McGill Tribune

An article recently published in Maclean’s magazine, titled “Too Asian?” has generated controversy by presenting non-Asian Canadian students and families as concerned about attending universities with large Asian populations. Campuses that have the reputation of being too academically focused at the expense of a robust social scene are negatively cast as “too Asian.”

While the article is light on political correctness—one high school counsellor says, “Asians are the new Jews”— its real flaw is the oversimplification and gross generalization of a minority culture.

But for the authors to boil the discrepancy down to Asian students as “strivers, high achievers and single-minded in their approach to university” and white students as “more likely to choose universities  build their school lives around social interaction, athletics and self-actualization—and, yes, alcohol,” is a comparison that unfairly promotes an “us versus them” mentality.

At other times, the article is grasping for straws to stir its drink. The authors write that “there is little Asian representation on student government, campus newspapers or college radio stations.” The University of British Columbia’s student life is cited as an example, where the student executive contains no Asian members for the 2010-11 year. I have a hard time believing the demographic makeup of one unspecified student body at UBC is representative of Canadian student life in general. It’s comical to think that a reputable magazine hires such nonsensical inductionists.

Reader response has not been surprising. The Chinese Canadian National Council criticized the Maclean’s article as “fear mongering.” One Toronto executive director of the council labelled it “definitely racist.” It also unfairly targets one visible minority group as cliquish when the problem of self-segregating communities is really an immigration issue. If there is a silver lining, it’s that the Asian Canadian community can use this opportunity to re-evaluate the group’s self-identity within a multicultural society.  

As “model minorities,” Asians have often been depicted in mainstream media as academic superstars who are hardworking and career-focused. My own parents, extended family, and friends of Asian descent have often embraced the virtues of being perceived in such positive light. Whenever I pondered if our group’s overachievement and success can sometimes breed backlash, my concerns were dismissed as foolish and illogical.

But living in an oblivious bubble is an unhealthy mentality that should be remedied. If there are members of another culture who are discouraged from attending a prestigious university because the high number of Asians presumably raises the curve, then we shouldn’t be afraid to examine the concerns. When Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade claims that Asian students require an extra 140 points on the SAT to have an equal chance at university acceptance as white students, we need to scientifically test and peer review the phenomenon, and if true, make the community conscious of it.  

The publication of “Too Asian?” and the subsequent outrage reminds us that it’s important not to sweep contentious matters under the rug. If some feel that Asian students are more socially challenged, that Asian students segregate into their own campus cliques, and that there is a correspondingly higher standard for academic success, then these issues should all be spotlighted for discussion, even if it makes us cringe.

I’ve also encountered those who are very cognizant of the repercussions of being a model minority. When I interviewed for Columbia University in my last year of high school, my Chinese-American interviewer and Columbia alumni bluntly asked, “There are so many qualified Asian candidates applying to Ivy League schools. Trip, what can you bring besides good grades and an affinity for the piano?” I proceeded to explain how impressive my bench press-to-height ratio was.

While most Columbia rejectees reluctantly attend New York University or Cornell, I was lucky to end up at McGill. And it seems the stars have aligned—I’ve even met a couple of Asian students here who are involved in student life, like to drink, and can interact with others without speaking Mandarin or Korean.  

Trip Yang is a U3 economics and psychology student, and can be reached at [email protected].

McGill Tribune

This year, especially in Quebec, “autonomy” seems to be a hot topic word. The idea that people have a right to make their own choices is a common argument, especially for anyone who takes a pro-choice stance. But these words, “autonomy” and “choice,” are somewhat misleading when used outside of the context of a real situation. When a woman faces a crisis pregnancy, for example, how much of a choice does she really have? When facing the financial realities of motherhood, abortion may seem like the only possible route. In this situation, does it count as a choice if there is seemingly only one viable option?

No woman should ever feel as if she is being forced into an abortion, whether it’s because of a lack of resources or an absence of emotional support. The difficulties of an unplanned pregnancy are immense, but they need not be insurmountable. Women should be able to embrace their womanhood and their motherhood, without also dealing with debt or poverty as a consequence. As Margaret Colin, honorary co-chair of Feminists for Life, eloquently put it, we need to fight “for the rights of pregnant women—for society to change to accept them, not for them to change to be accepted by society.” The financial difficulties, the time commitment of motherhood, and the pressures often added by close family and friends, should never coerce a woman into abortion. Young mothers should feel loved and supported, and should know that their child will feel the same love and support.

Imagine yourself dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, finding yourself thrust into the role of mother or father. How are you going to support your child? Where will you find the money for the endless supply of diapers, baby wipes, bottles, and clothing? How will you find the time to care for your child? Will you be able to continue your education? These kinds of stresses are what push women towards abortion every day. But despite these pressures, there is a light in the darkness. For those who are brave enough to challenge these problems, there are crisis pregnancy centres that provide both financial and emotional support to mothers in need. They provide women with the necessities that allow them to follow through with their pregnancies and their role as a mother. This week, Choose Life is running a diaper drive to support the pregnancy centres that provide this service. These centres are in need of diapers, baby toys, and cradles. We invite you to bring in these supplies, or to make a monetary donation towards the cause. There will be a table set up at the  Y-intersection, and collection bins in many buildings on campus. Join us in making sure mothers have the support they need.

Catherine Leurer is Choose Life VP-Internal, and can be reached at [email protected].

I liked George W. Bush. I know this is a blasphemous thing to admit nowadays. The anti-Bush faith continues to flourish. Indeed, I didn’t like every single thing he did. But with the release of his new memoir Decision Points, it’s timely to elaborate my defence of him and his administration.

George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act, empowering the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate the defence against terrorism. There’s no doubt that the PATROT Act helped prevent any ensuing domestic terrorist attacks after 9/11. It allowed the Bush administration to freeze the assets of dozens of terrorist organizations. It allowed law enforcement to use roving wiretaps on suspected terrorists. Previously these wiretaps were perfectly legal when used on drug dealers, but not on terrorists, America’s worst enemies.

Bush also takes a lot of flak for his decision to authorize enhanced interrogation. Those tactics are vital, and save lives. There is no doubt of this conclusion. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey suggested that almost half of American intelligence on al-Qaeda came from those techniques. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “mastermind” of 9/11, released a treasure trove of information after he was interrogated.

Enhanced interrogation is not necessarily torture. The legal argument put forward by the United States government, the idea that torture should be more closely linked to the idea of long term harm, is compelling.

The fact is that those techniques work, and they wouldn’t be controversial if they didn’t. Corroborated with other sources, information extracted under interrogation can be powerful. Former army intelligence officer Rick Francona once suggested that the combination of isolating an inmate and keeping them in the dark produced workable intelligence within three days, on average.

There’s no doubt that techniques like the “stress position” are extremely coercive. They’re not the techniques that anyone is keen on using. If politely asking al-Qaeda’s zealots to give up information worked, I would support it. The problem is that it doesn’t. Lives have been saved because of what enhanced interrogation has accomplished.

Then we come to Iraq. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know American intelligence was wrong about Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. But hindsight is irrelevant. Bush had in front of him intelligence from not only the CIA, but also MI6 and other leading sources that Saddam Hussein had these weapons.

We still aren’t capable of objectively assessing George W. Bush’s presidency, and we won’t be for a long time. The anti-Bush crowd which claims this ability to do so is wrong. Hatred of the former president is irrational. The decisions mentioned above and in Bush’s memoir represent only a fraction of the Bush presidency, but an important one. Someday, we will better know how effective of a president he was. Until then, he’ll continue to be demonized by those who understand so little about him and the choices he made.

It’s only when standing in a room full of strangers that you realize networking is not at all as easy as it seems. In fact, it might be the hardest thing a young professional has to do, and unfortunately, one of the most important things McGill doesn’t teach us.

Last weekend, I attended a conference in Ottawa for political junkies where we heard from notable Canadian political figures like Prime Minister Stephen Harper and New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton. I didn’t feel intimidated by these great politicians, but I was intimidated by my peers. The students at the conference were intelligent, well-versed in Canadian political history, but most importantly, knew how to shake hands and make small talk.

While I was first in line to take a picture with the politicians, my friends were first to introduce themselves to each other. I was surprised that during the rare and short five-minute breaks, my friends didn’t run to grab a glass of water or a snack, but instead used their limited free time to network with one another. It soon became painfully aware to me that small talk wasn’t my best asset. For a girl who wants to pursue a career in journalism or politics, this revelation felt like a flashing red danger light that my future might be in jeopardy. So, am I totally doomed? The short answer is yes, but my inner optimist suggests there’s still some hope for me and other timid people.

Queen’s University career counsellor Cathy Keates says that the social component of conferences or events are extremely valuable for students. Work relationships are fostered and new friendships are made. She believes that it can be very intimidating, but it’s something you can get over once you get used to it.

When I thought about how this weakness might affect my future, I realized, as with any other problem, that the first step is admitting I have one. I feel uncomfortable in social situations where I must ask fellow students what organization they are a part of, what student leadership positions they’ve attained, and which 50 extra-curricular activities they’ve participated in. However, students who are about to graduate need to perfect this small talk, since the ability to relate to other people, communicate effectively, and promote yourself is a part of the lifelong job process we are about to embark upon. Even if we have the skills and experience required for a job, if we can’t sell ourselves, we won’t even be considered. If I let my belief that I don’t have this skill stop me from even trying, then yes, I am “doomed.” But the point is that I don’t have to be.

I can change my skills. Four years at McGill have taught me more about interacting with books and computers than about interacting with students and teachers. Now that I’ve recognized it, I’m ready to change. Granted, it won’t be easy, and will probably be awkward as I maneuver social situations asking strangers personal questions, but it will be something that will get easier. The first step starts with acquiring confidence. Soon-to-be graduates like myself feel intimidated leaving the protective school bubble and entering a new social environment. But we’ve been educated at one of the best universities in the world, and with that should come pride, not shyness. Probably the most important thing to do is just to put yourself out there. Yes, it’s awkward and difficult the first 10 times, but I know that if I try hard enough, it will get easier, because at every new event I can meet people who will help me foster greater confidence in myself as I practice meeting other new people. And the next time I attend a conference, I will be the one ready to network with both the presenters and the audience during those brief, precious free moments.