Our administration banks on, and profits from, the fact that Student X does not remember most of the struggles of previous generations – the ones whose records aren’t so easily found. Student X is concerned with which classes to choose, because they don’t remember the series of cuts that led them to this narrow selection. Student X is concerned with saving money on their meal plan, because they don’t know the history of accessible and affordable student-run food on campus.

This is how the administration breaks promises, takes away autonomy, narrows choices, and revokes freedoms: because we never knew we had them in the first place. And if Student X learns this history, starts to organize, and tries to fight back, the administration can wait until they graduate and try again.

Years ago, McGill students had the right to use the McGill name. They had groups that didn’t face regular existence referenda. Student-run areas offered safer spaces for students to study, eat, and most importantly, talk to each other on campus. SSMU didn’t pay over $100,000 in rent to its own university. Senior administration positions were few, and Russian Studies majors enjoyed their own department.

Last year, an open letter to the administration regarding their treatment of the #6party occupation – a protest against the decision to void the results of the CKUT and QPIRG existence referenda – was signed by 157 alumni. A huge number of these signatories are former SSMU executives and councillors, faculty association executives, members of campus media, and leaders of student groups; in other words, the students on this campus who are closest to and deal with the administration the most. (14 of these signatories are former Daily editors, and more are former columnists and contributors, a fact that I am proud to note.)

“We believed that through dialogue and compromise we could work toward common goals. We acted in good faith and expected the same in return,” the letter read. Despite this optimism, these alumni wrote, “after years of fruitless attempts to engage meaningfully with the McGill administration, we realized that we were wrong.” Nothing has changed.

For student groups, services, and clubs, turnover is rapid – you’re lucky if you grab ‘em straight out of Frosh and squeeze in three or four years of membership. Leadership changes annually, and living memory maybe stretches back for the last five or six years.

This reality is a nuisance for members and executives: when a problem arises, when a question of history is raised, the answer is buried in paperwork, yearbooks, or former members’ brains. Students’ collective lack of knowledge about our predecessors, and a faulty memory of our past, leaves us in danger of losing much more than just a history.

There are written archives – The Daily has 100 years of archives from a student perspective, most of which reside in our office. There are oral archives – faculty and staff on this campus have seen generations of students fight the same battles again and again. We need to utilize these resources, prioritize the development of a knowledge of the context that we are living in, and recognize the longevity of the legacy that we are continuing.

Grassroots organizers often talk about building support block by block, person by person. If we want to build a stronger campus and stronger student movements, we need to build memory – and understanding – year by year, movement by movement.

Queen Arsem-O’Malley is the Coordinating editor of The Daily, but the opinions here are her own. If you want to talk to her, reminisce with her, or offer her a job, you can reach her at qarsemomalley@gmail.com.

The post Remember what? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Redskins, which have been named as such since 1937, have a logo consisting of a profile of a stereotyped Native man, with reddish-brown skin and a feather sticking out of his head. The team’s name and associated logos have spent years as a topic of discussion about disparaging representation of Native peoples. The team is not alone in their heavily-debated position: teams like the Cleveland Indians (which features a similar logo of a grinning, bright red face with a feather in its hair) have also been targeted by campaigns to clean up their brand. The Indians have been the focus of protests  for years; an April 2012 article  in the Plain Dealer explains the twenty-year history of annual protests, organized by the Cleveland American Indian Movement (AIM) at Indians home games.

Professional teams have largely been resistant to change, for obvious (financial) reasons. Polls organized by groups like Sports Illustrated have attempted to gauge how Native communities feel about the name and logo, with results that often claim that few are offended – a claim that is disputed by decades of activism and clouded by questionable sample sizes and methodology.

Huge numbers of fans have complained that names like the Redskins’ are not racist, offensive, or problematic. The idea that language – no matter how ingrained that language is in our lexicon or brand names – is isolated from political implications is naïve and dangerous. One of the Redskins’ arguments in their own defence is that high school and college teams all over the country share the name, and that to change the team is to affect all of its derivatives. The argument falls flat in the face of a long list of amateur teams who have changed their names in the past, and the recent vote by students at a New York high school to change their team name from ‘Redskins’.

At McGill, the university’s sports teams are known as Redmen and Martlets (men’s teams are the Redmen, while women’s are the Martlets). In past years, students and members of the university community have expressed concern about potentially problematic origins of the name ‘Redmen’.

A media guide released by McGill Athletics addresses the origin of the name, quoting McGill historian Stanley Frost. “A look into the history of the nickname ‘Redmen’ reveals that it was first used in 1927 and was originally written as two words (i.e. ‘Red Men’), in reference to the red school colours and red jerseys worn by McGill teams,” the guide reads. It goes on to explain that Frost draws the connection between the nickname ‘Red Men’ being used for ancient Celts due to their hair colour, and the Scottish heritage of McGill founder James McGill. (A similar explanation was used by the University of Massachusetts, which argued that the origin of its teams’ name ‘Redmen’ was jersey colour. In 1972, UMass changed its teams’ name to the Minutemen.)

Earl Zukerman, communications officer for Athletics & Recreation, explained the history of McGill team names. He attributed the start of the nickname ‘Red Men’ to media outlets in the 1920s. “Papers didn’t have a lot of room in their headlines, so they came up with nicknames,” Zukerman said in an interview with The Daily. He said that he was unsure when McGill officially adopted the name.

A quick search will turn up the Montreal Gazette’s reports on the ‘McGill Indians’ in the 1950s. Zukerman said that the media attached the name to junior varsity teams, back when McGill had senior varsity, junior varsity, and intermediate teams. Around 1970, in a funding crisis, McGill “stopped all funding for athletics,” Zukerman explained. When that happened, junior varsity teams were cut, effectively ending the use of the name.

It’s a somewhat convoluted history, complicated further by logos that Athletics has tried to separate from the names. A text by Zukerman, originally posted on a former incarnation of the McGill Athletics website, explains that, “of the 48 varsity sports teams at McGill, only football and hockey have for a brief period of time, used an aboriginal symbol as part of their playing uniform.” The text explains that a 1992 inquiry by the McGill Athletics Board in 1992 decided to remove the logo that had been in place since 1982 – which is described just as “an aboriginal logo” – because it had “nothing to do with the origins of the team name.” The 1992 decision by McGill was a positive step toward recognizing the impact of culturally insensitive team names which may someday extend to the professional ranks; however, the refusal by McGill to address the problems with the name ‘Red Men’ – regardless of what they claim its origins to be – shows that we still have a long way to go.

The post Redskins, Redmen, racism? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Napoleon, Law Foundation Professor of Aboriginal Justice and Governance at the University of Victoria, was at McGill as part of SEDE’s Indigenous Education Series. Napoleon’s talk on Indigenous Citizenship and Law touched on issues of using Indigenous systems of law as a way to challenge, rather than perpetuate, damaging power relations and oppressions in communities.

Napoleon connected the idea of citizenship – for which she used political philosopher James Tully’s definition of “complex practices of freedom” – to Indigenous peoples’ status as citizens of both the Canadian state and their respective nations, and the need for citizens to productively challenge their relationship to governing bodies.

A traditional story told by Napoleon entitled “The Origin of the Wolf Crest” was used to explain the role of storytelling in practices of Indigenous law. “Stories are about being tools for thinking, about being spaces for conversations,” she said. The story demonstrated the ways in which gender relations, power relations, and ideas of inclusivity and membership play themselves out in groups.

Napoleon also explored the idea of “law as a process, not law as a thing.” Through this she presented a broad conception of law in which there are processes for solving human problems, discussing outcomes, and setting precedents. She called for the need to have an intellectual community to interpret Indigenous law to create “spaces to have conversations about power.”

During the question period at the end of her talk, Napoleon addressed the importance of the Idle No More movement. “I guess what I’m interested in with [Idle No More] is that there has to be a way for people to move past the criticism of what’s wrong, to constructively be able to engage,” Napoleon said. She applauded the movement for its ability to touch the lives of Indigenous peoples regardless of their previous political engagement.

Vicaire was pleased with the turnout at Napoleon’s event, as there were students from a wide range of faculties. “One of my mandates is to do a pan-university initative,” he said in an interview with The Daily. “With Indigenous issues, most students [normally] come from Anthropology, History, and Law; I want to reach students from Computer Science and Engineering,” a goal that he felt had been met on Tuesday.

Prior to her talk, Napoleon conducted two workshops in the Faculty of Law and participated in a luncheon with students at the First Peoples’ House.

Napoleon was the first of three speakers in SEDE’s Indigenous Education Series. Upcoming guest speakers will address issues of colonialism and state dependence and inequalities faced by First Nations children. Vicaire said that students and partners, such as the First Peoples’ House and Indigenous Access McGill, help him find speakers. These partners, as well as individual faculties, often help SEDE pay for bringing these guest speakers to the University.

The post Val Napoleon speaks on Indigenous law appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Logically, one might think that after watching a team be defeated for years and years (and years and years), a fan would give up hope, wash their hands of their fandom, and switch their viewing allegiances to Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, or to a more successful team. After all, in a society obsessed with success, no one likes to be defeated.

Yet, despite 104 years without a World Series win, the Cubs are doing pretty well in terms of filling their stadium’s seats. In 2011, they drew over 3 million fans to their stadium, and averaged 37,259 fans per game – not far off from a sell- out, every game, despite a 71-91 regular season record. The Boston Red Sox, during their 86-year championship drought, didn’t see Red Sox Nation shrink (in fact, it probably became more fanatic). Buffalo Bills (a football team most famous for losing four straight Super Bowls) fans still pay more than a hundred dollars to buy new jerseys; Leyton Orient (an English soccer club that plays in the third tier) fans still watch YouTube clips from their 2006 season (when they played in the fourth tier). There are hundreds of teams whose club names are synonymous with losing, and most of them seem to be doing pretty okay in the area of moral support.

There are the moments where it doesn’t seem possible to endure it anymore. Take my grandfather, for instance: a lifelong Red Sox fan, he swore he would never return to Fenway Park after Buckner lost the Red Sox the 1986 World Series. But ask him the score of last night’s game, and he inevitably will have watched it. Ask him the roster, and he will be able to rattle it off.

So why do these fans stick it out?

Tennis star Maria Sharapova once said that “fans always root for the underdog.” A 2007 study out of the University of South Florida (USF) investigated this very phenomenon. In proposing hypothetical sporting and Olympic matches, researchers found that their test subjects tended to favour the underdog in unevenly matched situations.

Note the ‘hypothetical’ in the USF scenarios. The romanticized triumph of an underdog clawing their way to the top may be appealing, but Gordon Bloom, associate professor of Sport Psychology at McGill, says that’s not what draws fans of long-suffering teams.

“One of the things that you get from sports is a strong affiliation or emotional tie,” Bloom explained in an interview with The Daily. “Whether you’re an athlete or a fan, sports is one domain where passion and loyalty come into play.”

That loyalty is a key part of fandom. “Sports fans stick with their team win, lose, or, draw,” Bloom said. “I think that’s just part of the sports culture that you stick with your team through thick and thin.”

This culture is why a ‘fair-weather fan’ – someone who only supports a team while it’s on top, or switches to rooting for a more successful team – is an insult: a real fan sticks with their identity no matter what happens. Supporting a losing team is a proud show of undying loyalty, and demonstrates an ability to weather the pain of constant disappointment – a contest of fandom, if you will – but Bloom says that being the underdog doesn’t gain fans.

If you’re a fan who’s drinking post-playoffs to drown sorrows rather than popping champagne, blame your hometown and your parents. Bloom sees sports fandom as generally dependent on one of two things: geography and family ties. “I’m not as convinced that [supporting a team is] a choice that people make as much as you’re sort of brought into this world in a certain place and you choose to follow that either because geography or because of family lineage…people in sports don’t look at [the] win-loss record when they’re forming a bond with their teams.”

Who we support is intrinsically linked to our identity: just as we can’t change where we’re from, or what games our parents raised us on, we can’t change the pride and intimacy of supporting a team that resonates with a crucial aspect of who we are. And so, despite the heartbreak, we bounce back for another season, promising ourselves and our peers that this is the year.

After the tears, cursing, hair-pulling, and maybe some TV-breaking, long-suffering fans can be assured of one thing: as rare as our victories are, they are that much sweeter when they arrive. Sure, it might be nice to win a championship every few years, but when you’ve spent decades of your life waiting for it, your party’s going to be a lot more fun.

The post Always losing, and proud of it appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The report summarizes the discussions that took place from March to May and recommends that language in the Code of Student Conduct be clarified, that the James Protocol be less restrictive, and that Security Services review its training program.

Principal Heather Munroe-Blum mandated Manfredi to head the process of organizing the Open Forum on February 13.

The mandate originated from the Jutras Report on the events of November 10, 2011 – an internal investigation conducted by Dean of Law Daniel Jutras – which stated that “University authorities should provide and participate in a forum open to all members of the University community to discuss the meaning and scope of the rights of free expression and peaceful assembly on campus.”

Munroe-Blum’s announcement of the Open Forum project immediately followed the release of the Provisional Protocol Regarding Demonstrations, Protests, and Occupations on McGill University Campuses and the five-day occupation of Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson’s office.

Munroe-Blum announced in Senate yesterday that the Provisional Protocol would be reviewed and discussed during the November Senate meeting.

Open discussions

The number of community members who took part in or watched the Open Forum discussions was not available. The Daily previously reported that the first discussion, which took place on March 1, saw a “handful” of attendees.

Students interviewed at that time expressed a lack of faith in the process. Manfredi’s report notes, “some students had engaged in a boycott of the process” due to “skepticism about the efficacy of the Open Forum and criticisms of both its style and substance.”

Manfredi wrote in an email to The Daily that he became aware of the boycott in a meeting with authors of the November 10 Independent Study Inquiry (ISI) “after the Open Forum sessions were complete.”

ISI member Amanda Murphy said that she was not among those who boycotted, but described the environment of the second open discussion as “hostile.”

Murphy said she was among the few students present who were not members of Manfredi’s Advisory Committee or involved with SSMU Council.

“[The discussion] was not conducive to dialogue at all, unless you were very certain of your viewpoint,” Murphy recalled.

The report also includes concerns about concealing identities during protests, a discussion that mainly revolved around the use of masks to preserve anonymity during #6party. After the occupation, several staff members in James brought up concerns that masks added to an atmosphere of intimidation and made them feel threatened.

Manfredi also notes the contrasting concern that easily-recognized students could be targeted by security and administrative personnel, discouraging on-campus demonstrations.

Another major discussion is that of public versus private space. The report clarifies, “in strictly legal terms, McGill University’s campuses are private property…and open to the public by invitation.”

It also states that differentiation of space – including restricting access to some locations such as those where research is conducted – is reasonable and done at other universities.

Recommendations

Manfredi’s call to clarify language in the Code of Student Conduct hinged largely on the fact that the Code does not define the term “disruption.” Section 5 of the Code, which discusses disruption, was the basis of much of last year’s disciplinary action following the #6party occupation and several other incidents on campus.

According to the report, clarifying this term would “identify activity that is clearly exempt from disciplinary proceedings.”

The recommendation to review the James Protocol – the security procedure to enter the James building, which became very strict following #6party – has been addressed to some degree by the fact that Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Michael Di Grappa announced in September that the building would no longer be on card-only access, and that McGill community members would be allowed to enter the building during work hours as long as they signed in.

At yesterday’s Senate meeting, Munroe-Blum referred to an incident last week in which “two students went in and created a sense of intimidation in the [James Administration] building.”

Doug Sweet, director of Internal Relations, told The Daily that it was an isolated incident in which two students accessed the James Administration building and “reacted aggressively” to staff members who asked them to make an appointment.

Sweet pointed to the need to balance community building access rights with creating a safe environment for those working in the building.

Manfredi’s final recommendation is that Security Services “review their training program.”

The report discusses participants’ concerns about the securitization of campus and enhanced surveillance of public events, but does not factor these into the recommendation, which focuses more on the procedural recommendations such as, “security personnel must be well trained in the substance of University regulations and the preparation of incident reports.”

—with files from Juan Camilo Velásquez

The post Manfredi report on Free Expression and Peaceful Assembly released appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The administration would like us to know that they have taken steps to improve communication between those in James and those on Lower Field. From chatty emails about vacation plans, to food-focused events on campus, to creating a Director of Internal Communications, expanding surface-level and superficial communication was clearly a summer priority for the highest-paid employees at the University. Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Michael Di Grappa of “[students] don’t have a right to demonstrate on campus” fame even announced that the administration totally heard faculty and student concerns that a constant and visible security presence at the doors of the James Administration building “didn’t make people feel welcome” (shocking!).

The Daily exists to critique and examine power relations and imbalances. Morton Mendelson, Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning), feels that using satire as a vehicle for this criticism – and using his public persona as a figurehead for the administration – is mean-spirited and tiresome (“A personal attack from behind a screen,” Commentary, September 13, page 6). There is an inherent power imbalance between the administration and the students at McGill. Students have almost no input in the major decisions of our university, despite having to bear the brunt of these decisions’ consequences. Our modes of communication with each other are limited to student publications that print a few thousand copies – quite a bit fewer than emails that reach every student and faculty member through the MRO email system.

Accurate critiques of power are never “fair and balanced,” which the phrase’s positioning as the motto of Fox News should make clear. When the outside world wants to know what’s going on at McGill, it’s those on the sixth floor of James that are contacted – one of the few times students themselves were asked was when they took it upon themselves to be on that sixth floor. And whenever students reveal and address this power imbalance, regardless of the manner in which it’s done, it’s often dismissed as whiny disobedience and ad hominem attacks.

The administration doesn’t seem to understand that hollow reassurances and weak gestures towards fostering community do nothing to give students back the power they’ve lost over the past years on this campus. Student autonomy has been consistently eroding, as student control over our own spaces, groups, and funding slips away. All the mingle-friendly barbecues in the world won’t taste as good as Arch Café’s student-centricity (and brownies) did. All the peppy emails you can think of won’t erase the memories of MROs being used to warn students of the horrors of a student demonstration walking by the Roddick Gates. And not even the largest fruit salad in the history of human civilization will nourish student groups during the grueling, divisive, and useless practice of existence referenda (and no, I’m not just saying that because The Daily is forced to hold one). Instead of coming up with events that are supposed to “promote the values of inclusivity and community,” how about the administration promotes those values by not pitting students against each other in a battle to save the lives of valuable organizations like QPIRG?

As a wise McGill disciplinarian once told me, being a public figure has its downsides. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather my position have the downside of absurd satire than have to work at the mercy of an uncompromising and unchallenged administration.

Queen Arsem-O’Malley is wary of relationships but maintains a profound love of satire and ATI requests. She is The Daily’s Coordinating editor. All opinions expressed are her own. Email her at queen.arsem-omalley@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Satire is the least of your problems appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The law calls for the suspension of schoolwork in CEGEPs and university faculties that are affected by the strike.  The semester would resume on August 15 and finish at the end of September. According to La Presse, heavy fines would be imposed on students blocking access to classes.

Thousands of students gathered at parc Emilie-Gamelin at around 11:00 p.m. and marched peacefully through the downtown area. But after firecrackers were set off, bank windows smashed, and allegations by the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) of an assault within the crowd, the demonstration was declared illegal. Several “targeted” arrests were made before the group at Maisonneuve was surrounded by officers.

Plastic bullets were fired at protesters on at least two occasions.

Two journalists from The Daily and three from Concordia newspaper the Link were among those kettled and were told they would be charged with participating in an illegal assembly, and that the SPVM would not recognize their press credentials because they were not members of the “organized press,” namely the Fédération professionelle des journalistes du Québec (FPJQ).

Journalists being held tweeted their location to the SPVM’s account, which responded and informed the students that calls were being made regarding their situation. Four buses arrived on the scene to transport arrested demonstrators at about 2 a.m. Shortly afterwards, the five student journalists were released. The SPVM reported that 122 arrests were made.

– with files from Laurent Bastien Corbeil and Henry Gass

The post Demo ends in kettles, arrests appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The suspensions followed a week of tension on campus surrounding departmental strike votes and picketing, particularly around hard picket lines attempted by the Department of English Students Association (DESA) and graduate students from McGill’s School of Nursing.

Article 21(a) states that when a disciplinary officer has “reasonable grounds to believe that the student’s continued presence in said area is detrimental to good order, or constitutes a threat to the safety of others, immediately to leave and remain away from said area or a part thereof, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding five working days.”

The definition of “good order” and “safety of others” is interpreted by the disciplinary officer.

Ethan Feldman, a U4 Arts student, was banned beginning last Wednesday, March 21. The other students, which included SSMU VP External Joël Pedneault, were banned for incidents that took place on Monday, the same day that a McGill student was allegedly hit by a security guard while students picketed classes at Concordia.

Two of the students, who wished to remain unnamed, were informed verbally by Costopoulos of their suspension from campus, and were escorted from campus by security agents, while Pedneault and Feldman were notified via email.

Costopoulos spoke to article 21(a), which he said is rarely invoked, and is separate from disciplinary action.

“It’s actually quite rare that I find a situation on campus that justifies excluding a student. It’s really a last resort,” Costopoulos said.

Pedneault said that he was not aware of his suspension until Costopoulos asked why he was on campus and informed him of the decision, which had been sent via email earlier that day.

Pedneault said that the incident for which he was banned involved the presence of a Université de Québec à Montréal (UQAM) class on McGill’s downtown campus. Several UQAM students wished to conduct a discussion about the student strike during the class, and contacted Pedneault to serve as a liaison with McGill Security.

According to Pedneault, the class was a peaceful discussion, and ended when both pro-strike students and class participants left at about 9:45 a.m. He added that there was “no confrontational atmosphere,” and while there was one security guard present for part of the class, he “was surprised to get a letter from the University which essentially says that, in relation to events that took place in Adams 348… I was considered a threat to good order.”

One of the students suspended said that they were not actively participating in picketing classes, but had been handing out flyers next to a picket when they were removed from campus.

The written notice of suspension sent by Costopoulos to three of the students had no description of the incidents in question other than the number of the room outside of which they allegedly occurred.

In the current form of the Code, there is no appeals process for a 21(a). Costopoulos called this a “flaw in the Code.”

“I would like to see in 21(a) some CSD [Committee on Student Discipline] oversight to shield students against abuse,” he said.

“I can’t speak for any other [disciplinary officer], but, personally, if a student said, ‘Well, I want CSD to review your decision, I want to appeal it to CSD,’ I would look at the Code and I would say, ‘There’s nothing in there that prevents it,’” Costopoulos explained.

The suspended students said that they provided no identification, but were identified through recognition by security personnel or by Costopoulos.

“This [issue of identification] is brought up again and again, and the only thing I can come up with is being recognized is not an infringement of rights. If people know who you are, they’re not infringing your rights by that very fact, just like people know who I am when I walk around campus,” Costopoulos explained.

Security personnel also enforce the ban. According to Feldman, Costopoulos told him that Security’s mandate includes physically removing suspended students from campus if necessary. A “valid academic reason” must be cleared with Costopoulos for exceptions. Costopoulos also granted Pedneault limited access to the Shatner building in order to be able to work from his office during the suspension.

On Tuesday morning, a letter was sent to Costopoulos and several administrative figures questioning their disciplinary practices by a lawyer representing several students facing disciplinary charges from the University, including some of the students banned from campus.

The post Four students banned from campus appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The notice alleges that Feldman violated section 8b of the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures, which states that no student shall “knowingly create a condition which unnecessarily endangers or threatens or undermines the health, safety, well-being, or dignity of another person or persons, threatens to cause humiliation or threatens the damage or destruction of property.”

Feldman said that since the disciplinary notice did not specify, he could not be sure what incident it refers to.

Feldman explained that he talked to a security guard about entry to Senate – which was a limited-access meeting, and was livestreamed in the Redpath Museum – and later handed out copies of the Quebec Private Security Act in the Leacock building. He said that he later went to the Redpath Museum to watch the livestream.

An initial meeting with Associate Dean of Students Linda Starkey took place on Wednesday, one week after the notice was delivered.

Associate Professor of Philosophy Alison Laywine and Philosophy Professor Hasana Sharp accompanied Feldman to his meeting with Starkey. Laywine and Sharp were not allowed to sit in on the meeting.

Starkey allowed the two professors to meet with herself and Feldman once the initial meeting was complete.

Another meeting has been scheduled for March 7 to exchange evidence between both parties. However, Feldman explained that “I don’t know what the case is, so I don’t know what evidence I could provide.”

“I was surprised at the opacity,” Laywine told The Daily after the meeting. “It strikes me that that’s a problem with the way the disciplinary process is set up.”

The Code of Student Conduct is currently under revision, a point that Feldman said Starkey mentioned during their meeting.

Feldman’s notice came on the same day that other McGill students received notice of disciplinary action for the January 31 interruption of a Board of Governors meeting.

He said that he did not formally identify himself to University authorities in the Leacock building, but that security personnel are familiar with him. Feldman was a fifth floor occupier on November 10, and a sixth floor occupier during #6party.

The post Disciplinary action taken against student protestor appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The text of QPIRG’s question – which was voted on from November 4 to 10, 2011 – read, “Do you support QPIRG continuing as a recognized student activity supported by a fee of $3.75 per semester for undergraduate students, which is not opt-outable on the Minerva online opt-out system but is instead fully refundable directly through QPIRG,” with the understanding that a vote of ‘no’ would terminate student funding of the organization.

The J-Board case, filed by students Zach Newburgh and Brendan Steven, was heard last week in the Lev Bukhman room.

QPIRG board member Kira Page said that the organization is “dismayed and disturbed” by the results, and is deciding how to proceed. Page said that an official statement from QPIRG will be issued by the end of the week.

J-Board’s decision was released two days after the end of the #6party occupation of the James Administration building, which demanded that the administration recognize the results of both QPIRG and CKUT’s referendum questions.

The McGill administration and QPIRG have been in discussion regarding the organization’s Memorandum of Agreement and fall 2011 referendum question. It is unclear how the J-Board ruling may affect discussions between McGill and QPIRG. Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson announced in January that the administration had decided to invalidate the results of the fall 2011 referendum.

The second part of the petition, which challenged the actions of Elections SSMU Chief Electoral Officer Rebecca Tacoma during the campaign, was dismissed.

“Based on all of the evidence before us, including the written and oral arguments, as well as the testimonies, the respondent’s decisions seemed justified, transparent and intelligible,” the ruling read.

The ruling requires a ratification vote by the SSMU Board of Directors (BoD). BoD will not meet until after the February reading week, and would require 4/5 of the Board to reject the ruling in order for it to be overturned.

SSMU President Maggie Knight said that SSMU is not planning on releasing a statement, but that information about the ruling is available on SSMU’s website.

In terms of an appeals process for BoD, Knight said that SSMU is in “a little bit of a legal gap.”

“We will let people know that we are going to be discussing it at the Board of Directors meeting, and we will invite anyone who is particularly concerned and think there has been some sort of egregious miscarriage of justice to come forward with their concerns,” Knight said.

There will be a referendum question regarding the structure of the BoD and setting up an appeals process, but voting on winter referendum questions will not take place until March.

Steven and Newburgh released a statement on Tuesday afternoon. “We are satisfied with the Judicial Board’s ruling to invalidate the result of the Fall 2011 QPIRG Existence Referendum,” it stated.

“We call on the Board to respect the principles of natural justice and due process by affirming the decision outlined in the verdict. The integrity of the SSMU’s referendum process demands it. The SSMU cannot set a precedent, which allows referendum questions to stand when they do not provide members of the SSMU with a clear choice when voting,” it continued.

The post J-Board invalidates QPIRG question appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The students on the sixth floor estimated they received forty pounds of food.

At nearly midnight on Thursday, as about fifty supporters participated in a teach-in beneath the sixth floor window, a line of fishing wire was thrown from the window in order to set up a pulley system. Once successfully installed, the pulley was used to lift bags of food and supplies to the window.

Security agents on the third floor tried to reach the line from a window with a broom, but were unable to. Security agents outside of the building made no attempt to stop students from operating the pulley system, which they did from within a circle of supporters linking arms.

In an email to McGill staff and students on Thursday night, Vice-Principal (Finance and Administration) Michael Di Grappa wrote that the students “are free to leave the building if they are hungry, feel ill, or need things like medication, as they have been free to do from the beginning of the occupation.”

The sixth floor students responded to the email in a statement released on their website.

“Forcing us to choose between our bodily needs and exercising our rights to speech and assembly is hardly a free choice,” the students wrote.

The students reported that they had enough food to last through Wednesday, and made it clear in communications on Twitter and with campus media that, previous to the food delivery, their supply was running low.

While students occupied the lobby of the James building on Tuesday, student Amber Gross was allowed to meet with negotiators and Associate Vice-Principal (University Services) Jim Nicell. Nicell refused to allow Gross to bring food to the meeting.

On Wednesday night, a rope and bucket were lowered from the window that the sixth floor students gained access to; however, security agents on a floor below the occupiers cut the rope to prevent the attempt from continuing.

Six professors tried to enter through the front door of the James building on Thursday afternoon with a supply of food, but were denied entry by security forces and told that the building was closed.

“As faculty, we don’t have access to this building at all and [security] didn’t have a response to that, weren’t able to talk to that, and they weren’t able to put us in contact with somebody who would have an answer to that,” said Associate Professor of Islamic Studies Michelle Hartman, one of the professors who was turned away.

“They suggested Provost [Anthony] Masi,” Hartman added. “[Security] claimed that they had no way of getting in touch with him and we would have to figure out a way to get in touch with him if we wanted to know what the policy was about why to close the building.”

Students who were gathered outside of the building next attempted to throw pieces of fruit into the window, an effort which saw short-lived success.

­­–with files from Erin Hudson

The post Student supporters successful in James occupation food delivery appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The case challenges the results of the fall 2011 referendum question regarding QPIRG’s existence and opt-out system.

SSMU President Maggie Knight released a statement explaining that VP University Affairs Emily Clare will spearhead SSMU decisions relating to the J-Board case.

Knight stated that she has “too many different roles in relation to the ongoing Judicial Board case” to make decisions regarding the case, including hiring J-Board justices, acting as supervisor to Tacoma, and a history of personal interactions with petitioners Newburgh and Steven.

Knight specified that she voted to censure Newburgh last year following his involvement with Jobbook.

Clare said that she plans to disclose any previous involvement with QPIRG, including professional interactions with the group in her capacity as Equity Commissioner last year.

“I’m not making the decision, just more facilitating the J-Board process,” said Clare.

SSMU’s Conflict of Interest Policy, which was redrafted following last year’s allegations against Newburgh, is also mentioned in the J-Board case itself. The case charges VP Clubs & Services, Carol Fraser, Clubs & Services representative Adam Winer, and former Arts representative Micha Stettin with conflicts of interest.

The three councillors played roles in bringing QPIRG and CKUT’s referendum questions to Council for approval. At the time, Fraser and Winer were members of the CKUT ‘yes’ committee, while Stettin sat on the QPIRG Board of Directors.

Discussion also arose around the history of J-Board Justice Raphael Szajnfarber, who was involved in a 2008 Hillel Ottawa dispute with the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG).

On Tuesday, Szajnfarber released a statement detailing the situation. Then-President of Hillel Ottawa, Szajnfarber acted as spokesperson for the organization when Hillel complained that OPIRG had refused to provide funding for an event due to Hillel’s connection to Israel.

“I’m the one who liaised with [Szajnfarber] and asked him to put up that statement, because it’s just trying to get as much information out as possible,” Clare said.

Szajnfarber’s statement outlines the steps he took to inform SSMU of his involvement in the situation during his interview for the position of a J-Board Justice, as well as informing his fellow justices and filing an official disclosure form.

Chief Justice David Parry also filed an official disclosure form declaring his former position as staff writer with The Daily and Le Délit, though none of his work covered student politics.

Szajnfarber stated that he has “never met or been in contact with any of the parties to the dispute,” and that none have asked him to step down from the case. QPIRG McGill is not considered a party in the J-Board case; the named parties are Steven, Newburgh, and Tacoma.

SSMU Council will hold a public discussion about the case tonight.

According to a statement released by J-Board, there will not be a decision on the case at the hearing, but a judgment will be made “within a reasonable delay after the hearing.” The hearing is set for Monday, January 30.

The post J-Board case develops as hearing draws near appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The organizations are required to go to existence referenda every five years. In the fall 2011 referendum, both CKUT and QPIRG’s questions proposed changing the system of opting out of fees to an in-person process rather than online through Minerva.

The organizations must pass their existence referenda in order to begin negotiating their Memorandum of Agreement with the University.

Kira Page, a member of the QPIRG Board of Directors, said that the organizations met with Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson in December, “wherein [it] was firmly suggested that [rejecting the referendum results] would be the decision of the administration.”

In a press release from CKUT and QPIRG, a letter from the administration is quoted as saying that referendum results were “unclear.”

According to Mendelson, “[the administration] only saw the questions when they were published for the referendum – too late to suggest changes to improve clarity.”

Before being presented to students, referendum questions must either pass through SSMU Council, or gather 500 student signatures, as well as undergo a review by Elections SSMU (formerly Elections McGill).

“Elections SSMU found the questions to be very clear,” said Rebecca Tacoma, chief returning officer of Elections SSMU, in an email to The Daily. “We did take note of the fact that some students expressed both questions to be a difficult choice between voting ‘Yes,’ for continuing to support the student group in question through a fee that is not opt-outable on Minerva, or voting ‘No,’ for not continuing to recognize the group in question as a student group that collects fees.”

“However, just because the questions may have presented options that were difficult for some students to choose between, this cannot be confused with the actual clarity of the question,” Tacoma wrote.

In an email to The Daily, Mendelson said that, in the past, “some fee referenda have not been implemented, because they also lacked clarity.” He did not offer specific examples.

SSMU released a letter directed to Mendelson addressing the decision. “We are naturally concerned that a democratic decision by the student body – and, by  extension, SSMU’s democratic processes in general – are being declared invalid, and would appreciate a response to these concerns,” wrote SSMU President Maggie Knight.

Page said that the administration has told CKUT and QPIRG to run a second referendum with questions that they approve.

“[The organizations] can also ask a separate question on whether the fee should be non opt-outable, on the understanding that the administration cannot be bound by a referendum on the method of opting out,” wrote Mendelson.

Voting for the winter referendum period will occur from March 8 to 14.

Page pointed out that running a second referendum question would forestall negotiations with the University.

“We’re definitely looking into other options…we had very clear student support from that fall referendum campaign, and [we are] using that to pressure the administration into accepting the results and looking into our other options in negotiations,” Page said.

J-Board

Students Zach Newburgh and Brendan Steven have filed a case with SSMU’s Judicial Board (J-Board) requesting that the results of the fall 2011 referendum question regarding the existence of QPIRG be invalidated.

According to J-Board Chief Justice David Parry, the public hearing for the case will be on January 30, in the Lev Bukhman room. Quorum for J-Board is three justices.

The students’ 64-page case file – which includes evidence gathered from emails, Facebook activity, SSMU Council minutes, and campus publications – accuses the QPIRG ‘Yes’ committee of numerous infractions.  The case claims that campaign rules were enforced irregularly, and challenges numerous decisions of Elections SSMU Chief Electoral Officer Rebecca Tacoma.

After requesting access to the SSMU membership list in late September, Newburgh used his access to check the membership status of the signatories to the petition for the QPIRG referendum question. A list of 12 students who are deemed to be non-SSMU members is included in the case file.

Steven distributed a press release about the case two days after the distribution of a press release from CKUT and QPIRG, which detailed the refusal by the McGill administration to recognize the referendum results.

In a letter to QPIRG and CKUT, the administration cited concerns over the “unclear” referendum question. Similarly, Steven and Newburgh’s petition references a quote by Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson, in which he describes QPIRG’s question as “convoluted.”

The case file focuses only on the constitutionality and clarity of QPIRG’s question, despite the nearly identical structure of the fall referendum question regarding the existence of CKUT.

Tacoma, Newburgh, and Steven are not granting interviews regarding the case.

The post Admin invalidates referendum results appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Aberman said in an email to The Daily that, to her recollection, “This exchange took place approximately three to five minutes after the protesters forced their way into our office area and refused to identify themselves or their purpose. There was shouting prior to this exchange.”

As for her interaction with the students, Aberman said that “it was my intention at this point to attempt to defuse a tense situation and initiate a dialogue with the goal of ending this occupation. The person I was speaking to was wearing a hat and a bandana covering his face. I may have looked calm, but frankly, I was very nervous.”

Vice-Principal External Olivier Marcil is also seen in the video, though he is not shown interacting with the students. Le Délit reported last week that an occupier accused Marcil of ripping his bandana off. Marcil told Le Délit in an email that he denied the allegations, and that Dean of Law Daniel Jutras’ investigation would allow facts of the incident to be shown.

Most reports of the occupation have named only Provost Anthony Masi and Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson as senior administrators present, since they negotiated with the students.

A second clip was filmed as occupiers were removed from Principal Heather Munroe-Blum’s office. At 11 seconds into the clip, a student – identified by occupiers as Alex Timmons – is dragged by a security officer. Nasr can be heard telling Security Services that he suffers from osteoperosis as he is pushed from the room.

In a third clip, which has not been released publicly, Timmons can be seen kneeling on the floor of the reception area, allegedly having been hit in the stomach by security immediately before the video begins. He is unable to stand for over a minute, as fellow occupiers come to his aid and bring him water.

Kevin Paul, one of the occupiers, said that the occupiers decided to release the videos at this time due to “the sustained effort to misrepresent what happened on the fifth floor as part of a campaign to influence student and public opinion. We felt it was important to release these and set the record straight about what was actually happening on the fifth floor.”

According to Paul, Marcil and Aberman “were in the room for essentially the entire time of our interaction with security, [so] there’s no way they could not have witnessed the violence that we experienced.”

Paul also said that administrators and staff in the office were documenting the events, and identified both Marcil and Director of Media Relations Doug Sweet as filming the occupiers. In an interview with student media on November 14, Munroe-Blum noted that she had seen video footage, but did not go into detail about their content.

The post Fifth floor videos released appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Student Senator Matthew Crawford announced during his speech at the “We Are All McGill” rally on Monday that he had been on the fifth floor. In addition to Crawford, Arts Representative to SSMU Micha Stettin also signed the letter published on rabble, as did McGill students Jean-François Faucher, Ethan Kyle Feldman, Kevin Paul, Ben Patrick Stidworthy, Alex Timmons, and Derek Tyrrell. The other six occupiers wish to remain anonymous.

Senate suspended procedural rules to allow for a Committee of the Whole in which the events of November 10 could be discussed – including the inquiry to be conducted by Dean of Law Daniel Jutras.

With a room capacity of 125 people, administrators warned students and professors that space for spectators would be limited. As a result, over 50 students who did not make it inside gathered outside of the room. A live stream of the event was set up so that those outside of the room could watch the discussion.

In Senate, Jutras explained the process for his inquiry. As he spoke, many members of the gallery rose and turned their backs to the rows of senators, to show their disapproval of the administration’s decision to appoint Jutras to head the inquiry.

Senators were invited to talk about issues surrounding November 10. Management Senator and former Daily Web Editor Tom Acker read a statement regarding the events. “Thursday marked the day [students] stopped seeing their campus as a safe space,” he told senators.

Acker also referenced the fact that, despite an entirely peaceful gathering on Monday, at which numerous senior administrators were present, “McGill still had police cars waiting outside three campus entrances,” leaving students – still reeling from their November 10 experiences – uncomfortable.

Darin Barney, a Senator and associate professor in Art History and Communication Studies, urged the administration to “reverse the trend of the securitization of this campus.” He further called on the Principal to rename James Square “Community Square” – to honour the decision made by students at “We Are All McGill” – as well as to designate November 10 “Freedom Day” at McGill.

Crawford addressed the room as he recounted his experience on the fifth floor. “I really, really hope that our efforts were not in vain, and that this sees a new era at McGill where we see frank discussions about student representation of the student voice on campus,” Crawford said in an interview before the Senate meeting.

Gallery members stood in support as Crawford explained that McGill Security should not be able to lay hands on students, deny giving their names when asked, or “wantonly call the police when a clearly peaceful demonstration enters campus.” Crawford assured those listening that the “fifth floor of the James Administration building was entirely peaceful.”

Provost Anthony Masi, who had previously been identified as participating in negotiations with the fifth floor occupiers on November 10, spoke minutes after Crawford.

“I actually witnessed some of the things on the fifth floor,” Masi said, claiming that staff was “subject to attack by individuals who were wearing scarves and hoods.”

Gallery members stood and turned their back to the room as Masi began to speak, hissing when Masi commented, “You can’t turn your backs on the truth.”

“The only thing we wanted to do was make sure that every one of them got out safely and securely,” Masi added, referring to office staff.

Crawford rose and left the room at Masi’s comments. Students in the gallery began to walk out after Crawford, crying “lies.” Timmons, another occupier, shouted, “Students were assaulted… Shame on McGill” as he walked out of the room. The students joined a group of peers still outside, who began to chant “no more lies” and “shame on McGill.”
After the meeting, Timmons said he felt that Masi was “skewing the reality of what happened” on the fifth floor.

“As someone who had no voice [in Senate]… I feel that my voice had to be heard,” he added.

Crawford also expressed reservations about Masi’s monologue. “I felt [Masi’s] narrative was problematic, planted in a particular bias that did not fully respect what the students [occupying] were trying to do,” he said. However, Crawford did say that he thought the Principal’s remarks on the subject “were extremely productive…even if they were somewhat late.”

—with files from Erin Hudson and  Michael Lee-Murphy

The post Eight of the fifth floor occupiers identify themselves appeared first on The McGill Daily.