By Suad Alad, Contributor
cw: racism, sexual assault, transphobia
“Cancel culture”, also known as “call-out culture” is a form of social and real-world boycotting of a public figure who has done wrong by an individual or a group of people. Typical celebrities and public figures that contribute to acts of social discrimination such as racism, misogyny or homophobia are so called “victims” of our “toxic cancelling”. Many argue that the existence of cancel culture is harmful and it only discourages people to grow from their past mistakes.
I, however, argue that while the intentions of cancel culture are displayed during public scandal, the entirety of cancel culture as a concept doesn’t exist. I believe that it’s only in its first stage of existing. And this first stage is not nearly as prominent in today’s society nor is it as effective in “ending people’s livelihoods” as it is often made out to be.
While I agree that there are celebrities that have had their careers ruined due to actions they have made in the past, I wouldn’t say that public figures are “victims” of this boycott. Bill Cosby and R. Kelly, two men who have commited countless sex crimes, are examples of celebrities who have been publicly cancelled and sentenced to jail for their crimes. However, two examples are not enough to prove that cancel culture exists.
If we’re going off the idea that cancel culture is once a public figure has offended a group of people, their careers are ruined and they aren’t ever allowed to change, then more than half of Hollywood and the public leaders of the world would be jobless and hated by the masses. However, this is not the case. In fact, there are many public figures who publicly defame and maliciously target groups of marginalized people whose careers have yet to be destroyed.
In fact, there are many public figures who publicly defame and maliciously target groups of marginalized people whose careers have yet to be destroyed.
Jordan Peterson, a professor and clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto, is what the far right describes as a man who says it how it is. He does many talks on the dangers and toxicity of political correctness and believes that freedom of speech is under attack by the left. However, many of Peterson’s supporters use his arguments about freedom of speech to justify their refusal to call trans students by their preferred pronouns, and to endorse or promote oppressive rhetoric without backlash.
Many U of T students disagree with Peterson’s transphobic ideologies and some have petitioned for him to be fired. If cancel culture really existed, someone like Peterson would lose their job in an instant. Not only does Peterson still have his job, he appears at many events across Ontario at universities to discuss how freedom of speech is in great need of protection. By giving Peterson the platform to express this harmful narrative, universities are essentially enabling Peterson and telling marginalized students they don’t matter to the administration. McMaster is no exception to this. Peterson gave a talk at McMaster, despite student protest, in 2017.
Former President Patrick Deane of McMaster defended the university’s decision to have Peterson come speak about political correctness stating that taking opportunities to listen to someone speak, even someone one might “vehemently disagree with” is a crucial part of education. He felt that for this reason, excluding Peterson, or any controversial figure, would be an unjust decision, even though one of Peterson’s main topics of focus is the protection of transphobic rhetoric.
What many people fail to acknowledge is what the actual purpose of cancel culture is. It does not exist to end the careers of innocent people, nor does it exist to not accept the fact that people can change. It exists to hold people accountable for actions that are inexcusable, and its intentions are to let people know that in the future, the same sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. And this sort of accountability rarely occurs.
What many people fail to acknowledge is what the actual purpose of cancel culture is. It does not exist to end the careers of innocent people, nor does it exist to not accept the fact that people can change. It exists to hold people accountable for actions that are inexcusable, and its intentions are to let people know that in the future, the same sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. And this sort of accountability rarely occurs.
Even our Prime Minister isn’t expected to own up to his problematic past, no matter how harmful and racist it may be. Just this past October, Justin Trudeau was recently under fire for having taken part in forms of black and brown face in his college years, which came to light during the Canadian 2019 Federal Election. Although Trudeau did publicly apologize for his racist actions, he barely acknowledges in his apology that they were racist. He more so plays it off as a dumb mistake he made as a teenager.
Many black and brown Canadians took to social media to express their disappointment in both Trudeau’s actions and his apology and for a short period, his numbers in the campaign polls dropped. Nevertheless, mockery of racialized people did not seem to affect Trudeau’s career. Despite his racist past being exposed so close to voting day, the public backlash he faced clearly wasn’t enough for him to experience genuine repercussions since he won and will serve as Canada’s prime minister for another four years.
I won’t deny that the intentions of cancel culture are there and that for a short period of time, the public tries to hold public figures accountable. I also won’t ever see this as a bad thing. But intention and trying to hold someone accountable doesn’t mean anything if the consequences don’t follow through. We are in the very midst of having cancel culture become real and it could be a good thing if demonstrated correctly. However, the perception that cancel culture is “toxic” and “discourages people” to change only allows room for transphobes and racists to avoid owning up to their past, but to completely ignore it. And it is important to remember that there is nothing toxic about calling out prejudice when it occurs.
If racist people can be presidents and prime ministers and white supremacists can still make a decent living and function within society without repercussions, then it’s safe to say that cancel culture is nowhere near close to existing. At least not in the way we think it does.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Nov. 21, the Ontario Divisional Court struck down the Student Choice Initiative, a controversial directive introduced by the provincial government which required universities and colleges to allow students to opt-out of student fees deemed “non-essential.” Three judges unanimously ruled that the government did not have the legal authority to interfere with the autonomous and democratic decision-making process between universities and student unions.
On Jan. 17, 2019, Ontario’s Ministry of Colleges and Universities publicly announced the SCI alongside a series of changes to post secondary funding, including cuts to the Ontario Student Assistance Program. When students were given the opportunity to opt-out in September 2019, services deemed non-essential such as food banks, student societies and campus media became vulnerable to funding cuts.
On May 24, the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario and the York Federation of Students launched a joint legal challenge against the provincial government’s SCI directive, claiming that the SCI was unlawful, proposed in bad faith and carried out in a way that was procedurally unfair. On the basis of the legality of the SCI, the Divisional Court of Ontario ruled in favour of CFS-O and YFS on Nov. 21.
The legal document explaining the judges’ decision cites previous Supreme Court rulings, which concluded that, while universities are regulated and funded by the government, “it by no means follows, however, that universities are organs of government … The fact is that each of the universities has its own governing body … The government thus has no legal power to control the universities even if it wished to do so.”
"Student unions can confidently budget again ... For students to access the services of their student unions" - CFSO Rep https://t.co/c3XO2R6LOZ
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) November 22, 2019
The Ontario government attempted to defend themselves by arguing that the SCI was a “core policy decision” not subject to judicial review, and that they were exercising their prerogative power over spending decisions. However, the Court’s legal documents state that, “with the exception of narrowly defined powers in the MTCU [Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities] Act, policy-making and governance authority over a university is vested in its [university’s] Boards of Governors and Senates.”
THE DECISION
The Divisional Court found that by interfering with the agreement between student unions and universities, the SCI posed a threat to universities’ autonomy from the government.
Louis Century, an associate at Goldblatt Partners and lawyer for the CFS-O, sees the decision as proof of the importance of student unions.
“I would hope that student unions would read this decision as an affirmation of the central role that they play on campuses. That was a core part of the Court’s decision, is recognizing that . . . they’re actually core to what happens on campuses at universities, so much so that the government overriding their affairs is overriding the autonomy of the university generally,” he said.
“I would hope that student unions would read this decision as an affirmation of the central role that they play on campuses. That was a core part of the Court’s decision, is recognizing that . . . they’re actually core to what happens on campuses at universities, so much so that the government overriding their affairs is overriding the autonomy of the university generally,” said Louis Century, an associate at Goldblatt Partners and lawyer for the CFS-O.
The YFS and CFS-O also argued that the government had implemented the SCI in bad faith, on the basis of a politically-motivated attack on student unions. While the Court heard this evidence, it did not end up being a factor in determining the legality of the SCI.
In a fundraising email sent to the Conservative party in February, Premier Doug Ford wrote, “Students were forced into unions and forced to pay for those unions. I think we all know what kind of crazy Marxist nonsense student unions get up to. So, we fixed that. Student union fees are now opt-in.”
Kayla Weiler, the National Executive Representative of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario, believes that the SCI was about silencing the organizations critical of the Ford government that advocate on behalf of students.
“This was never about choice. It was always about the Ford government trying to silence the exact bodies that hold them accountable and challenge them to do better,” Weiler stated during a press conference on Nov. 22.
“This was never about choice. It was always about the Ford government trying to silence the exact bodies that hold them accountable and challenge them to do better,” Weiler stated during a press conference on Nov. 22.
Since its introduction, the SCI has been widely criticized. Student union representatives have argued that, while the purpose of the SCI was to allow students to decide where their money would go, student unions already have democratic procedures in place that allow students to decide which services to fund. At McMaster, for example, undergraduate students have the opportunity to vote on fees during annual general meetings, referenda and other processes.
Weiler believes that the implementation of the SCI was to question the validity of student unions as valid democracies and valid organizations.
“It’s about time for the government to recognize us as autonomous organizations. . .What we want is to be recognized as autonomous organizations that fight for student rights, and we don’t want to have government interference into our budgets or the work that we do and we don’t want the Premier to comment on the fact that we are crazy Marxists. What we want is legislation that protects us and not hurt us,” said Weiler.
“It’s important for these conversations to be held in a particular campus because Doug Ford is not a student in 2019. The Minister of Colleges and Universities is not a student in 2019 at Algoma University or the University of Windsor or George Brown College, so why are they making decisions for the students on these campuses?”
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
Unless the decision is successfully appealed, the fee structure for student unions will return to normal.
“Any legal requirements that existed before this case was brought are now restored,” said Century.
The MSU, however, will not implement the results of the Court’s decision until the appeal period closes.
“Until we have the appeal period, and until we have that final decision, we do need to operate in the most financially stable way, which is assuming that those agreements are still in place,” said MSU president Josh Marando.
“Until we have the appeal period, and until we have that final decision, we do need to operate in the most financially stable way, which is assuming that those agreements are still in place,” said MSU president Josh Marando.
If the decision is upheld in Court, the results of the SCI will still be felt at universities and colleges across the province. Some Ontario student unions had to cut entire jobs and services this year as a result of SCI.
MSU general manager John McGowan pointed out that McMaster was lucky to be able to rely on reserve funds this year. However, student services have still felt the impact. With their budgets uncertain, services have had to hold off on hiring and long-term planning.
Furthermore, the MSU dedicated resources towards implementing the SCI and educating students about the process.
“There has been quite a bit of time and energy put into creating the fees, educating students on what those fees look like, as well as making sure that we're compliant with the framework and the new tuition and ancillary fee framework,” said Marando.
If the SCI decision is upheld in court, it will mean that an unlawful directive caused harm to campus services and student unions. Chris Glover, the MPP for Spadina–Fort York and the Ontario New Democratic Party’s postsecondary critic, noted that many campus services are currently struggling financially as a result of the SCI. Glover called on Ford to reimburse student services for the losses they incurred under SCI.
“I really think that the government should step up … Their actions were unlawful and now students are suffering, campus services are suffering, and the government should make up for this shortfall, Doug Ford should make up for this shortfall,” said Glover during a press conference.
If the student fee structure that existed before the SCI is restored, it is unclear how services and clubs whose funds have been negatively impacted may be compensated, if at all. Both CFS-O and YFS representatives emphasized that, at the very least, the Court’s decision should be a lesson as to the importance of engaging with and protecting the democratic processes at all universities and colleges.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Kayla Freeman, Contributor
University is hard, no doubt about it. With the constant stress that many students face, it is easy to see why they may look for easier and less strenuous classes when possible. This is where “bird courses” come into play. The idea surrounding these types of subjects is that one can fly through the course with little to no effort to achieve relatively high marks, such as an 11 or 12.
In reality, bird courses do not exist. Being successful in a course is largely dependent on the skills of individual students, their timetable, their motivation or their effort. To be fair, the harshness of a teaching assistant’s grading or a professor’s teaching style are among other contributing factors that can affect your mark. However, these issues are generally consistent across all courses.
Being successful in a course is largely dependent on the skills of individual students, their timetable, their motivation or their effort.
Courses in certain faculties have become associated with easier courses or workloads. Faculties such as humanities and social sciences are often the faculties that are considered to have a greater proportion of “bird courses” including courses such as microeconomics or medical terminology. This brings a negative attitude towards students and staff in certain faculties or programs. For example, students that are in a class for personal interest may feel that their efforts are worth less if they are investing time and effort into a course with a bird reputation. In a society centred around those in the fields of science and engineering, faculties such as the humanities and social sciences are often belittled and have their legitimacy second-guessed.
Faculties such as humanities and social sciences are often the faculties that are considered to have a greater proportion of “bird courses” including courses such as microeconomics or medical terminology.
Being a part of the social science faculty, I can tell you about the effects that the perception surrounding bird courses or even “bird programs” have on other students. For example, many current students in social science transferred into the program after their first year, which is perceived by some as a step-down from programs in science or engineering. This is disheartening for people that worked hard to get to where they are, who are enjoying their courses, and/or who continue to strive to maintain a high GPA in their program. It almost creates this hierarchy among different faculties, giving other students the idea that social science courses are not as worthy or respectable compared to others.
Some students choose to take bird courses only because they have heard that it will be easy. What they may have failed to consider is that if these courses are from a different faculty, they will likely be taught in a completely different manner than what students are used to. This, along with a disinterest in course material may result in poor performance. For these reasons, bird courses typically have low class participation and general class morale. There is no inherent problem in seeking out less taxing courses based on your own preferences and strengths. Some students may pursue this in order to balance challenging mandatory requirements. However, looking down on others and assuming their intentions and capabilities based on the courses they take is not okay, as it promotes a negative mentality and division among students and faculties.
For these reasons, bird courses typically have low class participation and general class morale.
People might be less likely to engage in the course content or with their fellow classmates if they view that the course is beneath them or an easy A. Rather than focusing on the bird-related differences between programs, I believe that everyone should simply embrace the variations that are inherent to each program. Within the same course, some students will struggle and others may not, but those who struggle will likely face difficulty in other courses.
Each program and faculty offers unique skills and abilities that can provide students with benefits across many disciplines. As each course has something different to offer, we may as well slow down and try to appreciate and understand the content rather than fly through it.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Wei Yan Wu, Contributor
It is becoming increasingly important to plan and prepare for the future consequences that the climate emergency will bring to our planet. Zoe Li, a civil engineering assistant professor at McMaster University, has set out to tackle this need.
As someone who works with scientific models, Li does not work in an experimental laboratory. Instead, she works with different simulation models to analyze the water cycle. Through her research, Li is attempting to quantify the unpredictable by forecasting the likelihood of droughts and floods in certain regions.
Li conducts a process known as climate impact analysis to assess the impact of climate change on water resources. Recently, her research has involved working with a Master’s student and two undergraduate students on an algorithm that will be able to collect weather and climate data from numerous climate centres around the world. This will help produce climate projections for specific regions and aid in informing preventive measures.
For an area at risk of flooding, for example, there will be structural or non-structural measures; a structural measure would entail diversions to modify flood runoff, while a non-structural one would involve practices like flood proofing in order to decrease the damage susceptibility of certain floodplains.
Through climate impact analysis, Li and her team aim to use advanced machinery and techniques to provide reliable evidence in support of methods of adapting to climate change. To accomplish this, they are working with colleagues in computer science.
While Li and her team are aware that running a physically-based climate model requires a great deal of time and resources, they are able to help meet their need for mass amounts of information by collecting output from various climate centres around the world. These include, among others, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, the Danish Meteorological Institute, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute and the Université du Québec à Montréal.
Moving forward, Li intends to use projections, machinery and algorithms to generate a customized projection specifically for Ontario.
“I’ve always known that there’s a research gap. People have been developing global and regional climate models, but there’s nothing that’s reliable just for Ontario. Since I live in Ontario, I thought we should provide a more reliable climate projection for Ontario because this is a very important issue,” said Li.
Li has been contacted by another professor in the civil engineering department at McMaster, who, alongside one of his students, now uses Li’s results as foundation for their own model. Using information that attempts to measure future environmental phenomena, such as predicted temperatures, this professor and his student have been able to quantify the energy consumption of buildings.
Li states that her model can be applied to anything that is affected by a change in temperature and precipitation. She believes that it is necessary to have a projection of what the environment’s future will entail in order to fully analyze the possible impact of climate change.
“We are trying to provide projections so that people will know what the precipitation is, what the temperature is. For example, for the design of buildings and bridges, they will need to know whether there will be gusts and what the wind speed is, things like that. That’s the input information we can provide,” said Li.
Climate impact analysis is only one part of Li’s research.
“For the other half, we focus on how to quantify the uncertainties in different environmental systems so that we can better manage different kinds of environmental risks,” she added.
Due to the fact that model inputs, parametres and structures come with their own uncertainties, Li currently has students working to address these issues by developing quantification methods that could provide more support for risk assessment and management.
Through her research and by collaborating with different sectors at McMaster, Li demonstrates the potential benefits her work could bring to the community. She also has another project dedicated to analyzing wastewater treatment as she continues to work on environmental solutions for Ontario.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Olivia Fava, Contributor
Two of McMaster’s professors, Chandrima Chakraborty and James MacKillop, have recently been named to the Royal Society of Canada’s College of New Scholars, Artists and Scientists.
Founded in 2014 and based in Ottawa, the College of New Scholars aims to gather the “emerging generation of Canadian intellectual leadership” from a broad range of disciplines. Recipients of the College’s title must have demonstrated exceptional achievement in the early stages of their career. By pooling together award recipients, irrespective of their disciplines, their goal is to encourage a dialogue between intellectuals with diverse perspectives, and hopefully inspire new insights.
The College acknowledges five aspects of the current academic landscape that inform their mandate: the increasing use of new media in research communication; the emergence of interdisciplinary research; the majority of Canadian professors being recently hired; greater female representation in academia; and greater First Nations and visible minority representation in academia.
A clinical psychologist by training, MacKillop’s award-winning research focuses on addiction — the factors causing it, how it sustains itself and how it can be treated. He is currently the director of McMaster’s Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research, and co-director of the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research. He studies both cannabis addiction and the potential risks of prescribing cannabis medically. He is a member of the department of psychology, neuroscience and behaviour. MacKillop was not available for comment.
Chakraborty, on the other hand, is part of the department of English & cultural studies. In the past, her work has focused on the relationship between religion, masculinity and nationalism in India, with an analysis of media and literature. Currently, she is focused on the 1985 Air India bombings and the post-9/11 targeting of South Asian populations.
Chakraborty was nominated by McMaster to become a member of the College. According to her, the nomination was formally initiated by the previous president, Patrick Deane. She considers the nomination not only personally significant to her, but also significant in its recognition of the value of research that engages the community.
“Much of my work straddles a number of different fields. History, memory studies, trauma studies, nationalism, masculinity … For me, this nomination is a recognition of that kind of work that crosses those kinds of disciplinary boundaries. I also think this recognition is important because my work is very much situated in the community,” she said.
Specifically, Chakraborty referenced her current work on the Air India bombings, through which she has interviewed families of victims and collecting photographs. She has been learning from the community and recognizing them, in her own words, as “carriers of knowledge”. She works as a mediator to bring a seldom-recognized tragedy into the realm of public consciousness.
Chakraborty’s efforts have resulted in the first-ever public archive on the Air India tragedy. She emphasizes that this project is not simply about researchers writing about the tragedy but also about families sharing their stories on their own terms. The archive also engages questions of race, Canadian citizenship and public mourning.
“Why is it that if 329 people were on that plane, and about 280 of them were Canadian citizens or permanent residents, why do Canadians of [student] age, for instance, not know about this tragedy? How do certain griefs become part of the public realm and part of the national consciousness whereas certain other kinds are seen as local? … Is it ignorance, is it apathy, is it racism, what is it?” she asked.
When asked what she would attribute her personal success in terms of this recognition, Chakraborty named her childhood experiences as a child of refugees as well as her experiences as an immigrant in Canada.
“I might be an English literature prof, but I don’t speak like white Canadians — accent and gender and race and all of those things. You learn to work harder than others … you always feel like ‘I really have to prove myself, because nothing is given to me,” said Chakraborty.
She also expressed gratitude to her teachers and family, her colleagues at McMaster for their support and the students who have expressed interest in her work.
The College of New Scholars summarizes its membership criteria as “excellence.” Congratulations to these two researchers for demonstrating the excellence of the McMaster community in a range of disciplines on the federal level.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Our Arts & Culture editor Andrew Mrozowski sits down with former Governor General of Canada, Right Honourable David Johnston, to chat about his career, tips he has for students and his book "Trust: 20 Ways to Build a Better Country".
Students invest a great deal of time and money into the university. The power of how and where students money is spent should lie in the hands of students, and while the Student Choice Initiative (SCI) may give students the illusion that they have the power to choose, a critical look at this government mandated program proves otherwise.
SCI does not empower students — it does the opposite. The threats to services deemed “non-essential”, like the Silhouette, by the Ontario Government come as part of a much broader attack on post-secondary education. In addition to SCI, the provincial government made significant cuts to the Ontario Student Assistance Plan (OSAP).
Without proper support from OSAP, many students can no longer afford post secondary education. Students are taking on extra jobs, reducing class hours and dropping extracurriculars in order to continue paying the increasingly unaffordable price of education. No wonder that ancillary fees are not everybody’s top priority.
With that being said, campus media is still important. It is needed now more than ever, as the provincial government continues to make changes that will directly impact students, staff and the quality of education.
Campus newspapers exist, first and foremost, to highlight the student voice. We hold university institutions accountable and bring a student perspective to campus and city-wide issues. The Silhouette is dedicated to holding individuals and institutions accountable and making sure that they are acting in students’ best interest. It is our job to ask tough questions and seek the truth.
Over the years, the Silhouette has reported extensively on issues from the Redsuit songbook scandal to the cost of student housing in Hamilton. More recently, the Silhouette released an article highlighting the problems with the MSU’s sexual assault disclosure process, particularly with regard to sexual assault within the Maroons. The release of the article triggered a systematic review of the Maroons and the MSU as a whole, which is still ongoing.
Through our opinions section, members of the McMaster community have an opportunity to share their diverse perspectives on issues impacting student life.
We also have a dedicated arts and culture team that scours Hamilton for the gems you may otherwise miss, encouraging you to explore your city and build community. We profile local artists and highlight independent businesses, focusing heavily on McMaster students and alumni.
Our sports section highlights the accomplishments of McMaster athletes, keeping a close eye on sports from football games to Quidditch matches.
Perhaps most importantly, we provide students with opportunities to learn from one another, develop skills and gain practical journalism experience. We are not perfect. We have a lot of learning and unlearning to do as we evolve as an independent paper and it is a shame for the provincial government to hinder that growth rather than support it.
In order to continue being an integral part of the McMaster community and student voice, we rely heavily on the student levy, and a loss of funding would jeopardize our capacity.
There are no other newspapers that hold the university to this level of scrutiny. Without the Sil, students are left with the McMaster Daily News, a misnomer for what is really the university’s public relations production. A threat to student journalism is a threat to democracy on campus.
McMaster students already chose to fund campus journalism. All MSU fees have been approved through referenda through the SRA. Students democratically chose to fund the Silhouette. By giving students the choice to opt out, the provincial government has blatantly disregarded the will of the students, and in so doing eroded students’ autonomy to make their own decisions.
This shows that SCI is not, and has never been about student choice. It is about reducing the power of students by cutting funding and fragmenting services.
Students have been put in an unfair and difficult position and we, at the Sil, ask students to make an informed decision during the opt-out period.
As the university makes changes to accommodate the funding cuts and policy changes coming from the provincial government, we will be here to report on what is happening and what it means for students.
By Katie Brent, Contributor
It is undeniable that planning is essential for any university student to succeed. With a multitude of courses and a bundle of assignments per course, careful scheduling is one of the most valuable tools to stay ahead. What happens, though, when you can’t plan ahead and when assessments come out of the blue?
In some courses, students are faced with this issue. Dreaded “pop” assessments are extraordinarily stressful to students, and they do not keep the diverse needs of students in mind.
In essence, assessments like pop quizzes are employed in order to keep students on track with their learning. The idea is that if the thought of an assessment is always lurking in the shadows, a student will keep on top of their work and not leave everything until the end.
I am sure many students, myself included, can attest that leaving work until the very last minute isn’t the greatest idea — so, on the surface, the idea of pop quizzes seems like a decent idea. However, trying to keep students on track for the sake of their learning actually takes agency away from students.
Each student has a unique schedule that in addition to school may include work, clubs and other commitments. In reality, students won’t always be on top of all of their classes at all times, and trying to keep the entire class at the same pace with pop assignments isn’t realistic.
Furthermore, surprise assignments are not entirely equitable. For example, pop quizzes and tests for students that use Student Accessibility Service can cause undue stress.
At SAS, assessments must be booked in advance, and this is difficult to do with pop quizzes. As such, alternative arrangements usually need to be made with instructors. For students with any sort of anxiety, the constant threat of a pop quiz can distract from focusing on learning. Even for the most well-adjusted student, pop assessments are daunting — they require a tolerance of uncertainty that, frankly, many people do not have.
Although pop quizzes may seem to reward consistent studying on the surface, this is not always the case. You will be hard pressed to find a student who hasn’t had an off week, who hasn’t had a lot on their plate at once and who hasn’t played the catch-up game.
When a pop quiz falls during one of these periods, it’s pretty unfair to a student who may otherwise be on the ball. So, instructors — think twice about putting surprise assignments on the syllabus. Do what’s best for learning, and plan it out.
By Ember, Contributor
Every day, I am faced with choices that others may perceive as rather trivial or inconsequential. I choose whether to take the stairs or elevator, whether to take the bus or walk to campus or whether to watch a required video for class from 2010 on YouTube that only has auto-generated captions or turn closed captioning off.
What people may not realize is how often I must make these choices, how they can make or break my day and how McMaster University’s campus contributes to and reinforces the issues that I and many other disabled students deal with every day.
For starters, I use a mobility aid and I have auditory processing issues — neither my brain nor my body can keep up with what society demands from me. When I choose to take the stairs instead of the ramp or elevator, it doesn’t mean my disability magically disappears. By taking the stairs, I’m further crippling myself, because I unfortunately do not have the time to wait for the elevator. When I have to get to class quickly, I take the stairs because I’m either running behind, or because the elevator is overrun by able-bodied people who have decided that taking the stairs was too inconvenient.
When I turn off the auto-generated captions on a nearly decade-old YouTube video, it’s because I've decided that incorrect words and sentences popping up on the screen will confuse me more than my delayed processing abilities. Having to make this decision in the first place is very strange, since McMaster University is supposed to abide by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act which requires that all videos be closed captioned.
According to AODA requirements, “any video added to a [McMaster] website AFTER 2014, or being used in a class, presentation, public talk, or online course MUST be properly closed captioned – either as part of the production process, or retroactively.”
Now, take a second to think about how many times you’ve had to watch a video in lecture that used auto-generated captions. If it’s been more than one occurrence, then it’s already too many.
To add insult to injury, it is stated in McMaster’s own Academic Accommodation of Students with Disabilities Policy that they are actively choosing not to follow the social model of disability.
“It is our institutional aspiration to work towards a campus community that adopts the social definition of disability … However, this Policy acknowledges, upholds, and aligns itself with the medical definition of disability to be in accordance with the OHRC’s definition of disability and accompanying policies and statements,” states the policy.
For those who don’t know, the social model of disability refers to the idea that environments (physical, auditory, visually, etc.) are inaccessible and require accommodations. The medical model of disability refers to the belief that disability itself is the problem and needs to be solved.
McMaster’s policy is painfully performative: it acknowledges that the social model of disability exists and is favoured by literal disabled people but then contradictorily states that the university abides by and reinforces the medical model of disability. This does nothing for me and other disabled students on campus except let us know that we cannot rely on the university to support us, as they are too busy playing respectability politics and listening only to the disabled people who don’t cause a rukus.
My own education, as well as the education of copious other disabled students, is constantly under the control of our professors and Student Accessibility Services (for those lucky enough to qualify for accommodations since the university lives and breathes by the medical model). Our success in academia is equivalent to if you had to flip a coin, roll a die, and play Russian roulette simultaneously — it’s essentially impossible.
There’s also the issue of being a “good disabled person” — you have to be proactive, be able to predict when your disability will incapacitate you from completing assignments, contact your instructor immediately when an issue arises and be amicable and apologetic about your existence and inconveniencing your instructor (as well as the rest of the student body) with your accommodations.
I will not apologize for pursuing education — if I have to pay to be here like anyone else then I should be given opportunities to succeed like everyone else.
If your syllabus doesn’t account for disabled students, then your syllabus is garbage. You can’t just slap the word “accessible” wherever you want and then do nothing to achieve accessibility. Accessibility is an ideal to strive for and needs active participation and effort to be implemented. It is not a buzzword to be thrown around just because you don’t want to be called out on your complacent violence.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Drew Simpson
The McMaster Muslims Students’ Association recently held Finding Your Momentum, a leadership and empowerment workshop specifically curated for Muslims. Its objective was to increase youth engagement to improve community involvement.
While MacMSA maintains a busy calendar, the process of organizing this event began well before the school year started. While decisions were being made around the structure of MacMSA’s exec-director team, the team realized a recent and significant drop in engagement with the association and the community.
Typically, directorship positions with the MacMSA would attract about 50 applicants each, in recent times however, these numbers have significantly dropped to one or two applicants. The senior executives became worried about MacMSA’s future leadership and lack of engagement with younger cohorts.
MacMSA leaders also saw a lack of Muslims being represented in leadership positions in the McMaster community, such as through the Student Representative Assembly.
Feedback gained from focus groups found a common rhetoric of Muslims opting out of leadership positions to focus on academics. They also found that many individuals were under the misconception that they are not needed by the community.
One workshop attendee and MacMSA representative noted that a lot of students experience a lack of confidence in their abilities and felt that they aren’t equipped with the appropriate skills to take on leadership responsibilities.
The Finding Your Momentum workshop was created in response to these concerns. The MacMSA team realized that they needed to empower their members and create a space where attendees can have open conversations about bettering themselves as Muslims and leaders in the community.
While one of the aims of the workshop was to increase attendees’ engagement with the community, the MacMSA team had to first figure out a way to increase engagement with the workshop itself.
From previous experiences, the organizers found that many people needed someone to both encourage them to participate and attend the event with them. This was often facilitated through invitations by word of mouth.
The organizers of Finding Your Momentum took advantage of this promotion strategy, and it worked. One attendee noted that in order to facilitate empowerment, individuals need someone to give them a little push of encouragement and support.
“When you hear ‘word-of-mouth’, you think of just going and telling someone ‘hey we have an event, just come’. But it’s actually investing in the Muslim community on campus…A part of being a leader is having a community that can look up to you and support your vision,” explained Faryal Zahir, MSA Director and Finding Your Momentum organizer.
“A big part of this year has been making that vision very very clear, and then having people inspired to support that vision.”
This workshop consisted of interactive activities and discussions that focused on introspecting on attendees’ relationships with themselves and others. There was also a focus on utilizing leadership opportunities to serve the community and building connections.
At every MacMSA event, building connections is a recurring goal. The team believes that building connections enables individuals into action.
Finding Your Momentum, like other MacMSA events, aims to break down the barriers that repress interaction, and encourage attendees to have one-to-one connections, first with themselves, then with their peers and greater community.
Time will tell if the MacMSA achieved its goal of encouraging workshop attendees to take on more leadership positions, but one thing is for sure – Finding Your Momentum created a much needed space for empowerment and meaningful engagement for Muslim youth.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
