But, I mean, maybe I’m wrong: maybe it wasn’t a failure of vision. It’d be reasonable enough to blame it on administrative oversight, but we all know that the rulers inhabiting that ghastly Orwellian behemoth that is James Admin are very sincere –very judicious – in their “fuck you” attitude.

Perhaps, instead, it was realized that eventually there would be no need for an actual convocation hall. Over time, through calculated decisions at destabilizing campus life’s cohesion, vitality, and autonomy, perhaps it was understood that students would just stop caring.

This isn’t to say they would stop caring entirely. They would still attend classes –taught by a faculty that’s earnest and caring and excellent, but also beleaguered from their lack of administrative support. And they would still study diligently in the libraries, and conduct research in the laboratories. This is to say that they wouldn’t stop caring about learning. But they would stop caring about their role in the University as a whole. They would step back, and let the centralized machine churn out its awards and recognition – without dissent, without openness, without community.

And so the hope, potentially, would be that these able minds would run off, not glancing back, thankful for the quality of their education yet unaware that University life can be more than cold authoritarian institutionalism. And so the seats would go empty at future convocations, and eventually the tents wouldn’t need to be erected at all, and soon enough the fields could just be paved over with concrete.

Yes, Heather, I may be being a tad hyperbolic. Yet, I’ve been preparing myself for my return and, while I’m excited to see Montreal again, with all the news I’ve noticed through occasionally glances at the Gazette and Facebook, well, I just really don’t like the direction things are heading at McGill. I haven’t for some time, but now I have time to collect my thoughts and write a possibly unnecessary but definitely cathartic jeremiad.

My political views are not the motivation for this letter; I actually believe in the need for tuition to be set at national levels so that the University can operate effectively and, conjointly, so that added revenue can allow for greatly expanded financial aid for those who would otherwise be unable to attend. Likewise, my views on union demands are, to say the least, nuanced. (Though, let’s be real, the core demands of MUNACA now, and of the TAs in 2008 and again today, are and were perfectly reasonable).

But regardless of one’s specific views on these and countless other matters of concern to those that make university life possible, the fact remains that civic disagreement and dialogue are fundamental to the university, so scare tactics and arrogance on the part of the upper admin are not only insulting, they undermine the very conceptual underpinnings of university life.

This is all to say that, really, in the end, the reason I care is because I just don’t get why you guys don’t. At basically every juncture over my tenure at McGill wherein the administration could have worked to collaborate with students, faculty, and staff to create a vibrant, engaging community – to the mutual benefit of all, I might add – the admin appeared to shrug its shoulders, raise its middle finger, and look away.

Truly there is a myopia that pervades the highest level of administration that I just don’t understand. Is it really – seriously!? – that hard to grasp that, by enhancing the student experience, you will not only enhance McGill’s international reputation, but also reap dividends in the future from satisfied alums? I guess so.

So, like I said, Heather, I’m coming back, and I’m taking my degree. I’d like to thank my profs for a great education, and I’d also like to thank all the academic and non-academic support staff that assisted me over the course of four years. But while my frustration with certain administrative choices is clear, when I walk down that aisle don’t expect me to argue. I won’t say a peep. My time there is up.

Nonetheless, what I will do is protest with my future earnings. While I understand that the alumni donations do, in fact, do great things, I cannot with clear conscience contribute monetarily to a university which displays such a wanton disregard of its students, its faculty, and its staff. And so I’ve decided, for the foreseeable future, against making any donations, and I’ve requested that my parents (who started getting donation requests well before I’d even declared my major) cease immediately.

Cash is king, so maybe one day it’ll speak.

See you later, bro.

Signed by Nick Dillon, a BA & Sc Cognitive Science student graduating in 2011.

P.s. Why the hell is fall graduation on a Wednesday this year? That was super considerate.

The post See you soon, HMB! appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Signed by the McGill Philosophy department.

The post Dear Madame Principal appeared first on The McGill Daily.

I’m writing about a few things, but mostly regarding the unacceptable way that you and your fellow administrators have chosen to address McGill students, faculty, and workers over the last two months.

The majority of what I have to say has already been said over and over again, but I think it bears repeating (and repeating, and repeating). Considering that just over a week ago The McGill Tribune  ran an editorial denouncing MUNACA’s tactics with language taken almost verbatim from one of your emails, it’s clear that the words the administration chooses matter.

I think the instinct among the Tribune’s editorial staff, and likely among most of the community, is to trust the emails we get from you and other administrators. Past messages have seemed innocuous enough – reminders that it’s “Earth Hour at McGill,” or annoying but harmless propaganda about McGill’s international ranking. And the administration’s intention in September to keep us all up-to-date on negotiations seemed like a good idea at the time. But right away, you turned a vehicle for conveying information to the entire McGill community into a weapon against MUNACA workers.

One of the first emails, sent on September 8, cautioned us to call security if picketers made us “feel threatened or unsafe.” This, it turned out, was the beginning of an onslaught of rhetoric carefully designed to make us fear the library assistants and administrative staff dancing with tambourines outside the Milton Gates. That same email, and almost all that followed, have consistently misrepresented MUNACA’s actions and positions. Among the most notable and frequently distorted are the union’s demands regarding compensation increases.

The highpoint of these messages was the email you sent on October 18, with the subject line “We are All McGill.” In it, you claim that at a Homecoming event, MUNACA picketers vandalized a building, harassed elderly guests, and threw things at administrators. The next day, in an interview with CKUT, MUNACA’s VP Finance David Kalant specifically refuted each of these accusations. I wasn’t at the demonstration, and neither were most of the students, but as my mother has said so many times to me and my sister: obviously one of you is lying to me.

I’ll take MUNACA’s word, and it isn’t because I like them better, or because I work for another campus union: it’s because you’ve lost any credibility on the issue. Since the beginning of the strike, your administration has on many occasions distorted the truth or outright lied to us. You have failed to protect protesting students from harassment by security, going so far as to authorize McGill security’s filming of peaceful student demonstrations. And you have personally, Principal Munroe-Blum, reacted with astounding unprofessionalism to the concerns of faculty members, dismissing their comments at Senate and ignoring their mobilization through letters and organizations like the McGill Faculty Labour Action Group (MFLAG). Additionally, the administration has filed multiple injunctions crippling the ability of MUNACA to exercise free speech, and then claimed to be “astonished” when the union was forced to move to other sites like the hospital construction at Glen Yards. (Most repugnantly, Michael Di Grappa wrote that it was McGill who was astonished, as if his feigned shock at the peaceful actions of 1,700 scorned and desperate workers is shared by all of us.)

When you rob McGill workers of their picketing rights, intimidate McGill students, ignore McGill faculty, and send out emails dripping with sarcasm and untruths, this ceases to be a question of wage increases or pensions. As letters in this paper and elsewhere have demonstrated, you have lost the support even of those who would otherwise disagree with MUNACA’s position.

You have turned our university into a place of fear, hostility, and disrespect. You write of the “longstanding McGill tradition of respectful and civil discourse,” yet professors are afraid to speak out for fear of repercussions. You say this is a place “where people are free to speak, to disagree and voice their views without harassment, intimidation, and insult,” but you simultaneously take legal action against workers and authorize the harassment and intimidation of students.

The effect this has had on all of us is indelible, but it’s not too late to salvage something. I urge you to issue an apology for your administration’s treatment of McGill workers, students, and faculty; to lift all injunctions and allow workers to return to their picket lines at McGill; to allow MUNACA an equal platform from which to address the McGill community; to encourage free and open discussion among the community; and to proceed in good faith at the bargaining table towards a fair agreement.

Sincerely,

Sheehan Moore

To Arts undergrads: come to the Arts Undergraduate Society on Tuesday at 5 p.m. in the SSMU building cafeteria and vote on a motion to support the MUNACA workers and on a one-day strike opposing tuition cuts.

To all students: This isn’t an isolated issue – silence now gives the university permission to step on us in the future. Speak out, and ask your parents to speak out. Email heather.munroe.blum@mcgill.ca and michael.digrappa@mcgill.ca, even if it’s just a sentence or two. Write to campus and local newspapers. Attend rallies. Support picketers when you see them. Encourage your faculty organizations and SSMU to be vocal and take action.

Sheehan Moore is a U2 Arts student. He is VP Internal of the Anthropology Students’ Association, Chair of the Board of Representatives of the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE), a member of AMUSE’s bargaining team, a former Design and Production editor at The Daily, and a director of The Daily Publication Society. You can reach him at sheehan.moore@mail.mcgill.ca.

Dear Principal Munroe-Blum,

I was amazed, in your last email to all McGill students and staff, to read the statement “we are all part of the same community.” It’s not that this claim is completely false – it’s true that McGill has a lively community.

Campus groups like QPIRG, the UGE, CKUT, and various theatre companies give students spaces to make friends, develop skills, and carve out a niche on campus. Professors, and the equally important TAs and course lecturers, help students academically and personally. Advisors help students to navigate through the potentially murky waters of the McGill bureaucracy. And service workers, administrative staff, and other employees interact with students every day, performing necessary tasks and allowing students to get an exemplary education at McGill (or, at least, they did until the start of the strike).

It seems, though, that you and your administration have worked actively, since September 1, to undermine this community. Since I came to McGill in 2009, you have been removed from most facets of campus life, rarely talking to or interacting with most students. But, your isolation from those that make up the McGill community has recently become even more apparent.

Since the start of the MUNACA strike, on September 1, you have made it painfully clear that you have little regard for MUNACA workers, or for any others that make up the McGill community.

The administration has treated the strikers shamefully – creating what MUNACA has called a “No Free Speech Zone” by requesting injunctions barring them from picketing on campus, and severely limiting their ability to picket in areas near campus, at McGill off-campus events, at the workplaces of members of McGill’s Board of Governors, and at administrators homes.

Similarly, TAs have not been treated fairly in AGSEM negotiations with the administration. The union has been in negotiations with the admin since May, but, this October, the administration rejected most of their demands. Although the demands are reasonable –they are seeking only a 3 per cent wage increase, an increase in TA hours (which would be in line with the growing number of students), and the availability of paid training – McGill seems unwilling to consider them.

Student, too, are being ignored by the administration. Despite an official SSMU policy against tuition hikes, and growing student mobilization at McGill (particularly by the Mob Squad), around the issue, the administration supported the provinces recent tuition increases of $325 a year, for five years. They have said that fees should be set at the national average (significantly above the average in Quebec.)

Clearly, you don’t see these workers, instructors, and students as “community” members worth listening to. But we’re speaking up and making you listen. MUNACA continues to picket around campus, AGSEM voted on October 19 to authorize pressure tactics against the administration, SSMU is planning on sending students to a tuition rally on November 10, and the AUS is even taking a strike vote this upcoming Tuesday. The McGill community is strong, rapidly uniting, and ready to make their voice heard.

Sincerely,

Joan Moses

Joan Moses is a U3 Political Science and Literature Student and the Coordinating Editor of The Daily, but the opinions expressed here are her own. You can reach her at joan.moses@mail.mcgill.ca.

Dear Principal Munroe-Blum,

I cannot, in my good conscience, walk past the striking MUNACA workers to receive a degree that hundreds of them have parts in. It is the hard-working librarians who help me find the resources I need for my research. It is the kind-hearted departmental secretaries who do all the paper works for my study. It is the lab technicians who fix the equipment I use for my experiments. It is all of the MUNACA workers who keep this university running. Thus, it is their degree as much as it is mine, and when they are forced to take strike action to struggle for a better working condition, I am forced to take their side.

Until Principal Heather Munroe-Blum and her high-ranking associates resolve this labour dispute in a respectful manner and fulfill the just demands of the MUNACA workers, instead of spewing anti-union propaganda through their public relation arms and engaging in ‘legal’ maneuvers through their highly-paid lawyers, I cannot stand on the convocation stage this November. To do so is to betray my sense of justice and whatever values that make one an upright member of this community.

In making this decision, I am reminded of the words of a great Russian writer, Victor Serge – words that I would like to share with every one of you:

“What do you want to be? Lawyers, to invoke the law of the rich, which is unjust by definition? Doctors, to tend the rich, and prescribe good food, good air, and rest to the consumptives of the slums? Architects, to house the landlords in comfort? Look around you and examine your conscience. Do you not understand that your duty is quite different: to ally yourself with the exploited?”

Fellow graduates, it is time for you to choose where you stand: up on the graduation stage with Heather Munroe-Blum or on the street with hundreds of MUNACA workers who have made your study possible.

I call on other graduating students to join me in this solidarity action to show to the McGill administration that we find their anti-union actions contemptible. I call on my fellow students to walk the picket line during the convocation days and receive a lesson that you won’t be able to get from the comfortable seats of your classes: life is full of injustice and it matters where you stand.

Sincerely,

Hariyanto Darmawan
 
Hariyanto Darmawan is a graduating student from the Department of Chemical Engineering.

Dear Principal Munroe-Blum,

I took particular offense when you wrote your “We are all McGill” email a few weeks ago. It is quite convenient for you to now say that “we are all McGill” when you have spent the past few years destroying any semblance of a campus community. You and your administration evicted students from space on campus, denied them the right to associate themselves with their own university, and made major cuts to funding and programs. Yet it is not in the least bit surprising to see the P.R. war that you have waged the past two months.

As someone who was just approved for graduation, I had a chance to reflect on my time at McGill and on the McGill community as a whole. People often say that McGill students are apathetic, and perhaps justifiably, but simply acknowledging the fact that many McGill students don’t care about what’s happening at the University misses a major part of the story. The relationship that the administration at McGill fosters with its students more and more reflects a patron-client relationship rather than that of an academic community.

Many are proud to identify as McGill students, but the administration seems to want to deny us that right, or at least make us associate ourselves with the University on their terms. Their most recent actions show how misguided their views are. Student protestors are clearly passionate about this University, yet the administration has attempted to silence them and treat some of them like enemies of the state. Likewise, MUNACA employees who are a major part of this University have been constantly disparaged and fallaciously portrayed as villains who vandalize buildings and terrorize elderly alums. It is evident that the administration plays a major role in the alienation that is endemic amongst the McGill community. When you write, “we are all McGill,” her actions are saying, “we, the administration, are McGill and you will do as you’re told.” These actions do not strengthen communities, but instead tear them apart.

Sincerely,

Eric Wen
Eric Wen is a graduating McGill Faculty of Arts student and a former Sports editor at The Daily.

Dear Principal Munroe-Blum,

Around this time last year, I was frantically going through University brochures, trying to decide what to do with the next four years of my life after high school. Despite the last minute changes and thousands of unanswered questions, I chose to come to McGill.

I have an immense amount of respect for this institution; for the professors, the support staff, and the administration. I respect that there must be logistical aspects of the strike that are sometimes invisible to the students and the public. I respect that problems must be “resolved at the negotiating table through dialogue and compromise.”

But what I don’t respect, Madame Principal, is that this McGill is no longer the McGill University I chose to be a part of. I didn’t choose to attend an institution that denies the rights of the very people who make it work. And I can’t help but to think that neither you nor the administration care about students who can’t use McGill health services; or about the kids struggling to make ends meet because documents are not getting processed fast enough at the Student Aid office. And what about Service Point, and the postponed independent research, and the closed libraries? You may make critical decisions and act as the face of McGill – you may be credited for McGill’s academic standing or sign proposals into school regulations, but you and the administration are not the backbone on which this university is built on.

The fact that you’re choosing to frame MUNACA into a monster organization – when in fact, they’re simply asking for fair wages – is dividing the school community into pockets of hostile groups. We are not all McGill. You are your McGill and we, along with MUNACA, are our McGill.

The strike started on the first day, of the first year of my first university experience. I, with hundreds of other first years, don’t know what we’re missing out on – we can’t imagine McGill without the picket lines outside of the Roddick Gates.

I stand by MUNACA because I thought I came to a school that encourages equality, fairness, and free speech. As someone who chose to make McGill University her university, I am asking you to give us back our school.

Sincerely,

Esther Lee
Esther Lee is a U0 McGill student. You can reach her at yoo.j.lee@mail.mcgill.ca

Dear Principal Munroe-Blum,

The undersigned professors, members of the Department of History, are writing to express our concern about the current labour dispute between MUNACA and the university. Leaving aside the substantive issues under negotiation, we wish to focus on the conduct of the strike and the effect it is having on the atmosphere within the university and on McGill’s reputation in the broader community.

That the conflict has become so bitter can be attributed to a significant degree to the administration’s aggressive use of security guards and restrictive injunctions. Picketing in labour disputes typically involves some noise and disruption; certainly that has been a feature of strikes at other Canadian universities. By preventing customary forms of picketing, the administration has escalated and embittered the conflict.
Together with the reliance on guards and injunctions, the recent move to institute disciplinary proceedings against two student officials of SSMU suggests an administration strategy of silencing opposing views. We consider this repressive approach antithetical to the basic ideals and mission of the university.

In this context, we must object to the series of “strike news” bulletins we have been receiving in recent weeks from the principal, the provost and the vice-principal (administration and finance). Presenting a one-sided management view of the conflict at a time when other viewpoints are being suppressed, these communications are framed in the language of reason, virtue, and high ideals. We find it unseemly under the circumstances for the university administration to be casting itself in the role of defender of “our longstanding McGill tradition of respectful and civil discourse, where people are free to speak, to disagree and voice their views without harassment, intimidation and insult.”

The implication that faculty, students and support workers with a different view of the strike are somehow a threat to this “McGill tradition” strikes us as objectionable.
We understand that this conflict presents difficult challenges for all parties and we join you in hopes for a speedy resolution. Meanwhile, we ask for greater restraint in the administration’s conduct of the dispute and fuller respect towards the rights of our striking co-workers.

Sincerely,

Allan Greer, Faith Wallis, Daviken Studnicki-Gizbert, Jarrett Rudy, Suzanne Morton, Catherine LeGrand, Catherine Desbarats, Griet Vandeerberghen, Gershon Hundert, Brian Cowan, Malek Abisaab, Valentin J. Boss, Tassos Anastassiadis, Elizabeth Elbourne, Brian J. Young, Jon Soske, Brian Lewis, Nicholas Dew, Andrea Tone, Desmond Morton

Dear Principal Munroe-Blum,

Although the learning experience has become more difficult on students during these times of strike, the McGill-MUNACA conflict has certainly educated me on the ways in which education is being corrupted by universities in our time. The current conflict illustrates how McGill has continuously jeopardized the quality of its education, in its pursuit for capital.

The McGill community should be concerned by the administration’s flagrant corporatization of education. And you, as a part of the current administration, are undermining the university itself by reducing academia to a simple economic good. By virtue of the immense social value that it brings, education transcends any monetary value; therefore, it cannot be treated like any other commodity.

Furthermore, McGill’s conflicts with unions across campus show that you prioritize financial endeavours above educational pursuits. Through this prioritization of financial endeavours, the strike has continued well into the semester, and is undeniably compromising the academic experience of all students.

Similarly, in the negotiations with AGSEM, you have continuously refused to give TAs several resources that would improve undergraduate education. As long as your administration refuses to meet these groups’ demands, you will continue to fail students by depriving them of an adequate education. And any amount of capital that McGill might be saving will never counterbalance the educational quality that has been lost.

I understand that McGill’s conflict with MUNACA comes from the administration’s desire to avoid financial deficits or to have more financial responsibility. But McGill seems to be ignoring its ethical responsibilities in the process. As a centre of critical thinking, McGill cannot run on ethical deficits either, and the way in which the administration has treated groups that oppose their views is simply unethical.

If the administration continues to treat education like a market product, one can only expect the same from students. And if students start to view their education in this kind of superficial way, they will let their academic experience bypass them without taking full advantage of it. It is through this process of commodification – led by the administration and followed by students – that academia is being threatened. And it is disturbing to witness how educational institutions are leading this charge.

With this letter, I ask that you take a lesson in learning and realize that teaching should be McGill’s top priority – not money. And to do so, the administration ought to acknowledge that everyone in the McGill community, including support workers, is an important part of the educational experience. McGill cannot continue to fail the test of providing quality education, because if it does it is failing society and the future.

Sincerely,

Juan Camilo Velásquez

Juan Camilo Velásquez is U1 Economics student. You can reach him at juan.velasquez@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Dear Munroe-Blum appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Unfortunately, Principal Munroe-Blum, the McGill community does not seem to be as cohesive as you hoped it would be when you wrote your email. Not only has there been a growing divide between students and the administration, but the MUNACA strike has the student body itself between those who care, those who don’t care, and those who are simply fed up. I understand that McGill is a large bureaucratic organization incapable of giving personal attention to each and every student. But can’t at least place more importance on the voice of the student body as a whole?

We cannot ignore the blatant injustices the McGill administration has committed against its students over the past few months. Consequently, the administration cannot ignore how badly this is tarnishing the University’s reputation. Are undergraduate students going to praise the University to prospective students and academic surveyors? Will current students feel any sense of community or want to give back to McGill once they graduate? The answer to both these questions is a resounding no. Undergraduate students will not care that McGill rises through the Times Higher Education or QS World University Rankings due to its excellence in research if they also no longer feel that they have a voice in this community.

The undergraduate student population should see this MUNACA experience as an example of how diminished our role has become in a university that is supposed to educate us. We should lament the fact that we are simply cogs in a giant machine whose simple task is to churn out academic degrees at the end of the day.

Especially if that machine is one that silences our voices and discourages critical thought. Actions will ultimately have to be taken by the administration to make real changes. The students can protest, write articles, and give their feedback. If McGill really wants to grow as a university, the administration needs to make sure their large undergraduate student population feels involved.

Murtaza Shambhoora is a U2 Political Science student. He can be reached at murtaza.shambhoora@mail.mcgill.ca

The post We are (not) all McGill appeared first on The McGill Daily.

I am writing to you out of concern for two students – and members of the Mob Squad – Joël Pedneault and Micha Stettin. I learned from The McGill Daily on October 22 that these students are facing allegations that they breached the Code of Student Conduct because of a demonstration in support of the MUNACA strike that took place at the Y-intersection on October 11. I myself did not attend this demonstration because I was teaching. All I know about it is what I just said. But I have been present at two other demonstrations at the Y-intersection organized by the Mob Squad in support of MUNACA: one held on Monday, September 26 and one that took place the following Wednesday. The demonstrations I attended could only be described as peaceful assemblies designed to convey to the McGill higher administration – and indeed the University community as a whole – the views of the assembled students and faculty members. To that end, students and faculty sat in a circle and took turns speaking into a bull-horn.

Does the word ‘bull-horn’ send alarm bells? I don’t think it should. The injunction that went into effect on Friday, September 23, expressly prohibited members of MUNACA from using “amplifying devices.” But, none of the people at the demonstrations I attended were members of MUNACA, or any sort of union operative. Was it loud? It was certainly loud enough – on September 23 – that it drew my attention, as I ate a piece of pizza outside, in front of Redpath Hall. But before we think of using the word “disruptive” here, I would like to put things in perspective by inviting you to consider the following two cases.

My office is on the ninth floor of the Leacock Building, overlooking the Redpath Museum and the lawn where the Open Air Pub sets up shop every year at the beginning of September. When the live bands start playing, I must abandon my office, even though – at the beginning of September – my office is the most convenient place for me to work. I repeatedly complained about this disruption – and that is the right word for it – back in the mid and late 1990s. But I had to give up, because no amount of complaining seemed to make a difference. It has always been simpler to abandon my office. This is a disruption that the McGill higher administration thinks I must tolerate.

Here is the second case of disruption we must all tolerate: for two years in a row, the Remembrance Day ceremony on November 11 has involved a piece of heavy artillery borrowed from a local garrison that fires once every minute for 21 minutes. It is so loud that my colleague Calvin Normore, who attended the ceremony last year, told me that it caused him to “levitate.” I have deep respect for those who served, and who serve now, in the Canadian Armed Forces. I welcome the opportunity to reflect on their sacrifice and to hope that no such sacrifice will be required in the future. But a salvo of 21 shots over 21 minutes makes such reflection absolutely impossible. It disrupts all of those trying to work in their offices or trying to teach or learn in classrooms. Moreover, it may be torture, pure and simple, for the people in our university community – some of whom are surely veterans – who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Those people, and anybody who just does not want to “levitate,” must stay away from the campus for some part of the day on November 11. This is disruption that, for some of us, borders on abuse. Yet, we are expected to tolerate it.

When I consider the significant disruption caused by the Open Air Pub and the Remembrance Day ceremonies and compare it to the noise generated by the two demonstrations I attended at the Y-intersection, I infer that there is double standard at work. The McGill higher administration has no problem at all with disruption. But it flies into a panic when it encounters members of our community who support MUNACA and wish to exercise their right to express their criticism of the administration’s handling of the strike. In the case at hand, disciplinary action against Pedneault and Stettin, at least, appears to be worse than unfair. It has all the appearance of vindictiveness. The demonstration held on September 23 proceeded to the James Administration building, just as the Provost, Tony Masi, and the Vice Principal for Finance and Administration, Michael di Grappa, happened to walk by. They were recognized, and came to address the demonstration. The “archival material” shows that Di Grappa announced to assembled students that they did not have the right to demonstrate on campus. He was called on that: a student read to him the relevant section of the Charter of Student Rights, according to which – yes, indeed – students have the right to free expression and free assembly on campus. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for me not to infer that an example is being made of Pedneault and Stettin for no better reason than that Michael di Grappa made a fool of himself in public. But I ask: whose fault is that?

Alison Laywine is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy. You can reach her at alison.laywine@mcgill.ca.

The post Be wary of double standards appeared first on The McGill Daily.

When you use subjective words like “threats,” “vandalism,” “defacing,” and “aggressive” without describing what actually happened during Homecoming, you are giving us your subjective assessment only, which amounts to nothing more than propaganda. Strikers can level the same sort of accusation against the University. For instance, when they are being spied on and photographed by security guards, they may also feel “threatened” and treated “aggressively”. To add insult to injury, I have myself heard security guards laughing and making fun of strikers, which would not help them feel less disrespected by the University. So both sides are guilty of the same sort of intimidation and belittling tactics. Your message is therefore so one-sided that it can’t even be called information, it can only be called propaganda. McGill security guards were also pointing out Munaca members to the police – at a table the union bought in the luncheon (for which McGill accepted the union’s payment) –were not employees and were just there to cause problems. If you really respect us, then tell us what actually happened, not your interpretation of it. Besides, I’d like to know what you mean by “defacing” and “vandalism.” If you are talking about writing in chalk on the sidewalk, then say so. Since you requested an injunction, you should not have to complain to us about vandalism, you could simply get the union fined. The fact that you didn’t do that says to me that they did not come close enough to the Martlet House to do what you’re accusing them of.

I find it hypocritical when you say that, at McGill, we work out our differences around a table, without threats. You have threatened the strikers and the union with severe fines when you obtained an injunction that restricts their rights. These people are now terrorized if they walk over pieces of duct tape stuck on the sidewalk on their way back home from the end of their picket duty! Don’t tell me they would be so scared if you had not used legal threats against them! Don’t tell me you’d rather negotiate at the table than use threats because this is not what you’re doing. You should know that actions speak much louder than words, and your actions have already spoken!

I also take offence at the statement that, at McGill, people are “free to speak, to disagree and voice their views without harassment, intimidation and insult.” This is not what Mr. Di Grappa told students (when they were protesting outside of James Administration building), despite what the Student Rights and Responsibilities guide says! The students that wanted to attend the Senate meeting were not only prevented from speaking, they were prevented from even attending. Do not tell me that they were going to disturb the meeting, since the very invitation they sent regarding the event stipulated a quiet and non-disrupting presence. Professors who object to crossing picket lines as a matter of conscience are also deterred with harsh punishment, even when they find alternative ways to continue to teach and to guide their students.

When one considers that classes can be routinely moved off-campus because of a lack of classroom space, whereas they cannot be moved off campus when a professor has an objection of conscience, it becomes clear that one is not free to speak and act according to one’s conscience at McGill. It is your very lack of respect for professors, students, and strikers rights to speak in disagreement that led them to get upset and try to disturb the Senate meeting. In addition, one striker was even arrested this past Friday at the Hilton, just before the arrival of Mr. Di Grappa because she wanted the right to speak to visiting alumni about the fact that there was a strike at McGill. This is intimidation; this isn’t the right to voice one’s view without harassment! Again, your actions have spoken!

Finally, how can you say you are trying to resolve the strike quickly when you are not willing to even negotiate on salary, pensions, and wage scale? Talking and negotiating are two different things. When you negotiate, you actually make some compromises. When you refuse to budge from your 1.2 per cent  salary increase offer while upper management received a 3.5 per cent wage increase, which makes your case that you have no money sound very hollow, then you are not working to resolve the strike rapidly. Your actions and your words are again in contradiction!

I have been a proud McGill alumni since 2000. I have given to McGill every year since then, until 2009 that is. I just finished a PhD this summer at McGill, and during the course of my work you chose a new Dean for the faculty of Engineering, I noticed a certain deterioration in the way people were treated, from the professors to the students, to the admin and technical staff. McGill has become an increasingly hostile environment for its people. This is why I stopped donating in 2009; I do not feel the McGill upper administration represents its people anymore. There is no single “We are McGill” anymore. Now there are two: one “We are the McGill upper administration who make all the decisions” and one “We are the profs, students, and staff at McGill who do all the work that makes McGill great”. For that reason, I am still debating whether to go to convocation or not, but, if I go be assured that I will proudly wear at least one MUNACA button, because the respect they are fighting for is what is sorely needed at McGill. I am also not sure if I will give to McGill again in the future, I have found the last few years so traumatizing that I may never regain the respect I had for this institution.

François-Xavier Jetté received his PhD from McGill this past summer.

The post Actions speak louder than words appeared first on The McGill Daily.

I am a student at McGill, as well as an employee, and I am ashamed about the administration’s handling of the MUNACA strike. While I understand McGill has financial troubles, I am rather perplexed by the prioritization of funds; administrators receive oversized salaries and bonuses while the workers who allow McGill to function are refused reasonable wages. Meanwhile, administrators have addressed the strike with condescending, dismissive, and unprofessional language.

You and your colleagues are denying the severe impact that the strike has had on students and workers alike; everything is not ‘business as usual.’  In my experience alone, I have had difficulty getting an appointment at the health center because the nurses are part of MUNACA. I have had my research impeded because the librarians are part of MUNACA. I have had my coursepacks and textbooks delayed because the bookstore’s shipping department is part of MUNACA. I have received slowed service and had processing of important documents delayed because workers at Service Point are part of MUNACA. I have seen my managers and other non-MUNACA members become overloaded with work because they must cover for striking MUNACA members. And I have seen the activities of friends and fellow students disrupted by the strike and seen them become outraged by your reaction to it all.

I believe MUNACA’s demands are reasonable and should be met, and that bargaining should be settled soon for the well-being of McGill University.  Furthermore, I urge that all future emails from yourself and your colleagues should adopt a tone of respect for your community.

I am a McGill student and I stand with MUNACA.

Nora Belblidia is a  U4 Geography student. You can reach her at nora.belblidia@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Respect your community appeared first on The McGill Daily.

You may think that this is not your ‘fight’; you are wrong. This is not a MUNACA issue; it is now at the very core of the rights of all who are part of the McGill community and those of us on the outside. We live in a “not my problem” era. Let’s change that.  The administration’s actions will be the same for anyone standing for change and those expressing their rights. The injunction and for anyone to silence the student protesters on Monday, September 26, have made that very clear.

Consider your mother, father, sister, brother, or (future) spouse being a MUNACA member who is treated with disregard, disrespect, and stripped of their rights. What would it take for you to help your loved ones?

Listen to your hearts and conscious and rise and take a stand for what is right – help them get this resolved now. Helping them, will help yourself and many more today, and in the future.

Just as MUNACA members, you chose to attend McGill based on its reputation and quality of services as an educational institution – help those members get back to doing what they love and back to helping the countless students they come in contact with. Help McGill return to what it should be – an institution where everyone has rights and is treated with respect and dignity. As it is, the administration’s reputation is just a façade; they have clearly shown that by trying to strip MUNACA of its reputation and rights.

You are 35,000 + strong – stand up for what you know is right without fear and without indifference. You have the power to instill change – be the voice that McGill is trying to silence.

Stand tall, stand proud.

Lisa Di Michele is a Certified International Trade Professional and  Spouse of a MUNACA member.

The post A personal appeal appeared first on The McGill Daily.

At the end of last year, I had the pleasure of taking part in a public dispute with you – I was an editor at The Daily, you wrote an outraged response to an editorial, and I replied in a commentary piece in the same issue of the paper. I couldn’t have disagreed more with what you said, but the whole exchange was a positive experience.

Your latest email update on the MUNACA strike was anything but. (And Michael Di Grappa’s most recent “Strike Update” was hardly better.) In it, you wrote about mutual respect and open discourse, which is striking given that both of these were in alarmingly short supply. No one reading accusations of “vandalism” and “violence” without any further elaboration would think a handful of stickers and a few flowers thrown at passersby, which by all reports is what these amounted to. Your use of language is clever, but totally disingenuous.

What’s more, your email is decidedly one-way, anything but the beginning a clash of viewpoints or the sharp but civil discourse that you write about.  Since only you and a handful of staff have access to the list of every McGill student and employee’s email address, anyone finding themselves agape at your message has the option of writing you personally, but certainly has no chance of reaching the same audience. There’s an inequality implicit in this exchange that is not conducive to meaningful debate, which requires  – for a discussion to be meaningful – the participants need to treat each other as equals. It’s hardly a real debate if the format so obviously favours one of the participants.

As much as I would love for you to simply retract your message and apologize for your rhetoric, I know that’s not going to happen. Having spent the better part of your eight year tenure as Principal pushing for education “reform” that would make McGill operate less like a university and more like a major corporation, I can understand why you’re pulling out all the stops to reach the settlement that’s best suits your vision of the University.

However, there’s a conflict of interest, and not one that you can’t simply excuse yourself from. You can’t both run McGill as if it were a for-profit company and also act as the leading representative of the McGill community. With your last email, you took a sharp turn toward the efficient manager you want to be and an even sharper turn away from being the representative of students, staff, and faculty you claim to be. You talk a lot about community, but it’s starting to ring increasingly hollow. Your email opens with the line, “We are all McGill.” Just apparently not those people unfairly targeted and excluded in your email and not the MUNACA members who are being denied a fair contract.

Elena Comay del Junco is a U1 German Studies and Philosophy student and a former Design&Production and Coordinating Editor of The Daily.

The post Fight fairly appeared first on The McGill Daily.