In just over a week’s time, students will have the chance to vote on the continued funding of Radio CKUT and the Quebec Public Interest Research Group at McGill. Yet in a way this is also a referendum on the current opt-out system, and whether it was a mistake to take the opt-out system online in 2007.

The referendum questions ask students to re-approve fees that support QPIRG ($3.75 per student per semester) and CKUT ($4.00) while shifting the responsibility for managing opt outs and refunds to QPIRG and CKUT. Things would more or less return to how they were before 2007, when students could get their money back by physically going to the QPIRG and CKUT offices, which very few students did, mainly because most didn’t know they could.

By the end of 2007, the Students’ Society was working on moving the opt-out system online. But the system that was launched in the Fall 2007 semester wasn’t exactly what SSMU had in mind, as McGill decided to put all opt-outable fees together on Minerva. That same semester the SSMU General Assembly passed a motion opposing the new system and supporting putting campus groups back in charge of their own opt-out processes. Needless to say, McGill ignored the GA motion, and I don’t blame them. The GA cannot possibly be construed as a democratic representation of the student body, and given some of the inane motions passed at GAs it should not be taken seriously. Plus the differences between it and the system envisioned by SSMU (and supported in principle by QPIRG) were not as significant as some would have you believe.

Yes, McGill was a bit crafty when it decided to put all the opt-outs on its own website. But if opt-outs are online, does it really matter where they’re located? Even if they had been on each group’s own website there would have been links to these pages on Minerva. The argument behind putting opt-outs online was that it would make the process more transparent and efficient. There was even support from QPIRG: Ed Hudson, a member of the QPIRG board of directors in 2007 told the Tribune that QPIRG wouldn’t be opposed to the website, and that “We wouldn’t put barriers in [students’] right to opt out.”

QPIRG has always referred to the ability to opt out as a “right”. If students have a right to opt out, then why shouldn’t the process be as straightforward and transparent as possible? QPIRG and CKUT point out that they’ve been hit by the QPIRG Opt-Out campaign, but no one can say that this wasn’t predictable.  When the new system went online, SSMU told groups to budget for at least a third less funding than previous years, but even with the opt-out campaign QPIRG and CKUT’s opt-out rates haven’t been that high.

Everyone who opts-out is exercising their right to do so, and the solution isn’t to make it harder, but to budget accordingly and/or raise opt-outable fees through referenda, as QPIRG has done.

Going back to the old way, and making the opt-out process as difficult and furtive as possible, ignores the original problem, dismisses the benefits of an online opt-out system, and is not the right answer to the current situation.

After leaving its humble beginnings in Vancouver to make a splash in the Big Apple, the Occupy movement returned to its birth country last week, hitting large Canadian cities with full force. Crowds defying any demographic classification filled streets and parks across the country to join what has become a worldwide phenomenon.

As pundits surveyed the Canuck addition to the protests, two questions were raised over and over again. First: aren’t people only upset at Wall Street, not Bay Street? Surely the problem lies in the global effect of America’s corporate beast, and the world is reacting. Second: is the movement’s message a cohesive one? Everybody is angry, but can anybody agree on what exactly they’re angry about? Yet these questions have already been answered. Let’s take ‘em one at a time.

Wall Street may be the ugliest worm in your dinner, but it’s not the only one: the whole dish is spoiled. The system that contributes to the wealth of the few—and the struggle of most—spills far over American borders, and is globally kept in place by international elites. Canada, often proud in the past of being the only legitimate social democracy outside of Scandinavia, looks more and more like its southern cousin. While its income inequality is, mercifully, still much lower than that of the United States, it’s catching up, and fast. CBC announced last week that Canada’s income gap is getting wider at a faster rate than America’s. Furthermore, in 1976 the average Canadian income was $51,100. Despite inflation, that average has made a slow increase to $59,700. Frank Groves, the President of Ekos Research Associates, has told CBC’s The National that “nobody but a narrow caste of very rich people are moving forward.” In the same interview he mentioned that “what’s shocking about Occupy Wall Street isn’t that it occurred, but that it took so long to occur.”

Sitting next to Groves at the time was Charlotte Yates, Chair of Social Science at McMaster University. And in my opinion, she effectively tackled the issue of what the protestors want:

“Although the demands of that group are very diffuse, there is a very clear message: we’re angry about the way capitalist society is organized. Too few people have too much. This is a backlash against corporations.”

Her statement needs some nuance. Brands, companies, and their leaders are not universally despised. The tragic passing of Steve Jobs, and the outpouring of affection for all things Apple, is a case in point. Rather, it’s the position of manipulative power which many corporations are allowed to be in that spark outrage. Especially when that power is purely mediated by the bottom line figures at the end of the month. Add a host of entrenched economists who only see when their neo-liberal glasses are on, and you’ve got legitimately fed up people. Their demands are many because the injustices are many.

As the Occupy movement evolves, it should continue to be subject to much talk and more scrutiny. But the media  should not patronise it by asking questions that have already been answered. The movement’s ultimate efficacy has yet to be seen, but you do not have to strain your eyes to see its causes.

McGill Tribune

Madam Principal,

Your most recent communication regarding the strike, “We are all McGill,”  seems to say two contradictory things at once: both that “we are all McGill,” and “by dint of their recent actions, MUNACA members are not McGill.” It has the clear intention of rallying its readers around you and against MUNACA members while saying nothing either substantive or documented about why exactly this should be.

A university president used to be a practicing academic. You are a practicing bureaucrat and fabulist. A university president used to have an interest—and pride—in the knowledge and calibre of its graduates. You have an interest in their money and influence. You know very well that “sharp but civil” discourse is a losing tactic for anyone but yourself and your cabal of administrator cronies, since it is in fact not discourse that wins the day here at old McGill, but money and power. Your tenure as president of this university is an embarrassment, certainly to me and my parents, but also to many with whom you presume to stand in solidarity. I can hope only that you will in time come to see for yourself exactly how shameful it is.

Sincerely,

Cole Powers

U2 Philosophy

Facebook and privacy are two words with a long, tenuous relationship. At 750 million members, the site houses a lot of information about a lot of people. It is no surprise that the company has been the frequent subject of scrutiny over its privacy policies. What is often overlooked is the fact that Facebook, Twitter, and other similar websites are only media for personal information — any offensive or libelous material is posted by individuals. These individuals, not the companies, are the ones responsible for the material they post.

We’ve all heard stories about people who, after a tough day at work or school, went home and tweeted “God I hate Mr. Turner,” or posted that their students were all germbags. While these stories are generally funny, they affect real people and can cost some their jobs. In some instances, the messages sent can be considered threatening, a point that hits rather close to home here at McGill.

Many of the characters in these stories, after they realise the consequences of their actions, cite one of two excuses. Either: “I was joking.” Or: the website didn’t permit them enough control over who would be able to view their message, and they didn’t intend a certain audience to see such sensitive material.

Anyone communicating using just text must realise that most jokes are cued non-verbally. On the internet, however, these cues are absent for messages shared in text format. Sarcasm is more difficult to detect in written words than spoken ones, something any micro-blogger should know.

While it is true that many social networking sites have complex and confusing privacy settings, this is a widely known fact. It should not be a surprise when users make mistakes in these settings. It is not a good example of user-interface design, but we all know that. Additionally, many people don’t actually know what settings they would like, they only  know that Facebook did it wrong, and any improvements they make are just less wrong. It’s difficult to blame Facebook for this, as they were trailblazing when they created the site. If you don’t like the privacy settings, don’t use the site. Or, at least accept that you don’t understand how they work and proceed with caution.

Even if every website on the Internet permitted perfect control over one’s personal information, there is still a degree of insecurity in the picture: other people. When your friends see you’ve posted something funny, tearjerking, or rude on Facebook, there is nothing preventing them from taking a screenshot and posting it on Failblog, Reddit, Digg, or any other similar website. These excerpts can contain all of your identifying information accompanying the scandalous material. When this happens, it’s difficult to blame Facebook.

While the National Labour Relation Board ruled earlier this year that employees may not be fired based on things posted on Facebook, it is still not a good idea to publically call your boss a “nitwit.” You can’t be fired for it, but there is still no reason to potentially let your co-workers know your true opinion of them. While the court might protect your job in these situations, they can’t make any guarantees about working conditions, letters of recommendation, and other courtesies offered by employers.

Internet users have to realise that if there ever was a true cliché, it’s that the internet is written in ink. When you post something on any of your favorite social networks, blogs, or other publicly exposed websites, it should be considered out there for everyone to see. There are never going to be ideal privacy settings for any website, and anything you tweet that can be misconstrued, will be. Users need to prepare for the worst case scenario when posting potentially offensive material. It is up to the web user to think before they post. Only that way can you prevent yourself from becoming a “victim” in one of these unfortunate events.

McGill Tribune

The formerly admirable civility of the MUNACA strike appears to have been replaced by behaviour that goes beyond the bounds of decency. Last week, according to the MUNACA website, over 600 strikers disrupted the construction of the MUHC hospital at the Glen Yards site. In addition, it has been reported that protestors harassed alumni at a homecoming event, picketed at the non-university workplaces of governors, and used intimidation tactics at the homes of senior administrators.

What were these disruptions ever supposed to accomplish? Apart from stalling the building of a new hospital, spoiling a homecoming party for alumni, and alienating students from the movement, such acts will achieve very little. Despite VP Administration and Finance Michael Di Grappa’s claims that these actions “will not affect what goes on at the negotiating table,” they undoubtedly will, and it will affect MUNACA aversely. Actions such as throwing items at Mr. Di Grappa, be they garbage or flowers, will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the administration, making compromise even more difficult to achieve, and creating an office filled with tension when the MUNACA workers finally return to the fold.

The Tribune consequently finds such reckless and short term tactics entirely self-defeating. It seems like some strikers have forgotten that they are, sooner or later, going to have to work shoulder to shoulder with the very people they are attempting to intimidate. MUNACA’s acts of frustration can perhaps be understood given the slow pace of negotiations and the administration’s injunction. Under these conditions it is hard to build up consistent support for the MUNACA cause and to keep up momentum. But that does not warrant the use of intimidation tactics as a response. The purpose of MUNACA’s strike should be to demonstrate to the administration the enormous value of their work, making a case for how difficult it is for the university to cope without them; it should not be to show how much they can intimidate or disrupt. As with any strike, the moral high ground is essential, and that is only gained by turning the other cheek to unjust blows, not hitting back.

Moreover, these actions are not only self-defeating, but such childish tactics also set a dismal example for students. The Tribune applauds students for standing up for MUNACA workers. But actions so selfish in their nature, and intimidating in their intent, are giving students a terrible education in how to confront grievances in the working world.

The Tribune therefore calls for such disruptive tactics to cease—for the good of McGill’s students, alumni, construction projects, administrators, and workers. The approach of bringing public figures such as Maude Barlow, Brian Topp, and Michel Arsenault behind the MUNACA cause is a far more effective one: support of elected politicians is much more likely to bear fruit than disruptive protests, and much more in accordance with acceptable norms of behaviour.

Furthermore, the focus ought to be centred on the negotiating table, not on inappropriate picketing. That is where any concessions will become concrete, not outside Michael Di Grappa’s house. Both administrators and strikers need to remember it is in both of their interests for MUNACA workers to get back to work. McGill’s research capacity is hamstrung without a great deal of its workforce, and MUNACA workers must surely be hoping to return to full pay sooner rather than later. We remain hopeful that a resolution is on the horizon, but the recent poor conduct by many surrounding the strike has led us to seriously question that hope.