with the mystery planet Melancholia and is destroyed. Obliterated. Gone. 

The real plot of the movie begins with a wedding party. Newlyweds Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgård) arrive late for a dinner, planned by Justine’s sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Cracks can almost immediately be seen in the lavish, decadent get-together. Justine and Claire’s father (John Hurt) only flirts and drinks. Their mother (Charlotte Rampling) publicly denounces the institution of marriage in her wedding toast. Justine’s boss, Jack (StellanSkarsgård) only sees her as a means to his own profit-seeking end. Claire’s husband, John (Kiefer Sutherland) foots the extravagant bill and refuses to let others forget the fact. Alone within this maelstrom is Justine, who, on what should be the happiest day of her life, is anything but pleased. As viewers watch, intrigued and horrified, she begins to disassemble her life, peeling away at superfluous layers until all that is left is a cold, calculating core. 

Although some may approach Dunst with suspicion, rest assured that the Best Actress nomination she picked up at Cannes was well-deserved; Justine is a role that demanded formidable dimensions, and Dunst gave what was arguably the best performance of her career to date. The rest of the cast was commendable too, to von Trier’s credit. From the younger Skarsgård’s thousand-yard stare to Sutherland’s surprisingly subtle characterization, performances across the board were brilliant. They were aided by von Trier’s signature hand-held cinematography, flawless here, and the edits, of the wedding scenes in particular, were impeccable. The Dane also wrote the script, littering it with both provoking dialogue and intellectual subtleties. Is that Salome bearing the head of John the Baptist? Is this landscape a loose reference to the film Last Year at Marienbad?

In the second half, Melancholia’s ascension in the sky is paralleled by Justine’s resurrection as an icy, rationalist angel of death. The thematic crux of the film lies with the role of the naive and fearful passing on to Gainsbourg’s Claire. A wonderful dynamic is developed: the audience knows the eventual fate of the Earth, and the suspense is derived not from the cataclysm itself, but the actions and states of the characters leading up to it. When the moment does come, there are no Roland Emmerich-style CGI crane-shots of destruction and devastation. Instead, the scene is exactly as the apocalypse should be: harmonious, blood-pumping, sublime, and followed by a silence that stretches to eternity. 

With Melancholia, von Trier exhibits that rare, glorious marriage of brains and beauty. The result is art that is breathtaking in its splendour and simultaneously troubling and relieving in its implications. Its title may be a singular emotion, but watching Melancholia will yield infinitely more. 

 

Private

UPDATE: Riot police respond to tuition hike demonstration on campus

by Anand Bery, Kyla Mandel, Elisa Muyl, and Carolina Millán Ronchetti on

More in Private:

Elisha Lerner

Twenty thousand students from all over Quebec gathered on Thursday, Nov. 10 at Place Émile-Gamelin near UQAM to demonstrate against the Quebec government’s proposed tuition increases. The demonstration then made its way up Berri Street at 2:45 p.m., continuing through the streets of Montreal, ending at the McGill Roddick Gates at 4:30 p.m.

Following the end of the student demonstration against tuition hikes, thirteen students occupied the fifth floor of the James Administration Building. In support of those inside, other protestors from the rally encircled the building trying to prevent police entry.

“People basically started to move to the administration building at McGill to do a support action, a small demonstration, very peaceful,” Joël Pedneault, SSMU Vice-President External Affairs, said. “People were wrapping their arms around the building trying to do a human chain.” Students from McGill, Concordia, and Dawson were among those present during this demonstration.

Soon after, students outside the James Administration building learned of acts of aggression occurring inside. “We heard at that point that the people inside were being brutalized, being dragged on the floor, kicked, kneed in the stomach, that kind of stuff,” Pedneault explained.

Police on bicycles arrived on the scene. According to Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson, the police were not called by someone from the fifth floor. A recent email from Principal Heather Monroe-Blum suggested that the police were called by McGill Security.

“There were things going on that were of concern and could have been of concern to security,” Mendelson said. “Security are mandated, or certainly allowed, to call the police when they feel there is a threat to people or a threat to property. Those are decisions that have to be made quickly…made on the moment. I don’t know what triggered the decision to do that.”

Both the police as well as the students demonstrating were aggressive towards one another The police quickly turned away after a couple of minutes.

Around 5:00 p.m., around one to two hundred police in full riot gear arrived at both the Milton and Roddick Gates. They disbanded the line of students around the building and formed a chain that blocked entrance into the building. Students in front of the police line were pepper sprayed. The police then chased students and threatened them with their batons. 

“I saw a police officer kick a protester to the ground and kick him repeatedly in the stomach,” witnessed U3 arts student Hilary Brown. “As the riot police charged down the large steps, I saw them push photographers and other protesters down the hill.”

During this time some students managed to find a way into the first floor of the James Administration building where they held a sit-in. According to Pedneault, “[they were] saying they weren’t going to leave until the people on the fifth floor were released.”

Mendelson questioned this claim and said that students were not being held by force.

“There were no students being detained in the James Admin building by police or by the university,” he said. “We wanted the students to leave. The students were refusing to leave.”

Students involved in the sit-in were forcibly removed by McGill security.

“[McGill Security] were concerned about the safety of the situation, and the student was taken out of the office and then left in a public area with his fellow students, we don’t know if they were students. Some may not have been students,” Mendelson said.

When asked if the occupation of James Administration was confrontational, Mendelson said, “It’s confrontational. You don’t think it’s confrontational to storm into an office? To swing open a door, walk by people, have a mask on, you don’t think that’s confrontational?”

Soon after, riot police charged and dispersed the crowd while more riot police arrived from the Milton Gates. Trapped from the north and west of campus, students were forced into the McConnell Engineering building. Many ran to wash tear gas from their faces. Police then barricaded McConnell Engineering, trapping students inside for several minutes.

The police then allowed students to leave the engineering building and acted aggressively and indiscriminately, pushing students who were leaving classes from McConnell Engineering, as well as those involved in the protest.

Some students were able to leave the area via the Y-intersection, but most students were forced to leave campus through the Milton Gates.

Just before 5:30 p.m., police in full riot gear had blocked entrance to McGill’s campus from the Milton Gates, setting up lines along the east and west sides of Milton and University.

Protestors chanted, “It’s our campus!”

Around 6:00 p.m., police banged batons against their shields and charged into the group of onlookers gathered along Milton near the intersection. No distinction was made between bystanders (students making their way to or from campus) and those from the earlier demonstration. The charge continued past Lorne Avenue, at which point the crowd had mostly dispersed.

When asked about this event, a Montreal Police officer denied knowing anything about it. “I don’t have any information on the McGill campus. I know that officers were around McGill campus to protect the building itself, but if there was any altercation between officers and rioters…we don’t have anything on this,” Officer Jean-Pierre Brabant said.

Brabant explained that those police who were on site gave a final report after the protest and all that this report contained was that four people were arrested during the afternoon demonstration. “In general I would say everything went really, really well and smooth,” Brabant said, “There was a little bit of mischief on the [Premier’s] office [building], but except that, nothing more.”

The four arrests consisted of two arrests for assaults on a police officer, one for obstructing a police officer and another for municipal violence.

However, the CBC quotes Montreal Police spokesman Ian Lafrenièredescribing those demonstrating as “just a small group of individuals trying to take advantage of the situation to do something stupid.”

Lafrenière, who personally witnessed confrontations, stated that the riot squad was deployed in response to people throwing boat flares shot from a pistol, along with other objects, at the police.

The police left the McGill campus by 7:30 p.m. The students occupying the fifth floor of the building negotiated their release with Provost Anthoni Masi and Deputy Provost Morton Mendelson. No names were taken, no disciplinary procedures were pursued, and no arrests were made.

Immediately following the commotion, SSMU President Maggie Knight tweeted to inform students that they could find support at the SSMU building. Over 30 shocked students gathered and received support from the student society as well as first aid services from M-SERT.

“One girl came in with really bad pepper spray, she had to get her eyes washed for like an hour and a half,” Emily Yee Clare, VP University Affairs said. “Lots of students came to the office, they sat there and comforted each other.”

Most students remained in shock over the force used by the riot police.

“It makes me identify with the people protesting these issues … because I’m not allowed to step onto my own university,” Saad Qazi, U2 Mathematics and Econ, said. “I’m an international student from Pakistan, and I don’t think I’ve seen this there.”

“What kind of democracy?” echoed a nearby protestor.

“I guess a lot of people had thought that in a country like Canada this would never happen,” Pedneault said. “In many countries police are just not allowed on university campuses because it reminds people of a past era of dictatorship and authoritarian rule, and that’s something that was definitely in the back of people’s minds yesterday.”

Private

QPIRG, CKUT questions pass in fall referendum

by Carolina Millán Ronchetti on

More in Private:

The fall semester’s referendum questions passed with an overwhelming majority, announced Elections McGill at 6:30 p.m. The questions asked whether QPIRG McGill and CKUT Radio should continue to receive student funding and if these fees should be opt-outable in person rather than online via Minerva. QPIRG’s existence was approved by a vote of 65.6 per cent of voters for, 28.5 per cent against and 5.8 per cent abstentions, while CKUT’s existence was validated by 72.3 per cent of voters for, 20.6 per cent against and 7.1 per cent abstentions.

Despite suggestions from some students that quorum would be the hardest thing to achieve, voting turnout was 24.7 per cent, notably higher than the required 15 per cent. SSMU President Maggie Knight noted that this referendum showed an increase in student participation compared to previous years.

“I’m really happy that we saw voter turnout increase a lot. [Turnout on the fall referendum] last year was 15.2 per cent, so this is 9.5 per cent up from last year,” Knight said. “It’s good to see more students involved in a democratic way. Obviously I think this was spurred by the issue, I know Elections McGill put a lot of effort into promotion this year but the CKUT and QPIRG ‘Yes’ committees were on the ground every day and pressed really hard.”

Following the vote, the atmosphere was festive, with large numbers of supporters of QPIRG and CKUT celebrating the referenda results. Danji Buck-Moore, a U3 arts student who campaigned for QPIRG, shared his excitement with the Tribune.

“I think it’s a relief to a lot of people who worked really hard on this. It shows that the mandate exists for these organizations to actually be here and work for students,” he said. “Students support student life. At least temporarily, hopefully this will silence the claims that [QPIRG and CKUT] are fringe groups, because they clearly are not.”

Niko Block, co-chair of the CKUT ‘Yes’ committee and board member of CKUT, also noted that he was happy with the results.

“It’s wonderful to see such overwhelming student support for the organizations,” Block said. “My hope is that the university will recognize this vote and that negotiations go more smoothly than they have gone with MUNACA and other issues.”

Block was not surprised that quorum was achieved, as his campaign was informed by Elections McGill that quorum was achieved on Tuesday morning.

“[Quorum is] really what we wanted. For my part I felt like, ‘You know what, if we get quorum and we lose, then so be it, at least we got quorum, at least it was a good vote,'” he said. “We were a little nervous but mostly excited and we obviously exploded with joy when we found the vote was yes. It was awesome.”

News

Students and alumnus honoured for humanitarian work

by Hannah George on

More in News:

Zareen Ali / McGill Tribune

  On a visit to India in 2004, three sisters were struck by the inequality of the country’s education system and were inspired to do something about it. In a joint venture, Zareen Ali, U3 management, and her sisters Maria and Amena, a McGill alum and a current student at the University of Ottawa, respectively, started the Abhilasha Project, an organization to help underprivileged Indian children. This year, they were awarded the Forces Avenir award for Mutual Aid, Peace, and Justice for their work.

The Abhilasha Project aims to provide quality education to underprivileged children with a special focus on girls and children with disabilities. By striving for equal education, the project aims to foster more confidence and determination in the children so they can positively affect their communities.

The project has roots at McGill, Marianopolis College, and the University of Ottawa, where different chapters fundraise and mobilize support for the initiative. Since 2006, the project has donated over $40,000 to the Abhilasha School in India. In the summer of 2011, the money went towards building an annex for the school. The annex now accommodates 41 blind and 100 physically handicapped children, enabling them to receive both education and appropriate healthcare in safe surroundings at no cost to their families.

Zareen, project co-ordinator and artistic designer for the Abhilasha Project, said that the excitement of the award serves as motivation to further the project.

“This is a huge stepping-stone for us because we’ve finally gotten to that place that will allow us to expand our project,” she said. “It has motivated us to work twice as hard to achieve our goal.”

While the award serves as an encouraging force, the sisters continue to be motivated by the project itself.

“The most important thing that we’ve taken away from this experience is that we have a community that believes in us and is there to support us in our endeavours,” Zareen said. “Hopefully, two to three years from now we will be breaking ground on the construction for the new school.”

Professor Emine Sarigollu, BComm Program Director, spoke highly of the sisters’ social entrepreneurship.

“I’m delighted that one of our BComm students has won the Forces Avenir award,” Sarigollu said. “We take pride in [the] academic excellence of our students. But we are equally proud of their contribution to Quebec, Canada and the global community outside the classroom. A case in point is Zareen Ali’s project, which demonstrates her social consciousness, benevolent leadership, and entrepreneurial skills.”

The project was competing against various other student initiatives in the Forces Avenir university program. Since 1999, the Forces Avenir program has recognized the achievements of students who not only pursue their education, but dedicate time to external projects for good causes.

News

AUS revamps Bar des Arts

by Jonny Newburgh on

More in News:

Simon Poitrimolt / McGill Tribune

Over the last year, Bar des Arts (BdA), run by the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS), has seen a series of changes in policy that have frustrated many students. 

Founded in 2007, BdA is a staple service of the AUS, open Thursdays from 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. The fall semester has seen a standardization of the bar’s atmosphere, notably with the introduction of cup regulations. These changes have come with a crackdown by the administration on alcohol-serving institutions at McGill. 

In September, BdA, in conjunction with Gerts, implemented a new plan that grants free entry to the campus bar’s Thursday events after students get their hands stamped at BdA. BdA’s staff now dress all in black, and they serve beer behind a row of bottle openers attached by a few planks of wood, all in front of a redesigned BdA poster emblazoned with the bar’s new logo.

Other changes, including the bar’s new cup regulations, have inconvenienced some students. Under the new rules, students are encouraged to bring reusable plastic cups, or can buy disposable Boreal cups for $1.50, up from one dollar last year. The bar has always banned glass cups, but has only just begun enforcing the rule. Rachel Lanphear, BdA’s Publicity Manager, explained that the changes were made to ensure that the bar will be around for future students to enjoy.

“Everything that we have been doing, in terms of changes, had to happen because the administration is really cracking down on all alcoholic institutions on campus,” Lanphear said. 

“Last year, [the bar’s staff] did not crack down as hard, which is probably why people are reacting more this year,” she added. 

“Being a server, there are a lot of issues with the kind of cups that people bring in,” Jason Karmody, AUS’s VP Events, said.  

Some students come with disposable cups and are forced to throw these out only to purchase new cups from the bar. One student, Ben Kurzius, U3 arts, had his red beer cup taken at the door and had to buy one from BdA.

“It’s unfair that I have to buy a cup for a dollar fifty,” he said. “It’s another way to profit-monger.”

Though they caused some frustration, the bar’s managers are confident that the new policies have positive implications for the future.

“We are not making a profit, at all,” said Lanphear. “We are just trying to break even so that we can keep going.”

Opinion

A midterm adventure

by Kaiti O'Shaughnessy on

More in Opinion:

Sometimes, during the middle of midterms when one’s diet consists of a problematic number of Tim Horton’s bagels and too much coffee, and the dirty laundry pile is functioning as a chest of drawers, one decides to take a small adventure. A small midterm adventure, to be precise.

The small midterm adventure has many functions. It can help preserve sanity. It can provide some much-needed fresh air or vigorous exercise. It may even allow for some camaraderie with a friend who has also disappeared into the black hole that is McGill during midterm season. The small midterm adventure may also be used to help restore one’s sense of coolness, or patch up the illusion that a life outside of school exists. My midterm adventure consisted of all these things. 

Being in a stressed out, easily peer-pressured state, I was quick to agree to biking down to Allez-Up, the climbing gym located practically a trillion miles away from my apartment. So, when my friend said, “Hey, let’s go climbing on Sunday. We can bike there!”, I didn’t say, “No, that’s okay, I don’t actually know how to climb and I’m above average on the awkward-clumsy scale.” Nor did I say, “No, actually, the seat of my bike is five inches too low for me and I have been too lazy to change it so instead I keep the bike in my closet and never actually ride it.” Instead, I said, “Yes, I would love to do all of those things.”

I told myself that it didn’t matter that midterms had me down; I could be good at other things. I imagined myself cycling down busy streets full of cars like those really intense people that wear a lot of lycra. I imagined myself scaling walls with ease. It did not occur to me that to be really good at things, one must first know how to do them.  

Because of this, my actual midterm adventure was significantly less impressive than the imagined version. What began as an attempt at a leisurely fall bike ride with a friend very quickly became a sweaty, terrifying journey, and my only goal was to survive. 

I know that “awwmaagawd Montreal drivers are the worst! Gaah!” gets old quickly, but I shall amend that to “awwmaagawd Montreal drivers are really scary but they’re the least of my worries when my bike is too short and the chain keeps coming off in the middle of the street and for every slight incline I need to dismount and walk my bike because I am 700 per cent less fit than I imagined myself to be. Gaah!” For honesty’s sake,Allez-Up is actually located pretty close to St. Henri, which is significantly less than a trillion miles away. The trip there is also mostly downhill. Feel free to pass judgement now.

Upon arrival, completely exhausted and with nerves as raw as sushi, I continued in my pursuit of a Sunday afternoon that I could call my mom to brag about. I decided to attempt some rock walls. About three-quarters of the way up a particularly tough one, hanging on by two fingers and teetering precariously, begging to come down, I decided that maybe my friend and I should have just gone for coffee.

As excited as I had been about my epic midterm adventure, I soon realized that not everyone is cut out for such adventure, and sometimes a leisurely chat-—or going back to the library—is just better. I learned that if midterms  have you down, an intense expedition might be the cure. Or might not. Also, the way home was uphill, so we walked our bikes. 

Opinion

Confusing questions and unclear mandates

by James Gilman on

More in Opinion:

On Thursday morning voting in the Fall Referendum period closes, and in all likelihood the QPIRG-McGill and CKUT referendum questions will pass—as long as quorum is reached. It’s rare for a fee renewal question to fail, as these referenda are more a test of whether a group can mobilize enough of its supporters than anything else. The questions ask for a renewed mandate for both groups’ fee levies, as well as a mandate to take their opt-outs off Minerva and let the groups themselves administer them. Yet regardless of whether the questions pass, McGill is unlikely to change the opt-out system in response. The administration isn’t going to give up on a relatively new system that’s administratively efficient and provides students with a simple, straightforward way of opting out.

Beyond that, however, there’s the issue of whether a “yes” vote on these questions would constitute a clear answer to a clear and straightforward question.

Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson has already indicated that the questions do not meet that standard as they are posed in a confusing and convoluted way.

The biggest problem is that they conflate two issues: the renewal of their student fee levies and the form of the opt-out system. There’s no way for students to vote on these issues separately. One can’t vote for continuing to fund QPIRG and CKUT and for keeping the opt-out system as it is: transparent, efficient, and online. It would be disingenuous to argue that a “yes” vote represents a clear majority on both of these issues. There may very well be a majority (of referendum voters, not students) that support QPIRG and CKUT, and also support returning to the pre-2007 opt-out system, but a “yes” vote on these questions isn’t proof of that. 

Yet QPIRG has argued that they are the same thing because the group can’t continue to exist under the current system. This is, of course, preposterous. Having to combat the QPIRG opt-out campaign for two weeks at the start of the semester, and not knowing their exact budget until part way into the year may be an inconvenience, and may indeed make things more difficult, but that certainly doesn’t threaten their existence. QPIRG still had about $156,000 to work with last year. Is that really not enough to do anything with? Opt-outable student groups aren’t entitled to enough money to fund the programs they want. They’re entitled to the fees of students who don’t opt out. QPIRG’s budget needs to adjust to their fee allocation, they can’t adjust the opt-out rate to fit the budget they want. If that’s such an existential problem, they can always try for a mandate for a non-opt-outable fee.

Having the administration run the opt-out system makes a certain amount of sense. Crucially, McGill provides the mechanism for collecting student fees, and distributes the money to student groups. QPIRG definitely couldn’t continue to exist at McGill if they had to collect their own fees. Why shouldn’t the administration control the opt-out system as well?

In all likelihood, the referendum questions will pass, and QPIRG and CKUT will continue to exist with fees that are opt-outable on Minerva. That would be the fairest outcome, and I’m sure both groups will find some way to struggle on.

News

SSMU solicits feedback from students on GA reform

by Elisa Muyl on

More in News:

Sam Reynolds / McGill Tribune

Last week, the SSMU executive held a series of Town Halls to address General Assembly (GA) reform. Under a dozen students attended the Town Halls, which were intended to solicit feedback from and engage students in a discussion on various suggested changes to the GA. Most of the attendees were students already intimately involved in SSMU, who took the chance to discuss solutions to some of the key structural issues with the deliberative body of SSMU. The discussion included a debate on voting methods and on the possibility of suspending or simplifying Robert’s Rules of Order.

GA reform centres around the issue of facilitating and increasing student participation. The issue at the heart of attempts to simplify the GA is the voting method. There is no one time in which students can all attend a GA, nor is there a forum large enough to hold all of SSMU’s members, should they all be interested in attending the GA.

“While quorum is important, what’s really important [to me] is democracy: one person, one vote,” Zach Newburgh, former SSMU President, said. (Newburgh currently sits on the Tribune Publication Society’s Board of Directors.) 

Other members of the executive are nervous about a shift online, which could increase participation but would preclude any sort of debate.

 “I think the reality about a lot of proposals about moving things online is basically saying ‘I don’t think the GAs work and I don’t think we should have them,'” Arts Representative Jamie Burnett said.

Another discussion regarding the suspension of Robert’s Rules came down to a debate over sacrificing procedure in the interest of accessibility. Participants acknowledged that students find the rules of debate confusing and alienating, and suggestions ranged from handing out printed guides before the General Assembly to adopting a modified version of Roberts Rules to introducing differently coloured placards for “Yes” or “No” votes, as well as “Question” or even “I’m confused.” However, for Newburgh, having a structure like Robert’s Rules is important because it works as a mechanism to facilitate more respectful and orderly debate, which protects minorities in potentially heated debates.

“The minority, being people who are undecided and actually want to hear the debate, get lost in translation essentially … it happens every time,” Education Representative Kady Paterson said. “But Robert’s Rules is, to a certain extent, a good safeguard against that.”

At the same time, debate often finds itself bogged down in procedural issues that many members of the audience don’t understand. The onus of facilitating debate is placed on the Speakers of Council, Nida Nizam and Michael Tong. Many Town Hall participants made an effort to mention that this year’s Speakers are particularly good at striking a balance.

“I think, with all things procedural, we’re looking at that tension of how do we facilitate a process moving forward quickly, while making sure it doesn’t become a messy disaster,” Knight said.

VP External Joël Pedneault explained that the GA is a relatively new forum and flaws in its structure are in part due to the fact that the rules governing the body have been introduced piecemeal, and the current executive demonstrated a desire to move forward with   the reform process constructively.

“I think it’s time that we stopped to circulate [the] notion that the General Assembly is just this place where intimidation is rampant … it’ll become a self-fulfilling prophecy if people paint the GA as this place that people act disrespectfully to each other; I think it’s time to circulate the notion that this is the place for respectful direct democracy to happen on campus if you’re an undergraduate,” he said.

Reforms will be passed in council as part of broader changes in SSMU’s bylaws. Students can contribute to the discussion by filling out SSMU’s survey—accessible via Facebook—speaking to their faculty councilors, and attending further town halls (dates to be determined).

News

Council votes in MoA, but not Shatner lease

by Anand Bery on

More in News:

In the early hours of Friday morning, SSMU’s Legislative Council voted on two motions with huge implications for the future of the society. In a confidential session, the council voted in favour of signing a new Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the McGill administration, and voted against accepting the administration’s current lease proposal for the Shatner Building.

The MoA, which outlines the legal relationship between SSMU and the university, is up for renewal this year. The document contains a controversial section on the use of the McGill name by student groups. The result of last week’s vote to accept the document will effectively force up to 130 student associations who use ‘McGill’ in their name to rename and re-brand themselves.

McGill has sought to make changes to the names of student groups on campus since the 1990s. Their chief concerns with the explicit use of the McGill name by student groups, such as the McGill First Aid Service, are related to liability and reputation. The administration argues that it is often difficult for outsiders to tell whether a group is run by students or the university’s administration.

Morton Mendelson, Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning, expressed the administration’s viewpoint in an email to the Tribune.

“The administration is … responsible for ensuring that the McGill name continues to enjoy the same prestige that it currently does,” he wrote. “The primary beneficiaries of this are McGill students and alumni, because it is the ‘brand’ of McGill’s credentials, including degrees and transcripts, that we are protecting.”

There was strong student opposition to the MoA vote at council. Groups held signs reading ‘We are all McGill’—a tongue-in-cheek reference to Principal Heather Munroe-Blum’s email to faculty and students on Oct. 18. Many attendees voiced their concerns.

“We are McGill’s brand, and they want to try to protect it. This rationale makes sense if we’re in a corporation, but we’re in a university,” Josh Redel, president of the Engineering Undergraduate Society, said. “As soon as we lose this, we lose many of the things we fight for.”

“I feel kind of hoodwinked by my university, trying to take away the name McGill from tons of students who, like me, have done tons of effort to make this campus a better place in the name of McGill,” echoed Allan Cyrill, a former executive of the EUS.

In spite of overwhelming student opposition, councillors knew that the name use agreement they had reached was probably the best that they would be able to negotiate.  While this year’s MoA means the loss of the McGill name for many clubs, the current agreement represents an improvement in many ways over both the 2006 MoA and the administration’s initial offers. In the 2006 agreement, new clubs could not use ‘McGill’ in their names at all, and instead had to use ‘SSMU.’ Though many existing groups will have to rename themselves this year, they will have a number of name change options which include using the phrase ‘McGill Students.’ SSMU also fought to have the right to grandfather some names of historical importance and names which clearly imply that a group is student-run, like the McGill Debating Union. The administration will  provide $25,000 to help groups with the cost of having to undergo a name change, as some groups may have to change their official gear.

Maggie Knight, President of SSMU, and Emily Yee Clare, VP University Affairs of SSMU discussed the vote with the Tribune. As SSMU’s principal negotiators with the administration since June, they felt they had a personal stake in the motion and abstained from the vote, but discussed the major points the council saw in favour of voting for the MoA.

“It was sad,” Clare said of the atmosphere in the room following the vote, “especially because I think we’re all human. The sad thing is I think we agreed with … everything the gallery members said … but we still had to look at the implications of not signing it and looking at what fundamentally would be in the best interest for students.”

“I think we had to face the fact that it wouldn’t have been possible to renegotiate the MoA, specifically to do with the McGill name, without a substantial change in tactics or ideology on the part of the university,” Knight said. “We spent many long hours in negotiations … expressing to them every argument we’ve heard from our constituents and every argument we could think of trying to communicate just how important many groups feel like their names are.”

Importantly, the administration did not want to renew SSMU’s lease of the Shatner Building or of the SSMU Daycare (which is a separate entity from SSMU) until SSMU signed the MoA. The previous lease expired May 31, 2011, and SSMU is currently operating in Shatner without a legal agreement. The desire to secure a lease for Shatner was an important motivator for councillors to accept the MoA. By law, universities are only required to provide student societies with a room and a phone.

Council voted not to accept the lease as currently proposed. McGill offered to sign a 15-year lease and also wants to implement a new fee structure. Ultimately, the council found that current estimates of the long-term financial consequences would strain the society, according to Knight and Clare. Based on their calculations, signing the lease as it currently stands would have forced SSMU to increase student fees in the long term. SSMU would have been responsible for paying an increasing portion of the building’s utilities each year, which representatives of the society say would be unsustainable.

The administration wanted to sign all three documents, but Knight and Clare hope McGill will renegotiate the terms of the lease now that they have the council’s mandate to sign the MoA.

—Additional reporting by Carolina Millán Ronchetti

 

1 … 1,174 1,175 1,176 1,177 1,178 … 1,367

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue