Shortt has produced an annual report at the behest of each SSMU VP University Affairs for the past four years. This year’s report contains the results of the 2010 Vulcan Student Survey, completed by 1,193 students – about five per cent of the undergraduate class.

One of the report’s main focuses is workforce preparedness. Of the students surveyed, only six per cent of U1 students and nine per cent of U3 students considered themselves very well prepared to enter the workforce, while twenty per cent of U1 students and 33 per cent of U3 students felt well prepared.

In an email to The Daily, Shortt said, “This pattern of poor performance on McGill’s part is particularly troubling, given that most undergraduates place a high importance on employability and workforce-related skills.”

Another point of concern highlighted by the report was academic advising. Only 15 per cent of first-year students and eight per cent of students in their graduating year agreed that they were satisfied with the program advising they had received. According to the report, many students stated that the program advising they received was often “revealed to be unhelpful over time and in many cases prevented them from reaching their academic and personal goals.”

Findings on academic gains, and students’ abilities to retain information were equally concerning. Only five per cent of students ranked their “ability to recall facts or background material related to [their] discipline” as “very good.” Further, seven per cent of students strongly agreed that “I receive extensive feedback on my assignments and exams.”

The library received high marks, with 68 per cent of students agreeing that, “The library is comfortable and inviting” and 59 per cent agreeing that, “There are enough quiet study spaces for individuals in the library.”

Shortt said, “The library has always been very supportive of the survey and always takes a keen interest in its results.”

Within the Equity and Diversity section of the report, Shortt also reported that, although only nine per cent of white students felt, “or have been made to feel, uncomfortable on campus due to [their] race or ethnicity” – compared to 36 per cent of non-white students – it is important to focus on their feeling included on campus. He wrote that some white students “felt excluded from groups which focused on a specific ethnic group or gender.”

Emily Clare, SSMU Equity Commissioner, was “not surprised” with the report’s findings. She noted the importance of keeping up with the trends mentioned, as “equity is constantly changing and evolving.”

When gender or nationality-specific groups meet, explained Clare, “It’s not to exclude people. It’s about community within a specific subset of individuals. These tensions are a part of our human existence. McGill is a really great place to learn about inter-group dynamics – it’s a microcosm of the larger world,” said Clare.

Shortt clarified that his role in this process was not to lobby for policy changes.

“As a researcher, my role was to gather and report data. Which means, of course, that the report is all problems and no solutions,” he said.

Josh Abaki, SSMU VP University Affairs, said that “the data that we gathered from the survey will form the basis for discussion on different Senate committees and Faculty councils…and some points will be raised up at Senate.”

Shortt also stated that Morton Mendelson, Deputy Provost Student Life and Learning, had received and commented upon the report, “He seemed to be genuinely interested in what students had to say, and in identifying how their experiences of McGill’s strengths and weaknesses mapped onto the strengths we aspire to.”

“Of course it’s early,” said Shortt, “so it’s impossible to say whether that commitment will be continued. I’m optimistic though.”

The post Report reveals student displeasure appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Soon we take a sharp right turn off the road, pulling slowly through a set of metal gates into the NGO headquarters in Ramogi village that will be our home for the next seven weeks. My expectations of Uganda, my preconceived notions about a starved and desolate Africa, flash through my mind as we are greeted with a scene of undiluted joy. Hundreds crowd the compound, revelling in an atmosphere of euphoria pierced by the ululating of elderly women. They’ve been waiting for us. The humid air is saturated with laughter and singing. We are swarmed by so many colours, so many faces and pulsating bodies that my head begins to spin. Where are the suffering multitudes, the desperate children waiting for our help? No matter how our friends and family may perceive it, it is not as if we are parachuting down from our world of plenty to lift people out of the darkness and uncertainty, providing them with stability and a chance to survive. Far from it.

This past summer, I spent seven weeks in the village of Ramogi, hosted by the Uganda Orphans Rural Development Programme (UORDP). I was part of a small group of university-aged North Americans on a program, Volunteer Summer, run by American Jewish World Service (AJWS), a non-profit organization that works to support grassroots development efforts across the world, and to educate the American Jewish community about international and domestic social justice issues. Most of my time in Ramogi was spent working on construction projects with a local crew and otherwise engaging with the community. Over the course of our stay, we helped to prepare a block of early childhood development classrooms for roofing, built an open-air market stall with a women’s microfinance group, and assisted in the roofing of a church.

Ramogi is a small village located deep in Uganda’s eastern Tororo district, about half an hour’s drive over bad roads from the local centre, and national backwater, also named Tororo. The district is known for its crippling HIV infection rates, and also for its bustling trade in cement and marijuana, the latter of which is smuggled into neighbouring Kenya. Tororo district is home to about 500,000 people, many from the Adhola tribe, who come from the Luo ethnic group, and migrated south from Sudan centuries ago.

In sharp contrast to the foundation myths of other peoples, typically shrouded in sanctity and innocence, Adhola elders will tell you with great enthusiasm how they brutally displaced the tribes of eastern Uganda and settled on the most fertile land. Though elders remain steeped in tribal lore, and though a sense of peoplehood and mutual responsibility is ever-present, the modern world has crept into this corner of East Africa, slowly dissipating tradition and grafting Adhola identity onto the canvas of Christianity. The Adhola ethnicity is made up of approximately 52 separate clans, such as the Ramogi and the unfortunately-named K.K. Clan.

While Uganda is certainly more politically stable now than in past years, this stability is not necessarily beneficial. Current President Yoweri Museveni’s tenure extends back 24 years, with no end in close sight. Constant during his presidency has been a stunning lack of investment or devotion of resources in much of the country outside his native area of Mbarara. According to a local official in Tororo district, “The manner in which resources have been used has never benefitted the common man.” This leaves a tremendous void for civil society to fill.

The village sprawls into the hills, largely invisible from the wide dirt path serving as the main arterial road for foot traffic and the occasional motorcycle or car. The hills are low and pale green, dotted with clusters of mud huts with thatched banana leaf roofs interspersed with the occasional brick building. The path is constantly bustling, as village residents (mostly subsistence farmers) walk back and forth. Adults would politely smile at us, while children followed us in large groups, pointing at us and yelling “muzungu” (white person). We were a perplexing presence, especially to the village’s children. I will forever remember my second day in Ramogi, when a very young girl walked up to me, held my hand, counted the number of fingers, and was visibly shocked to see that I, just like her, have five.

In the heart of the village, near the compound where I was housed, are the school, church, and local bars. At Ramogi Primary School, children in royal blue uniforms crowd outside the classrooms. Although Ugandans now benefit from free universal primary education, this is unfortunately not helpful to most. Student-teacher ratios at Ramogi are commonly as high as 75 to one, with few students able to afford textbooks, paper, or pencils. Additionally, many students are malnourished to the extent that they are unable to actively participate in school. Given that many come out of school barely literate, and still unable to afford secondary or university education, many parents choose to keep their children at home to help with chores. This is a common and enormously frustrating trend in Ramogi. Although government funding for a certain baseline of educational and medical resources does exist, civil society must face the interconnected set of issues affecting residents head-on, including tremendous socioeconomic gaps between residents, lack of food security, malaria, HIV/AIDS, education, gender and property rights, and rampant alcoholism.

My experience this summer, in a manner of speaking, was priceless. I forged incredible relationships with Ugandans, learned an immeasurable amount about community-driven development, and pushed my cultural frontiers in ways I never thought possible. But, in the literal sense, my experience did have a very real price tag. It cost several thousand dollars on my end, in addition to the subsidy provided by AJWS. As well, substantial time and resources were dedicated to my group’s visit by Ramogi community leaders and the UORDP. The money that we spent on travel and accommodations theoretically could have gone straight to the community. Granted, my experience was tremendous, but did its impact justify its cost?
Jo Ann Van Engen, co-director of the semester in Honduras program at Calvin College, Michigan, addresses many of these issues in her 2000 article, “Short Term Missions: Are They Worth the Cost?” Van Engen identifies several tensions that cast doubt upon the value of short-term volunteer programs, although ultimately emphasizing the importance of such programs. She first cites the high cost of short-term programs, often as high as one-thousdand dollars for a two-week trip. Van Engen’s estimate is relatively conservative – Cross Cultural Solutions’ volunteer abroad program, for example, costs upwards of three thousand dollars for a two-week trip, excluding airfare.

After spending significant money to volunteer abroad, writes Van Engen, “Short-term mission groups almost always do work that could be done (and usually done better) by people of the country they visit.” This raises the question of whether these trips actually benefit the host community.

It is true that my work in Uganda certainly didn’t have to be done by me; my group did basic manual labour, mostly moving bricks and mixing mortar, alongside Ugandans doing the skilled work required. While this work could have easily been done by local workers, many of our contacts in Ramogi emphasized the point that our presence empowered the community and brought a spirit of volunteerism to the UORDP’s work.

Ofwono Hellen Ochieng, the UORDP area program manager for Tororo, highlighted the benefits of the program from the Ugandan end, noting that, “There is value added. In short I would say there is a contribution made by the volunteer program. It’s not just my opinion; generally that’s the reaction from whoever I interact with.” The volunteer program, said Ochieng, “contributes to the realization of some of the plans that were already raised by the community, and adds to the resources that we were not able to get from other sources. The program actually comes in to cover such funding gaps that we may not be able to raise directly from agencies. It can be quite difficult to convince a donor to support construction, but with the volunteer program we have managed to do just that.” She also cited the value of the experience from the standpoint of the volunteers, observing that, “Coming and living amongst the community affects their own attitudes and perceptions. … These kinds of settings provide an opportunity to acquire real knowledge through practice. While doing the work you may realize that making a contribution can change your life. There is a sense of fulfilment when you work directly with communities. It is about seeing people’s lives changed through the knowledge you have acquired.”

Dmitri Nicholson, director of Guyana Youth Challenge, hosts volunteers from across the developed world, for periods ranging from five weeks to two years. He laid out, from his perspective, the advantages of bringing in volunteers. “Because of the kind of relationship that you have with the other organizations that you work with,” he said, “it is an opportunity to foster partnerships, and it is supporting youth development on a global level.” Making reference to the concept of global citizenship, Nicholson continued, “If volunteers come and see what kind of activities are being done in Guyana, they may be able to advocate for these issues in their home countries, and to expand the network that the organization has globally.” Further, “They fill a human resource gap that the organization may not be able to afford.”

Nicholson drew a distinction between sustainable programs and “voluntourism,” a term he coined. “Voluntourism is where your volunteerism in a place is not tied to a larger goal of any sort,” he said. Although this type of volunteering still helps, and provides a formative experience in global citizenship for the volunteer, it is not nearly as impactful as it could be. He advised that potential volunteers be discriminating in selecting a host organization. “Make sure that the organization actually has a plan, so you know that you are fitting into a plan that is for the community. You want to be connected for something that, in five years, you can read a report and say, ‘I was attached to that.’ You don’t want your contribution to be dissolved after you leave.” He added, “People should look at the structures of the organization they hope to visit. Does the host organization have decision-making capabilities? Often, organizations receiving volunteers may not have much say in the goals that volunteers are hoping to reach. That is part of being an informed volunteer.” If the organization in question doesn’t have a solid structure and specific goals, says Nicholson, “it’s just a vacation.”

Van Engen’s husband and co-director of Calvin College’s Honduras program is a man named Kurt Van Beek. In 2007 Van Beek produced a study called “Lessons From a Sapling,” in which he measured the impact of volunteer trips to Honduras in the wake of Hurricane Mitch. He found that most Hondurans would prefer to be employed in building homes than to host groups doing so. “Nearly all Hondurans surveyed gave reasons why it was good for [short term] groups to come to Honduras, but in the end they believed that rather than using up resources on plane tickets, food, and lodging, North Americans could better spend their money on building more homes.”

Ver Beek’s analysis begs the additional question of whether North Americans participate in these programs primarily for their own sake, or specifically to aid communities in need. Van Engen underscores the need for a paradigm shift in international education, stating in her article, “I suggest we stop thinking about short-term missions as a service to perform and start thinking of them as a responsibility to learn.”

Interviewed in Honduras via email, Van Engen discussed the criteria for a more ideal short-term volunteer experience. “The ideal relationship between volunteer and host community,” she said, “should be one based on mutual respect and definitely a recognition on the part of the volunteers that they don’t have the answers. They can’t just come in and help, firstly because they don’t understand the culture or community they’ve just come into, and it’s always more complicated than it looks. Secondly, because real, sustainable change takes time and commitment and can’t happen in a one week stay.”

Van Engen and Van Beek are currently developing a model for successful short-term programs whereby groups are intended to engage more meaningfully with these questions. Actual volunteer work performed takes a backseat to the learning experience in this model. Van Engen stated that “the goal is both real learning – which would include how the politics, economics, and culture of a country impacts the community you are visiting – and the development of a long-term relationship in which everyone contributes and learns from each other.”

In “Short Term Missions: Are They Worth the Cost?” Van Engen is forthcoming in pointing out serious flaws in short-term programs, including high cost, cultural insensitivity and the dynamic of the relationship between volunteers and host communities. However, she is quite firm in pointing out the value of such programs. “We’re all interconnected,” she concludes. “The poor suffer in many ways because of the way wealthy countries interact with developing countries – economically and politically. Since we all live as citizens of this global world, I think we have a responsibility to understand it as much as we can and to work out for ourselves what we can do to make it a better place. And I think short-term trips can do that well when they are done thoughtfully and with a commitment to follow-up with participants on how they want to live after they return.”

Rachel Weinstein, AJWS Program Officer for Group Service Programs, discussed the importance of short-term programs from the perspective of AJWS, which sends out several hundred volunteers annually. One goal regarding participant experience is, to Weinstein, “producing participants who ask these questions [that we’ve been discussing]. Having people who are out there in the world thinking about their relationship to their surroundings has a lot of value.”

Another goal is, “for our participants to be exposed to, and begin to understand, the realities of life in the global south, and for people there to begin to understand that there are people outside of their communities who care about what their experience is, and support them in their effort to create solutions.”

The impact of these programs is, in some ways, quantifiable. Weinstein stated that AJWS polled program participants this year on the impact their experience abroad had had on them. Ninety-four per cent said that the program had a strong or life-changing effect on their attitude toward impoverished communities, while ninety per cent responded that it had changed affected their commitment to social justice issues.

“How can the value of these programs be maximized?” asked Weinstein. “Through participants who come back home and do something with what they learned and saw, through participants who use their resources to make change in the world, who mobilize their community to put pressure on decision makers on human rights issues, or spark their college campus to develop socially-conscious spending habits. We have many examples of participants who return to change their individual behaviour as well as their communities’ behaviour.”

I am undoubtedly among the 94 per cent of volunteers whose attitudes will never be the same. The way I think on a daily basis has been altered. Sometimes, when I let my mind drift, I find myself tracing the road back to Ramogi. I pull out of my driveway in the cool early morning haze and take the 401 west to Toronto’s Pearson Airport. Connect in New York and Amsterdam and eventually step out, bleary-eyed, onto Entebbe’s hard black tarmac. Drive past Kampala and through Jinja, exit the highway near Tororo and traverse those potholed-filled roads back into that familiar space where, if only in my imagination, those warm sounds of laughter and song still linger. A part of me is still in Ramogi, still clinging to the urgency and the frustration and the somehow-undiluted hope, even as I spend my days in the more comfortable and detached surroundings of downtown Montreal.

The connection that I made with the UORDP and Ramogi, forged through sweaty work on blistering mornings and tremendous moments of emotional hardship, cannot be severed. So, in the end, I’m still an overprivileged McGill student, and yes, I do feel good about having learned a great deal about development issues in Ramogi. These experiences are best approached, however, as a learning expectation, and not as an easy, one-off chance to save the world – or to have fun in the sun and feel good about it.

The post Overprivileged student goes to Africa, feels good about self appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The student-run Midnight Kitchen collective held an open “strategy session” September 27 to address the issue of food on campus. Collective member Carol Fraser explained their push for a boycott.

“The Midnight Kitchen collective was actively involved in the boycott of McGill food services the last time the Architecture Café was temporarily closed in 2007. … We are concerned about student’s input and active control on campus. As the last standing student-run food service [offering full meals], we felt the need and responsibility to do something in light of recent events and the overall trend in the past ten years,” wrote Fraser in an email to The Daily.

Ideas explored at the meeting included raising awareness amongst first-year students (many of whom have pre-purchased meal plans and must spend their money at McGill cafeterias), organizing a boycott of McGill food supplier Aramark, and strengthening alternative student-run food sources on campus. Fraser added that Midnight Kitchen is considering hosting cooking skill-shares and an increased serving capacity in conjunction with a larger boycott, but stressed that the collective is “not ‘spearheading’ so to speak.”

The EUS, which includes the Architecture Students Association as of this semester, also took action this week. At EUS council September 28, President Daniel Keresteci authored a motion proposing that the EUS officially register disapproval with the administration’s decision to close the Architecture cafe, and to earmark $500 in support of the campaign to bring back the café. The motion did not mention a boycott.

“I don’t think that the EUS mandating support of a boycott would achieve the aims that we are looking at,” said Keresteci.

On September 21, the EUS submitted a full business proposal to the administration, aiming to take full control of the Architecture Café’s operations if it were to be re-opened. “All the financial burden would be on us,” said Keresteci. As of press time, the administration had yet to respond.

AUS council approved a motion September 22 mandating that they explore the idea of day-long interfaculty food market, as well as taking initial steps toward a boycott of McGill food services. The motion, brought by Anthropology Students Association councillor Brittni Martin, was unanimously adopted by the council.

AUS President David Marshall explained the motion. “The proposed boycott is, as noted in the resolution, simply a proposed one: the representatives from AUS that approach EUS, ASA, and SSMU will simply suggest that a boycott take place to supplement any food market that may come into existence. It is certainly not set in stone, but the spirit of the motion – to encourage discussion and debate around the real issue of needing broad-based student consultation, as well as to bring to light the fact that students have many ideas as to how to run a food service on campus – remains intact.”

AUS operates one of the few remaining student-run food services on campus, SNAX in the Leacock building.

“SNAX has been a profitable business for us, and very beneficial for the students, as well as the faculty, that frequent it,” said Marshall, adding that business was up this year.

SNAX general manager Erin Schilling confirmed that business has been up this year, but reiterated that there are likely reasons beyond the closure of the Architecture Café.

“It’s not the sole factor, but you can’t really deny that we’ve picked up that clientele,” she said. “Being AUS-run, we try to keep our prices low. This year, we’ve tightened up the management. Making the store more accessible has also improved our business.”

Arts Senator Tyler Lawson and Councillor Kallee Lins submitted a motion to SSMU regarding the aftermath of the closure of the Architecture Café.

“On the basis that SSMU need represent student interest – which has been so clearly and continually demonstrated on Facebook, in the campus press, as well as at the rally last Wednesday – we will move that SSMU officially endorse and promote a boycott of McGill Food and Dining Services amongst its members until the Architecture Café is reopened,” said Lawson.

The Facebook event “Boycott McGill Food Services,” running from September 23 to December 31, had over 2,800 attendees when The Daily went to press.

The post Student groups tackle campus food appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Abidor’s arrest and the seizure of his laptop were prompted by a DHS policy that allows the search and seizure of personal electronic devices without reasonable suspicion.

The lawsuit argues a violation of Abidor’s 1st and 4th Amendment rights under the U.S. constitution, and is a potentially landmark case in defining the relationship between individual privacy and national security.

Railroaded on Amtrak
Abidor left Montreal May 1 on an Amtrak train bound for New York, intending to visit his family. At the American border, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official boarded the train and began questioning him. As an American and French citizen studying in Canada, Abidor informed her that he was pursuing a PhD in Islamic Studies.

After speaking with him about his studies and travel history and looking at his passports, the officer asked Abidor to move with her to another compartment of the train, where she took out and turned on his laptop, ordering him to provide his password.

After going through photographs that Abidor had downloaded from the internet, including ones of Hamas and Hezbollah rallies, the officer took him off the train. He was frisked and handcuffed, and placed in a detention cell at the port of entry in Champlain, NY. Before being released three hours later, he was questioned by CBP and FBI officials. When he was allowed to go, he was told that his laptop and external hard drive would remain in custody.

Upon his arrival in New York City, Abidor tried several times to contact the seized property office back in Champlain in order to recover his laptop and hard drive. He was rebuffed, told that the U.S. government had the authority to hold on to the laptop for up to 30 days.

“As soon as this happened I knew this was wrong on multiple levels,” he said. “It completely contradicts all my basic ideas of what the government should be able to do.”

Abidor then contacted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who drafted a letter to the DHS on Abidor’s behalf demanding that his laptop be returned. It was returned to him two days later, after a total of 11 days. By checking the last opened date of specific files on his computer, Abidor ascertained that many files on his computer had been searched, including research, downloads, personal photographs, tax records, and correspondence with his girlfriend. Having no legal recourse under current DHS policy, he decided to file suit.

“It wasn’t merely about getting my laptop back,” commented Abidor. “It was to attack the policy that enabled this to happen to me.”

Unreasonable suspicion
Abidor is in the second year of his PhD program at McGill’s Institute of Islamic Studies, and is researching the social history of Shiite Muslims in Lebanon in the 19th and 20th centuries. He insists, however, that his background of studying, and traveling to, the Middle East – he has travelled to Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt for his studies – is notespecially relevant in his case.

“Be wary,” he said. “For many students, I’d warn them about traveling across the border with their laptop. No one can take comfort in the fact that what my studies are may have been responsible for what happened to me. It’s an arbitrary thing that can happen at any point.”

Current DHS policy, enacted in August 2009, allows for the search and seizure of electronics by American border officials without any specific, provable suspicion against the individual possessing the electronics – typically referred to as reasonable suspicion.

Border searches, unlike all other types of search by American law enforcement agencies, do not require reasonable suspicion. When the policy was enacted, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano observed that, “keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States. The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

In addition to laptops, all electronics that a traveler may be carrying are eligible for search without reasonable suspicion, including mp3 players and phones. DHS spokesperson Amy Kudwa wrote in an email, “While we cannot comment on pending litigation, searches of laptops and other electronic media during secondary inspection are a targeted tool that CBP uses in limited circumstances to ensure that dangerous people and unlawful goods do not enter our country.”

Calling in reinforcements
Abidor’s lawsuit, filed with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Press Photographers Association as additional plaintiffs, is represented by the ACLU. Abidor said that the diversity of plaintiffs “really shows a good spectrum of the type of people who are negatively affected by this.” The government has 60 days to respond to the suit, which was filed last Tuesday in New York’s 2nd Circuit court.

Catherine Crump, the ACLU staff attorney responsible for Abidor’s case, explained that, “we chose to become involved in this case because we believe that constitutional violations occurring at the border are serious ones. We believe that the 1st amendment and 4th amendment prevent the Department of Homeland Security from searching laptops at border absent reasonable suspicion.”

The 1st amendment, upholding freedom of speech, and the 4th amendment, protecting against “unreasonable search and seizure,” form the backbone of the legal case against suspicionless searches at borders.

“After that, when he returned, he expressed interest in making sure that the government hadn’t kept any information about him that it had gleaned from his laptop through what we believe was an unconstitutional search,” continued Crump. “We asked that any information gathered from his laptop be expunged.”

The case’s stakes are high: approximately 6,600 travellers at American borders have had their laptops searched under this policy between October 2008 and June 2010.

Crump concluded, “Mr. Abidor’s goal, as well as that of our other clients, is to make sure no one has an experience like this again. The broad goal of the case is to get the court to declare suspicionless search unconstitutional. … While it is recognized that the government has more discretion at the border than elsewhere, we believe reasonable suspicion balances civil liberties, [which] we are all beneficiaries of, with the need to secure the border.”

The post McGill Student sues Homeland Security appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Created in the 1970’s, Humanistic Studies allowed students to build their own liberal arts program out of humanities and social sciences offerings. Students could focus on a theme of their choosing. Through an interdisciplinary lens, the two core courses address the question of what it means to be human. Each student, aside from general area requirements, formed their own “collateral concentration” of three classes in their desired programs at the 300 level or above, in consultation with an adviser.

Philosophy professor James McGilvray, who administers the program, said “the program’s advantages have been the degree of flexibility it offers and the opportunity to explore. The cost was sometimes a lack of focus and depth.”

The program had been reviewed frequently by the administration the past few years, and it finally decided to pull the plug at the end of the 2009 fall semester. Dean of Arts Christopher Manfredi stated that, “the Humanistic Studies program was retired because it was no longer serving the purposes for which it had been established in the early 70s. The decision to retire it was made after extensive consultation with faculty and students connected with the program, and after following all of the formal procedures within the Faculty and University.”

Student representatives selected from the Humanistic Studies Students Association were involved not only in the process of reviewing the old program, but in making recommendations for a new liberal arts program that will replace it.

“A department is being cancelled, so to have any student voice or involvement is pretty spectacular. I felt that, as a student ambassador on the committee, my opinions weren’t just tolerated, but actually taken into consideration,” said Liz English, one of the students who took part in this process.

Manfredi confirmed that a new interdisciplinary program is being crafted by a committee led by political science professor Jacob Levy, and is tentatively slated to open next fall if approved by the faculty and administration. According to English, the program in the works may offer honours and joint honours concentrations in addition to the major and minor. The program will also feature a language requirement.

“Undoubtedly, the new program is a step up from Humanistic Studies, if only just because there is more structure and legitimacy to the program as a whole,” said English.

The post Humanistic studies cancelled appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The building is located at 410 Sherbrooke West, just east of campus. When it opens in the fall of 2011, it will house roughly 270 McGill students. The hotel was bought for a reported 12.3 million dollars, which McGill declined to verify. The purchase of the Marriott represents the third major residential real estate acquisition by McGill this decade, coming after the Renaissance Hotel (now New Residence) in 2003 and the Four Points Sheraton (now Carrefour Sherbrooke) in 2009.

“The main reason is so that we can make good on our guarantee of housing,” explained Morton Mendelson, Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning.

At McGill, housing is guaranteed to all incoming first-year students under the age of 22. Previous real estate acquisitions, including the aforementioned hotels, have also been made in order to secure available housing for incoming students. Shortage of space in residence has proven troublesome in the past, most notably in the fall of 2008, when a building’s worth of apartment space had to be rented for first-year students lacking housing.

This year, according to Residences Director Michael Porritt, temporary housing had to be found for approximately 100 students as of move-in day. As in years past, many freshmen (also estimated at nearly 100) had to settle off-campus due to overflow. The newly-acquired Marriott will, when it opens its doors next year, help to accommodate a large number of students for whom housing would not be otherwise available.

By all indications, however, the Marriott is not an all-encompassing solution to McGill’s housing woes. McGill’s undergraduate class has been growing at an annual rate of 1%, roughly 200 students a year, and is projected to continue at this pace for the next two years. With no major real estate purchases slated for the near future students may still be left looking for housing options.

McGill’s budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year states that, “It has become increasingly difficult to not only sustain McGill’s quality (and its approximate 29,000 students) while positioning the University to enhance its competitiveness in the future, but also to meet our obligation to reduce annual operating deficits and achieve a breakeven budget by [fiscal year] 2011.”

Mendelson explained the process behind the purchase.

“The university took out a bond to raise money. The bond was issued with the understanding that all the money raised by the bond would go into projects that created a financial return,” he said.

According to Porritt, the Residences department serves as a self-sustaining financial system, generating its own revenues each year. “Residences and the University do not purchase anything that we cannot pay for,” he said.

SSMU President Zach Newburgh reflected on the growth of the undergraduate class.

“The SSMU is glad that the university is opening its doors to more and more students, but recognizes that students will be faced with some of the negative consequences that will follow, such as increases in class sizes, fewer opportunities to engage with professors directly, longer wait times with advisors and other administrators, as well as a slew of others,” he said.

-with files from Michael Lee-Murphy

The post Admin scoops up Marriott for new, new, New Rez appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Since the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into international law in 1948, this all-important tenet of “human rights” has been in a state of constant flux. Its plain meaning is crystal clear: absolutely all humans have the inalienable right to be recognized as humans. This maxim guarantees an array of fundamental rights and freedoms for all, regardless of who they are. Theoretically then, people are protected from state cruelty, religious intolerance, and many other atrocities. Today, these protections form much of the backbone of international law and – in many places – domestic law.

Unfortunately, this noble notion is often used and abused by individuals and groups attempting to promote a specific cause unrelated to human rights. Goetschel is one such user and abuser.

With his arguments, we enter the realm of the ridiculous. Goetschel, who spoke at McGill this Tuesday, is Switzerland’s – and the world’s – sole public animal rights lawyer. He was at the forefront of a heated public debate over a referendum this past week to appoint an animal rights lawyer in each of the 26 districts of Switzerland, funded by taxpayer money. The referendum failed, garnering less than 30 per cent of the vote.

Animal advocacy groups put the question to voters in response to perceived injustices to non-humans in Switzerland. Voters were not pleased – an attitude reflective of the absurd nature of this referendum in a country where popular support for animal protection is already quite high. Just look at the legislation already in place. Animals classified as social (including pigs, budgies, and even goldfish) are not allowed to be kept alone. People wishing to own pet dogs must undergo training courses. Farm animals are legally required to be exercised regularly.

So why, you might ask, should we begrudge these creatures the right to a lawyer? Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate animals. On the contrary, I am a devout vegetarian who can barely look at a piece of meat without cringing. I love my pet dog, and have verbally abused friends who see fit to ignore her. As much as I love animals, however, there is a certain line that our society cannot cross. We must show animal life respect, but not to the detriment of people. If you give animals the rights enjoyed by humans, then you strip “human rights” of their special meaning.

We need to consider some fundamental questions with far-reaching implications. Is there something exclusively human about our rights? Is there a line that separates human beings from animals? In allowing the campaign for animal protection to adopt the terminology of rights, we actually put our rights into question. Sure, it’s fine to say that animal protection laws must be enforced, but to use taxpayer funds to hire animal rights lawyers, even in a prosperous country like Switzerland, is madness. The 4.4 per cent of Swiss that are unemployed (as of 2009) need that money a whole lot more.

To be sure, animal welfare is important – we must act ethically toward animals. But Switzerland sent an important message by drawing the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights. A spectre has raised its cute, furry head, and we must put it down before it deprives us of our intrisic rights.

And in case you were worried, the Swiss fisherman was found not guilty. The pike was unavailable for comment.

Adam Winer is a U0 Arts Legacy student. Bark at him at adam.winer@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Swiss reject animal lawyers appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The last few weeks have been marred by tense and divisive campus politics. Many individuals and groups have felt marginalized, threatened, or simply ignored. It doesn’t seem to click in people’s minds that others disagree with their viewpoints for reasons that may be valid, and that no amount of name-calling and finger-pointing can change that. The leaders of various organizations and the authors of several motions put forward at last week’s General Assembly (GA) treated students as pawns to be swayed in one direction or the other. No meaningful information was proffered; we were bombarded with slogans and posters and flyers. Advocates of the motion regarding Discriminatory Groups maintained that a vote against the motion was unequivocally a vote against women’s rights. Detractors of the motion insisted with equal vehemence that a vote for the motion was a stand against freedom of speech. Note the absence of effort to find any sort of middle ground. Sorely lacking was the acknowledgement that the tension inherent in this issue indicates that both of these values are quite important. None of that – you’re either pro or anti.

So where do we go from here? Campus is effectively polarized; we have all retreated to our little groups; no meaningful headway has been made on the issues that affect us. I suggest an approach that many express intangible support for, but few care to make a reality. I’m talking about dialogue. Not the vague, politicized notion of dialogue exploited by Sana Saeed in last week’s Daily (“Operation Cast Lead comes to campus,” Commentary, February 11), but something substantial. Real dialogue means a serious evaluation of one’s own beliefs and the beliefs of others. It means setting aside your antipathy for viewpoints that contradict your own and genuinely listening to those with whom you do not see eye to eye. I wonder how Saeed intends to build dialogue and feels confident in asserting that those who disagree with her are stifling it when she adamantly denies the right of Zionists to even have an opinion. Once you realize that the “enemy” (insert person or movement of personal relevance here) has a face, is a real person, and has genuine reason to believe what they believe, perhaps that elusive middle ground can be found.

Let’s get the discussion out in the open. Rather than waiting for institutions and student groups to do it for us, let’s each work to build the cohesive campus community to which we have the right. Instead of silently simmering when someone disagrees with you, engage with them. If someone writes an editorial that doesn’t sit well with you, contact them and respectfully voice your opinion over a coffee. When you grant other people the right to an opinion, you open up whole new worlds of possibility. It’s that simple. So what are you going to do? Are you listening, or is your mind already made up?

Adam Winer is a U0 Arts student. Write him at AdamBWiner@gmail.com.

The post Listening with fresh ears appeared first on The McGill Daily.