Professors and students tackled issues of secularism in the public sphere in a Canadian parliamentary-style debate on Nov. 14.

The event was hosted by the McGill Interfaith Students’ Council (MISC), in collaboration with the McGill Debating Union, the Political Bouillon, and the Political Science Students’ Association (PSSA).

Law professor Robert Leckey and student Ezra Cohen, U3 Arts, argued in favour of state-enforced secularism, while political science professor Mark Brawley and student Mwanza Tshimbalanga, U3 Arts, represented opposition to this stance. Participants’ stances in the debate did not necessarily represent their personal views.

Cohen began the debate by arguing the importance of eliminating religious symbols in the public sphere.

“When the state erects a religious symbol [in] a public space, we think that it sends a very clear message: it says that to be Quebecois is to be Catholic,” Cohen said. “If it has some cultural value, lovely—put it in a museum. If it doesn’t, recycle or auction it.”

According to Brawley, however, not all religious symbols are used for the purpose of religious dissemination.

“Lady Gaga wears a cross, [but] not because she is trying to convert people to Christianity,” Brawley said. “People have the freedom to choose to wear certain things.”

Brawley went on to argue that enforcement of laws such as the Parti Québécois’ proposed Bill 60, formerly known as the Charter of Values, which seeks to prevent government employees from wearing obvious religious symbols in the workplace, would be very arbitrary, if not impossible.

“[What the government is] trying to do is to infer things about the intent of the other person,” he said. “When is a headscarf a religious symbol and when is it a scarf? You have to think about the practical impact of this resolution if it was enforced. It’s going to have the exact opposite impact of secularism.”

At the event, Sarah Malik, equity educational advisor at McGill’s Social Equity and Diversity Education Office, criticized the format for not including speakers who will personally feel the impact of the proposed charter.

“It’s really important for people who are directly affected to be given space [and for] the format of these events to give voice to people who are most affected, in particular Muslim women,” Malik said. “I take the hijab very close to my heart, but I do acknowledge that there is a difference between someone like me who […] gets a certain amount of respect because I don’t wear the hijab, versus my hijabi sisters.”

In a panel following the debate, Pearl Eliadis, human rights lawyer and lecturer in the Faculty of Law, took a feminist approach in her criticism of the charter, saying it is particularly unfair to Muslim women.

“Let’s face it—this [charter] is about hijab,” said Eliadis. “[It is] a double-whammy against Muslim women, not only with regards to the fact that they are Muslim, but also with regards to the fact that they are women. Because men wearing beards are not going to be interrogated with regards to the reason they are wearing beards.”

Manjit Singh, the director of Chaplaincy Services at McGill, compared the PQ’s support of the Charter to other examples of oppression in history.

“I keep asking myself ‘what’s the difference between Parti Québécois and the party of Lenin and Stalin?’ They amended things, and people had to endure the suppression,” Singh said. “Is [the] Parti Québécois heading the same way?”

According to Trisha Islam, U3 Arts and an organizer of the event, the debate was a starting point for future mobilization against the Charter of Values.

“There are a lot of resources out there, and we definitely don’t want this event to be the [end] of anything,” Islam said. “We want to trigger other things.”

The latest version of the People, Processes, and Partnerships (PPP) restructuring plan for McGill’s Leacock Building features two additional administrative hubs and more teaching assistant (TA) cubicles.

Faculty of Arts Associate Dean Gillian Lane-Mercier announced the changes to the plan at the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) Council meeting last Wednesday.

The PPP was introduced in Fall 2012 as a project that aims to reorganize the administrative services in the Faculty of Arts in light of staff reductions through the voluntary retirement program and decreased funding from the Quebec government.

“[We are] trying to make these administrative unit hubs robust enough to sustain the early retirement departures and upcoming normal retirements which will continue as we are not allowed to hire,” Lane-Mercier said. “There is a complete hiring freeze, and we do not know how long it will last.”

She went on to say that the PPP initiative will ensure sufficient administrative services for the Faculty of Arts in the face of unpredictable funding from the province.

“We don’t know if the Quebec government will begin to reinvest in Quebec universities,” Lane-Mercier said. “We are not 100 per cent convinced that they will be reinvesting in administrative services, so we wanted to be ready to really remain robust.”

In the initial floor plans announced in April, the third floor of Leacock was the designated space for administrative services. However, Lane-Mercier said current plans will leave the third floor unchanged. Instead, there will be two administrative hubs on different floors—each responsible for its own set of departments.

The first administrative hub will be located on the fourth floor and include the departments of Economics, Political Science, and Philosophy. On the seventh floor, a second hub will be devoted to the departments of History, Sociology, Anthropology, and Jewish Studies.

“[The groupings] took a lot of thinking and statistics,” Lane-Mercier said. “We have huge units, small units, and a couple of more medium-sized units [in Leacock], so we just wanted to make sure we were not overburdening one hub with respect to the other hub. We tried to really get the work load for the administrators to be balanced and also to ensure balanced student services.”

Along with the two administrative hubs, revisions to the restructuring program include the construction of seven more TA cubicles inside Leacock 111 and the repurposing of room 608 into a seminar room.

AUS President Justin Fletcher said the two additions will be beneficial to students.

“The discussion of adding seven TA cubicles in Leacock 111 is really important,” Fletcher said. “It’s a good study space right now, but there’s a lack of TA-student meeting areas. This not only allows for confidentiality, but after hours, it’s a group study area and allows for collaboration in a quiet space.”

Lane-Mercier emphasized that the question of space in Leacock is most pertinent to students.

“[We have a] good opportunity to rethink inner spaces, how to repurpose inner spaces for students,” she said. “I think sharing is a great idea. There’s no reason why undergraduate students couldn’t have a shared student space with two or more departments.”

According to AUS Vice-President Communications Lucy Ava Liu, students can get involved through various sub-groups of the PPP.

“Students can be involved by communicating the AUS their concerns,” Liu said. “The most direct impact for students is the concrete change in departmental administrative locations, and students in certain departments will need to familiarize themselves with new office locations for their departments’ administrative staff.”

Fletcher highlighted the importance of receiving input from students in order to ensure that the restructuring project is beneficial to them.

“Interior spaces in Leacock are going to be decided by departments,” Fletcher said. “It’s important for students involved in their departmental association to speak with their department chair to say […] how we would like space to be utilized. Students need to be active in discussing the allocation of these interior spaces.”

The move is scheduled to begin this summer in order to reduce disruptions. The additional TA cubicles are expected to be completed by next Fall semester.

A $21,000 deficit from frosh and the opening of the student-run café were at the forefront of discussion at last Wednesday’s special General Assembly (GA) of  the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU).

Reasons for the special GA

The special GA took place following the Oct. 9 GA, which failed to meet quorum—an attendance requirement of 100 students who must be present for the GA to pass motions as binding resolutions.

With only approximately 50 students in attendance, October’s forum could not pass motions such as ratifying appointments to SSMU’s Board of Directors (BoD), the society’s highest governing body.

The special GA maintained quorum throughout the evening. SSMU President Katie Larson said councillors had made a greater effort to advertise the special GA on campus.

“We were a little bit more active in trying to communicate the urgency,” Larson said. “I did make a bunch of materials for councillors to distribute at meetings and reminded them that it’s their obligation per our constitution and by-laws to promote the event.”

The GA voted in favour of appointing 15 councillors to the BoD. An active BoD is required for some decisions regarding SSMU’s financial matters. For example, SSMU needs a BoD to purchase stocks to add to its investment portfolio and to hold a liquor licence for Gerts.

“In order to hold [a liquor permit], you have to have a company that’s in legal standing,” Larson said. “If we don’t have a BoD, we can’t declare our corporation to the government [….] If our corporation status is in jeopardy, eventually it would go down the chain and we could get our liquor licence revoked.”

Following the special GA’s success in reaching quorum, Larson said Council would make additional efforts to advertise and promote awareness for the Winter GA.

“We’re going to probably hold an open forum or some kind of session at the beginning of the Winter semester […] to say, what is the GA and what are [students] expecting from it,” Larson said.

$21,000 Frosh deficit

Students at the GA also called on executives to explain the $21,000 deficit frosh incurred this year, which was announced last Thursday at SSMU’s Legislative Council.

“Who is responsible for the $21,000 loss in frosh, and why hasn’t there been a clear explanation on this?” asked Luis Pombo, U2 Engineering.

According to SSMU Vice-President Internal Brian Farnan, there were a number of factors involved with the loss.

“A couple of things were miscalculated months in advance of the actual event of frosh,” Farnan said. “Of all money that was funneled through frosh, a percentage goes to PayPal, [but] this was not actually accounted through the budgeting process [.…] Certain mistakes were made when calculating the taxes [.…] In addition, there was a brand new system implemented that actually split up sponsorship revenues with faculties this year.”

Pombo said the deficit indicated “incompetence” in frosh planning.

“If you’re going to use an online payment system, you should know that they charge a fee to use their services,” Pombo said. “Same with the issue with the sponsorship money—whoever was in charge of it should have known.”

According to Farnan, SSMU’s in-house accounting services will review proposed frosh budgets in future years to avoid these problems.

“Most of these mistakes were budgeting; so, as you can see, there is a very, very simple explanation,” he said. “Our plan is to actually involve the accounting department next year, since it is such a sizable budget—$200,000. This can’t just be handled by students anymore.”

Student-Run Café seeks student engagement

Josh Redel, manager of the Student-Run Café (SRC) and former SSMU president, gave a presentation that encouraged students to become involved with the project as it moves towards its January 2014 launch.

According to Redel, SSMU will host sessions in the upcoming weeks to hear student feedback on the existing plans. Discussion topics will include how the physical space should be used, what the true meaning of “student-run” is, and what the ultimate mission and vision of the café should be.

Redel said the café will make an effort to keep students engaged throughout the year.

“You’ll be able to text in feedback after your meal,” he said.  “Additionally, we’ll be holding events on the regular—once, if not twice a month—having big community conversations about SRC.”

Redel said the menu will include low-cost vegan, vegetarian, and gluten-free options. Although it will accept debit, credit, and cash, the café will not be able to accept Martlet meal plans this upcoming semester—although he said it could be possible in the future.

“Unfortunately, McGill is going through a pretty big change right now with how they accept meal plan cards on campus, so they will not be able to provide us with a system for that,” Redel said. “But they’re very much on board for future endeavours with the meal plan.”

Discussion sessions will take place in the Madeleine Parent room on Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, Nov. 26 at 4:00 p.m., and Friday Nov. 29 at 12:00 p.m.

 

Last Thursday’s Seagram Lecture featured Canadian author and journalist Malcolm Gladwell, who spoke on the drawbacks of attending elite institutions, the place of the underdog in society, and his controversial stance on performance-enhancing drugs in sports.

Gladwell is the award-winning author of The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers. The event was part of the 2013 Seagram Lecture series hosted by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, and was moderated by Eleanor Wachtel, host of CBC Radio’s Writers and Company.

“Malcolm Gladwell is a phenomenon, frequently described as one of the most [well-known] and influential writers in his generation because of how he’s able to explore and capture social trends and behaviour in ways that defy the age,” Wachtel said. “He writes with a kind of clarity that makes you think, ‘Of course.’”

On the topic of universities, Gladwell said there are drawbacks to attending elite institutions. He argued that students should not choose their university based on its prestige, because students are much more likely to be discouraged and drop out if they feel unsuccessful in comparison to their classmates.

“When we make judgments about how good we are at something, we compare ourselves not to the universe, but to those who are in our immediate surroundings,” Gladwell said. “When you’re a student […] you compare yourself to students in your classroom studying that science [….] But if you fall into the bottom half of your class at an elite institution such as Brown, Harvard, or McGill, you could wrongly reach the conclusion that you’re not any good.”

Gladwell also discussed his newest book David and Goliath, in which he argues that those whom society considers “handicapped” are not necessarily disadvantaged, but rather afforded an advantage due to their unique position as the underdog. According to Gladwell, the disadvantaged state of, for example, dyslexic children, allows these individuals to pick up skills that others would never develop.

“We have a romantic attachment, I think, to sometimes exaggerating the plight of the underdog,” he said. “In fact, underdogs don’t win once every billion times—they win tons of times.”

To illustrate his current view of underdogs, Gladwell, a track and field fan, explained a childhood experience—watching Dwight Stone, a renowned high jumper favoured to win the competition, slip into third place at the 1976 Olympics.

“Here I am, 10 years old, [and] watching this broke my heart,” Gladwell said. “Because I realized that when the favourite loses, he or she experiences far more emotional distress than when the underdog loses. The underdog expects to lose. The favourite expect to win. When the favourite loses, they’re crushed [….] The truly human and empathetic position is to cheer for the favourite.”

During the talk, Gladwell also tackled a number of controversial pieces he has written, including his Sept. 9 article in the New Yorker about athletes’ use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports. In his article, Gladwell argued that Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez’s use of performance-enhancing drugs was justified.

“The thing about Lance Armstrong and the other cyclists that use drugs is that they doped in order to train harder,” he said. “Isn’t the whole point of living in the modern world to use outside technologies to level the playing field?”

Gladwell also spoke on the content of his books throughout his career, saying that his scope has changed as his style has evolved.

“I’m interested in bigger questions now than I was in the past,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s natural or not. Maybe I’ll cycle back and write something that’s very narrow again [….] I love the notion that you can look into a very specific, seemingly trivial thing, and let the larger lessons come up naturally.”

The McGill Seagram Lecture with Malcolm Gladwell can be found online at CBC.ca and is scheduled to broadcast on CBC Radio’s Writers and Company on Nov. 24 and Nov. 26.