“The public policies around HIV determined by governments and the United Nations were largely set out by the activists on the ground,” Lewis said, going on to explain that in Africa, for example, it was a number of grassroots gay men’s movements that spurred the initiatives in HIV awareness and policy. He traced the impact of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in South Africa, which set out a model for the entire continent in terms of non-state actor (a person with signficiant power not tied to a government) strategy. Using empirical research and the concept of treatment as prevention, Lewis worked with TAC to communicate the message that “we have a crisis, the government isn’t sufficiently responding, we need some help,” until the government was forced to acknowledge the public health movement and its demands. “That’s what advocacy is,” Lewis stated. “It isn’t simply about making sure people will survive, it’s about making a discernible impact on actual public policy.”

Lewis went on to say that advocacy also depends on not giving up, that, “You go out on what you feel is an uncompromising position, you’re tenacious, you’re emphatic, you alienate everyone. We’re experts at alienation, but you keep the work going, and ultimately, you will break through.”
Throughout his talk, Lewis stressed what he called “the exquisite dimension of advocacy, whether one be a student, or a member of a discipline unrelated to a particular cause – a difference can be made if you grit your teeth. One day, the pendulum shifts and real change can be achieved.”

Advocacy and safe space at McGill

Lewis’ words provide a useful lesson for the youth advocate who wants to press for change at the campus level. In that vein, we can find many useful examples of advocacy groups at McGill, most of them student-run – most notably the Quebec Public Interest Research Group (QPIRG).

The Inclusive Mental Health Collective

The Inclusive Mental Health Collective is one example of the new working groups within QPIRG. The Collective offers “open meetings to connect, collaborate, get input from, and build community allies,” Ethan Macdonald, one of the organizers of the Collective, told The Daily by email.

The Collective provides a “base camp” for individuals with “shared experience” when dealing with distress, trauma, emotional or psychological diversity, diagnosis, et cetera. Macdonald highlighted the importance of mental health advocacy in a society where few have the chance to define their psychology for themselves. This is because the vocabulary of psychology revolves around ‘disease’-oriented language, which is not typically used outside of the doctor’s office. Macdonald asserted that such language is not reflective of individuals’ experiences.

The Collective tries to provide a safe space for individuals with these “shared experiences,” where they can be free to share a non-judgemental space. Macdonald went on to state that there is a “continued silence about marginalization, coercion, discrimination (ex. racism, cissexism, et cetera), and abuse within psychiatry and medicine.” People may be coerced into seeking help or taking medication that isn’t legal yet – or that may have long-term negative side effects.

An individual with “shared experience” can feel a “shame over emotions, thoughts, behaviours, and perceptions, even when they are harmless,” Macdonald continued, probably because of stigma attached to mental health. The Collective helps do away with that stigma layer by layer, and is an invaluable safe space at McGill in a time when other mental health services are lacking.

The Indigenous Women and Two Spirit Harm Reduction Coalition

The Indigenous Women and Two Spirit Harm Reduction Coalition emerged this year as a new working group of QPIRG McGill. The Coalition aims to provide harm reduction resources and materials to Indigenous women and Two Spirit (a member of an Indigenous community who doesn’t identify with their biological gender) identified people.

McGill student Molly Swain and Concordia student Lindsay Nixon started the coalition in hopes to work toward “[providing Indigenous and Two Spirit people] with resources and materials that will contribute to the safety, respect, and legitimization of their choices and circumstances,” the Coalition told The Daily over email. “Whether it be clean needles, condoms and dental dams, or zines about navigating the prison system, we want to ensure Indigenous women and Two Spirit people can access what they need to make the best choices for themselves.”

The Coalition functions under a non-hierarchical and Indigenous feminist framework and is open to all Status and Non-Status First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people, and Indigenous people from other lands. “We wanted this very much to be work we’re doing for our community,” said Swain. “We wanted the chance to do things that are really important for our communities and outside the academic context.”

“Indigenous students can have a more difficult time navigating university services, loans programs, etc., or experience racism, sexism, cissexism, or homophobia within the institution, all of which can make their post-secondary experience more challenging,” Swain and Nixon continued in their email to The Daily.

“Groups and organizations run by and for Indigenous people are important as spaces of activism, community, and solidarity in an institution like the university where we have historically not been permitted,” and where Indigenous people are highly underrepresented within “settler academia.” The Coalition is a way to re-make settler space, and “bring [the organizers’] work as Indigenous Feminists strongly committed to decolonization and resurgence into the wider community of urban Native people in Montreal.”

One recommendation for a starting point is the SSMU equity council for undergraduate students looking to get more involved in social equity and campus advocacy building efforts. “They’re consistently so thoughtful and so aware of what’s going on around campus, and so prepared to help students find a variety of options for what they want to do and what their needs are,” said Sarah Malik, Social Equity and Diversity Education (SEDE) Office Equity Educational Advisor, agreeing that the avenues for different types of advocacy and inclusion initiatives are already in place at McGill. The challenge for some students lies in discovering the opportunities that are out there and connecting with them in relation to their needs.

Social Equity and Diversity Education Office

Initiatives looking to make McGill a more inclusive space exist beyond the spheres of action and student advocacy. One example of this is the wide array of workshops offered by SEDE. Malik explained that SEDE’s mission is “to inform members of the community on equity, diversity, and education in order to create a better, more inclusive campus climate.” Workshops touch upon a variety of topics, such as anti-racism, equity, inclusion, and the originating concept of safer space. These workshops have expanded to offer a certificate to students who participate in the full suite of workshops, so that students can carry out their knowledge and apply it to real-life situations, and educate their peers.

Partnerships have branched out across the McGill Community from SEDE. One such example is an alliance with Teaching Learning Services (TLS), in the form of workshops offered, named “Skillsets,” which have a mandate to provide transferable skills to graduate students and faculty staff. The Daily spoke to David Syncox, Graduate Education Officer at Teaching and Learning Services, on the efforts being made to create a wide variety of workshops for graduate and teaching staff, using input from various groups. “Partnerships include a variety of faculty and departments[…] not just at a higher level of the Skillsets suite, but for something which is available for consumption of all, for any departments who want to help their student groups become more aware,” said Syncox.

The workshops are designed to create an engaging learning experience, with an aim to “create an experience where participants can take away practical things, as well as where they can really engage in a framework with analytic concepts and issues,” said Syncox. This, along with the expansive material and supporting documents offered on the SEDE website, aims to give people the opportunity to practice values and ideas in the hopes that it will empower them to respond to discrimination.

In the future, SEDE hopes to advance a “public awareness strategy that will take a lot of the concepts [they] use in the Safer Spaces workshops and will engage in a lot of the concerns raised [to be put to use] by students and the partners we work with.” The Safer Spaces workshops (in collaboration with TLS, First Peoples’ House, and the Office for Students with Disabilities) have focused on issues ranging from disability and universal design, to race and cultural identity, to Indigenous perspectives on campus, to sexual orientation and gender identity. SEDE also hopes to raise the level of discourse on campus, to “move away from the topic of whether or not we should care about these [issues],” Syncox concluded, “to talking about[…]what kind of campus community we want, to move the conversation beyond one that’s about debate and one toward which is more constructive and creating an inclusive environment that so many people seem to be asking for.”

The post Spaces you can count on appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The collection consisted of various pieces of secondary students’ art in the form of paintings, collages, and photographs. These were based on two main themes: verbal violence in schools, and discrimination among youth. Created exclusively by students based in Montreal, works ranged from energetic, to aggressive, to emotional in their portrayal of sensitive issues encountered by many high school students. The artists were highly effective in expressing their feelings on topics such as suicide, bullying, self-harm, and depression. Collages were made using various mediums such as newspaper clippings, paint, photographs, and typologies. Some paintings expressed their message through abstract somber images, such as cut wrists and a silhouetted face, while others had more direct messages: “L’intimidation c’est comme la guerre, c’est douloureux, impossible a oublier, et ca ne devrait pas exister,” or, “bullying is like war – it’s painful, unforgettable, and must cease to exist.”

The exhibit was one of many in a program designed to engage youth interest in solidarity building and education through art. Following the viewing of the exhibition, speakers from GRIS Montreal, including Macha Limonchik, a spokesperson for the organization, and GRIS Montreal’s new president, David E. Platts, along with museum representatives, offered congratulations to the artists for their contributions. “Students have been so brave to speak out on these issues – they are not easy topics to openly discuss,” said Plats, in his impassioned address to the audience. “It is only when you ask us the questions you ask that you remind us what it is to be discriminated, what it’s like to be your age and not have your family to confide in…”

Most touching, perhaps, were the reactions of the many young artists who attended the opening of the exhibit, who clearly basked in the pride of having their work displayed on such a visible platform. “We had a little help in the initial brainstorming process, when the GRIS Montreal workers visited our school, but after that all the ideas were our own. Some of us already supported the cause and wanted to express it, and others who didn’t know anything about the cause got to learn more and get interested,” said Rim Kalach, a student at Antoine de Saint-Exupery Secondary School located in Saint Leonard. She wryly added that “some students were clearly not enthusiastic about the project, and these were usually the students responsible for bullying or making fun of homosexuality anyway. But even that only helped to prove our point, and I think this has made us less tolerant to bullying as a class.” By using art as a way for students to create their own messages, the initiative not only raised awareness and sensitivity for the cause, but created solidarity and friendship within the school community. This may not be the only way to fight bullying in schools, but getting to hear the students’ own voices and helping them overcome their fear is a good first step toward more permanent action.

As far as progress toward social change goes, this was an initiative under the Quebec government’s Fight Against Homophobia program. Students include both Secondary I (grade 7) students of the Commission Scolaire de la Pointe-de-l’Ile in Montreal, but also young people outside the regular Quebec schooling system (welcoming classes, special needs, youth employment carrefours, etc) who were drawn into the project through their local youth centres. Initiated by the Education Department of the Museum of Fine Arts, the first step was a homosexuality and bisexuality demystification workshop for young people. According to the museum’s Education Director, Jean-Luc Murray, the biggest challenge was “getting the youth of lower-income neighborhoods involved and enthusiastic.” He also stated that despite the difficulty for kids to express themselves on such delicate topics, it was “most necessary for young students to try and get involved, and that is why giving them a space to feel comfortable about their art, and making art fun and accessible has been such an important goal in the Museum’s education programs.”

While the youth are key actors in bringing about social change, next year Murray hopes to initiate the project earlier in the year, with a longer term goal to include more people of the community, such as the parents and extended family members. This move, on Murray’s part, suggests that only by a more inclusive and penetrating approach towards community building and education can mindsets and attitudes truly change. Nevertheless, the progress and energy shown here – thanks to the support of the Museum Education Program and NGOs like GRIS Montreal – is heartening to see.

The post Shattering oppression in schools through art appeared first on The McGill Daily.

A closer look at the process, however, has made me further question the impact of the IB on my transition to university academic life.  The summer before commencing my McGill degree, I found out that I was to receive 10 credits per Higher Level subject I did, in which I surpassed a certain grade level. This meant that for my three Higher Level classes — English, History and Film Studies — 30 credits were automatically exempt from my degree in Political Science and International Development.

This is an odd framing of policy considering that Higher Level IB subjects may not even have any relevance to your degree at McGill. This is especially pertinent for students in the Faculty of Arts, since few IB subjects directly overlap with the more challenging content studied in university Arts courses. When it comes to Introductory Biology or Math, course content may be comparable to material covered high school, and thus more easily transferable. Advanced standing also doesn’t take into account the grade students received on their Extended Essay – an in-depth research paper written in the last year of the IB. The latter is arguably the only component of  IB that directly transfers over to the development of the skill of higher education essay writing.

A fellow IB graduate who wished to remain anonymous had a similarly frustrating experience to recount: “Although I received credit for most of the classes that were a prerequisite for a Math major, the material covered in introductory McGill math classes is very different and far more challenging than what I studied in the IB. While I tried registering in one of these fundamental courses, and even spoke with an advisor, I was forced to withdraw halfway through the course, due to the credit I received for Higher Level Math in the IB.”

The McGill system for awarding academic standing, therefore, is lacking in a number of ways. Unlike many schools in the U.S. or the University of Toronto, at McGill we have no choice in whether we wish to transfer credits for registration or not. When it comes to core courses such as Calculus or Intro Biology, this might make sense. It’s ultimately unfair to students who are truly novices in prerequisite material to have to compete with students who have covered similar material in high school. But when it comes to the Arts disciplines, there is very little equivalency between, for example, history at the high school level and political science at the undergraduate level. The exemption of Arts students based on high school curriculae which only vaguely overlap with first year courses at McGill is not only arbitrarily decided, but ultimately creates gaps in our accumulation of base knowledge, which needs to happen early on in our degrees to help students cope with more challenging 300- and 400-level courses.

Understanding the momentum of the semester is an important part in adjusting to university life, but not everyone has had the opportunity to do so prior to entry into their McGill degrees. Both CEGEP and IB students, for instance, can enter McGill with similar amounts of credits transferred forward. Conversely, the IB is a two-year program in which ones studies six different subjects with a comparatively less specialized focus than in CEGEP, where students are already exposed to four-month-long semesters with courses specific to their chosen fields of interest.

It’s clear that academic standing policies are created with the intention of being in the student’s best interest. Allowing students to enroll in classes with material they have already covered and mastered is unfair; it’s both a waste of the students’ and the professor’s time. First year classes are big enough as it is, and so in many ways this is an important policy, but that doesn’t mean the process is unequivocally fair or successful. Furthermore, being pushed into choosing a major early on in your degree, with little to no exposure to both your courses of interest and the courses available, only serves to constrain students’ options.
Criticisms of these academic standing policies are usually expressed by the select groups of students who feel limited by them, not by every student who has received advanced standing in some form; a fair number of students would likely claim that academic standing has improved their experience.

In an ideal situation, though, McGill would allow some degree of student input in determining whether or not the student has a sufficient level of competence in both the skills and knowledge required to complete their degrees. Blanket policies based on the curriculae provided by international high school programs don’t work in the case of every student; having the choice to decide for ourselves, at least to a certain extent, would greatly benefit those who feel they need the flexibility of a four-year program to develop their potential.

The post What’s up with McGill’s advanced standing policy? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Cellphones emit these waves as a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, a form of energy emitted by charged particles, which can be absorbed by tissues closest to where the phone is held. Debate over the potential risk that cellular technology presents has grown in recent years, based in instances of cellphones causing minor illnesses such as headaches or fatigue. There is also a growing worry that cellphone radiation can cause more serious illness such as various forms of cancers. Studies like the Interphone study have tried to prove this – it is the largest study linking cellphones to brain tumours. Types of cancers include glioma, brain tumours that start in the brain and spine; and meningioma, tumours in the central nervous system, which coordinates all our motor and sensory functions.

Despite the debate, there is still no consistent evidence that the radiation emitted by cellphones increases the risk of cancer. This lack of conclusive evidence makes it difficult to decide whether we should limit our usage, or ignore all cases claiming danger. At present, the only known biological effect of cellphones on humans is heating, but the heating is too minimal to measurably increase body temperature. However, if there exists a non-identified threat, we may be putting ourselves under more risk than we realize by pushing the problem under the rug.

The debate over cellphones specifically, as opposed to microwaves and other electronics, is especially worrisome because of our frequent daily use, and the consequent proximity to body tissues as we lift the phones to our ears. On a global level, the number of cellphone users has risen to 6 billion people, according to a UN report based on 2011 data – enough for an epidemic of far greater reach than any we’ve seen before should radiation pose a health risk. Not to mention that over time, the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phone have increased.

Ultimately, it’s up to the informed individual to decide on whether cell phone use needs to be checked based on the cautionary anecdotes that occasionally crop up. The general public is unaware of the possibility of danger, and expert organizations such as the American Cancer Society have concluded that “there could be some risk associated with cancer, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further.”

Another problem in measuring this data is that most people don’t know how much they actually use their cellphones. When people are asked how much on average they use their phones, they are usually inaccurate in their perceptions, which gives studies a lot of recall bias. The latter, coupled with the lack of evidence surrounding the issue, presents the average consumer a dilemma. Would people reduce their cell phone usage to less than fifty minutes a day because they read it in a few studies or news reports, or would they take their chances by waiting for the experts to come up with more satisfying research?

As far as our daily lives are concerned, there are steps we can take to prevent health risks, at least to some extent. According to recommendations by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commision (FCC), exposure to radiofrequency energy can be reduced by reserving the use of cell phones for shorter conversations or only for times when a landline phone is not available. Also, using a hands-free device may be a good idea, to place more of a distance between your head and the phone.

Apart from trying to reduce our dependence on cell phones, another way of prevention might be to put more pressure on cell phone companies to both monitor their technology standards and inform us, as consumers, of the potential risks. Various efforts have been made to inform consumers of the risks, but more at the institutional level than within local communities. In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that radiofrequency radiation is possibly a precursor to cancer. Since then, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) backed a U.S. House bill entitled the Cell Phone Right to Know Act. This bill proposed that “radiation warnings be placed on mobile devices.” It also initiates the creation of research programs to study the effects of cellphone radiation, while forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to review radiation guidelines.  The AAP has also raised concerns about the lack of revision in cellphone standards of cellphone companies since 1996.

Cellphone companies are seemingly phoning it in on the research and safety of their products. As we see this debate unfold at a relatively early point in our lives, it is important that we take the initiative with preventative measures now, before long term exposure from harmful radiation results in later life complications. Waiting for the scientists to figure it out may just never happen. Who knows what might occur as a consequence?

It is notable to mention that mostly everything in the 21st century carries risks to humans. Why do we pick out of a vast number of threats and single cellphones out as the one thing everyone should be afraid of? Cellphones might inherently carry a threat, true. We didn’t know the drawbacks of cigarettes when we first started consuming them in mass quantities. Cellphones are a relatively new technology, and it is safe to assume that based on that one fact alone the threats related to these powerful mobile devices will be uncovered with time. Seeing as cellphones are slowly replacing our laptops, we can’t get rid of them altogether. We have to be wary of everything, and the bottom line is that moderation is key.

The post Are our cellphones killing us? appeared first on The McGill Daily.