My brother’s text message, one of many detailing his constantly evolving first year experience, undoubtedly resonates with the majority of university students going back to school this year. As we get further into September, the coronavirus pandemic continues to creep its way through the country with little signal of total relief. This long-term lockdown mentality, coupled with a bleak vision of what the future holds, has left universities fumbling for proper alternatives to big lecture halls, libraries open till late at night, and traditional dormitory-style residence buildings. Of course, social distancing is vital in an academic setting; we look to our neighbours in the United States, who prematurely opened public spaces and faced the consequences, reaffirming that distancing protocols are necessary to avoid future COVID-19 spikes. Similarly in Montreal, the premature opening of nightclubs, restaurants and bars has led to more COVID infections than any other city in Canada. It’s difficult to come to terms with a threat that appears invisible, especially when the best damage control we have is effectively pausing normal life. Perhaps this is why new, garbled virus protocols and structures for students have often been met with criticism.

As we get further into September, the coronavirus pandemic continues to creep its way through the country with little signal of total relief. This long-term lockdown mentality, coupled with a bleak vision of what the future holds, has left universities fumbling for proper alternatives to big lecture halls, libraries open till late at night, and traditional dormitory style residence buildings.

Complaints surrounding coronavirus and college blossomed in the early summer, and have been mainly prominent amongst students studying in the US, which has been severely affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The death of over 175 000 people in the US has shaken up communities, academic and otherwise, across the nation – understandably so, as returning to school would most definitely result in an unaffordable spike in cases. Notably, many concerns have been raised as to whether paying full tuition is acceptable for a primarily digital education. News of a complete switch to online schooling was announced by the majority of universities earlier this summer, with student-made petitions to cut tuition circulating on its coattails. In response to growing criticism, some American universities have pledged to reduce their prices by a significant amount – Georgetown and Princeton have offered 10% discounts on tuition – however, many have not wavered on the often hefty price tag of a US secondary education. More often than not, the schools offering discounts can afford to, as their endowments are large and their student body is small. Other smaller, less selective schools don’t necessarily have these mobile endowment funds to be utilized for operating budgets, and therefore must keep their tuition costs up in order to function. This rule of thumb clearly doesn’t apply to every school though; unlike its Ivy League peers, Harvard has decided to stick firm to its lofty tuition despite switching to online schooling platforms. As of 2019, the university’s endowment sat at approximately 40.9 billion dollars.

These same sentiments also echo true in Canadian universities. It’s safe to say that most college students entering the 2020 school year will be taking more classes online than usual – if not all of them – following the social distancing guidelines which have been put in place. Yet, critique follows in wake of terms like “remote learning” entering our mainstream vocabularies. Don’t get me wrong, these social distancing protocols are obviously necessary; however, it doesn’t take much inference to understand that these efforts are already putting a damper on the traditional university experience. Commentary has been made amongst my university peers regarding the quality of online schooling; many thought Zoom to be a band-aid solution, not a means to complete their mandatory classes in the fall semester. “Inferior,” “awkward,” “stilted” and “impersonal” are all words I’ve heard being used to describe the virtual learning environment that students adopted after being sent home this past spring. We can complain as much as we like, but it’s one thing to already be attending university and take up online school as a mere blip in your academic journey – starting your college career online is a completely different experience. Students who already attend McGill seem less likely to halt their studies altogether than those who haven’t started their degrees yet. Talking to incoming freshmen has cemented the obvious: As we enter a new school year, students are far more inclined to pay for an in-person university experience, not an online plan B. Frosh has been moved online – the main orientation event where I made a lot of my friends – as well as classes; couple that with the physical moving of students to peripheral residence buildings they did not initially want to be in, and I understand the hesitancy. Though no one’s to blame except the virus itself, I understand why many first years are considering deferring this year, since no one has a a set plan for what’s in store.

Commentary has been made amongst my university peers regarding the quality of online schooling; many thought Zoom to be a band-aid solution, not a means to complete their mandatory classes in the fall semester. “Inferior,” “awkward,” “stilted” and “impersonal” are all words I’ve heard being used to describe the virtual learning environment that students adopted after being sent home this past spring.

Although Canadian university fees pale in comparison to those of American schools, my inner cynic couldn’t help but become increasingly incredulous as further postings from McGill came out. A true punch to the gut was checking this year’s upcoming tuition fees, which had been raised for me as an out of province Arts student. McGill had posted earlier in 2020 estimating a 3.1% increase relative to 2019-2020 per credit for Quebecois, with an out of province supplement for other Canadian students. How was it possible to shift classes online, cut student access to the majority of buildings on campus, in tandem with raising our tuition? Circling back to considering endowments, a quick google search told me that McGill sat on around 1.73 billion dollars in assets as of 2019, the third largest sum out of the Canadian universities. It’s not exactly the $40 billion Harvard’s sitting on, but it’s certainly not miniscule. When reading about how online education can supposedly be expensive for schools to put in place, I questioned the expenses my own university had put in place this upcoming school year. Was the McGill tuition increased due to expensive online learning systems? American schools such as Michigan State have cited investing in technology and faculty training in order to improve the remote learning experience as reasoning why they decided to keep tuition as is, reported by CTV. Could this be the case for McGill as well? After emailing both the coronavirus Media Relations Office (MRO) at McGill and an Arts Advisor, few specifics were clarified. I was told Tuition and Fee increases are based on the rate used by the Quebec government. There’s no way to argue with provincial increases to approximately $87.43 per credit (an approximation for Quebec basic tuition – as of September 10th, The Quebec Government has not yet announced the rates for the academic year 2020-21. The exact out of province supplement was not listed either, rather it was said to be approximately that of Fall 2019’s, at $179.87 per credit). And yet, I couldn’t help but join in with the cries from students, wondering how raising tuition makes any sense in this precarious time. Structural costs, legacy costs, infrastructural costs, and administrative costs are all covered by tuition. Still, it’s frustrating; many McGill buildings or spaces will remain closed in the Fall 2020 semester. If I can’t utilize the campus like I did last year, why should I be expected to pay full prices?

A true punch to the gut was checking this year’s upcoming tuition fees, which had been raised for me as an out of province Arts student.

When inquiring about the learning technology that McGill will use in the upcoming months, the Arts Advisor that I was in communication with via email informed me that “The Fall 2020 term will begin as scheduled, with courses being offered primarily through remote delivery via Microsoft teams, Zoom or other platforms, depending on the instructors.” Both Zoom and Microsoft Teams allow users to create a free account and access their platform – the Teams software has more advanced options available as well, ranging in price from $6.40 to $26.00 per month – but McGill hasn’t given any specifics as to whether they have bought the more tech-savvy models for student benefit. In fact, when you check out the Microsoft Teams website under the “education” section, the first bold headline that jumps out of you reads “Students and teachers get Teams for free.” I remain skeptical as to whether the increase in tuition is to increase buoyancy for the online schooling platforms as well. Other than online work, a recent email from the administration acquainted students with Teaching Hubs, or small spaces reserved in some McGill buildings, which are designed to accommodate small groups of students and faculty for any in-person teaching activities. Teaching Hubs will only be accessible to students in classes that require them, and will follow social distancing protocols within the spaces. Self-isolation rooms will be stationed near all Teaching Hubs, in case of an onset of COVID-19 symptoms during class. Whereas teaching hubs are exclusively for in-person class work, the newly introduced study hubs are indicatively meant for students’ safe, individual studying. Located in the Redpath Library and the Law Library, the Study Hubs will not act as regular study spaces where people can circulate freely. Rather, students will have to book time in advance to reserve spots in study hubs via the Library’s homepage, which states that up to 2 weeks in advance, McGillians may book “study rooms for up to 2 hours at a time and may book up to 4 hours per week.”

McGill assures students in the post that the quality of education will not be sacrificed in these coming semesters, and that specifically, “the value of a McGill degree remains despite this temporary interruption.” The tangible steps the university proclaims will be taken in order to fulfill these claims are an increase in remote learning support for students and instructors, as well as the creation of “multiple virtual communities,” according to an email from the Provost. It remains unclear what this specifically entails. Many remote and on campus services for students such as the Career Planning Services and Campus Life & Engagement have elected to operate exclusively online, while others such as the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) offer limited in-person appointments. Health services have been merged into the Student Wellness Hub, which, like the OSD, is offering limited in-person appointments on Mondays and Thursdays of the fall semester, which must be booked in advance. Many wellness workshops, which run either as a few sessions, or throughout the semester, can be signed up for online, and the athletics program is providing free workout videos on their website. Similar to the Study Hubs, students will have to book 90-minute blocks of time online if they want to use the McGill fitness centre (though fees appear not to have changed). In lieu of easily accessible clubs and an on-campus community, a “Remote Student Life” page has been set up, where students can access a comprehensive list of services available.

Yet another facet of the online university experience is that of international students, who are unsure as to whether they should return to Montreal for remote learning or stay home. Tuition is significantly more expensive for students outside of Canada; this cost in addition to that of living in Montreal instead of staying home makes moving to Montreal for an exclusively online experience a hard decision. It goes without saying that time zones pose a large barrier to international students trying to attend school; Zoom lectures or quizzes may be scheduled in the dead of night if you live on the other side of the globe. Fabrice Labeau, the Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning, in a recent email, assures international student attending McGill that they’ll still be able to have what he calls “the full McGill experience” at home. Specifically in regards to classes themselves, the use of words such as “replicated” in reference to online schooling mirroring that of an in-person lecture sets a high bar for what remote learning will bring. In the email, he indicates that “some classes this fall will have the opportunity for students to attend in-person teaching activities.” However, these activities are rather complimentary, not mandatory for the optimal learning experience. Of course, international students will not have access to the aforementioned teaching and study hubs if they decide to stay home. Other than that, it seems that if McGill’s remote teaching lives up to what faculty insists it will be, the only thing international students would be sacrificing is the off-campus student life aspect (which is, of course, a large sacrifice for some). Many of Montreal’s bars and clubs have instilled strict capacity limits and no-standing policies. Private gatherings of more than 10 people are prohibited, whereas public indoor areas are allowed to hold 250 people. A general sentiment I have heard from first years upholding their decision to defer is that the social scene that Montreal is known for has been flattened – they might as well wait to start school when the nightlife scene is alive and well again.

It goes without saying that time zones pose a large barrier to international students trying to attend school; Zoom lectures or quizzes may be scheduled in the dead of night if you live on the other side of the globe.

The main concerns I’ve seen amongst my peers in third or fourth year is the lack of rigidity that could pose a threat to their academic schedule. The majority of classes are conducted online, and exams will not be held in person, which leaves students like myself grasping for some sort of routine that will set a good pace for the year. McGill’s remote student life page under academics includes a link to numerous learning strategies provided by Tutorial Services, which are mainly composed of webinars and remote learning resources to help students focus better. The thought is appreciated, but the sentiment my friends are expressing extends beyond simply focus. Rather, without buildings such as the library or classrooms open, it’s difficult to create an academic atmosphere that keeps students on track. The physical movement between classes and the act of studying in a certain spot in the library makes school feel like an activity to be completed, whereas learning exclusively on your laptop feels like your classes are something you can do at any time, in any place. Maybe this sounds more convenient, but I personally believe that splitting up your workload as such will most likely lead to becoming overwhelmed in the long run. We hope that online school is a challenge that we can tackle, but many fear that we may go stir-crazy without the university structures we’re used to.

It’s difficult to create an academic atmosphere that keeps students on track. The physical movement between classes and the act of studying in a certain spot in the library makes school feel like an activity to be completed, whereas learning exclusively on your laptop feels like your classes are something you can do at any time, in any place.

As we applaud and criticize McGill’s actions, the optimist within us must hope that the university has its students’ best interests at heart. Some incidents are more than unfortunate – namely, I feel like cancelling Upper Residence probably felt more like pulling a rug out from under the first years’ feet than a swift relocation. However, the benefit of the doubt is important in order to keep up morale. It goes without saying that making timely decisions is difficult in the middle of a pandemic, and McGill may have to make difficult ones that sacrifice convenience. It’s also difficult to compare McGill’s Coronavirus protocols to other schools’, as classes are just beginning; furthermore, we have to take into account the large class sizes, campus infrastructure, and the amount of international students that the university houses when thinking about how McGill is going to contain the virus to the best of its ability. I think that in comparison with other universities, McGill seems to be proactive: we were one of the first ones to announce an online Fall 2020 semester, with other universities following suit in the later months. Hopefully, McGill’s measures leading into September will prove to be proactive still, and previous criticisms of the strict measures won’t be as warranted. The switches in daily life brought forth by the pandemic are ones that we couldn’t fathom less than 6 months ago: obligatory masks indoors, hospitals transformed into testing centers, halted international travel, just to name a few. Ushering in these changes makes some people nostalgic for “Before,” and others skeptical of what’s to come. While the blame for an entire pandemic cannot be put onto one university, it’s difficult to comprehend that budgets cannot be cut in order to accommodate students who have worked so hard to attend this elite institution in order to have full access to what a traditional educational experience supposedly embodies. That being said, our determination to remain optimistic in the face of a global health crisis is the only thing that will suffice in getting us through the school year. I believe that McGill is experimenting with what higher education could look like in the near future – the process may ebb and flow, but with patience, we can hopefully make the most out of the coming year.

The post Paying for McGill in a Pandemic appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Unfit to Print (UP): Your choice to resign has been one that’s garnered both support and criticism. I know that a lot of students involved in climate change groups regard your resignation as a profound loss. What has the overall reaction from the McGill faculty counterparts and students alike been?

Professor Gregory Mikkelson (GM): It’s been overwhelmingly supportive and I very much appreciate that from my colleagues and students. So I would say in terms of responses that have been conveyed to me, it’s been very supportive and I deeply appreciate that.

UP: The McGill principal, Suzanne Fortier, recognizes divestment as an ineffective, “symbolic” gesture. In response to your resignation, she reiterated the same phrase, saying that the university is looking at concrete action. Do you agree with this? And why do you think divestment is more concrete and/or important than Fortier says it is in the case of McGill’s investment portfolio?

GM: I think that kind of statement ignores the tremendous power that symbolic action can have. In the case of divestment, research shows that it does have power and that past divestment campaigns have pushed governments to take stronger action against it. For example, apartheid in South Africa, against tobacco companies for the harms that they were causing, and the same is true of the fossil fuel divestment campaign. So it’s basically the same old arguments that are being used despite having been refuted long ago. It’s very disappointing, I guess.

UP: As you mentioned previously, McGill has some what of an anti-democratic government system. Why do you think the university hasn’t regarded the overwhelming mandate of its numerous environmental student groups when making decisions about divestment?

GM: What is it about divestment that has made them so resistant? What’s different either about the university or about fossil fuels that could explain why McGill did take a position of moral leadership when it came to divesting from South Africa several decades ago? We joined other universities that were divesting from tobacco more recently. So, either something has changed at the university that’s made it more resistant to that kind of thing in general, or there’s something special about fossil fuel. I was just walking into the Leacock Building, and I noticed a plaque outside describing major donors that had contributed to the renovation project that’s happening now. One of them was Suncor, which is the top tar sand company. And it’s also McGill’s top fossil fuel investment. We have over seven million dollars invested in Suncor. So, maybe there’s something there.

UP: I feel like a lot of students have been angered by the McGill Board of Governors’ (BoG) decision regarding divestment, because of the actual decision itself, and because they feel like they don’t have a voice in it. How do you think the McGill Senate can communicate and gain a better relationship with students, faculty, and staff?

GM: I mean, the McGill Senate did overwhelmingly support the divestment motion that came to it in September of 2018. So in that sense, the Senate has kind of followed the general thrust of the community. That was a rare event, though, because the Senate is tightly controlled by the central administration. They did try in many ways to suppress the divestment motion. They happened to have failed in that case. But I think probably with regard to most things, they succeed in steering things the way they want. So I guess in terms of making the Senate more responsive to the will of the McGill community, I think the Senate has to be democratized. For example, we need to be electing the person to chair of the Senate meetings, instead of having it automatically be the principal. We need to be electing all the positions within the Senate. So, in order to divest McGill, we have to democratize McGill.

UP: Climate change activists, new senators, and students have been accusing the BoG of greenwashing, which is providing misleading information about environmental sustainability. Do you think this is true or do you think that the BoG truly believes that their plan is the best alternative?

GM: I think what is clear is that the principal’s use of the word divesting in announcing the BoG’s decision misled thousands of people. In order to see exactly how they were misled, you actually have to dig into the footnotes and then the sources of those footnotes to discover the difference between divestment and decarbonization. So in this context, divestment has meant either a university selling off all of its stock in the top 200 fossil fuel companies; or at the very least, some subset of those companies. Now, what the board is calling decarbonization is based on their definition of a company’s carbon footprint, which does not include anything that happens after a product is sold. So what that means is that fossil fuel companies are off the hook for all of the harm done by burning their product – for all the greenhouse gas emissions that are caused. The whole point of the divestment movement is to keep most of that fossil fuel in the ground. What the decarbonization commitment that McGill has made entails is that we’re only going to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for pulling their product out of the ground more efficiently.

UP: Do you think that your move to resign from McGill will enact change at the school or is it more of a personal decision that’s about staying true to your own beliefs?

GM: For me, it was a matter of conscience – of just growing and glaring conflicts between my belief in trying to make serious progress on the environment and also the importance of democratic governance of organizations, including universities. So, [it was] basically the conflict between my commitments to those things based on my teaching and research and the behaviour of the place where I work became unacceptable. That’s why I did it. Now it so happens that the media took an interest in the story. So in that sense, I hope that my resignation has had some value in basically increasing the pressure for McGill and other universities to do the right thing.

UP: Do you think that the benefits of your moral statement outweigh the loss on students who can no longer have you as a professor?

GM: I guess that’s the bet I’m taking. By leaving this place and moving on to something else, I hope I’ll be able to have a positive impact on the world.

UP: Do you have any plans for the future and how else do you think you can provide influence regarding environmental activism outside of a teaching position at McGill?

GM: I have no plans beyond expanding my role as a father and in the household, in the short term. But in the longer term, I would like to continue applying the skills and research, speaking and writing that I’ve developed as a professor, and I certainly will – in whatever capacity – continue to work for positive changes with regard to the environment.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. It was transcribed from Unfit to Print on CKUT 90.3 FM by Amy Lloyd, Radio Editor with The McGill Daily.

The post Divest and Democratize appeared first on The McGill Daily.