Holly Stewart

Last Friday, the Student Consultation and Communication Work Group held an open forum to encourage students to suggest ways of improving communication, and consultation between the McGill administration and student body.

The Work Group was created in October 2010 in response to controversies over such administrative decisions as the closing of the Architecture Café and the conversion of the campus into a pedestrian-only zone. Both issues frequently came up at Friday’s meeting, along with tuition fees and grading policies. Members include faculty, administrators, and student representatives from McGill Assocation of Continuing Education Students, the Post-Graduate Students’ Society, the MacDonald Campus Students’ Society, and the Students’ Society of McGill University. They work together to fulfill the mandate to consider and make “recommendations about the methods used to consult and communicate with students,” and to improve trust and transparency throughout the McGill community.

 “We can’t solve wrongs that have gone on in the past … ideas about solutions, alternatives [for the future], that’s what we’re looking for,” said co-moderator Finn Upham, of the PGSS.

While the turnout was low, those in attendance confidently voiced suggestions to improve administrative transparency. A common idea was the creation of a central website for the minutes of various university meetings, allowing students to follow their progress. However, others disagreed, saying that, “we need to communicate the narratives, not the bureaucratic trappings.” Committee Chairman Paul Weisman noted that this was under consideration.

Another student said “the problem really lies in [that] many do not know where to begin. You would need a Service Point[-type] structure, to pass on your concern.”

The discussion ended with a joke about the forming of “Complaint Point.”

Another student argued that students’ feeling that they are underrepresented can be traced to a lack of trust between the administration and students: “There is a patronizing parent-child culture and lack of accountability. We never elected these people … we don’t trust them because we don’t know who they are, and they don’t trust us because we are so ephemeral.”

Another noted that the administration seemed to be making decisions in the summer when students were not on campus.

But the focus shifted later on in the talks as one student noted that student representatives need to “do better at consulting our own student body.”

Michael Porritt, director of residences, noted that the student body was often equally split, using the issue of quiet hours in residences as an example.

Several members of the Work Group were absent at the start, including representatives from the Students’ Society. Some students noted the absence of Deputy Provost  (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson as a sign of disinterest.

Dean of Students Jane Everett was in attendance but declined to comment.

McGill is also conducting a survey on consulation and communication, which is available to take online through Friday.

Alice Walker

Councillors were notified at Thursday’s Students’ Society Council meeting of a proposed referendum question that could abolish SSMU’s General Assembly, the once-a-semester forum for undergraduates to vote on issues of concern to them.  

The referendum question, authored by SSMU President Zach Newburgh, and moved by Newburgh, Vice-President Internal Tom Fabian, VP Finance and Operations Nick Drew, and Athletics representative Emilie Leonard, would see the GA replaced with an annual General Meeting at which motions could be debated but not voted upon. Voting on the question would then take place online through the existing referendum system.  

According to Newburgh, the proposal would remedy many of the systemic problems in the current GA’s structure.

“A lot of the resolutions that come to bat … usually take the form of joke motions, which makes those who are not currently involved think that the Society is silly,” Newburgh said. “The second piece [of the problem with the GA] is that when there is importance lent to the GA, it’s normally due to highly contentious, politicized motions, whereby individuals, instead of debating, are racing to get the highest number of like-minded individuals to cast their votes and debate at each other rather than with each other.”

Despite arguments that the abolition of the GA would mean the end of direct democracy at SSMU, Newburgh argued that the current format of the GA is inherently undemocratic.

“The GA allows a small segment of the Society that is unelected and exclusive, due to space and time constraints, to circumvent democracy entirely,” he said. “In replacing the GA with a forum for debate and in keeping the referendum process alive, in fact we are making the Society all the more democratic.”

In order for the question to be placed on the spring referendum ballot, the motion must be passed by Council at their next meeting, on February 3.   

Some councillors, however, have argued that there was not enough student consultation in the drafting of the motion. Maggie Knight, Clubs and Services representative, said Newburgh’s attempt to recruit students to sit on a GA review committee, to which only one student applied, was not sufficient.

“The GA is significantly flawed,” Knight said. “If the suggested change is the best thing we can come up with, then sure, we should put that to referendum. But my feeling is very much that we have not done an exhaustive search for better solutions.”

Management representative Eli Freedman agreed.

“[Newburgh] sent out an email, and no one applied to be on the committee. I don’t really think that’s adequate,” he said. “I’m sure if he had asked people in person they would have been willing to at least go to some sort of brainstorming night or participate in some sort of problem solving exercise.”

Newburgh, however, argued that he had offered student voices sufficient opportunity to speak.  

“I hope that individuals recognize there was an opportunity for consultation, that they understand the word in the first place, and that it’s not tantamount to agreement,” he said. “Those who have thus far made calls for increased consultation and complained about the process are those individuals who either a) benefit from the status quo, or b) disagree with the motion but can’t substantiate their disagreement.”

In an effort to further include students, Knight, Freedman, and Arts Senator Amara Possian created a Facebook event encouraging members to submit their own suggestions for GA reform. In addition, Newburgh is hosting a Town Hall meeting with the same aim on Wednesday at 3 p.m. in the Lev Bukhman room.

“I hope in the next week and a half we can come up with a structure that would be much better, which we can then offer as an amendment and hopefully come to agreement on what the best different option would be,” Knight said.

Despite these disagreements, Knight emphasized that this is not fundamentally a confrontation between members of the SSMU executive and certain councillors.

“That’s why we’re there as councillors: to try to hold the execs to account, and to try to make sure that they’re consulting with students as much as possible,” she said. “I’m really happy we now have a Town Hall and I hope that everybody comes out to that and offers constructive feedback.”

The referendum question also includes a provision whereby any member of the society who collects 50 signatures can submit a resolution to SSMU Council. According to Newburgh, this will give the average student, “the opportunity to engage with an easier degree with the legislative process.”

Should Council decide to reject the referendum question, Newburgh would have the option of putting it on the ballot through the student-initiated referendum process—something former president Ivan Neilson did last year with a question regarding SSMU’s committee structure.

“We don’t have a lot of time, but I’m confident we’ll either come up some sort of solution that is mutually agreeable or we’ll just vote down the resolution, which in my opinion is the most ideal solution,” Freedman said.

“If Council chooses to get hung up in process, rather than in debating the merits of the question, I would be open to considering a student-initiated referendum question,” Newburgh said.

The year in campus media took perhaps its most interesting turn last Monday with the launch of the Prince Arthur Herald, a new online conservative student newspaper based at McGill.

The website’s political positions, which tend to be libertarian, are articulated in a 25-point Statement of Principles.

 “Our paper supports freedom of the individual, individual choice, and the free market as the most efficient [economic system] and the [one] that respects human dignity the highest [for] the organization of society,” said Editor-in-Chief Brendan Steven, U1 history.

Steven added, however, that the website, which so far has published exclusively opinion pieces, will encourage dialogue, both between different types of conservatives and  more generally between conservatives and liberals. Though most of its 17 columnists have backgrounds in international and domestic politics, there will also be columns on sports, culture, and the pro-life movement.  While many  columnists will have typical conservative leanings of one sort or another, among them are Zach Paikin, who is a former president of the Young Liberals of Canada, and Grace Khare, a board member of Queer McGill.

“Our hope is to engender voices that previously didn’t have a place in campus debate,” Steven said.

The Herald is undeniably a response to the McGill Daily, most explicitly with its formulation of a Statement of Principles, which is one of the Daily’s hallmarks.  Both Daily Coordinating Editor Emilio Comay del Junco and Steven acknowledged the two sources’ opposition.

“Obviously, we do take political positions that [the Herald] disagrees with, and they think there is a general conception that it is a response to the Daily,” del Junco said.

Though del Junco acknowledged a difference of opinion, he indicated that it was important to have a plurality of voices in campus media.

“In some ways it’s kind of unfortunate that it comes out as an opposition because I think there is a lot of space … for that kind of expression to happen,” he said.

The idea for the newspaper was born last semester, and Herald President Kevin Pidgeon, U2 history, began to build the site in December.

Their costs, so far, have been negligible. One of the advantages of the online-only format, they said, was that the students involved could easily foot the bill. For now, the editors and columnists are willing to work without payment. Though they plan to expand their operation in the future, the website will operate on low costs, so it will not have to run advertisements. Pidgeon explained that this was a way to establish an independent image for the Herald.

“One of the absolute classic condemnations of the right is, ‘You’re a mouthpiece for big business,’ and in some cases it’s absolutely true. But our aim is to do absolutely nothing of that sort,” Pidgeon said.

Though the Herald is based at McGill and is primarily staffed by McGill students, the newspaper wants to be read and written by students across Canada.

“Canada, at the end of the day, has elected a Conservative government; a lot of voters vote on conservative political principles,” Steven said. “Clearly in the broader political community there is a place for conservative values, so why not at university?”  

Pidgeon and Steven said that they planned to offer “24/7” coverage, a feature which they claimed distinguishes them from other campus media outlets.  The team of columnists and editors aim to put out between five and six articles a day.   

They have no plans to move to other media yet, but they have considered moving to print in the distant future.

Steven was not shy about his ambitions.

“We want to be Canada’s and McGill’s premier student news source,” he said.

Former City Councillor Michael Fainstat donated his body to McGill’s Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry in a program that gives students hands-on experience with real bodies. Fainstat, who died at 87 on December 29, was known for his many contributions to the community and decided to make his body the last one.

The Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Dentistry have a cadaver-donation program, where over 50 dead bodies are collected each year for purposes of study. A memorial is held every year to give thanks to the family members and friends of those who have donated their bodies.

“It’s a hands-on adventure for [students] for sure. They know what a body looks like in three dimensions, [and] computerized anatomy programs are great, but they’re still not  hands-on,” said Professor Sandra Miller, chair of the anatomy department. “When a human needs surgery you cannot look at it at a distance in a screen, you’ve got to have your hands in [it]. That’s what surgery is.”

When a body is received, it’s properly treated and stored at McGill’s morgue for at least six months until students use it in next fall’s classes.

“Each group of students gets their brand new group of individuals who have died the previous year,” Miller said. “And all over the world where our students go, because of our hands-on experience, they go into the operating room with great confidence.”

The program coordinators reach out to donors by simple word of mouth. Interested individuals complete the required paperwork and carry a card in their wallets stating their interest in donating their body to McGill.

“We need the whole body and the ones that we receive are generally elderly,” said Miller, who explained that most cadavers received die of old age or certain pathologies like Parkinson or cancer, which are acceptable for the program.

“These conditions are not a problem at all,” she said. “In fact, they are quite handy because students see pathologies or pacemakers in these organs and different repair mechanisms in the body. These are learning tools.”

At the end of each academic year, the majority of the bodies are cremated and deposited on a special site at the Mount-Royal Cemetery, where the university has a plaque designated for the program.

“If they are really good, we keep those for exam purposes, and they can last anywhere from five to 10 years, but normally the vast majority are cremated,” said Miller.

On January 9, a commemorative ceremony was held for Fainstat despite the absence of a body. A spokesperson of the Blythe Bernier Funeral House explained that Fainstat’s friends and family members were pleased with the event.

“It is not a happy moment but the ceremony ran smoothly,” said a spokesperson.

Other well-known Montreal figures have participated in the cadaver-donor program in the past, among them a former director of the Montreal Neurological Institute.

“It’s great that he’s done that, but he’s not the only celebrity to have donated his body. There have been a few over the years,” Miller said. “Every single donor is appreciated. Every body is highly valued.”