This discussion was sparked by an announcement from newly-elected VP Finance Esteban Herpin, who expressed concern over certain expenses made by VP University Affairs Isabelle Oke and VP External Connor Spencer. Herpin framed his announcement in the context of the upcoming Winter Referendum, which is expected to invoke discussions among students about affiliating SSMU with a provincial student federations such as AVEQ. “Given that we are expected to discuss the topic of provincial representation,” Herpin states, “I would like to make Council aware of certain expenses that have come to my attention.”

He went on to explain that in January 2018, SSMU had hosted an AVEQ congress, and that Spencer and Oke had used SSMU credit cards to fund the attendant expenses, which totalled over $4000. These expenses, Herpin said, had not been mentioned in advance to the Provincial Representation Committee (PRC) of SSMU – the body chaired by Spencer and Oke which is tasked with gathering information about different Quebec student organizations “SSMU has a mandate to participate in.” He also objected to the fact that the conference expenses had not been included in SSMU’s operating budget for the current year.

“I believe that this is a severe transgression of the financial responsibility these [executives] owe to the Society, and further, that this presents a serious financial conflict of interest between the Society and AVEQ,” said Herpin. “AVEQ now owes us over $4,000. This sort of monetary liability to the Society could be a point of pressure that AVEQ could push.”

He also claimed that “this compromises [Oke and Spencer’s] roles” on the PRC, given that the committee is ultimately tasked with delivering a report on the respective advantages and disadvantages of affiliation with both AVEQ and the Quebec Student Union (UEQ). According to Herpin, the fact that the two VPs had worked with AVEQ to host the conference constitutes proof of a pro-AVEQ bias that will hinder the integrity of the PRC.

Oke addressed Herpin’s concerns as Spencer was unable to attend Council. Oke explained that, in fact, it is standard practice for members of AVEQ (and observing members, like SSMU) to host the student federation, front its costs for such events, and subsequently invoice it in order to get fully reimbursed. The costs involved were not included in this year’s budget because last year’s VP External, David Aird, had failed to include them.

“The point of hosting [the conference] here,” said Oke, “was to make it more accessible for students, so that they could see how AVEQ actually runs. This seems like a perfectly reasonable […] motivation for hosting it on campus.”

“The point of hosting [the conference] here […] was to make it more accessible for students, so that they could see how AVEQ actually runs.”

Regarding the accusation of pro-AVEQ bias, and in response to a question from First Year Council (FYC) Representative Anthony Koch about whether SSMU executives have attended or worked on UEQ events in a comparable way, Oke explained that UEQ has simply been less active in this area.

“In order to do the work that we want to accomplish, it involves coordinating with other student associations and getting involved with things happening at the provincial level, and I think because AVEQ is just doing more this year on that subject, that’s why we keep hearing about AVEQ,” said Oke. “There isn’t anything that UEQ is putting on that we haven’t gone to or that we wouldn’t, it’s literally just the fact that AVEQ has organized a couple more things. […] So it’s not in the spirit of always trying to be where AVEQ is at, it’s in the spirit of going to where the student associations are and working on similar projects that we share.”

Oke added that the PRC will be speaking with UEQ representatives on February 12, and that she and Spencer are scheduled to attend a UEQ conference later this month. While she firmly rejected Herpin’s allegations of bias and malicious mishandling of SSMU funds, Oke said that his claim regarding a conflict of interest was “a valid point.” She told Council that the invoice has already been sent to AVEQ, and it is strongly in the student federation’s interest to reimburse SSMU fully and promptly. However, she also proposed that should AVEQ fail to do so, SSMU refrain from including AVEQ as an option on a referendum question about provincial representation, as a way to prevent the outstanding debt from influencing the result of such a referendum in any way.

Herpin objected to Oke’s proposed solution, but did not suggest any alternate options. This prompted several councillors to express frustration with the length of the discussion and with what they saw as an unconstructive attitude from Herpin.

“I just want to say that I’m disappointed with what the VP Finance has said tonight,” said one such councillor, proxy Science Representative Joey Decunha. “I can’t help but feel that the introduction of this controversy was a calculated political move to prevent SSMU from affiliating with AVEQ, and the reluctance of the VP Finance to accept any sort of reasonable solution that’s been proposed only makes me further convinced of that view.”

“I can’t help but feel that the introduction of this controversy was a calculated political move to prevent SSMU from affiliating with AVEQ, and the reluctance of the VP Finance to accept any sort of reasonable solution that’s been proposed.”

Decunha added that serious accusations such as the ones Herpin had raised effectively discredit SSMU and do further damage to the already fraught relationship between McGill students and their representatives. Herpin responded by saying, “[in response] to the speculation that this was politically motivated, […] I would ask you to keep your speculations to yourself and not to bring them to Council.”

“I would ask you to keep your speculations to yourself and not to bring them to Council.”

Ultimately, Council voted against prolonging the time available for discussion, and no resolution to the issue was decided upon. During the remaining portion of the meeting, motions to renew the ECOLE Project’s fee levy; to de-gender the language used in SSMU documents, spaces, and meetings; and to support efforts combating systemic racism in Montreal all passed unanimously with little or no debate.

The post Tense debate over AVEQ in SSMU appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The vote marks the conclusion of a months-long controversy over the BoD’s membership, which began at the 2017 Fall General Assembly (GA) on October 23. While BoD nominations are generally presented for ratification as a bloc, three students at the Fall GA, including VP Internal Maya Koparkar, brought forward motions to split the vote. This, they argued, would promote a more democratic process by allowing students a greater of freedom of choice. After consulting the Chief Justice of SSMU’s Judicial Board (JBoard), then-Speaker Jad El Tal allowed the splitting of the vote. All but three of the nominees – Noah Lew, Alex Scheffel, and Josephine Wright O’Manique – were then ratified.

In the aftermath of the GA, Jonathan Glustein, a member of last year’s BoD, brought a petition to the JBoard in which he argued that El Tal and Koparkar had violated the SSMU Constitution by allowing the splitting of the vote. After a public hearing on November 30, and weeks of deliberation, the JBoard announced on December 31 that they agreed with Glustein: “The Judicial Board believes that the Motion Regarding the Nomination of Directors for the Board of Directors should be voted on again at another General Assembly or as a Referendum question — this time, as a whole.”

After ratifying this decision at their first meeting of the year on January 14, the BoD decided to proceed with the latter option. The online ratification vote ran from January 15 to 18, and the new BoD will shortly be taking up office as SSMU’s highest governing body.

The post What’s up with the SSMU Board of Directors? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Connor Spencer – VP External

The VP External is responsible for representing McGill students’ interests at the municipal, provincial, and federal level and lobbies on the behalf of SSMU. She’s responsible for SSMU’s political campaigns and maintains active communication between student associations, civil groups and campus labor unions. As of yet, SSMU is not a member of any active student federation, but holds observer status with the Association for the Voice of Education in Quebec (AVEQ). As such, the VP External attends AVEQ meetings.

During the Fall semester, Spencer oversaw the hiring of the Sexual Violence Policy Coordinator, a full-time contract position within SSMU dedicated to sexual violence prevention work on campus. Spencer also works with the Community Affairs Commissioner who is currently working on establishing student co-ops to provide alternative housing to Milton-Parc, which can be financially straining for students. Spencer also mentioned that student inhabitants may contribute to gentrification and noise pollution in the area, which has been a recurring issue for the past few years.

This winter semester, Spencer hopes to focus on Indigenous Affairs. “There is an event series we created […] to get Indigenous Affairs off the ground,” said Spencer, referring to the Indigeneity and Solidarity events, which will feature film screenings, workshops and conferences. There will also be a guide released for settler students articulating “how to navigate Indigenous affairs on campus in a way that doesn’t overburden Indigenous groups on campus.” The event is scheduled for next Monday, on January 15.

In terms of community affairs, Spencer is overseeing the launch of the McGreen Project. The project will provide a service to collect old furniture from students on move out day, furniture which will then be refurbished and sold to international students in September at an affordable rate. In conjunction with the McGreen Project, Spencer is launching a waste management campaign for Milton Parc residents and students. “Over the last couple of years, there has been some […] confusion on where residents should go if there are noise complaints.” Spencer is working toward a plan in conjunction with the Community Affairs Commissioner, the Dean of Students Chris Buddle, and the former Deputy Provost & Student Life and Learning Ollivier Dyens to consolidate a plan.

Spencer will be launching a campaign informing students of the Quebec student movement, the importance of provincial representation, and why McGill students are part of provincial associations. SSMU is currently not affiliated with a provincial student association. However, an affiliation referendum will be held this semester to determine whether SSMU will be associating with Association for the Voice of Education in Quebec (AVEQ), or L’Union Étudiante du Québec (UÉQ). “It seems to me that before we can make a decision between which student association we want to associate ourselves with, we first have to have a campaign informing students why they should care, […] and why it’s important that we join a provincial student association,” said Spencer.

Isabelle Oke – VP University Affairs

The SSMU VP University Affairs (UA) serves as the primary liaison between the McGill administration and the undergraduate student body, advocating on the latter’s behalf at monthly Senate meetings and maintaining open lines of communication between on-campus student group and SSMU representatives. The VP UA’s portfolio also includes heading the library improvement fund, the SSMU Equity Committee, the academic roundtable, and the SSMU research and advocacy committee.

One of the office’s main projects this semester is the “Know Your Rights” campaign. This campaign will focus on unpaid internships by “getting people thinking about how internship policies are strangely set up against students” as Oke puts it. The campaign will additionally begin to bring attention to open educational resources, which include “anything you can use in classroom for educational purposes that has an open license.” Free material is available online, but textbooks are still mandatory for many classes, and often expensive. The University Affairs office will present the “Textbook Broke” social media campaign in different faculties, which will encourage students to take pictures of their textbook receipts and post them online.

Over the course of the semester, Oke hopes to lay a solid foundation for the establishment of a sanctuary campus program at McGill. This program, already in place in some American universities, hopes to provide a safe space for students and people lacking legal documentation. For the past semester Aishwarya Singh, the SSMU Policy and Advocacy Research Commissioner, has been doing research regarding the documentation requirements for students. “Right now, if a student’s visa expires, he or she is immediately de-registered from the university,” explained Oke. “In this case, the idea would be to implement a system where students in the process of renewing their visa would be able to still submit assignments.”

Oke also hopes to mobilize students around what the ideal library would look like. In the future, McGill will demolish the McLennan library to build a new, more modern one. Oke wishes to gather as many student opinions regarding what the new library should look like, in order to recognize their visions.

Maya Koparker – VP Internal

The VP Internal is in charge of the official SSMU listserv and primarily oversees communication between SSMU and its members. Furthermore, Koparkar works with the First Year Council (FYC) to help first-year students plan campus events. Last semester, Koparkar oversaw the joint Downtown-MacDonald campus Halloween event in collaboration with other student organizations. Event planners underwent training on being active bystanders, resolving conflict, and planning accessible and inclusive events on campus. The Fall semester also saw the launch of the new and improved SSMU website, which was redesigned to streamline the user experience.

This Winter semester, Koparkar is working on new, practical guides to better assist student organizations and SSMU. “I’m planning to create a how-to guide for social media and communications at SSMU,” said Koparkar. The guide would provide incoming students with information about different media sources for various types of services, as well as strategies for running campaigns. On a larger scale, Koparkar is hoping to create an event-planning guide outlining resources, best practices, and sustainability. The event planning guide is to be available as a checklist for all McGill students. “This would be something that anyone can use. […] it’s good for executives to come to one another if they have questions, but having it codified and providing some documentation that people can refer to […] easily would be a good thing to do.”
With the mid-semester Faculty Olympics on the horizon, the VP Internal hopes to ensure that the event is financially feasible, as the incipient closure of the SSMU building means SSMU will be operating outside the building, and will thus incur larger unforeseen financial costs, unlike previous years. Koparkar hopes to see the continuation of inclusive events on campus, which were a large part of her election platform last year. “We have our signature events, but there is also room to improve,” said Koparkar.

Looking ahead towards transition, Koparkar mentioned that SSMU may have more involvement with Frosh 2018 than in previous years and is in conversation with Campus Life and Engagement (CLE). Koparkar is also currently liaising with the office of the Deputy Provost Student Life and Learning to allow for better relations between administrative services and the student body.

Jemark Earle – VP Student Life

The VP Student Life position is relatively new, created in 2016 when several executive portfolios were restructured. It deals with clubs and services, mental health initiatives, and independent student groups. One of Earle’s major responsibilities is to organize Activities Night, which has been highly successful so far: Fall Activities Night broke attendance records, featuring over 300 groups and clubs.

Winter Activities Night this semester will take on January 16-17. Earle is optimistic about the event, although it will feature slightly fewer clubs and groups than the Fall version and will run for only two days. This time around, Earle is working on a partnership with the newly-launched SSMU Eats app to provide hot drinks for students waiting in line outside.

Activities Night will coincide with another key event for the Student Life portfolio, Mental Health Awareness Week. Earle will be partnering with different groups and services such as Students In Mind, who will be taking the lead on the closing days of the event series. “On the Advocacy and Outreach Committee, we have various members who are part of their departmental health committees,” said Earle, “so we’ve gotten fresh ideas, and we’re collaborating with different departments on some of the events.” In contrast to previous years, he and his organizing team have tried to vary the types of events held during Mental Health Week to attract more students, and to make them more accessible by, for example, scheduling more events in the evening rather than during class time.

A major challenge facing Earle is the SSMU building closure. Last semester, he and his team initially did a poor job of communicating relevant information to building tenants and students at large, sparking confusion and anger. Now, however, it seems that things are going more smoothly – according to Earle, locations have been found for most SSMU services.

“We’re working on getting space for everyone who is a tenant of the building,” he told The Daily. “There are a few outliers that require specific needs, such as Midnight Kitchen, the Players’ Theatre, the Musicians’ Collective, […] so we’re still working on those because they […] can’t just go into any building. […] We’ve spoken to the groups, and […] if worse comes to worse, they would change their programming for that period of time. […] Hopefully, by the time September rolls around, we’ll have at least the first few floors back.”

Muna Tojiboeva – President

The president coordinates the activities of SSMU and determines the long-term vision of the society. Over the fall semester, Tojiboeva has worked on increasing SSMU’s representation at the University level on various committees.

This winter semester, Tojiboeva will be conducting consultations with stakeholders on campus to strengthen the role of the Francophone Affairs committee. The Francophone Affairs Committee, created in the fall, and having met several times throughout the semester, are currently discussing what resources are available or needed for Francophone students at McGill. By the end of the semester, Tojiboeva hopes to come up with recommendations to “ensure the long-term stability and continuation of this project in years to come.”

One of Tojiboeva’s main projects is to increase student representation at the Board of Governors (BoG) level by increasing collaboration among elected members of the Board. The BoG, a body which has final authority over academic matters at the university, is comprised of representatives from various campus groups. Undergraduate students are represented by the SSMU president, who is one of the 25 voting members. One of Tojiboeva’s initiatives, the Pre-Board meeting, will allow students to discuss important agenda items in advance to the BoG meeting. “I am focusing on the implementation of pre-Board of Governors meetings so that students are able to contribute and have a say about what goes on at the highest decision-making body at McGill,” said Tojiboeva.

The SSMU president will also be updating the internal regulations of the Judicial Board, “these [internal regulations] have not been updated since 2012 and still refer to governing documents that no-longer exist,” told Tojiboeva.

Lastly, Tojiboeva will be continuing her work with Spinyt to develop the SSMU Eats App. The SSMU Eats app will allow students to save up to 70 per cent on restaurant meals, and allow restaurants to liquidate food at the end of the day to reduce food waste.

Esteban Herpin – VP Finance Candidate

The VP Finance is responsible for the overall financial stability of SSMU and more specifically administers the Society’s investment funding group. The position has been vacant for two months, since the resignation of Arisha Khan on November 16, 2017. Following Sarah Abdelshamy’s withdrawal from the VP Finance by-election this term, Esteban Herpin, a third-year Finance student and a former member of the Management Undergraduate Society’s (MUS) Corporate Relations team, remains the only candidate for the position.

On January 12, a public candidate Q&A was held, during which Herpin answered questions from SSMU executives and students. When asked by VP External Connor Spencer, “What type of relationship do you feel the SSMU executive should have with the administration?” Herpin mentionned that SSMU should work with the administration wherever possible.

Herpin was particularly concerned with mental health on campus, saying, “I think that [mental health issues on the McGill campus are] very intense from what I compare with other people in [different] parts of the world and Canada, there’s the issue of stress.” If elected, Herpin hopes to improve upon mental health by asking the McGill administration to have “more data and more surveys on how students feel throughout the semester, and [to use them] more effectively.”

Herpin’s election platform additionally emphasizes more support for students struggling with mental health: he mentioned the inadequate resources dedicated to mental health, which, according to Herpin, amount to $0.40 per semester per student. However, regarding student fees overall, Herpin claimed that he “would like to cut down costs, just in general.”

Part of Herpin’s platform comprises increased funding for clubs, emphasizing operational changes aimed to provide a net benefit for students. In the Fall semester, the only funding towards Culture Shock, a weeklong event series that address issues of race, colonialism, white supremacy, and xenophobia for students of colour, was cancelled. Herpin was not aware that the funding for Culture Shock and its parent organization Quebec Public Interest Group-McGill (QPIRG) had been removed. However, he responded that he would like to “take meetings with those students” following a question on accessibility for racialized students during the Q&A.

Other aspects of Herpin’s platform include financial transparency and investment. The election results will be announced on January 18 after a three-day polling period.

The post What has SSMU been up to? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

McGill Daily (MD): “So why did you decide to step down from the VP Finance position?”

Arisha Khan (AK): “Primarily for my mental and physical health, but also I felt like the current conditions at SSMU weren’t conducive to productivity and completing the projects that I wanted to do. […] SSMU at the moment is very polarized and volatile – it’s not exactly a healthy work environment, and in terms of achieving things for students, I feel like we’ve been very stagnant in that recently. I would also like the opportunity to continue doing the other work that I do in relation to child welfare, which has been put on hold while I was in SSMU, and so [I’ll still be] contributing to campus life and improving things for students, just not in my capacity as VP Finance.”

MD: “You mentioned polarization and volatility within SSMU. What did that look like, in your experience?”

AK: “I feel like there was this pattern of certain people being targeted, especially when they’re not willing to utilize their time to launch attacks against others, or fight back in a malicious way. I felt that if I were to continue in my position at SSMU it would have been an uphill battle, and it would have compromised my own ethics, and I honestly feel that I can utilize my time in other places on campus and use it to help people.”

MD: “Was there a specific incident that made you decide to resign?”

AK: “I just felt like […] some of our governance structures had been eschewing democracy and evading the rights of students to participate in certain decisions. […] And it just seemed like no matter what other executives tried, the current climate at SSMU just hasn’t allowed for any positive changes. And while I am hopeful that maybe things will be able to take a turn for the better, I just felt like for me at this point in time I could better utilize my time in another way.”

“I just felt like […] some of our governance structures had been eschewing democracy and evading the rights of students to participate in certain decisions.”

MD: “How do you think these problems can be fixed?”

AK: “After seeing some of the events of this year, particularly with the Board of Directors and what I feel are abuses of power, I think it would be a good idea to do a complete governance review, hopefully through an external party. I think it would be a good idea to be in line with other student associations, to see what’s working within our structure and what’s not, and what we can do to be more accountable and productive for students.”

MD: “You mentioned that the VP Finance job had been taking a toll on your health. Would it be accurate to say that you were doing work beyond your portfolio?”

AK: “Yeah, I have a really hard time saying no, and […] I often felt that maintaining certain administrative responsibilities, even when they weren’t mine, was important to my role to keep things functioning. Unfortunately I started to extend myself way too much when others weren’t doing their jobs.”

MD: “So now that you’ve resigned, who will take on all this work?”

AK: “I’ve spent quite a bit of time transitioning my staff and the other executives in order to have them working autonomously, and also to hold them over. I know that they are running a by-election and I have offered to train whoever my successor would be when the time comes.”

“I’ve spent quite a bit of time transitioning my staff and the other executives in order to have them working autonomously, and also to hold them over.”

MD: “Can you elaborate on the work you do beyond SSMU?”

AK: “I do quite a bit of work in relation to child welfare and foster care on this campus. I helped to institute a bursary for former foster youth coming to McGill, and this is a population – and I come from this background – that usually only graduates at a 2 per cent rate from post-secondary [education]. […] So for me, increasing access to institutions – whether it be McGill or SSMU – for populations that normally aren’t there is very important.”

MD: “Tell me more about accessibility – or the lack thereof – within SSMU.”

AK: “I’m not the typical SSMU candidate, and that largely has to do with my background as well. In order to qualify for government aid still, because I’m a student, I had to take more courses than most executives. I feel that accessibility to student politics and to executive positions is something that we don’t often talk about, but obviously inherently when there are these financial barriers in place, a certain type of person will be able to continuously be represented in positions of leadership. And so I think in order to change that, we need to have a serious discussion about what our student leaders represent and how we can make spaces more accessible because I feel like currently they aren’t.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The post SSMU VP Finance Arisha Khan resigns appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The SSMU Constitution and Internal Regulations provide for two ways to initiate a referendum: through a motion of the Legislative Council or through a student-initiated petition, the deadline for which was on October 25. According to the Judicial Board petition, the BoD approved the referendum question on October 29, four days after the deadline, without consulting the Legislative Council and without a student-initiated question having been submitted to Elections SSMU.

“This decision is a wholly unprecedented intrusion of the Board of Directors on the jurisdiction of the Legislative Council,” the petitioners, Meara Kirwin and Gregoire Beaune, wrote in a statement sent to The Daily. “No extraordinary circumstances justified this decision: nothing prevented this question from being brought to the November 2 meeting of the Legislative Council, during which elected student representatives could have debated it, and, if they found the matter to be truly urgent, waived the submission deadline to put the question on the ballot.”

When questioned about the BoD’s power to send questions to referendum at the November 6 meeting of the BoD, SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva, who is named as a respondent in the petition, appeared to confirm that the BoD knowingly violated SSMU’s governance documents.

“We consulted a lawyer, since before that we’ve never had the members submit so many constitutional amendments […] and what they said is basically our IRs [Internal Regulations] are not necessarily representative of what our real legal obligations are,” said Tojiboeva. “What our legal counsel said is that [a constitutional amendment] cannot come unilaterally from the membership.”

The student-initiated constitutional amendments to which Tojiboeva referred were rejected by the BoD on October 29. They are unrelated to the quorum increase referendum question, which, in contrast, was not submitted as a proper student-initiated question.

The petitioners’ statement goes on to say, “This decision is part of a disturbing pattern in which the Board of Directors has used questionable legal loopholes to make decisions that contravene the spirit and the letter of SSMU’s governance documents, thereby violating the checks and balances inherent in SSMU’s democratic institutions. […] We denounce the Board of Directors’ disregard for students attempting to use the proper decision-making pathways. We call on the Board of Directors to respect the SSMU governance documents and refrain from exceeding its legal, financial, and operational oversight role.”

According to the petitioners, the BoD’s rushed approval of the question prevented necessary Council debate on the proposal’s potential negative impact and on possible ways to improve it.

“Considering the amount of students present in the GAs throughout my time at McGill, it is clear that this will ensure that quorum will never be met,” Beaune told The Daily. “This impression is reinforced by the fact the current president has been incapable of doing the bare minimum to facilitate timely motion submission, and to advertise the GA itself.”

“Deciding to increase quorum without taking clear steps to increase student participation […] is indicative of the lack of thought given to the reform at hand,” added Beaune.

Kirwin emphasized the potential deleterious effects of an increasingly unchecked BoD on student democracy.

“We are concerned about the power currently held by the Board of Directors – an unelected body whose power has been increased through constitutional amendments in the past few years,” Kirwin wrote to The Daily in an email. “We must insist that constitutional modes of decision-making are upheld, and that power is not taken from the General Assembly and consolidated at the top of the ladder.”

The post SSMU Board of Directors violates SSMU Constitution appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Students Society of McGill University (SSMU) Fall General Assembly (GA) convened on Monday, October 23. Over 200 students attended. The GA convenes once each semester and is the main forum in which students who are not directly involved in student government can make their voices heard.

Motion of non-confidence in SSMU President

The night began on a contentious note, with Arts Representative Kevin Zhou proposing a suspension of Robert’s rules in order to adopt all late motions to the agenda. Normally, this would not be in order, but due to a failure on behalf of the SSMU President, Muna Tojiboeva, to notify the public of deadlines for submitting motions, all of the motions were sent in late.

The proposed motions included a motion advocating for SSMU to urge McGill to support and participate in the International Institute of Education’s Syria consortium for higher education in crisis, a motion for SSMU to condemn the disciplinary action which was then being taken against Masuma Asad Khan by Dalhousie University, a motion regarding changes to the SSMU Sustainability Policy, and a motion of non-confidence in the SSMU President. Later during the assembly a motion was proposed by a member regarding the SSMU building closure.

The audience voted to suspend Robert’s rules and adopt the agenda as a whole, however, SSMU Director, Jonathan Glustein, took issue with the method of counting the vote and demanded a recount. This led to a protracted debate about the method of voting, Glustein asserting multiple times that he could not accept a vote that wasn’t counted by hand. Ultimately, after considerable delay and confusion, the vote passed and the agenda was not adopted.

All motions were added to the agenda, however, except the motion of non-confidence in SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva. After a vote by secret ballot that took roughly half an hour to administer, the motion was rejected, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed to adopt it onto the agenda despite earning the support of more than half the students in the room. Some members expressed frustration with this decision, voicing concerns about the lack of information Tojiboeva made public about the deadline for submitting motions.

due to a failure on behalf of the SSMU President, Muna Tojiboeva, to notify the public of deadlines for submitting motions, all of the motions were sent in late.

Catherine, a U3 Arts student, urged the Speaker to reconsider the vote.

“I’m wondering why this is our voting procedure when the only reason why we have to do this is because of Muna’s incompetency,” said Catherine. “This reinforces the motion that was proposed because she messed up.” This proposal was not in order, however, and the motion of non-confidence was not debated.

Nominating the new Board of Directors

Following this contentious vote, the agenda was adopted, and the assembly moved on to ratifying the 2017/2018 Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors is the highest governing body in SSMU, with the power to ratify motions passed in Legislative Council and references from the Judicial Board. According to the Constitution, it must be made up of 12 members: four SSMU executives, four legislative councilors, and four members-at-large. The question of whether or not this combination of Directors is the only permissible composition for the Board is currently the subject of a tense debate in the upper echelons of SSMU. This is because until late September, when VP Student Life Jemark Earle took office as a Director, there were only three executives and an overwhelming nine members-at-large serving, throwing the Board’s decisions during this period into questionable legal territory.

On November 15, however, the Board for the new academic year is scheduled to take office. As such, the nominations up for debate at the GA included President Muna Tojiboeva, VP Finance Arisha Khan, VP Internal Maya Koparkar, VP Student Life Jemark Earle, Vivian Campbell, Madeleine Kausel, Noah Lew, Mana Moshkfaroush, Josephine Wright-O’Manique, Jessica Rau, Alexandre Scheffel, and Kevin Zhou. The four executives are currently serving on the Board, as are members-at-large Lew and Scheffel. The President and the VP Finance are constitutionally mandated to serve on the Board, so the nominations of Tojiboeva and Khan were not up for vote, and they were automatically ratified.

What followed was a debate about whether or not to divide the question of ratification for the other ten nominees, meaning the audience would have to vote on each nomination separately instead of ratifying the list in its entirety. VP Internal Maya Koparkar motioned to divide the question, and despite vehement opposition from a few students, the motion passed.

Vivian Campbell, Madeleine Kausel, Maya Koparkar, Jemark Earle, Mana Moshkfaroush, Jessica Rau and Kevin Zhou were all voted onto this year’s Board with overwhelming support. Noah Lew, Josephine Wright-O’Manique, and Alexandre Scheffel all fell short of the threshold to be ratified onto the Board of Directors.

Noah Lew was the first contentious nominee. When the Speaker announced that he had not been voted onto the Board, a large group of people stood up and filed out of the ballroom. It was subsequently announced via social media that the group had left in order to protest the vote against Lew, which they perceived to be motivated by anti-Semitism.

the group had left in order to protest the vote against Lew, which they perceived to be motivated by anti-Semitism.

Other business

Following the ratification of the Board of Directors, the audience voted in favour of the motion advocating for SSMU to lobby the university to provide scholarships and other educational supports to Syrian refugees. A U3 Arts student expressed support for the motion:

“2.2 million Syrian students outside of the country are not in school. […] It’s safe to say that the majority of refugees in the countries that are taking […] refugees aren’t being educated properly. […] You can understand why they are being called the ‘lost generation’ […] and why it’s being called an education crisis. And, despite these statistics, despite the fact that so many nations have taken refugees, there has been no form of institutional support for people who need to continue their post-secondary education.”

The GA also voted with overwhelming support to condemn the disciplinary action being taken by Dalhousie University against Masuma Asad Khan. VP External Connor Spencer gave context for the motion.

“This is a student executive at the Dalhousie Student Union who had a formal complaint lodged against her for her activism work within the union, and the university decided to entertain it, [accusing her] of discrimination against white people that she has perpetuated by speaking of white fragility in the context of anti-colonial Canada 150 events.”

The GA also voted to pass the motion amending the SSMU sustainability policy.

After these motions pass, U1 Arts student, Nadine Pelaez, an exec from the Player’s Theatre, brought a motion to the floor asking SSMU to draft a concrete action plan for dealing with the building closure. They communicated feeling abandoned by SSMU given the value of the Players Theatre to students, and stressed the failure of SSMU to make arrangements for temporary space during the scheduled Spring renovations.

Pelaez quoted from the SSMU website to stress the importance of this motion: “SSMU’s primary obligation shall be to support affiliated student groups and […] student endeavors shall be prioritized over any other sort of endeavor in SSMU’s space.”

Anastasia Dudley, a U3 student and representative from Midnight Kitchen echoed these sentiments. The audience passed the motion with overwhelming support.

During the question period, Arno Pedram, a Culture Editor at The Daily, asked President Muna Tojiboeva to respond to the fact that a majority of the students present voted in favour of bringing forward a motion of non-confidence in her. Tojiboeva responded by claiming that she is supported by the larger McGill community, and will not be influenced by the non-confidence of a comparatively small group, and then proceeded to accuse the audience of anti-Semitism.

“There are 24,000 people at McGill so clearly 160 people at the GA are not the majority. I would also like to point out the fact that today 160 people voted no for a director only for one reason, because he was Jewish. […] At the moment, I represent the minority in the student politics but I actually represent the majority at McGill. I’m sick and tired of the GAs being seen as the majority.”

Pedram responded, “Yes, this body isn’t the majority of students, but it still represents students who care.”

The post Tense debate at General Assembly appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post SSMU Fall General Assembly 2017 appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Further information has emerged regarding the ongoing case of an Islamic Studies professor publicly accused of sexual violence. More students have spoken out condemning both his behaviour and the lack of a robust institutional response, as the situation feeds mounting criticism of McGill’s sexual violence policy.

Allegations of abuse

Roughly a month ago, stickers began appearing in washrooms across campus, alleging sexual violence perpetrated by a certain professor in McGill’s Institute of Islamic Studies, whom they explicitly named. Noting that the professor is up for tenure this semester, the stickers urged students to send testimonies of abusive behaviour on the part of faculty and staff to zerotolerance@riseup.net.

The professor in question agreed to make a statement to The Daily, on the condition that his name would not appear anywhere in our coverage. After consultation with affected parties, The Daily decided to comply with his request. In his statement, he called the allegations against him “categorically untrue,” adding, “I am deeply committed to doing my part to make every student feel safe in my classroom and on McGill’s campus.” He has not responded to further requests for comment from The Daily.

This professor, whose behaviour was described as “predatory” by a former student in a statement to The Daily, was the subject of an open letter sent to Robert Wisnovsky, Director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, during the Winter 2017 semester. Written by the 2016-2017 executive team of the World Islamic and Middle East Studies Student Association (WIMESSA), the letter was signed by roughly 50 other students at the Institute. It accused the Institute of failing to take the situation seriously, stating that the professor had repeatedly “violated [the] student-professor contract” through his abusive behaviour.

“It is disconcerting that such an abuse of power appears to be going unreprimanded,” read the open letter. “As it stands, women are at a disadvantage within the Islamic Studies department, and this inequality needs to be corrected. For these reasons, WIMESSA vehemently encourages the impending tenure committee to deny [the professor] tenure.”

Institutional barriers to accountability

Following an article published in The Daily on October 2, which reported the above facts, this year’s WIMESSA executive team posted a statement on Facebook. While refraining from naming the professor concerned, they expressed solidarity with their constituents, and frustration at the institutional barriers which effectively shield the professor from public scrutiny.

“We have taken steps to consult former executives, speak with legal experts, and meet with Institute administrators to discuss what actions we can take as students and student representatives to help address this ongoing situation,” read WIMESSA’s statement. “What we have been consistently met with, however, is nondisclosure agreements and red tape.”

The statement also claimed that consent training had been provided for the Institute’s faculty in September. However, when The Daily tried to find out more, we drew a blank: Wisnovsky did not respond to requests for more information, and the McGill administration was unable to provide details, or even confirm that such training occurred. Isabelle Oke, VP University Affairs of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), said that she hadn’t been informed of the training either, and that such a thing would be highly unusual within the McGill context.

“This situation is definitely an anomaly,” Oke told The Daily. “There aren’t any other faculties that I know of that have this training, and if ever a faculty is offered a training workshop it is voluntary.”

The Daily spoke with the WIMESSA executive team to clarify the situation, but they too proved unable to provide further details. In essence, it emerged that an administrator had suggested to the executives that consent training would occur at some point in August or September, without letting them know whether the training would be mandatory, who would facilitate it, what material it would cover, and when exactly it would occur. At the time of publication, The Daily has not received clarification from Wisnovsky or from any other departmental administrator on any of these points.

In addition to an acute lack of concrete information from administrators, WIMESSA has been fraught with internal controversy. It recently emerged that the President of WIMESSA is employed as a Research Assistant by the professor accused of sexual violence. Furthermore, the President failed to disclose this conflict of interest to most of her fellow executives (except the VP Internal); indeed, they were unaware of it until The Daily contacted the executive team on October 11 to inquire about this matter. Since then, she has removed herself from all meetings and discussions regarding the professor concerned, though she retains her role on the executive team. The professor in question did not reply to an email from The Daily asking whether or not he had been aware of the WIMESSA President’s position on the executive before offering her a job. The President herself also declined to comment on the record.

Roughly two weeks ago, meanwhile, as the Institute reeled from the impact of the allegations on its community, WIMESSA’s former VP Finance Sarah Shamy resigned from her position. In an interview with The Daily, Shamy explained that her resignation had been largely a product of frustration over the handling of this professor’s behaviour, both by the rest of the WIMESSA executive and by the Institute.

“I believe the administration’s refusal to address the issue directly and their lack of transparency has inspired fear among the [WIMESSA executives],” she said. “The way they see it is […] ‘if upper administration, people whose main duty and responsibility is to address students’ concerns, aren’t engaging in any thorough and effective actions, then why does the burden fall on us?’”

Regarding the Institute’s actions, Shamy was sharply critical.

“The Institute will only care insofar as their reputation is at stake,” she said. “As far as I know, in past years […] the Institute did not respond appropriately [to complaints about the professor in question]. I would not even be able to characterize their efforts as minimal or ineffective because that would imply the presence of efforts when there are none. A few years ago, what we had was a professor who used his position of power in order to perpetuate abusive behaviour. Today, we still have the same professor who uses his position of power in order to perpetuate abusive behaviour. That is all that needs to be known.” 

One factor in this perceived inaction on the part of McGill and the Institute is that the professor concerned has never been the subject of a formal complaint lodged through the University’s Office for Sexual Violence Response, Support, and Education. He has, however, reportedly been the subject of allegations brought to Institute administrators by at least one student.

Given that the professor concerned will be considered for tenure this semester, The Daily reached out to McGill’s administration to find out how students can participate in the tenure process. According to Angela Campbell, Deputy Provost (Policies, Procedures, and Equity), “student input usually finds its way into the tenure dossier through teaching/course evaluations, which are included as part of the teaching portfolio.” Disciplinary actions taken against a given professor are also included in their tenure dossier, but “disciplinary investigations and sanctions are only possible through reports of misconduct which, by definition, cannot be anonymous.”

In short, there is no way for students’ allegations of sexual violence to be included in a professor’s tenure dossier if they remain anonymous. This serves as a deterrent for many, who opt to remain silent rather than face potential reprisals should they put their names to accusations of abuse.

A long-term problem

In the course of The Daily’s investigation into this situation, in addition to receiving first-hand accounts of the professor’s predatory behaviour, we also heard from several students who were unsurprised by the public allegations against him.

“I have known about [these allegations] for years and have managed to avoid taking a course with [the professor concerned], but most students do not have this information,” said Chantelle Schultz, a U3 WIMES and East Asian Studies student and former editor at The Daily. “The University has kept it from them, despite efforts from WIMESSA executives and students. Is this professor’s reputation and career more important to the administration than the safety of the young women who have made complaints? The fact that our university still has no policy stopping professors from having relationships with their students is not an accident – the administration is well aware of this problem, and its silence keeps the University from being responsible.”

Indeed, McGill’s recently created Sexual Violence Policy does not address professor-student relationships specifically; a student could use it to file a complaint of sexual violence against a professor should they wish to, but it does not define student-professor relationships as inherently non-consensual due to the inevitable imbalance of power between the two parties involved. McGill’s Conflict of Interest Policy does recognize such relationships as constituting a conflict of interest, but it doesn’t acknowledge them as non-consensual and harmful, or set out any meaningful consequences for professors who engage in them.

Niyousha Bastani, a former WIMESSA executive and editor at The Daily, explained that students within the Institute had been speaking out about this particular professor for years.

“To my knowledge, WIMESSA executives were raising these concerns with the department as far back as the fall semester of 2015,” she said. “The University didn’t call for a meeting with WIMES students to address our very real concerns about safety until the very last day of exams in the April 2017. […] They gave us four days notice for that meeting, scheduled it on the last day of exams by which date many students had already left the city, and even though it had taken them at least two years to respond, the Dean of Students did not even make the effort to be present in person and skyped in. The meeting was held off the records, […] but I can say that we as students were offered no recourse, only countless reminders that what the University can do is limited by the law and that formal processes are available to us.”

The meeting in question was advertised to all students within the Institute, and led by Campbell. She reportedly refrained from referring to the professor involved or specifics of his case, only citing McGill policy in general terms.

“How are WIMES students supposed to trust the University when they are constantly pushed to secrecy, repeatedly reminded that naming the accused professor can be libelous?” continued Bastani. “When they can only look out for each other through informal channels, quietly passing around letters or petitions to collect signatures? The University has not used its institutional power to protect its students, instead, it has shamelessly chosen to protect its reputation by sweeping their concerns under the rug for over two years.”

Moving forward

According to the current WIMESSA executive team, their main goal for the moment is to organize an event at which students from the Institute will be able to voice their concerns in an open and honest dialogue with administrators. Such an event would stand in contrast to the April 2017 meeting with Angela Campbell, which left students feeling frustrated and silenced.

“Basically we’re planning an open forum […] where students can directly communicate their thoughts to the administration,” said a member of the executive, “because from what we’ve seen, people have been voicing those concerns and there hasn’t been a response from the institution. […] So that people know that the department knows how they feel in a direct way, and so students can get out their frustrations. […] This has just been something that students coming into the department eventually hear about – rumours and that kind of thing. We’d like it to become more of an open discussion rather than an open secret, and to involve the department in that discussion as well.”

The Daily also reached out to Zero Tolerance, the anonymous group of students carrying out the stickering campaign which drew public awareness to this situation. According to the email we received in reply, Zero Tolerance is run by students from outside the WIMES program who wish to “stand in solidarity with [their] peers in the Institute.”

“For over two years, students in the Islamic Studies department (primarily women of colour) have been trying to get McGill’s administration to hold [this professor] accountable for his unacceptable behaviour toward his students,” wrote Zero Tolerance. “Their concerns were [minimized] and deemed insufficient by the McGill administration. […] Therefore, we at Zero Tolerance decided it was time for us to take on this labour […] by using stickers and other direct action tactics to inform the student population of his behaviour in order for his female-presenting students to be able to protect themselves. […] We are calling on students to raise their concerns with [this professor] to the head of Islamic Studies Robert Wisnovsky, and the Dean of Arts, Antonia Maioni by email, phone, and in person.”

In their email to The Daily, Zero Tolerance confirmed that they have received several student testimonies of abusive behaviour from faculty since beginning their campaign. They did not reveal whether they have plans to escalate their campaign by using more direct action tactics, but they included an uncompromising message for all McGill professors who engage in predatory behaviour towards their students: “We know your names. We are coming for you.”

Editor’s note: The above article was amended on October 27 to redact the name of the President of WIMESSA in accordance with her wishes, and to clarify that she notified the VP Internal of her conflict of interest, as well as choosing to remove herself from all discussions relating to the Professor for whom she works.

The post Islamic Studies Institute in the spotlight following abuse allegations against professor appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The decision to suspend Khan was made during a BoD meeting on the night of October 15 which, though nominally public, occurred in a locked building without official notice given to either the press or the public. Moreover, although the minutes from the discussion pertaining to Khan’s suspension have now been made public, it initially took place during a confidential session of the BoD, meaning that no non-Directors were permitted to witness it. In addition to this, SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva, VP Internal Maya Koparkar, and VP Student Life Jemark Earle, all three of whom sit on the BoD, left the room for this discussion. It remains unclear why they did so; in an email to The Daily, Tojiboeva explained that “the Directors felt it [was] appropriate for executives to leave the room while a breach of confidentiality concerning executive members were discussed,” but this has no basis in SSMU procedure. Despite having left the room while the other Directors discussed the context behind Khan’s breach of confidentially, the executives concerned re-entered the meeting in order to vote on her suspension; all three reportedly abstained.

Khan herself was absent, as she was in California attending a conference for improving access to education for youth from foster care. Tojiboeva told The Daily that “this [vote] was scheduled in advance, […] meaning if Director Khan wished she could have participated even though she was out of the country,” but Khan maintains that, on the contrary, she was not notified ahead of the vote.

Khan herself was absent, as she was in California attending a conference for improving access to education for youth from foster care.

“The Board had ample opportunity to provide me with notice that my standing was up for debate during the meeting,” she wrote in an email to The Daily, “and I of course would have made myself available in order to make a fair case for myself.”

Tojiboeva also claimed that Ryan Hughes, SSMU’s General Manager, notified Khan of her suspension on October 17; Tojiboeva did not offer The Daily any explanation of why this allegedly occurred two days after the decision was made. Khan, however, told The Daily that this too is untrue.

“I still have not received an official notice,” said Khan on October 19. “As well, [notifying me] was [Tojiboeva’s] responsibility and when I called the General Manager […] he was surprised that Muna had not informed me. I emailed the board 24 hours after the decision for an official notice but still have yet to receive one.”

Tojiboeva has not responded to The Daily’s requests for proof that Khan was told in advance that her standing as a Director would be up for debate, and that she was notified of her suspension following the BoD meeting on Sunday night.

At the SSMU Legislative Council meeting which occurred on October 19, the McGill Tribune asked why the BoD had decided that a two-week suspension was the optimal choice for SSMU in response to Khan’s breach of confidentiality, rather than, for example, a censure.

In response, Isabella Anderson, a Senate Caucus Representative to Council who also sits on the Board of Directors, explained that she herself had brought up the possibility of a temporary suspension.

“I suggested the suspension only because the other options that were being thrown around by other Directors made me extremely uncomfortable,” said Anderson. “I did make it clear at the time though that I was also uncomfortable suggesting a suspension, which is why I personally abstained from the vote. I will be honest, I felt like a minority voice, and uncomfortable for most of the time, and I do feel quite bad that I did not speak up at any time about the discomfort I felt with the process of that conversation and how it was handled. But I did make it clear that that suggestion, for a vote on suspension, was the lesser of several evils […] that were being passed around. […] But I did ask for input from the executives when they came back into the room, and no one spoke, no one asked about why or anything, which I found unsettling too.”

“I did make it clear at the time though that I was also uncomfortable suggesting a suspension, which is why I personally abstained from the vote.”

With Earle, Koparkar, and Tojiboeva out of the room, Khan out of the country, and Director Ellen Chen absent from the meeting, the individuals who participated in the then-confidential discussion of Khan’s suspension were members-at-large Jonathan Glustein, Simon Shubbar, Noah Lew, Alexander Scheffel, Sophie Schaffer-Wood, Dany Morcos, and Anderson herself. All but Anderson voted in favour of the two-week suspension.

Following her account of the discussion, Glustein, who had attended Thursday’s Council meeting as a member of the gallery, addressed the room. He described other options which had been considered, including temporarily suspending Khan from confidential sessions of the Board, setting up “an email-monitoring system or person put on the VP Finance’s account” until a given date, or the release of a public statement to the SSMU membership.

Later on during the Council meeting, the Tribune asked whether an investigation is underway into allegations that confidential information from a BoD meeting was leaked to the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). On September 17, the BoD ratified a reference from the SSMU Judicial Board which declared the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement unconstitutional; within an hour of the decision, the CIJA announced it in a statement, breaking the news before the SSMU executive team, the press, or the membership had been informed.

“Why was this leak not pursued with the same haste as the VP Finance’s leak?” asked a reporter from the Tribune.

“The approval of the Judicial Board decision was done in public session, so there was no leak whatsoever,” responded Tojiboeva, “however in this situation, the VP Finance basically leaked information that was only available to executives. […] So the difference between the two is that one of them was in public session and there was absolutely no need for confidentiality – this [CIJA statement] is just coverage that no one can control, however actually leaking information to outside sources that don’t usually have access to the information is why the Board was very concerned.”

Tojiboeva did not elaborate on her assertion that the passing of information to an external advocacy organization such as the CIJA did not constitute leaking to outside sources. She also declined to respond to a question sent in by The Daily over email earlier in the week, which asked why the sharing of an email exchange between executives, reportedly concerning BoD nomination timelines, constituted a serious threat to SSMU – particularly since the email exchange was shared with a long-time SSMU employee.

“If we are regarding all correspondences between executives as confidential,” Khan told The Daily, “that could be very dangerous and all of us at some point would have been in breach of confidentiality per the Board’s decision. I will note that the [non-disclosure agreement executives are required to sign] does not specifically describe the nature of what could be confidential so this should be stated as an opinion on the Board’s part and not a clear violation of the [non-disclosure agreement] or any of the governing documents.”

Editor’s note: This article was amended on October 21 to reflect the fact that the discussion of BDS from the September 17 meeting of the BoD did not take place in a confidential session. The Daily regrets the error.

The post VP Finance suspended from SSMU Board of Directors appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Question period

Council began with a lively question period, during which SSMU executives addressed several hot-button campus issues. Notably, when asked by The Daily why the upcoming closure of the SSMU building had effectively been announced to the public via a Facebook event, eliciting dozens of confused and outraged posts by students, VP Student Life Jemark Earle issued an apology.

“First off, the executive and SSMU would like to apologize for any disturbance or confusion that may have arisen from being notified [of the building closure] by a Facebook event,” said Earle. “We released a notification to all the building tenants, with a link to the Facebook event, so […] while it was open to the general public, it was meant for the building tenants.”
In response to a question from Arts Representative Corinne Bulger, executives also addressed their decision not to elect a new VP Operations and Sustainability following Anuradha Mallik’s resignation in August, and to eliminate the position entirely.

“First off, the executive and SSMU would like to apologize for any disturbance or confusion that may have arisen from being notified [of the building closure] by a Facebook event.”

“The executives ourselves have the right not to ask for a by-election,” explained VP Finance Arisha Khan, “and so we’ve decided we’ll just split the work up amongst ourselves, but in terms of the long-term, […] the role that the VP Operations has is traditionally more suited for a full-time staff member […] and so what we will be doing is bringing a constitutional amendment forward. So that would be a motion at Council, coming up probably in the next few weeks, and then that would go to online ratification.”

Senate Caucus Representative Isabella Anderson suggested that the proposed amendment could be submitted for consideration during the fall referendum session, which will take place in early November. However, Earle replied that this will likely be impossible. The responsibilities of the VP Operations portfolio are far-reaching and diverse, he explained, and it will probably take months to rework the Constitution and SSMU Internal Regulations in order to properly redistribute them.

The Daily also asked for an update on the constitutional reforms promised at the SSMU Board of Directors (BoD) meeting that took place on September 24. Currently, section 6.2 of the SSMU Constitution contains a significant ambiguity: it states that the BoD should be composed of 12 voting members, with four seats reserved for SSMU executives, but also allows for extra members-at-large to be appointed if, as occurred earlier this year, an executive resigns. In effect, the Constitution contradicts itself, and it remains unclear whether the composition of the BoD was strictly constitutional during September.

“Basically we’re still deciding on the format of how we’re going to structure the reforms of the Constitution,” said SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva, “so probably there’s going to be a committee struck in order to actually address that issue, […] and also get lawyers’ input on it, just to make sure that the language itself is sound, and it all makes sense.”

She added that there is no timeframe set for these reforms yet, explaining that the timeline will likely be decided at the next BoD meeting, a date which has also not been determined.

In response to a further question from The Daily, Tojiboeva confirmed that no effort has yet been made to publicize information on how students can write and submit motions to the SSMU Fall General Assembly (GA), which will take place on October 23. Traditionally, it is the President’s responsibility to promote the GA, but this year’s official deadline for submitting motions by petition passed with no public informational campaign. While a Facebook event for the GA has now been created, it does not provide guidelines for submitting motions from the floor.

Debate on AVEQ affiliation

The most contentious issue raised in Council was the prospect of SSMU affiliating with the Association for the Voice of Education in Quebec (AVEQ). AVEQ is a provincial student association, uniting the student unions of several Quebec universities to better advocate for their interests at the governmental level. In contrast to other such associations, AVEQ emphasizes anglophone participation as well as francophone, advocating for international students’ specific needs. AVEQ holds political positions on various issues – from climate justice, to sexual violence, to accessibility – which align closely with SSMU’s own. This is partly because SSMU representatives have played a significant role in building the organization since its inception in early 2015.

Despite SSMU’s involvement with AVEQ, however, SSMU only maintains observer status because members voted against affiliating with the association in the spring of 2016. In fact, SSMU is currently unaffiliated with any student association, provincial or federal, which severely limits the political power of McGill student voices. In light of this situation, last year’s Council mandated VP External Connor Spencer to bring this issue back for further consideration during the upcoming fall referendum period.

Spencer presented Council with a motion creating a referendum question which would ask students to approve a non-opt-outable $3.50 fee, paid every semester and adjusted annually for inflation, to allow SSMU to join AVEQ. Heated debate ensued, with several councillors speaking strongly against the idea of AVEQ affiliation.

Education Representative Josephine O’Manique read a prepared statement from her faculty’s executive council criticising AVEQ. For example, she argued that the association’s “one school, one vote” policy would place SSMU at a disadvantage, because as the largest member, it would receive the same representation as other unions while contributing more student fees. However, this policy protects smaller unions from having their voices subsumed by larger ones, allowing different schools to participate in decision-making on an equal footing.

The proxy councillor standing in for Law Representative Melisa Demir asked Spencer why the proposed question didn’t present alternative student associations, such as the Quebec Student Union (UEQ), expressing concern that if SSMU had not considered UEQ, “this would not be an informed decision […] for the student body.” Spencer explained that during the 2015-2016 academic year, then-VP External Emily Boytinck had attended meetings at both AVEQ and UEQ to observe their operations, reporting regularly to Council. Both associations had also made presentations to Council, and based on the sum of this information, Council had opted to seek affiliation with AVEQ.

Senate Caucus Representative Tre Mansdoerfer also expressed opposition to the motion, despite having been mandated by Senate Caucus to support it. He alleged that throughout the above process of observation and reporting, SSMU executives had been unfairly biased toward AVEQ. Arts Representative Jennifer Chan, however, criticised the last-minute nature of such objections.

“I think it’s fair to remind everyone that we did have a notice of motion at the last Council meeting,” said Chan, “and we also had a presentation from AVEQ, at which I feel like some of these questions could have been addressed, and that if there was action we wanted to take in terms of contacting other student federations, that could have been done. These genuine concerns are fair, but at the same time, if councillors were motivated enough, the change they are wishing to enact now could have been enacted. I think at this point this motion is in front of us to give an opportunity to students to make a decision for themselves.”

“If councillors were motivated enough, the change they are wishing to enact now could have been enacted. I think at this point this motion is in front of us to give an opportunity to students to make a decision for themselves.”

“It just seems disingenuous to not also give UEQ another chance to present to Council,” countered Senate Representative Anderson, “when the last time this went to a referendum they were also given that chance to present. Just because if we’re going to have students decide, […] they shouldn’t just be presented with AVEQ as the only thing.”

Social Work Representative Matthew Savage echoed Anderson’s view that SSMU should hear from UEQ again, but also emphasized the importance of affiliating with one provincial association or another as soon as possible.

“I think that SSMU would benefit from being part of a larger union; whether it’s AVEQ or not, I’m not so sure,” he said. “The reality of it is, there are forces in our government that want to privatize our education more and more. So as someone who is from Quebec, I really value the fact that we have people who are willing to stand up to make sure that our government’s held accountable. […] McGill kind of has its own bubble around it in the Quebec school system, and we really need to kind of put our foot forward […] and show some leadership towards equality and justice in our education.”

“The reality of it is, there are forces in our government that want to privatize our education more and more. So as someone who is from Quebec, I really value the fact that we have people who are willing to stand up to make sure that our government’s held accountable. […] McGill kind of has its own bubble around it in the Quebec school system, and we really need to kind of put our foot forward […] and show some leadership towards equality and justice in our education.”

Ultimately, councillors voted to have Spencer arrange a presentation from UEQ at next week’s Council meeting, with the motion itself postponed until next week.

Editor’s note: This article was amended on October 19 to clarify that Tre Mansdoerfer was mandated to support AVEQ affiliation by Senate Caucus, rather than by the Faculty of Engineering as previously stated. The Daily regrets the error.

The post SSMU Council sees lengthy debate over AVEQ affiliation appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The professor in question agreed to make a statement to The Daily, on the condition that his name not appear anywhere in our coverage; after consultation with affected parties, we decided to comply with his request.

“Anonymous accusations have been posted around campus about me that are categorically untrue and constitute defamation,” wrote the professor in an email to The Daily. “I am deeply committed to doing my part to make every student feel safe in my classroom and on McGill’s campus.”

Noting that the professor is up for tenure this semester, the stickers urged students to send testimonies of abusive behaviour from faculty and staff to zerotolerance@riseup.net.

Testimony from students would suggest otherwise, however. One former student, who wished to remain anonymous, described her experience with the professor’s “predatory” behaviour.

“I frequently went to office hours, […] and [the professor] and I developed a friendship,” she explained. “A second year student at the time, I was excited to have a professor take such an interest in me and my academic plans. However, I soon realized this interest was not well intentioned. [The professor] would constantly bring the conversation back to our personal lives (including former partners), would slide his chair next to mine so that we were almost touching, would insist on keeping the door to his office closed, and multiple times would assure me that he was not the one marking my papers (I took this as him setting up why it was okay for us to have a sexual relationship when he was still my professor). I was not interested in his advances and nothing happened, but I […] ultimately reduced my office visits. […] It disheartened me, and made me feel unsafe in my learning environment.”

This testimony echoes an open letter sent during the Winter 2017 semester to Robert Wisnovsky, Director of the Institute of Islamic Studies. Written by the 2016-2017 executive team of the World Islamic and Middle East Studies Student Association (WIMESSA), the letter was circulated in petition form to all students taking courses at the Institute.

“I was not interested in his advances and nothing happened, but I […] ultimately reduced my office visits. […] It disheartened me, and made me feel unsafe in my learning environment.”

“We (WIMESSA execs) believe that the department is partially not taking this seriously, because they don’t think many undergrads personally care,” read the preamble to the open letter. “There is also no ‘paper trail’ of student concern which makes the department less accountable to the university.”

The letter itself, addressed to Wisnovsky, argued that the professor involved had repeatedly “violated [the] student-professor contract” through his abusive behaviour.

“As undergraduate students in the department,” it read, “we rely on our professors to act as teachers and role models, and to uphold mutual relationships of respect. Our professors hold immense power and authority over us: they determine our grades, they write recommendation letters, they are often our employers as well as teachers, and they act as key networks for our future employment.”

The open letter went on to describe the various ways in which women studying at the Institute had been impacted by the professor’s persistent inappropriate behaviour, including avoiding his classes when possible (though he sometimes teaches mandatory courses), changing their thesis subjects so as not to have to work with him, and feeling uncomfortable and unsafe in the Institute.

“It is disconcerting that such an abuse of power appears to be going unreprimanded,” read the open letter. “As it stands, women are at a disadvantage within the Islamic Studies department, and this inequality needs to be corrected. For these reasons, WIMESSA vehemently encourages the impending tenure committee to deny [the professor] tenure.”

“It is disconcerting that such an abuse of power appears to be going unreprimanded.”

It is unclear what steps Wisnovsky took in response to this letter. The professor in question has continued to teach, and Wisnovsky declined to answer The Daily’s questions on this matter following the appearance of the stickers.

This year’s WIMESSA executive, meanwhile, released a public statement that expressed support for students at the Institute without naming the professor concerned, or making reference to any concrete details of the situation.

“In light of recent events regarding the Islamic Studies Institute,” read their statement, “we want to extend our services to the community and support our students in any way we can. […] Sexual violence is a serious issue that we do not tolerate and we recognize the institutional violence that this inherently causes. […] This is a matter that we are taking very seriously and we are working as much as we can within our power to ensure transparency and accountability.”

“Our professors hold immense power and authority over us: they determine our grades, they write recommendation letters, they are often our employers as well as teachers, and they act as key networks for our future employment.”

The executive team declined to respond to The Daily’s specific questions about this professor and the allegations against him.

When asked about the stickers’ assertion that McGill has made little substantive effort to address the issue of abusive profs, leaving students alienated and unsafe, Associate Provost (Policies, Procedures and Equity) Angela Campbell replied that “the University takes all complaints of misconduct seriously.” However, said Campbell, “survivors can and should report through the appropriate channels,” and “McGill’s administration disapproves of attempts to address such matters through anonymous posters such as [the stickers] found on campus and is taking measures to remove these.”

Indeed, McGill personnel seem to be making an effort to remove the stickers quickly, but more continue to appear across campus. It remains to be seen what concrete action, if any, the Institute of Islamic Studies will take, and what tactics the stickers’ creators will resort to next.

The post McGill professor accused of sexual misconduct appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This vote was, in a word, bullshit. It was founded on factual inaccuracies, it was conducted in an non-transparent and unaccountable way, and it will have a lasting negative impact on McGill students. But before we get into all that, let’s take a second to examine how we got here and why any of this matters.

How did we get here?

Back in 2005, a broad coalition of over 170 Palestinian organizations came together to launch what would quickly become an intensely controversial campaign: the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Hailing from unions and refugee networks, political parties and feminist groups, the founders of BDS sought a nonviolent way to fight the systemic discrimination they faced every day at the hands of the Israeli government. Their solution, inspired by the movement that helped bring down South Africa’s Apartheid regime, was an economic one: they would advocate for boycotts of, divestment from, and sanctions against the state of Israel, along with any corporations complicit in its oppressive policies.

These pressure tactics will continue until the Israeli government complies with BDS’s three core goals. First, the illegal West Bank barrier must be dismantled, and Israel must end its violent occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Second, over 50 discriminatory laws must be amended so that Palestinian citizens of Israel (who account for roughly a fifth of the country’s population) are no longer subject to systemic ethnic discrimination. And finally, the world’s nearly 7.5 million Palestinian refugees must be granted the right to return to their homeland.

This, in brief, is BDS. In the 12 years since its inception, it has gained the support of communities, institutions, and even some governments. More to the point, several student societies have also joined the movement, including our neighbours at Concordia. And for a few heady days in February 2016, it looked like SSMU might be next on the list.

At the 2016 Winter General Assembly (GA), students from McGill’s BDS Action Network brought forward a motion that would have mandated SSMU to support BDS through the VP External portfolio, and obliged the President to advocate divestment from companies profiting from the occupation of Palestine to the university administration. So far, so standard – two other motions in support of Palestine had failed at GAs in the previous 18 months, albeit after protracted debate. But this time, in an upset that shocked both sides, the motion passed.

At another school, that would have been the end of the story, but SSMU has an unusual two-step ratification process. Despite getting the majority of votes at the GA, the BDS motion failed the school-wide online vote later that week, rendering it void. This was still not the end of the story, however, as an unknown student subsequently put forward a JBoard petition inquiring into the constitutionality of the BDS motion.

After much deliberation, the JBoard – including current SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva, then one of three justices assigned to the case – abruptly announced in May that the motion did indeed violate the SSMU constitution. But because the JBoard is a body of the BoD, that decision still had to be ratified or rejected by the BoD. The trouble was, last year’s Directors were neatly split on the issue, and without the required majority in either direction, the reference remained in legal limbo for over a year. It was not until last Sunday, at the first full meeting of the new BoD, that the question was finally settled, as 11 of the 12 Directors voted in favour of ratification.

The reference they approved is 13 pages long, but its conclusion reads as follows: “The reality remains that if SSMU were to adopt the BDS Motion, it would adopt an anti-Israel platform. Israeli students would be placed at a disadvantage – SSMU, despite being their representative, would be openly hostile towards their country. This places them at a structural disadvantage vis-à-vis others and denies them access to the “safer spaces” that SSMU holds so dear. This breaches the fundamental Constitutional values which permeate SSMU, as well as the Equity Policy. We therefore conclude that the BDS Motion, much like similar motions to the BDS Motion which compel SSMU to take positions against specific countries, is unconstitutional.”

Let’s break that down, shall we?

BDS isn’t “anti-Israel”

There is an important distinction to be made between a country’s national identity and the policies of its government, let alone the actions of international corporations complicit in those policies. BDS does not oppose Israel in and of itself, any more than the now-famous campaign to boycott South Africa’s Apartheid regime opposed South Africa – it opposed Apartheid, a set of discriminatory policies.

In fact, BDS simply advocates for economic pressure against the Israeli government until it ends its ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people. When the movement’s three conditions are met – when Israel respects the 1967 Green Line, upholds equal rights for its Palestinian citizens, and allows Palestinians the right to return to their homeland – there will be no more need for BDS. Far from opposing Israel, in fact, BDS simply opposes colonialism and systemic ethnic violence. Would the movement’s detractors argue that these things are effectively the same? I very much doubt it.

Far from opposing Israel, in fact, BDS simply opposes colonialism and systemic ethnic violence.

Not only does this fallacy mischaracterize the goals of BDS, but it also allows the JBoard to set up an alarming precedent. You see, in addition to the BDS motion itself, the initial petition also asked the JBoard to consider the constitutionality of “similar motions,” without specifying what exactly this meant. This presented a challenge: how to gauge a motion’s similarity to BDS?

One could make a compelling argument that the “Conflict-Free Campus” motion passed and ratified at the very same Winter 2016 GA would qualify as similar: it mandates SSMU to divest from mining corporations implicated in violent conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, effectively using economic pressure to achieve humanitarian goals and influence policy within a specific nation. SSMU’s policy of divestment from fossil fuels could also be considered similar to BDS, given that it too seeks to use economic tactics in the cause of social (and, of course, environmental) sustainability.

The JBoard came to a very different conclusion, however. “In this case,” reads the reference, “we can readily define ‘similar’ motions to mean motions which compel SSMU to campaign against specific nations.” Can we really? It’s not as though that’s the single obvious definition. Moreover, as previously established, BDS does not oppose Israel in any intrinsic way – it would only oblige SSMU to campaign against specific Israeli policies. But if the JBoard conflates a nation with the policies of that nation’s government, the logic of this reference dictates that it would be unconstitutional for SSMU to campaign against the policies of any national government.

The implications of this are disturbing to say the least. Want SSMU to support organizations campaigning against the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people? Nope, that would “oppose” Myanmar. Or maybe you’d like SSMU to allocate some resources to Indigenous land defenders here in Canada, as they fight the environmental racism of the Trudeau government’s pipeline policies? Sorry, not an option.

By ratifying this reference, the Board of Directors has created a precedent that effectively prevents SSMU from taking a stance against systemic oppression, whether in Palestine, in Canada, or anywhere else.

BDS doesn’t target Israelis

Campaigning against specific government policies does not imply opposition to the nation governed, nor does it imply the targeting of that nation’s citizens. In fact, BDS is firmly and explicitly not concerned with ordinary Israelis – it takes issue with the actions of politicians, corporations, and institutions. There is absolutely no reason to believe that aligning SSMU with the movement would place Israeli students at a “structural disadvantage,” and indeed this argument trivializes the very concept of structural oppression.

Consider that right now, McGill’s Palestinian students pay fees to a school that literally profits from the ongoing ethnic cleansing of their homeland and the dispossession of their people. Our university invests in the Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank, which finances the construction of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, and in Re/Max, which sells real estate in those settlements. Affiliation with BDS wouldn’t target, discriminate against, or in any way oppress Israeli students, but it would absolutely be a crucial first step in redressing the structural disadvantage at which Palestinian students already find themselves.

Now, the JBoard supports their claim about the supposed harmful potential of BDS by describing the tense atmosphere that prevailed on campus in the days surrounding the crucial GA. “The BDS Motion,” reads the reference, “resulted in palpable tension throughout campus. Students – on both sides – were left yearning for the ‘safer spaces’ that SSMU is designed to provide. Instead, what they got was harassment and open discrimination, particularly through social media outlets.”

Consider that right now, McGill’s Palestinian students pay fees to a school that literally profits from the ongoing ethnic cleansing of their homeland and the dispossession of their people.

This is perfectly accurate: students on either side of the issue reported harassment and abuse, and I’m in no position to claim that one community was targeted more than another. What I do know, however, is that suppressing political debate on the question of BDS is emphatically not the solution – on the contrary, it is misguided, cowardly, and deeply unethical.

This issue is “divisive,” just like many of the most important social and political issues of our time, but divisiveness isn’t an inherently negative quality. In this case, BDS is divisive because powerful structural forces – the Canadian and Israeli governments, the mainstream Western media, the military-industrial complex, global corporate interests – are stacked against it, and it represents a radical disruption of the status quo. As such, banning BDS constitutes a craven embrace of the status quo, and the oppressive forces that profit from it.

So yes, BDS makes some people uncomfortable, and yes, the tensions surrounding it gave rise to some ugliness on campus last year – but it isn’t the source of that ugliness. The way to end harassment is to campaign against racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia, and instead of shying away from BDS, SSMU should be making such campaigns a funding priority.  

The Board’s lack of transparency

While the unconstitutionality of BDS is doubtful to say the least, there is no doubt whatsoever that the BoD’s current composition violates SSMU’s constitution. Instead of the requisite four executives, four councillors, and four members-at-large, the BoD contains only three executives – Muna Tojiboeva, Maya Koparkar, and Arisha Khan. The fourth executive seat is being filled by an extra member-at-large, appointed by a committee of the BoD through a non-transparent nomination process. The other members consist of eight more members-at-large, including only one current councillor.

Still more egregious is the fact that Tojiboeva, current SSMU President and Chair of the BoD, ran for office on a platform of accountability and transparency. Why, then, was the student press not notified in advance of Sunday’s Board meeting? Why have the minutes from that meeting not yet been made available to the public, let alone the minutes from the past two years? Why was the first order of business at that meeting to approve a legal reference which Tojiboeva herself had given last year, when she was still a member of the JBoard? And why was there no student consultation ahead of what would clearly prove to be a highly controversial decision?

Why have the minutes from that meeting not yet been made available to the public, let alone the minutes from the past two years?

Rather than ushering in a period of measured, responsible governance, Tojiboeva has done the opposite. Today, the BoD wields more unchecked power than ever, and they have chosen to wield it in a way that has already done lasting damage to student activism, and to whatever fragile trust remains between SSMU and its membership.

In summary: fuck this

So here we are: the BoD, an unelected and non-transparent body, just upheld a reference from the JBoard, another unelected and non-transparent body (whose members the Board itself helped to select). This reference is founded on half-truths and blatant lies. It manipulates anti-oppressive language in the service of oppression. And most disturbingly of all, it creates a precedent which will continue to stifle progressive change on campus for years to come.

This article was updated at 2a.m. on September 24 to clarify that there are currently 12 Directors, not 11 as initially stated. 

The post The SSMU Board’s BDS decision is a disgrace appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Socially Responsible Investment fund

Council heard a detailed presentation from Vadim di Pietro, the Chief Investment Officer of Desautels Capital Management (DCM). According to its website, DCM is “Canada’s first university-owned, student-run registered investment firm.” At Thursday’s council meeting, di Pietro discussed the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) VP Finance Arisha Khan’s plan to create a Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) fund for the Society, which would be managed by DCM. In essence, the SRI should ensure that a portion of SSMU’s funds is invested in sustainable, ethically-run companies.

“For one, you want to [invest in] things that are consistent with your own moral values,” said di Pietro, “but on top of that, you’re actually trying to have an impact that will […] do good for society, and for the environment.”

In a message to The Daily, Khan explained that she chose DCM to manage the SRI fund because of their student-run status,“SSMU’s accountants do not handle investments (you have to be licensed specifically for that purpose),” she wrote. “Our investment portfolio is managed by Lester Asset Management which is [an external] company. [SSMU has] no choice [but] to go with [an external] company and this way we are supporting student learning in sustainable investing and promoting it heavily at McGill.”

When asked how corporations’ ‘social responsibility’ will be determined, Khan told The Daily that SSMU’s SRI fund will use the index of a company called Sustainalytics, known as a global leader in ESG analysis. ESG refers to “environmental, social, and corporate governance,” a standard of a company’s operations concerning the range of factors that shape the impact of an investment. ESG analysis takes into account ecological sustainability, labour practices, employee diversity, and human rights, among numerous other factors.

“[Sustainalytics is] the leader in ESG analysis but with anything else investors must do their own deeper research,” explained Khan.

So how exactly will the creation of an SRI change SSMU’s investment portfolio? SSMU is constitutionally committed to “demonstrating leadership in matters of human rights, social justice, and environmental protection,” and to “[being] mindful of the direct and indirect effects that Society businesses and organizations have on their social, political, economic, and environmental surroundings.” The SSMU Sustainability Policy requires that the Society “be stewards of students’ money in an ethical manner,” and “prioritize funding to initiatives that will […] lead to considerable social and/or environmental benefit.” Finally, the Climate Change Policy mandates SSMU to “continue to avoid all investments in the fossil fuel industry.”

Despite these provisions, explained Khan, SSMU’s current investments aren’t as ‘socially responsible’ as they could be.

“Right now, we just invest in what is returning well,” Khan told The Daily. “There is no ‘positive screening’ done [to determine] how [we can] not just invest for a return but rather in companies that are doing good things and treating people and the environment right.”

Regarding the specific issue of divestment from fossil fuels, Khan commented that the above policies had not been entirely respected.

“SSMU was not divested fully [from fossil fuels] when I came in [to the position of VP Finance],” wrote Khan. “There is one pipeline company left that I submitted a request to divest from. Some of the other companies [in which SSMU invests] are sort of questionable, but […] you are limited when it comes to the Canadian landscape because most of Canada’s [wealth] is mining-related,” said Khan.

Sustainability Projects Fund

In addition to Di Pietro’s presentation, Council also heard from guest speaker Krista Houser, the administrator of McGill’s Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF). SPF was established in 2009 as a three-year pilot project funded by SSMU, the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS), and the Macdonald Campus Students’ Society (MCSS). Houser explained that the SPF, which allocates funding to members of the McGill community interested in starting new sustainability-themed projects, will have to run a referendum campaign this semester to have its non-opt-outable $0.50 student fee renewed. The McGill administration already matches this fee dollar for dollar, and will continue to do so should the fee renewal pass.

Houser also announced the forthcoming creation of a “tiny stream application process,” intended to make it easier for smaller-scale projects to receive assistance from the SPF. This initiative is expected to be operational in the next few weeks.

Motions Passed

Following the guest presentations, two motions were debated and approved. The first, a “Motion Regarding the Adoption of the Standing Rules for the 2017-2018 Legislative Council,” consisted of a series of minor modifications to Robert’s Rules of Order intended to streamline this year’s Council meetings. The motion passed after relatively little debate, with only a few minor adjustments to the proposal’s wording.

The second motion on the table, a “Motion​ ​to​ ​Change​ ​the​ ​Status​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Students’​ ​Society​ ​Programming​ ​Network,” aimed to move the aforementioned network (known as SSPN) away from Legislative Council for ethical reasons. According to the motion’s “whereas” clauses, SSPN has historically had looser membership requirements than other committees of Council, while simultaneously providing “many more incentives for its members than other committees.” This, apparently, had been a source of tension between SSMU councillors who were part of SSPN and those who weren’t.

In order to address this problem, the motion proposed changing the three SSPN seats currently reserved for SSMU councillors into more seats for members-at-large. Additionally, it proposed that, while councillors will still be allowed to join SSPN, doing so will “not fulfill their mandate of joining a committee of Legislative Council.”

The second motion also passed with minimal debate.

The post SSMU Council holds first meeting of the year appeared first on The McGill Daily.

With material from The Guardian, Reuters, RT, and Vox.

The post Hurricane Irma ravages the Caribbean appeared first on The McGill Daily.

With material from The Guardian and NBC.

The post Brazil launches investigation into murders of Indigenous people appeared first on The McGill Daily.