After a flurry of campaigning that took over campus, intense debates and one very long election scrutinizing process, the McMaster Students Union has chosen its next president-elect: Chukky Ibe.

IMG_8967Ibe won by a considerable margin, with at least 1,000 votes between him and each of his contenders. This year’s election saw a voter turnout of 9,327, meaning 41.6 per cent of the MSU population voted in this year’s election. This is slight decrease from last year, where 44.5 per cent of the MSU population voted.

Ibe, a fifth-year Political Sciences student, ran on a platform aiming to improve the lives of undergraduate students at every level, ranging from large-scale projects such as implementing better wifi to smaller projects like the MSYou, which will survey other candidates’ platforms to add popular projects from other platforms.

Ibe recalls Jan. 26, the last day of voting, as a calm day. Rather than linger over the election results all night, which were not released until 3:30 a.m. on Jan. 27, Ibe opted to decompress following the end of the campaigning period.

Rather than gather with his campaign team waiting for the election results, Ibe opted to take the evening for himself and wait until the morning to see the actual results of the election. Ibe turned off his phone and computer and went to bed early.

“I tell my friends it’s like ‘divine nonchalance’; you control the things you can control. Once it’s done, you just wait for whatever outcome it’ll be,” said Ibe.

Ibe missed the traditional call the new president-elect receives from the current MSU president, and did not find out he had won the election until much later that day when he finally felt comfortable checking social media.

“Helen [Zeng, Chief Returning Officer of the MSU Elections Department], woke me up. She came to me in my dream and she said, ‘Chukky, it’s okay to check your phone’. I checked my email, and I had gotten an email from this guy who helped me out with the campaign and he said congratulations on being the next MSU president,” said Ibe.

Ibe’s plans for the next few months before he takes office include finishing his degree and ensuring his suggestions for Welcome Week are implemented before planning ends in March.

While still in shock about his win, Ibe believes his platform truly represented the needs of the people and the election results reflect that. Ibe cites his experiences outside the MSU as well as his campaign team for his win.

“I’ve always been a part of many communities on campus, so when I say a thing [from my platform] it’s not coming from thin air. When I talked to people, it was less about my platform and more about what their concerns are,” said Ibe.

Ibe’s campaign team was on the smaller size, with about 13 core team members and about 115 volunteers. Ibe feels his team’s diversity is another aspect to why he won this election.

“We had a balance of people who had done things for a long time, and people who had no idea what a campaign team should look like. We also had people who were MSU bubble deep and people who give zero shits about the MSU,” Ibe said.

Ibe is ultimately excited to see what he can bring to the MSU in the coming months.

Every campaign season, behind every candidate, there is a diligent group of students who volunteer their time to help run the campaigns, who work just as tirelessly to secure their candidate the McMaster Students Union’s presidency.

One of these people is Kamini Persaud, a third-year Communications Studies student who has now been on three campaign teams, most recently as president-elect Chukky Ibe’s brand manager.


Persaud’s involvement and success as a core team member is impressive; she was the brand manager for John Tambakis in her first year and helped him clinch third place, and managed Sarah Jama’s tumultuous campaign last year, who not only had Jama’s disqualification repealed but also achieved second place.

Persaud has been involved with presidential elections since her first year, when Tambakis, one of her Welcome Week residence representatives, asked her if she wanted to get involved with his campaign.

“I went to my first meeting and there were five of us and he was like, ‘Okay. This is the core team,’ and I was like ‘I didn’t sign up to be on the core team.’ I just thought I was going to wear a button and hand out cookies,” said Persaud.

She was tasked with being Tambakis’ brand manager, where she worked with a team to manage his social media and image. Persaud was surprised to find that she had thoroughly enjoyed the process, and found it applicable to her future pursuits.

“I didn’t want it to end. I understand how students think, and I’ve taken a lot of classes on it because this is my program,” she said.

“It just kind of made sense that I kept doing this so I could apply what I was learning in class because sitting down learning in class for me was nothing. But when I was doing PR in the real world, I was like, ‘I get it now’.”


Persaud emphasized the amount of work and dedication that is put in into creating a successful campaign, most of which excludes the two-week campaigning period.

Persaud feels there are a few basic aspects to every successful campaign. She first cited having the right candidate, someone who exuded a calm charisma who students would feel comfortable getting behind.

She also explained the importance of appealing to the masses, as opposed to focusing on niche groups who already vote..

“It’s about narrowing down the demographics that don’t vote. That’s what Ehima [Osazuwa, MSU president 2015-2016] did; he got the people who don’t usually vote to vote, and that’s why he won,” Persaud said.

She also notes campaign teams focus too much on the presentation of the candidate as opposed to what their candidate is saying, and reliance on alienating language, which deters students from paying attention.

“Students do not care about businessmen or politics, they don’t care about jargon. They care about things that are relatable,” she said.

While Persaud does not plan on running for a public position herself, she has expressed interest in running another campaign, with a few conditions.

“I would only do it again if it were a candidate I believed in, and knew was going to win,” Persaud said.

But with Persaud on a high, it will not be long until she is asked again.

Every year, we hear the same sentiments about the McMaster Students Union presidential election: “why does this matter? The president doesn’t do anything anyway.”

The criticism is unfair, but the sentiment is understandable. The majority of undergraduate students are just beginning to really engage with politics beyond that silly Grade 10 civics course, and they are starting to see how politicians will fail to deliver on their promises.

As I noted in an editorial a couple weeks ago, presidents gone by have struggled to complete their platforms. It has turned some off student politics because they don’t trust the system. These people don’t believe that presidents will ever reach their goals.

I wonder if the 2017 election will only feed the narrative.

Through our critiques and during the debates, we found that president-elect Chukky Ibe’s platform had a number of ideas that were created with little to no consultation of relevant groups, meaning the feasibility of these projects is questionable.

Here’s an example: at the Silhouette’s debate, Ibe struggled to give a clear answer of where he would find the money to fund the expansion of services, saying he would “repurpose” money within the MSU. When pressed on where specifically the money would come from, Ibe gave an answer for the childcare platform point: repurposing the existing MSU emergency grants, a program designed to help full-time students in times of financial need. The MSU allotted $10,000 this past year for emergency grants.

In Ontario, child care costs over $1,000 over a month, meaning changing this fund would not help many students and also disadvantage those students who were claiming the fund before.

There may be other ways to fund this idea through repurposing, but the plan proposed isn’t a solid one. These are the scenarios that discourage people from getting involved.

And still, there is an opportunity. Ibe has a lot of work to do to achieve his ambitious platform; that’s a challenge, not a condemnation. By all accounts, Ibe is passionate and hard working.

If he can pull off the majority of his platform points, it should inspire people who don’t vote to get involved. The MSU has always been capable of real change and maybe Ibe can be the person to highlight that by completing a number of projects.

I stand by our reporting that found a number of significant roadblocks to success, so I’m not betting on it.

But yes, I’m saying there’s a chance.

Chukky Ibe has been elected McMaster Students Union president for the 2017-18 term. He finished with 4878 votes and Shaarujaa Nadarajah finished second with 3169. McMaster had a voter turnout of 41.6 per cent.

Ibe ran on an expansive platform with eight pillars and over 20 different projects on his website. He will take office in May 2017 and current MSU president Justin Monaco-Barnes will help transition him into the role.

The Elections Committee released the results at 3:42 a.m., a relatively late announcement. Last year's election results were released around 4 a.m. and one candidate was disqualified. It is not immediately known why it took so long to get the results.

This year saw a slight dip in voter turnout after three straight record-breaking years. 2016 saw a voter turnout of 44.5 per cent and 2015 saw 42.2 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot. 2014’s voter turnout was 40.5 per cent. As the MSU press release notes, this marks five consecutive years of more than 40 per cent of students voting in presidential elections. This figure is among the best in the country for schools of this size.

Referenda results 

Students voted no to the expansion to the Pulse and the creation of a student activity building, though it was a close vote. Option C -- the option with no changes -- won by 10 votes in the second round.

The student bus pass will remain the same as well. Full results can be found here.

The course syllabus repository stance passed with 96.2 per cent of the vote.

It is old hat by now: the value of post-secondary education has drastically changed since 2000. So why do some talking points remain?

I have heard and read people arguing in favour of the Pulse expansion and new student activity building by saying that the student centre and athletic centre were paid for my students who would not use it. Now, some say, it is our turn to pay it forward.

To clarify, this expansion project would not immediately ask students to start paying the full fee, but there would be a $95 increase next year if option A or B passed.

This logic is dripping with privilege and needs to be reconsidered. I can appreciate that people ahead of me have helped pay for the office that I currently write this piece from, but that was a different time. The cost of education was not as high as it is now and the job prospects were significantly better.

Students leave university with more debt and accept jobs with less security now. An increasing number of students have issues with food security. The list of issues goes on and on.

It does not make any sense to ask students to pave the way for future generations of students when we are leaving current students behind. Why are we so concerned with building a new activity building when we have students who cannot afford food?

And let’s consider whom we would actually be helping. If post-secondary costs continue to increase, post-secondary education will price out more and more students because they cannot afford to attend university. Assuming that rising costs would dissuade students from lower-income backgrounds, this student activity centre and new recreation centre would be for those who come from privileged backgrounds that can afford to attend university. What I am saying is: are we building something on the backs of students who can barely afford university, pricing out low income people, and then wealthy students will be the only people who afford university and use these facilities?

And yes, I know the Ontario government changed their policy to give “free tuition” to students from lower-income families. In fairness, it is not actually free tuition; they are providing grants for about $8,700 towards tuition. That is good, but still not enough to cover some programs at McMaster, and does not address living expenses.

We need to consider what it means to “pay it forward” because not everyone can afford to collect that payment down the line. Some cannot even afford to pay it now. Until – or if – university educations are affordable for all, we should be cautious when raising costs.

By: Owen Angus-Yamada

I have a fellow friend at McMaster with whom I debate on every subject from what’s the funniest pick up line to how reforming our education system can bring about better learning. During one recent conversation, I brought up the McMaster Students Union presidential election.

He put a kibosh on the debate and replied, “I don’t know who’s running and I don’t care.” I had to agree with him, and with voting rate of 44.5 per cent in 2016 it seems that the majority of the McMaster student population also agrees. This lead me to two big questions: are the candidates not properly informing the masses of their platforms and qualifications, or do the McMaster students see the MSU president position as something with no real impact?

Being a third-year Honours Commerce student, I can say that I have had only one MSU candidate, Shaarujaa Nadarajah, come in front of one of my lectures and give a quick summary of her MSU presidential platform and relevant experience. Going back to first year, I remember seeing all the MSU presidential candidates come before lectures and give a two-minute drill on their platforms with many candidates making multiple appearances. Where did all the in-person politics go?

The fact that students who are not actively seeking information regarding the election are not being properly informed could be the reason for low voter turnout and some of those who do vote, 6.2 per cent in 2016, vote for abstaining. It is also possible and more probable that students don’t care to vote because the MSU president seems to have has little to no effect on most of them.

It's hard to blame students for not seeing the MSU president as a nonfactor in their daily lives. The MSU presidents have a track record of promising big ideas that become white noise after their election. The first MSU president I voted for, Ehima Osazuwa, campaigned to bring gender neutral washrooms and lower tuition costs. The latter is more unrealistic, but neither promise is close to being realized. Other MSU candidates have brought even more ludicrous ideas to the table that span from bringing a grocery store and movie theatre onto campus to building another student centre.

In my third year now, I can say that the only significant change brought on by the MSU was finally bringing debit machines on campus so I can better waste my parents’ hard-earned money on $2 coffee. Other than that, I couldn’t name another thing the MSU has done.

First years experience more exposure to the presidential candidates because they are more optimistic and believe that the candidates will make good on their propositions. Unless you actively follow the elected president’s activities like some sort of political brownnoser, you may assume that they are doing nothing at all. That statement may sound harsh, but for most students the reality is that no matter whom they vote for the school remains largely the same, for better or for worse.

Year-round two-way communication is essential in getting students to vote and take the election process more seriously. Students don’t care because they simply don’t know. Most students have no clue what the MSU president really does for them or where they are in the process of making good on those campaign promises.

The communication between the MSU president and McMaster student population should be a continuous process throughout their entire tenure. The use of social media question and answer periods where students are notified and encouraged to participate through mass email is one way to achieve that two-way communication. It encourages student involvement and will allow the MSU president to update the student population on their actual changes or reasons why certain changes have not yet been made while allowing the student population hold the president accountable for any of their larger promises.

If students are the future of Canada, then democracy’s future is grim. Federal election turnout has gradually dropped from 79.2 per cent in 1963 to an all time low of 58.8 per cent in 2008, and if the MSU presidential elections are any indicator, then the next generation of voters can expect a voting turnout below 50 per cent. Students need to be properly informed on why we should care about who becomes the new MSU president. It’s time for McMaster students to change their voting mindset.

By: Alex Wilson

The following piece is based on the candidates’ responses to the debate question:

"Classroom and campus accessibility is an essential part of student life, as well as a priority in the long term advocacy plan. For candidates who do not include accessibility in their platforms, why not, and to those who did, what research or consultation did you do?"

Every year, accessibility becomes more and more of a buzzword in McMaster Students Union politics. It becomes this catch-all term for when you need a catchy way to market yourself as a good person. I'd like to try and disambiguate what this word truly means in a McMaster setting, why it matters and why our six candidates for MSU president simply don't get it.

Accessibility can be defined as the degree that people with and without disabilities can access services, goods and work, physical, social and educational environments without encountering barriers. But if you were at the debate or tuning in online, you would think accessibility meant a "late-night shuttle bus" by Aquino Inigo’s answer, "a space for Bread Bin" by Shaarujaa Nadarajah’s answer or that it had something to do with "the second floor of MUSC" by Patricia Kousoulas’ answer.

While none of the candidates are wrong, they erase those who originally and still organize around the fight for access. Focusing on these initiatives in the context of this question decenters and further silences those who are fighting to be listened to. Food security, safety and opportunities for student involvement are all important discussions, but they were not the one we were actually trying to have.

Accessibility is embracing universal design. Accessibility is podcasted courses, buildings students can actually enter with dignity and seating and desks for all students regardless of if they use a mobility device. Accessibility is varied assessment in your courses, timely and prioritized snow removal and lifts that don't leave you trapped for hours. Accessibility is bursaries because being a disabled student is, on average, significantly more expensive than being a nondisabled student. And yes, accessibility is timely, effective and appropriate counselling and medical support.

Misunderstanding accessibility is not an answer.

Deflecting the subject to an ill placed "accessible shuttle bus" is not an answer. When you ignore a conversation this large, you actively tell students that they are simply not important enough to warrant even the basic Google search of a term and solution.

The belief that you can come up to students after you become president and try to accommodate their needs without understanding is hurtful and invalidating. It treats real people with real experiences as campaign props to be used and thrown about to garner votes.

No candidate on that stage, at any point in the debate or otherwise this week, even began to scratch the surface. No candidate showed any clear interest in doing so. Not only does that invalidate the identities of the students' they are campaigning to represent, it effectively silences them. Passion drives conversation, and clearly accessibility disparities are not glaring enough to ignite a simple Google search instead of pivoting to barely related platform points or to nothing at all.

Not being "an expert," as mentioned by Kousoulas, is not an excuse. Not having to think about accessibility every day is a privilege. The belief that you can come up to students after you become president and try to accommodate their needs without understanding is hurtful and invalidating. It treats real people with real experiences as campaign props to be used and thrown about to garner votes.

It’s nice that you "want to work with the experts on campus," mentioned by Kousoulas, or "work with groups on campus to make sure their voices are heard and that I'm not speaking for them," mentioned by Inigo. You’re right, we need to talk more, but it’s ignorant to pretend there haven’t been those talking and fighting for years.

There is no excuse for not knowing how inaccessible campus is. The MSU website has Accessibility forum reports from the past two years with feedback from over 100 students. Last year, the Student Representative Assembly passed a lobbying policy to advocate to the university on the grounds of accessibility. It will be your job as president to advocate using this policy.

Please do talk to students once you are elected, but it’s disrespectful and dishonest to pretend you haven’t already had the chance. Collaboration requires both parties and if you’re not going to do any work, then you are just reinforcing the idea the president acts as a figurehead instead of an advocate.

Admittedly, some candidates did have some points related to accessibility. But they don't get points for doing the bare minimum. "I may have not addressed directly accessibility with respect to physical environment or accessibility with respect to educational resources, although I do still think it's a priority for the student union," was stated by Shaarujaa Nadarajah. Presented solutions such as improving access to the Burke Science Building from Chukky Ibe or wheelchair accessible seating from Leanne Winkels are amazing ideas, but they regurgitate existing requests with apparently little consultation.

Candidates who do have ideas have no plan for achieving their goals. Students have been asking for these changes for decades. If you are going to tokenize our struggle for some votes, at least come with a plan.

By: Rebeca Abelson

At the beginning of each week, I find myself in a familiar corner. Making promises to pack daily lunches to avoid cafeteria lines and innutritious meals is an increasingly familiar undertaking. And time and time again, I find myself with $8 or $9 receipts pouring out of my coat pockets. The fact of the matter is that purchasing food on campus is often an unavoidable phenomenon. For students with busy schedules, it can be challenging to commute home with such short durations between classes.

If you’ve even so much as brushed over the presidential platforms, you have probably noticed one widely held viewpoint. Cheaper and healthier food options. While food availability on campus is widespread, the selections tend to be limited.

The omnipresence of expensive campus meals has captured the attention of several presidential hopefuls with many promising to bridge the gap between cost-effectiveness and healthy food options.

Patricia Kousoulas is one of these candidates. She hopes to implement a breakfast program by extending on familiar MSU food services. While the specific details are unknown, students would be able to enjoy better food options for their first meal of the day. According to Kousoulas, healthier meal options would yield both mental and physical benefits.

In a similar vein, Leanne Winkels discusses food security alongside campus clubs. She argues that the monopoly of Paradise Catering limits the availability of traditional foods to religious and cultural groups. Overcoming this inhibitory barrier would allow internal organizations to better serve the needs of McMaster students.

Like his fellow candidates, Chukky Ibe acknowledges the importance of healthy meal options. Ibe’s platform is twofold and tends to the environmental concerns associated with campus food services. He emphasizes the continued use of reusable dishes throughout campus eating facilities and extending beyond the green box containers used at Centro. Furthermore, he proposes the Good Food delivery program, which will work alongside McMaster Farmstand and Mac Bread Bin to hand-deliver boxes of locally-sourced food to student neighbourhoods. Ideally, the food delivery program would alleviate the time and stress associated with grocery store visits.

Shaarujaa Nadarajah furthers the discussion of food security on campus. According to her platform, the cost of healthy meal options is a barrier enacted by high university costs. Students are forced to compromise their nutritional requirements as a result of other, more imminent school needs. To challenge this discrepancy, Nadarajah proposes the implementation of new McMaster food services that work alongside Mac Farmstand and other existing business units.

In addition, she contends with Winkel’s conception of Paradise Catering as an inaccessible and unaffordable food service. Matt Vukovic agrees with his competitors surrounding the hegemonic force that is Paradise Catering. He furthers his argument by promising to implement food substitutes such as Soylent, a nutrient rich alternative. Despite the unlikely adoption, food alternatives would dismantle the current food monopoly and create less traffic in populated dining halls throughout campus.

While each candidate proposes unique solutions, most discuss their initiatives alongside food security. The prevalence of this buzzword within presidential platforms raises several questions. What is the hysteria surrounding food practices? How feasible are the solutions proposed by the 2017 MSU presidential candidates?

As raised by Nadarajah, many students are plagued by the decision of choosing between healthy meals and other expensive school-related fees.

It appears that the solution to food insecurity at McMaster University will not come easily. As most students are well aware of, consuming healthy, nutritious dishes can be expensive than eating at quick, fast food restaurants.

Evidently, the problem of food security on campus is threefold.

Firstly, McMaster University would be tasked with replacing greasy spoon options with fresh, locally sourced meals. Ideally, these services would be offered at a reduced cost. Furthermore, practices of food security call for environmental and sustainable considerations.

From a brief overview, it becomes apparent that these objectives act in contention with one another. The feasibility of striking a balance between healthy food options and cost-effectiveness is continuously challenged. Upon implementation, practices of food security on campus would demand mass subsidies to offset the costs students are paying for their meals.

Aside from Ibe’s expansion of the Good Food delivery program and the commonly held proposition of dismantling the Paradise Catering contract, the solutions put forth by presidential candidates are quite vague and do not tend to the specificities of food security. Rather, they propose idealistic ends without providing the sufficient means to do so.

While their efforts are respectable, campus food security must be tackled by multiple levels of government. Perhaps MSU presidential candidates should work alongside the McMaster Board of Governors to renegotiate food contracts with a multitude of companies offering more feasible and sustainable food options. Despite the aforementioned challenges, campuses should devise new methods of providing healthy meal options without compromising the financial well-being of their students.

By: Connor Blakeborough

A major topic in this year’s MSU election is student mental health, and rightly so. The number of students who suffer for weeks on end without support is sickening, and as committed as I am to bettering the lives of those students, I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding in the role a counsellor should play in any person’s treatment.

The medicalization of mental health has resulted in one dimensional thinking when approaching the supposed results of one-on-one counselling. I’ve had troubles expressing myself verbally my whole life. I’ve never felt comfortable talking about emotions. Only recently have I found what works for me: speaking about my problems and emotions loudly, in a way that makes me feel empowered. This revelation is the result of friends convincing me to seek out help for some thoughts I was having.

Immediately after my appointment, I called a great friend of mine and vented about how little it helped and how it was a waste of time. I was completely wrong about how much counselling would help me. I’ve heard the same criticisms I made echoed time and time again.

Conversations with friends and peers have revealed a pattern of discontent and dissatisfaction after counselling at the Student Wellness Centre. They tell me how they never receive any real solutions to their problems, and they just end up repeating themselves over and over again. These are totally valid criticisms of counselling as a method of treatment.

Believing in the process requires a certain amount of agreement to be indoctrinated. You’re believing that this stranger can help you with very little tangible evidence to grasp onto upon leaving their office. Sometimes they don’t help at all, and sometimes they completely change your life.

Stop thinking of counselling as a final solution. Think of it as a part of a process, and a part of your journey to self betterment. It’s an opportunity to express yourself in an environment that’s different than a friend-friend or family-family dynamic, and an opportunity to say what has really been bothering you without worrying about the other person’s feelings. Part of the benefit of counselling is the cathartic nature of saying what’s bothering you out loud, and knowing a doctor is listening to you.

The MSU campaigns do little to change this narrative of counselling being the solution for everyone’s mental health concerns. If anything, they promote it by highlighting it when addressing mental health. If you want to get serious about mental illness, let’s take a look at the university environment that resulted in this spike of occurrence, and stop putting counselling Band-Aids on the gaping wound that is poor mental health amongst students. You’re not doing anybody any favours by leveraging mental health as a platform point.

You’re doing a disservice to the struggles that students face everyday, while offering solutions that do little to change a system that is failing so many students. You want to make a change? That’s fantastic, glad to hear it. Let’s start by changing how we approach this issue, and stop acting like we’ve had the right answer and just no money to fund it.

At the time of writing, all candidates have references to mental health in their platforms.

Matt Vukovic’s platform contains a promise to change the McMaster Student Absence Form back to 30 per cent to better support mental health needs of students, and an additional MSAF once the 30 per cent change is achieved.

Chukky Ibe’s platform mentions “providing funds for student groups who create independent programming in regards to the welcome week strategic themes,” including mental health.

Leanne Winkels’ platform specifically mentions counselling by promising to increase the accessibility of counselling services on campus using the surplus from the health insurance fund.

Shaarujaa Nadarajah’s platform mentions advocating for more specialized professionals, staff within residence quads for first years transitioning to University and better training for the peer support service.

Patricia Kousoulas’ platform mentions mental health, but only in the context of promoting healthier study habits for exam support, and briefly in terms of food security having an effect.

Aquino Inigo’s platform mentions the hiring of an additional counsellor to the Student Wellness Centre assigned to the needs of first year students, and better peer support training for residence representatives.

The McMaster Students Union presidential debate, held by the MSU Elections department on Jan.19, gave voters insight into each candidate and what they would bring to table. The candidates this year are Chukky Ibe, Aquino Inigo, Patricia Kousoulas, Shaarujaa Nadarajah, Matthew Vukovic and Leanne Winkels. Here are some highlights:

Inigo uses rebuttal to stress importance of mental health and safety-- argues it goes beyond finances #McSU

— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 19, 2017

Nadarajah has read the policy, but feels there's still work to be done #McSU

— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 19, 2017

Vukovic believes that if we give it attention, we only fuel the movement. "We shouldn't be putting it in the spotlight" #McSU

— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 19, 2017

Winkels: "we can look at ways to utilize space that is currently dead space and open up more space for students to use" #McSU

— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 19, 2017

Kousoulas is citing her shuttle bus service to help mental health efforts #McSU

— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 19, 2017

Ibe is critical of on campus safety concerns, which is on both Inigo's and Kousoulas' platform #McSU

— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 19, 2017

The Silhouette will be holding a livestreamed debate on Sunday Jan. 23.


Subscribe to our Mailing List

© 2023 The Silhouette. All Rights Reserved. McMaster University's Student Newspaper.