Latest News

Opinion

Paws off the beaver

1975 was one fine year for the beaver fan, especially for those with a particular fondness for the Castor Canadensis—the Canadian beaver. That year marked the start of the beaver’s official role, alongside the maple leaf, as a Canadian national symbol. However, 2011 has proved to be a much more traumatic year for beaver aficionados. Nicole Eaton, a Conservative senator, has advocated that North America’s largest rodent—whom she calls a “toothy tyrant”—should “step aside” as a national emblem, and be replaced by the more “splendid mammal,” the polar bear.

Such a proposal is, I believe, as unnecessary as it is unfair. A defence of the beaver as Canada’s national emblem must therefore be raised before this anti-beaverist movement gains any further momentum.

The polar bear may be, as Sen. Eaton claims, more “majestic” and photogenic than the beaver. But national symbols are about relevance to national character, not beauty pageants. And the beaver embodies far more of what it means to be Canadian than the polar bear. Of course the polar bear is bigger and more powerful; no one is saying otherwise. But physical strength does not necessarily make for strong symbolism. The polar bear uses its strength to be a vicious predator which preys on weaker animals, sometimes even humans.

This makes the polar bear an atrocious Canadian emblem for two reasons: firstly, it seems bizarre to have a national symbol which has killed a fair few of that nation’s citizens; and secondly, having a predatory animal as the national emblem smacks of an imperial mindset reminiscent of the British lion or the American eagle—a desirable trait for those who wish for Canada to adopt a more hawkish foreign policy, but not one that reflects the reality of Canadian neutrality. The beaver, on the other hand,  possesses an array of wonderful qualities which are much more akin to what many Canadians either strive for, or ought to be striving for: with their vegetarian diet and small scale logging projects, beavers are champions of sustainability; with their strong sense of family ties and monogamy, they are paragons of responsibility; and with their complex infrastructure projects which adapt the landscape intelligently to their needs, they are exemplars of innovation. A beaver may not have the same strength as a polar bear, but it is far more creative, constructive, and industrious with what strength it has: can a polar bear chop down trees with its teeth?

Even history is on the side of the beaver: the lure of valuable beaver pelts kickstarted the economies of early Canadian settlements, and fuelled the settlers’ desire to go west. With good reason it was the beaver that appeared on Canada’s first stamp, not the polar bear.

A nation should never try and escape from its past, nor should it be disloyal to its traits: replacing the beaver with the polar bear would therefore be as groundless, arbitrary, and unjust as replacing it with a walrus. Besides, Coca Cola already lays claim to the polar bear—does Canada really want to be seen aping a private company? I think not.

Opinion

Geuss’s winning maxim

Last October, philosopher Raymond Geuss stood in a graveyard in Cambridge, England for a mysterious filmed interview. In an eery setting, Geuss communicated an inspired statement: knowing the historical context of what you stand for “will change your attitude toward the world and toward yourself … It will prevent you from identifying in too fanatical a way.” Geuss is more of a muser than a fixer, but to me his words have serious practical applications. The philosopher’s words hold particular credence for two instances of today’s rampant political polarization: the Chilean student protests and the Occupy Movements.

Since May, the young adult population of Chile has risen up, asking for affordable education and state involvement in curbing private institutions. Building upon the “Penguin Revolution” of 2006, when high school students protested—in black and white uniforms, hence the name—the scale of the current uprising has become gargantuan. A June 30th march brought out more than 100,000 students. Earlier that month, 100 schools had been occupied by the restless youth, and there began a comical accompaniment of flash mobs and kiss-ins.

Due to the historical contextualization inherent in their message, the Chilean students’ mission is astonishingly coherent. Students share an awareness that the current crisis is a direct result of cuts to public education by the Pinochet regime of the ‘70s and ‘80s. Private control of the university system initiated by that conservative government has dominated until today, driving up the price of tuition while student numbers increase. Since Pinochet’s time in office, no new public universities have been founded.

The historical determinants of the current crisis are so strong that they pulse through a generation which never experienced them firsthand. All the same, the solid ground of historical justification allows the protests to be proactive, instead of solely reactive. The movement has produced the Social Agreement for Chilean Education which formulates its wishes, such as increased financing of public universities and enforcement of laws against profit in higher education. Chileans aren’t just saying “No!” They’re pointing to the past and changing the future.

Where is the same coherent message from the Occupy Movements? Grievances against the broken financial system are reactive, and have not resulted in unified proposals for change. “No” is the necessary first step, but it needs historical context in order to induce a comprehensive transformation. Deregulation under Ronald Reagan catalyzed the shift from an industrial to financial economy in the U.S. The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 deregulated bank savings and loans capabilities. The dreaded Credit Default Swaps resulted from the extreme financial leniency of Reaganomics. The trend is more nuanced than purely a Republican incentive—Carter and Clinton deregulated finance too, the latter drastically so. And as we can see from Occupy Movements here in Canada, the trend and its consequences were not contained in the U.S. alone.

Regulation is a wonderful thing. It keeps asbestos out of homes and drilling stations afloat. But plunging regulation down throats as an unmovable demand scares people. Simply screaming at Goldman-Sachs won’t solve anything. What can are specific regulations that will undo the risk-based finance created in the last 30 years. James Madison wrote in 1787 that “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire.” With this in mind, today’s protestors should take a page from the Chileans: assume the liberty to articulate your faction’s message, after finding the historical context to do so.

Opinion

Online gateway toward greater accountability

McGill Tribune

Following the lead of Toronto, Vancouver, and Ottawa, the City of Montreal has created a website—donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca—opening up its municipal data to the public. The website, known as an open data portal, is intended to be a universally accessible resource for municipal information, ranging from government contract details to parking ticket revenue statistics. This new openness is extremely timely, given that the public inquiry into the possibility of corruption in the construction industry was commissioned just two weeks ago by the Quebec government.

The website is still in a foetal stage: most of the links have not been activated yet, and a wealth of data remains to be uploaded. But the Tribune believes the initiative to bring this information within a few clicks of the public is a noble one, worthy of applause. There may not be as much content as is ultimately desirable, but its very existence heralds a positive step in the direction of greater government transparency, and consequently, increased accountability.

That being said, we should not deceive ourselves into believing that the promised land has been reached. The municipal administration was not a voluntary benefactor of its information; rather, it did so because of the pressure imposed on it by the tireless work of Montreal Ouvert, a voluntary organisation of “hacktivists.” There is still a great deal of work to be done before Montreal’s governance can be called transparent; newspapers and the public alike must be proactive to make sure that the municipal government is not only forthcoming about supplying information, but also that such potentially revealing data is not left unexamined. Good investigative journalism is therefore needed to keep the information flowing, and to ensure it is used for the good of Montreal.

Initiatives from Montreal Ouvert such as zonecone.ca  (an open data portal showing where road construction is taking place) and resto-net.ca (a database of restaurants who have been fined for poor hygiene) have already had positive impacts on the accountability of restaurants  and construction projects; it is now harder to disguise excessive road  repair projects, and less likely that restaurants will not adhere to decent hygeine standards. If the municpal government’s website is encouraged to be expanded, and all information is made available by the municipal government, a similar effect could be the result: malpractice and corruption will prove harder to keep in the dark.

Student Life

Movember

Sam Reynolds

Today marks the first day of Movember (the month formerly known as November), a full 30 days dedicated to the grooming and acknowledgment of the moustache—the Mo. This is all done in order to raise money and awareness for men’s health issues, specifically prostate cancer. The rules: each Mo Bro (participant) must begin on Nov. 1 with a clean-shaven face and, for the entire month of Movember, must grow and groom a moustache. There is no joining of the Mo to your sideburns or of the handlebars to your chin (those are considered beards and goatees, and do not qualify as a true Mo). This hairy, sometimes scraggly, upper lip is the ribbon of the cause and what has made the Movember movement so successful in changing the face of men’s health across the world, and especially in Canada.

Adam Garone, a native of Melbourne, Australia and CEO of Movember, was in Montreal on Thursday to help launch this year’s campaign. He came up with the campaign idea nine years ago when he and a few of his mates decided to bring back the ‘70s moustache as a funny fashion statement.

“It had nothing to do with prostate cancer that year,” Garone said.  “But we got so much grief that we had to turn it into a campaign to raise awareness for something, so we could get away with it, and clearly prostate cancer is the number one cancer that affects men.” What started as a lark over beers on a Sunday afternoon quickly turned into a truly grassroots initiative.

“I was at a point in my life where I wanted to do something that would give back to the community,” Garone said. “And I thought that with this idea of growing moustaches that had generated so much conversation, we could add a cause to it so when people asked us about why we were growing moustaches, we could explain that we were doing it for prostate cancer and raise awareness about the cause.”

Much like doing a run or a walk for charity, Garone believed that committing to changing one’s appearance for 30 days was something that could generate contributions. 2004 was Movember’s first year as a fundraiser, with 450 men raising $54,000 for Prostate Cancer Australia—the largest single contribution that the foundation had ever received. “That really confirmed for me that Movember could be an amazing awareness and fundraising organization,” Garone said. Since those early beginnings, Movember has gained momentum not only in Australia, but officially in New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, the US, the UK, and several other European countries, as well as unofficially in places like Russia, Dubai, Hong Kong, and Antarctica, truly becoming a global movement.

Besides raising funds and making the moustache cool again, Movember is more significantly responsible for bringing the previously dreaded and avoided subject of prostate cancer to the forefront of men’s conversations. Garone explained that, although it’s easy to get wrapped up in numbers, it’s these conversations which the campaign gives rise to that are most important in making an impact on the disease. He gave an example of a young man who, after growing possibly the worst moustache in history, was asked about his upper lip at a family dinner, which initiated a first in conversations about prostate cancer between him and his father. As a result of that conversation, he learned that his grandfather had prostate cancer. The young man was then able to tell his father, because of what he had learned through Movember, that he was twice as likely to inherit the disease, which he had not yet been screened for.  “That for me is far more important [than just the numbers] because that’s changing, saving, and influencing lives today,” Garone said.

Rebecca Von Gouetz, spokesperson for Prostate Cancer Canada, likewise described how influential the moustache is in raising awareness of the disease through these kinds of discussions among men. “This is a disease that men don’t typically talk about, and now all of a sudden we’re getting younger men having conversations about prostate cancer which never ever in anyone’s wildest dreams would have happened before,” she said. “Who on earth would talk about prostate cancer in a bar or in the office boardroom? But during this month, that’s what happens.” Von Gouetz concluded that the beauty of the moustache is that once men are comfortable with discussing their health, it is no longer weird to talk about prostate cancer in January or July, moustache or no moustache, which is an essential element to increasing awareness.

MP Justin Trudeau, who was also in Montreal last week for the Canadian launch, accredits the moustache with the important job of making men’s health issues more acceptable to address. “If you think about it, for a guy, prostate cancer is kind of embarrassing. But wearing a moustache these days is kind of embarrassing too,” Trudeau said. “So it’s an outward sign of ‘you know what? I’m confronting it straight on.’ And we’ve made what people would see as sort of wrong or uncool as cool.”

“Last year I went for a musketeer kind of look,” Trudeau said of his Mo. This year, however, he plans on going with a much bigger, stronger moustache. “I’ll be channeling my Tom Selleck.”

Matt Matheson, spokesperson for the Canadian Movember campaign,  explained Movember is not just about men and their moustaches. Women also get involved in the same way that Mo Bros do, by registering as a Mo Sista, and they are an equally crucial part of the campaign. Mo
Sistas raise awareness and start conversations about men’s health, host events, recruit teams to raise funds, and are a vital support system, convincing men to get tested. “They just don’t have to grow a Mo,” Matheson said.

With approximately 250,000 men living with prostate cancer in Canada, this year is Canada’s fifth Movember. Last year, 119,000 Canadians registered as Mo Bros and Mo Sistas, raising $22.3 million for Prostate Cancer Canada. A large number of Canadian Members of Parliament, including Trudeau, grew moustaches in Movember 2010, and this year they plan to go even bigger. “Obviously we had Jack Layton very much on the mind last year,” Trudeau said. “This year it will be even more than that.” Right now Canada is the number one country in the world in terms of funds raised. “I firmly believe that [Canada] will eclipse every other country,” Garone contended at the Montreal launch party. Quebec in particular is embracing the campaign, seeing seven to eight times the number of registrants as the rest of Canada,  especially from the province’s many universities.

“Obviously growing a moustache is pretty awesome, but generally I just really like the campaign,” Max Gregory, executive member of Movember McGill and U3 arts student, said. “I definitely agree with their message of having to increase discussion of men’s health because obviously men hate talking about that kind of stuff, and, being a guy, I know what they mean.”  Gregory encourages everyone to sign up for Movember, either as part of the McGill team or on their own. “A lot of people look to university students as the leaders in the community, and I think this is an important message to have,” he said. Eighty-six per cent of the funds raised by Movember in Canada go to its men’s health partner Prostate Cancer Canada to (a) finance better research for early detection, diagnosis, and treatment options, (b) fund support services including 1-800 numbers to call with questions, and nurse navigators to help diagnosed men through the journey, keep track of appointments, and tell them when they should see a urologist, and (c) run the 72 support groups PCC has across the country where affected men and their families can go to get advice, hear speakers, and find camaraderie.

“And [all this] stems from the moustache to men’s health in general, to getting checked up, and having a doctor,” Trudeau said about the application of funds. “Thinking about men’s health issues is now something that is more acceptable because of Movember.”

As Garone concluded, it is these innovations that in our lifetime—possibly within 10 to 15 years—we can live in a world where no man dies of prostate cancer. “We can,” he said, “because of this campaign, and because of these silly moustaches that we wear on our face, change the world.”

 

On average, 70 Canadian men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer every day.

On average, 11 Canadian men will die of prostate cancer every day.

Over 90 per cent of prostate cancer cases are curable if detected and treated in their earliest stages. That means as of age 40 you need to talk to your doctor about PSA testing.

It’s the most common cancer to afflict Canadian men: it’s as prevalent in men as breast cancer is in women.

One in seven men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime; one in three will be diagnosed if there is a family history of the disease.

Prostate cancer develops as a result of dietary, environmental, and hereditary factors.

Men with a family history of prostate cancer and those of African or Caribbean descent are at a greater risk of developing the disease.

Student Life

One senator’s request causes a polarized debate

haigoarts.blogspot.com
wallpaperslibrary.com

The beaver is thirty-six years into its tenure as Canada’s national emblem, and last week it faced its biggest challenge yet. As Senator Nicole Eaton said in a statement to the Canadian Senate, the beaver is both an outdated symbol and a destructive rodent. She believes we must choose a better symbol and suggests the polar bear. As Eaton stated, the polar bear represents “strength, courage, resourcefulness, and dignity.” According to a statement made to the Globe and Mail, Eaton is such a fan of the polar bear that she has posters of the animal plastered all over her office walls.

Let’s take a closer look at these two noble beasts, and the roles they play within Canada.

Beaver pelt was a highly valuable resource to the European explorers in the 17th and 18th centuries—so essential that the Hudson’s Bay Company incorporated it in their coat of arms. The search for this pelt drove much of the exploration of Canada, and so the role of the beaver in this country’s history is deeply entrenched. The polar bear, on the other hand, is found in Canada’s Arctic region, and has played its most significant historical role in the lives of the Inuit, who hunted them for food and fur. The Inuit, naturally, were here before the Europeans were.  

The beaver is found on our nickel. The polar bear is on our toonie. But, since it’s our current national symbol, the beaver is featured in significantly more coats of arms and stamps, as well as a statue on top of the entrance to parliament. It’s hardly going to be an easy task to make new coats of arms, not to mention reworking international rhetoric.

Eaton argues that the beaver is destructive. Yes, it does gnaw into trees and construct dams, turning rivers into wetlands and then many years later into dry forests. But don’t humans construct dams and change ecosystems in even more damaging ways than the beaver? If the beaver is too destructive a creature, should it really be replaced with one that, due to changes in the Canadian environment, is increasingly dangerous to human populations? In Churchill, Manitoba, there is a regular polar bear patrol to protect the community. Where is the beaver patrol?

What’s more, if we do indeed change our national symbol to the polar bear, it should be assumed that this would mean an increased effort on the part of our government to preserve this creature. As global warming becomes more and more harmful, polar bears’ lives are greatly jeopardized. Certainly the Canadian government would undoubtedly make ending climate change its top priority—as it can safely be concluded that our national symbol is of utmost importance to current politics. Perhaps then, given the state of our climate, this would be a very proactive decision to make.

But, as Carelton professor Michael Runtz told the BBC, the beaver is much more representative of the Canadian temperament: “They are like Canadians. Their demeanour is very pleasant.” The majestic beaver is known throughout the world as a symbol of Canada, along with the maple leaf. Out of all the changes that should be made to the international image of Canada, one would hope that peace building and championing of the environment would outrank the beaver vs. polar bear debate.

Student Life

One McGill graduate’s fruitful job hunt

Last week, my one-time co-editor at the Tribune, and now full-time friend in real life, wrote about his post-McGill life and argued that McGill really is an amazing place. Something he mentioned, and I’ve been thinking about for the past five months, is that you don’t realize how great it is until it’s too late and you’re walking off the stage on the Lower Field with a diploma that may or may not help you get a job in the real world.

Besides the fact that graduation signals the end of the best four years of your life, the main problem with a McGill diploma is that it’s written in Latin. So, unless you’re like me and took seven years of Latin in middle and high school, it’s going to be difficult to know what to do with it. But, I do know some Latin, which is why I was able to use my degree to get a real job.

After I left McGill, I worked at two unpaid internships in New York City, where I now live. I was an editorial intern at MarcusSamuelsson.com—a celebrity chef’s food blog-type website—and DOWNTOWN Magazine—a Lower Manhattan lifestyle/fashion magazine. These were my fourth and fifth unpaid summer internships in New York City—the first three were at a comedy website, an investment bank, and an investigative television magazine, in that order. After enough unpaid labour, I eventually did get a job out of one of them.

I am now an editor at DOWNTOWN Magazine. I officially started in September and have been with the company, in one capacity or another, for about five months now. My main day-to-day job entails running the publication’s website. Because the magazine is currently a quarterly, everything that happens the rest of the year goes online. So, while we’re not technically a news organization, I spend a fair amount of my time reliving my glory year as a news editor at the Trib, reporting on things that are really, really important.

Also, as part of my editorial duties, I (yes me, Matt Essert) have my own interns. Just a few months ago, I was an intern, and now I have three interns who report to me and rely on me for college credit and general approval. And yes, it’s just as awesome as you’d imagine.

Besides the website, I also do a lot of work on the magazine. We have a very small staff of about 15 people and produce a book of roughly 120 pages every three months. I write when needed, and I edit most of the articles that go into the magazine. For the upcoming winter issue, I interviewed NHL bad-boy Sean Avery about his interest in fashion. It was pretty ace.

I never really put much weight into the idea that I’d be using my editing and writing skills for a real world job, but so far, so good. Part of this stemmed from that fact that I didn’t really start writing or editing until about two years ago, when I started doing it competitively, professionally, and publically.

I’ve learned two things since leaving McGill. First, you have to get kind of lucky, no matter what you’re doing. In some economic climates, there might be more or less luck to go around, but no matter what, you have to get lucky.

Second and perhaps more usefully, you’re going to need experience to get a job. It’s pretty ridiculously unfair that almost every job you apply for asks for “2-5 years experience”—how am I supposed to get any experience if I can’t get that first job? But while you’re still in college and still have time to enjoy yourself, get involved in extra curricular activities that might apply to what you want to do after you graduate. During my fourth year at McGill, I was, in one way or another, involved in five campus media outlets. The more actual, out-of-classroom experience you have, the more attractive your resume will appear. Also, try to get summer internships in a field that interests you. Sure, making money during the summer is great, but in the long term, it might be better to sacrifice some money now for a real job later.

But don’t worry; it’s not all bad. Living in an awesome city like New York, having a dope job as an editor at a magazine and trying to make it in this crazy economy is working out pretty well so far.

News

SSMU hosts Consultation Fair

Last Wednesday, SSMU hosted the inaugural Consultation Fair, a joint effort by SSMU, McGill faculty and administrators, and a number of other members of the McGill community.

The fair, initiated by the Working Group on Consultation and Communication, was designed to respond to calls for a more transparent administration and to address frustration over limited participation in important areas of student life. The event’s organizers hope that this was the first in a series of Consultation Fairs that will facilitate and improve communication between members of the McGill community in the coming years.

“[We] want to put an end to the belief that administrators [are unwilling] to listen,”  Provost Anthony Masi said in his introductory speech. “Today is the first step in … a continuing effort to get student voices on a variety of perspectives that will shape the direction McGill will pursue.”

The fair provided an opportunity for students to engage in face-to-face discussions with faculty, administrators, and representatives of various student services about what can be done to improve the student experience at McGill.

Participants divided in 10 discussion tables, covering a different topic each. Discussions ranged from Survey Evaluations and Food and Dining Services, to Students in the Strategic Research Plan.

Consultations were divided into three 15-minute sessions, allowing for rotation and participation in multiple discussions.

Dean of Students Jane Everett facilitated discussion at the Academic Advising table. Participants were particularly troubled by the indifference of academic advisors.

“Education students feel their concerns are … brushed off,” U1 EdUS Secondary Representative Latoya Belfon said. “Students come out feeling like a burden [to advisors].”

Other important issues included poor online publicity of available resources, and the need for advisors to have inter-faculty knowledge.

“Sometimes advisors don’t know enough about other faculties and students end up bouncing back and forth between advisors,” one U2 arts and science student said.

A proposed solution was the creation of peer advisor associations for each faculty. Making student advisors available to incoming and current undergraduates could release some of the pressure on academic advisors.

Director of Social Equity & Diversity Education Office Veronica Amberg facilitated consultation at the Diversity and Equity table. While McGill works hard to ensure that everyone has access to the same rights and services on campus, the consensus was that there is room for progress.

“The people who need the system the most are unable to access it […] and don’t necessarily have confidence in it,” SSMU Vice President University Affairs Emily Yee Clare said.

Participants expressed a desire for McGill to be known for its diverse and equal environment as much as for its achievements in academics and research.

“When people come to McGill, they know they cannot plagiarize, whether they read the university’s statement or not,” PGSS President Roland Nassim said. “It should be the same way for diversity and equity—people should perceive McGill as an inherently safe and respectful environment where some things simply aren’t appropriate.”

Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning Morton Mendelson chaired proceedings at the Freedom of Expression on Campus table.

Mendelson asked whether free expression at McGill—including picketing and pamphleting on campus—should be subject to substantive constraints.

“It’s very hard to draw a line if one wants to prohibit expression of certain viewpoints,” University Affairs General Secretariat Janina Grabs said. “I believe it should not be prohibited except if it is clearly targeting people who don’t want to have anything to do with it.”

McGill permits demonstrations on campus, provided that they don’t disturb the university’s day-to-day activities. Participants questioned why some noisy demonstrations, such as last spring’s vote mob, are tolerated while other peaceful protests, such as the recent Y-intersection student protest in support of MUNACA, are deemed ‘disruptive.’

“It’s difficult,” Mendelson said. “I get pushback from students about allowing certain activities […] but also for not allowing certain forms of expression.”

As the fair drew to a close,  many participants left pleased with how the consultations unfolded.

“I’m really happy with how the event turned out,” Grabs, who was instrumental in the organization of the fair, said. “I think it was a great opportunity for [a] better exchange of ideas.”

“A lot of students weren’t afraid to say how they really felt,”  U2 voice major and Music Undergraduate Students’ Association President Katie Larson said. “I think [the administrators] were very receptive.”

News

Students exonerated for protest

McGill students Joel Pedneault and Micha Stettin were exonerated Friday on charges of disrupting university activities due to their involvement in a demonstration in support of MUNACA on Oct. 11.

Pedneault, VP External of SSMU, and Stettin, Arts Representative to SSMU, were originally accused of violating two sections of the McGill Code of Student Conduct which included ‘disruption of university activities’ and ‘unauthorized presence.’

Both were cleared of any offences after an interview on Friday morning with Associate Dean of Arts Andre Costopoulos. Costopoulos found the evidence against them to be inadequate.

Stettin and Pedneault were both satisfied by the outcome.

“It was clear throughout the half hour interview that the evidence was patently false on numerous counts and deliberately selective and exaggerated where it described actual occurrences,” Stettin said in an email to the Tribune.

Pedneault had not been present at the demonstration. His name was mentioned in a report by McGill’s head of security to the associate dean, likely because he is a notable activist and supporter of the Mob Squad, the organization that planned the demonstration. Pedneault said he feels that the university had taken issue with the anti-administration stance of the demonstration.

“It’s almost as if [McGill security was] saying, ‘these people are guilty by association, so please be advised to go after them,'” Pedneault said. “I don’t think there’s any doubt as to why they decided to go after [us]. We’ve been in the media a lot to support labour rights on campus and speak out against the administration’s approach to labour relations.”

In the days following the announcement of the allegations, the claims received much attention from local media. On Oct. 25, Pedneault and Stettin appeared on CBC’s Daybreak Montreal to discuss the accusations.

While he wouldn’t comment on the specific incident, McGill’s Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning, Morton Mendelson, told the Tribune that expression of free speech is always permitted on campus, but that it must be done in an organized way so as to not disrupt the workings of the university.

“All kinds of opinions are welcomed on campus,” Mendelson said. “There are constraints, [however], on forms of expression. Bullhorns outside a building with classrooms, [for example], aren’t acceptable.”

“Permission is granted independent of the content, as long as the content is legal,” he said. “If there is a barbeque to promote cause A versus cause B, there is nothing taken into account that says ‘well, we agree with cause A but we don’t agree with cause B, so we’re going to let cause A hold a barbeque and cause B not.’ That’s not what we do at a university.”

Stettin disagreed with Mendelson’s comments.

 “The administration has a robust disdain for any freedom of speech and assembly directed against them and their interests,” he said.

News

Referendum period opens with ballot on CKUT and QPIRG

The fall referendum campaign period opens this week, and features two questions on whether QPIRG McGill and CKUT’s student fees should cease to be opt-outable via the Minerva online system and instead be refundable directly though each organization. Students will be able to vote on the questions from Nov 4-10.

Every five years, the Quebec Public Interest Research Group (QPIRG) and CKUT,  the official campus-community radio station, hold referenda in which the student body votes on the organizations’ existence. A ‘yes’ vote enables the groups to renew their Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the administration, a document that governs each group’s relationship with the administration. Both MoAs will expire in June 2012.  

Fee levy refunds were available through each individual group until fall 2007, when McGill moved opt­—outs online to Minerva. That same fall, the General Asembly voted to reinstitue the old system and in winter 2008, students passed a referendum mandating SSMU to lobby for an end to the Minerva opt-out system. The administration did not change the system either time.

Since the system changed, there has been a marked increase in opt—out rates for all opt-outable organizations, with a divergence of only 0.5 to 1.5 per cent across the different student groups. This semester, several campus organizations, including QPIRG and CKUT, mounted their own campaign in response to the opt-out campaign called “Our Campus, Our Community” to raise awareness of projects funded with student fees.

Drain on the organization

Anna Malla, QPIRG’s internal coordinator, explained that the primary reason for the referendum question was the current system’s drain on QPIRG’s human resources.

“It’s very difficult when [the opt-out campaign is] not held accountable by any rules or standards, but QPIRG obviously as an organization is, so one of the primary reasons is that it’s a huge drain on our human resources, on our board and staff,” Malla said. “A lot of time and energy is spent, is misspent in my opinion, in defending ourselves against the kind of attacks that are just baseless and against misinformation instead of focusing on the really great work that we do on campus.”

Caitlin Manicom, CKUT funding and outreach co-ordinator, explained that the reasons for CKUT’s referendum are very similar to QPIRG’s.

“We simply cannot continue to exist with this type of blanket opting out,” Manicom said. “It’s a huge, huge drain on us, not only financially but also organizationally. When you have unregulated opt-out campaigns happening on campus, they encourage students to opt out regardless and so they blanket opt out of a number of different organizations without learning anything about them.”

 Last year, the fee levy for QPIRG was approximately $186,000 before opt-outs and $156,000 after. This year’s projected values are $190,000 before and $157,000 after, Malla said. Similarly, CKUT’s projected budget for will be $16,020 less than it would be without online opt outs. Last year, its operating budget was decreased by $27,191 after opt-outs, out of a budget of $422,572. CKUT’s budget is much larger than QPIRG’s due to its sponsors and funding drives.

If QPIRG and CKUT were allowed to administer their own opt-outs, students would have to go over to the groups’ individual offices to receive their refund. Manicom said that CKUT also intends to set up a table in the SSMU building during the refund period so students can get a refund on campus in addition to CKUT.

Question clarity

Some students believe that the wording of the referenda question may pose some problems for voters. Stephen David, U3 mining engineering, noted that the question combines two very different issues.

“I don’t support or oppose either [QPIRG or CKUT], but the problem is they’re forcing people to accept their methodology regarding the opt-out process,” David said. “I [kind of] feel like I’m being screwed. If you want them to continue to receive funding, you have to accept the terms of their opt-out scheme. If you don’t want to fund them, they’ve made your life harder.”

When asked why the two questions were combined, Malla pointed again to the drain in resources arising from the current system.

“Our very existence is at stake with the current system, and that is both in terms of our human resources at QPIRG as well as in terms of not being able to predict our finances for the year,” Malla said. “We actually will not be able to continue to exist under the current system, so it is an existence question.”

The wording of the question may pose challenges to QPIRG and CKUT with the administration. Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning Morton Mendelson declined to answer whether the university would return the opt-out  system to the 2007 system if the referenda passed, calling the situation “hypothetical.” Nevertheless, he stressed the need for referendum questions to be clear and to effectively reflect student opinions.

“We have asked student groups going to referendum for confirmation that students approve of their continuation to do so with a question that is clear and to th
e point.  A confusing question does not provide a clear answer,” Mendelson wrote in an email to the Tribune. “We have not been able to implement some fee referenda when the questions have been incomplete or ambiguous.”

A question of existence

Malla did not disclose QPIRG’s options in the case that the majority of students vote no to the referendum question, although she did say that becoming part of SSMU is not an option.

“This is a question that we’ll have to address after the results of the referendum,” Malla said. “But if we don’t get a ‘yes’ vote we will no longer receive undergraduate student funding … so essentially it would mean that our organization would not exist.”

A “no” vote for CKUT would reduce the organization’s funding by over a third and may also cause the radio station to lose its location and broadcast license, Manicom said. CKUT is not looking to continue as a club under SSMU.

 “[CKUT occupies] two floors of the building that we exist in, a very large space, [with] over 300 volunteers … it is a campus-community radio station,” Manicom said. “I don’t think it’d make sense to be a club under SSMU. And I don’t think it would be financially feasible either.”

SSMU President Maggie Knight commented that an end to CKUT and QPIRG would have a notable effect on student life.

“If CKUT ceased to exist, that would be a huge blow to the Montreal community and a lot of students on campus that are very actively involved in radio production. We don’t have a journalism school … CKUT is the McGill school of radio in its own way,” Knight said. “As far as QPIRG goes … they have a lot of groups involved in a lot of causes, [and] many are dear to the heart of lots of students. It’s not only activism based on campus but also activism linked to the direct community.”

Opinion

Spam off!

 

One of my biggest regrets in university might be how liberal I was with my email address in first year. There’s a mindset that comes from being told over and over again to broaden your horizons and get involved with university life, both valid pieces of advice, which results in a little too much eagerness and optimism when taken to the extreme.
Activities Night in particular requires self-control and discretion. Do not act like someone at a buffet after a week-long hunger strike. In first year, I wandered around and signed myself up for anything and everything I considered slightly interesting, even if only for 30 seconds. Our House Music society? Sure, there was that one time I went to a warehouse party and there was loud electronic music, I could be interested in techno and trance. McGill Rotary Club? I’ve volunteered before and had fun, so why not. SOS Tutoring? I peer tutored a few times in high school, and I’m not sure how much I helped the student in question by correcting her French pronunciation as she stumbled through Asterix comic books, but saving the world through tutoring sounds like a good deal. Origami Club? Origami is one of those mysterious skills that my cool friends know how to do and I’ve always wanted to learn but never bothered to (maybe because when I really think about it, I have better things to do with my time). Swing Dancing Club? Never tried it but it sounds fun.
Inevitablym three years later, I’ve realised not only that I am no longer interested in most of the groups and activities I thought were cool in first year, but also I was probably not all that interested in the first place. I was spurred on to sign up by the excitement of university life and the endless possibilities available in front of me.
 Writing down your email for anything that sounds remotely interesting is a good idea, in theory, allowing you to filter through the plethora of activities at McGilland find something you’re actuallyinterested in. Unfortunately, I’vefound that it’s sometimes easier to not sign up in the first place than it is to unsubscribe. As old listservs pile up and gather rust in my inbox, my desperate replies which usually say “unsubscribe” in the subject line and then “Please take me off your list serv (it’s nothing personal, I’m just not interested in your club anymore)” in the email are ignored. The self-serve unsubscribe method is often just as useless. Clicking one of those “unsubscribe” links at the bottom of a listserv leads to a labyrinthan google group where supposedly, somewhere, there is the option to remove yourself from the list-serv. Only if you have the patience and determination to find it—­­ and the secret code given to you by the elves of Rivendell or something like that—will you be able to remove yourself from the listserv.
Now, when someone asks for my email, I give them a suspicious look and ask why in my most menacing tone. I treat my email address like it’s my phone number and everyone who asks for it is a potential telemarketer. I’ve learned that, when it comes to new activities, I need to think of my email frustration before I let my eagerness overtake me.

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue