Latest News

Editorial, Opinion

Meet the 2019 SSMU Executive Candidates

on

More in Editorial:

In order to present the most informed endorsement decisions possible, our editors attended the SSMU debates, conducted in-person interviews with all of the candidates, and examined each platform in detail. The endorsements are the product of an Editorial Board meeting in which we addressed every position, debated, and voted. In order to earn the Tribune’s endorsement, a candidate had to receive a majority vote. Reservations could also be appended to any “Yes” endorsement with the approval of a majority of editors. In the spirit of transparency and as a matter of upholding The McGill Tribune’s credibility, we feel it imperative to make the process behind these decisions public. Should you have questions or concerns about our editorial process—or its outcomes—please send us an email at [email protected].

fee
Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Letter to the Editor: The value of a ‘yes’ vote to the Athletics Facility Improvement Fee

by Noah Daoust on

More in Letters to the Editor:

On March 19, The McGill Tribune ran a commentary titled “Stand with Indigenous students and vote ‘No’ to the Athletics Facility Improvement Fee,” arguing that students should vote ‘no’ to the proposed Athletics Facility Improvement fee renewal scheduled to take place March 26-29. This response is a call to action—to understand the distinction between activism that pressures the administration and activism that hurts students.  

I respect Tomas Jirousek’s and other Indigenous students’ continued dedication to the #ChangeTheName campaign. Jirousek’s ability to rally such a large group of students at McGill behind this cause is admirable. However, the renewal of the Athletics Facilities Improvement fee is independent from the #ChangeTheName campaign.  

If this fee were to be renewed by the undergraduate student body it would improve  the athletic facilities that all students use, such as the fitness centre, Memorial Pool, gyms, Forbes and Molson Field, and the McConnell Arena among other facilities. In the past, this fee has been used to develop Rutherford Field, install private fitness pods, build three gender neutral bathrooms in the McGill Sports Complex, and expand the fitness centre by adding an upstairs component. The renewed fee would help to refurbish men’s and women’s locker rooms, install air conditioning in the gyms and fieldhouse, and resurface the Tomlinson Fieldhouse, according to Tia Lore, Varsity Council president. The vote is of immense consequence for the future of the Athletics program and its facilities.

The improvement fee affects everyone who uses the Athletics and Recreation building and other athletics facilities, including athletes who represent the university, and those who exercise recreationally. A ‘yes’ vote would allow for the facilities we all rely on to improve in accommodating the McGill community.

At this point, I have no desire to convince anyone about changing the name or keeping it. It is a matter of conscience that ought to be left to the decision of individual students. However, it is important to understand that the fee renewal does not have an impact on changing the name. Trying to connect these two disparate issues may hurt students and with little payoff: It is entirely possible that Fortier will choose to keep the name regardless of the student body’s stance. The outcome of a vote concerned solely with the maintenance and expansion of athletic facilities will play no role in Fortier’s decision on the men’s varsity team name.

I am a varsity athlete. I have played basketball at McGill for five years and I understand my inherent bias regarding this issue. However, I am not speaking out on behalf of my fellow athletes: I am speaking for the people who love intramurals and enjoy friendly competition outside of the classroom. I am speaking for the thousands of people who work out and appreciate the facilities they use regularly—voting ‘no’ will hurt all of these people.

Students should consider voting ‘yes’ on the renewal of the Athletics fee March 26-29. Those who are upset about the men’s varsity team name should direct their anger and dismay to those who have the power to affect change: Fortier and the administration. In the meantime, they should keep this particular fee—as well as the people it affects—out of the crosshairs.

 

Creative

Meet Your SSMU Presidential Candidates | 2019

by Tristan Surman on

More in Creative:

Bryan Buraga and Kyle Rubenok are running to be the President of the Student Society of McGill University in 2019 – watch to find out what they have in mind for SSMU next year!

 

Video by Tristan Surman

Creative

The Planet Takes McGill University | 2019

by Aidan Martin on

More in Creative:

In 2019 young people around the world got together to address climate change. The McGill Tribune covered the McGill protest.

Video by Aidan Martin

Athletics
Commentary, Opinion

Stand with Indigenous students and vote ‘No’ to the Athletics Facility Improvement Fee

by Tomas Jirousek on

More in Commentary:

The R*dmen name hangs like a shadow over McGill Athletics. As the experiences of those who’ve campaigned to replace the name have shown, the name limits accessibility for Indigenous students and contributes to our sense of isolation on campus. The #ChangeTheName campaign clearly articulates our reasons for a name change, and I am proud of the incredible allyship shown by the student body, professors, and individual athletes who stand with us. Sadly, McGill Athletics has failed to demonstrate this same courage by refusing to change the name or address the concerns of Indigenous students. In light of the #ChangeTheName campaign, students should vote ‘no’ to the proposed Athletics Facility Improvement Fee levy in the upcoming Student’s Society of McGill University (SSMU) Winter Referendum from March 26to 29.

The Athletics facility remains a hostile environment for Indigenous students, and the improvements to the facility that the fee would fund fail to support an inclusive approach to addressing mental health issues for students on campus. It is nearly impossible for a student to enter the Athletics facility without confronting some manifestation of the name, whether its physical representation or its history and legacy. The Final Report of the Working Group on the Principles of Commemoration and Renaming includes quotes from an Indigenous student expressing that the name makes her feel as if she is a ‘ghost’ and an ‘erased pencil mark’ at McGill. Another Indigenous student described how the name makes him feel ‘sick.’

Given that we, as Indigenous students, feel so excluded by the name, its physical manifestation only isolates us further. While some Indigenous students have been able to reconcile the name’s history and continue to use the space offered by McGill Athletics, we should not have to concede our identities to use a space that is supposed to be available to all students.

As a student athlete myself, I recognize how essential a safe exercise and practice environment is. Even throughout the #ChangeTheName campaign, being a part of the rowing team offered me a sense of stability, and my coaches and teammates have been sources of support. I would love to see improvements to the Athletics facility, but only if these changes benefit the entire McGill community. As it stands, access to the athletic opportunities is limited for Indigenous students at McGill, forcing us to find more expensive and inconvenient spaces for physical activity off-campus.

Our campaign to #ChangeTheName was successful in rallying an impressive 79 per cent vote in support of changing the name during the Fall 2018 SSMU Referendum. This vote powerfully demonstrated that the non-Indigenous student body stands in solidarity with us, proving our collective commitment to the values of inclusivity, respect, and the recognition of Indigenous rights.

We must hold true to those same values that we pushed for in the Fall Referendum. Even though the men’s varsity team name is not on the ballot during this referendum period, there are still opportunities to fight for Indigenous inclusivity. By voting ‘No’ to the Athletics Facility Improvement Fee, we can demonstrate the same commitment to the values that we stood for during the #ChangeTheName campaign.

Off the Board, Opinion

If I die, delete my iTunes history

by Calvin Trottier-Chi on

More in Off the Board:

I feel awkward at parties. It’s not the drinking, the dancing, or the slurred attempts at small talk, all of which I am shamelessly bad at. It’s the fear that somewhere, sometime, I’ll be asked to put my music on shuffle.

There is an unwarranted anxiety that comes with showcasing your musical tastes to the general public. Even describing the music as ‘yours’ is a stretch. Spotify tells me that my tastes are so predictable they can consolidate them into a simple algorithm. Still, I can’t help but feel like my taste in music represents me. As such, I perceive my musical taste as something special that needs to be preserved, even if some of my friends may make fun of me for liking the World of Warcraft soundtrack.

This discomfort is a result of music becoming increasingly personal over time. The founders of the much of the historical roots of modern Western music are usually the people who had the time and money to invest in it: The aristocracy. A shift happened after the invention of the printing press, and, later, the radio, which made widespread creation and enjoyment of music possible for all social classes. This increased accessibility made it a tool for the marginalized rather than the establishment: The black community created soul music as a space for artistic expression, and Indigenous rap has become an increasingly popular form of empowerment. 

Music is a special form of expression that connects multiple disciplines. Music is often considered a way to connect with innermost emotions. Scientifically, music can interact with dopamine levels, and people suffering from disorders like Alzheimer’s can still sometimes remember music, even if they can’t recall much else. Meanwhile, as wandering around with headphones blaring at full-volume becomes a normal part of daily life, music is a constant and almost intimate companion. On average, studies suggest that Canadians listen to music for 24 hours per week. Today, by virtue of having entire computers in our pockets, we have an entire orchestra in there, too.

People are especially insecure about their music tastes because it feels almost fundamental to their personality. Just think about how fundamental music is to subcultures: An entire genre of Montreal life exists thanks to Mac DeMarco. The act of listening to music is an opportunity to find solace, and exposing one’s preferences is almost equivalent to baring one’s soul. This can be tough when vulnerability is too often seen as synonymous with weakness.

If music taste ever arrises as a source of insecurity, it is valuable to paraphrase the immortal words of the Incredibles: “If everything is personal preferences, nothing is.” Openly touting your musical preferences can even liberating in a perverse way; as every part of one’s identity is susceptible to scrutiny in the public sphere, it is futile to worry about the individual quirks that likely nobody will notice. Even if others do take note, it is a noble goal to encourage people to be accepting of others following the beat of their own drums, with regard to musical taste and otherwise. While the wider accessibility of music is something to be cherished, there is a need to remember its original purpose as a way to share across communities. Musical taste should be a source of pride, not insecurity. If all else fails, the next time someone asks you if you want the aux chord just cite this article verbatim—you probably won’t be asked again. 

LICM
Editorial, Opinion

Legal Information Clinic McGill existence referendum endorsement

by The McGill Tribune Editorial Board on

More in Editorial:

The Legal Information Clinic at McGill (LICM) provides essential services for McGill students. It serves as a convenient, free resource for those seeking information on legal matters such as housing laws, defamation, and more. Staffed by current students in the Faculty of Law, the LICM gives McGill law students hands-on experience. In addition to hosting educational workshops, the LICM’s outreach work includes providing information on a variety of topics including legal name changes, immigration issues, and child custody concerns. Information on legal name changes is essential for many transgender students who are transitioning, and this service by the LICM is particularly notable. The LICM’s existence is crucial for marginalized students and students struggling with housing and landlord problems, which is a particularly important role as landlords may take advantage of students who are unfamiliar with Quebec housing law. The McGill Tribune endorses a ‘yes’ vote in the LICM Existence Referendum to allow the organization to continue to help the McGill community.

climate
Commentary, Opinion

Students can’t stop climate change on their own

by Kennedy McKee-Braide on

More in Commentary:

“Systemic change, not climate change” and “we need solutions, change the institutions,” were among the slogans chanted by McGill students at the Youth Climate Strike on Mar. 15. One-hundred-twenty-five cities around the world participated in the protest, calling for governments and institutions to adopt environmentally-sustainable policies to help diminish the effects of climate change. Protests like the Youth Climate Strike demonstrate that individuals alone cannot counter climate change; governments and institutions must be held accountable.

Popular environmentalist movements often focus on the steps individuals should take to combat climate change. Elementary school students learn to turn off the lights when they leave a room, close the faucet when they brush their teeth, and recycle. The logic behind these actions lead to fad movements like banning straws and going vegan. However, these solutions are unlikely to make a significant difference on their own, as they often assume that such lifestyle changes are accessible to all and ignore economic, cultural, and physical barriers. Moreover, they place the blame on individuals, rather than on corporations causing massive damage. As the organizers of last week’s climate demonstration in front of the Arts Building highlighted in their speeches, governments and institutions like McGill should be using their power to fight against climate change.

Climate activism has been on the rise in recent years in response to the influx of data showing that, without large-scale changes to our treatment of the planet, both Earth and its inhabitants will suffer in the years to come. Outcomes include food shortages, poorer air quality, more natural disasters, and the destruction of public infrastructure. These negative consequences will disproportionately affect people of colour and working-class communities; low-income groups are more likely to be forced to live in areas that experience climate change’s effects at a higher rate while lacking the means to protect themselves and their homes. This knowledge has ignited a widespread sense of panic that is particularly strong among young people, who fear for their chance to lead long, healthy lives.

Increasingly, research proving that climate change is the result of structural factors, notably unregulated capitalism that values profit over all else, often at the expense of the environment. The choice to blame the actions of the individual is no coincidence, as the rich and powerful refuse to admit their faults or give up some of their wealth to save the planet. Young people, racialized groups, and the working class are expected to bear the consequences of mistakes that they did not make.

McGill has a role to play in the fight for climate justice. Banning plastic water bottles is an important step, but the school should devote more time and energy to initiatives like reconsidering its investments and approaches its renovation projects. Divest McGill has been active on campus in recent years in an attempt to persuade the university to stop investing in the fossil fuel industry. While the initiative has experienced some success, with the Senate voting to support divestment, the Board of Governors (BoG) continues to refuse to vote on the issue. The Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR), which advises the BoG on the social impacts of its investments, is currently investigating the possibility of fossil fuel divestment. It’s essential that CAMSR recognizes the social ills of fossil fuels, and that the BoG heed their recommendations.

Recently, McGill received $1.8 million from the federal government’s Low-Carbon Economy Fund for Climate Action. The money will go towards an upgrade to the university’s heating system to reduce its carbon footprint as a part of its goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2040. While this is a worthy initiative, it is hypocritical that McGill continues to dance around the subject of divestment while boasting about its other plans. McGill’s investments will not matter if the planet does not have a proper future. It is time to abandon the rhetoric that young people must single-handedly save our planet while those who created the problem sit back and watch, knowing that they may not even be alive to suffer the consequences. McGill is a powerful institution that has significantly contributed to the deterioration of the environment, and, therefore, it has a responsibility to lead efforts to restore it.

1 … 489 490 491 492 493 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue