The enduring relevance of Sophocles’ Antigone lies in its lessons about tyranny’s deceptive capacity for self- reinvention, as well as the dangers of abandoning nuance in favour of easy political equivalences. And yet, the Daily’s recent op-ed on McGill Classics’ recent adaptation of Antigone asserts: “The takeaway of this production seems to be that Trump = Creon = Hitler.”

This is a striking claim — not only because it is provocative, or because the analysis seems distastefully hamfisted — but because it is largely unaccompanied by substantiating evidence. The op- ed broadly fails to root its claims in specific textual or staging analysis, making it somewhat challenging to see what underlies the author’s certainty that their own interpretation of the show is synonymous with authorial intent. You are, of course, free to express your artistic critiques of the adaptation in whatever terms you please — political theatre invites as much. Granted, there is a meaningful difference between sharing one’s subjective interpretation, and asserting that viewpoint as objective fact. The op-ed repeatedly collapses that distinction — most notably in its assertion that the delivery of Kreon’s speeches is “clearly meant to recall the aesthetics of Hitler’s speeches.”

On this matter, I would like to be particularly direct: you may speak for yourself and your interpretation of the work in whatever terms you please. But absent any definitive sourcing to support your assertions, do not claim to credibly speak for me — and certainly do not presume authority over my beliefs regarding the Nazis my Jewish ancestors fled. As a matter of mutual respect, it is reasonable to expect a higher journalistic standard.

It is precisely this substitution of assumption for analysis that shapes the article’s broader critique. The op-ed proceeds from the premise that the adaptation functions as a direct allegory for Donald Trump, refracted through the visual shorthand of Nazi Germany. It confidently posits that Kreon functions as a thinly veiled composite of Trump and Hitler, while instructing the audience to recognize contemporary America as a simple reiteration of the Third Reich. The author then labels this analogy as deeply reductive, which I would agree with.

The production is indeed occurring during Trump’s presidency, and the adaptation is set in the 1930s. But it is an enormous leap to, on a near temporal basis alone, assert that the entire production exists to argue a simple equivalency between Trump and Hitler — or, otherwise, to construct Kreon’s character in their direct image. The piece does not demonstrate that this equation is textually sustained; it simply assumes it, and then proceeds to critique the show for failing to serve as a sufficiently rigorous allegory for that comparison.

For one thing: Hitler was far from the only ascendant fascist in the 1930s, and to imply otherwise is naively ahistorical. To move from “interwar aesthetic” to “Hitler” to “Trump = Hitler” is precisely the kind of interpretive shortcut the op-ed claims to resist, in part because it flatly ignores the existence of other autocrats in favour of modern history’s most-cited tyrant.

For instance: in arguing the Trumpism comparison, the article states that “Creon wants to make Thebes great again. He … seeks to vanquish the enemy within. In the second act … a soldier cries “I didn’t vote for him!”” Otherwise put, the core examples that led the author to understand Kreon as a Trump metaphor are (1) his expressed desire for national greatness, (2) rhetorical references to “the enemy within,” (3) thematic allusions to civic responsibility/ accountability among voters. It seems bizarre to treat these traits as uniquely Trumpian, when they all reflect core features of authoritarian movements. Each appears across decades and continents, and was included precisely for its recurrent applicability. These examples are not the markings of a single presidency, but the grammar of authoritarianism.

In failing to see beyond its narrow allegorical framework, the op-ed (once again) mistakes its own interpretive lens for the text’s thesis. It also misses the fact that the production’s timelessness is not an accident of staging — it is rather the point.

The production draws deliberately from multiple historical reference points — not as a collage of aesthetic gestures, but as a structured study of recurring authoritarian mechanisms. Mussolini’s rhetoric of purification and national restoration informs Kreon’s language of order and rebirth. Mosley’s domestic fascist movement (with its normalization of organized intimidation) informs Kreon’s reliance on coercive enforcement. Saddam Hussein’s security-state logic shapes the regime’s mediated relationship to its citizens, while Stephen Miller’s bureaucratic nationalism echoes in the language of contamination and de-personification Kreon uses to justify violence. This structural layering of references is not arbitrary, but a deliberate integration of contemporary history’s fascist lineage — intended to illustrate how tyranny evolves across contexts while its underlying methods continue to rhyme.

The op-ed argues that this “aimless” historical referencing strips the play of its complexity — but it fails to locate complexity because it makes no attempt to search for it. Instead, it narrows the frame to two culturally familiar reference individuals and reads everything into that binary. Regrettably, the text of the article then finds itself too preoccupied with dismantling its own straw man (ie. whether “Trump = Creon = Hitler”) and leaves little time to engage with the actual subject matter or text of the show. Thus, by insisting that this production’s meaning collapses into a Trump-Hitler equation, it reduces tyranny to a visual or rhetorical checklist and reinforces the very flattening it critiques. This is a dangerous reflex.

If fascism only “counts” when it resembles Hitler, we will keep failing to recognize it in time. Reducing authoritarianism to surface resemblance — podium equals Hitler, nationalist rhetoric equals Trump — shifts attention away from structure. It distracts from how power consolidates itself, how law becomes weaponized, how cruelty is normalized, how dissent is reframed as treachery, how fear becomes governance. That black- and-white mode of thinking feels decisive, but is a lie.

When our political imagination narrows to two familiar templates, we become less capable of identifying authoritarianism when it emerges through different institutions, different languages, or different faces.

Antigone endures not because it allegorizes one regime, but because it interrogates the moral architecture of power itself and the recurrent tools that fascists have used to accumulate power and exercise cruelty throughout human history. The point is not to individualize the tyrant; it is to recognize their methods — and to learn from the past before we are forced to relive it once again.

The post “Trump = Creon = Hitler” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Last week, we were asked to reflect upon the “start of our legal education” and to “practice
concise writing” (something the university has mastered when it comes to providing students
with answers to their concerns about the strike). Feel free to disagree, but this strikes me as
premature. Despite speeches from the administration, a library information session, and
being called up one by one to receive a Civil Code of Québec, I hardly feel that my legal
education has begun.

Students at other faculties are experiencing their first classes, meeting their professors, and
starting their readings and assignments. Meanwhile, at the McGill Faculty of Law, first year
students are drafting their concise reflections, trying to hold on to any sense of normalcy,
unaware of when their classes will start and if their semester will be cancelled.

From the very first day of “class”, a large number of students formed a group in favour of the
professors’ union, went to their unofficial teach-ins, brought them coffee and baked goods,
made posters and joined the picket line, choosing to not attend the Dean’s presentations in
support of AMPL. Others, not wanting to take a stance, walked quietly past the profs and into
Old Chancellor Day Hall to receive another speech on how difficult this whole situation must
be for us and on how the start of this year is “unusual”. As if we hadn’t noticed already…

And what about the students who don’t support AMPL’s strike? I haven’t heard of any,
although I can’t say that I am surprised. The profs proudly advertise on social media and on
their website that their students support them, but these are the profs that will eventually be
grading our papers and assignments, which makes criticising their actions and not
supporting their union a risky proposition.

I know what you’re thinking: you don’t really expect me to believe that the profs would be so
petty as to retaliate against students who don’t support them, right? Although I don’t know
them personally, these are the same profs who waited outside the window of the Moot Court
to make noise with megaphones and ring bells for the entirety of the Dean’s Welcome
Speech on our first day. Realistically, what did they think this would achieve but ruin a
moment that students will remember for years to come, that they have studied and worked
hard for? These are the same profs who post memes of the McGill administrators on
Instagram and bring birthday cakes to their offices to facetiously thank them for their
cooperation. And then they wonder why McGill is so reluctant to give them a say in who
should be the next dean…

My criticism of the profs’ behaviour does not mean that I reject all of their concerns and
claims about the way they are being treated by McGill. In fact, I think that many of their
demands seem reasonable, based on the limited information that we have been given. But
what I will not accept is that they are doing this for the students. Both sides say that they
have the students’ best interests at heart and that they are doing their best to keep the strike
as short as possible, something I find very hard to believe.

The profs say that they are ready to stop the strike and go back to teaching if McGill
abandons its legal proceedings to decertify their union, which strikes me as very unlikely
since the consequences of having a union for such a small faculty would be far worse for
McGill than delaying their students’ education by a semester. In a recent email, Dean Leckey
asks students to “consider the bigger picture,” arguing very reasonably that if AMPL is
certified, over a dozen new unions could join the current 16, which would make labour
relations at McGill “unmanageably complex, cumbersome, and costly.” Funny, I could use
those same three adjectives to describe the situation we are in right now. And as for
considering the bigger picture, I hope that McGill is taking its own advice: a few first-year
students are seriously considering dropping out and applying to other law schools before the
end of the add/drop period. I just thought that the administration should know, since we
students know how horrible it feels to be kept in the dark.

As for AMPL, please stop pretending that you couldn’t stop the strike if you really wanted to.
I understand that McGill’s judicial review is a direct attack to your union, but there are
hearings set for December, where you will get the opportunity to present your case. If there
is a legitimate reason for you to be unionized, then you will win in court, and McGill will have
to admit defeat. Instead, you are determined to use the students as bargaining chips to get
McGill to fold. You say that going on strike again was such a hard decision, that you are
sympathetic towards the students receiving financial aid who will need to seek arrangements
if their schooling is extended by a semester. You say that you feel for the international
students who have paid a lot of money for a semester that might not happen. You say that
you sympathize with those coming from out-of-province who have just moved here, don’t
have a job to fall back on and can’t go home because they don’t know if they will have class
on the following day. I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe you.

I urge you, members of the McGill administration and AMPL, to seriously consider the
consequences of your actions on the students you claim to care for so much. We should not
be your pawns in this labour dispute, but aspiring young professionals who have worked
hard to get where we are today, eager to start our legal education and learn at a faculty in
which we saw great merit. Please don’t prove us wrong.

A first-year BCL/JD student at the McGill Faculty of Law

The post Letter: Cui bono? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Eight Recommendations and the Reality

Created by the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR), these recommendations have never been anything more than filler corporate jargon intended to greenwash McGill’s public image for the benefit of profiting off of crises, including the climate crisis. Delay is the word. Here we outline our report —the more truthful version — on McGill’s progress to achieve the eight  recommendations contained in the CAMSR Report to the BoG:

1. Reduce Carbon Emissions

In pursuing decarbonization alone, McGill fails to take action against the companies doing the most damage to the climate and inflicting violence against Indigenous peoples, therefore remaining complicit in these activities. Decarbonization does not address the upstream sources of fossil fuels and emissions. Decarbonization describes efforts to reduce the carbon intensity of McGill’s endowment. No one opposes a reduction of the investment footprint, but that is insufficient on account of its failure to take a stance at a time when action is essential. It therefore does not address the root of the problem: the continued extraction, proliferation, and dependency on fossil fuels.

2. Invest in Low-Carbon Funds (Impact Investing)

McGill claims to increase investment in low-carbon funds and funds that contribute to decarbonization. However, they hide high-carbon funds by investing in banks such as the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC). RBC is Canada’s largest fossil fuel funder and the 5th largest fossil fuel funder in the world, investing more than $262 billion CAD into fossil fuels since the Paris Climate Agreement was signed in 2016. Furthermore, footprint targets are fundamentally inadequate. We cannot prevent catastrophic climate change by only focusing on emitters, or, in other words, the demand for fossil fuels. We have been failing for decades to curb emissions by focusing on a demand that is entrenched across society. It is time to target the supply of fossil fuels by enacting policies that restrict exploration, extraction, distribution, and — in McGill’s case — investment in the industry. Of course, we will also need a fundamental societal change towards renewable energies to reduce the demand and thus stop being at the mercy of oil markets. Footprint targets are complex and uncertain undertakings. They rely on emissions inconsistently reported by companies themselves, with data often missing. The target is forever moving, it has to be tracked indefinitely in a growing economy (a 30 per cent reduction can simply be regained over time).

3. ESG Integration

McGill increased the number of investment managers that have adopted an Environmental, Social, Corporate Governance (ESG) Policy or are signatories of the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment. However, the principles are ‘voluntary and aspirational’ — and they do not have minimum entry requirements or performance standards for responsible investment. Overall, the low-impact investments are valued at $8M CAD as of June 2022. That is less than how much former McGill Principal Suzanne Fortier, was likely paid throughout her tenure as McGill principal.

4. Engagement in SHARE’S UNIE Program

On behalf of the University Network for Investor Engagement (UNIE), SHARE is a company that engages with companies held in university endowments to (superficially) address climate risks. UNIE was created because major universities needed to band together to resist student and faculty divestment demands.

5. Negative Screening

ESG integration does not remove the social license of the fossil fuel industry. For instance, Enbridge and TC Energy, two of Canada’s largest and most violently extractive fossil fuel companies are ranked 14th and 17th out of 201 in terms of ESG risk. You may have heard of TC Energy as the company pushing to construct the Coastal Gas Link pipeline through unceded Wet’suwet’en territory without consent from hereditary chiefs (band councils, which were created by the Canadian government to prop up the few Indigenous people who agreed with it, only have jurisdiction on reservations, not on other territories). Enbridge has been in the news for funding police violence (including surveillance, harassment, physical torture, “pain compliance,” trumped-up charges, including felonies, and over 900 total arrests) against water protectors resisting Line 3 and Line 5. Further, companies under evaluation often provide their own figures, and there is no enforceable standard.

6. Present and Publish a Report on Socially Responsible Investing

This goal has been accomplished according to McGill because, in Spring 2022, the Investment Committee presented their 2021 report to the Board of Governors. What is more, the Board of Governors is not designed to respond to legitimate concerns regarding socially irresponsible investing, no matter how many reports they develop. McGill is controlled by senior executives from the Bank of Montreal (BMO), Power Corporation of Canada, the National Bank of Canada, Metro Inc., HSBC Bank Canada, and Redbourne Properties Inc. They all sit on the Board of Governors and represent their single largest voting bloc. They will continue to vote in their own best interests and against ours. In this case, that means maintaining the status quo. They continue to choose the most self-serving, profitable investments regardless of the violent ramifications.

7. SRI Review

Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) policies are non-binding and subject to considerable amounts of variation depending on the industry. Evaluating SRI practices every five years does not level with rapidly unfolding social and ecological crises that result from continued fossil fuel extraction. Further, a review of the current SRI practices has been added to the Board’s calendar of business and is planned to take place in Spring 2025. What happened in the SRI review of Spring 2020 and why didn’t it lead to divestment from fossil fuels, defense contractors, and other harmful industries? Now, we have to wait until Spring 2025 just so a few CEOs can review the practices over coffee in a boardroom again. Coincidentally, according to the IPCC, 2025 is the same year during which global emissions must peak to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming well below 2°C.

8. Institutional Leadership

McGill says they take pride in their sustainability efforts and “leads dialogues” with other corporate bodies. We are not proud that our university contributes to the climate crisis and human rights abuses. This is not climate leadership.

The Board of Governors

The Board of Governors, the highest governing body of McGill, is structured in a fundamentally undemocratic way. It chooses its new members and forms its standing committees, including CAMSR. As of the academic year 2022-2023, 14 out of 25 of its voting members were not elected, but rather nominated. This might seem like an improvement from the previous 17 out of 25, but because the unelected members, who are heads of various corporations, still constitute the majority of the Board, they are able to nominate and instate new members with similar corporate interests regardless of what the elected members decide, thus perpetuating the problem. The vote of the elected members only matters in cases where there is dissent among the unelected members, i.e. for decisions that do not threaten the decisional stranglehold of the unelected members.

Why You Should be Concerned:

You might wonder how this affects you directly. Climate change is akin to a very long train; it is difficult to make it accelerate individually, but it is also very hard to halt its course once it is going. While the situation might seem fine from its inside, the people who are desperately clinging on to it from the outside because they could not afford a ticket are already feeling the worst consequences of the train’s continual release of fumes into the atmosphere.

All of the data shows the negative consequences of a fossil fuel-powered society, yet the BoG refuses to recognize the social and environmental harm its investments in the oil and gas industry cause. These deleterious effects also comprise financial ones, as the disruptions caused by climate change will more negatively affect the economy than a swift transition to renewable energies. The university is thus jeopardizing the future of its students, many of whom come from countries that are already prey to the increasingly frequent and dangerous “once-in-a-lifetime” climate events. While McGill boasts about having achieved its sustainability goals, many other Canadian universities have divested, with the University of Montreal being the latest to follow suit after two students went on a hunger strike until they were hospitalized. We ignore what it would take for the BoG to have a change of heart and if an act of such magnitude would have an effect, but it is undeniable that students should not compromise their health in the hope that their university’s administration stops jeopardizing their long-term well-being.

The matter of divestment is not the only issue on which the BoG is at odds with the majority of students and staff. And it is certainly not the only issue on which it forces its will simply because it can. For instance, one can think of how the university threatened to sanction SSMU after the latter tried to adopt the Palestine Solidarity Policy, which obtained 71 per cent popular support in a referendum in March 2022. Let us not forget that while high-ranking staff in the McGill administration was doing a nice photoshoot last September 30 for the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, the university was fighting tooth and nail in the courts against the Kahnistensera (Mohawk Mothers) to renovate the New Vic on potential unmarked graves of Indigenous children experimented upon as part of the atrocious CIA Project MKUltra. A hearing which took place on October 26 gathered a great number of supporters for the Mohawk Mothers, many from the McGill community. Thankfully, the Mothers won a temporary injunction, but the situation only goes to show that the McGill administration will only stop in the pursuit of its goals if it is forced to do so by an entity with more power… or if it affects their bottom line. Sooner or later, the BoG’s chickens will come home to roost, as the many scandals surrounding the university dissuade donors from giving to it again, and as the BoG’s blatant disregard for the well-being of its students affects the university’s ranking and enrollment numbers. 

Food insecurity on campus is also an important issue. While global inflation may be at play here, McGill’s responsibility in rising food prices certainly cannot be overlooked. Indeed, per an inquiry with Student Housing and Hospitality Service (SHHS), McGill’s cafeterias have been struggling to turn a profit because they are not subsidized by the administration. We can also blame, among many other things, the latter’s decision to overall and privatize the many student-run cafes since the early aughts and to implement a mandatory meal plan in the undergraduate residences. To go full circle, food insecurity will become even more prevalent as the climate crisis worsens and renders previously arable lands infertile.

In brief, whether you want to buy a protein bar at the cafeteria for less than $5.82 or want to divest from fossil fuels, we have one goal in common: the democratization of the university. Much in the same way that we believe that a democratic government is preferable to an autocratic regime, we believe that the McGill community should have a say in the way the university is run.

The post Letter: The Latest Sustainability Report Released by the Board of Governors Shows Need for a Democratic University appeared first on The McGill Daily.

OSVRSE, a McGill service, supposedly “provides support for members of the McGill community who have been impacted by sexual violence,” only, for months now, the office has been staffless, which means that no survivors have been supported by the so-called “survivor-friendly” McGill. 

The administration has made their apathy for women and survivors clear by 1) not immediately acting on this and 2) not being transparent with people seeking support that OSVRSE was non-functional. 

To maintain their image as a “survivor-friendly” university, they tried to hide the fact that OSVRSE was not functional, keeping the website and the booking system open. They did not make the McGill community aware of  OSVRSE’s status until today’s vague email. Further, they did not make stakeholders like the Union for Gender Empowerment, Queer McGill, or the Legal Clinic that cater to gender minorities and women who are more likely to experience sexual violence that OSVRSE was closed. This means that we wrongfully directed numerous survivors seeking mental health support to OSVRSE. I found out the service was not functional by directing a student who needed support to it, which is devastating and unacceptable.  

While they kept the reporting system open through the  Office for Mediation and Reporting and delegated it to the dean of students office (who, to their credit, did a good job at dealing with cases), for months, survivors were left with no psychological support from their university, which left many feeling hopeless and resourceless. 

Their handling of OSVRSE is not an exception in services provided by McGill but an established pattern by the administration which underfunds OSD, the Wellness Hub, and services that offer psychological and physical support to McGill students. In fact, Grassroots initiatives like the Trans Patient Union, which advocates for better treatment at the wellness hub for Trans and Non-Binary patients or the McGill Neurodivergent Self-Advocacy Collective, which advocates for a more Neurodivergent-accessible university, were created because of the enormous gap in the care and support that is offered by McGill’s Wellness Hub and Student Accessibility and Achievement. We are tired of fighting for our rights and dealing with an administration desensitized to its students’ needs. The administration should be ashamed that students need to rally and advocate for better standards of care for themselves. 

The administration’s neglect of McGill Offices signals that they do not care about us. While they refuse to invest in our future and wellness, McGill is eager to invest 65.7 million dollars in fossil fuel industries and millions in corporations violating humanitarian rights, making it clear that McGill is a corporation that does not care about its students but rather cares for its stakeholders and its public image. 

McGill needs to be held accountable. The student body, survivors, women, and gender minorities deserve answers. How did this happen, and what will they do to prevent it from happening again? Prove that we are wrong and invest in robust services supporting the students you claim to want to help.

The post Letter to the Editor: McGill Doesn’t Care About Us appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post An Open Letter to the Lebanese Oligarchy appeared first on The McGill Daily.

To the Editor:
It is deeply disturbing that part of your article, “Souq Stories,” incites racist hate against Jewish people by characterizing Jewish efforts to secure fundamental human rights as protected by and codified in international law on the basis of equality as being racist in nature, and, without evidence and rather nonsensically, describes these efforts as being “antisemitic.” Equality and equity are racist only in an Orwellian world where left is right, up is down, and right is wrong. Scapegoating of Jews through dog whistles that deny Jews the same human rights – including self-determination – afforded to peoples of other faiths and ethnic backgrounds is racist, discriminatory, and bigoted. You owe your readers an apology and a retraction for the hatred that you have allowed to sully the pages of the Daily. Human rights are predicated on universality and equality. Denying them to Jews is a blatant violation of those principles and causes harm to Jewish individuals and the Jewish community as a whole at McGill, in Canada, and beyond. It is also a violation of a fundamental commitment to freedom, equality, and justice for all peoples. If the Daily disseminates speech that denies Jewish people fundamental human rights it should recognize that, ironically, in its purported anti-racist commitments, it has embraced racism against a minority and platforms exclusionary and oppressive values that violate both the spirit and substance of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as international human rights law and international law.

The post Letter to the Editor In Response to “Souq Stories: Interview with the Curators” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

We, faculty and staff at McGill University, endorse the Undergraduate Student Union’s recent adoption of the Palestine Solidarity Policy, which campaigns for a demonstration of “leadership in matters of human rights and social justice.” Generations of students have played a central role in advocating for justice, sustainability, and anti-apartheid measures. We support the students’ right to utilize democratic channels in order to campaign for these matters that impact the entire academic community.

Far from being divisive or exceptional, we see the adoption of this policy as a continuation of a long-standing history of student leadership aimed at bringing meaningful changes to their educational arenas. We strongly believe that the Student Union must function as an independent body uncoerced by the university’s administration in order to fulfill its mandate, which includes upholding democratic processes and elections — regardless of whether or not they are agreeable to the administration, ourselves, or any other actor within or outside the university. We look forward to seeing McGill University respect the democratic results of this election and we continue to commend policies that demonstrate a commitment to human rights and social justice which will only enrich our campus.

As concerned members of the McGill community, we want to recognize the great and competent student labor behind this democratic election, and express our pride that students at McGill continue to push and challenge our university to be better.

Signatories:

Sara Abdel-Latif, Assistant Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies

Malek Abisaab, Associate Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies & Institute of Islamic Studies

Rula J. Abisaab, Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies

Giulia Alberini, Faculty Lecturer, School of Computer Science

Diana Allan, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology & ISID

Tara Alward, Senior Administrative and Student Affairs Coordinator, Social Studies of Medicine

Kirsten Anker, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law

Madhav G. Badami, School of Urban Planning and Bieler School of Environment

Darin Barney, Professor, Department of Art History and Communication Studies

Subho Basu, Associate Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies

Jacquie Bede, Associate Professor, Plant Science

Bobby Benedicto, Assistant Professor, Department of Art History and Communication Studies  & IGSF

Lara Braitstein, Associate Professor, School of Religious Studies

Rex Brynen, Professor, Department of Political Science

Jenny Burman, Associate Professor, Department of Art History and Communication Studies

Peter E. Caines, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Erin Cole, Research Program Manager, Neurosciences

Samuele Collu, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology

Matt Corks, Developer/Analyst, IT Services

Catherine Desbarats, Associate Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies

Marguerite Deslauriers, Professor, Department of Philosophy

Edward Dunsworth, Assistant Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies

Barry Eidlin, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology

Elizabeth Elbourne, Associate Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies

Ahmed El-Geneidy, Professor, School of Urban Planning

Omar Farahat, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law

Samer Faraj, Professor, Desautels Faculty of Management

Yuriko Furuhata, Associate Professor, Department of East Asian Studies

Susan Gaskin, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering

Jen Gobby, Course Lecturer, Bieler School of Environment

Allan Greer, Professor Emeritus, Department of History and Classical Studies

Mehmet Gumus, Professor, Desautels Faculty of Management

Aslıhan Gürbüzel, Assistant Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies

Mathew Hannouche, MD FRCPC, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine

Michelle Hartman, Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies

Cecily Hilsdale, Associate Professor, Department of Art History and Communication Studies

Jeehee Hong, Chair, Associate Professor, Departments of East Asian Studies & Art History and Communication Studies

Sandra Hyde, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology

Limin Jao, Associate Professor, Department of Integrated Studies in Education

Steven Jordan, Associate Professor, Department of Integrated Studies in Education

Prashant Keshavmurthy, Associate Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies

Lucy Kiester, Assistant Librarian, Libraries

Frederick Kingdom, Professor, Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences

Andrew Kirk, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Pasha M. Khan, Associate Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies

Eduardo Kohn, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology

Anna Kramer, Assistant Professor, Urban Planning

Erik Kuhonta, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science

Louise Kyrtatas, Faculty Lecturer, School of Continuing Studies

Thomas Lamarre, Professor Emeritus, Department of East Asian Studies

Katherine Lemons, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology

Margaret Levey, Faculty Lecturer, School of Continuing Studies

Brian Lewis, Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies

Eric Lewis, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy

Ehab Lotayef, IT & Technical Services Manager, Electrical and Computer Engineering

Shaun Lovejoy, Professor, Department of Physics

Nick MacKenzie, Program Officer, Teaching and Learning Services

Kevin Manaugh, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Bieler School of Environment

Setrag Manoukian, Institute of Islamic Studies & Department of Anthropology

Alex M. McComber, Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine

Aimen Moussaddy, Clinical Assistant Professor, Neurosciences

Khalid Mustafa Medani, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science & Institute of Islamic Studies

Andrea Miller-Nesbitt, Associate Librarian

Suzanne Morton, Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies

Vrinda Narain, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law

Kristin Norget, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology

Derek Nystrom, Associate Professor, Department of English

Laila Parsons, Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies & Institute of Islamic Studies

Elizabeth Patitsas, Assistant Professor, Departments of Computer Science & Integrated Studies in Education

Alberto Perez-Gomez, Emeritus Professor, School of Architecture

Andrea Pinkney, Associate Professor , School of Religious Studies

Carrie Rentschler, Associate Professor, Department of Department of Art History and Communication Studies

Kathleen Rice, Assistant Professor, Family Medicine

William Clare Roberts, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science

Jessica Ruglis, Associate Professor, Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology

Robert E. Rutledge, Associate Professor, Department of Physics

Leslie Sabiston, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology

Anaïs Salamon, Head Librarian, Islamic Studies Library

Emine Sarigollu, Associate Professor, Desautels Faculty of Management

Daniel Schwartz, Assistant Professor, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures

Juan Camilo Serpa, Associate Professor, Desautels Faculty of Management

Hasana Sharp, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy

Kate Shaw, Student Affairs Administrator, Institute for Health and Social Policy

Kaleem Siddiqi, Professor, School of Computer Science

Renee Sieber, Associate Professor, Department of Geography & Bieler School of Environment

Kerry Sloan, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law

Kira Smith, Student Engagement Officer, Office of Science Education

Kevin Stanley, Faculty Lecturer, School of Continuing Studies

Jonathan Sterne, Professor, Department of Art History and Communication Studies

William Straw, Professor, Department of Art History and Communication Studies

Jeremy Tai, Assistant Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies

Alanna Thain, Associate Professor, Department of English

Ipek Tureli, Associate Professor, Architecture

Ismael Vaccaro, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology and Bieler School of Environment

Theodora Vardouli, Assistant Professor, School of Architecture

Nicolas von Ellenrieder, Research Associate, Faculty of Medicine

Gavin Walker, Associate Professor, Department of History and Classical Studies

Yann le Polain de Waroux, Assistant Professor, Institute for the Study of International Development and Department of Geography

Yves Winter, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science

Nadia Wardeh, Course Lecturer, Institute of Islamic Studies

Robert Wisnovsky, Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies

Katie Zien, Associate Professor, Department of English

Paul Zsombor-Murray, Associate Professor (post-retirement), Department of Mechanical Engineering

The post Support SSMU and the Palestine Solidarity Policy appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The administration, which has historically bowed to Zionist pressure has done it again now. 

“I have communicated these concerns to the SSMU leadership and advised them to take prompt and appropriate remedial action, consistent with SSMU’s obligations under its Memorandum of Agreement with the University, failing which the University will terminate this Memorandum of Agreement.” writes the Deputy Provost in a message to the whole McGill Community.

This is not the first time the administration threatens the students and forces a change in a position that was voted on freely by the student body.  It will not be the last as long as the administration gets away with it. 

At a time when the two most credible independent international human rights groups, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both acknowledged that Israel is committing Apartheid against Palestinians, McGill decides to put its head in the sand so that it would not disappoint the Zionist lobby or “members of our community feel unwelcome or rejected.”  Why would someone feel that way by a resolution that calls for actions against “corporations and institutions complicit in settler-colonial apartheid against Palestinians”?  Defenders of apartheid?

McGill acknowledges the land rights of Indigenous peoples.  What a hollow, meaningless and hypocritical [acknowledgement] that becomes if the university does not allow expressions of support of the land rights of indigenous peoples all around the world, including Palestinians.

I hope that the SSMU [will] stand strong and not bow down to the administration and its pressure, whether it is about the University’s history, about its environmental policies, about international politics, or university governance.

A McGill community in which “all members feel that they can express their identity and their opinion without a fear of being ostracized” WITHOUT EXCEPTION is the real goal.

The post Letter: Defending Palestinian rights is against McGill’s standards appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In French, we say un dialogue de sourds. Its literal translation is “a deaf people’s dialogue,” but it means a dialogue in which every party is not hearing what others are saying and is convinced they detain the truth. We speak a lot about the polarization of American society, and I think we tend to flatter ourselves in comparison with our southern neighbour. However, we shouldn’t be blind to polarization much closer to home. Indeed, although Quebec’s society and its history are definitely unique, it would be incorrect to affirm there is no polarization of ideas here too, and the academic community is a reflection of that tendency. A great example of this dynamic is the fact I wrote this on January 31st, at which point it wasn’t published due to its perceived non-respect of the journal’s Statement of Principles; I just succeeded in having it published after multiple back and forth with different Faculty staff at McGill over the last months.

This is my last semester at McGill. Throughout my three years here, I have been shocked by the presence – and by its important influence over students and faculty – of a certain radical postmodernist analysis of reality which explains every societal dynamic as the interaction of oppressors versus oppressed, as a hierarchy of oppressions. I compare this ideological movement to the “conspirationists,” not with regards to the content of their discourse, but in the way it’s built and in its shameless use of sophisms. The main element I want to highlight here is the circularity of their argument; every questioning of the ideology will reinforce its statement. For example, for a white person to be questioning the concept of white fragility is considered as proof in itself of the person’s white fragility, and thus of their racist nature.

Now, I’m not saying that racism is not a greatly sensitive topic to discuss generally for white people. I’m just saying that it’s absolutely counterproductive in generating a constructive debate and a collective reflection to automatically refer to the concept of white fragility as soon as a white person questions a specific reasoning of social dynamics.

I love the saying “listening to hear instead of listening to respond.” It saddens me that it has been appropriated by certain ideological movements to strengthen their argument. It’s believed that the potential discomfort of an individual – often from an “oppressive” group – should not be taken into consideration if it compromises members of an oppressed group’s safety. I think most of us would agree on that. However, an issue, a double standard will arise if we apply this principle to every situation without reflection; discomfort could be understood as a type of unsafety, so where is the line? When can someone affirm they feel unsafe – a legitimate feeling – and when can someone affirm they feel uncomfortable – something that should be dismissed? Does it all depend on the person’s identity as part of a specific social group? And isn’t a person’s identity more than their social location?

It scares me that about every man is shut down when they are trying to reflect on a certain wave of feminism due to their identity as men*. It scares me that this dialogue de sourds is spreading throughout the Quebec population, but it scares me even more to see it’s so present in McGill’s academic community. Universities are supposed to be spaces of daring intellectual conversations, where the ideas are scrutinized, regardless of whom they are coming from. Rather than that, people react to diverging points of view by vilifying them. In social work, we critique the use of “virtue ethics” – good people do good things and bad people do bad things – as it has led to undeniably horrific actions such as our profession’s contribution to the Residential Schools system. However, by blindly adhering to the radical postmodernist ideology in question here, some members of the school are arguably reverting to virtue ethics, automatically classifying those not adhering to the ideology as not informed, lacking empathy and social consciousness.

I don’t believe in putting everything and everyone in categories. I’m an adept of grey areas, especially in conversations that are so important and so complex.

You’ll excuse me for my prose; English is not my first language and I’m not a literature major. Nevertheless, I’m sharing my thoughts with you in all humility; the ideas I’m putting forwards here aren’t new ones. I’m just reaffirming it is crucial a serious reflection gets started this very instant in the public and academic spaces about the issue of polarizing ideas and the moralizing stance taken by certain people, thus preventing the establishment of a truly open dialogue.

And to my fellow people who always feel like they are between two seats, who are actively involved in social justice actions while being witness to the emergence of a dangerous radical social justice discourse, please speak up!

*As a side anecdote, my uncle used to feminize his discourse – which is necessary due to the lack of gender-neutral pronouns in French – much more than I would. Who said that a man couldn’t be as good of a feminist as a woman and couldn’t have valid, interesting thoughts to bring to the discussion about gender equality?

The post Letter: About the Polarization of Our Society and the Academic Community appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In a recent column, Without the Labour of Black Students and Faculty, McGill’s Anti-Racist Efforts Would Not Exist, the McGill Daily Editorial Board rightfully commends Black students for their work in creating a shift towards inclusivity at McGill. Non-Black students must be cognizant of this momentum, the Board argues, and help “support this labour.”

As a Jewish McGill student who has encountered bigotry firsthand on account of my identity, I wholeheartedly agree. 

In fact, I would argue that we need to adopt this mentality while combating similar threats on campus such as Islamophobia, homophobia, and antisemitism. If we are to create a truly anti-racist environment at McGill, we must listen to students from these communities, learn from them, and unite against all forms of prejudice.

An excellent example of such unity took place in February, “in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., Rabbi Abraham Heschel, and the many Blacks and Jews who stood together in the fight for civil rights,” when notable figures such as Mayim Bialik, Zach Banner, Tiffany Hadish, and others formed the Black-Jewish Entertainment Alliance to combat racism and antisemitism.

It is particularly refreshing to see Banner, the Black offensive lineman for the Pittsburgh Steelers, serve as an advocate against antisemitism because he sees its parallels to racism. Just as Black Lives Matter encourages us to listen to members of the Black community and learn, we must do the same with the Jewish community, he argues. 

Banner has come to understand that Jewish people are constantly targeted with hateful slurs and stereotypes, discrimination, or worse. A lot of the time they are attacked simply supporting Israel’s right to exist. I can corroborate this notion from my own experiences at McGill. 

Like many other Montrealers, I spent my gap year studying abroad. My first year at McGill, I was excited to share about being a transfer student from an Israeli university, which prompted surprisingly hostile reactions. 

That year, in November of 2016, Chabad — the center for Jewish life on campus — was trying to bring students together by creating a peace mural on campus. As a proud, young Jewish student, I decided to stick around and speak to the crowd of diverse students that had formed. Within an hour, the committee that was previously known as BDS McGill showed up and created a “fence” around the mural, blocking it with large signs that called for the dismantlement of “apartheid” Israel. 

Attendees, myself included, were suddenly surrounded by students who propagated a message of hatred and contempt, rejecting our shared humanity and message of peace. They outright refused to hear our narrative – that Israel is where we pray towards, where our language and peoplehood were created, and an integral part of who we are as Jews. 

In my opinion, it was a wasted opportunity to bring coexistence to McGill. It was also the first time I felt under attack because of my Jewish identity. 

A few months later, some of the students from the BDS protest recognized me in the library and made the effort to “accidentally” brush shoulders with me. I never would have imagined I’d experience it at a purportedly safe campus like McGill.

These incidents affected me as a Jewish student on a personal level. But there were times we felt targeted on a collective level, such as when Igor Sadikov sent out his notorious “Punch a Zionist” tweet and when Jordyn Wright was targeted by SSMU over her support for Israel. 

As a 2018 landmark survey of Canadian Jews notes, supporting Israel is “the normative form of Canadian Jewish identification.” It has nothing to do with negating the experience of Palestinian Arabs. But at McGill, Jews cannot display any love for their indigenous homeland without fear of being silenced or harassed. 

There is a strong feeling amongst our school’s Jewish population that the anti-Israel movement is fueling antisemitism on campus. Our land-based and spiritual relationship to the land is well-documented – it’s time McGill students acknowledge it. The success story of the Jewish liberation movement, otherwise known as Zionism, might make some uncomfortable, but that does not give them the right to define us. 

As Banner suggests, we have to fight racism and antisemitism with the same tools – by listening and learning. 

It is my hope that starting a dialogue will help others on campus understand the perspective of Jewish students, just as we must better understand the perspective of Black students.

Clearly, Jews have felt unwelcome, afraid, and even unsafe at McGill. My time as a Jewish student on campus is a testament to this. For the sake of the next generation of students, it’s time to follow Banner’s example. Maybe that way, once we’re in-person again, we can try another attempt at a peace mural – together.

The post Letter: Jewish students must define their own experiences on campus appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As organizations, associations, and individuals based in or with past connections to Tiohtià:ke/Montreal, we stand in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en Nation in their defense of territorial sovereignty, against the destructive encroachment by CGL. As individuals and groups with existing or past ties to McGill University, we write this letter to denounce the institution’s links to the CGL pipeline on the unceded territory of the Wet’suwet’en Nation.

Though we are physically far from Wet’suwet’en territory, we are outraged that institutions in Montreal are complicit in making the CGL pipeline possible. Some of these connections were made more obvious during the creative actions that residents in the Greater Montreal area took in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en Nation in January and February of 2020. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Wet’suwet’en territory and the Coastal GasLink pipeline are no longer in the headlines, but the project continues apace. So it is shocking to know that institutions based in Montreal provide financial and material support to the CGL Pipeline. For example, McGill University holds an investment of $4,770,450 in TC Energy Corp as part of its endowment portfolio. The risks for the Wet’suwet’en Nation associated with the ongoing construction of the pipeline give urgency for institutions like McGill to divest from TC Energy Corporation.

The Canadian and BC governments and CGL are using this moment of reduced mobility of land defenders due to COVID-19 public health regulations to go ahead with the construction of pipelines. The continued construction of the CGL pipeline despite the declaration of a public health emergency connected to COVID-19 has placed citizens of the Wet’suwet’en Nation in increased vulnerability as construction workers from outside the community enter the territory. Earlier during the pandemic, the public health guidelines of the BC government which limited gatherings of 50 people did not apply to construction sites as they were deemed as “essential services.” However, the labelling of pipeline construction sites as an essential service is a farce. The issue is made more urgent with a number of cases reported this past November and December in the pipeline construction camps in Wet’suwet’en territory. In an open letter, 22 female chiefs from Wet’suwet’en have voiced their concerns about the danger that these construction camps pose in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Canadian government continues to militarize Wet’suwet’en territory. Heavily armed RCMP officers remain present on Wet’suwet’en territory. We strongly condemn the Canadian government’s criminalization of peaceful protest.

The disregard of the self-determination of the Wet’suwet’en Nation and their governing body of Hereditary Chiefs has demonstrated the emptiness of the Canadian government’s “reconciliation” discourse. Indigenous peoples are demanding nothing short of decolonization. A first step towards that is to respect the decision of the Hereditary Chiefs of Wet’suwet’en Nation to refuse the construction of the CGL pipeline on their territory. Divesting from oil and gas projects is also a means to fulfill the Liberal government’s commitments towards addressing climate change. An authentic solution to climate change would respect the self-determination of the Wet’suwet’en Nation.
We stand with the demands of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation that call upon the ceasing of construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, the immediate withdrawal of the RCMP and associated security and police forces from Wet’suwet’en territory, and that Wet’suwet’en self-determination is honored by respecting their decisions, laws, and governance structures. We add to these demands a call for divestment from TC Energy Corp by institutions like McGill University.

Letter drafted by

Stefan Christoff, radio host at CKUT 90.3fm, McGill University 

Kasim Tirmizey, B.Eng ‘03, Part-Time Faculty, McGill University

In consultation with

Marlene Hale, Wet’suwet’en climate justice activist.

Organizations/Associations:

McGill Nurses for Planetary Health, signed co-chair Naomi Pastrana

Divest McGill

McGill Pan-Asian Collective

Students in Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights McGill – SPHR McGill

McGill World Islamic and Middle East Studies Students’ Association

The Black Students’ Network of McGill University

Climate Justice Montréal

Courage Montréal

The McGill Arab Student Network

CKUT Radio, 90.3fm

Radlaw McGill

Le Ministère de la nouvelle normalité – Groupe théâtrale d’action climatique

The Indigenous Law Association / Association de Droit Autochtone (ILADA)

Students’ Society of McGill University Executive Committee

Climate Justice Action McGill

Atelier Céladon

Protesters Legal Information Clinic / McGill Corporate Accountability Project

Extinction Rebellion Justice Tiohtià:ke / Montreal

Women of Diverse Origins / Femmes de Diverses Origines

The Quebec Public Interest Research Group at McGill (QPIRG McGill)

McGill Students for a Free Tibet

McGill Stands With Hong Kong

Independent Jewish Voices Canada / Voix Juives Indépendantes

Black Rose Books

South Asian Women’s Community Centre

Indigenous Student Alliance at McGill University

Graduate Architecture Students’ Association at McGill University

SOS Territoire (GRIP UQAM)

Du Pain Et Des Enjeux / Bread & Struggles

Architecture Students’ Association at McGill University

For a list of individual signatories and to read the full French version of this letter, click here.

The post Open Letter: Respect Wet’suwet’en Sovereignty and Divest from CGL Pipeline appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Good Education is Not a Right, nor a Choice but a Burden

Our world does it resemble yours, where we come from. Our education is drizzled in the blood, sweat and tears of our parents , that are currently locked up and nowhere to be seen. 

Many of you might have heard the ongoing devastating news about Lebanon. I was blessed with access to both worlds, some may say I’m even Hannah Montana, but one world isn’t a Disney movie, it looks more like Paranormal Activity 1 through 5.  And here’s why:  Where we come from, good Education is not a right, nor a choice but a burden.

On December 9th, the American University of Beirut alongside other universities shared their plans to increase the conversion rate of the Lebanese Pound up to nearly 260%. But the horror movie doesn’t start there. Lebanese students have been facing harsh times for about a year now. In October 2019, classes were dismissed for a month as the revolution began, many students joined the streets to fight for basic rights, such as the right to a democratic government, the right to proper education and the saddest thing of all, the right to necessities like electricity and water.

As months passed and new challenges were faced, students had to halt all their studies in February due to the pandemic. By then, the inflation increased dramatically and students weren’t able to afford the appropriate equipment: laptops, headsets and internet to accommodate. The year ended very poorly, most of the official exams offered in Lebanon got cancelled. I think the major jump-scare of this horror movie was on August 4th, a ticking time bomb exploded in the heart of Beirut, leaving nearly 206 dead, 3000 wounded and 300 000 homeless. The sound of the explosion rings to this day in the ears of Lebanese souls, victims of a corrupt government. 

I was fortunate to leave Lebanon and study here at McGill and gain access to all sorts of funding, but many today are having to choose between dinner for a month or a credit at university and with the current changes, they might have neither. And I wish I could tell you how the story ends and what the moral of the story is, but it is uncertain. You can help shape the future of many students by contributing financially or spreading the word. Your knowledge about the current situation is in itself a contribution. 

Saf Hakawati 

U1 

Political Science

My Experience as a Privileged WOC

The first time I, as well as my brothers, realized my grandma was Black, was when I was 5 years old. It was not from spontaneous self-discovery or by doing research that I came to such a conclusion. It was my dad who revealed to me that grandma was, in fact, a Black woman.

Growing up in a small town on the south shore of Montreal, racism, classism, and even microaggressions were never something I experienced. In fact, the middle school I attended was very much diverse – white kids represented less than half of all students. As I became older and was made aware that being mixed, or Black, or Asian, or any ethnicity other than white was deemed different, is when I started noticing subtle but obvious racial facts I was once too young to understand. 

For as long as I can remember, we were the only mixed family in my small town. People would easily recognize my grandma walking around town. They would say, “She is the only black person in town,” A small comment that many would characterize as inoffensive, yet which weighed a lot on my young conscience – we were the only ones in town. I was never ashamed of being so-called different, I never was criticized for it, no one classified me as “the mixed-race girl” when I was younger. From what I can remember, racism was not something I ever experienced, or witnessed my family experiencing, for most of my life. 

I always considered myself very fortunate and highly privileged. All my life, I never lacked anything – we had plenty of food available to my family of six, we were able to afford two vacations a year, my parents both worked full time jobs, my three brothers and I had access to top private education and played sports. In fact, I would consider my family above average because the truth is, my family is part of the small portion of the population located above the middle class. My dad’s dad, my grandpa, founded a very large finance company that has been growing more and more since its creation. Everyone knows my family in my town, and I’m not saying this to brag, but simply to add to my point – I have always been highly privileged. 

I have been playing tennis since the age of four. It was my dad, Sebastien LeBlanc, who initiated my brother Alex and I to the sport that forever changed our lives. Because of tennis, we were able to travel, learn two new languages, make friends, and train in conditions any tennis player would dream of. At the age of 13, both my parents, with my and Alex’s approval, decided to send us to Spain to train at a well-known academy. We attended the private school for four years.

People only associate privilege with being rich and famous, when in fact privilege is also being educated, having a roof over your head, having access to nutritious and healthy food, being loved and supported by your parents, being able to afford vacation getaways, et cetera.

Raphaelle LeBlanc

The Myth of Conservative Censorship on Social Media

One of the biggest myths that is being circulated concerns the alleged censorship of conservatives on social media. They claim that Big Tech purposely ban and censor people with conservative views. Donald Trump has spearheaded this faux movement, first arguing that Twitter unfairly censored him after they started fact-checking his tweets.

In reality, his tweets were being circulated and amplified on Twitter and all the major news channels, free of charge, for years. Regardless of his controversial remarks, Mr. Trump acquired an unparalleled following on Twitter. Journalists, pundits, regular people all chased after his tweets, making him the No.1 personality on Twitter. Not only didn’t Twitter suppress him, Twitter made him the person he will forever be remembered as.

This was all before he publicly incited a coup at the Capitol. An insurrection at the temple of democracy was already unthinkable, and yet the President of the United States was the one inciting it. Had social media platforms not suspended him, it could have been a lot worse.

Despite being suspended by all major social media platforms, Citizen Trump in all intents and purposes still has his full freedom of speech unimpeded. He can go on One America News Network (since Fox News might no longer welcome him) and do as many interviews as he pleases. He is also more than welcome to open a Parler or GAB account and communicate with his supporters. He also has his website up and running as well.

Maverick Medeiros

The post Guest Opinions: January in Retrospect appeared first on The McGill Daily.

I don’t like Facebook. I never understood its appeal. Despite its flaws, people still flock to Facebook. I left the site years ago due to the toxic behaviour I was subjected to and I never looked back.

People always mention how miserable Facebook makes them feel, yet they never delete their accounts. People put on these fake personas that only highlight their best moments. As a result, one feels like one is missing out on living a great life. The personas that people adopt do not reflect reality. They are as believable as a WWE character. This propensity to make comparisons derives from the keeping up with the Joneses mentality, which equates happiness with wealth and material possessions. One sees these types of posts on Facebook all the time, whether it be travel or food pictures. What purpose do these pictures even serve? It seems like there is no rhyme or reason behind them.

Facebook describes itself as a social network, but instead of bringing people together, it drives a wedge between them. Part of the onus lies on the user base and some of it on the website’s structure. So much of the posts on Facebook are passive-aggressive. People post lyrics, dictums, and sayings that clearly aim to insult someone, but they always pretend that that is not their intention. Attempting to carry on a conversation on Facebook is an exercise in futility. When you try having a conversation, you will often get replies like “K” or “cool story bro” when you make an earnest attempt at getting to know somebody. The groups function is arguably the most polarizing aspect of the site. Theoretically, it could help create a community of like-minded individuals around an interest such as Japanese role-playing games; however, more times than not, groups devolve into cliques, infighting, and safe havens for cyberbullying and conspiracy theories. Facebook groups encourage group-think. Groups shun anyone with a different opinion, creating echo chambers, wherein users anathematize people with opposing views. This creates a polarized discourse and it is directly responsible for the rise of conspiracy theory groups such as flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, and hate groups. 

How has Facebook improved our quality of life? I think its benefits are negligible. Facebook’s impact on self-confidence and the extent of cyberbullying on the site should not be downplayed. Yes, Facebook has facilitated communication between people, but how often do Facebook discussions devolve into name-calling and insults? I understand that most of my peers regard Facebook as an indispensable part of life. While Facebook could be useful in theory, the user base ruins it. Social media has worsened the ways in which people communicate and it abets destructive emotions like anger, covetousness, and jealousy. It is not to say that the world was better before Facebook, but how does the toxic behaviour of Facebook (and social media users for that matter) make the world a better place?  

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this letter belong to the author.

The post Letter: My Issues with Facebook appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Our instructor facilitated the first session, which was a review and discussion of the Truth and Reconciliation Report. 

Very quickly, I felt moved to speak up. 

I suggested to our instructor  the need for Indigenous facilitation in discussing Indigenous issues. It is an act of reconciliation to defer to the Indigenous voice and perspective; and would honour the expertise and wisdom of Indigenous facilitators who professionally deliver reconciliation workshops. 

I also mentioned pre-surveys as an example of best practice. This would allow the presentation to be adjusted in tone and content.  For example, if the majority of students would benefit from more history or information. Or, the class might be farther along in their awareness, and could focus on a deeper dive into reflection and daily practices in Allyship. 

The instructor’s response was that the Dean had also asked about the pre-survey, checking in with instructors on how they are delivering TRC focused discussions. Our instructor told the class he didn’t need a pre-survey because he “could handle anything that came up”

What came up? 

In the first unit, we had an unfortunate and inappropriate mix of elders sharing 60s scoop traumas, with uninformed voices declaring that “disproportionate rates of Indians in jail are all due to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.” What makes it inappropriate is the fact elders are encouraged to “share” their stories of surviving residential schools, with no guarantee of a safe container.  In our third unit, we had a classmate ask: “What does TRC” stand for? This was after having been assigned to read the report as pre-work, and after three units and two Indigenous speakers. 

Why pre-survey? 

1. To know where the class is: does the class need more history/information? Are they beyond that, and working on self-awareness regarding bias and assumptions? Are they Indigenous or Indigenous-allies and focusing on championing change in their workplaces, needing discussion around how to do that?
2. To break into groups if there are big differences – some groups may need very elementary information, while others were Indigenous and should have the opportunity to share a session without hearing stereotypes or offensive terminology. 
3. When Indigenous participants are involved in these conversations, there is a mental health component. Do we know what impacts happen after the class ends, after a residential school conversation? Do they have mental health and emotional supports in place at home? 
4. Part of reconciliation is deferring to Indigenous voices. To me, this means these conversations should have only had Indigenous facilitation. 

I didn’t file a complaint, although other students in the class mentioned to me in the Zoom session chat bar that they did plan to. I felt listened to during class when I raised these points. And I wanted to wait and see if the second session did have skilled, relevant, and trauma-informed Indigenous facilitation.  

While I was happy to hear two Indigenous speakers describing their career paths, it might have been more relevant to bring in Indigenous facilitators who work specifically on cultural safety, cultural humility, and reconciliation workshops for schools, government, and organizations. 

At the end of the third session, I asked one of the guest speakers if she did present these types of workshops, and it turns out her department for municipal government does. I commented to the class that I would have loved to hear that presentation… I feel like this is a planning shortfall, not a reflection on her presentation. 

We did not meet our learning outcomes for the three units, I did not feel like we learned how to incorporate any learning of TRC calls to action in our workplaces, lives, or as individuals. 

I emailed our instructor and our administrative coordinator Robyn Clark, who forwarded my thoughts to the director of Indigenous Relations, Dr. Carmen Sicilia. Our instructor did not respond to any of the emails, and Robyn Clark offered to arrange a meeting with Dr. Sicilia to discuss ”tailoring for adult learners.” This is not what is needed. 

What I’m requesting is that McGill hires instructors who have the awareness to know when to defer to Indigenous voices, and to take care to not insult the 50 percent Indigenous cohort with this class’ extreme lack of diligence around creating safe spaces. 

Though I was disappointed by the outcome of speaking up on this issue, there are also positive outcomes. My classmates have emailed and messaged me, thanking me for speaking up. I have never felt more validation of the essential nature of my work.

In the spirit of moving forward for everyone, I’d like to share one of many available resources. Aside from journalism and storytelling, I also work with IndigenEYEZ, a non-profit project of MakeWay, formerly Tides Canada. IndigenEYEZ provides youth empowerment camps, facilitator training, and “ReconciliACTION” workshops for schools, First Nations communities and businesses.]

Thank you for your attention, I do hope some change can be made. 

Miigwetch. Merci. Thank you. E’mote~ here in the North Salish Sea. 

Odette

This letter is published as submitted to the McGill Daily with minimal editing for clarity.

Odette Auger is Sagamok Anishnawbek through her mother. She is a McGill student attending the Public Administration & Governance program. She is also a Indigenous Health reporter for Vancouver Island as part of the government of Canada’s Local Journalism Initiative. Auger’s other work has ranged from project management and fundraising, to youth facilitation and program design, to podcast storytelling. 

Editor’s note, July 8: the names of the Indigenous guest speakers have been removed at the author’s request. 

The post Letter: a McGill story appeared first on The McGill Daily.