The McGill administration’s anti-semitic practices

During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada saw an influx of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe who were fleeing religious persecution. Many of these immigrants settled in Montreal, where Jewish people thrived despite anti-Semitic hostility from the local population. Jewish immigrants often saw university as a means of upward socioeconomic mobility, functioning as a gateway into the elite of society. First generation Jews, encouraged by immigrant parents who wanted to see their children thrive in their new home, performed exceedingly well academically and soon made up a significant portion of university students at McGill.

In 1913, 6.8% of McGill students were Jewish; by 1924, this number had risen to 25%. Professor of Religion and Jewish Studies at Concordia University and the author of Anti-Semitism in Canada, Dr. Ira Robinson explains that Jewish students were perceived as being too “academically concentrated.” Supposedly, this warranted their reduction in academia in favour of students who were more “well rounded”: all codewords used to legitimize the reduction of the number of Jewish students admitted to McGill.

In 1926, McGill University adopted an informal ban on “Hebrew” students from outside Quebec.

In 1929, the Faculty of Arts increased the admission grade average requirement to 70% for Jewish students, then further increased it to 75% in the 1930s, while the grade requirement for non-Jews remained at 60% throughout that period. Additionally, the faculties of Medicine and Law instituted admission quotas that capped the number of Jewish students at 10% of the faculty’s student population. These policies achieved their desired results; by 1935 McGill’s the proportion of McGill students who were Jewish had dropped to 12%.

Although these policies were “purely administrative” and were never officialised, it was an open secret that McGill wanted to restrict the number of Jewish students at the university. In fact, many thought it normal that Jewish students would have to achieve better grades than their non-Jewish counterparts. It would not be until shortly after the second world war that these racist policies would be phased out.

A broader context of generalised anti-semitism

Anti-Semitic sentiments in Montreal and Canadian society at the time of the quotas were not limited to the academic sphere. Canadian Jewish historian Irving Abella describes Canada during the 1920’s-1930’s as “a benighted, xenophobic, anti-Semitic country” in which “Jews were excluded from almost every sector of Canadian society.” In Montreal, Jews were generally not hired as engineers, bankers or lawyers (except at Jewish firms). Virtually every Canadian university that had a sizable Jewish population implemented discriminatory measures similar to McGill’s. Furthermore, anti-Semitic sentiment was wide-spread on Canadian university campuses; in a 1933 survey, 80 percent of the University of Toronto’s non-Jewish students did not want to admit Jews into their clubs. Discriminatory policies against Jewish students were deemed justifiable as Jewish students were regarded as a threat to a ruling elite of Anglo-Saxon Protestant in Quebec.

In many ways, the quotas and higher admission standards were part of a larger effort by the ruling Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite to maintain the social status quo.

Many administrators felt that Jewish students were limiting the access to education for Anglo-Saxon students. Universities were an environment in which future elites networked. As Dr. Robinson puts it, admitting many Jewish students “clashed with social expectations,” because it fostered the inclusion of Jewish members within elite circles of society.

In May 1934, Dr. Samuel Rabinovitch was appointed as leading intern at Montreal’s Notre-Dame hospital. The other medical interns, predominantly Francophone, saw his appointment as a threat. The other interns called a Jew treating Catholic patients “repugnant.” Soon thereafter, the interns launched the first medical strike in Canada’s history, demanding that Rabinovitch resign. The strike was a widely publicized affair. It received broad support from the population and from French-Canadian nationalists. Under pressure, Dr. Rabinovitch eventually resigned.

The Société Saint Jean-Baptiste, who represented many French nationalists who opposed Rabinovitch, also campaigned against Jewish immigration to Quebec under the leadership of future mayor Jean Drapeau. Their anti-semitic petition received over 150,000 signatures.

Parallels with contemporary anti-Asian discrimination

This type of discrimination is not just limited to the past. Today, Asian students need better grades than their non-Asian counterparts to be admitted into Ivy League Universities such as Harvard. Harvard University is currently being sued for discriminating against Asian American students in their admission processes. The lawsuit has been brought by Students for fair admission which claims that “Asians get the Ivy League’s Jewish treatment” a reference to the racist quota policies against Jews that were also implemented in Ivy League institutions.

Struggles that Jewish students face today

When asked what current challenges Jewish students and academics face, Dr. Robinson cited the politicization of the Jewish identity with regard to the state of Israel. He stated that “Israel is the great fact of life of Jews in the 20th and 21st century”, and that, as a result, it “becomes impossible to differentiate between Jews and Israel.” In other words, many Jewish students may feel compelled to “[enunciate] a certain attitude toward Israel,” particularly one of political support. This conflation of Jewish identity with support for Israeli policies makes for an environment in which students may feel boxed into a set of beliefs due to their religion and/or ethnicity, making constructive political dialogue difficult. This is not to say that instances of anti-Semitism do not occur during or outside of such political debates; they do. Anti-Semitism must be called out and made accountable at every opportunity.

Conclusion

It’s important that we as McGill students are aware of our university’s discriminatory past. If we hope for our university and society to be places of equal opportunity, it is vital we understand where we have gone wrong. We as the McGill student body need to educate ourselves and take some responsibility for the University’s anti-Jewish policies by fighting against present and future anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination on the basis of people’s identities in the McGill community. This is vital if we do not want the politics of hate and racism to return to campus life.

The post McGill’s 1926 Jewish ban appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Between his ownership of slaves and his possession of stolen Indigenous land, McGill epitomized a picture of colonial success in his domination and subordination of Indigenous and Black people.

For many Indigenous and racialized members within the McGill community, colonialism is a daily reality. The name McGill only serves as a further reminder of the cultural genocide of their ancestors and the continued discrimination they face. Still, de-colonization seems not to be a priority for the university’s administration. Not only does their biography of James McGill present a whitewashed narrative, but the university continues to engage in settler colonial behaviour.

Settler colonialism is an international issue. The Israeli occupation and settlement of Palestinian territories like the West Bank is a contemporary example of the aggressive colonialism that McGill engages in. The university invests in companies that profit from the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, such as a $2 million investment in RE/MAX. RE/MAX is known to finance the development of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian land, settlements which have been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice. By disregarding international law, the university makes a statement on where it stands in the violent dispossession of Palestinian territory and identities. McGill’s financial support for RE/MAX, a company furthering the Zionist settler colonial agenda, sends a powerful and disturbing message. Based on their actions, McGill shows an open disregard for the McGill University Mission Statement and Principles when it comes to profiting off of modern-day colonization.

McGill’s investments have not gone unnoticed by student activists part of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. They have been urging the University to divest from companies profiting off Israeli settlements. BDS was formed in 2005 with the aim to end the Israeli government’s oppressive regime in Palestine through non-violent economic boycott. This pacifist tactic is comparable to the one used to take down the apartheid regime in South Africa.

In September of 2017, following advice from the Judicial Board, the SSMU board of directors voted that BDS was discriminatory in nature and violated SSMU’s Constitution and Equity Policy by targeting a specific nation, namely, Israel. However, BDS’ qualm with Israel is one founded on a disagreement with its government’s policies, not its identity as a nation. In fact, BDS works specifically to target governments and corporations, not individual citizens, who uphold oppressive colonial policies. They have a set of clear demands that focus exclusively on Palestinian rights and do not hamper on the rights of Israeli citizens, 20% of whom are Palestinian Arabs. The SSMU decision to make BDS unconstitutional at McGill is troubling, especially for Palestinian students, who are attending a university that is profiting off of the continued ethnic cleansing of their country. It is also a reminder that we as students have much work left to do in combatting colonial structures on campus.

A testimony of McGill’s current colonial reality is the underrepresentation of non-Western anti-colonial perspectives in academic teachings. For example, the Indigenous studies program is only offered as a minor, partly because there aren’t enough funds put into the creation of a variety of Indigenous content-related courses to fulfill the requirements for a major program. Outside of the Indigenous Studies program, Indigenous perspectives are even more limited, with most departments at McGill focusing nearly exclusively on eurocentric academic knowledge.

This Eurocentrism is apparent when looking at the syllabi for various courses at McGill. The introductory course to international relations, POLI 244, draws its reading material almost exclusively from Western scholars and textbooks. The same goes for GEOG 210, an introductory geography course on “global places and peoples.” Such courses deal with a subject matter that is international by nature, yet are taught through a purely Western lens. Even though authors sometimes attempt to limit ethnocentric bias, their study of other political systems and cultures is heavily influenced by the Western scientific method. This is based on empirical analysis of observable phenomena through a series of predetermined steps. That is not to say that Western epistemology is by any means weak — empirical analysis is a cornerstone of higher learning — but rather that it dominates the discourse at McGill to the detriment of other forms of knowledge, namely Indigenous epistemological systems. Our highlighting of this fact is not to criticize professors for their choice of subject matter, they are of course more than qualified to do so, but rather to underline that McGill as an institution that promotes a Eurocentric academic culture. Complementing a Eurocentric curricula with scholarly work from non-Western and Indigenous scholars, in addition to rethinking Western academic methodologies, would go a long way toward eroding colonial teaching on campus.

Ending colonialism isn’t something that can happen instantly, but there are concrete steps that we as students can take towards decolonizing McGill. Those who attend talks on campus or SSMU legislative council meetings have heard the sentence “the McGill campus sits on unceded Kanien’keha:ka land.” Reiterating this statement at each event may seem redundant to some, but in doing so we reclaim past and present identity of this place, an identity whose origins are eroded by the name McGill. A land acknowledgement certainly is a respectful gesture that honours the injustice this university has perpetuated; however, it does not heal the ongoing damage of hundreds of years of oppression.

In order to decolonize McGill, everyone needs to commit daily to the anti-colonial effort; the fight for decolonization is one of actions, not just words.

Here are various ways to increase your awareness and get involved on campus:

EDUCATE YOURSELF AND OTHERS:

• Take a course about race and/or colonialism
• Read Indigenous Writes by Chelsea Vowel (read and buy Indigenous work in general)
• Read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 calls to action, learn about residential schools, reconciliation and decolonisation
• Take Indigenous studies courses
• Attend McGill’s Indigenous awareness week events in mid-September
• Attend Black history month events in February
• Learn about microaggressions and educate people around you as to why they are harmful

ORGANIZE, GIVE SUPPORT, RESIST:

• Support/get involved with the Indigenous Student Alliance
• Support/get involved with Black Students’ Network
• Engage with BDS in the fight to divest from companies profiting off of Israeli settlements by liking SPHR’s Facebook page.
• Show solidarity with people struggling against colonialism through protesting, organizing, writing and material support.
• Join the Facebook group “settlement reparations for Indigenous people Montreal and surrounding area” to provide material support to Indigenous people around you.
• Support Black and Indigenous-led initiatives around you: attend events, pay artists, support and share their work
• Organize events and campaigns to counter colonialism on campus and in your community

We hope to see you at a rally soon!

The post McGill: a colonial institution appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The white poppy was introduced by the mothers and wives of dead soldiers in the 1930s, and demands that no more loved ones die in wars that serve political interests while inflicting harm upon civilians. It has become a symbol of remembrance for the civilian victims of war, who make up the majority of war deaths in every major conflict. Pacifists have adopted the symbol as well: the white poppy acknowledges that romanticizing conflict is dangerous, and attempts to reflect the very real horror experienced – by veterans and civilians alike – in times of armed conflict. In Montreal, white poppies are made by a local pacifist organization that seeks to prevent Canada’s involvement in future wars.

We were initially pleased when Liberal McGill and Conservative McGill agreed that we could sell both red and white poppies, either with them at their table or at a table next to them. Then, quite suddenly, they told us we would no longer be welcome unless we agreed to not sell white poppies. Although taken aback, we decided it was more important to engage in a dialogue with students about war than to blindly give in to the other clubs’ demands. Students and professors were very open to hearing the story of the white poppy, and in the process we raised important funds for both the Legion and pacifist activists.

This poppy conflict is not what’s important. We are concerned, however, that Liberals and Conservatives on campus are ignorant of the political aspects of war. In a contemporary context, going to war is a political choice, and the death and destruction that follows inevitably impacts the young and vulnerable the most. There is no contradiction in honouring those who fought bravely for what they believed in and demanding with all of our will that nobody die unnecessarily in the future. Remembrance should remind us of the repugnance of war and not inspire within us the desire to fight.

In light of the fact that Liberal and Conservative McGill chose to make remembrance a partisan issue this year, it is important to acknowledge that Liberal and Conservative governments have done a great disservice to veterans. Stephen Harper fought veterans in court for years, arguing that Canadians owed them no legal duty to provide for their well-being. Justin Trudeau has taken up that battle and continues to fight veterans. Veterans’ lawyers have said of the Liberal government’s actions: “[t]hey have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie.” Two of the first broken promises of the Liberal government came when it refused to reinstate lifelong pensions for veterans and reneged on its commitment to add $80 million in funding to veteran higher education.

Perhaps, this year, Liberals and Conservatives should reflect on remembrance and stop their betrayal of both former soldiers and those advocating to keep them safe.

NDP McGill

The post Remembrance is Political appeared first on The McGill Daily.