Latest News

News

Architecture Cafe was projected to lose $73,000 in ’10-’11

by Theo Meyer on

More in News:

McGill’s Board of Governors made public several documents last week regarding this summer’s closure of the Architecture Café, including some of the financial figures that protesting students have been asking for.

The documents revealed, among other things, that the café had lost more than $15,000 last year and was projected to lose more than $73,000 this academic year.

Students’ Society President Zach Newburgh had requested a report about the café’s closure at the Board of Governors meeting on September 28, which Stuart Cobbett, the board’s chairman, then asked Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson’s office to provide. The resulting memorandum, sent to the Board of Governors on October 22 and made public last week, details the McGill administration’s decision to shut down the popular student-managed café.  

According to the financial information in an appendix to the memo, the Architecture Café roughly broke even last year, aside from the money allocated to McGill Food and Dining Services, which managed the café jointly with the Architecture students. If the Food and Dining Services contributions are included, the café lost $15.

This year’s projected $73,211 loss would have resulted from the hiring of a full-time manager for $49,200 to replace its five part-time student managers.

While he agreed that the hire made sense, Newburgh said that the administration had failed to exhaust all its options before closing the café.

“Clearly, if we were facing financial deficits, we needed to ensure sustainability by raising prices,” he said. “According to calculations, if you raised prices by about 50 per cent, you would have seen the projected deficit disappear.”

Carly Roualt, a former manager of the café who has been a vocal opponent of its closure, declined to comment for this article.

Despite the release of the documents, Newburgh said that SSMU would continue its efforts to reverse the administration’s decision to shut down the café.

“We’re still going to be pushing for the reopening of the Architecture Café,” he said.

The documents also describe much of the history of student-run food services on campus.

According to the report and a subsequent interview with Mendelson, student-run food services first cropped up on campus in the early 1990s. Partly in response to massive financial cuts, the university struck memorandums of agreement (MoAs) with several student groups on campus which allowed them to set up food operations.

In the late 1990s, however, the university decided to retake control over food services on campus, citing problems with the student-run operations such as liability risks. As various student groups’ MoAs came up for renegotiation, the administration declined to renew their authorization to sell food on campus, with exceptions for operations like the Arts Undergraduate Society’s SNAX and the Engineering Undergraduate Society’s Frostbite.

However, the Architecture Students Association, which opened a food outlet in the Macdonald-Harrington Building in 1993, never negotiated an MoA with McGill. As other campus eateries shut down, the Architecture Café continued to operate beneath the radar. (It did not pay taxes, for example.)

After the administration attempted to close the café in 2007, the eatery reopened under the partial control of Ancillary Food Services, which operated food services on campus at that time. Over the next three years, the administration reorganized food services on campus, combining the administration of operations in residences with those on campus. The decision to close the Architecture Café, Mendelson said in an interview, was just one part of the process.

“The Architecture Café,” he said, “as important as it was to many people, was, in terms of the whole scheme of operations, something that we dealt with against a backdrop of massive changes in the organization of food services on campus.”

When returning students found the café closed in September, Mendelson said he was nonplussed by the force of their response, which included two large student protests outside senate meetings.

“I was a bit surprised by the feeling outside the School of Architecture for the Architecture Cafe,” he said. “The space had always, at least notionally, been the Architecture students’ space.”

Though it has steadfastly refused to reconsider the Architecture Café’s closure, last month, the administration announced the creation of a new consultative body, called the Student Consultation and Communication Work Group. The body, composed of administrators and reprentatives from SSMU, the Post-Graduate Students’ Society, the Macdonald Campus Students’ Society, and the McGill Association of Continuing Education Students, is designed to increase student input in administrative decisions.

Newburgh has high hopes for the new group.

“We are institutionalizing a process of student consultation that this university has never seen before,” he said.

News

Romeo Dallaire lectures on Canada’s next generation

by Matt Essert on

More in News:

Alice Walker
Alice Walker

Lieutenant-General and Senator Roméo Dallaire has seen a lot. In fact, he has seen more than most people can possibly imagine.

This was made clear during a lecture delivered by Dallaire at Concordia University last Thursday. The talk and accompanying book signing were part of a tour promoting Dallaire’s new book, They Fight Like Soldiers, They Die Like Children.

Before Dallaire’s talk, Frank Chalk, a history professor at Concordia and the director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, introduced the senator to a crowd of mostly students.

“In General Dallaire’s case, compassion means more than empathy and sympathy, for he combines those virtues with action and with wisdom, and that is why he is with us tonight,” Chalk said.

Dallaire delivered a powerful lecture on the importance of the next generation’s ability to understand the past in order to make the right decisions for the future.

“We’re going to get a feel for the past,” said Dallaire as he addressed the audience at the beginning of the lecture. “And that’s going to be farther than CNN past, which is last week, and even farther than FOX past, which is yesterday.”

One of Dallaire’s main concerns about the future stemmed from his apprehension regarding how we, and in turn our politicians, spend too much energy “managing” the risks of the future so as to minimize any possible problems. Instead, Dallaire said, we should be anticipating and taking risks in order to build the best future.

“How can you look into that future and leap into it if you’re not going to take any risks?” asked Dallaire.

Dallaire argued that good leadership will often produce better results than what managerial statistics and theories say are possible.

“There is no limit to what human beings can do,” he said. “So, ladies and gentlemen, the future is in leading, not in managing and handling and avoiding the risks and perceptions of the future.”

Another theme discussed during the lecture was Canada’s position in the global framework. Although thousands of Canadian troops helped storm the beaches of Normandy, no Canadian general was consulted on the strategy of the mission. Canada, Dallaire said, used to be viewed simply as “the good cousins from across the pond.”

Today, he argued, Canada is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world. Dallaire believes Canada, and Canadians, should realize this and act accordingly.

“When I hear someone saying Canada is punching above their weight, I think that person is on another planet than us, because we have never yet punched above our weight,” he said. “For [Canada’s] potential has not yet been fully maximized. We have a lot more to give. You have a lot to give in this time frame, on this planet, to humanity.”

But Dallaire said that Canada must be responsible with this power. He talked about Canada’s membership in NATO and the dangerous power of nuclear weapons. Dallaire said that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on upgrading nuclear weapons systems that are now useless because serious threats from superpowers no longer exist.

“Having nuclear weapons in existence is an affront to our human right to security,” he said.

Although the talk was billed as part of a tour promoting Dallaire’s new book on child soldiers, much of the talk covered a wide variety of unrelated topics. But he still made time to mention child soldiers and their lamentable prevalence in violence around the world, specifically in Africa.

According to Dallaire, there are currently close to 30 conflicts throughout the world where child soldiers are the primary weapons system. Dallaire recounted graphic details of child soldiers being drugged and used as killing machines and explained that there are serious moral issues for any third party who becomes involved in these conflicts.

“Do you kill children, who are under duress, who have been abducted, who have been drugged up, who have been indoctrinated, working out of fear, raped, who are engaged in using force and barbarism?” asked Dallaire. “Is the answer to shoot them?”

Dallaire’s answer was an adamant “no.” He maintained we must work to end the use of people as weapons and to secure all people’s rights.

“All humans are human,” Roméo Dallaire stressed. “All humans are human.”

The event was put on as a joint effort by several organizations, including the Concordia Student Union and the McGill Bookstore. Anna Stein, the events administrator at the McGill Bookstore, said that  bringing Dallaire to talk to students was an easy decision.

“Why General Dallaire? Because he is this exceptional figure. Exceptional beyond what people can articulate,” Stein said. “What he’s been through is astronomical and impossible to describe, and yet he keeps so busy, he has a hand in so many things.”

Opinion

The American message wars

by Alex Hamilton & Daniel Sorger on

More in Opinion:

The most common weapon in the battle of American politics is the message. A candidate’s policy positions, record, and personality are secondary to the political message uniting them. In theory it’s a simple articulation of the candidate’s position, but in reality it’s usually just a mix of political marketing and rhetoric: visceral ideology disguised as common sense. This is the logic of the message war, accepted with equal dogmatism by both parties. Money buys the attention of the American people.

The age of the message war is increasingly defined by the free reign of the corporation in political financing, especially after this year’s Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed for unlimited donations from 527s (anonymous corporate “non-profit” donors). In this era of mass politics, the message cycle, unlike the election cycle, is truly never-ending.

The aim of corporate conservatism is corporate profit, which is generally thought of as hindered by regulation. As a result, corporate interests formulate a simple political message, which sounds inherently American and democratic: government is trying to control us, and “we, the people” want the power back. This is a significant obstacle for any government regulation policy.

The interests of Democrats, on the other hand, are more diverse. There’s a massive asymmetry between their message and the corporatist creed. The top Democratic donors are found in the ranks of unions, lawyers, women’s rights groups, and pro-choice groups, to name a few. Their common goal is to tax and spend in the interests of the people.

This setup favours corporate interests. As long as Democrats have to face anti-government politicians who can simply respond with a resounding, visceral call to give the power back to the people, they will be fighting an uphill battle. Paradoxically, the only way Democrats can generate equal force is by asking for tainted money and compromising their principles.

While battles in many other Western democracies are fought over which interests the government should work for, Americans are fighting to keep government alive. Democrats have recently been reduced to vaguely asking voters to “hope” that they can “change” things. These backward-looking appeals inevitably imply that Democrats want “more government.” Simultaneously, the corporate message attacks every facet of the Democratic position, every policy point and ideological implication.

The basic anti-government assumptions have been proven wrong by more socioeconomically robust nations, like Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands. A “smaller” government is not a better government. But you’d never know it by looking at America where, to quote President Clinton, “The era of big government is over.”

Right now the corporate interests have a monopoly on the American political imagination. Until corporate spending in American politics ceases, voters will be afraid to vote in their own interest. Any semblance of “Democrats versus Republicans” will turn even more into “politics versus entropy.”

Opinion

Life Lines gets angry

by Johanu Botha on

More in Opinion:

McGill Tribune

It started slowly: the clicking of a pen here, the answering of cell phone there. Then it rippled out and gathered speed: the disregard for library etiquette is growing into a tidal wave. We need to stop it before it gets there. It might just be my Spidey senses tingling without reason, but various research techniques have bolstered this feeling of impending doom. These include the usual columnist tactics (asking questions where “yes” is the only option provided and making assumptions that will provide witty writing material), but it has also included bordering-on-legitimate experiment set-ups (asking questions where “Yes” as well as “Probably Yes” are provided and making observations that are non-biased and true … and will provide witty writing material). I’ve been noticing the shit hit the fan regarding respect for others in libraries and that has to stop. Now.

First, it’s only one sense that really needs to be monitored—sound. You can move as much as you want and if you really want to touch people then by all means, with their permission, do so. But don’t bring your earphones that have speakers on the outside to the library. What is the point of that? Furthermore, there are times to express your individual charisma, but doing so while studying in the library is not one of them. I’m sorry to all you libertarians out there, but this is one place where you follow the crowd. You walk in line and do what others do (mainly, by shutting up), not because you’re falling into the hole of collectivization, but because it’s polite. It’s not about restrictive social norms, it’s about realizing there’s one specific place where people come to have quiet. It’s pure and simple respect.

The last time I was in McLennan, a student actually played a YouTube clip for a friend. She, in utmost consideration, had the decency to keep the volume low. But it still proliferated through the area and stopped people dead in their studying tracks. In order not to be “the jerk” who says something, and because the respect norm is still quite high, nobody said anything. For five minutes 20 stressed-out budding academics listened to some horrible acoustic cover of a Lady Gaga song.

I did in fact conduct an experiment of my own. Shortly after the YouTube incident I walked down one of the aisles and loudly dropped a book on the floor. I did so again. Nobody flinched. It would have made my day if somebody—anybody—had stood up, walked over, and whispered, “Dude, do you want to be thrown out a window?”

There are security guards who patrol our libraries, but they’re more interested in confiscating Tim Hortons cups than in shushing anyone. That has traditionally been our job as students. And we’ve been good at it. The library has for the most part been a place where any person is welcome, as long as he or she sits down, shuts up, and does work. The subtle twittering of rebellion that I am sensing may be the first step to losing this norm. And I suggest we squash this rebellion. I am all for walking to the beat of your own drum, but there are no drums in the library. There should never, ever be any drums in the library. Tip-toe in, get your stuff done, and tip-toe out. Maybe smile at fellow tip-toers on the way. But that’s it. End of story.

Opinion

Alcohol for the win!

by Mohammed Ashour on

More in Opinion:

McGill Tribune

Crack cocaine smiled euphorically. Heroin snorted from nervous laughter. Alcohol slugged and slurred. Standing under the blinding floodlights of the stage, all three finalists joined shaking hands and braced for the moment of truth. Who will claim the title of “the worst drug in the world?”

Last week, Dr. David Nutt and his colleagues published the results of a study which aimed to categorically assess the harms caused by the misuse of drugs in the United Kingdom. They sought to determine the harmful impact of 20 different drugs by scoring them out of 100 on a variety of perceived harms posed either to the individual (e.g. drug-specific death, damage to health) or society (e.g. crime, economic cost). One hundred indicated the most harm possible, and zero indicated none.

Each drug received three scores: one for “harm to users,” one for the “harm to others,” and an overall sum.

Hushing the anxious crowd to pin-drop silence, a booming voice finally announced the winner. “Alcohol!”

Rising to their feet, the judges nodded at each other with hasty approval. It was hardly a contest. With a score of 72, alcohol didn’t just surpass its competitors, it humiliated them. Heroin and crack cocaine, who scored 55 and 54 respectively, ducked their heads down and stepped forward to claim silver and bronze. (Magic mushrooms came in last, with a score of 6.)

According to this study, alcohol causes more harm to a person than 16 other drugs, and more harm to society than almost all the other 19 drugs combined. Alcohol is the only drug that poses more harm to society than to the individual who consumes it. Alcohol, which is sold virtually unrestricted to anyone above the age of 18 in our province, poses up to 50 times more harm to others than at least 10 illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy, anabolic steroids, mushrooms, and ketamine.

To me, this suggests either an illiterate government or a government that legitimizes drugs based on reasons beyond the facts.

The reason is quite simple: Canadians love drinking.

In 2004, 80 per cent of Canadians reported to have consumed alcohol within that year. Unless our government is prepared to anger four out of five Canadians and sober them up to the inadequacy of their politics, they’re better off looking the other way. After the dismal failure of the 1920s Prohibition, lawmakers learned that legislation is a powerless tool to manipulate drug abusers. In fact, it likely encourages the opposite result. Thus, any sincere effort to reduce drinking amongst Canadians must rely on the ancient wisdom of conviction without compulsion.

You know the facts: alcohol has been linked to mouth cancer, breast cancer, bowel cancer, oesophageal cancer, pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer, and liver cancer. Alcohol has been correlated with various types of cognitive impairments, including dementia. Alcohol has fanned the flames of domestic abuse, it has destroyed millions of relationships, and it has single-handedly created “drunk driving.” Above all, alcohol tastes plain awful. Yet you, or someone you know well, will drink tonight anyway.

We can certainly talk about drinking “moderately” (an undefined term) and the fact that some health benefits have been shown in lighter drinkers. But these benefits are easily obtained from other sources without the accompanying harms of alcohol. And while some people may have an unfaltering self-discipline and an unassailable immunity to peer pressure, it’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of drinkers don’t do it for the health benefits.

All of this leaves me with a puzzled question. Why drink?

Opinion

The Trib’s referendum endorsements

by on
  • Author

More in Opinion:

McGill Tribune

Referendum Question Regarding SACOMSS Fee Renewal—YES

This referendum question proposes the routine, tri-annual approval of the 75-cent opt-outable fee that funds the Sexual Assault Centre of McGill Students’ Society. SACOMSS provides a good and important service to the McGill community, and the Tribune endorses this motion wholeheartedly. If you aren’t compelled to vote on the basis of the other two more controversial issues, at least take two minutes to go online for this one, to demonstrate the McGill community’s overwhelming support for this worthy organization.

Referendum Question Regarding SSMU Charity Committee and Fund—UNDECIDED

This asks students to approve a $0.50 opt-outable fee for disaster relief that would be overseen by a new “SSMU Charity Committee.” The Tribune is divided on the question.  Some of us believe it should be approved because any effort toward the “relief of acute suffering” is worthwhile, and because it could raise a significant amount of money while costing students less than a cup of coffee.

Others, however, believe that while the proposal seems theoretically innocent, it might have a few practical flaws. Even though disaster relief is important, there’s an argument to be made that students should be able to make their own individual choices about donating to charity AUS-organized fundraisers for Haiti last year raised thousands of dollars and proved that students are willing and able to donate to causes they believe are important.

Another concern was that the Charity Committee, in deciding where to direct the funds, could get mired in controversial politics, as seems to happen so often on this campus. Also, some of us don’t believe there should be a levy on students, many of whom are without income, for issues that aren’t directly related to campus life. In many cases, students’ parents pay their tuition, and SSMU shouldn’t be responsible for deciding how these families’ charitable donations are allocated.

Plebiscite Question Regarding Addition of an Interfaculty Arts and Science Representative on the SSMU Legislative Council—YES

Currently, students in the Arts and Science program can represent either faculty on the Students’ Society Legislative Council and are represented by both. However, the “whereas” clauses of this question claim that Arts and Science students constitute a “distinct entity within the McGill student body whose needs and interests are not completely aligned with either” Arts or Science. Therefore, the argument goes, there should be a representative on council whose sole purpose is to represent these students. The Tribune’s understanding is that if this new position were created, Arts and Science students could no longer represent either faculty, but only their own “distinct entity.”

This is a worthy initiative and it should pass. Other small groups on campus, like students in Architecture and Education, have their own representatives, and there is no good reason why Arts and Science students sho uldn’t, as well. Ironically, as there are currently four Arts and Science students on council, designating a single representative for this faculty could result in less representation.

The complexities of this issue shouldn’t blind anyone to the fact that it is largely inconsequential. Arts and Science students will continue to be represented no matter what happens with this question, and SSMU councillors will continue to be eager to hear and advocate on behalf of their concerns.

Opinion

Remembrance Day should be a stat holiday

by on
  • Author

More in Opinion:

McGill Tribune

Ottawa MPP Lisa MacLeod wants Remembrance Day to be a statutory holiday in Ontario. She may be on to something. Federal employees already get the day off, as do workers in five provinces and all three territories. Remembrance Day is an important day for the rest of the country to have off, too.

Notwithstanding some recent objections to a perceived glorification of war accompanying the day, most Canadians appear to value Remembrance Day as a non-political occasion on which to pay tribute to fallen soldiers. Schools across the country conduct ceremonies, public transit—and many other services—stop for a moment of silence at 11 a.m., and the red poppy in the lapel becomes ubiquitous as soon as Halloween ends.

Given all that, it’s a little baffling that Remembrance Day is not already a statutory holiday across the country. Consider the other public days provinces celebrate. Easter and Christmas are religious holidays in a supposedly secular society. Victoria Day celebrates a British monarch who reigned outside anybody’s living memory. The Civic Holiday was created just because people needed a break between Canada Day and Labour Day. Family Day was too, but at least its institutors made up some kind of meaning for that one. There are plenty of holidays with little meaning for plenty of Canadians. It might be a good idea to give time off for a really meaningful day.

Letting people out of work and school on November 11 would give them more than a holiday; it would allow them to participate in the range of commemorative activities that occur. From the tomb of the unknown soldier on Parliament Hill to municipal centres around the country, a myriad of ceremonies are currently conducted that tend to be limited to politicians and retirees. If people want to attend these ceremonies, they should be empowered to do so.

Tributes to fallen soldiers may also be taking on an increasingly important role. For better or for worse, war and the soldiers who fight them are seen with increasing cynicism. Members of the generation coming of age may have had grandparents in the Second World War, but that’s probably their closest link to the casualties of that conflict. Remembrance Day is an important means of remembering stories that no longer tell themselves. There’s something more important than a day of work in that.

Naturally, not everybody will use Remembrance Day to attend public ceremonies and reflect deeply on the sacrifices of soldiers.  They might instead claim the right to have some time for themselves with nobody getting in the way. And taking Remembrance Day as a holiday would be totally legitimate. Almost every month but November right now has a day off from work, making it a drab 30 days during which with the most momentous occasion is the sudden switch to 5:30 sunsets.

Remembrance Day is important for a lot of Canadians, and it’s about time the government started letting them observe it. Let’s make it a statutory holiday—lest we forget.

Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Letter to the Editor

by on
  • Author

More in Letters to the Editor:

In a House of Commons committee on Monday, a proud legacy of McGill students was crippled. Since 2003, McGill students have been the leading edge of Canadian civil society clamoring for Parliament to allow Canadian generic drug companies to produce low-cost medicines for people in poor countries. This solution would cost taxpayers no money, and had the go-ahead from the World Trade Organization. All that stood in the way was political will, and McGill students led the way by leading marches down McGill College, testifying before the House committee in Ottawa, and visiting Big Pharma offices to demonstrate. The bill was passed, but it was too restrictive; it only helped send one shipment of drugs to Rwanda.

In 2010, the opportunity to fix the bill (called Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime, or CAMR) was before us, but in committee this week, joined by the Conservatives, the MP for the riding that contains McGill and the entire ghetto (Liberal Marc Garneau), introduced amendments that scuttled reform. Even the other Liberals on the committee were shocked and would not comment. There is still a possibility that the bill can be saved in the House.

McGill students must again lead the way to ensure Bill C-393 is strengthened and passed. Express your frustration with Marc Garneau, the Conservatives, and members of the Bloc who stand in the way of helping people access medicine that will save their lives. We are again uniquely placed to make a huge difference, and we must continue to do so.

Justin Noble, BA ‘05

Former director, McGill Global Aids Coalition

Behind the Bench, Sports

The stadium mystique

by Sean Wood on

More in Behind the Bench:

I recently had to do a story on the renovated Molson Stadium, so I went to check it out one day. I was moved to recollection as I wandered through the concourses. “Recollection” is an inadequate word; rather, doors in my subconscious opened, emitting rich nostalgic air. I let it out, breathed, and fell under its spell.

I flashed to a Phillies game at Veterans Stadium, one of the first sporting events I ever went to. The lingering smell of fried food in Molson’s concourses reminded me of being an ecstatic four-year-old. My dad had announced a few days beforehand that we were going, and my anticipation began then. The day of the game, I checked the clock 20 times an hour while at school. My disbelief of the whole situation grew, and by the time I got off the school bus I was in a near-trance. Arriving home, I donned Phillies clothing and anointed myself with holy paints, so I might be considered acceptable to the other fans. After waiting in traffic, we emerged into the stadium and I saw the perfectly green field—the Holy of Holies.

It was sensory overload. Not only was the grass greener, the lights were brighter and the crowd was louder. The players weren’t just men in uniforms, they were living myths capable of supernatural feats. The evening promised home runs, French fries, and ice cream; it didn’t matter that I’d probably fall asleep in the seventh inning, or that I’d be carried to the car long before the game reached any resolution.  

The door to Molson field was wide open. I’m always amazed at how easy it is in Canada to walk into places Americans consider forbidden; even the high school near my house in Philly didn’t let anyone on its field.  I stood in the middle of the stadium and dreamed that the stands were filled with 25,000 people paying to see me. I ran toward the end zone, made dazzling spin moves, and faked the roar of a crowd with that whispered “EHHHH” noise. The dream of athletic glory is an ineradicable weed; it can lie dormant for a long time, but never entirely disappears.

Sports are a quasi-religious phenomenon. My closest encounters with power and grace didn’t happen in church, but at Phillies games. I’m still residually awed by the stadium experience. It’s tough not to respond to the grandeur of a sporting event. When people tell me that sports are a waste of money, there’s too much star-struck child in me to agree. 

Off the Board, Opinion

James Square – The Last Metal Handrails on Campus

by Iain Macdonald on

More in Off the Board:

When I arrived at McGill, many years ago, things were a lot different. New Rez was new, students were lobbying against tuition increases, and the administration didn’t feel the need to dig giant holes in order to make me three minutes late to every class. Since that time, things have changed a bit. There’s a new-new-new-new rez, Molson stadium has been expanded (don’t worry, there’s still only one winning team in there), and everywhere I look on campus people are digging holes.

Late in my first year, McGill undertook a project just west of the Milton gates and south of the James administration building, to change a lovely little bee-line from the gates to the Arts building into a “greenspace.” I heard they were also rebuilding the secret tunnel Heather Munroe-Blum and Morton Mendelson use to sneak to Arch Cafe. This two-year project resulted in a lot of jackhammering, little visible change, and a total of 17 extra kilometers of walking for me – according to my pedometer.

Upon the project’s completion, the new “greenspace” was re-opened to the public. I can only assume it’s called greenspace due to the amount of green McGill spent on it. Just last May, the Milton Gates were auctioned off on eBay in an effort to pay for the ordeal. Thanks to Montreal’s weather, it’s really whitespace for the majority of the year.

With the new school year came a number of upsetting choices by the administration, including the closure of Arch Cafe, serious discussion of actually increasing tuition, disassociation of the university with its students – in order to protect the McGill Swoosh, and the purchasing of my apartment as the new-new-new-new-new rez. Little did I know the worst was yet to come.

One September day, when I was on my way home from somewhere, likely my boycott of the food services boycott, I strolled through the whitespace, only to discover that where there had formerly been smooth metal hand rails, there were now wooden two-by-fours bolted into the rail-frames. I was slowed by five seconds on that trip – time I usually saved by sliding down the rails. While inconvenient, I figured this was not a permanent change, and that the slippery, polished metal rails would be back in time.

Now it’s November. The rails still aren’t back. It seems like the decision to switch out the metal in favor of wood was a permanent one. Perhaps they sold the rails to fund the renovation of the Arts building, or bring the Arch Cafe coffee that the administration loves so much back to the office. Either way, the move to get rid of the rails is, in my opinion, the most disgusting, heartless move made by the administration this year. I challenge anyone to give me one way in which wooden hand rails are better than their metal counter parts. Additionally, this move gave wooden rails a stairway-monopoly on campus, driving all metal-railed staircases out of operation.

The worst part about this decision was that, as a frequent user of the whitespace, I was not consulted when the decision was made to get rid of the metal rails. The manner in which the administration made this decision was entirely disrespectful and ignorant of student interest. I would only consider it more insulting if the metal rails were not brought back, and students are not consulted In future decisions of this nature. As the largest single-group using the space, it seems like we should have a say in what goes into making this whitespace our very own.

Thanks a lot McGill. Thanks for slowing me down, making my trip across campus less enjoyable, and making me have to pick bits of wood from my palm as I sit in class every day. In the series of offensive moves made by the higher-ups at our institution, this is the worst of the worst, and I for one, won’t take it. I’m boycotting the whitespace, purposefully walking a route around it – until they bring back the smooth handrails. Give me back my handrails McGill. The whitespace handrails were the last place on campus where I could slip and slide from a to b and, by closing them, the administration has sent a clear message to the students that this is not your whitespace, it’s theirs.

1 … 1,264 1,265 1,266 1,267 1,268 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue