Lately, it seems we’re all forced to face a little darkness every day. When the sun sets at 4 p.m., and January feels never-ending, students can use a good chuckle and a few dance numbers—all of which the Arts Undergraduate Theatre Society (AUTS) provides in spades with its wonderfully charming rendition of Stephen Sondheim’s Into the Woods (1989).
Before the play even begins, Katie Miller’s set design is striking, its grandness and whimsy filling Moyse Hall. While often underappreciated, set design can make or break an audience’s immersion, and here the set does not disappoint. The homes of Cinderella (Sunny Sheffman), the Baker (Cathal Rynne) and his wife (Emma Corber), Jack (Matt Milton) and his mother (Maya Lewis), all evoke the musical’s eccentric, though gloomy, Brothers Grimm motif.
Unfortunately, the costume design does not fit the set’s aesthetic. Hip and flashy, almost none of the costumes fit the dark, fantastical theme of Into the Woods. From Eva B sweaters, to ‘90s-styled sneakers, to bright socks of every colour in the rainbow, these costumes are a bold production choice and ultimately poor addition to the play. There are exceptions, however, including Rapunzel’s Prince (Eddy Yang), Cinderella’s Prince (Alexander Grasic), and Little Red Riding Hood (Claire Latendresse), whose costumes amuse without distracting from the setting.
The rest of the production’s technical work is amazingly quick and creative, the most prominent example being when the Wolf (Lucas Amato) disguises himself as Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother. Befittingly reminiscent of moments from The Rocky Horror Picture Show, a screen obstructs the actors so that they can only be seen through animated dancing shadows.
Melissa McCracken’s choreography is another strong point of Into the Woods. The dancing is in sync, precise, and playful, particularly in the song “Ever After.” The quick and whimsical nature of the performance’s dances follow the music closely, at some points feeling as if the musicians and actors are part of the same mind and body.
Ben Barton Creelman’s outstanding musical direction allows the musicians to stay in sync with the actors. Even with only 12 musicians, Creelman’s musical ensemble sounds like that of a much larger orchestra, delivering a vivacious and lively tune for every scene. Nevertheless, the music would not be as magical without the actors’ impassioned singing. Almost every actor fills the room with their voice, especially in the duet, “It Takes Two.” Corber and Rynne take the song’s rather drab lyrics and sing it in perfect key, conveying the sense that perhaps their characters are truly in love.
Through a constant delivery of humour, an effective technical background, impressive instrumentation, and expert singing and dancing, AUTS’ production is a lively and cheerful rendition of the Sondheim classic.
Into the Woods is presented at Moyse Hall from January 25 – 27 and February 1 – 3, with performances beginning at 7 p.m. Tickets can be purchased online at autstheatre.ca
The Principal’s Task Force on Respect and Inclusion held an open forum on Jan. 24. It was the first of a series of student consultations about diversity and respectful expression at McGill, and how to best ensure that student life is inclusive of all students. The Task Force is to submit a final report of its findings to the McGill administration on April 27.
After a Fall 2017 semester marked by allegations of anti-Semitism on campus and Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) infighting—all falling along familiar fault-lines—as well as provincial legislation targeting female Muslim students, it’s easy to be skeptical of the promise of an administration initiative purporting to make campus a nicer place. Compared to other schools’ recent attempts to address tolerance and free expression more explicitly, the Task Force’s mandate to “operationalize McGill’s core principles” reads broad and ill-defined.
But, the issue of respectful, inclusive debate on university campuses is extremely broad and inherently ill-defined. It demands grassroots consultation and investigation, not top-down statements of principles—the University of British Columbia’s middling and widely-criticized statement on free expression has done little to mitigate campus divisions on the subject. The McGill Task Force presents a platform for discussion about what inclusivity on campus actually means, for all students and student groups—including and especially those whose voices are not often heard on campus. While it’s unclear what the initiative will ultimately accomplish, the Task Force correctly understands that Canadian universities must consult students first and foremost if they are to increase tolerance and inclusion on their campuses.
McGill is not alone in attempting to address these issues. Recent controversies blurring the lines between free expression and bigotry on campuses have prompted other North American schools to speak up in defence of free speech, to varying reception. The University of Chicago’s renunciation of safe spaces made waves in August 2016, while the University of British Columbia’s statement has been criticized across the political spectrum.
Such statements only reiterate the same, exhausting impasse that the debate on campus tolerance and free expression keeps coming up against: The value of free speech versus the value of safe spaces. Convening a task force may be a strategic PR move, but to the McGill administration’s credit, it also demonstrates a willingness to listen before speaking out, and at least an attempt to understand the contours and consequences of inclusivity on campus as told by its most important stakeholders—students. Given McGill’s varied track record when it comes to student outreach and consultation, that initiative should be commended.
For the Task Force to succeed in elevating student voices, it must encourage and include all student voices.
For the Task Force to succeed in elevating student voices, it must encourage and include all student voices. That requires amplifying those voices typically sidelined by more pervasive campus issues. Student groups embroiled in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel (BDS) debate can and should use this platform to share their perspectives. At the same time, conscious effort must be made to include students with experiences of exclusion that are not often at the forefront of campus debate. If the Task Force wants to start a comprehensive discussion about free expression and respect at McGill, it is integral to include LGBTQ+ students, Indigenous students, students of colour, and other underrepresented and marginalized communities on campus in this conversation. Identifying areas on campus that are consistently less inclusive than others—organized drinking events are one timely example—is likewise essential.
Moreover, students themselves must be open to participating in that discussion. The Task Force is a good first step on the McGill administration’s part toward bettering the spaces that we learn and debate in, and understanding student experiences with them, but these efforts cannot end with its conclusion. Respect and inclusion on campus fundamentally come down to the actions of students themselves. Whatever principles a school aims to maintain, campus culture is ultimately a product of the campus community that lives and shapes it.
Watch McGill students reflect on inclusion and respect on campus here:
During exam season, endless streams of students file into McGill’s Tomlinson Fieldhouse, their heads bent low over their notes, desperately cramming crucial information into their minds. They spend hours studying with cue cards, storyboards, mind maps—anything to help them remember for the duration of their exams and then to forget.
On McGill’s website, the “About” page lists “10 Points of Pride” including the University’s competitive advantage among peer institutions, and recognizes “the finest students” as those who earn “prestigious awards and prizes for academic and athletic achievement.” This is likely the first impression of the school for many potential students, and it is immediately clear that McGill values education as performance and competition over curiosity and learning.
McGill is unquestionably an academically stimulating environment, owing its reputation to its 50 research centres and institutes, its variety of academic programs, and its rich history. McGill’s prestige has allowed it to secure top spots in national and international rankings.
Despite this reputation, the learning experience for many students at McGill is hindered by the stifling effects of high-stakes tests. In 2003, the McGill Journal of Education published a critique of standardized testing, claiming that it was ineffective at revealing potential, and useless at measuring progress.
Yet, 15 years later, large-scale assessments continue to dominate our course frameworks. The majority of courses at McGill follow a well-known grading scheme, comprised of a few quizzes or assignments, a midterm, a term paper, and a final exam. This structure is useful to objectively measure scores through brute comparison, but neglects the notion that all students learn and express themselves and their intelligence differently. Knowledge is broadly seen as an external force which professors can quantify and categorize to evaluate their students.
Alicia Barry
Alicia Barry, U2 Arts, balances her schoolwork with creative writing and has published her poetry in the student publication F Word for the past two years.
“Our evaluation scheme is not a determinant of our intelligence or capabilities,” Barry said. “Measuring how much one can memorize will not effectively help them learn in the end. To throw everything you learned in one semester into a three-hour exam is unrealistic and meaningless.”
Not only do high-stakes tests erase the deeper meaning from learning, but they are also detrimental to students’ mental health. Canadian campuses have seen a significant increase in students with anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideations. According to a 2017 survey of students at 15 Canadian universities conducted by the Toronto Star and the Ryerson School of Journalism, campus mental health offices have seen a 35 per cent increase in the demand for their services over the course of the previous five years. Last year, a survey by the Canadian Association of College and University Student Services also revealed that 13 per cent of students said they had seriously considered suicide, 3.5 percentage points more than three years earlier. According to Barry, the academically-demanding atmosphere at McGill contributes to students’ mental health troubles.
“I feel like, going to McGill, there is this sense of ‘you need to do well, or else you’re not going to succeed,’” Barry said. “There is this immense pressure to perform academically, with this highly competitive spirit, so my motivation is kind of this self-loathing that I need to do well in this or I won’t amount to anything in life.”
“We’re lifelong learners, and we have to be flexible learners.”
Susanne Lajoie
Susanne Lajoie, Canadian Research Chair Tier 1 and Educational and Counselling Psychology professor at McGill University, is an expert in the development of advanced learning technologies. Lajoie is interested in the ways in which emotions can enhance the learning experience. Lajoie views education as an ongoing process rather than as a one-stop venture.
“Anyone who is in university today knows that, even when you graduate, there is so much information that is ongoing and updated,” Lajoie said. “You have to keep learning your whole life, it does not stop when you graduate.”
The educational system is intended to prepare students to make their place in a world which is changing faster than ever before.
“The most important skill in the 21st century is learning to learn, and that’s where the notion of creativity comes into play,” Lajoie said. “We’re lifelong learners, and we have to be flexible learners.”
By relying so heavily on one-size-fits-all testing methods, McGill restrains students’ potential and makes them less adaptable to new environments. Instead of learning through interest, students learn through fear.
Lajoie uses different theories of learning and emotions to create new forms of technology to improve teaching and learning in different domains. She is currently developing a simulation which acts as a virtual hospital experience, where McGill medical students receive imaginary patients and must formulate diagnoses. Facial movement detectors and electrodermal bracelets measure users’ confusion, nervousness, stress, surprise, and other behavioural emotions relevant to the context of learning, to establish the relationship between their emotions and their performance. The simulation assesses learning through a unique and dynamic process and provides ongoing feedback.
“One of the best ways for teachers to create interest is by providing choice,” Lajoie said. “[It is important to offer] different types of assignments that are still equivalent in terms of grading but have different avenues to immerse [students] in the material.”
“Arts-based critical practices help interested students stay on top of course content, explain what they have learned, and experiment with engaging, interactive, and accessible forms of expression.”
Hayley Mortin
Hayley Mortin, U3 Arts, currently feels that her classes do not offer enough of a variety of assignments. Outside of her studies in psychology, she paints, draws, and is affiliated with groups such as the Fridge Door Gallery and folio magazine.
“It’s nice that there are those little pockets [of creative activity], but it’s very statically separated from academics,” Mortin said. “I often think to myself as I leave the library: ‘Now I’m going to go do something creative.’”
Mortin’s favourite course at McGill is ANTH 408, or “Sensory Ethnography,” because of the unique way in which it is taught. The class gives students space to choose their preferred method of learning, and create projects using film, photography, and sound.
“Having the choice to begin with is completely imperative to how well I’m going to do in the course, to be honest,” Mortin said. “It doesn’t need to be big, a five per cent assessment can make all the difference in helping students realize the meaning behind the course material.”
Professors also see the value in adopting divergent testing methods.
Casey McCormick
Casey McCormick is a course lecturer in the Department of English at McGill, and recently completed her dissertation on the history of television finales for her PhD in Cultural Studies.
“I definitely had a very traditional education at Georgia State University,” McCormick said. “All of my assignments were very, very similar academic papers [….] I lost my creative voice as a writer. I wish I had more opportunities to do different kinds of writing.”
According to a 2016 survey conducted by Adobe across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan, 65 per cent of students agree with McCormick and believe that their university stifles their creativity.
“I felt like it sucked out the creativity from my writing style, and it wasn’t until I was deep into my PhD that I got my creative voice back,” McCormick said.
Since completing her PhD, McCormick has aimed to move away from writing academic papers and toward arts-based critical practices, by utilizing multimedia to frame arguments.
“Maybe I [wouldn’t] have felt so burnt out [by] academia if I was exposed to these different expressive forms,” McCormick said.
McCormick keeps her own university experience in mind when trying to create dynamic modes of engagement in her classrooms. In addition to incorporating blogging, Twitter hashtags, and Facebook discussion groups into her courses, she also introduced the Social Media Artifact assignment to McGill as part of the course ENGL 391, or “Special Topics in Cultural Studies: Netflix,” in 2016. The assignment puts students to the task of analyzing course content through social media platforms such as Instagram and Tumblr. Artifacts are assessed based on creativity, mechanics, and relevance to the course material.
“Overall, the response from students has been very positive,” McCormick said. “Many people talk specifically about the online component as refreshing and engaging. Of course, it’s not going to work for every single student, that’s why it’s hybrid, why I offer a wide range of spaces to make students feel comfortable.”
Arts-based critical practices help interested students stay on top of course content, explain what they have learned, and experiment with engaging, interactive, and accessible forms of expression. To structure her grading scheme, McCormick gives students a wide range of assignments so that they have multiple opportunities to succeed. She weighs most assignments in the 10 to 25 per cent range to relieve pressure on students.
“That’s one of the purposes of having so many different kinds of assignments, it’s so that students can learn to learn in the way which suits them best,” McCormick said.
“I learned that learning and torture are not the same thing.”
Brayden Culligan
Brayden Culligan, U3 Arts, has discovered the benefits of creative learning both in and out of the classroom. Over the course of his time at McGill, he has worked with several organizations, including the McGill Office of Sustainability, to help inform and engage their audiences through multimedia. In Fall 2017, he took CCOM 314, or “Communicating Science,” which gives students an opportunity to communicate scientific problems through a variety of creative multimedia projects, such as podcasts.
Adobe’s 2016 survey revealed that 69 per cent of students believes that being creative like the projects included in CCOM 314 call for, helps make people better workers. Culligan thinks that if a larger variety of testing methods were implemented at McGill, the positive impact could extend far beyond the classroom.
“I find creative expression to be more enjoyable and a better way of learning,” Culligan said. “The conversation about the value of creativity in everyday life is an important one. I hope it encourages someone to pick up the paintbrush, keyboard, or whatever they’ve been putting down for too long.”
Nikolas Provatas
Nikolas Provatas, Canada Research Chair in Computational Materials Science and Engineering Tier 1, was also inspired to explore creative learning methods as a result of his experiences as a student in higher education. When an undergraduate student in the class of 1988, he found the learning experience confining.
“Back when I went to school, you worked alone and didn’t ask any questions because you didn’t want to look stupid,” Provatas said. “[I] suffered in absolute silence and alone. I felt it was my fault. At some point when I started to be self-sufficient, solve my own problems, figure things out, I realized it was because I was cutting through the opaqueness that teachers threw at me. I learned that learning and torture are not the same thing.”
Provatas now teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in physics at McGill, and runs the annual McGill Physics Hackathon. He launched the Hackathon in 2016 and it became an immediate hit. The Hackathon gathers fanatics of the discipline in a 48-hour sprint to solve problems in computational physics. It uses the same principles of teaching, but provides no university credits. Students participate and learn not because they are forced to, but because they enjoy the challenge.
The 2017 Physics Hackathon gathered elementary, secondary, and university students in a welcoming environment encouraging creativity, collaboration, and discovery. Judges evaluated students on whether they could understand the assigned problems, if they had the programming skills to debug code, and if they could sell their ideas to a panel of judges from academia and industry.
Provatas created the Hackathon as an antidote to his own discouraging experience as a student in higher education.
“I vowed to myself that if I were to ever become a [professor], I would throw away the archaic system of learning,” Provatas said. “I have known professors who said that students are meant to suffer. To me, it was a sort of therapy to make sure this system isn’t transferred to the next generation.”
The opportunity provides tangible outcomes for them to create original software, win prizes, connect with tech recruiters, and get a glimpse of the tech industry.
“I like to think of learning as a kind of play,” Provatas said. “In terms of atmosphere, it’s been electrifying,”
Students would greatly benefit from McGill creating more opportunities for students to directly embrace their passions. As students discover their talents and interests, they should be able to pursue them without feeling restricted by curriculum boundaries. Courses at McGill need to catch up to increasing demands for interdisciplinary learning from students and experts in the field.
“At the end of the day, we’re here to have fun, and there are no stupid questions,” Provatas said. “If you’re struggling, don’t worry, everyone is struggling.”
There are more creative approaches to learning than crowding students into a massive room, rushing them through an exam, and having the results determine even a fraction of your future.
“The best thing we can do is provide a relaxed and yet competitive atmosphere motivated by problem solving,” Provatas said. “Learning as fun.”
The Academy Awards are awful. This is not up for dispute. They’re trying to get better—this year’s nominees present a definitively more inclusive list than in years past—but at its heart, the event is a self-congratulatory, out of touch, typically-discriminatory money grab that almost always awards the wrong thing. Nevertheless, it will inevitably elicit coverage from every media outlet that also denounces the ceremony on the aforementioned grounds. Talking about movies is fun. So, without further ado, The McGill Tribune has compiled a list of the most glaring snubs from this year’s nominations.
Best Foreign Language Film: Raw (France, dir. Julia Ducournau)
In her feature-length directorial debut, Julia Ducournau spins a grisly and emotionally-charged coming-of-age tale. Garance Marillier plays Justine, a vegetarian freshman at veterinary school who is forced to eat a raw rabbit kidney in a hazing ritual, and soon begins to develop a craving for flesh.
Rawis truly the best descriptor of the actors’ candid performances (particularly Marillier’s), the cold and derelict interiors of the campus’ buildings, the kinetic and claustrophobic cinematography, and the unflinchingly gruesome portrayals of Justine’s metamorphosis. With a slow pace and sparse dialogue, Ducournau makes a bold statement about the pain and trauma of loss of innocence in a society that treats women as objects without desires.
Best Animated Short Film: World of Tomorrow Episode Two: The Burden of Other People’s Thoughts (dir. Don Hertzfeldt)
Kobe Bryant was nominated for this award. 81-points-in-a-game-Kobe Bryant. Settled-rape-allegations-out-of-court-Kobe Bryant. Nominate literally anyone instead of Kobe Bryant, but especially nominate Don Hertzfeldt. If World of Tomorrow Episode Two: The Burden of Other People’s Thoughts sounds like a lot for a title, the film’s ideas are also a lot for its 23-minute runtime. Akin to its brilliant predecessor, Episode Two takes the unscripted dialogue of Hertzfeldt’s five year-old niece, Winona Mae, as the launching pad for a ridiculous, life-affirming odyssey through memory, grounded in the experiences of Emily Prime (Mae) and her clone (of a clone of a clone of a clone, from the future) (Julie Potts). Mae for Best Actress is another blurb entirely. Episode Two finds Hertzfeldt perfecting his signature blend of childlike wonder, affectless stoicism, and iTunes visualizer-level backdrops. It lands in a good spot somewhere in the vacuum between Kubrick, Adventure Time, and Camus.
Best Original Song: The Pure and the Damned – Oneohtrix Point Never (feat. Iggy Pop) (from Good Time)
As funny as a Sufjan Stevens (Call Me By Your Name) acceptance speech would be, there’s no way it could top an Iggy Pop acceptance speech. Good Time’s “The Pure and the Damned,” produced by Oneohtrix Point Never with lyrics by Iggy, is a beautiful, shattering piano ballad that accompanies the best final scene of 2017. The song takes the template of Johnny Cash’s “Hurt” (old singing man and younger producing man), and ups the weird ante with minimalist piano and wacky synths. The fantastically terrifying video uses non-film footage featuring an extra veiny CGI Iggy Pop, a bloodied wolf puppet, and Robert Pattinson wearing what looks to be a counterfeit sleeveless Baltimore Ravens/Orioles shirt.
Best Original Screenplay: Wind River (dir. Taylor Sheridan)
The final installment of Taylor Sheridan’s American Frontier trilogy (following 2015’s Sicario and 2016’s Hell or High Water) was woefully forgotten after receiving an eight-minute standing ovation at Cannes. The crisp cinematography, Nick Cave-scored soundtrack, and chilling performances by Elizabeth Olsen, Gil Birmingham, and Jeremy Renner, make it a seemingly obvious contender. A neo-Western set in a blizzarding Wyoming stage, Wind River documents the investigation of the brutal homicide of a young Native American woman. Sheridan uses this singular event as a microcosm to the larger issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the inclusion of this narrative would have been incredibly powerful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9PDOoLAfg
Best Documentary: Casting JonBenét (dir. Kitty Green)
Casting JonBenét made a splash when it first came out last April, but deserves more official credit than the 15 minutes of fame it received. Unlike the dozens of other JonBenét Ramsey films, Casting Jonbenét offers a multiplicity of narratives that expose and support each other to uncover new layers of understanding about the mysterious 1998 murder of the American six-year-old beauty queen. The documentary films the interview and audition process of these actors trying out for the roles of JonBenét’s nuclear family using local actors who remember the event when it occurred. As these individuals are questioned about their own theories of the murder, the documentary lays bare America’s obsession with cold cases and biases towards the creation of the perfect suspect.
Best Picture: “Una” (dir. Benedict Andrews)
In Benedict Andrews’ adaptation of David Harrower’s play Blackbird, Rooney Mara stars as Una, a young woman who confronts her childhood neighbour and abuser, Ray (Ben Mendelsohn, of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story). Set almost entirely in an empty factory warehouse, “Una” plays out like an intricately choreographed dance between Mara and Mendelsohn, wandering through a labyrinth of corridors and storage rooms as they revisit the painful and murky past. Andrews refreshingly avoids stereotypes of the helpless victim and remorseless predator, instead crafting a believable and heart-wrenching (albeit toxic) relationship between the two characters.
After a year when sexual harassment and violence have been at the forefront of popular discourse, “Una” is potent and relevant, boldly exploring the blurred lines of consent, healing from abuse, and reclaiming one’s self-worth.
Best Actor: Robert Pattinson in Good Time (dir. Josh and Benny Safdie)
Aside from being perhaps the most underrated and spectacular movie of 2017, the Safdie Brothers’ Good Time brought us the year’s best performance from the most unlikely of indie movie stars. Good Time is a manic take on the classic New York street thriller, and Robert Pattinson’s leading turn as sociopath criminal Renaissance man Constantine Nikas is the film’s furiously beating heart. Pattinson spends the movie carefully balancing Connie’s unflinching manipulative cool with a subtly accumulating sense of desperation. The result is a masterful performance which holds together an invigorating and understatedly moving thriller. After Good Time, Pattinson deserves to be remembered as the inventive talent that he truly is, rather than just a teen vampire hunk. The Academy should recognize as much.
As January comes to a close, the seasonal flu once again runs rampant across campus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the U.S Department of Health and Human Services has deemed the 2017-2018 flu season as the worst in almost a decade. In North America, flu season typically occurs between the months of October and May, peaking in January or February. In Canada alone, this season has seen 24,749 positive cases and 110 deaths confirmed as of Jan. 20, according to the Canadian FluWatch report.
The viruses currently circulating include the Influenza A strains H3N2 and H1N1 and two lineages of influenza B strains, B/Yamagata and B/Victoria. A and B strains differ based on the hosts that they infect, with A strains infecting both humans and animals and B strains only affecting humans. H3N2, the most dangerous strain in circulation, is notorious for the severity of its symptoms and is responsible for the high death toll of this year’s flu season. According to Maziar Divangahi, assistant professor of Medicine at McGill, the reason behind H3N2’s severity lies in its origins. Zoonotic viruses—those transmitted from animals to humans—are initially more dangerous, and gradually become less severe after passing through the human population.
“This is kind of an evolution, and any virus that suddenly comes from animals [and can be transmitted] to humans is very pathogenic,” Divangahi told The McGill Tribune. “But if it gets passed on and on to the humans, then it becomes a seasonal flu [….] If you want to predict the severity [of each coming flu season] you have to look at this cycle, how [it] could continue, and [how it] could be prevented.”
Observing these cycles and the prevalence of different influenza strains around the world is crucial to the development of vaccines, which are typically cultivated in chicken eggs. Influenza vaccines introduce weakened strains to the body, allowing a person’s immune system to create antibodies that, in the event of exposure to the real disease, combat infection.
Despite the fact that H3N2 is included in each year’s flu vaccine, its mutation rate is very high. As a result, wild viruses differ greatly from the ones grown in labs that are used to make vaccines.
“H3N2 doesn’t grow very well in chicken eggs, […] so when you have a season of flu by H3N2, your vaccine is not very protective,” Divangahi said.
According to the CDC, the current vaccine for H3N2 viruses is only 33 per cent effective, while vaccines for influenza B viruses are effective 54 per cent of the time. Mutations within the H3N2 strain also alter its protein structure, making the virus more harmful. Under normal circumstances, the human body traps flu viruses in the upper airway—but H3N2 has developed the ability to penetrate the lungs, which causes an extreme reaction to the virus from the immune system.
“When people get really sick it’s not because of the virus, it’s because of your [dysregulated] immune response,” Divangahi said. “You’re not supposed to have the virus deep in your lungs, and [this causes] the immune response to go nuts. It says, ‘Well, what’s going on here.’ […] We need to find out the timing and the regulatory mechanism that could shut that down.”
As the race to develop an effective vaccine continues, Divangahi’s lab is looking into developing drugs that suppress the immune system’s intense reaction to infectious diseases such as influenza and tuberculosis.
“A vaccine for influenza definitely is the ultimate goal, but we still need more time to generate an effective vaccine for every single strain of the virus,” Divangahi said. “[Until then], can we find a targeted therapy to regulate these immune pathologies?”
And, more importantly, can we find it before it’s too late?
On Dec. 15, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government announced changes to the Canada Summer Jobs funding application to ensure that applicant organizations support LGBTQ and reproductive rights. This action sparked outrage from the New Democratic Party (NDP), religious groups, and free speech advocates alike.
After mass condemnation from across the political spectrum, the Liberals simplified the guidelines on the application website. While the attestation remains in place, the party clarified that an organization that does not support gay marriage or abortion may still receive funding, as long as its activities do not actively seek to infringe upon an individual’s rights. However, in order to secure funding for summer positions, an organization would have to attest that it supports reproductive and LGBTQ rights. What critics fail to realize is that the government is under no obligation to fund organizations that will promote an anti-human rights agenda.
Trudeau has enforced a staunch pro-choice Liberal party platform since his election in 2015, but this most recent move transcends party lines, because it also prevents Conservative and NDP members of parliament from financially supporting anti-abortion groups in the Summer Jobs program. As a result, the Liberals make it clear that support for these rights should no longer be concentrated in feminist and gay rights groups, but is to be expected of any organization. This further prioritizes reproductive and LGBTQ rights as human rights—as they are already defined by Canadian law—boldly advancing these long-marginalized causes.
Some have argued that forcing attestations of support will lead to a chilling of the debate surrounding reproductive rights, and could lead to the censure of other groups that do not toe the Liberal party line. However, the issue cuts to the heart of a much larger debate surrounding reproductive and LGBTQ rights in Canada. For decades, one’s right to a safe and legal abortion has been restricted to the sphere of women’s rights, separate from broader notions of human rights. The same applies to LGBTQ rights. It was easy in the past for socially conservative groups to exercise their right to freespeech, while simultaneously discriminating against LGBTQ people or campaigning against reproductive rights. But, by encompassing women and the LGBTQ community—and their distinctive rights—into the concept of human rights, Trudeau reshapes the conversation.
Those concerned with the free speech and personal conscience implications of the changes should recognize that this new attestation does not silence the many communities who are anti-abortion or anti-LGBTQ. The ability to personally oppose abortion and LGBTQ rights remains legally protected in the right to freedom of belief. However, acts of restricting access to an abortion clinic or discriminating against LGBTQ patrons are not. An organization should not receive funding for a program that could violate another Canadian’s human rights, be it their right to marry or their right to receive an abortion.
What critics fail to realize is that the government is under no obligation to fund organizations that will promote an anti-human rights agenda.
The line between speaking out against something and actively campaigning against it is often blurry and ill-defined. It is difficult to distinguish, for example, between an organization that distributes anti-abortion pamphlets from a group that pickets abortion clinics. The point at which debate and attempts at conversion become harassment and impediment is unclear, and falls under the purview of the courts. However, it is well within the right of the federal government to refuse to fund an organization that denies certain citizens of their human rights.
Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, remarked that she was content with the clarifications that the Trudeau government made to the application.
“I think that if a group still feels that they cannot sign the attestation even with these clarifications, well, I guess they are ineligible for funding,” Arthur said.
For some organizations, it is a matter of principle or religion that they do not support reproductive and LGBTQ rights. They are free to do so. However, their freedom of thought does not guarantee them federal funding to advance programs that infringe on other Canadians’ human rights.
Sydney King is a U1 Political Science major. She is perpetually debating dropping out and going to culinary school.
At the Dec. 12, 2017 McGill Board of Governors (BoG) meeting, a proposed review of the terms of reference of McGill’s Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR) was met with protest by Divest McGill. CAMSR advises the BoG on the social impact of its investments. The proposed revision, which would require CAMSR to ensure that McGill investments are not used for social or political purposes, exacerbates the fault line between McGill’s students and administration.
Students’ anger is justified—the language of the proposed change in CAMSR’s terms of reference further alienates the University from students who have demonstrated time and time again that they care about the environment and social and political issues. McGill should recognize that social, political, and financial implications frequently overlap, and are often inescapable when pursuing environmentally conscious industry. It is untenable for CAMSR to sidestep “social and political purposes” while still fulfilling its mandate.
Dividing sociopolitical and financial actions seems to neutralize the language surrounding McGill’s investments, precluding the possibility or discussion of the University avoiding unethical investments. If McGill truly seeks to be a university on the cusp of technological development, as its participation in artificial intelligence research implies, it should pursue an investment model that incorporates its financial interests with being a role model for the social, political, and environmental responsibility championed by its students.
Ethical investment, or an investment made with regard to environmental, social, and governance issues (ESG investing), is one such model: A developing investment strategy that can produce great returns for the investor while aiding in the growth of sustainable and ethical industries. The main reason that financial analysts may not take ESG factors into account is because of a lack of client interest in these factors. McGill has an opportunity to support sustainable technologies by increasing their interest in ESG issues, instead of continuing to participate in the environmentally unsustainable “carbon bubble”—supporting fossil fuel companies by buying their stock as climate change continues to unfold.
As an advisory body focused on social responsibility, CAMSR has the potential to be McGill’s cornerstone for a more ethical financial future.
To encourage ethical investing, CAMSR should be allowed to advise not only against social injury, as it currently does, but also in a positive capacity, balancing its mandate against “great social industry” with a possible policy designed to facilitate socially and environmentally responsible investments. The language of such a mandate would have to be extremely specific, and such a revision would be a long-term overhaul, but the end rewards would be worthwhile. Long-term thinking, after all, is a key tenet of ethical investment—a tenet that the BoG, still holding onto its high volume of carbon-based investments, currently lacks.
An ESG investment strategy would not only support environmentally-conscious companies, but would also be a step toward fixing the rift between students and administration. As the on-campus traction of Divest McGill—which currently has over 2,500 likes on Facebook—shows, many students often feel embattled by the choices of their administration. According to an article in The Guardian by Justin Keeble of Accenture Sustainability Services, young people care more about promoting sustainability than previous generations. This passion is heightened by the fear that every callous environmental choice compromises their future. When the University refuses to alter its investments to be more conscious of the future, its students feel not only disillusioned, but afraid and powerless.
Feeble attempts at financial neutrality, such as the proposed revision, are not a solution. Ethical investing, however, could be the beginning of a reconciliation between students and university.
As an advisory body focused on social responsibility, CAMSR has the potential to be McGill’s cornerstone for a more ethical financial future. Its current proposed revision, however, neutralizes this potential in a way that is visible and disheartening to its students. The BoG may be concerned with the performance of McGill’s investments, but the world—including the financial sphere—is changing rapidly, and what “performance” means might be changing, too. The administration should follow the example of its students, and start considering the long term.
Grace Gunning is a U3 History major and occasional artist. She enjoys climbing, gardening, and cheesy 80’s sci fi.
I recently broke up with my partner, but we are in the same friend group so I’m forced to see them around my friends all the time. How can I properly deal with the break up while staying friends with my ex in order to avoid causing tension in my friend group?
Sincerely,
Post-breakup Problems
Dear PBP, Know that you are not alone in this dilemma; many people have been in a similar situation to yours. Breaking up with someone is already very stressful, and the aftermath becomes even more distressing when you share mutual friends. First and foremost, it is undeniably admirable that you are trying your best to maintain the friendship. However, know that having mutual friends alone isn’t a good reason to stay in contact with your ex and that if the friendship doesn’t end up working out, it’s not your fault, and your friends won’t blame you for it. With that said, there may be some ways in which you can maintain a good relationship with your ex for the sake of both your feelings and the dynamic of your friend group.
Before diving back into a friendship, consider taking some time to yourself, maybe by learning a new hobby or delving more deeply into your studies. Reach out to other friends or spend more time with family—temporarily distance yourself from your ex and associated reminders. Finding something new to do with the time you once spent with your partner will keep your mind off of them. During your time apart, however, it is important that you do spend a bit of time thinking about how you feel in the situation and how you want to go about managing your feelings when you are ready to reconnect with your ex and your friend group.
When you feel ready to re-open lines of communication, start by establishing clear and understood ground rules with your ex. No matter what agreements you make, ensure that they are representative of your needs. For example, make it a rule that neither of you can hook up with any other members of your friend group. And if one of you does develop feelings for a mutual friend, make a rule for how to handle this in order to avoid any unnecessary anxiety and resentment. Similarly, make an effort not to brag or talk about your dating lives in front of each other, even in group settings with other friends, as doing so could hurt your ex. It is also important for you and your ex to set boundaries regarding your relationship, in order to spare feelings and help facilitate a clean break. This may mean you make a rule against “booty-calling” each other or spending too much time alone together. Depending on how the breakup occurred, it’s normal that you may get into disagreements in the future. However, remember that this is your fight—and not your friends’ fight—so you and your ex need to settle it privately. If you do argue and it gets overwhelming, do not feel like you need to force a friendship. In this case, it’s important that you learn to agree to disagree and be civil to each other around your friend group. No matter what, be sure to eliminate any disagreements around mutual friends, so they do not get caught up in the middle of it. Don’t make friends feel like they have to choose sides, and try not to badmouth your ex in front of your friends—not only will this lead to more fighting between you two, but could lead to fights within your greater friend group as well.
Above all, remember to be honest with yourself about your intentions and your emotions. Being near an ex after a breakup can be difficult and inspire complicated emotions, but feeling like you have to be around an ex constantly because they are in your friend group can cause tremendous discomfort, especially at the onset of the break up. Put yourself first, take time to heal, and try to accept that most situations will feel awkward, at least for a while. The change in dynamics of your friend group may cause you to feel a bit isolated, so remember to reach out to trusted friends or family for support. Staying connected and social will help you get over your ex more quickly, and in turn, get dynamics in your friend group back to normal.
Sending love and support,
We fear the possibility of dying before we’ve accomplished everything we want to do. Or we fear the possibility of a loved one dying before they are able to see us accomplish everything we want to do. Both are paralyzing fears—and ultimately futile.
When I was in high school, my father was diagnosed with Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), the most common and also the most aggressive type of malignant brain tumour. These types of tumours grow incredibly fast and in such a way that makes it difficult to target them through surgical procedure. Only 30 per cent of GBM patients live to see the two years following their diagnosis. My father passed away in May 2014, just hitting the two-year benchmark in the final months of my senior year.
During the first of those two years, he underwent three taxing surgeries, each a desperate attempt at extending a life that was inevitably hurtling toward its close. His chemotherapy treatments placed him at a high risk for infection and deadly internal bleeding. On top of this, radiotherapy subjected him to further brain damage than that provoked by his tumour, resulting in violent mood swings and irreversible changes in his character.
These concerted efforts toward fighting off his death, all classical medical responses to GBM diagnoses, made those two years all the more distressing for my father and for my family. The process of watching him die was drawn-out; it felt exhausting and unnecessary. All that the aggressive treatment achieved was to generate false hope that he might recover. By living out a scenario that merely delayed the inevitable, I forgot that death is invincible, no matter how hard we fight it. A franker dialogue in our culture about the pervasiveness of death might have helped to fend off such an illusion.
By living out a scenario that merely delayed the inevitable, I forgot that death is invincible, no matter how hard we fight it.
Ultimately, it is impossible to separate the arrival of death from the act of living, so we find ourselves under the obligation to incorporate it into the way we lead our lives. The way we choose to die is meaningful—it impacts us and the ones we leave behind—but we can’t die the way we want to if we don’t acknowledge its looming presence in the time that we have. The same goes for mourning the death of a close friend or family member: By fighting off the reality of their death, we only make it that much more painful for ourselves when we finally have to face the hole they leave in our life.
It’s not just a question of embracing the reality of death, but of celebrating it. We need to allow death to take up space in the life that we live now, rather than shrugging it off as an immaterial likelihood, or a project to handle another day. A 2007 study, conducted by professors from the University of Kentucky and Florida State University, finds that the acknowledgment of our mortality induces a positive emotional reaction. If we dedicated even the tiniest portion of our day to admitting that life and death go hand in hand we would—somewhat counterintuitively—actually feel happier.
When faced with an impending death, the immediate reaction is often an instinctive fight or flight response. Our culture conflates the approach of death with a sense of urgency to fulfill those projects we have not yet had time to complete, or love those who we have not yet had time to love enough. Instead of letting the sudden realization of the oncoming reality of death bring goals and regrets into focus, it is important to face them head on—to book that trip to South Africa, or to read that copy of War and Peace sitting forlorn on the bookshelf.
Mourning can’t be hurried; we must deal with the passing of our loved ones at a pace that feels comfortable, expressing anger and sadness at their loss along the way. Western culture simply doesn’t understand death and grief, making it even harder to handle them as an individual. We are made uncomfortable by public displays of emotion—sadness in particular—and social etiquette dictates that we tiptoe around the issue by using euphemisms. But, if we make concerted efforts to think and talk candidly about death together, we can make its entrance into our collective lives less jarring, and create a more supportive environment for those who witness and suffer in its aftermath.
In a poem composed for his dying father, Dylan Thomas implores that he “do not go gentle into that good night,” but that he “rage, rage against the dying of the light.” Thomas has it all wrong: We shouldn’t fight off death, we should understand and accept it. Taken this way, death can be the ultimate motivation to live meaningfully.
Marie is a U4 English student at McGill and Features Editor at the Tribune. Her spirit animal is a penguin.
The holidays are awkward enough without having to explain the definition of sexual assault to your relatives. Yet, my sisters and I found ourselves doing just that at the end of 2017, when the subject of #MeToo, a movement created by Tarana Burke to increase awareness about sexual harassment and assault, came up at a family gathering. My mother voiced her desire to support us no matter what, but seemed confused when we explained that unwanted sexual advances are harassment and that sexual contact without enthusiastic consent is assault.
“Don’t these attitudes lead to self-victimization?” my mother asked. “Whatever happened to women’s empowerment?”
These questions are central to the growing backlash against the #MeToo movement. Notably, there is a stark generational divide in the discourse. Many Generation X and baby boomer women resist #MeToo because they view it as a threat to women’s agency. Younger millennial and Gen Z women who believe in the importance of enthusiastic consent feel failed by the feminism of older generations, which frames empowerment as conforming to the worst tenets of toxic masculinity—“bite the bullet,” “don’t show fear or pain,” or, “boys will be boys”—rather than challenging them.
To young women, empowerment means actively resisting harmful norms, not tolerating them. This requires pushing back against inappropriate behaviour not only in the office, but in personal relationships as well. For example, no adult should expect sex, flirtation, or romance to magically occur without communication between partners. It’s not robotic, it’s respectful. If young women want allies in their quest to change norms, they must be open to talking with older generations in order to reconcile these different visions of empowerment.
One of the main concerns older women have with #MeToo is that it creates a culture of victimhood. The literary critic Daphne Merkin wrote in The New York Times, “We seem to be returning to a victimology paradigm for young women, in particular, in which they are perceived to be—and perceive themselves to be—as frail as Victorian housewives.” Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale, wrote in The Globe and Mailthat she does not believe “that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we’re back to the 19th century.”
To young women, empowerment means actively resisting harmful norms, not tolerating them.
Some older women also do not believe that “a bad night”—or any non-consensual sexual activity that is not technically rape—should be considered assault. Many people questioned whether “Grace’s” account of her date with Aziz Ansari—in which he ignored her verbal and nonverbal cues—constituted assault. In her Atlantic responsepiece, “The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari,” writer Caitlin Flanagan bemoaned the fragility of “the young,” dismissed the woman’s feelings of violation as “regret,” and attacked the allegations as “3,000 words of revenge porn.”
Other women have questioned what romance and sex would look like without the male behaviour young women condemn. Slate’s executive editor, Alison Benedikt, published an article about her marriage to a former boss who treated her in a way that, by today’s standards, would be viewed as harassment. He drunkenly kissed her at a work event and openly leered at her in the office while wielding power over her career. She viewed his advances as romantic and wonders whether the excitement of flirting will be able to withstand the standards of consent that #MeToo advocates.
These critics were fine when the #MeToo discussion was limited to the likes of Harvey Weinstein, but fail to recognize that the behaviours of serial abusers, local office creeps, and aggressive frat boys are linked. These behaviours are not equally morally depraved—no one is calling for Ansari to face the same legal consequences as Weinstein—but they all stem from the same culture of misogynistic entitlement.
As women continue to push back against sexual assault and harassment, notions of women’s empowerment must evolve past those of our mothers and grandmothers. My discussion with my older relatives about #MeToo was awkward, difficult, and frustrating, but young women need to keep having these conversations across generations in order to move forward with them.
Sophie Panzer is a U3 History major. Her interests include eating carbs, reading books, and walking dogs.
