Kofi Norsah, the complainant, alleges to have been the victim of discrimination based on his race and sexual orientation during his internship at the Saint Columba House (SCH), a community ministry of the United Church of Canada located in the Pointe St. Charles neighbourhood of Montreal. He also alleged that the termination of his internship in February 2011, two months short of completion, was discriminatory.

According to the report drafted by the Commission, Norsah is requesting that SCH issue an apology, and is seeking a compensation of $15,000 for moral damages. Norsah did not settle in mediation, and is instead pursuing the Commission’s formal position on his case, wishing to thereby allow for the setting of a precedent regarding the free disclosure and affirmation of sexual orientation in social work practice and education.

Norsah told The Daily in an interview that he wants to “push McGill to draft a policy specific to the School of Social Work in order to prevent discrimination and harassment during field placement and internships of its students.”

Allegations

During his eight-month internship period with SCH, which he was required to complete before enrolling in the Master of Social Work program at McGill, Norsah had discussions with the SCH executive director Patricia Lisson regarding an intervention with a black woman who was using the services of the community ministry. According to Norsah, it was during these discussions that he was discriminated against based on his sexual orientation.

According to information obtained by The Daily, Lisson told Norsah not to disclose his sexual orientation to his female client, who was in an abusive relationship, saying, “Women in her position are afraid of gay guys.”

In his original deposition to the Commission, submitted on March 2, 2011, Norsah claimed that the request not to express his sexual orientation to the client forced him to present a false image to a user of SCH services, and infringed on his right to express his sexual orientation, protected under section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. “Minister Patricia Lisson inhibited my rights to self-respect and dignity at SCH by denying me the right to openly affirm my identity,” reads Norsah’s deposition.

In his response to the draft of the report, emailed to the Commission on April 22, Norsah added, “[Lisson] ordered me to go into the closet because of her real or apprehended concern about the client’s (presumed) homophobia.”

The complaint was originally rejected on the grounds that “sexual orientation is part of your private life, and [SCH] as well as any regular employer is entitled to ask their staff not to share their private life with the clients,” according to a letter to Norsah from the Commission.

Following an appeal, the Commission accepted the case on June 30, 2011, and referred it to the mediation service in the fall. During mediation, the parties were unable to reach a common ground, and referred the case to an investigator from the Commission. The investigation has been ongoing since March 5, 2012.

Responses

In the investigation’s report, Lisson is quoted as saying that her position was based on SCH policy, under which “volunteers, staff and interns do not give out personal information of that nature.” She attributed the termination of Norsah’s internship to “the confrontational nature of the relationship between Kofi [Norsah], the work and me. The relationship failed because of the lack of trust that developed.”

Despite the termination, Lisson did not withdraw her letter of recommendation for Kofi toward his acceptance to the Masters program. McGill Social Work found another organization for Norsah to finish his internship.

Lucia Kowaluk, a social worker hired by McGill to supervise Norsah during his internship and cited as the primary witness in the report, agreed with Lisson’s recommendation that Norsah not disclose his sexual orientation. According to the report, Kowaluk “believes that Norsah did not have to reveal his sexual orientation to the mother in question.”

Kowaluk told The Daily that she does not believe that Norsah’s case constitutes discrimination.

“I think the issue is about someone who is in a position of help […] and the question whether or not to talk about yourself is a question of judgment. […] That person [the supervisor or the head of the organization] is in the position to make that decision […] a student is there to learn,” Kowaluk said in an interview.

Wendy Thomson, Director of the McGill School of Social Work, refused to discuss Norsah’s particular case. “Disclosure of one’s sexual orientation to clients is a very distinct question from disclosure to colleagues and co-workers. Sometimes it is appropriate, and sometimes not. A great deal depends on what is in the best interest of the client in the circumstances,” Thomson wrote in an email to The Daily.

Norsah disagreed with Thomson’s view, which he perceived as a subjugation of his sexual orientation to the best interest of the client. “My civil right should not be suspended because I am a student or to please the client,” he told The Daily in an interview.

Discrimination by proxy

Speaking with The Daily, activist Fo Niemi drew parallels between Norsah’s case and the Commission’s public inquiry of the taxi industry in Montreal in the 1980s, when taxi companies and dispatchers had instituted a practice whereby they would comply with clients’ expressed wishes not to be served by a black driver. Niemi is the co-founder and executive director of the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR), a non-profit civil rights organization.

The inquiry concluded that different forms of discrimination were prevalent in the taxi industry, including “discrimination-by-proxy”, that is based on the expressed or assumed desires of a third party. The Quebec Superior Court upheld the illegality of this type of discrimination when it convicted the taxi companies Taxi Moderne and Co-op de l’Est of racism against its drivers.

According to Niemi, Norsah’s case raises a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed by the profession and all schools of social work in the province, that is, “Whether a gay or lesbian social worker enjoys the full freedom to disclose and affirm his or her sexual orientation in training or at work, without being subjected to professional, ethical or legal obligations, and without suffering from negative consequences of such a full and free affirmation.”

A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Social Work Education highlights the particular importance for queer students to be able “to process issues around sexual orientation and self-disclosure with their field instructor without additional barriers and stigmatization.” The study suggests that schools assess policies regarding discrimination, and, where these policies are non-existent, “engage with prospective field instructors and their colleagues in raising awareness and taking action to change the agency environment.

When asked about the policies of the McGill School of Social Work regarding sexual orientation, Thomson maintained that the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) and McGill’s policy on harassment and discrimination are sufficient to ensure that fieldwork placements agencies and supervisors “adhere to social work professional requirements and McGill’s policies.”

In an email to The Daily, CASW Executive Director Fred Phelps explained that the Association “does not have a formal position defined on this subject,” but that the Code of Ethics is meant to support social workers and their workplaces in developing policies and practices.

Thomson also noted that the School’s fieldwork manual establishes the procedure for dealing with problems arising in field placements. “If we were to come to the conclusion that an agency (or a member of its staff) has illegally discriminated against a student, we would stop placing students there, unless and until the situation has been corrected to our satisfaction.”

When contacted by The Daily, SCH staff refused to comment. Lisson had not responded to requests for comment by press time.

The post Discrimination complaint by Social Work student investigated appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On March 3, floor fellows at McGill filed a request to unionize to the Commission de relations du travail du Québec. If unionized, the floor fellows would be eligible to join the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE).

In order to apply for certification, the union drive gathered signed application cards in support of unionization from over 50 percent of the 72 floor fellows currently employed. According to Allison Jones, a floor fellow at Solin Hall and one of those leading the union drive, the Commission has deemed that the required process was followed properly and has accepted all the cards submitted.

According to the Quebec Labour Code, a vote to unionize must be called “whenever a petitioning association comprises between 35% and 50% of the employees.” A vote by secret ballot is then conducted by the Commission, generally one week after receiving the application for certification. In cases where the group of employees filing for certification comprises the absolute majority, as in the case of McGill’s floor fellows, that association “is entitled to be certified” without a vote.

Upon reception of the application cards, the Commission requires the employing institution to provide a list of employees to determine the percentage of signatories. The list of employees submitted by McGill to the Commission had 121 names in total, and includes floor fellows from the Macdonald Campus as well as floor fellows hired for the 2014-15 year.

“[McGill is] saying that, because the hiring process happens in March, […] when we filed these cards, there’s actually that many people working,” AMUSE President Amber Gross said to The Daily.

A letter sent by McGill to the incoming floor fellows appointed for the 2014-15 academic year states that they are expected to perform their role starting on August 15, 2014. “As of March 3, we don’t think we can say that all the floor fellows for next year were working in those positions,” said Gross.

“When you unionize you don’t unionize individual workers, you unionize positions,” elaborated Gross. “We don’t believe that it is the case that there [are] 121 floor fellow positions – there are around 70 per year.”

“It was impossible for us […] to get [the incoming floor fellows’] signatures because they weren’t hired,” said Adam Finley, a floor fellow at the Carrefour Sherbrooke residence.

The group is also contesting the inclusion of the Macdonald Campus floor fellows on the employee list. Floor fellows at Macdonald Campus have a different hiring process and train separately, explained Bryan Wattie, a floor fellow at Macdonald Campus in 2010-11, and current floor fellow at Carrefour. “[E]ven from McGill’s managerial perspective their position is considered to be altogether different,” Wattie told The Daily.

The validity of McGill’s employee list will be determined by a commissioner at a hearing before the Commission on April 30. If the floor fellows’ 72-person list is accepted, the group will be entitled to be certified as a union.

In the event that the commissioner rules to accept the list of 121 employees suggested by the University, the floor fellows would still likely have enough signed cards to hold a vote on whether or not to unionize. “If the list were to include everybody [on the list submitted by McGill], we would have between 30 and 50 [percent],” Jones told The Daily.

The current union drive started in late November 2013. According to Jones, the announcement of changes to the hall director system was one of the factors behind the push for unionization. The change, which will be implemented in the 2014-15 year, will see around four full-time hall directors replace the part-time directors previously assigned to each of McGill’s nine residence halls.

“This change, and the way it was done, just made so many people incredibly mad. But also more than mad – […] disappointed, and frustrated, and kind of betrayed by [the residence system],” Jones told The Daily.

“We’ve seen [the current structure] work, we know it works; we don’t want to go in the direction of other schools,” Finley said to The Daily.

The floor fellows’ demands centre around the drafting of a more formalized contract to protect their working and living conditions, as well as the specifics of their jobs.

“There’s an importance to how vague our jobs are, but there are also really critical things to our positions that aren’t recognized in our contracts. Specifically, the importance of a student-centred approach, the importance of harm reduction, the importance of the rule of respect,” Jones said.

The current mobilization constitutes the third time that floor fellows have attempted to unionize in the past four years. One attempt was made in 2010, and another in 2012 after two floor fellows were dismissed for their involvement in the occupation of the James Administration building.

When contacted for an interview, Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Ollivier Dyens said that Quebec labour laws prevented him from commenting as an employer.

An earlier version of this article stated that Doug Sweet had not responded to requests for comment. In fact, he had not been contacted for comment. The Daily regrets the error.

The post Floor fellow union drive reaches critical point appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Inna Sharf, a professor of mechanical engineering at McGill who leads the school’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) research group, has been awarded three such contracts since 2004, exceeding the sum of $500,000. The sponsor, Canadian research facility Defence Research and Development Canada in Suffield (DRDC-Suffield), previously worked with Sharf on the development of the Platform for Ambulating Wheels (PAW), a four-legged ground robot developed at McGill.

Sharf’s current project, a contract entitled “Autonomous Support for UAVs” valued at over $380,000, intends to provide UAVs with the ability to land autonomously on static and moving targets, thereby reducing the operator’s workload and enhancing their capabilities for “data collection and surveillance missions.” The research is part of an overall plan by DRDC to develop “small, highly maneuverable UAVs for deployment in urban environments.” DRDC has been fostering intimate ties with universities, including their “academic partners from McGill University.”

DRDC-Suffield’s request for proposal, under which Sharf secured the contract, reads, “[UAVs] must not compromise operator safety but provide battle-space awareness that provides a force multiplier to the dismounted soldier unit.” Once completed, UAVs equipped with this technology will be able to “track and intercept” moving targets for autonomous navigation purposes.

Preliminary flight tests were carried out indoors in the Aerospace Mechatronics Laboratory, located in the Macdonald Engineering building, and the software was developed using computers from the Centre for Intelligent Machines Laboratory in the McConnell Engineering building. Fields at Macdonald campus were suggested as a potential outdoor takeoff and landing site due to their “access to a hangar, secluded open areas, and low rise buildings.”

In an interview, Sharf denied the military applications of her research. “My work focuses on making landing and taking off for UAV vehicles more autonomous,” she said.

While the technology could be applied to any type of UAV, Sharf emphasized the potential of her work in the civilian world. “There’s many applications: fire surveillance, harvest surveillance […] Police forces are using UAVs to help them with search and rescue operations. A couple of years ago, there was a successful use of UAVs to locate a person that had a car accident and that went out into the woods,” she said. “Without UAVs, they wouldn’t have found them.”

The research is still at an early stage, and the technology, Sharf noted, is not yet ready for outside use.

“I’m hoping more civilian companies will make use of this research. […] The commercial development of UAVs is still nascent, and we don’t have big companies in Canada that would be interested in funding this research, but ultimately, they will be the beneficiary of this research.”

Under the terms of the contract, the federal government owns the intellectual property rights to the work performed at McGill. Sharf, and the team under her supervision, can only use the product of their research for publication and academic purposes. DRDC-Suffield is not responsible for the potential applications of the technology it develops, and only the Canadian Forces can determine how the research is used. But Sharf, along with Michael Trentini, a DRDC-Suffield researcher who is listed as the contract’s technical authority, have written about the potential applications of unmanned vehicle research.

In 2006 Sharf and Trentini co-signed a paper addressing the utility of Unmanned Ground Vehicles “if they are to be used in military relevant roles and environments.” “[Unmanned] Ground Vehicles will be called upon to enter unknown city blocks to keep soldiers out of harm’s way,” they wrote. “[Unmanned Ground Vehicles] will contribute to homeland security, search and rescue, and peacekeeping roles abroad.”

At McGill, professors and graduate students are responsible for initiating the majority of the school’s research collaborations.

“Research contracts, on the other hand, can be initiated by third parties – often because the third party is seeking university researchers’ input to solve a problem or issue,” Rose Goldstein, Vice-Principal (Research and International Relations), wrote in an email.

“In all cases the researchers have complete freedom to decide if they want to engage in a research collaboration project or a service contract,” she wrote.

“McGill researchers conduct research with integrity and adhere to the highest ethical standards,” Goldstein said.

Two weeks ago, a group of protesters blocked the entrance to laboratories in the Macdonald Engineering building. The action was part of the ongoing Demilitarize McGill campaign, an effort by students to disrupt military research on campus. Last year, members of the group filed several ATI requests to obtain information on the University’s defence research.

In October, the Commission d’accès a l’information ruled against the University in a legal dispute in which the University alleged that it had been subject to a “complex system of repetitious and abusive requests” by students and journalists.

The ATIs remained unanswered for over a year until January, when the University settled with the respondents.

The post Documents shed light on campus drone research appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The case began on November 19, 2012. When El-Orabi was departing the professor’s office upon announcing that he was leaving his lab, Dunphy yelled at him to “get the fuck out of the country.” And in response to El-Orabi asking if there was anything else the professor would like, Dunphy replied, “Yes, your death.” El-Orabi captured the exchange on tape.

The Senate Committee on Student Grievances, which arises out of University regulations, received a grievance from the graduate student against his supervisor on February 14. In his grievance, El-Orabi outlined three violations to his rights as described in the Charter of Students’ Rights: “death threat,” “religious, cultural and personal offences,” and “intrusion of his privacy.”

The Committee, with its nine voting members – four students and five professors – has final authority within University jurisdiction, and is “empowered to order such final or interim actions as it sees fit” for appropriate redress. However, Professor Frank Mucciardi, an academic member on the Committee, clarified that “the Committee cannot impose any kind of decision, it makes recommendations higher up and it is up to them to implement the decision.”

In September, the Committee wrapped up its investigation. While the decision was in favour of El-Orabi for the most part, his application for redress – or financial compensation – toward the money he invested in an interrupted education at McGill was denied. Moreover, the Committee found no violation of El-Orabi’s rights under section 2.1 of the Charter of Students’ Rights, which ensures that the right to equal treatment by the University “not be impaired by discrimination.” This is despite the fact that the recording clearly establishes Dunphy saying, “You have nothing new to offer […] your race is not that unique.”

In order to appeal the Committee decision, Dunphy had to notify the Secretary of Senate of his intention to do so within 14 days of receiving official notice of the decision. The Code of Student Grievance Procedures outlines that an appeal procedure can be sought only: “(1) Where new evidence which was not available to a party at the time of the original hearing has been discovered; or (2) Where a breach of natural justice has occurred,” and where the decision taken by the Committee could have been “substantially affected by any of the above circumstances.” If the Appeal Committee determines that the decision of the Senate Committee on Student Grievances was reasonable, the original decision is final and “implemented without delay.”

In September, several authorities at McGill responded to reporters from The Daily by saying they had to keep the information confidential “given the ongoing investigation,” despite the fact that the decision was already reached in August.

Additionally, McGill told El-Orabi he was not to divulge the nature of the decision and the possible sanctions against the professor “to avoid breaching a clause of confidentiality.” McGill cited section 1.4 of the Code of Student Grievance Procedures, a section that states that all documents submitted to the Committee must remain confidential. Nowhere in that section was there a mention about a non-divulgence of the decision.

Doug Sweet, McGill’s Director of Internal Communications, later informed The Daily that it was University regulation for McGill not to reveal the results of the process; however, “the parties themselves can, in the sense that the regulations do not spell out that they can’t.” Although the Secretariat encourages parties to maintain confidentiality, “there is no power to compel compliance in that regard.” In the decision El-Orabi agreed to share with The Daily, the Committee found that Dunphy’s verbal comments “constitute harassment of Mr. El-Orabi,” explicitly violating El-Orabi’s student rights under Article 3, which states, “every student has a right to the safeguard of his or her dignity and a right to be protected by the University against vexatious conduct by a representative of the University acting in an official manner.”

Regarding Dunphy’s mention of El-Orabi’s death in the context of an abrasive conversation, the Committee ruled that the comments “were legitimately interpreted by Mr. El-Orabi as a credible threat of physical violence.” Dunphy therefore violated El-Orabi’s rights under Articles 7 and 8, and “made Mr. El-Orabi fearful for his physical safety and his life ultimately leading to his departure from McGill and from Canada.”

The Committee also discussed possible actions of redress for the “psychological damage that Mr. El-Orabi may have suffered;” however, El-Orabi was informed that financial compensation was outside the purview of the Committee and was therefore not considered.

Finally, the Committee recommended that the Department of Natural Resource Sciences, the Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies “move to ensure that Prof. Dunphy’s other graduate students, and any postgraduate researchers in his labs, be protected from harassment of this sort” because of his “bizarre and sometimes confrontational style.” One of the actions proposed by the committee included “insistence on co-supervision of all researchers and on the presence of a third party during all conversations.”

When asked to evaluate the process for filing a grievance complaint at McGill in retrospective, El-Orabi stated that he has heard of various similar incidents going unreported because “students are afraid to complain as they might jeopardize everything they are working for. I felt the same thing.”

Before El-Orabi decided to make his case public, and before filing a grievance complaint, he was in touch with various professors at McGill and with the Ombudsperson for Students, Spencer Boudreau. At that time, he said, there were a lot of signs that something was not right. “I quickly realized that nothing would happen, I wouldn’t have had my grievances heard if I would not have gone public.”

In fact, from January until March, nothing much was done by the University, according to El-Orabi. An unofficial investigation was opened when El-Orabi first talked with McGill personnel, and further closed without any prior notice to him. Prior to the closing, there was no contact from McGill, according to El-Orabi. “They didn’t tell me what they were doing and suddenly the case was closed […] somehow the actions are confidential and I can’t even get a written documentation.”

Since April 11, however – the date that the first news article and audio clip were released by Global News – El-Orabi stated, “the University has been consistent in contacting me.”

According to the last annual report on the “Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Discrimination Prohibited by Law,” the number of overall harassment complaints has decreased in the past six years, from 43 in 2010-11, to 24 in 2011-12. Complaints based on discrimination, however, have increased in proportion to other complaints, rising from 2 per cent in 2006-07 to 21 per cent last year.

Amira Elghawaby, Human Rights Coordinator at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told The Daily, “Especially now with the context in Quebec, and the Charter of Values, we hope that students won’t be further marginalized on campus.”

The Council had contacted El-Orabi to provide counsel and support throughout the grievance process, and is seeking to work with the University to change their policies to prevent Islamophobic harassment in the future.

Close to a year has gone by since El-Orabi left McGill to return to Egypt, and he does not consider going back to McGill an option. “For the University to say that they have found alternatives for me, in order for [me] to finish this degree, is a lie.”

As a former student of anatomy and cell biology, El-Orabi does not see the possibility of a future career in his field in Egypt, and therefore changed his career path. “I started to look into different things and [to] re-evaluate what I wanted to do.” He ended up switching into aviation and recently graduated from the Egyptian Aviation Academy.

Dunphy is still offering two classes this semester, BIOL 350: Insect Biology and Control, and AEBI 120: General Biology. “Every year I like to do that. Students seems to like to have that class offered,” he said during a call with The Daily in September. He did not comment on the case itself at the time, and again for this story.

When The Daily reached Alan Watson, Dunphy’s advisor during the case, he declined to comment.

The post Professor in El-Orabi case appeals harassment ruling appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The complaint was sent to Quebec’s human rights commission, and was officially received on July 4 of this year, on the premise of “discrimination based on race intersecting with gender and sexual orientation in violation of sections 4, 10 and 16 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.”

According to the School of Social Work’s updated list of professors, Lee is the only racialized person and visible minority – not including Indigenous peoples – registered as a lecturer this calendar year.

“I don’t think there is any representation of people of colour when it comes to the administrative level,” said social work undergraduate student Sidara Ahmad, adding, “I don’t think there is an understanding of what people of colour – students of colour – go through. I don’t think there is any acknowledgement of the discrimination and racism they face.”

Lee, a self-identified member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, and a visible minority, is currently a course lecturer for SWRK 325: Anti-Oppression Social Work Practice. He is also a doctoral student specializing in the experiences of LGBTQ immigrants and refugees.

In April 2013, Lee said, he applied for a part-time faculty lecturer position at the School of Social Work, recognizing the lack of racial diversity at the School. “Out of 22 tenure- and non-tenure-track faculty members, one or two are racialized, and one is LGBTQ,” he told The Daily in an interview.

“I don’t think there is an understanding of what people of colour – students of colour – go through. I don’t think there is any acknowledgement of the discrimination and racism they face.”

A month after applying, Lee said he was notified that he had not even been short-listed for an interview. The five candidates short-listed for the position were all white women.

According to Lee, when meeting the director of the School, Wendy Thomson, he was informed that his application was rejected because he lacked clinical experience. The job posting never mentioned the necessity of such experience, Lee said, asking only for five years of experience as a social worker in Quebec’s community, health, or social services. The job posting also included the University’s statement committed to diversity and equity in employment, “[welcoming] applications from indigenous peoples, visible minorities, ethnic minorities, persons of disabilities, women, persons of minority sexual orientations and gender identities and others who may contribute to further diversification.”

“The hiring committee’s internal and unwritten requirement regarding clinical experience produces a recurring, adverse impact on racialized persons who are underrepresented in clinical institutional settings in Quebec,” said Lee about his application rejection.

“I have been serving as course lecturer at the School of Social Work since 2008, in addition to devoting hundreds of volunteer hours in serving the McGill social work department and broader Montreal community,” said Lee. “It’s disappointing and saddens me that I was not at least short listed for the part-time faculty lecturer position. There are hiring criteria and procedures that must be reviewed by the human rights commission because there have been so few racialized teaching professionals that have been hired by the School within the last ten years. This is why I hope that my complaint of systemic racism in hiring will lead to change and better representation of the Montreal community among the School’s staff.”

Ahmad told The Daily about the very real implications of being a racialized person in the School. “I am one of the very few students who is racialized in the School of Social Work, and as soon as I started the program, I had a situation where there was discrimination and racism involved. [Lee] was one of the few faculty members who provided the support and the space to talk about it.”

Lee has been studying at the McGill School of Social Work since 2007, and is the recipient of numerous fellowships and scholarships for his studies. More recently, Lee was one of only four recipients in McGill history to receive the Award for Equity and Community Building, in the academic staff category. He was nominated by 16 students and community members. According to an article published in the McGill Reporter, this award “recognizes the work of students, faculty and staff committed to advancing equity and diversity at McGill.”

“In universities and corporations, the many professional and managerial positions produce a professional stigma when someone raises a claim of discrimination.”

“For me, just seeing where the students are before they take [Lee’s Anti-Oppression Social Work Practice course] and where they are after, it’s essential,” said undergraduate social work student Katrina Topping, who had previously taken Lee’s Anti-Oppression course, adding, “It challenges students to question who they are, both as people and as social workers.”

Lee has been teaching at the School for six years – as a course lecturer for five years in addition to being a teaching assistant for one year. He has also worked in the Montreal community sector for another six years and spent five years practicing social work with marginalized children and youth in Calgary.

“I think that there does seem to be some type of resistance to incorporate AOP – anti-oppressive practice – in a really big way,” said Topping.

Another current social work undergraduate, Annie Preston, added, “I think there is a structural change in the School that needs to be happening to push for this.”

On his part, Lee has been pushing for change. “There has been a lack of racial diversity that was apparent from the very beginning, it was something that I noticed when I served as Equity Commissioner for PGSS,” said Lee, who also co-created the Racialized Students Network (RSN).

In addition to the RSN, Lee is also the co-founder of AGIR, a community organization that advocates for LGBTQ immigrants, refugees, and non-status migrants in the Montreal area. He is also a member of the Social Work Association of Graduate Students (SWAGS), and was the co-coordinator of Ethnoculture, an annual event that raises awareness about LGBTQ racialized and ethnic minority communities in Montreal.

In the fall of 2009, the Principal’s Task Force on Student Life and Learning launched the McGill University Student Demographic Survey to “foster sensitivity to cultural and personal differences in the delivery of academic and other administrative supports to our students.” The survey was completed by 2,070 McGill students.

According to the survey, 26 per cent of students from any ethnic group – excluding students who identified solely as white – reported discrimination by fellow students, and 18 per cent reported some level of discrimination by McGill employees.

Section 2.6 of McGill’s Handbook on Student Rights and Responsibilities describes discrimination as “any action, behaviour, or decision based on race, colour, sex […] which results in the exclusion or preference of an individual or group within the University community. This includes both the actions of individual members of the University and systemic institutional practices and policies of the University.”

According to Fo Niemi, co-founder and executive director of the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR), his organization does not receive many complaints from universities.

However, Niemi argues that this is more of a reflection of an unsafe environment for disclosure of discrimination rather than an absence of discriminatory experiences themselves. “In universities and corporations, the many professional and managerial positions produce a professional stigma when someone raises a claim of discrimination.”

Another explanation for the rarity of complaints arising from university staff lies in a Supreme Court of Canada decision, under which unionized people cannot independently appeal to the human rights commission unless the union has found a specific reason to file a grievance in the place of the employee. “That might explain why in many unionized workplaces, such as universities, we do not see very often claims of discrimination going forward,” said Niemi.

As a part-time course lecturer, Lee is a member of the newly-formed McGill Course Lecturers and Instructors Union (MCLIU). However, the union is currently in negotiation with the University for its first collective agreement, and Lee believes he would not have been able to go through the usual grievance procedure in place.

Among the remedies sought, Lee’s complaint asks the Commission to require changes to the hiring policies of the University in general and the McGill School of Social Work in particular, and to order the School to adopt a mandatory employment equity action plan to increase the number of racialized individuals among the School’s faculty and course lecturers. Lee also seeks material and moral damages.

“There are many other students that have been in situations where they have been discriminated against,” said Ahmad, adding, “and found support with [Lee].”

The post McGill School of Social Work accused of perpetuating systemic racism appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The QAMA found its ally in former professor John Corbett McDonald, then an emeritus professor in the Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health at McGill. That same year, the Association founded and helped establish QAMA’s Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health (IOEH) in Montreal.

McDonald received a large portion of the organization’s money – nearly $1 million from the IOEH over six years during his research.

McDonald, who is now retired, was the author of an epidemiological study on the health of some 11,000 workers born between 1891 and 1920 who worked in the Quebec chrysotile asbestos industry.

Many allege McDonald’s acknowledgments of the presence of industry funding in his publications and presentations were misleading at best, despite claims made to the contrary by McGill.

In one instance, in 1972, McDonald testified before hearings of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration in favour of looser asbestos safety regulations. According to the book Expendable Americans, at the hearings, McDonald identified himself as an independent researcher and denied any connection to the asbestos industry.

For more than two decades, ranging from 1971 to 1998, McDonald and his team published a series of articles concluding that the health risks associated with chrysotile asbestos were “essentially innocuous” at certain exposure levels, much lower than those of other asbestos fibres.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), asbestos is primarily used in two forms: chrysotile and amphibole fibers. Chrysotile asbestos, which is the kind primarily mined in Quebec, represents 90 to 95 per cent of the world’s production.

A CBC documentary that aired in February of last year put the issue back at the forefront by claiming that the asbestos industry used its ties with McDonald and McGill to promote its image. In response, in an open letter sent in February 2012 to members of McGill’s Board of Governors, and published in various media outlets, a group of academics and health experts asked McGill to break its ties from the asbestos industry, and called for an independent investigation into McDonald’s research.

Soon thereafter, it was announced that the University would conduct its own internal review. In a report released on October 17, 2012, the University’s Research Integrity Officer (RIO) rejected allegations of collusion and by the same token found no need to launch an independent investigation.

The RIO’s report concluded by recommending that McGill hold an academic conference on the topic of alternatives to asbestos and the challenge of asbestos removal, resulting in this past week’s one day conference, “Asbestos: Dialogue for the Future.”

The post A brief introduction to asbestos and McGill appeared first on The McGill Daily.

According to a story by Global News published on Wednesday, Amr El-Orabi came to Montreal in May 2012 to study Natural Resource Sciences at McGill, but alleges that he soon became the victim of harassment from Professor Gary Dunphy.

“He would make fun of my beliefs, he would make fun of Muslims and how they do their prayers, and he would do that in front of me,” El-Orabi told Global News from his home in Cairo, which he returned to four months ago.

Dunphy also allegedly called El-Orabi a “homosexual.”

When El-Orabi told Dunphy he was leaving his lab, the professor lashed out, yelling “Get the the fuck out of this country.”

As El-Orabi left Dunphy’s office, he asked the professor, “Is there anything else that you want from me now?”

“Yes, your death,” Dunphy replied. El-Orabi shared a recording of the conversation with Global News, which posted it online.

During the recording, Dunphy accuses El-Orabi of hacking into his Skype account and threatens to press criminal charges against the student.

Later on the recording, Dunphy alludes to longstanding tensions between himself and El-Orabi over religion.

“Your biggest and only problem with me is that you put your goddamn god above my asshole god. It’s your philosophy that ‘you must respect me and I don’t have to respect you,’” Dunphy says on the recording.

“I want to respect the Arab world – I can’t when you insist that I have to do things your way,” Dunphy says later.

In an interview with Global News, Morton Mendelson, outgoing Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) said, “The idea of a death threat against a student is disturbing. It’s something that the university would take very seriously.”

On Thursday, following his last lecture of the semester in the Stewart Biology building, Dunphy was asked to expand on allegations that he makes on the recording regarding “cyberstalking” by El-Orabi. Dunphy declined to comment.

A group of students met outside Dunphy’s classroom this afternoon. One of the protestors, wishing to remain anonymous, said Dunphy’s outburst was part of a pattern.

“McGill has a problem with institutional racism,” the protestor said. “People like him shouldn’t be in a room with students teaching in any educational institutional – those people should be fired.”

An hour into the lecture, protestors entered the classroom, in which there were only three students. One protestor held a sign that read “Racism @ McGill Has to Stop! Racist Profs Out!”

“It’s nice to see so many people – why don’t you sign up for my entymology course,” he told assembled media and protestors.

Putting his lecture to an end, Dunphy refused to comment, as his case is still the subject of an official grievance procedure. “My employer has asked me not to until this thing’s through,” he said. “You’re not getting any more than that, my friends.”

A former student depicts Dunphy under a different light as a kind, tolerant teacher.

“I was shocked to hear this story,” said Dana Holtby, who had Dunphy as a biology teacher in second year but has since graduated. Dunphy “reassured me after a difficult midterm and even seemed sympathetic to the allophones in our class. When I expressed concern about an error I made on the [midterm] he assured me that I would be able to make it up on the examinations to come, and that he was sympathetic to mistakes as he knew that for many students in the class English was not the first language.”

Still, Holtby added, “such behavior is completely unacceptable and I would hope for a more concrete reaction from administration.”

The administration would only say that a student filed a grievance to the Committee on Student Grievances, a Senate committee arising out of University regulations,  specifically the Charter of Student’s Rights. The Committee, with its nine voting members – four students and five professors – has final authority within university jurisdiction and is  “empowered to order such final or interim actions as it sees fit” for appropriate redress.

Protestors followed Dunphy to his car in the Stewart Biology parking lot, chanting “Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Racist profs have got to go!”

Speaking to reporters, Dunphy conceded that there was “wrongdoing on everybody’s part.”

After removing the protestor’s sign placed on his windshield, Dunphy told The Daily, “I don’t have any feelings for the [allegations].”

The Natural Resources Science departmental chair, Professor Jim Fyles, refused to comment.

“This is a case that is been taken up by McGill administration trough the normal grievance procedures, and I cannot comment on it” Fyles said in an interview with The Daily.

McGill Director of Internal Communications Doug Sweet said the administration is also unable to comment.

“No comment, because this is the subject of a grievance,” Sweet said.

A previous version of this article stated that multiple death threats were made. In fact, El-Orabi accused Dunphy of making a single  death threat.

The post Students confront teacher accused of death threat appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Beginning in 1984, the campaign “Demilitarize McGill” advocated for the crafting of a policy and the prohibition of military research at the University. That same year, journalists from The Daily discovered research into Fuel Air Explosives at McGill funded by the Canadian Department of Defense. In 1986, Senate – the University’s highest academic governing body – implemented the Regulations on Research Policy, a set of ethical policies that included guidelines for animal and human research.

Military research, however, was not mentioned.

Two years later, research into Fuel Air Explosives once again became an issue at McGill.

In 2001, mechanical engineering professor David Frost began working on thermobaric bombs, an explosive device that can produce blast waves for a much longer duration than those found in conventional explosives.

In March 2010, Senate passed new Regulations on Conduct of Research Policy that ommitted the ethical regulations proposed by a new Demilitarize McGill, revived after a lull of nearly twenty years.

Senate’s decision came a year after Associate Provost (Policies & Procedures) William Foster presented a draft of the policy to Demilitarize McGill.

The draft, which was also showed to then SSMU VP (University Affairs) Nadya   Wilkinson, contained a passage which explicitly called for the creation of a formal system of approval which would give the senior administration oversight for research with harmful potential.

The section was erased at the first reading of the policy.

“The policy is ready to be adopted right now, and every month that goes by without having a document like this is dangerous [and] is not good for the University. We need this to come in force as soon as possible,” then-Vice-Principal (Research & International Relations) Denis Thérien said in a 2010 article in The Daily.

At the Senate session where the Policy was discussed, Senator Darin Barney noted that the “previous section on research funded by military sources did not assume that all research from those sources was harmful, but instead was based on the premise that research funded by military sources was more liekly to have harmful applications than other granting agencies.”

Student Senator Ivan Neilson said “that the amendment does not mention military research, but instread restricts itself to harmful applications. He agreed that what constitutes harmful research is subjective and that is why the responsibility is placed on the researcher.”

A number of professors at McGill are currently involved in scientific research whose results often have military applications. Financed by large defense firms, the research is conducted on campus or, in some cases, at private firms.

In 2003, after a 12-year tenure at McGill, robotics professor Martin Buehler brought two robots from the McGill Centre for Intelligent Machines (CIM) to Boston Dynamics, a U.S. engineering company.

RHex, one of the robots brought to Boston Dynamics, was partially built at McGill and was financed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency responsible for the development of new technologies for the U.S. military. RHex is equipped with a built-in camera and was designed to provide unmanned reconnaissance for soldiers in battle.

According to the Army Times, a weekly newspaper that caters to U.S. soldiers, several RHex robots were deployed for testing to Afghanistan in May.

Buehler later led a $12-million project in 2005, called “Big Dog,” to construct a robotic mule capable of transporting equipment to soldiers over rough terrain. The program received an additional $32 million grant in 2009 for the development of an upgraded version.

Another robot, AQUA, derived from the original RHex architecture and capable of functioning underwater, is currently being developed at CIM under the supervision of computer science professor Gregory Dudek. Despite its resemblance to RHex, Meyer Nahon – a professor linked to the project – insists that AQUA is designed to “assess marine habitats and biodiversity on coral reefs.”

However, Nahon said that  “some researchers are working much more directly with military applications” and that there was “clearly” an issue with funding from defense firms.

According to Nahon, professors conducting applied research with direct military funds are not devoid of responsibility; the ethical burden, however, should not be solely placed on them.

“Maybe the University should have a policy on this,” he added.

But for more theoretical research, the problem is not in the research itself, Nahon said. “The place where control has to be made is where it is going to be used.”

The post From the lab to the battlefield appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Lino Zambito, the former vice-president of the construction company Infrabec, told the Commission last week that around ten companies share municipal contracts for the city of Montreal.

According to Zambito, firms overcharge the city by setting their prices at an artificially high rate through a system of collusion. Similar schemes exist throughout the province, he said.

However, the Quebec construction industry often overcharges without resorting to collusion. In January, La Presse reported that the city of Laval had hired six firms to renovate three water-processing plants, costing $187 million. The city said that the project has gone 60 per cent over budget.

Documents obtained by The Daily and Le Délit reveal that one of the firms that won the Laval contract, Kingston-Byers Inc., is currently working on a $6.8 million project to reconstruct the pedestrian roof terraces of McGill’s McLennan and Redpath Libraries.

In 2010, the company reportedly demanded an additional $2 million from the city of Granby for a $13.6 million contract to complete a sports centre.

According to La Presse, the firm cited “changing circumstances” as reasoning for the additional invoice.

The office of Marlène Painchaud, a legal clerk for the city of Granby, told The Daily and Le Délit that the firm was now the subject of litigation.

The raid

On September 18, officers from the Unité permanente anticorruption Québec (UPAC) – known as the “hammer squad” – raided the offices of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). In a statement released on its website, MUHC administration said that UPAC was requesting “information related to the awarding of the contract for the Glen site public-private partnership.”

UPAC spokesperson Anne-Frédérick Laurence told The Daily and Le Délit that the documents obtained in the raid would be kept secret for the remainder of the investigation.

“All I can tell you is that a search was made and people were met [by the investigators],” she said in French.

While no arrest has been made, UPAC’s raid suggests wrongdoing or evidence that could warrant another investigation, according to financial crimes expert Michel Picard.

“A search warrant can only be obtained when there is evidence that something illegal has been done,” Picard told The Daily and Le Délit in French.

Public-private partnerships

The MUHC is a $1.3 billion project being built under a public-private partnership (PPP) model, allowing private companies to have a stake in the construction and operation of public works.

Before construction, the PPP model was criticized by the president of the Ordre des architectes du Québec (OAQ), André Bourassa, who described the project as a “waste of time and money,” according to Le Devoir.

Hubert Forcier, spokesperson for the Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux (CSN) – one of the largest trade unions in Quebec – told The Daily and Le Délit in French, “When we go toward the private for budgetary reasons, we let go of public expertise.”

“We are no longer able to determine the monetary value of projects and see what is legal and what is not,” he added.

For these reasons, the CSN was “not surprised” by the UPAC raid.

Other governments have also expressed doubts over the supposed benefits of PPP schemes. A 2006 report commissioned by the New Zealand government read, “There is little reliable empirical evidence about the cost and benefits of PPPs,” and “the advantages of PPPs must be weighed against the contractual complexities and rigidities they entail.”

Proponents of PPP maintain that such partnerships are an efficient way of building infrastructure.

In an interview with The Daily and Le Délit, Roger Légaré, the General Director of the Institute for Public and Private Partnership, said in French, “Every project, whether it’s the 25 highway, the 30 [highway], or the Maison Symphonique, were done in time or before [the deadline] at a reduced cost.”

Lack of transparency

The government body Infra-structure Québec is responsible for planning, realizing, and following all major public infrastructure projects in the province over $40 million, including PPPs.

Once a project has been approved for construction, Infrastructure Québec chooses the type of project: traditional, construction management, PPP, or turnkey. When the private sector has a high stake in the project, such as is the case in the PPP and turnkey methods, Infrastructure Québec coordinates the selection of the private firm.

“There are disadvantages to each mode. [Infrastructure Québec] does not put any mode above another,” a spokesperson for Infrastructure Québec told The Daily and Le Délit.

The CSN denounced Infra-structure Québec last week over the lack of transparency in its decision making process.

“Even recently, Infrastructure Québec has refused to give us access to information allowing us to know the conditions for future maintenance of institutions, where it is easier to negotiate lucrative contracts to private interests,” a statement on its website said in French.

Moreover, “part of the contract between [Infrastructure Québec] and the private firms has not been rendered public,” Forcier said.

Despite the criticism, Infrastructure Québec stated that no link can be made between PPPs and corruption.

As for UPAC’s raid at the MUHC, Infrastructure Québec said that it would wait for the investigation before blaming the alleged economic corruption on the method of construction.

“It’s going to depend on what UPAC will find,” the spokesperson said.

The service industry

While most of the PPPs in Quebec are awarded to construction firms, other forms of PPPs exist in the service industry.

The Centre d’hébergement et de soins de longue durée (CHSLD) at St-Lambert sur le Golf is the first hospice to have been built and managed under a PPP scheme.

Luc Pearson, vice president of the Fédération de la santé et des services sociaux (FSSS) for the Quebec region of Montérégie, told The Daily and Le Délit in French that Infrastructure Québec focuses on the financial aspect and “does not account for the reality of the Quebec healthcare system and the shortage of labour.”

When Infrastructure Québec presented the CHSLD project under a PPP scheme, it forecasted savings of up to a $100 million.

Pearson said the FSSS commissioned a study on the scheme shortly after.

“The results showed that the savings are made on the backs of workers […] the $100 million in savings are made in decreased wages for employees,” he said.

The study results, compiled by a financial advisory firm, state that given the shortage of labour and the below-market wages, the PPP model could lead to a disruption in continuous care and a higher turnover rate.

Infrastructure Québec sees the competitive nature of the private sector industry as an advantage of the PPP model. But according to Pearson, competition has no place in the healthcare system.

“Health is not for sale. The private entrepreneur is there to make profits,” he said.

McGill could not be reached by press time.

(A French version of this article is available here)

The post Amid scandals, role of private sector questioned appeared first on The McGill Daily.