The wastewater testing page is updated on a “rolling basis” with current alert levels – high, medium, or low – for each residence based on the results of the sample testing. While the page provides protocol for each alert level, it does not provide definitions for what constitutes a positive result, information on how samples are collected, or historical data from when the initiative was started. 

Given these gaps, the Daily filed an Access to Documents Request earlier this semester to gain access to data and definitions created by researchers. Here’s what we found. 

Testing Procedures

One sample is collected daily from La Citadelle, Carrefour Sherbrooke, New Residence Hall (NRH), Solin Hall, Royal Victoria College (RVC), Upper Residence, and Laird Hall. To collect the samples, researchers use a “torpedo,” a device developed in early 2021 specifically for testing the presence of COVID-19 in wastewater. They are constructed with cotton buds, medical gauze swabs, and electronegative membranes encased in narrow 3D-printed shells. The device is a “passive sampler,” meaning it can be left in a waterbody for set amount of time during which pollutants in the water will interact with the device. At McGill, torpedoes are placed in wastewater (either in a building’s outdoor man-hole or indoor washout, depending on the site), and after 24 hours, they are removed and then transported to a McGill lab in the McConnell Engineering building to be analyzed. 

The lab protocol – “SARS-CoV-2 detection by absorption” – was developed by Dominic Frigon of McGill’s Civil Engineering department and Sarah Dorner of Polytechnique Montreal’s Civil, Geological, and Mining Engineering department. First, analysts obtain a concentration of the sample; Bovine Respiratory Syntactical virus (BRSV) and Pepper Mild Mottle virus (PMMV) are also added to the sample at this stage as external controls. Next, ribonucleic acid (RNA) is extracted from the sample’s concentration. Then, a molecular detection sample PCR test is performed on the RNA extraction using a testing kit, yielding a negative or positive result. There are notes throughout the lab protocol giving guidelines for analysts; for example, the protocol notes that precision is important while obtaining the concentration, as “a precise external control is needed for data processing.” 

Indeed, data shows that results are often inconclusive. Under the “PCR notes” column, analysts were instructed to “record any departures from typical analyses and observations.” Oftentimes, inconclusive results were the result of low PMMV and/or BRSV in the sample. On other occasions, inconclusive results were the result of a lost torpedo, cross-contamination with the SARS-CoV-2 positive control, or a blocked pipe that prevented the sample from being collected, among other causes. Under the PCR notes, when there was a positive result, analysts occasionally noted whether the signal was “light,” “moderate,” or “strong.” 

Alert Level Definitions

The university outlines three different alert levels: low/vigilance level, medium/precursor level, and high/outbreak level. Low/vigilance level is the “normal” alert level, with the usual COVID-19 safety protocols in place. Medium/precursor level is reached in a building following two days of consecutive positive results. At this level, a message is sent to all residents and staff of the building advising them to wear masks, reduce their contacts, get tested, and report any positive results to Case Management. The alert returns to low/vigilant following four consecutive days of negative results. The high/outbreak alert level is reached when two or more residents report testing positive; thus, transition to this alert level is not directly through wastewater testing but is instead through Case Management. McGill’s guidelines indicate that “the alert level to which the building transitions will depend on current wastewater testing results.” 

These definitions and guidelines indicate that if a singular positive result is found, residents and staff of the building are not notified, and there is no update made to the wastewater testing website. The data collected revealed that this happened several times over the course of the semester; a positive result was found on one day, and no one in the corresponding residence was notified, nor was the website updated.

The guidelines also don’t take into account the prevalence of inconclusive results. For example, in a situation where a positive result is followed by an inconclusive result the next day, the alert level will not be changed. Testing between January 26 and January 28 at NRH yielded positive-inconclusive-positive results; however, the alert level was not raised because there were not two consecutive days of positive results. Email correspondence and meeting minutes obtained by the Daily show that research directors and those in the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) were considering adjusting the definition for the medium/precursor level to account for a situation such as this in early February, but the project’s page does not reflect that the definition was redefined, and inconclusive results remain unexplained. 

Alert levels sent to those in residence alert them of protocols to follow when the alert level is raised, but these do not offer insight into the state of the outbreak. Uncovered email correspondence between Case Management and Student Housing and Hospitality Services revealed that there was a confirmed positive case in NRH on November 23 following two days of consecutive positive test results. However, the email sent to residents on November 23 notifying residents that the alert level was raised did not disclose the positive case in the building. 

COVID-19 in Residences

A current resident of NRH told the Daily that as of December 2, residents are no longer receiving emails about alert levels and protocols. Now, this information is only posted on the university’s website. “To my knowledge, the alert levels haven’t led to any actual changes in measures,” the resident wrote: “if anything, the measures have become more relaxed.” The past few weeks have seen an outbreak of COVID-19 at McGill, with a staggering 473 cases most recently reported on campus. On March 23, students in residences were alerted that there were no more isolation rooms available and that those who tested positive would have to isolate in their own rooms. 

When recently reporting her positive case, the aforementioned resident of NRH was instructed by case management to book a hotel room or double-mask around her roommate, who had tested negative for COVID-19. “Not the smartest since masks don’t work indefinitely, and we sleep about five feet from each other,” she commented. 

The post Wastewater Testing Explained appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The School of Social Work (SSW) had previously decided that courses would be delivered remotely through the end of February, as announced in a January 4 email from the School’s Director, Nico Trocmé. However, on January 6, students were told that the School had been directed to return in-person along with other departments. “I regret to announce that I have been told by the university that our School does not have the authority to decide to extend on-line [sic] course delivery beyond January 21st,” Trocmé wrote in a schoolwide email. “Please be assured that we will continue to advocate for teaching conditions that best meet the needs of our professional programs.” Trocmé did not respond to the Daily’s request for elaboration on why the university instructed the School not to extend the duration of remote learning.

Student concerns: mandatory fieldwork, hybrid learning, and accreditation

Achieving a degree in Social Work requires conducting fieldwork to gain practical experience – as such, many U2 and U3 students are currently working in hospitals, long-term care centres (CHSLDs), local community service centres (CLSCs), or other institutions outside of the university to fulfill this requirement. This makes a return to in-person learning at this time particularly problematic for Social Work students, per Roy: “It’s the expectation that on Monday we go to our classes, and then Tuesday go to the COVID ward, and then Wednesday we come back into our class and possibly spread COVID around,” they said in an interview with the Daily. Roy, whose current fieldwork placement is in Kahnawá:ke, emphasized that McGill’s decision to send Social Work students back to classrooms puts vulnerable communities at risk. “We already very much are aware of the history of spreading disease to Indigenous communities […] It’s keeping in line with McGill’s history of oppressive hierarchy, of making its own decisions for the sake of its own decisions and power and ego at the expense of vulnerable communities and in this context, at the expense of Indigenous communities, and perpetuating colonialism.” Fieldwork is considered a Tier One teaching activity, so it has continued throughout the pandemic – and despite the high amount of social contacts which fieldwork entails, the university has not offered accommodations or N95 masks to Social Work students, per Roy.

[Returning is] keeping in line with McGill’s history of oppressive hierarchy, of making its own decisions […] at the expense of vulnerable communities, and in this context, at the expense of Indigenous communities.

Jo Roy

While students at the GA expressed worries similar to Roy’s – one mentioned their employment in a COVID ward, while another was worried about chronically ill students having to choose between their health and education – students also raised concerns about how a strike would affect their studies, instructors’ workloads, and the School’s upcoming accreditation process. “If we go on strike and the professor’s doing their work only in class […] what is the option to not miss information or course content?” asked a student in the Zoom chat. According to Roy, instructors have “not-so-subtly” indicated support for the students’ strike initiative, so they do not anticipate instructors refusing to offer online course delivery; students would also continue encouraging instructors to record their in-person lectures for the benefit of those remaining online. Codey Martin – a U3 student who, along with Roy, encouraged the school to deliver courses remotely through February – was also troubled by the possibility that the strike could have negative ramifications for students who are about to graduate, but said he was still willing to strike: “Nobody here or within the McGill community is going to force me to forfeit my degree and force me in person.” Roy empathized with Martin, and pointed out that the strike does not call on students to abstain from their education altogether, as Social Work students will continue to participate in online activities while striking from classes conducted in person. 

However, the pressure to provide an online option could create more work for course lecturers and other non-tenured academic staff: having to teach both online and in-person students means twice the amount of work for one course. According to Roy, the McGill Course Lecturers and Instructors Union (MCLIU) has encouraged its members not to offer hybrid options for this reason. As such, the strikers are not advocating for a hybrid option – they encourage instructors to remain completely online. 

The SSW is preparing to renew its accreditation this year, meaning that the school’s Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) program will be under the scrutiny of the Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE). This fact could work in the favour of striking students, Roy pointed out during the GA: “Is McGill willing to completely risk losing entire cohorts of social workers when we’re already in demand in the field and when we’re in the middle of an accreditation process? […] I don’t think McGill is willing to risk that.” With McGill providing the only English-language BSW program in the province, the university stands to lose an important part of its reputation if it chooses to ignore striking students, or punish them by issuing failing grades. 

In the Daily’s follow-up interview with Roy, they elaborated on the strike’s potential impacts on accreditation. CASWE does qualitative assessments of schools’ pedagogy and conducts on-campus visits, they said – if students are absent from classes for a long period of time, or if McGill does not allow them to graduate, it stands to reason that this would negatively affect CASWE’s assessment of the school’s pedagogy. Additionally, social workers are in high demand, Roy pointed out; delaying the graduation of striking students would mean depriving the province of more social workers, and would have bad consequences for the English-language healthcare system in particular. As such, the university has considerable incentive to meet Social Work students’ demands, despite the SSW’s small size.

Despite these concerns, the strike resolution passed with an overwhelming majority in favour. Seventy students voted “yes” to adopting the resolution, while two abstained and three voted “no.” Roy said that they were “ecstatic” upon the passage of the resolution, viewing it as a sign of solidarity and community among Social Work students.

The “Butterfly Effect”

During the GA, Roy also mentioned the support that other student organizations have offered, saying that the strike resolution had inspired a “butterfly effect” within the Faculty of Law and the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS). The Faculty of Law held a Town Hall on Friday, January 21, with Dean Robert Leckey to discuss students’ concerns about returning in-person. On Friday, January 28, the Law Students’ Association (LSA) will be holding a Special General Meeting to make a collective decision on how the LSA should proceed with addressing student concerns. “We support students’ wishes to pursue collective action during this difficult time,” the FaceBook Event for the meeting reads.

PGSS expressed support for students’ right to strike in an email exchange with the Daily. PGSS representatives also indicated appreciation for the strike being “a principled and proactive creation of alternative learning conditions” rather than a walkout, which would disrupt students’ education. The SWSA has not reached out to PGSS asking for support, so the Society has not voted to take an explicit position on the strike. Additionally, the Society has listed SSW graduate students who are currently completing fieldwork requirements as part of the top priority group for their distribution of CA-N95s, FN-N95s, and KN95s. They also pointed out that online learning had been deemed pedagogically appropriate by SSW faculty. 

Likewise, the Association of Graduate Students Employed at McGill (AGSEM) has stated their support for students advocating against unsafe learning conditions. In an email to the Daily, AGSEM President Mario Roy wrote that the Association “stands in solidarity with all members of the McGill community who refuse to be put at risk by the university’s irresponsible decision to return to in-person teaching activities” before the end of the fifth wave. Currently, the union has not voted on the question of whether members should strike themselves.

On January 22, the Education Graduate Students’ Society endorsed a strike from classes on January 24 and January 25, organized by Emma McKay and Katherine Hardin. In an email exchange with the Daily, McKay said they were “distressed” by McGill’s plan to return to in-person school, but was inspired by the SWSA strike because “it demonstrated that [students] weren’t totally out of options. I called Kate and got to work,” they wrote. Additionally, Social Work students shared their tactics with EGSS organizers, McKay said. 

Similarly to Social Work undergraduates, graduate Education students often work in high-contact environments. So many EGSS members work in elementary and high schools during the day – sometimes at multiple different schools – that most graduate-level education classes have to be offered in the evening, per McKay and Hardin. This means that most education graduate students have many contacts during the day, so “in-person classes pose a much greater risk to all involved – children in those teachers’ classes included.”

The EGSS strike resolution passed with 86.3 per cent of members in favour. On January 25, EGSS will reconvene in a Special General Assembly to discuss extending the strike until February 25.

If there’s something I’ve learned over the past few years in trying to appreciate and integrate and learn Indigenous ways of knowing, it’s that we [should] be a good relative, and the strike is us being a good relative, I think.

Jo Roy

Additionally, a petition has been circulating within the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) requesting a GA to be held for students to vote on whether the AUS should strike. As per Article 17.2 of the AUS Constitution, the petition must reach 200 signatures for a GA to be called. The quorum for a GA concerning a student strike is 500 members. While the AUS did hold a Town Hall on Friday, January 21, Arts Representative Avishai Infeld clarified to the Daily that the Town Hall was not motivated by SWSA’s strike.

Organizers are encouraged by the solidarity that student organizations have offered to SWSA. “Students across campus are making their concerns and their care for each other known. Solidarity keeps us safe!” McKay and Hardin wrote. Likewise, Jo Roy said they were proud of Social Work students for going on strike, and proud of the solidarity which the strike has inspired. “If there’s something I’ve learned over the past few years in trying to appreciate and integrate and learn Indigenous ways of knowing, it’s that we [should] be a good relative, and the strike is us being a good relative, I think,” they concluded.

Faculty and Administration’s response

On January 19, Trocmé shared the School’s response to the strike resolution in an email to Social Work undergraduates. “It is the School’s mandate to urge students to follow the plans for the resumption of in-person teaching set out by the university,” he wrote, after acknowledging the time students had taken to prepare and pass the strike resolution. Per Trocmé’s email, Social Work instructors will be encouraged to be flexible and accommodating to students who do not attend class in-person. Additionally, the SSW has created a working committee to address student concerns, chaired by Michael MacKenzie, a professor of Social Work, Psychiatry and Pediatrics. Trocmé concluded his email with a reminder that “The need for new social workers is more pressing than ever. Let’s work together to make this term […] an effective learning experience.”

In a roundtable interview with Associate Provost Christopher Buddle and Deputy Provost Fabrice Labeau on January 21, Buddle responded to questions about the strike. While answering a question from The McGill Tribune about how the university plans to resolve the strike, Buddle said he understood the SWSA to be participating in a “boycott,” and continued that “it’s really about students making a decision […] to not attend in-person teaching activities […] and students have always had a choice whether or not to come to class.” He also said that he questions the narrative that the university is unsafe: “because of the layers of protection we have in place, we’re very confident that the university is an environment [where] we can effectively teach our activities in person.”

In an email to the Daily, Roy clarified that SWSA’s action is a strike, not a boycott. “Our strike organizers see Buddle’s statement as an effort to diminish the power behind our collective decision to strike,” they wrote. “We are on strike from in person classes until at least February 25th, there is no other fact than that.”

The Daily also inquired about why the School had been directed to return in-person despite the passage of an October Arts Faculty Council motion and the Course Delivery Parameters established by McGill’s Senate – both of which affirm faculties’ ability to determine the mode of course delivery. Buddle clarified that the Course Delivery Parameters do not constitute a “blanket statement” which allows programs to make their own decisions regarding in-person or remote learning. “It’s not the point of the university overturning [the SSW’s] decision. It’s really a point of having the conversation within the faculty, within programs around the balance of in-person and online,” he continued. Roy, who chairs the SSW’s Committee on Accessible Education, disagreed with Buddle. “Central admin denied [the SSW’s decision to remain online], eliminating our ability to choose and even have a conversation about it. The conversations have been had, McGill just refuses to listen,” they wrote.

The Daily will continue to cover student concerns about the return to in-person activities. If you have thoughts about the return to campus, or a tip to share, please email news@mcgilldaily.com.

A previous edition of this article characterized the statement from PGSS as “explicit support” for the strike when the Society has not taken a position on the strike. The article has been amended to reflect this fact – the Daily regrets this error.

The post School of Social Work Undergraduates on Strike appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“I know of a few deaths […] and several hospitalizations,” writes Rine Vieth, a graduate student at McGill, on Twitter. “I’m having convos with students who think that the McGill community has not been impacted by COVID-19.” This unawareness is clear – on the r/mcgill reddit thread, one user wrote “the (relatively very low) ‘risk’ of COVID doesn’t matter. COVID is more or less done. Grow up and stop hiding under the bed.”

Between August 2021 and January 2022, there have been 226 individual McGill students and employees who have tested positive for COVID-19 and were present on university campuses during their contagion period, according to the university. The number of overall cases impacting the McGill community is likely higher, as the COVID-19 case tracker does not take into account individual cases that were not present on campus.

One such example is Osama Alsamman, an employee in the IT and technical services department who passed away in December 2021. Ehab Lotayef, Alsamman’s manager in the IT and technical services department, explained to the Daily that Alsamman had only recently begun working for the university – his appointment became effective November 10, 2021. “I found [Alsamman] somebody with very high potential and high enthusiasm,” Lotayef commented. Thomas Chalmers, president of McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association, told the Daily that the union was “in the process of welcoming him as a new member when he passed.”

Lotayef explained the day that Alsamman was meant to begin at McGill, his daughter tested positive for COVID-19 – he explained he wouldn’t be able to come in, and began work from home. Two days later, Alsamman himself tested positive. “For a couple days, he was fatigued and down and couldn’t work,” said Lotayef, “but then he came back and he was very energetic and much more there […] I thought he would be [in the office] on Monday, that was the end of his quarantine.” After he was absent on Monday, Lotayef learned from those close to Alsamman that he had been admitted to an intensive care unit.

“Everybody started to say ‘he won’t make it,’” said Lotayef. Alsamman died only a couple days after being admitted to intensive care due to complications from the virus. “It was really devastating to me that I started to know him,” Lotayef said, “I knew he had a very young family, a two year and a four year old kid.”

Kristi Kouchakji, Secretary-General of the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS), explained in an email to the Daily that McGill’s case management doesn’t share information about reported cases due to confidentiality. As such, it can be difficult to ascertain the severity of positive cases – because of McGill’s reportedly high vaccination rates, many assume that COVID-19 cases in the McGill community are mild. “I’d also like to point out that COVID has had many indirect impacts on our members as well,” she wrote, “from members who’ve lost their non-academic jobs, members who’ve been stuck between waiting for study permit backlogs to clear and inflexible departments refusing remote accommodations, members in need of ongoing medical care for non-Covid purposes and who are struggling to access that care, […] members who went literally months without receiving their funding or their TA/RA/lecturer salaries because of Workday and related admin issues that were later blamed on the pandemic, etc.”

Earlier this month, François Shalom, a McGill employee, had his heart replacement surgery indefinitely postponed. The procedure was supposed to have taken place at the McGill University Health Center at the end of January, but was postponed due to a directive to cut back non-urgent surgeries to free up beds and staff. Shalom told CBC “It’s absolutely petrifying […] This is surgery to save my life.”

Announced January 14, McGill will return to in-person learning on January 24, whilst the rise in the Omicron variant has seen an unprecedented wave of hospitalizations – despite Labeau’s reassurance that hospitalizations and cases will “likely soon begin to stabilize.” On Friday, COVID-19 hospitalizations hit an all time high, surpassing 3,000 patients in hospitals with the coronavirus. “I’d like to take this opportunity to remind folks that ‘Omicron is mild’ really just means ‘if you’re vaccinated with three doses you probably won’t die,’” commented Kouchakji, “a so-called ‘mild’ case can still have serious long-term consequences.”

Following the University’s announcement, students renounced the decision to return to in-person in an open letter: “An assumption that most students will not be seriously harmed if infected with COVID-19 is ableist and contributes to McGill’s devaluing of diabled students and community members.”

The post Recognizing COVID’s Impact appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Graduate students are uniquely situated in university infrastructure: they are subject to exploitation from multiple fronts, as many of them are both students and employees. The Association of Graduate Students Employed at McGill (AGSEM) was established in 1993 to advocate for the interests of such students. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020, AGSEM has largely been occupied with pushing for fair compensation and safe working conditions.

Upon McGill’s transition to remote instruction in March of 2020, teaching assistants (TAs), invigilators, and graders had their positions eliminated or were required to work longer hours than their salary allowed for. Because final exams were no longer taking place in-person, invigilators lost their job; remote learning burdened TAs with helping professors navigate new technology, and this extra labour went unpaid. Last-minute changes to syllabi made the work of graders even more overwhelming and time-consuming than anticipated. AGSEM members are contracted to work a fixed number of hours, so this extra work meant stolen wages from employees. As the Daily previously reported, these developments exacerbated the already-precarious working conditions of graduate student employees.

While instructors had largely adjusted to remote learning by the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year, graduate students continued to face barriers in receiving proper compensation. McGill’s adoption of Workday, a notoriously dysfunctional Human Resources program, prevented many student employees from receiving payment for over eight months. Employees have since received full pay, but the program is still frustrating to navigate, according to AGSEM President Mario Roy. However, the university has yet to make a reasonable offer to compensate AGSEM members who were affected by late payments, per Roy. This is in conflict with the Labour Standards Act, which stipulates that payments must be made within the first 30 days of an employee’s contract.

Interactions with Administration

In an interview with the Daily, Roy wrote that university administrators have generally been receptive to graduate workers’ concerns. Although administrators are open to hearing workers’ concerns, this does not mean that their concerns are effectively addressed: Roy pointed to AGSEM’s June open letter to administration, which urged a “precautionary approach” to on-campus learning. The letter demands that the university make masks mandatory, allow TAs to hold office hours online, and “to consider remote – or partially remote – delivery of classes in Fall 2021.” In response, the university told AGSEM that accommodating employees’ requests to work remotely would be up to individual employers, not the administration as a whole. In their August/September newsletter, AGSEM reported that some departments have decreased the number of hours in TA contracts, but the amount of work required of TAs has not decreased. This decrease in contracted hours could potentially result in TAs performing unpaid labour, as they are not compensated for work completed once they have surpassed their contracted hours. While AGSEM continues to advocate for safe, sanitary conditions for graduate employees, Roy wrote that the union is “happy that the situation seems to be under control.”

AGSEM sent another open letter to McGill’s Labour and Employee Relations department on October 27. The letter contains two motions approved in a General Assembly of the union: motion one includes a request that McGill continues to encourage vaccination, provide rapid testing equipment, improve ventilation, enforce social distancing, and include TAs on emails notifying classes of a positive case of COVID-19 in the classroom; motion two affirms that AGSEM supports a university vaccine mandate, with the alternative of regular rapid testing provided by McGill. While McGill has initiated a Rapid Testing Pilot Project, which allows asymptomatic students, faculty and staff to get tested, the university has not updated building ventilation or implemented a vaccine mandate.

In communication with administration, the entire population of graduate students is represented by the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS), but AGSEM also works to voice student concerns in correspondence with McGill’s Labour and Employee Relations department. According to Roy, the union had regular meetings with administration at the beginning of the pandemic, but the frequency of these meetings has declined, which AGSEM members “denounce.” Additionally, the university has indicated that course instructors are in charge of COVID-19 regulations for employees. As such, graduate employees must take their concerns directly to the instructor they’re working with – Roy said that this puts them in a “vulnerable position because they can be afraid of losing their job.” This vulnerability may discourage employees from requesting accommodations, and Roy expressed concern that it “might prevent them from coming to the union to get support as well.”

Conditions as Precarious as Ever

While the pandemic has introduced concerns about sanitary conditions and remote instruction, Roy said that graduate employees have always had to push for fair conditions. Provost Christopher Manfredi’s August 29 memorandum insisted that instructors work on campus to ensure a high quality of pedagogy, but AGSEM continues to advocate for members who would feel more comfortable working remotely. Opposing this policy is potentially risky for employees, but Roy pointed out that this is the case for any policy: “The fear of losing their job opportunities for speaking out against any university policy has always been present for many of our members, if not all.” AGSEM has shared employees’ requests that the university “better enforce sanitary measures currently in place,” and that students in contact with TAs and invigilators be fully vaccinated. Roy also reminds members that anonymous disclosure “is always welcome and taken seriously.” In a later comment, Roy stated that AGSEM “will always fight for [their] members.”

Last year, COVID-19-related budget cuts led the university to defer the salary increase of some employees. Faculty contracts which ask TAs to work less contracted hours are a potential consequence of this – per Roy, AGSEM is working closely with affected TAs to ensure they are not compelled to work unpaid hours. Roy added that AGSEM is monitoring McGill job postings to “make sure that the university does not create another job contract paid much less than a TA to accomplish TA work.” Historically, such positions have come in the form of graders – in the 2020 Summer Semester, McGill opted to hire graders in lieu of TAs. Graders make about half as much as TAs, at $15.50 an hour as opposed to $29.33 an hour. 

General COVID-19-related Developments

The aforementioned Rapid Testing Pilot Project, launched on November 8, is available to asymptomatic students and staff; test results are available within 15-20 minutes, according to the Réseau de santé publique en santé au travail. Those who test positive are instructed to receive a PCR test from an authorized testing site. 

The university has also introduced a new requirement for indoor masking: individuals must replace their procedural masks after four hours of use, at which point masks are significantly less effective. Mask dispensers can be found at the front of most buildings on campus. Individuals who do not replace their mask after four hours will be considered a “medium or high-risk contact” for contact tracing purposes.

Importantly, everyone who comes to campus should complete McGill’s COVID-19 self-evaluation form. In an email to the McGill community, Associate Provost Christopher Buddle described this form as a “decision-tool to ensure you check your health status” prior to arriving on campus.

The post In Conversation with AGSEM appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Mode of Instruction in the Faculty of Arts

In late October, a motion was passed in the Faculty of Arts council affirming the faculty’s authority to determine the mode and method of instruction. The motion was authored by Rine Vieth, the Arts Faculty Council’s (AFC) Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) Representative, and was first presented to the faculty council on September 28. It specifically concerns “whether Arts Faculty Council shall affirm and exercise its jurisdiction to oversee the content and method of delivery of its courses, including through hybrid, blended, and alternative means during the COVID-19 pandemic.” 

In the background and rationale of the motion, Vieth highlighted the August 29 memo from Provost Manfredi and its problematic implications of mandating faculty to teach in person. Additionally, the motion cites faculty and students’ concerns about the implementation of McGill’s health measures, including but not limited to “a lack of vaccination or testing mandates; inadequate ventilation; inadequate contact tracing; overcrowded classrooms; and planning and scheduling which has made hallway distancing impossible.” 

The motion further reasons that neither the Statutes of McGill nor the relevant Senate regulations (found in article six of the Statutes) provide the Dean or Provost of a faculty with independent jurisdiction over the content or mode of instruction of courses. Instead, writes Vieth, Article 7.5 of the Statutes gives the Faculty Council the authority to “control the courses of study and the academic work of the faculty, and provide rules governing the arrangement of its timetable and examinations and the conduct of its meetings.” 

The motion, now passed, resolves that the Arts Faculty council has jurisdiction to “oversee the design and mode of delivery of courses by recognizing instructor discretion to teach through various modes, including hybrid, blended and alternative methods, during the COVID-19 pandemic.” As of now, the Faculty of Arts is the only faculty to affirm its jurisdiction to do so. 

The motion additionally outlines the creation of an ad hoc committee within the AFC, composed of representatives from the Arts Undergraduate Society, graduate student representatives from the AFC, and professors. The role of the committee is to establish guidelines for any courses delivered through hybrid, blended, and alternative modes of instruction, and to ensure that student and teaching staff needs and concerns regarding COVID-19 are properly addressed. 

Transition from Emergency Response to Recovery and Resumption

On November 1, an email sent to McGill staff and students announced that the University’s COVID-19 response would no longer be coordinated by McGill’s Emergency Operations Centre (EOC), and instead will now be coordinated by the Recovery and Operations Resumptions Committee (ROR). 

The EOC has been activated since January 2020 to navigate the university through the pandemic. The committee is a component of McGill’s larger emergency management framework. It was originally designed to coordinate the university’s response to emergencies spanning over a period of days or weeks – not a months-long pandemic. The committee was spearheaded by Fabrice Labeau, Deputy Provost and planning chief of the EOC. The EOC reported directly to Policy Group, a subset of the senior leadership to the university, and was responsible for communications, including regular Media Relations Office emails and updates to McGill’s Coronavirus website. 

As of November 1, all COVID-19-related issues and initiatives are led by the ROR. The new committee will be co-chaired by the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) and the Associate Provost (Teaching and Academic Programs), who will oversee “decentralized functional groups.” According to the November 1 email, “these groups, with leads assigned based on their regular roles within the University, will be responsible for specific areas of expertise to help make decisions to move our campus forward.” Within the new ROR structure, co-chairs will report jointly to the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) and the Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance), who will report to the Principal and Vice-Chancellor. 

In the November 1 email, university administration stated that McGill’s current status of emergency was changed due to several reasons; they cited the announcement that Quebec will lift its state of emergency in early 2022, “a more stable epidemiological situation in Quebec in general,” low case counts on campus, high vaccination rates, and the “successful return of academic activities back to in-person.” The email stressed, however, that this does not mean McGill is returning to normal. “The COVID-19 situation can change very quickly, and our continued vigilance is critical to ensuring the stability of the situation across our campuses,” they wrote. Since the announcement, ten new cases have been reported on campus, compared to zero reported cases the previous week.

“I am generally in favour [of the transition] but do not find it goes far enough,” wrote Richard Gold, Professor in the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Medicine, in an email to the Daily. The mandate to turn decision making over to the EOC at the beginning of the pandemic was rushed and not adequately advised; the EOC had no expertise in public health, and largely ignored experts with which it consulted, Gold alleged. While the end of the EOC’s management represents a return to collegial governance, Gold still has reservations. “I worry that the ROR seems, in many respects, to be the EOC under a different name,” he wrote, “Time will tell if this is the case.” 

COVID-19 Rapid Testing Project

On October 29, McGill announced its voluntary COVID-19 rapid testing project for asymptomatic people. As of November 8, any asymptomatic McGill student, faculty, or staff member will be able to receive a rapid antigen detection test. Participants perform the swab test themselves with guidance from trained staff, and receive results within 15 to 20 minutes. 

According to the press release, there will be the capacity to conduct between four to eight tests per 20-minute period. They underline that “there is a higher likelihood of false positive results” from rapid antigen tests, therefore test results from this pilot project cannot be used as proof of a negative test result for travel or other purposes; no paper or form with results will be given to participants to walk away with. Following any positive result from the rapid antigen test, participants must agree to get a PCR test from an authorized testing site and to self-isolate. 

The project is being implemented months into student demands for increased safety measures on campus, namely an implementation of a vaccine mandate and rapid testing infrastructure on par with other universities. Communications state that “this pilot project is not intended to replace existing health measures for McGill, such as masking and distancing.” 

This testing initiative is open to anyone on campus who is asymptomatic but wishes to be tested. The press release stresses that “anyone displaying COVID-19 symptoms must follow public health guidelines and should not be coming to campus.” 

Testing is available from Monday through Friday, 12:00-17:00 in the cafeteria of the Trottier Engineering Building. 

The post Instruction in the AFC, Transition from EOC, and Rapid Testing appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Soon after McGill transitioned to remote instruction in March 2020, graduate students employed by the university began to express concern over their working conditions. On top of their usual duties, teaching assistants (TAs), graders, and invigilators now had to assist professors with the technology required for online learning; last-minute changes to class syllabi also resulted in longer hours and more work for many employees. As reported by the Daily, these factors exacerbated the already-precarious working conditions of graduate students employed at McGill as their extra labour went uncompensated. Concerns over remuneration continued when the university’s dysfunctional HR program, Workday, resulted in overdue payments for many TAs. The Daily spoke with a representative of the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) about how working conditions have changed since McGill’s return to in-person schooling.

Accessing Accommodations

In an interview with the Daily, PGSS Secretary-General Kristi Kouchakji wrote that accommodations are often inaccessible to graduate students even outside of a pandemic context.  Student employees have difficulty extending their academic accommodations to their role as an employee, per Kouchakji.HR tells students seeking accommodations that they should speak with the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD), but the OSD, which Kouchakji emphasized is “extremely underfunded and understaffed and doing their best,” sends the students back to HR because they’re asking for accommodations in an employment context. The conflicting messages from HR and the OSD can prolong an accommodation request for so long that a student employee’s contract will end before they see an approval of their request, Kouchakji said. Additionally, academic accommodations often end once the student has finished their coursework – as such, students who have ceased day-to-day coursework in order to research and write a dissertation or prepare for a qualifying exam no longer receive support from the OSD. Moreover, Kouchakji asserted that graduate studies at McGill has “a culture of ableism and exceptionalism” that makes it hard for students to advocate for necessary accommodations.

This history of bureaucratic red tape interfering with accommodation requests means that McGill has been left woefully unprepared to provide accommodations in the presence of COVID-19. HR is responsible for determining the validity of an accommodation request, according to an August 29 memorandum from Provost Christopher Manfredi; per Kouchakji, “the barrier is often so systemically ingrained that it’s just less effort [for HR] to deny the accommodation request as invalid.” As the university indicates on the COVID-19 FAQs webpage, students who cannot come to campus this semester may need to “adjust their registration, defer, or take a leave of absence.” Graduate students are no exception: “we [the PGSS] have in fact seen cases where immunocompromised students, students with vulnerable people at home, and students unable to join us in-person on time […] have been told to take a leave of absence or to withdraw from their degrees entirely rather than be given any kind of accommodation,” Kouchakji said. “It’s not humane, it’s not equitable, it’s not inclusive,” she concluded.

Interactions with Administration

When asked if graduate students have expressed concern over the possibility of losing job or research opportunities on account of advocating for remote learning, Kouchakji said that she hopes the advocacy of PGSS Council will prevent a shortage of research assistant and TA positions. However, she noted that employees are still in a “tough position,” and interpreted Manfredi’s memo as being “extremely clear that there will be very serious repercussions for people who choose to work remotely.” This has led many people to reconsider their career plans, Kouchakji claimed. She went on to say that “ultimately, the whole situation is really disappointing.” The university chose  to “send out a five-page memo literally telling people that we don’t care about any vulnerable people in their homes” instead of approaching the return to campus with compassion.

Kouchakji also said that pressure to be on campus may cause reluctance to honestly fill out COVID-19 self-assessment forms. “Who wants to be dealing with possible Covid [sic] symptoms, and long lines at test centres, and a possible investigation for having done the right thing in a climate where doing that is apparently automatic grounds for suspicion?” she asked. Furthermore, the university’s return-to-campus plans neglect the fact that COVID-19 is caused by an airborne pathogen, according to Kouchakji; additionally, it does not recognize that “we are living in an interconnected, interdependent society that extends well beyond the so-called McGill bubble,” she said.

General COVID-related developments

On October 16, the university announced that it would be holding a vaccination clinic on the dates of October 21 and October 27. While this information was not included in the Daily’s first column, “Faculty Mandated to Teach In-Person,” this omission is not due to an error on the part of the Daily. The announcement came too late for the editorial board to correct the article prior to its printing and distribution on Monday, October 18, as the Daily’s office is inaccessible over the weekend. Nevertheless, we would like to clarify that the university has now offered vaccination clinics on two occasions.

In other news, the university requires proof of vaccination to enter libraries as of Wednesday, October 27. To access the library, students may present either their official Quebec vaccine passport, or the McGill fast-pass sticker which grants access to libraries, dining halls, and athletics centers, among other venues. Students must register their vaccine passport with the library in order to receive a fast-pass sticker – consult the university’s webpage “Vaccine Passports at the Library” for registration locations and times.

On October 26, the Faculty of Arts passed a motion granting the Faculty – not the university’s broader administrative body – authority over mode of instruction, according to graduate student Rine Vieth. The Daily will examine the consequences of this motion throughout our coverage of COVID-19 at McGill.

If you have safety concerns or other tips regarding the return to in-person instruction, email us at news@mcgilldaily.com

The post In Conversation with PGSS appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In the weeks leading up to the Fall 2021 semester, faculty members began to express concerns regarding the University’s preparedness for in-person teaching. Students and faculty were particularly frustrated with the university’s lack of accommodations and vaccine mandates, and how they would endanger the safety of those in the classroom. 

In an interview with the Daily, Richard Gold, professor in the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Medicine, explained the lack of warning and time for preparation given to faculty before the start of in-person teaching. According to him, faculty were under the impression that most classes would be taught online up until right before the start of the semester. They were then told that classes “might not be online,” and if this was the case, there would be social distancing. Eventually, social distancing measures were completely lifted in the classroom, weeks before the start of the semester. “It made it very hard for professors to adjust [and] to take into account the circumstances to keep their students safe,” said Gold. 

McGill administration’s approach to addressing these concerns and requests for accommodations has been lacking, according to Gold. He expressed frustration at his months-long attempt to contact the administration regarding their policies. “The scientific experts at McGill, medical experts, epidemiologists, everybody who knows this have been talking to them, trying to get in touch with them, trying to get them to listen for months and they won’t listen and they won’t explain,” he says. 

On August 29, a memo was sent to faculty members from Provost Manfredi on the subject of faculty concerns and the return to campus. In the first paragraph, Manfredi acknowledged that “a small number of academic staff are reticent and have intimated their intention not to teach on campus,” and that this “threatens to compromise the learning experiences for students.” The memo further states that “academic staff are not permitted to determine, unilaterally, that they will teach remotely rather than in-person,” and that “fear about campus safety, residing in another jurisdiction, or concern about relatives who might be at heightened risk or exposure to COVID-19, including those living under the same roof” are not valid reasons for teaching remotely. 

This memo is problematic, according to Gold, as it is not a proper interpretation of McGill’s policy. Article 7.5 of the McGill statutes, the highest law in McGill, gives control to the faculty council to make decisions about teaching subject to the rules of the Senate. As there are no rules of the Senate that discuss modes of teaching, the decision-making is left to the faculty’s discretion. Gold explains that there has been a decades-long norm where faculties do this. “The proper interpretation of the power is that it lies in faculty council,” he explains, “and by the Provost trying to say he gets to decide what is good or not is […] ultra vires,” that is, an act done without appropriate legal authority. 

Andrew Kirk, President of the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT), reiterated the importance of academic freedom in an interview with the Daily. He explained that an important aspect of academic freedom is the freedom to choose the modality of teaching that professors feel would make most sense for pedagogical reasons. “If that includes some aspects of online teaching then they should be able to do that,” he said, “And we felt that the Provost was overstepping his bounds in terms of saying no.”  

In Gold’s opinion, Manfredi’s memo also violates provincial law, specifically the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which outlines health and safety standards and prevents discrimination. “The University’s policies discriminate against pregnant women, immunocompromised students, [and] students with very severe illnesses,” he says. Gold also explains that the policies discriminate against people on the basis of family status; “If I live in a multigenerational home or I’m taking care of a parent or small child who is more susceptible, again it discriminates.” 

Kirk outlined the many obstacles professors face in requesting accommodations to teach remotely apropos Manfredi’s memo. He described how many faculty members who seek accommodations have been told that to receive accommodations you must have a medical note from a doctor “essentially saying that it would be unsafe for you to be on campus.” Not all faculty members filing requests have conditions that would warrant a doctor’s note, according to Kirk, and seeking a medical professional in Quebec who can generate such a note is a great challenge for many. He further stated that there are faculty members “who have family members who are immunocompromised or dependents who are immunocompromised, who they’re concerned about passing COVID onto and have a genuine concern about increasing the risk in their family;” faculty members in situations like this would not be granted accommodations for remote teaching, as they themselves do not have a medical reason. 

Community and faculty members have vocalized concerns through several outlets, such as social media, op-eds, and open letters. Overall, Gold says that the administration has so far respected the private right of faculty to express themselves. He stated that administrative responses have been polite, but have misstated the law and have been “insulting in […] content.” Gold further acknowledged, however, that he is a full professor and therefore “less worried than […] junior colleagues who, even though they do have protections, are still worried.” 

Kirk also stated that there has been the underlying implication in some of the administration’s communication that professors are “lazy” or “unwilling” to go into the classroom. He says that this is not the case at all, and the majority of faculty hesitations to teach in-person stem from safety concerns and the wish to reduce potential case increases on campus that would result in an absolute return to remote learning. “We want in-person teaching,” Kirk explained, “but we want safe in-person teaching, and we want those who do have genuine concerns to be able to teach remotely without having to jump through a lot of hoops.” 

The post Faculty Mandated to Teach In-Person appeared first on The McGill Daily.