“When you believe in things that you don’t understand then you suffer. Superstition ain’t the way.”

—Stevie Wonder

The university can be a hotbed for superstition. When you fill people’s heads with speculative ideas that are presented as facts, things will always get messy. Facts and metaphysical truths, when taken as sacred, become superstitions. When we make a professor more sacred than a book, or a book more sacred than a friend, or a friend more sacred than a lover, we are playing with fire. Making something sacred is a problem because when you don’t understand, when your gut tells you something is fishy, you can simply say: “Nope, better believe the preacher, doctor, monk, parent, novelist, counsellor, lover, professor, magician, swami, etc.” We’re addicted to this. Easy answers equal distraction from difficulties on the home front. We’re not in “the real world,” we have no real problems.

True, we want to help the world, which is a good thing. But it’s not a pass for us to be high and mighty with problems. When you don’t understand why you feel the way you do, you risk the loss of your gut, or your intuitions. You say: “There must be something wrong with my abilities,” or you look for some bigger existential problem to chew on endlessly. Or, you pay $5,000 dollars to fly to Africa to feed children, when the real problem is almost always at home. There are starving children in Montreal, too, and your boyfriend and parents have nothing to do with Nietzsche.

We sometimes tend to believe that when there are problems with us or with the world, that these problems are us or the world. We don’t trust that we understand the situation well enough to deal with it. It’s all very mystical and unreflective. The image of the superstitious person used to be the ignorant believer, the person who “took the red pill.” But the young thinker is just as susceptible. When things get difficult in school, we know that we can get a mental health note or an aderol. When we feel perplexed, we know we can read “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” or Plato. But these “answers” don’t make our “souls weigh more” at the end of it; they don’t make us better than anyone else.

Do we really have to rely on vague diagnoses, esoteric intellectuals, and wonder drugs to supplement our “feeble” minds? Some more relevant questions might be: Am I treating my roommates well? How’s grandma? Why does Brad’s room always smell funny?

When it comes down to it, belief comes from instinct and intuition, those vague and detestable, intangible things. We can’t read about the backs of our own heads.

As an exercise, ask yourself what you really got out of that literature or philosophy class, and then compare it to what you might get out of a Pixar movie or the advice of a good friend. Ask yourself why you dismiss the possibility of a Pixar movie being a source of real wisdom.

Facts, diagnoses, intellectuals and leather-bound books can often just provoke superstition, though they may add to our university street cred. That’s not to say that they’re always bad, they just have their place somewhere behind things we really do understand—friends, family and our sense of self; all those silly rank and file values.

McGill Tribune

Resolution Re: The Society’s Invesments – YES

This resolution would amend the Students’ Society’s bylaws to include information regarding its investments in corporate shares and government bonds. As SSMU’s counsel has advised, this is necessary in order to bring the corporation in line with Quebec law.

Resolution Re: Biking on Campus – NO

If passed, this resolution would mandate SSMU to investigate whether bikes on campus are dangerous, to lobby the administration to reinstate biking on campus, and to look for ways to make biking safer. The administration made it clear in the Fall that they have no intention of reversing this policy, and no General Assembly motion or student-conducted research will change this. Also, it’s doubtful that SSMU has either the resources to effectively study this issue or improve bicycle safety.

Resolution Re: The Improvement of the SSMU — NO

Citing concerns with SSMU’s administrative structure, this resolution proposes that the organization commission an independent study by an outside researcher, preferably a student, to investigate the SSMU’s efficiency and business practices. While we’d love to see SSMU operate more efficiently, we’re concerned about hiring a student to conduct the study. While student researchers can produce good work, this particular project is in an area where it’s unlikely that any student would have the expertise required to conduct a complete, useful analysis.

Resolution Re: The Appointment of McKinsey & Co. — NO

This resolution proposes that SSMU oppose the appointment of McKinsey & Co., a consulting group that McGill recently announced will provide services pro bono to the university, as well as the appointment of one of the company’s administrators to the McGill’s Board of Governors. Many of the whereas clauses, however, in this resolution are simplistic and devoid of context. Most corporations as large as McKinsey have taken actions that, when cited out of context, may reflect poorly on the company. This does not make the corporation inherently evil and certainly does not mean we shouldn’t avail ourselves of their services, particularly when they are offered for free.

Resolution Re: Use of McGill’s Name — YES

If passed, this resolution would mandate SSMU to continue to fight for the rights of student groups to use the McGill name in their titles and would ban the university from using any of these groups in their own publications if no progress is made. Many clubs and services on campus, including the Tribune, have recently faced problems stemming from the university’s restrictions on the use of its name and this resolution is a step in the right direction.

McGill Tribune

OMEQ is a student club that seeks to provide an on-campus forum for dialogue on Israel and Palestine. This brief description, however, does not tell the full story, nor does it address the critical issues that must be raised: what does dialogue mean? How do we do it? Aren’t there enough Israel and Palestine groups on campus?

Dialogue can mean different things to different people. Many are hesitant to approach it. Some see it as an excuse to do nothing substantive. Some see it as a waste of time. I respectfully disagree. Dialogue is about listening to another human being. Through this lens, dialogue can be considered an end unto itself; it allows you to gain an incredibly valuable understanding of what another person thinks, and why they think it. Without actually speaking to and genuinely listening to others, it becomes all too easy to stereotype them and make cookie cutter assumptions about their opinions.

The integral component of this is dialogue as a whole is not an end unto itself. When the component of dialogue described above is construed as the whole, many are driven away, concluding that dialogue is a waste of time.

Yet, this position does not take into account the necessity of dialogue initiatives in connection with the broader world. Dialogue does not exist in a vacuum. Those who engage in dialogue are bound to be those who care about the issue at hand (in this case, Israel/Palestine). Those who care about the issue will take action, both public and private. Dialogue in general, and that which takes place in OMEQ specifically, is in no way mutually exclusive with activism or debate. Rather, these are for other forums, some of which already exist. OMEQ does not seek to replace Students for Palestinian Human Rights, Hillel, or any other politically active Israel/Palestine group on campus. Rather, OMEQ intends to provide a space for respectful engagement between those who might otherwise never have a discussion with one another. In doing so, OMEQ aims to empower participants to act responsibly and purposefully.

To this end, we organize frequent events and discussions. In the past, we have hosted speakers (such as Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah from the Middle East Task Force of the New American Foundation) to spark conversation, held film screenings followed by discussions (including various short films from attendees of the Peace It Together program), and organized discussions pertaining to pressing current issues. And this is only the beginning. Attending university provides each of us with the unique opportunity to share the classroom and the campus with individuals and groups whose views run counter to our own. To OMEQ, this diversity is best viewed not as a source of discomfort and strife, but rather as an incredible opportunity for education, growth and action. Everyone is welcome at OMEQ events and anyone can influence its character because it’s essentially a human endeavour. It’s an attempt to listen and speak honestly and openly with others about an issue for which many carry so much passion.

Micha Stettin is VP External of OMEQ: Depth Through Dialogue

More information can be found at the OMEQ Facebook group, or at depththroughdialogue.com.

McGill Tribune

The Students’ Society Council voted in confidential session  on Thursday to publicly censure President Zach Newburgh. While this limited information was all that was initially offered to students, it is now known that the censure was the result of Newburgh’s involvement with a new company, Jobbook. Debate on the issue, which began as a motion to impeach the president, was conducted in over six hours of confidential session—all non-councillors were barred from the meeting and councillors were prohibited from discussing the proceedings. Only because of reporting by the campus media do we know anything more than that Newburgh was censured.

From the Architecture Cafe to the GA reform process, “consultation” and “transparency” have been the buzzwords of the year in McGill’s student politics. It’s unfortunate, then, that Robert’s Rules of Order swear Council to secrecy when dealing with punishment of its members. A public censure means little if students are not privy to the circumstances surrounding it.

Some of Newburgh’s actions did lead us to question his judgment, such as unilaterally entering into business negotiations on behalf of SSMU; signing the initial confidentiality agreement; and having a personal financial stake in the Jobbook project. He certainly owes students and Council a full explanation and public apology. No one, however, has provided proof that he violated any of SSMU’s by-laws or its constitution. It’s unfair to definitively condemn or defend Newburgh’s actions unless more information becomes public.

An editorial published by the McGill Daily on Saturday called for Newburgh’s immediate resignation. On the basis of the little information currently available, any call for Newburgh’s removal from office is both premature and an incredible overreaction. Not only is it problematic for Council to impeach or censure someone without releasing any information on why it’s deserved, it’s also irresponsible for those outside of Council to align themselves on either side without more information.

Newburgh may have exercised poor judgment at some moments in his dealings with Jean de Brabant and Jobbook. Given what we know, however, neither SSMU as a corporation nor any individuals involved were harmed by his actions. Though Newburgh has failed in at least one aspect of his job description—leading and maintaining unity among his team of executives—the burden of proof is on those calling for his resignation to prove that his offence was grave enough for him to resign. Perhaps such information will come to light in the coming weeks, but given the details at hand, there is no reason for Newburgh to leave his office.

Mookie Kideckel, Managing Editor, is Zach Newburgh’s roommate. He did not contribute to this editorial or review the Tribune’s coverage of events surrounding the issue.

A prematurely published version of this article contained numerous factual inaccuracies. The Tribune regrets the errors.

McGill Tribune

Last week, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled to allow a usage-based billing system for Internet Service Providers. The decision is anti-competitive and a disservice to technological advancement, and the federal government is right to force the CRTC to review its decision.

In Canada, there are a few major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who have built and installed the infrastructure required to connect a major computer network to the Internet. These large companies, like Bell Canada, now provide Internet service to home users and businesses. Smaller companies like TekSavvy and Montreal-DSL rent usage rights from the larger companies, allowing them to use a certain portion of the host companies’ Internet connection. Thus, the smaller companies are able to provide Internet service to customers without the large startup costs.

This rental system has allowed smaller companies to compete with the major Canadian ISPs by providing better rates and “unlimited” plans that offer users a flat-rate, all-you-can-download connection. Now, the big ISPs want customers of these smaller ISPs who download more to be charged proportionally, on a per-gigabyte basis. Under the CRTC’s ruling this is exactly what would happen. The start-ups would have no choice but to pass these charges on to their customers, who would then be responsible for the charges.

Such usage-based billing will likely be harmful for Canada’s already-weak technology infrastructure. Despite consistently ranking as one of the most developed nations in the world, Canadians have the 34th-fastest connection speed, along with pricier connections. Implementing usage-based billing for ISPs will only serve to inhibit the competition, further perpetuating the oligopoly that already exists. If startup companies realize they’re going to be charged extra to do their work in Canada, they will move elsewhere. Usage-based billing would also discourage bandwidth-heavy services like Netflix and Skype from serving Canada. Users who will be charged extra to watch television online will favour turning on the TV. This shift diverts money from the online television providers and into the pockets of the big ISPs, who often profit from television. By providing an incentive to watch the television instead of Netflix, the major ISPs are promoting an unfair competitive advantage in a different market as well.

The Tribune supports any decision to promote fair competition between companies, but the ruling by the CRTC clearly does not fall into this category. The proposed fee of $2.50 per gigabyte over the limit is more than a 10,000 per cent inflation on the actual cost of transmitting the data, estimated at less than one cent per gigabyte. The big ISPs would be pocketing 99 per cent of the costs paid by their competitors, an unprecedented and preposterous scenario.

For these reasons, we support overruling the CRTC’s decision. The CRTC should be encouraging a fair market for ISPs, not promoting anti-competitive business strategies and corporate strong-arming.

McGill Tribune

Dear Presidential Candidate,

I promise you, even though we seem angry and persistent and uncompromising in our demand for national change today, you will find us to be a people who will gratefully settle for some pocket change tomorrow.

The fact is, we are still recovering from a traumatically abusive relationship that senselessly battered our ability to trust. Ask any psychologist about “learned helplessness,” and you will be convinced that chronic neglect can cause a disturbing level of psychological damage to a human. And if there is anything we have been for the past 30 years, it was neglected.

Although many of us may never fully heal, we will do whatever it takes to rescue our national dignity, which has been drowned in the Nile River for all these years. And when we do, we will revive our ability to scrutinize those who lead us, and we will demand nothing short of excellence. Which brings us to you.

While most candidates for office typically have to labour for months in order to convince their people that change is even needed, you did not have to trouble yourself. We are so fired up for change that it has taken every water-cannoned truck in the country to cool us down. In fact, all you have to do now is convince us that you have the best blueprint for reform.

In the past, you would have had no problem seducing us with the warmth of your charming promises and persuade us that you are nothing like our ex. Your articulate speeches would have made our hearts race with excitement, our eyes swell with hope, and our souls flap their wings into the horizon of freedom. But we learned from the Americans.

But soon enough, we will get over our painful past and throttle our recovered minds into a promising future. Soon enough, we will cough out the debris of your powerful anesthetic and wake up to the reality of who you really are. And when we do, we will not be fazed by your superpower of eloquence, because our X-ray vision will see right through your hollow words. Take a look at the Americans.

The whole world watched Senator Barack Obama promise to redeem their national pride and restore their international reputation. He convinced Americans—heck, even non-Americans!—that he was fatally allergic to everything George Bush. And they—no, we—trusted him.

Two years later, the Democratic Party suffered the most humiliating defeat of any midterm election since 1938. Today, almost half of all Americans disapprove of Obama’s performance thus far. And his ratings continue to drop.

We Egyptians, like the Americans, are no longer mesmerized by catchy slogans, and we have been immunized against the contagiousness of your charm. Your superpower of eloquence will no longer avail you, because we have acquired X-ray vision. And we will see right through your hollow words every time.

We are not interested in hearing about how un-Mubarak you plan to be, or in listening to a list of transgressions you vow never to commit.. In fact, we want very few words at all. Focus instead on building a roadmap for our country and a vision for our future.  

What we want is the process—not the promise—of change. And if you fail to deliver, we will find somebody who will. Because you do not have the power to change us, but we have the power to exchange you.

Good luck,

Mohammed Ashour

McGill Tribune

You know you’re in third-year when a) Most of your friends are caffeine addicts, and b) All your friends have anxiously started muttering phrases like “damn internships” and “admissions GPA” under their breath. Days of first-year bliss, when hitting the bib for 30 minutes on a Saturday would be overdoing it, are long gone. Around the corner looms what our collective consciousness calls—cue scary Star Wars music—the next step.

Whether this next step is grad, med, or law school, or trying to gain work experience, it sends most of us into a strange sense of shock. Now I know some people claim to have everything figured out. Those with 4.0s, or a rich uncle at Google. Well, screw you guys. Turn to Student Living or Sports; this column ain’t for you.

This shock usually manifests itself in two ways: nervous frenzy and deer-in-headlights, the former generally leading to the latter. At first you start looking at all the options, a possible Masters program here, a possible Starbucks stint there. Then the info builds up. You visit internship conferences that show you all the exciting things people are doing (and so can you!), then you attend CV workshops, where you realize it’s surprisingly difficult to market serving fajitas every summer at local fairs. Then the admission requirements start to kick their way into your dreams.

Slowly but surely, your third year becomes one convoluted microcosm of the rat race, with all the ways to run faster and harder filtering through your daily life.

As the nervous frenzy hits a crisis point you shift to deer-in-headlights mode. Now you’re that guy staring blankly up the stairs in Cyberteque, coffee already cold in your hands. Or that gal who studies the numbers in the McLennan elevators, but never presses one, and never gets out on a floor. The rat race still swirls by, but now its words are slurred and it moves in slow motion. You go to class but wonder if it’s relevant. You look at your professors with their comfortable jobs, pretty PowerPoint slides, geeky jokes, and you start to seriously resent them.

It would be nice to say that come fourth-year, the clouds part, and, amidst angelic singing choirs, Heather Munroe-Blum descends with a platter of job options and a buffet of career trajectories. But it’s  just not true. Partly because I’m more suspicious of the world than I used to be, and partly because I’m still in third-year, still looking up at that titanic next step, in the same boat as you. Which, I suppose, is actually comforting. We’re still here together, in the world of midterm exams and Super Sandwich, of spring breaks and student columnists. It’s not such a bad world, even if we have no idea what the one after it will be like.

So here’s my slightly sentimental challenge: enjoy your time here. Especially those of you who are nearing the end of a degree, with other stresses slowly pressing in. Take time to stroll to parts of the city you’ve never seen. Talk to new people at Gert’s. And when the next step fears hit, by all means, deal with it, but remember: for now, you’re still here.