These problems are a known issue, and an active effort is being put into resolving it. However, the barriers to transness at McGill are far-reaching. Students with a preferred name were originally unable to vote in the by-election for VP Finance, a flaw only discovered by the voters themselves. Transitioning patients at the Wellness Hub frequently have to repeat blood tests because a measurement of hormone levels that don’t match assigned sex was left out. My main gripe is that instead of proposing solutions, most of the time when I mention an issue, attention is redirected to diluting my (trans) anger.  Improving the gender-identity equity practices at McGill becomes the responsibility of trans people, and are not adopted as projects unless there are complaints; and yet, the complaints that drive progress are frequently rebuked.   

I’ve heard vague complaints about the stereotypical entitled, new-generation transgender that expects absurd accommodations and is unappreciative of how good they have it. As the administrative coordinator of Queer McGill, most of my interactions with trans people are the opposite. I’ve seen many people disclose malicious deadnaming and misgendering before adding the caveat, “but it’s harder for old people to get right.” Especially when coming from high schools that were rampant with homophobic jokes and non-existent infrastructure for trans students, the expectations of most trans McGillians are on the floor. They don’t need to be. The Charter of Student Rights at McGill prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender. There is no reason to accept misgendering from people in positions of power, limited access to bathrooms, and logistical nightmares when using a preferred name. 

The expectations of trans students can seem especially privileged considering the violent history of transness in prior decades. I’ve met few trans people of the older generation. One of the oldest trans people I know, I met at the Ottawa Trans Library. She told us that she had been attacked and beaten on that street a few decades earlier. It makes me feel conflicted, agonizing over discrimination much less violent than assault. But the idea that life for queer people is easy now is a myth. Statistics Canada recorded 155 police-reported hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation in 2014, and 491 in 2022. These numbers come with caveats, the most obvious being that the crimes reported by police are not necessarily reflective of the crimes that happen. Regardless, the threat of physical violence is not over. Although hate-crimes and microaggressions are worlds apart in terms of severity, they belong to the same system of discrimination. I find it infuriating that I am constantly reminded of the undoubted “good intentions” of perpetrators of discrimination when 49 percent of those surveyed by spark*insights say that teachers should be forced to tell parents if a student under 16 wants to change their name or pronouns in school. Good intentions cannot be presumed. 

On September 19, SSMU released a pretty typical statement in support of the September 20 counter-protest. They briefly summarized the protest and counter-protest, said “[t]he SSMU strongly supports the work of queer and trans activists,” and encouraged people to show up at Roddick Gates. At the next Legislative Council session, two of the Science Undergraduate Society (SUS) representatives complained about the wording of the statement and said that not enough consultation had gone into it. They further elaborated at a SUS Council meeting that the statement might be “biased” and that “no external bodies were consulted.” Organizations like SSMU regularly adopt statements, this one being a natural application of its Trans Advocacy Plan. And considering that several queer groups on campus were consulted in the creation of the statement, it’s unclear who else they expected SSMU to hear from, save the 1 Million March organizers. 

The two SUS representatives said that they fully agreed with the content of the SSMU statement. I imagine they don’t see themselves as transphobic, and I would be surprised if they harboured conscious intolerance. On the other hand, I am not better off forgiving. Their actions still give permission to the more blatanly transphobic to further hatred. It still normalizes  doubt that a pro-trans statement is appropriate. It still makes my life, and the life of other trans students, more difficult.  Transphobia is pervasive, feeding off a fear of “wokeness,” and channelling discomfort with gender non-conformity into conservative rhetoric. I live in anticipation of backlash that I am not allowed to complain about since the perpetrators self-identify as allies. Even my best-faith interpretation is that the SUS representatives thought the counterprotest was a convenient issue to practice politics on – that trans students are an easy target. It is imperative to brand ourselves as a difficult and strong target – as a demographic that will not easily be oppressed. 

Queer McGill is often invited to table at McGill events that cater to incoming students, and while this image that McGill projects of an accepting culture is not backed by financial support or any real influence, I wonder if soon McGill won’t want queer groups represented at all in its public relations because of the increasing polarization of our existence. When I point out a barrier to transition at McGill and am redirected to reflect on the intentions of those behind it, the focus is shifted from solving the issue to solving the problem of my anger. It’s a strategy designed to neutralize my motivation to push for change. I’m expected to spend much more time thinking about how these people feel than they would ever think of me. 

We need to be angry as transphobic talking points enter the mainstream, because our reactions will determine whether individuals with veiled transphobia feel entitled to discriminate. For the Legislative Council to treat the support of transness as something controversial undoes years of attempted acceptance by trans student activists. It must be unequivocally denounced, regardless of the internal thoughts of the perpetrators. My proposal to the trans community is that we refuse to water down our anger. Anger is a powerful tool; it helps me continue to bother McGill staff until solving the issue causes less trouble for them than my hounding. Anger validates my right to exist as a trans student at McGill. Anger motivates me to advocate for a university where the barriers to transition don’t exist, rather than a world where people have good intentions. 

The post Anger as a Tool for Trans Resistance  appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The previous statement regarding a General Manager was the hiring of Daniel Dufour on March 13, 2020, but Dufour vanished around the beginning of the 2021-2022 year: according to meeting minutes, he was absent from Board of Director meetings from September 2021 onwards. 

During the 2021-2022 year, there was a smattering of unofficial mentions of a General Manager, and then the absence of one. In a Board of Directors meeting in September 2021, when Dufour was first absent, the VP Finance mentioned that the General Manager had been working with the Building Director to get new office furniture. At the November 2021 Board of Directors meeting, a member of the gallery asked where the General Manager was, to which a  Board Director responded that he was on leave and “attending meetings as required.”  In March 2022, Dufour stopped being listed as absent in meetings, and his name was dropped entirely.  

The position of a General Manager seems crucial to the functioning of SSMU. According to the SSMU website, the General Manager is “responsible for the SSMU’s administration, governance, corporate obligations, accounting, human resources, business operations, and legal affairs.” The General Manager position also seems difficult to fill. Dufour was hired following the resignation of Ryan Hughes on September 9, 2019, who lasted three years in the position, and before Hughes was Jennifer Varkonyi, who worked at SSMU for only six months before resigning.

In an interview with the Daily, SSMU President Alexandre Ashkir said  that Daniel Dufour resigned in early 2022. Ashkir is unsure about the cause behind the delay in hiring a new General Manager, but speculated that it was an issue of executives having more urgent priorities. He also noted that executives in the 2022-2023 year began the hiring process, but were “pre-occupied with the return from covid” and were “dealing with a thousand small fires everywhere.” He said that hiring a General Manager is something that requires everyone to be on board: this year’s executive team was the first to be able to dedicate the energy needed for it. 

This hypothesis is echoed in the mentions of a General Manager that feature in Board of Directors meetings. The Executive Committee Report of Summer 2022 says that executives “worked on the Interim Structure for SSMU in the absence of a General Manager, reallocating the General Manager’s responsibilities among Executives and Management.” This reallocation suggests that Dufour at this point had left the position. The report also says that the President worked with headhunters to get information for recruitment services to find a new General Manager. Furthermore, the VP Finance listed several projects as “GM responsibilities” that he worked on, for example continuing negotiations with the SSMUnion. The SSMUnion negotiations were not successful:  the SSMUnion would later accuse SSMU of bad-faith bargaining. Five months later, in January 2023, the Executive Committee report said that executives approved the email motion to approve the General Manager job description; details are unknown since there are no published minutes for this meeting. In March 2023, an Executive Committee report said they approved a motion to approve the General Manager salary range. Once again, there are no published minutes for this meeting. 

Ironically, the “thousand small fires” that prevented executives from hiring a new General Manager were partly why they needed one. The 2021-2022 and the 2022-2023 years were marked by failings of SSMU, especially at the level of governance, and the executives at SSMU, along with the Board of Directors and Legislative Council, seem to have suffered under the weight of these tasks without the help of a General Manager. 

The prime example from the 2021-2022 year was the suspension of the SSMU President without communication from the rest of the executive team, and it doesn’t take long looking through meeting minutes to find other cracks in SSMU’s functioning. For example, in November 2021, the Building and Operations Management Committee was dissolved after it caused “a delay in negotiations with vendors” according to the corresponding motion. The SSMU Accountability Committee met only twice from August 2021 to August 2022, and neither meeting met quorum. In December 2022, the VP Finance presented his budget revision two months late. In February 2023, the motion for ECOLE was forgotten from the agenda of the monthly legislative council meeting, causing a delay in its approval.  

A General Manager offers an opportunity for executives to focus on their main responsibilities, and SSMU would greatly benefit from a General Manager who lasts longer than a few years. Over the past three years, SSMU has not communicated changes to students, letting important updates about the hiring process – for example, approving the salary and job description – sneak by in Board of Directors meetings. Finally, the absence of minutes for Board of Directors meetings – in 2022-2023, there are only seven minutes published, out of the 20 meetings – makes accountability all the more difficult. 

The post SSMU Hires New General Manager  appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Motion Regarding a Special By-Election for the role of SSMU Vice-President Finance was then presented by Ashkir. The proposed timeline is that a nomination period will begin September 18, and that the new VP Finance will be elected by October 12. After Speaker Jonathan Dong encouraged debate, Koulibaly stressed the importance of the VP Finance role, and VP Student Life Nadia Dakdouki echoed this sentiment, adding “the executive jobs at SSMU are packed…theoretically we could choose not to move forward with a by-election of the VP Finance, but that would be even less sustainable”. This motion passed unanimously. 

The final motion on the agenda was a motion to adopt new standing rules, as is customary at the beginning of every academic year. Standing rules –  as defined in Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary authority of the Legislative Council –  modify  Robert’s Rules’ pre-existing procedures. 

The proposed 2023-2024 Standing Rules were very similar to the previous year, with slight modifications. Two motions can now be submitted as late motions, at the discretion of the dais – the Speaker of Council, Deputy Speaker, Parliamentarian, and Recording Secretary – as opposed to one. Legislative Council sessions are also now more frequent – once every two weeks rather than once a month. This schedule is a return to that of two years ago. In an interview with the Daily, Ashkir said they experimented with monthly meetings last year, but found in an end-of-year poll that the majority of councillors preferred biweekly meetings instead. Ashkir is hoping that this change will shorten meetings and create a faster work turnaround. 

Changes were also made to account for in-person meetings, according to Dong. That being said, some rules are still inappropriate for the latest council meeting. For example, one rule requires members to “raise their placards to alert the Speaker,” although there were no placards at this meeting. 

Finally, Dong explained that the steering committee had made “small changes to make [the rules] more coherent,” specifically a section regarding behaviour in meetings. He may have been referencing section 3.8.8, which in the 2022-2023 version prohibits “texting or messaging during a given meeting, pertaining to discussion, and outside of the meeting”. The section has since been changed to “texting or messaging during a given meeting, pertaining to discussion, inside and outside of the meeting room” (italics added). The meaning is the same – texting during a meeting is prohibited – but the wording is hopefully clearer. It was difficult to track all the changes, since unlike previous years, modifications to the standing rules were not marked by colour.

During debate, a member of the McGill Student Union Democratization Initiative said that these motions had not been made available to the public – the hyperlinks in the agenda were broken and led to a login page. Councillor Jacob Shannon asked whether the motion would be available  to the press, publicly, before voting on it. Dong responded that “usually we inform the Governance Manager and the governance department, and generally speaking they’re the ones responsible for posting them to the website, so in this case we did our part”. 

Dong then messaged the Governance Manager, who encouraged him to extend viewing access of the document, and, the motion to adopt standing rules having just been published, debate resumed. Although the hyperlink for the standing rules was fixed in the meeting, the hyperlinks for the report of the steering committee and the motion for the VP Finance by-election continue to be unavailable at the time of writing.

Shannon moved to postpone the motion until the next meeting so that the public and the press could review the motion. Dakdouki argued, “I do see the press’s concern and I agree with it and I appreciate that the dais took the time to share it with them, but the standing rules do only affect members of the Council and not members of the gallery at all… I would be opposing the motion because it would be preventing us from holding Legislative Council, essentially.” 

In fact, it is possible to hold Legislative Council without standing rules: the rationale in the motion defines standing rules as “mechanisms by which Robert’s Rules of Order can be fine-tuned,” and the risk section says that “should this motion fail, the meetings of the Legislative Council will lack decorum and proper parliamentary procedures”, a far cry from not being able to hold meetings at all. Some rights of non-Council members to participate in meetings are also determined by the Standing Rules. Section five describes how members participate in discussion. The Standing Rules are somewhat unclear here:  members presumably refers to Councillors, and members of the Legislative Council, terms that are used interchangeably. Under this interpretation, section 5.4 insinuates that non-Council members may only participate virtually: “Members of the Gallery may participate in discussion or debate by using the ‘Raise Hand’ feature via the virtual platform”. This is presumably a remnant from previous years where Council meetings were held entirely remotely.

Shannon said he was confused how Council had just approved two motions if Dakdouki’s arguments were true, and reasoned that if this was possible, then returning to the Standing Rules at the beginning of next meeting couldn’t hurt. VP University Affairs Lalia Katchelewa asked whether tabling the motion to approve standing rules would lead to the adjournment of the Council, and Dong responded that they would not, as adjournment is provisioned for in Robert’s Rules. At the end of the debate, Dakdouki agreed with the concerns and apologised for missing the point, suggesting that the adoption of the Standing Rules be the first motion on the agenda at the next council meeting. The motion to postpone the Standing Rules passed unanimously. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m., the shortest first Council meeting in the past five years. This is in part because allocating committee seats and nominating councillors to sit on the Board of Directors is traditionally done during the first Council meeting – President Ashkir said that this will happen at the next Council meeting instead. 

In terms of goals for the Legislative Council this year, Ashkir hopes to increase interest and participation, especially after COVID-19. He’s keen to foster an interest among students of becoming a councillor and showing up to Council meetings. He says that his running unopposed is symbolic of the current atmosphere among McGillians. 

 “We can’t have democracy on campus if people are not interested, and if people continue to not be interested, we have to have a re-evaluation of why. This year is a year of trying to get people interested, trying to get people involved, and if that doesn’t work at the end of the year, if we have the same issues as last year, then we need to have a broader evaluation of democracy on campus – what can we do to make it truly representative?”

Part of Ashkir’s strategy will be to work closely with the media, to increase advertising efforts from SSMU , and to revisit internal documents. He hopes to make these documents – namely, the Constitution and Internal Regulations – more simplified and accessible. He also hopes to remove personal interpretation from these documents. “That’s another democratic principle – it should be very clear to everyone, this is how things are done,” he said in an interview with the Daily. Ashkir is working on revising governing documents with the Governance Manager and the Policy and Advocacy Coordinator, who are both full-time staff. They will then present their findings to the Governance Reform Committee, and finally to the Legislative Council. 

The post 2023-2024 Legislative Council Meets for First Time appeared first on The McGill Daily.

1. Students have a right to see their marks for assessments.

This right is laid out clearly in the Charter of Student Rights, a document that every student should get well acquainted with. It can be found in the “Policies on Student Rights and Responsibilities” section on the “Student Rights and Responsibilities” web page. Note that there are some caveats to this right. The Charter states, “Students have a right to consult any written submission for which they have received a mark… provided the request is made within a reasonable time after notification of the grade, and subject to reasonable administrative arrangements.” So if you’re looking to review an assessment, be prompt with your request. Note that you also have the right to an “impartial and competent review of any mark”, with the same limitations.

2. Security guards at McGill don’t have the authority to detain you.

Quebec has a rich history of student protests. In 2012, Canada had the longest student strike in history when Quebec students fought against increases in tuition. The right to peaceful demonstration is fundamental. However, direct action can create clashes between students and security personnel. It’s important to know that the power of security versus police officers are different; security personnel can only touch you in situations of self-defense and are constrained by the same laws as any citizen. Otherwise, physical contact is considered assault. Furthermore, you can report inappropriate conduct by security personnel to the Bureau de la Sécurité Privée. That being said, disciplinary action can be taken against you if you are identified as violating the Code of Student Conduct.

3. The Office for Sexual Violence Response, Support,and Education (OSVRSE) can be hard to get hold of.

McGill likes to show off OSVRSE, but it’s not always accessible to students. Last year, it closed without warning due to staffing issues. At the time of writing, there are only two days in September to book appointments — there are two time slots on the 20th and the 26th. You’re not able to view times in October. The SSMU service SACOMSS is an alternative to OSVRSE in that it also acts to serve survivors of sexual violence. They’re easier to get timely support from. If you’re looking to bypass intermediaries, you can also report directly to the Office for Mediation and Reporting, which does have reasonable appointment availability.

4. Not all medical professionals can provide sufficient documentation to the Student Accessibility and Achievement (SAA) office.

To register with the SAA, you need documentation that includes a diagnosis. Not all providers can give adequate documentation. According to their website, the medical professional must be recognized by the PL-21. The guide linked on the SAA website is in French. A report on the SAA, conducted by a special researcher hired by SSMU, has other complaints about the service: respondents said they were given incorrect exam information and didn’t like how the SAA only provides the exam location and specific time a day in advance.

5. Choose your classes based on the syllabus, not just the content.

The policies in a syllabus can reveal your professor’s attitudes about student rights, disability, and the kindness they think students deserve. Even if you’re not disabled, and don’t anticipate needing accommodations, life circumstances can change suddenly, so it’s in your best interest to favour classes with a professor who’s not uncompromising. Red flags on a syllabus include not accepting late work, mandatory attendance, and needing to buy an expensive textbook, especially one written by the professors themselves (shout-out to Prof. Vybihal).

6. There are several resources for complaints involving McGill.

Issues with your professor can be brought to the chair or director of your “academic unit”, according to a graphic on the “Resolving Disputes” section of the “Student Rights and Responsibilities’’ page. Next, you can contact the director or associate dean in your faculty Student Affairs Office. There’s also the Ombudsperson for Students — this is an office dedicated to giving information about navigating McGill and resolving grievances. If none of these paths lead to a satisfying conclusion, you can write to the chair of the Committee on Student Grievances. It’s worth noting that the information provided by McGill is far from comprehensive — a sentence on the bottom of the page says the website is “intended as an informal, unofficial guide”. It then refers you to a link titled, “The Handbook on Student Rights and Responsibilities” which brings you to a page of links that doesn’t include the Handbook, which was published in 2007.

7. If you’re a worker at McGill, you’re probably part of a union.

There are 14 unions at McGill, and two non-unionized associations. These groups represent floor-fellows, invigilators, support staff, teaching assistants, and more. Even if you’re not employed by McGill, everyone is affected by the quality of work conditions experienced by staff. It’s good to have these groups on your radar, especially when they are negotiating their collective agreement with McGill and could benefit from the support of the broader community.

The post Surviving McGill, From Student to Student appeared first on The McGill Daily.

 The long-term  ramifications of these shows — especially the meddling in the private lives of participants — are rarely acknowledged in the media’s response. The Ultimatum goes further than introducing a love interest to participants’ lives: they manipulate pre-existing romances. In each of the five couples on the show, one person is ready for marriage, while their partner is unsure. After a week of speed-dating, participants pair off into new, temporary relationships, and undergo a three-week “trial marriage.” They then return to their original partners for another three weeks, before they propose to their original partner, propose to their recently made connection, or break up. 

  Although a trial marriage with a stranger on live television isn’t a healthy choice when it comes to assurance in a relationship, The Ultimatum posits itself as helping participants in their self-growth journey. Netflix writes that participants “date other people in an attempt to figure out what they really want.” Talk about self-discovery, fruitful introspection, and self-love abounds, even as participants are frequently brought to tears by the tense social situations they’re forced into. 

By reframing reality TV as an “experience” created for the benefit of participants, we absolve ourselves of the moral ramifications of watching real-life mental breakdowns that are prompted by the structure of the show. In one scene, Aussie Chow sobs and rocks back and forth in distress. In another, Raelyn Chung-Sutton says in a heated argument with her partner, “Do I love myself? Do I deserve to be loved? I’m fucking drowning.” It takes a huge amount of cognitive dissonance to watch these relationships crumble, and then to write the same snappy, frivolous reviews that populate the internet after the release of any reality TV show. 

Even disregarding the premise that generates such moments, The Ultimatum infringes on the basic dignity of participants. The show includes clips of participants having sex, and whenever a participant attempts to leave the view of the camera crew, they are followed. In the reunion episode, host Joanna Garcia Swisher says, “I have so much respect for all of you for sharing this journey. It was really a beautiful thing, and why I think this whole story is so compelling.” The thanks might be sincere, but the most dramatic moments of the show often occurred when participants were trying to evade the cameras. Although participants agreed to be on the show, they are still victims to the hounding of the cameramen past a point of decency, as well as the airing of explicit scenes. 

There’s a widespread awareness that reality TV is edited into a narrative, but it’s also true that the moments edited together are real. The final reunion episode, set a year after participants either marry or break up, is an example of how The Ultimatum engages with the most dramatic moments to maximize viewer enjoyment, and then dismisses them with facetious questioning and a feel-good conclusion so that no viewer is left sitting with the discomfort of having witnessed these vulnerable and often destructive scenes. This is most evident when, after Mildred Areli Bustillo admits to being arrested for domestic violence, Garcia Swisher follows it up with, “where are you in the healing process?”. While emotionally shocking, the story of domestic violence is unsurprising considering Netflix’s practices of finding participants. According to Bustillo’s ex-partner Tiff Der, Netflix producers said they were looking for couples in a bad place. Finally, after Aussie and Sam say they’re still engaged, Garcia Swisher reacts with, “it’s great to see your happy ending.” The addition of a happy ending onto an incredibly fraught relationship seems disingenuous, especially considering the emotional pain Aussie endured while filming. 

Pop-culture magazines buy into the narrative pushed by The Ultimatum that the show is a heartfelt experiment and, consequently, they contort the show to fit their lighthearted tone. In reference to Tiff and Mildred, a Cosmopolitan article writes, “Tiff walked off-set during the reunion as Mildred and them were arguing about rent being paid,” erasing the talk of abuse in the relationship, which prompted Tiff to become overwhelmed. Emma Specter from Vogue writes that she teared up watching Aussie Chau’s journey. Chau’s incredibly vulnerable moments on TV — including a quite violent breakdown — were moving and real but, more importantly, Chau didn’t consent to this vulnerability. 

The cruelty of reality TV is the same — if not worse, in the context of social media — but our framing around it has changed. It’s in the best interest of The Ultimatum to label breakdowns as moments of self-discovery, and invasive filming as participants choosing to share their lives. And it’s easier for viewers to believe the therapy-talk of the TV host, and to dismiss reality TV as entirely fictional, rather than to see participants as humans in a vulnerable situation. Until The Ultimatum puts policies into place to actually protect their subjects instead of espousing vague goals of helping couples find love, and until viewers start questioning the feel-good narrative of these shows, this new approach to reality TV will continue to be inauthentic and exploitative.

The post The Ultimatum: Queer Love Doesn’t Have Much Love Behind It appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The comedy industry can be especially harrowing for young people, who are often limited in experience and connections because of their age. ComedyPRO hopes to break down some of these barriers for students interested in comedy but who are unsure what a career in the industry would look like. Specifically, ComedyPRO offers a student pass, which gives participants access to programming such as one-to-one talks with professionals, small roundtable discussions, and cast and expert panels. These discussions aren’t limited to the performance aspect of comedy, nor do they concern only stand-up work. ComedyPRO attendees will get to learn about animation, producing TV shows and short films, podcast creation, writing, and other behind-the-scenes work of a range of creative forms. 

ComedyPRO recently released details of many of the industry experts who will participate in the conference, all of whom hail from diverse backgrounds. Job titles include executive producer, creative network development manager, and VP Content Development & Programming. There are professionals from studios, broadcasters, and networks like CBC, HBO, and Hulu.  Participating in a professional conference isn’t only about connecting with experts – it’s also about forming friendships with people interested in similar art forms and establishing contacts with other budding professionals to collaborate on future projects. 

Emma Theroux, an industry coordinator at ComedyPRO, pointed out that the comedy industry can look scary from the outside, but this fear decreases when one gets acquainted with the inner workings. One of the goals of the student pass is to break down the barriers to entry of such a networking-heavy career. With all programming operating from a central location, the ComedyPRO team hopes to encourage impromptu meetings between attendees and professionals. 

ComedyPRO offers other programming to encourage emerging creatives throughout the year. The New Faces of Comedy showcase, for instance, is split between access by invitation and submission. Although submissions are closed for the year, successful comedians and creatives can be seen at the Just for Laughs festival this summer. There is also the short film showcase, Eat My Shorts, and a Stand Up and Pitch  program, both of which are also closed now for submissions but run annually.

In order to overcome networking nerves, ComedyPRO associate producer Mona Maarabani encourages students to do some preliminary research and then ask questions. She has found that most industry experts are humbled to be approached about what they love and are happy to share some words of wisdom. Despite the huge amount of work that goes into creating comedy, all workers are united with a love for the art form, and this camaraderie enables friendly relationships. 

While the complete program for the 2023 conference has yet to be announced, interested individuals can look to the 2022 programming for an idea of what to expect. In 2022, the ComedyPRO festival featured Amy Schumer’s award acceptance speech for best comedy person of the year as well as a keynote address by Neal Brennan with a special introduction by Jimmy Carr. An episode of the Off Menu with Ed Gamble and James Acaster was also recorded live.

Students can purchase a student pass on the Just for Laughs website. There’s a limited number of subsidized places available for students to participate behind the scenes – you can find the application here. You can also get involved with the Just for Laugh festival by applying for a job or applying to be a volunteer. 

The post Just for Laughs Get Serious with ComedyPRO appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Attendees discussed a motion called “Motion to Establish Remedies for Structural Portfolio Issues as a Priority for 2023-2024” which includes Kouchakji’s aforementioned proposal. It calls for the executives and commissioners of the upcoming year to prioritize this proposal, which outlines some suggested changes to the portfolios of executives and commissioners. The resolutions in the motion compel the executive-commissioner caucus to develop a workplan and provide updates to the council on the implementation of the proposal. Kouchakji noted during the meeting that the proposal is simply meant as a starting point in a larger conversation. 

The current composition of the executive and commissioner caucus is six executives and nine commissioners. The proposal replaces these positions with six executives with slightly varying titles or duties from previous executives, one deputy, and seven commissioners. If the proposal was implemented as written, the Secretary-General position would be renamed to an Internal Governance Officer and would have a larger focus on inward facing tasks. In her defence of the motion, Kouchakji argued that the Secretary-General juggles too many roles: being a spokesperson, administrative coordinator, and governance officer. Other executive and commissioner roles would be slightly adapted, in name, responsibilities, and seats on committees. Kouchakji described some of these changes as “little tweaks which makes roles more legible for people who might want to run for them.”

Also in the proposal is that the executive position of the Financial Affairs Officer would be dissolved and replaced by a Fees and Grants Deputy. The concept of a deputy role was justified by Kouchakji as a middle ground between the 12-hour work week of an executive and the 4-hour work week of a commissioner – a compromise which has been shot down in the past, according to her. The proposal gives no recommendation as to whether this position be elected or appointed, but it does acknowledge that this issue warrants later resolution.

In a letter to the Daily, Kouchakji said that “we’re stuck in a structurally enforced situation of inequitable work distribution, inequitable compensation, burnout, and frustration”. These concerns are also found in the proposal’s claims of areas it intends to improve. The motion accompanying the proposal contains 19 whereas clauses, and it establishes a context of unbalanced executive and commissioner portfolios. One whereas clause states that some roles demand more hours than those calculated in determining the annual salary. Another clause states that “a significant amount of work is not undertaken as it does not appear to be understood as necessary by the individuals in the roles.” It is unclear why these individuals are purposefully forgoing responsibilities without the direction of the council. 

“We’re stuck in a structurally enforced situation of inequitable work distribution, inequitable compensation, burnout, and frustration”

Kristi Kouchakji

The 2022-2023 university Affairs Officer Houssein Poorhemati asked Kouchakj if she had spoken to the executive team about her proposal. She replied that she had not, as the executive team is answerable to the council. In a letter to the Daily, Kouchakji acknowledged that she did not involve her colleagues due to not wanting to “put anyone in a potential conflict of interest situation” and added that, “I did take into account their comments during mid-year reviews and at Council to help identify less-obvious stumbling blocks to addressing our structural issues and help shape potential solutions.” To write the proposal, Kouchakji also looked back on her notes from mid-year reviews and considered other proposals that she had made over her year as Secretary-General. 

The resolutions of the motion were split between how to implement the proposal and who will oversee its implementation. One confusion that arises is who will undertake the work of the proposal implementation. The proposal itself assigns responsibility to the Policy and Advisory Committee. Meanwhile, the 16th whereas clause cites councillors, members at-large, the Governance Committee, or the Policy and Structure Advisory Committee as candidates for implementing the proposal. This is followed by the clause which notes that the two committees are “often not seen as a priority for recruiting members to serve”. It is then suggested, in the following clauses, that executives and commissioners take on these responsibilities, effectively removing councillors and members-at-large from the decisions about internal structure. 

Poorhemati pointed out during the council meeting that while a whereas clause in the motion states “the outcome of [the general meeting] discussion was a generally favourable disposition among members towards the proposed changes,” one could equally argue that there was a generally unfavourable disposition among members. To this, Kouchakji replied that whereas clauses are typically not debated.

The motion passed with 20 votes for, 7 abstentions, and 2 against, despite the motion prompting mostly critical debate. That being said, it was the only motion of the evening to not be passed unanimously. Koulchakji’s term as Secretary-General has just ended, and as of now, there is no replacement. PGSS is currently undergoing its second by-election for the Secretary-General position. Koulchakji stated in the council meeting that the council needs to have a significant degree of participation in the execution of the proposal, but in her motion she predicts the need for executives and commissioners to take on the majority of the work. 

Without the explicit support of the rest of the executive team, it is unclear whether Koulchakji’s proposal will amend some of the current PGSS governance issues. It is also unclear who will conduct that work, and how they will ensure a council-centered decision making process. 

If regular members are interested in learning more about the meeting, the PGSS Bylaws mandate that the minutes of council meetings be available upon request.

The post PGSS Council Adopts Secretary-General’s Proposal appeared first on The McGill Daily.

I was first initiated into the world of personality tests as a teenager. Around the same time I was exploring my sexuality, other identifying markers became available to me – namely, the microlabels assigned to me by quizzes on the internet. First, lauded by zealous middle school teachers, there was a quiz to discover our learning types, which was a product of the paid platform Career Cruising. The assessment was called Learning Styles Inventory, and it consisted of a mere 20 questions to determine whether we were visual, auditory, or tactile learners. A few months later, our class did a Myers-Briggs test. As a lover of systems, the acronyms and neat classifications were a welcome mindframe to me. 

The draw toward self-exploration was a healthy impulse. Especially as young adults, there are a lot of unkowns one has to grapple with: Who are you? Who do you identify with? Who is your community? 

The potentially destructive facet is the advice that is given as a consequence. The learning type quiz dictates which educational environment you will thrive in. The Myers-Briggs test identifies supposed flaws in your personality. There is also the Big Five Personality Test, which claims to identify your openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism. Another popular personality test, Enneagram, has a focus on self-improvement, meaning you are expected to rehabilitate your personality based on your results. 

Advice that is anything other than individual is doomed to ignore traits – or combinations of traits – that are unique to a person. These tests also work on an assumption that we can accurately interpret possibly unclear questions and that we are able to accurately identify some pretty sweeping personality traits in ourselves. 

Take a look at the Learning Styles Inventory, for example. The question, “If learning to cook, I would rather: a) follow written recipes; b) create my own recipes, tasting as I cook; or c) be told how to cook” simplifies an activity with dozens of factors. For instance, the answer will change based on experience with cooking, and it is hard to answer if someone has no cooking experience at all. The question, “I find it easiest to remember: a) names; b) things I have done; or c) faces” is simply baffling, especially given that option b) can encompass all of human memory. Even ignoring the possible confusions in these questions, they point to superficial qualities in a person and assign them undue importance. At best, the Learning Styles Inventory is a frivolous introduction to learning styles, but the corresponding study tips imply that the Inventory tries to take itself seriously. There is no information on the Career Cruising website concerning the reasoning behind the questions. 

The Big Five test is a more comprehensive questionnaire, allowing you to do a 300-question personality test. Although I imagine these results could be quite specific to the person, spending so much time self-analyzing can become unhealthy. It is a way of thinking about identity that is divorced from the community around you. With 300 questions, trivial subjects surface. The effect of “I love action” or “I go straight for the goal” on any of the Big Five traits is never explained. The calculations behind the results are a black box, and there is no way to discern how the test uses the data it collects to form its conclusions. While the Big Five test was created by psychologists with the backing of evidence, some online assessments have been revealed to produce sexist results – ranking women as more disagreeable than men for the same traits depending on what gender one self-identifies as. This is because results are shown in comparing other test-takers with the same gender.

The Enneagram test attempts the most ambitious stab at your personhood. According to the website Truity, the Enneagram identifies a core belief that “drives your deepest motivations and fears — and fundamentally shapes a person’s worldview and the perspective through which they see the world and the people around them.” The framework is self-confident, but Professor Sanjay Srivastava of the Department of Psychology at the University of Oregon points out the lack of evidence and scientific theory behind the test. The fact that Enneagram does not acknowledge the lack of scientific background suggests that it is a commercial rather than evidence-based model.

Myers-Briggs has accrued credibility by basing the test off of psychologist Carl Jung, and approximately 3.5 million tests are administered each year. Despite the confidence in Myers-Briggs, it lacks empirical evidence to support the veracity of claims to capture someone’s personality. In an interview between a University of Wharton journal and Merve Emre, an associate professor of English at Oxford University, Emre claims 50 per cent of people who take the test receive different results a second time. Emre also points out that when participants disagree with their results in workplace evaluations, they are often told by MBTI test administrators that they’re not interpreting the results correctly. 

If anything, these tests are able to  monitor our perception of ourselves – a very subjective experience that concrete questions can never fully account for. 

Yet another flaw is that these tests are static. They record a moment in time, while our experiences in life are constantly shaping how we interact in the world. Another pitfall is confirmation bias, a phenomenon where we are more likely to believe evidence that supports our existing beliefs. Thus, when we receive results that validate our opinions of ourselves, we may accept them without enough critical consideration. 

Finally, many of these personality tests cater to a specific audience – they are not universal. This was recently found in a study on the Big Five Test: a translated version of the test was given to a small South American tribe, and the results did not cluster into the expected five types. Not only do the tests lose accuracy when applied across various demographics, but they also reflect a rigid interpretation of personality. To put stock into such models limits our perceptions of people through a Western gaze.  

Although I can understand the temptation to neatly classify a chaotic assortment of values and quirks, I am learning to embrace the ways humans are unable to be described in a paragraph. I am also learning to describe myself based on the actions I do for others and the way I react to real-life experiences, rather than trying to extrapolate meaning from vague statements such as “I am always prepared” (the Big Five). Although I will keep doing personality tests for fun, I will no longer be putting stock in them. 

The post The Danger of Personality Tests appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Despite the organization’s disappointing track record, every March hopeful SSMU executives continue to envision a brighter tomorrow. In studying the past ten years, we have seen platforms fall in and out of favour, such as political neutrality and financial reform. We have also seen election campaigns detail projects that take years, rather than a single term, to come to fruition: notably, a fall reading week and the sexual violence policy, which cropped up many times before being implemented – or, in the case of the fall reading week, partially implemented. 

Process and Caveats

In the following piece, I look at the promises SSMU presidential candidates have made in the last ten years at a quantitative level. Although I was able to access pen sketches dating back a few years, candidate platforms have not been systematically archived. As a result, the keywords I used were plucked from endorsements written by the Daily, The McGill Tribune, and The Bull & Bear. When a candidate attaches a key tenet to their platform, I record the tenet, in a phrase of one to four words, in a spreadsheet that can be accessed on the online version of this article. I select the six most stressed tenets from each candidate unless the candidate has fewer than six tenets. The project is to record the trajectory of the past ten years – to identify promises that resurface time and again – and to contemplate why some concerns are never resolved.

I have merged the terms “sexual assault policy” and “sexual violence policy” into “sexual violence policy” given the recent semantic shift to using the word “violence” in place of “assault.” Some candidates mentioned a desire to hold office hours without using that phrase – I took the liberty of assuming these candidates referred to office hours. My only other amalgamation is “marginalized groups.” Some candidates mentioned specific demographics – for instance, women or racialized students – and since I was interested in capturing the broader trend of advocating for marginalized demographics as a platform, I grouped all relevant uses into the term “marginalized groups.”

I acknowledge that secondary sources are not an ideal way to capture the platforms of candidates. There is the potential for bias on behalf of student newspapers, especially when it manifests in censorship or the undue stressing of a relatively minor tenet. This issue has been somewhat mitigated by using multiple sources, but it will not disappear entirely.

The platforms of candidates sometimes change, and one could not expect to capture all the nuances of a platform in a spreadsheet. That being said, I was surprised while reading the platforms at how easily the candidates’ ideas could be collapsed into a select few phrases. It seems there has been a consistent use of one-word values – take our trio of sustainability, accountability, and communication – without elaboration. 

Results 

In ten years, there have been 25 presidential candidates, meaning each election has had an average of 2.5 students running for president of the union.

There are 99 tenets in total. Some are quite specific, such as “restore McGill’s institutional reputation” (2014, Johnson) and “group therapy sessions” (2016, Ger). Others seem like peculiar strategies: I think of the mySSMU app proposal from Darshan Daryanani (2021), or the 2015 candidate Alexei Simakov, who said to the Daily that rather than politics, he wants to focus on issues that have broad student support, such as how cold the McLennan Library is. (Another gem from Simakov: “I’m not someone who’s been engaged with student government at any point, I’ve always been the opposition.”)

The values that come to the forefront during presidential campaigns are markers of broader issues on campus. For instance, two out of the four mentions of a proposed sexual violence policy  take place in 2017, following the allegations against the 2016 VP External. This increase in attention can also be seen in action; in 2018, SSMU hired a sexual violence policy project coordinator and created the Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy (GSVP). On the other hand, it is disheartening to note that the creation of a sexual violence policy was proposed as early as 2015. The candidate who proposed the policy lost, and the lack of a sexual violence policy presumably contributed to SSMU’s inaction after the allegations. This year, presidential candidate Alexandre Ashkir aims to expand the grocery program, and candidates for other SSMU positions have similarly voiced concerns about food insecurity, a hot-button issue on campus spearheaded by Let’s Eat McGill. 

It’s obvious that 2016–17 was an especially tense year from reading the 2017 candidates’ platforms. Tojiboeva started by acknowledging student distrust, Ogendeji’s platform centered on “rebuilding trust,” and Shannon wanted to introduce more opportunities for students to voice their concerns.

One key takeaway from the timeline of the three most common platform promises is that they don’t follow a linear path. That being said, we see sharp increases in concern over accountability in 2019 and 2020, with every single candidate mentioning accountability. I hypothesize that this is in part due to controversies surrounding a free trip to Israel offered to SSMU executives and a failed General Assembly. Communication falls in favour slightly over 2015 to 2022, perhaps due to its vagueness. Sustainability is in a recent upward trend since 2018, and might be resurfacing in popularity due to increasing interest in environmental  sustainability.  Now, we take a look at the less popular, but perhaps more telling,  values.

Here, we see the partial success of the fall reading week promise, and we can track the advocacy work toward it; fall reading week is mentioned in 2018, 2019, and 2020. The three consecutive years of effort accentuate the inability of SSMU presidents to achieve concrete action within their one-year terms. They also suggest that candidates often borrow from previous candidates’ platforms, perhaps because they are aware that certain issues were important to previous voters. 

Even when participation in the SSMU end-of-year elections was higher, attendance at general assemblies (GAs) was a concern for candidates, first being mentioned by unsuccessful candidate Chris Bangs in 2013. Interestingly, the winner, Katie Larson, held a staunchly opposing stance. She did not plan to modify the structures of either the GA or of SSMU itself, and she was decidedly apolitical. Perhaps students saw her as a more realistic candidate than the Divest McGill activist Bangs, or they didn’t see GA participation as important to campus life. 

Concern for marginalized groups has seen a consistent increase over time. This is perhaps unsurprising, as issues of racism, sexism, and queerphobia have broken into mainstream discourse. We can also track the slow creation of the sexual violence policy over the years. Funnily enough, there is one mention of interest in a sexual violence policy after the sexual violence policy was created in 2017. 

How does a candidate’s platform correlate with their success at the polls? Considering that there have been ten winners, I filtered the successful candidates from the rest and reran the program. Unsurprisingly, similar values rose to the top.

Sustainability, accountability, and communication are over-represented in the winning faction (3/10 compared to 3/15), while prioritizing office hours is less popular among winners (1/10 compared to 3/15). Half of politically neutral candidates win their campaigns.  The first mention of it came from Larson in 2013 (won), then Simakov in 2015 (lost), then Sinder in 2016 (lost), and then Mansdoerfer in 2018 (won). 

 Perhaps most notably, all candidates to mention fall reading week won their campaigns, highlighting the chokehold the issue had on McGillians’ hearts (while also being a concrete and feasible goal). 

Conclusion

This year’s SSMU presidential election is different from any of the previous elections analyzed. We have no choice between platforms and only one voice to define the upcoming academic year. For the first time since SSMU Elections has kept accessible records on election results, a presidential candidate is running unopposed.

Although the results of previous elections reveal a steady stream of nearly identical, often one-worded campaign promises, and although the repetition of these platforms suggests that SSMU presidents are not entirely able to deliver on their assurances, a diversity of voices is essential to a functioning democratic student society.

2022 saw the lowest voter turnout since SSMU election turnout was recorded in the elections archive in 2012. The turnout was only 12.9 per cent of students voting. The 2023/2024 presidential candidate running unopposed is the most recent symptom of mistrust in and apathy toward SSMU. We can’t fault students: SSMU’s rocky history, evidenced by its inaction, by executive missteps, and by a lack of diversity in candidate platforms, creates a (perhaps not incorrect) impression that voting is merely an illusion of choice. A deeper dive into issues of student governance which lead to student apathy can be found in clumsy voting portals, insufficient training for incoming executives, and unpaid labor are some of the factors causing students to give up on SSMU. 

Student participation is mentioned as a platform in three of the campaigns I looked at, engagement in two more. GA engagement is also mentioned twice. It is disheartening to realize that these were central platforms even in times of higher participation and engagement. 

Future Work

This sort of analysis is ripe with potential. The main concern is the small sample size; a sample of ten is not large enough to conduct most statistical inquiries, such as whether any platforms are able to predict the success of a candidate. 

While I’m not qualified to try to solve the incredibly complex issue of voter apathy, I suggest that more concrete platforms, along with recognition of multi-year projects and an attention to our student government history, are essential in rebuilding trust in SSMU.  

The post A Decade of Promises appeared first on The McGill Daily.

It is tempting to jump to a first conclusion that cheating has run rampant during the ChatGPT era, and to a second conclusion that with plagiarism detection tools, we should now return to a pre-ChatGPT world. Both assumptions would misunderstand the unique capabilities – and limitations – of ChatGPT. 

First consider that ChatGPT was never an excellent essay writer. It functions by predicting the next most likely words in a passage, meaning it cannot truly comprehend concepts. When prompted to craft original work, ChatGPT echoes broad sentiments from its training data without being able to provide a source. ChatGPT is also notorious for fabricating false citations. Although ChatGPT is capable of regurgitating common ideas in a repetitive style, it lacks the gravity or insights that distinguish great pieces of writing. 

DetectGPT is another algorithm recently developed to aid in machine generated text detection for large language models (LLMS), including ChatGPT. LLMS are trained on huge data sets, and then generate sentences by predicting future words. Arxiv, a paper written by the creators,  identifies an application of LLMS as “replacing human labor.” The phrasing implies that replacing human labor in an academic or journalistic setting must be exposed and presumably prevented, yet the question of which human labor is and is not appropriate to replace with machines is ongoing. However, there are clearly some domains where fragments of information are cushioned by linguistic formalities, such as a cover letter or emails which follows a rigid form. Here, because of the massive training datasets that follow similar linguistic patterns, ChatGPT  elegantly succeeds in predicting common forms. 

The idea of relegating emails, CVs, or Slack messages to a computer has less repercussions than to pass off an entire essay. The former depends heavily on forms that require no creativity, and often need to be packaged in purposefully verbose platitudes. These shorter messages, however, would also be more difficult for a detection software to spot. 

The idea of AI writing our emails conjures a droll image of the future, of an individual sending a machine generated email to the receiver, who in turn uses AI to summarize the contents. A possible conclusion from this is that we need to let go of email formalities altogether. Perhaps a future workforce will discontinue the necessary “Good day! Hope this finds you well. Shall we double back on this issue next meeting?” corporate vernacular. 

To those that struggle with English, ChatGPT is also a resource, constructing grammatically correct and mostly socially concordant phrases from an idea. In this way, AI levels the playing field. The ability to regurgitate the formats and traditions of emails, cover letters, reports, is of less importance when that task can be entrusted to artificial intelligence. 

The uses of ChatGPT are widespread. A recent post in r/consulting asks redditors how they utilize ChatGPT for consulting work. Responses include summarizing ideas for presentations, crafting a maternity leave message, and technical coding questions. 

In contrast to current concerns, I posit that academics and journalists are safer from replacement. These industries are built off of rigorous research and artful writing, two tenets which ChatGPT, as a language model, cannot embody. However, some careers may dwindle with much of its appeal now supplanted by artificial intelligence. For instance, ChatGPT can create balanced and personalized diet plans, and answer basic customer support. That being said, its disposition for hidden errors makes it unlikely to be more reputable than a professional. ChatGPT, for now, is best served as a tool for generating text which can then be approved by humans. 

In essence, AI detection software will hopefully quell the panic of academic plagiarism, and attention can then be paid to alternative uses. Meanwhile, AI detection software does not prevent the use of ChatGPT to automate some everyday formulaic tasks. In the future, perhaps the workforce will acknowledge the needlessness of overly procedural pieces of writing, and we can assign ChatGPT to more creative uses. 

The post GPT Detectors Seem Like the End of the Era, but ChatGPT Still Has Potential appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The band started off small; their first EP,  released in 2002, was self-titled and self-produced. All members of the original group were based in Montreal. Butler was studying religious studies at McGill. Butler’s future partner, Regine Chassagne, and Josh Deu, were studying at Concordia. For these reasons, many McGillians, Montrealers, and Canadians feel connected to Arcade Fire’s members and their journey to stardom. 

Four people have now accused Butler of sexual misconduct and assault. At the time of the incidents, the survivors’ ages varied from 18 to 23, while Butler was 34 to 38. The allegations are backed up by text messages sent to Pitchfork (which first broke the story) and by friends corroborating the survivors’ stories, although they have not been proved in court. While one accusation involves an instance of groping, most of the incidents are alleged to have taken place online. Survivors stated that they started as Arcade Fire fans before Butler came in contact with them and asked them to send him sexual videos and photos. Although Butler denies the accounts, he did later “apologize for any harm done” in a second statement sent to Pitchfork. Butler also admits to having been in relationships and to sexting with fans over a decade younger than him. The stories show a persistent pattern of predatory and harmful behaviour. 

This fundamental shift in character has been difficult to grapple with for the band’s large following. Recent posts on the subreddit r/arcadefire perfectly display some fans’ struggle to reconcile their emotional ties with recent developments. At the time of the Pitchfork article’s publication, when sorting through the top posts of all time, “A woman attempted suicide because of Win Butler’s sexual harassment” comes first and “Win took our phone last night, and this happened!” comes second. 

Perhaps the reason people find it so heartbreaking to swear off Arcade Fire is because of their music’s vulnerability, which is a source of solace for many. Their first album, Funeral, released in 2004, is about personal grief. One particularly raw song from their discography, “Creature Comforts,” tackles depression and suicidal thoughts. It’s difficult to listen impassionately to the lyrics: “She told me she came so close/Filled up the bathtub and put on ourfirst record.” 

Parasocial relationships have been developed over years through interviews that reveal Butler’s quiet charisma and  humble, down to earth nature, often going out of his way to credit outside influences and speaking about the spirituality of music. In an interview with Tom Power, Butler is open about his depression at a young age, which resurfaces in his discography, particularly songs like “Unconditional I” and “Age of Anxiety I.” It’s a powerful story for those who’ve faced similar struggles. 

Conflicting attitudes on how to move forward knowing Butler’s crimes are especially relevant considering the upcoming shows. Fans will be forced to choose  whether to support a known abuser or to compartmentalize these scandals to maintain the magic. 

An immediate defensive reaction argues that the music Arcade Fire creates is divorced from Butler himself. However, Butler is impossible to avoid in the band’s work. His voice is present in all the songs, and he tends to dominate the stage. More than a lead vocalist and writer, Win Butler was a person we could trust. 

To condemn a fan for going to a concert is unproductive, especially when Ticketmaster is refusing refunds. A more fruitful approach might be to question the instinct to defend Butler from deserved accountability. Often, parasocial relationships can form between fans and famous personas who seem down to earth or approachable. But the persona emanating from Butler, or indeed any celebrity, is a facade, given the distance between the rich and famous and the average person. Butler’s own underdog narrative is an especially biting blow considering how he has abused his status as a person with a fanbase. Butler’s public personality is cherry-picked; his interviews and articles did not reveal his relationships with much younger women until Pitchfork broke the story. Butler’s outward humility diverts attention from the power of his celebrity status. The perception of the public that Butler was “one of the good ones” allowed him to exploit his younger fans for years before the survivors disproved that impression. If we are to take away anything from this, perhaps it is to stop idolizing those we don’t know in person and abstain from worshiping celebrities.

The post A Reckoning within the Arcade Fire Fandom appeared first on The McGill Daily.