Proposed governmental changes aim to make sexual violence reporting at Ontario universities more survivor-centric
C/O Aditya Joshi
cw: sexual violence
The provincial government of Ontario is proposing changes to sexual violence and harassment policies at post-secondary institutions.
These changes are being made to Ontario regulation 131/16. This was implemented in January 2017 to establish a standard of sexual violence policies in colleges and universities.
The changes, proposed in January 2021, will ensure that students reporting sexual violence or harassment are not asked about their past sexual history. Furthermore, individuals reporting will not face consequences for violating the institution’s alcohol and drug policy.
The proposed amended regulation would require post-secondary institutions to update their sexual violence policies. There would be no additional costs or burden on the institution or students.
The changes, proposed in January 2021, will ensure that students reporting sexual violence or harassment are not asked about their past sexual history. Furthermore, individuals reporting will not face consequences for violating the institution’s alcohol and drug policy.
These changes aim to reduce the fear and stigma that survivors may face when reporting gender-based violence. The proposed changes come from policy recommendations made by the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance in Spring 2020.
The McMaster Students Union is a member of OUSA and contributed to the policy recommendations. The paper was co-authored by former MSU Vice-President (Education) Shemar Hackett and AVP Provincial and Federal Affairs Angel Huang. Many of the recommendations also mirrored similar suggestions made by the MSU Sexual Violence and Response policy.
The paper outlined the current challenges with gender-based and sexual violence prevention and response, including disclosure and reporting.
The disclosure and reporting section included an explanation of how institutional hierarchies make it more difficult for students to report sexual violence and harassment. The paper went on to explain the existing insufficient education and training for campus police, staff, faculty and student instructors.
OUSA explained that there is a lack of knowledge on how to respond to gender-based violence and support survivors in a trauma-informed and survivor-centric way.
Among other suggested resolutions, OUSA recommended strengthening legislative and regulatory frameworks such as Ontario regulation 131/16.
“We know that gender-based violence and sexual violence is not just a problem at institutions but a systemic problem across society and it certainly exists [on] campuses. At McMaster, but also across the provinces, we've heard from students and advocates and experts that the current policies are not survivor-centric and they're not friendly toward people to come forward [to report],” explained MSU VP Education Ryan Tse.
"At McMaster, but also across the provinces, we've heard from students and advocates and experts that the current policies are not survivor-centric and they're not friendly toward people to come forward [to report].”
MSU VP Education Ryan Tse
On March 16, McMaster University staff member, Christopher McAllister was arrested and charged with sexual assault. McAllister had ties to the department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, which underwent a climate review in July 2020 for systemic and cultural issues linked to sexual violence and harassment.
Other allegations in the PNB department, such as the June 2020 charge on Scott Waters for two counts of sexual assault, are still being investigated by McMaster as of February 2021.
“I think this [proposed change] is important because hopefully, it will help to build a little more trust between the community and the institution but, more importantly, just make the policy safer and provide more accountability,” said Tse.
The proposed changes by the Ontario government will make the province one of the only in Canada to legally prevent survivors from having to answer irrelevant questions and be prosecuted by substance use policies.
"It's really important that students continue to speak out and speak up for these changes, through OUSA but through other means as well,” said Tse.
Tse explained that in the future, OUSA looks forward to continuing their advocacy for the other policy recommendations they made to ensure policies are more survivor-centric, evidence-based and informed from the lived experiences of survivors.
“This is a really good first step and it's nice to hear that the government is listening to the voices of students . . . It's really important that students continue to speak out and speak up for these changes, through OUSA but through other means as well,” said Tse.
Clubs will be required to have a minimum $5 fee and 25 general members to be ratified for the 2021-2022 academic year
The McMaster Students Union recently made changes to the MSU Clubs policy which has sparked outspoken anger and frustration. Approved on March 26, 2020, the MSU Clubs policy was modified to include several notable revisions. Among those revisions were a mandatory minimum $5.00 membership fee for every general member, a minimum of 25 general members and the creation of the Clubs Advisory Council.
Current MSU Clubs Administrator Jenna Courage sent an email on Sept. 25 to club presidents in light of a Mac Confessions Facebook post released on Sept. 23 and other uproar from students. In the email Courage wrote, “[Y]ou [club presidents] are all aware that Clubs Department policies underwent major updates and revisions last year, prior to the COVID-19 shutdown and the start of online classes.”
Contrary to what Courage wrote, these policy amendments were passed by the MSU Executive Board after the COVID-19 shutdown and start of online classes. McMaster cancelled all classes and moved to an online learning format on March 13. These policy amendments, including the mandatory minimum $5 fee and the 25 general members, were passed at the Executive Board meeting on March 26.
In a memo to the Student Representative Assembly dated March 8, then-MSU President Josh Marando outlined a staffing change to the Clubs Operating Policy that was to be voted on at the next SRA meeting. Marando wrote, “[The updated operating policy] does not highlight the changes to any aspect of the policy other than the staff as those changes will be coming to the next SRA meeting.” The motion to create three new clubs staff passed unanimously on March 8.
The clubs amendments were not on the agenda for the March 22, April 18 and 19 or April 26 meetings. The March 22 meeting was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions. The new amendments were also not in the meeting minutes for April 18 and 19 as well as the April 26 date. The April 26 meeting was the last for the 2019-2020 SRA.
In addition, the current 2020-2021 SRA did not ratify the policy amendments. “These policy changes were months in the making, ultimately vetted and approved by the Student Representative Assembly,” Courage wrote in an email sent to club presidents on Sept. 25. However, the assembly as a whole did not approve the amendments. The 2019-2020 Executive Board passed these amendments on behalf of the SRA.
The motion to approve the amendments passed with eight in favour and one abstention. The Executive Board was composed of the 2019-2020 Board of Directors and five SRA members.
Then-MSU President Josh Marando released a statement on the MSU website on April 16, which highlighted some of the clubs amendments. “Additionally, clubs will now charge a single, standardized membership fee," wrote Marando. The policy of 25 minimum members is not included in this statement.
On April 17, then-MSU Clubs Administrator Aditi Sharma sent an email to 2019-2020 Clubs Presidents. This email included a document entitled Clubs Policy Changes FAQ. The email also linked Marando’s press release on the MSU website.
The FAQ document does not include the minimum $5 fee but does include the minimum 25 members. The MSU press release does mention a new mandatory fee but does not specify the minimum value of that fee. Both the FAQ document and Sharma’s email stipulate that there would be no changes to the ratification process for the 2020-2021 school year.
In August, Courage sent the same FAQ document to club presidents. The document stated, “there are no changes for the 2020-2021 academic year. However, in December of 2020, as part of the 2021-2022 application cycle, all clubs (new and renewal) will require a minimum of 25 members to receive recognition. These 25 members exclude the president and executive members. All members must have valid McMaster email addresses and student numbers.”
Courage’s email did not link to Marando’s press release.
According to Christina Brinza and Febby Pandya, co-presidents of the International Women in Science Day Conference, current club presidents weren’t made aware of the $5 fee until clubs training began at the end of September.
Brinza and Pandya wanted the conference to be free this year and to increase accessibility, and they believe that the $5 fee to be part of the club contradicts those goals.
“Forcing our members to pay $5 just to continue to receive information about this event that's still going to be free. It doesn't seem fair to them or to us . . . It really contradicts our intention or our objective of accessibility,” said Brinza.
"It doesn't seem fair to them or to us . . . It really contradicts our intention or our objective of accessibility,” said Brinza.
Pandya explained the concerns of the $5 specifically on their club, which would culminate in the conference in the winter term. She said, “Since we are hosting such a large event later in the semester we kind of have to allocate our sources to be able to support that kind of large event and we can't really have too many miniature events to, you know, pique interest in to keep students wanting to come back.”
Both Pandya and Brinza are worried about the classist undertones of the $5 fee, including for students who may want to try new clubs or who want to join multiple. In the March 26 Executive Board meeting, SRA member Eric Sinnige asked about the membership fee and cited concerns of a financial barrier to students. Then-VP Finance Alexandrea Johnston responded that if a student couldn’t afford the fee, they could work with the Clubs Accounting Clerk.
Both Pandya and Brinza are worried about the classist undertones of the $5 fee, including for students who may want to try new clubs or who want to join multiple.
However, that information was not included in this year’s MSU Clubs training module.
Julia Wickens, current VP administration and former president of jack.org McMaster, also expressed frustration and surprise at the policy changes.
“One of our biggest things as a mental health club is that we want people to feel that they can commit as much as they want to. So we have some people that attend a couple of our events and we have some people that are really, really involved. So I feel like putting a dollar value on that kind of hurts that idea a little bit and then from a student perspective, I think that $5 means a different thing to different people,” said Wickens.
A reason for the $5 minimum fee was that clubs would have more money in their budgets. In response, Wickens believed that there is a better way to reduce the amount of funding that clubs are requesting.
“Make it easier for clubs to have cheaper options for things like food . . . but also for room-booking and stuff like that. In the past, we felt pretty limited about what our options are,” said Wickens.
“Make it easier for clubs to have cheaper options for things like food . . . but also for room-booking and stuff like that. In the past, we felt pretty limited about what our options are,” said Wickens.
On Sept. 27, the SRA formalized the policy exemption to all clubs for the 2020-2021 school year. According to SRA Arts and Science representative Adeola Egbeyemi, clubs will not have to charge the $5 fee or have a minimum of 25 general members for this school year. However, the policy will be in place for the 2021-2022 school year unless further action is taken by the SRA.
The MSU website has every MSU policy and by-law, including the MSU Clubs operating policies. However, as of Sept. 29, the Clubs Operating Policy is not up-to-date. Section 8.1.3 still states that “[a]n MSU Club shall . . . determine its own program membership and membership fee, consistent with the policies of the MSU.” The updated Clubs policies can only be found through the Executive Board documents.
Section 8.1.3 still states that "[a]n MSU Club shall . . . determine its own program membership and membership fee, consistent with the policies of the MSU."
By Anonymous, Contributor
As a non-Chinese faculty member, I have been following events unraveling around the Student Representative Assembly’s decision to de-ratify the McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association. As an associate chair of my department, I interact with undergraduate students on a daily basis, which is why I was troubled to hear about how the Student Representative Assembly proceeded with the de-ratification of a student-run group on campus. Recent reports reveal that SRA representatives believed that they had placed Mac CSSA on probation for six months, while the group itself was not notified. Furthermore, Mac CSSA was de-ratified during a meeting on Sept. 22 for which the club was not given due notice.
From reading the SRA meeting minutes and watching live streams of the SRA proceedings, I was struck by the unanimity of it all. Many questions were raised but not discussed and many comments were made but not challenged. Some SRA members even mentioned the absence of Mac CSSA or any rebuttal document at the final de-ratification meeting. Yet, no one in that room tried to table the motion to de-ratify Mac CSSA. What would have changed if the proceedings had been delayed to allow for a chat with the Equity and Inclusion Office, to consult a lawyer and, at the very least, to allow CSSA members to attend the de-ratification meeting? By not properly engaging with opposing voices in the SRA chamber, the rush to judgement that occurred with the de-ratification of Mac CSSA seems to have emerged from a groupthink mentality.
Given my experience as an equity-seeking person myself, as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, watching this unfold has made me extremely emotional. By speaking with one voice, rushing to judgement and bypassing the regular procedures, the SRA’s actions threatened not a single group on campus, but the entire institution. This type of prosecution, though clearly not at the same level of magnitude, has shades of the Lavender Scare or even McCarthyism. In those times, as the guilt of the accused was decided prior to the public accusation, any irregular process to convict them was sufficient. Never mind that once accused, there was no chance of defense. Only after the Sept. 22 de-ratification and after Mac CSSA had initiated an appeal process themselves did the SRA give Mac CSSA a chance to answer questions regarding the allegations put forward to de-ratify them. The evidence presented by Mac CSSA in their appeal was dismissed and the SRA denied their appeal.
I’m not defending the actions of Mac CSSA and I’m not even saying that the MSU is wrong to censure a club. But I strongly believe that the cornerstones of our democracy are the right to a fair trial, the right to defend oneself and the right to be presumed innocent. In a fair system, if your arguments are valid, your evidence is sound and your process is unbiased, there is no reason to fear the presence of the accused. Particularly when dealing with an equity-seeking group, it is imperative to ensure that all the necessary steps of a process have been taken with care so there is no questions about the outcome. Even if the outcome may not be different, a fair and transparent procedure is necessary. The process is what protects our values. It is what protects us from fear-mongering, from undue influences and partisanship.
Joshua Marando has admitted that he made such mistakes with regards to CSSA “not being informed at the meeting” as well as the miscommunication of the “initial probation”. While he referred to them as “big oversights,” they were downplayed as “not intentional by any means,” implying to me that even a compromised process can be justified.
The SRA should not be allowed to get away with this. When we compromise procedural justice, even the most righteous of intentions can lead to significant unintended consequences. In this case, the irresponsible management of Mac CSSA’s de-ratification has had profound consequences. Due to my position as an associate chair, I interact with many Chinese undergraduates, graduate students, staff and faculty colleagues, all with varying views. This incident has led to the alienation of a large group of people who may have differing political views, but who are still important members of the McMaster community.
As a student government body that represents people with diverse backgrounds, it is critical for the MSU to maintain an impartial political stance, and treat everyone equally and fairly, which includes international students. The MSU should not forget that Mac CSSA is a club of their own fellow students. They are not some nameless and faceless foreign government entity that some SRA members may have implied in the height of their groupthink euphoria.
The Mac CSSA de-ratification reveals the kind of power the SRA has — in terms of club de-ratification, they are able to act as witnesses, judge, jury and executioner in a decision-making process. It must be made clear to them that such power comes with the trust of the McMaster community, which should be used to strive for equality and inclusivity, instead of dividing the campus by abusing it.
This should really be a wake-up call for the MSU that undue procedures can be a slippery slope that you cannot come back from. The step to de-ratify a club that consists of fellow students is a serious one and deserves thoughtful action. With that being said, this Mac CSSA-gate fiasco could provide an opportunity to establish precedents and norms to prevent it from happening again, similar to the development of the Miranda rights for people accused of criminal actions.
The MSU should really reflect on why they were so quick to compromise their own processes — what was their justification and what would have been the harm of following the correct procedures? The MSU should take measures to counteract groupthink by assigning a devil’s advocate or equity champion, by consulting a specialist before making a decision, by involving third-party members to get impartial opinions or by setting up a rule that the leadership should be absent from discussion to avoid overly influencing decisions.
The MSU should also be aware of the systematic barriers and implicit biases that may have played a role in their flawed procedures. They have an obligation to reach out to the less privileged groups of students to help them be a part of the community, to have a voice at the table, to communicate and connect and to be valued.
As David Farr, acting president of McMaster, recently said, “Equity, diversity, and inclusion are critical to our academic mission and vital for innovation and excellence.”
The MSU should play a leading role in that mission, rather than acting against it.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Recently, Hamilton has seen an influx of craft breweries establishing themselves around the city. With craft beer on the rise, MERIT Brewing Company is one of the industry leaders, brewing locally in their space on 107 James St. North.
Co-founder of MERIT and McMaster alumnus, Tej Sandhu, wanted to create a communal, welcoming space by combining a tap room, brewery, kitchen and bottle shop.
“Really what we hope it is, is a space for community around [MERIT]. So much of what we built this place to be is to facilitate conversation, facilitate our community, and facilitate a great experience for people around these things that we love producing . . . in a space that is easy to get to, that is accessible, that’s inclusive, that is open and that is friendly and warm. Those are things that we had as our goal for what we wanted the space to be but for what we keep as our goals for everything we do as well,” said Sandhu.
MERIT Brewing Company on James Street North.
On Oct. 1, the Ontario Craft Brewers, a membership trade association that represents local breweries in Ontario, participated in a government roundtable in the Niagara region. The OCB represents the voices of approximately 30 per cent of craft breweries around Ontario
“We participated in the roundtable to provide our perspective and make sure the voice of local brewers is heard on potential changes to the alcohol system, which are critical to our future growth and success,” said the OCB via their Twitter account.
(1/2) The Ontario Government is currently consulting on potential reforms to Ontario’s beverage alcohol sector. As Niagara is home to many craft producers, the govt hosted a series of roundtables this weekend w/ reps from craft wineries, distillers, cideries, and breweries.
— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) September 29, 2019
(2/2) We participated in the roundtable to provide our perspective and make sure the voice of local brewers is heard on potential changes to the alcohol system, which are critical to our future growth and success.
— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) September 29, 2019
The association also shared photos with Sam Oosterhoff, a Progressive Conservative member of provincial parliament from the Niagara-West riding. Oosterhoff has claimed that he wants to remove abortion rights. Additionally, he has actively opposed Bill 128 — the All Families Are Equal act, a piece of legislation that removes the words "mother" and "father" in favour of gender-neutral terms allowing all parents to be treated equally. He continues to defend his socio-political beliefs when confronted by the media. The tweets promoting Oosterhoff with the OCB were taken down after being posted.
The original tweets posted by Ontario Craft Brewers following an event with Sam Oosterhoof and Ontario breweries. This tweet has since been removed off of the OCB Twitter account.
Ontario Craft Brewers tweeted this photo with Sam Oosterhoff at a roundtable event. The photo has since been removed off of the OCB Twitter account.
Although not an OCB member, MERIT Brewing Company released a statement about the OCB’s event via their Facebook page on Oct. 1.
“MERIT was not part of this discussion, nor are we members of the OCB, but we would like to say that we are unequivocally against the views of MPP Oosterhoff and outraged over the OCB’s decision to promote their work with him as some sort of gain for the industry or brushed off as part of their responsibility to work with the government,” said the statement.
MERIT turned their attention to the community that was being affected by the OCB’s statement. The team reflected on their values of creating a welcoming, diverse space but found that the industry association that indirectly represents them was doing the opposite.
“While working together with the government is a good thing — when there's someone whose beliefs, outside of beer . . . are directly attacking not only owners of the businesses but staff members, people who are our guests and our consumers, that really strikes a chord as something that . . . the OCB did without thinking [about] what the implications are,” said Sandhu. “. . . We were angry because even if you're not an OCB member, the OCB indirectly represents our industry. They are the only association that we have. Their stance [on] promotion and their communication is reflective of our entire industry in Ontario.”
The OCB has issued an apology on Twitter.
— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) October 1, 2019
Sandhu emphasized that MERIT, and all members of the OCB, had the responsibility to hold higher organizations accountable for their actions.
While MERIT had voiced their concerns on an industry level, Sandhu also reflected on local level concerns in Hamilton.
On Oct. 1, as a part of Hamilton’s “Fast 40” initiative, local and fast-growing businesses were recognized for contributing to the city’s economic development. MERIT Brewing Company was one business amongst many to receive the award given by mayor Fred Eisenberger. In light of tensions between Eisenberger and the LGBTQA2S+ community, while MERIT claimed their reward, they left shortly before a photo opportunity with Eisenberger.
Merit Brewing Company has recently been recognized by the City of Hamilton for contributing to the city’s economic development.
“There has been a ton of conversation internally about the handling of the LGBT community, the mayor’s response to the concerns that have been raised and the threat to our staff that are part of the community as well. [Our] action wasn’t meant to be a massive ‘F-U’ to the mayor, it was a way we could ask for accountability. It was something that was small that we thought would have, at the very least, an impact on showing our staff and our guests that we are standing up for them and not standing with someone who isn’t protecting them,” said Sandhu.
MERIT Brewing Company does not see themselves as a voice for marginalized communities, but rather as a microphone that allows their voices be heard. MERIT felt that their action was a step towards greater accountability among local leaders.
Regardless, you don't take a picture of brewery owners smiling and raising a glass with this guy. It's horrible PR. pic.twitter.com/W7njlY6jMu
— Robin LeBlanc, from work (@TheThirstyWench) September 30, 2019
Eisenberger has asked to sit down and meet with MERIT. While the company did not confirm a meeting before this article was released, Sandhu hopes to open a door for members of the community to start communicating with the mayor.
“Conversation is not enough; action needs to follow a conversation . . . You still need to have conversations to get to action . . . We’re trying to do our part. It’s inherent and embedded in what MERIT’s about, from why we are called “MERIT” to what we strive to do here and have be our experience. This is something that we feel is not only our responsibility, it’s our privilege to be able to speak out on these things and it’s something that we are doing because we’re passionate about it,” said Sandu.
Local businesses like MERIT Brewing Company are lending their voice to members of marginalized communities in hopes of not only starting a conversation but also demanding action.
The Silhouette has reached out via email to Ontario Craft Brewers and the office of MPP Sam Oosterhoff for comment; however, we have not received a response.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Sam Marchetti, Contributor
On Sept. 27, I saw something wonderful. In the 10 minute drive from my house to the Oakville GO station on Friday, I saw a class walking the streets with their teachers holding signs up. I saw a group of four high school students at a bus shelter farther down the road, brandishing large signs with phrases like “don’t be a fossil fool” and “I’m skipping lessons so I can teach you one”.
That morning, I made my way down to Queen’s Park in Toronto. I, unfortunately, could not stay for the climate march. But I chanted and stood with those near Queen’s Park station for as long as I could. Anyone who knows me knows that I’ve been concerned about climate change for years. Those who know me best know that I’ve given up hope more than once. It was incredible to know that I was standing with just a small proportion of the millions of people marching around the world. There have been climate strikes and marches before, I have even attended a few of them. Eventually, though, I always ended up feeling defeated. For once, it felt like this time was different.
So, to all of you reading, let this time be different. Our climate emergency is no longer a problem that can be solved by our actions as individuals. We need the governments of the world to stand with us and to implement policies that will curb greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale and at an unprecedented rate. This isn’t an easy task, and it’s one that we certainly will not accomplish through one day of marching and striking in the streets. There are two things we need to do if we want these strikes to mean something.
First and foremost, we need to keep marching. The next time you hear about a climate protest, march, rally or strike, go to it. Don’t second-guess it, just do it. It doesn’t matter if there are another 500,000 people there and it doesn’t matter if there are just five. Most importantly, it doesn’t matter who you are. Whether or not you have contributed so far to this cause, we need you. We need your activism. We need to see you in the streets, to hear you in the media and to help keep our politicians watching us. Keep the momentum going and scream as loud as you can.
The second thing is equally as important: you need to vote. Marching, screaming and getting our politicians to see what we want is meaningless unless we can hold them to it. If we don’t vote, they don’t have to listen to us. It is imperative that we show them that we have the power and that we will not allow them to sit idly while the Earth burns. Register to vote, right now (I’ll even give you the link - www.elections.ca). In October, show up to the polls. Don’t just make your voice heard, make it count.
The marches on Sept. 27, 2019 were incredible. This wasn’t the first time I’ve felt that kind of hope, but I think this time it might not fail me.
This is my plea to you. Let this time be different.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Kayla Freeman, Contributor
Since 2019, metal straws have taken over. Every day, I see at least 50 metal straws in peoples’ beverages. That should be a good thing, right? To some extent it is, but people aren’t choosing sustainability for the right reasons. Using a metal straw is currently a trend, but are metal straws even the right answer to saving our oceans and marine life?
Of course not. Imagine if saving the environment was that easy. Every day, 500 million disposable plastic straws are used and will likely end up in our waterways. This statistic can scare many people into thinking that the solution lies in replacing plastic straws with their metal counterparts. However, many people fail to realize what materials and emissions go into making a metal straw.
The energy used to create one metal straw is roughly equivalent to creating 90 plastic straws, and also produces carbon emissions equivalent to 150 plastic straws. This may not seem like a lot, but in order to offset the environmental impact of creating a metal straw, it must be used over 150 times.
We also need to consider the harsh reality of nickel mining that is necessary in order to create these trendy accessories. The Philippines is a predominant nickel supplier. Much of the soil in Palawan, a major nickel supplier in the Philippines, has been reduced to a wasteland.
Metal straws are not the only items that are made out of nickel, meaning that they are not the sole contributors to the destruction of soil in Palawan. However, they are trendy accessories and are produced excessively. This is evidenced through the variety of designs metal straws are offered in. Our materialist society does not hesitate to contribute to this “fast fashion” accessory, with celebrities such as Jeffree Star capitalizing on the movement by coming out with their own packs of metal straws. The excessive production of metal straws contradicts the environmentalist intentions that they are meant to fulfill.
If you’re purchasing a metal straw, you would assume that it would be made out of metal, right? Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Many of these items are not labelled due to their “eco-friendly” branding strategy as they are not required to list any ingredients since the straw is not being consumed. Safe metal straws should be made with food-grade stainless steel as any other materials may corrode over time. Safe metal straws should be made with food-grade stainless steel as any other materials may corrode over time.
Additionally, painted or coloured straws also pose a risk of either contaminating the drink or containing unsafe chemicals such as Bisphenol A (BPA), which is known to cause an array of health risks. Metal straws might not be the only alternative to disposable plastic straws, but they are very popular because of their durability and cost-effectiveness.
Make no mistake, I think that we should try to be as eco-friendly as possible. But if you are going to opt for a reusable straw, try to purchase locally and support Canadian businesses, such as Glass Sipper. It’s important to keep in mind that when you are trying to be sustainable to be aware of what goes into the production of “eco-friendly alternatives” because sometimes the good intent gets lost in the action.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On March 29, the Ontario government unveiled guidelines for universities to follow in order to comply with the “Student Choice Initiative” policy, which allows students to opt out of paying ancillary fees.
According to the document, students will be allowed to opt out of fees that are allocated towards clubs, student organizations and programs that do not fall into the government’s criteria for essential fees.
Services considered “essential” in the guidelines include “athletics and recreation, career services, student buildings, health and counselling, academic support, student ID cards, student achievement and records, financial aid offices, and campus safety programs.”
As such, much remains unclear about what the student opt-out fee mandate means for the funding of MSU clubs and services next year.
Sean Van Koughnett, McMaster associate vice-president (Students and Learning) and dean of students, confirmed that the opting out process will occur online through the Mosaic system and be part of the regular tuition payment process in September.
McMaster Students Union vice president (Finance) Scott Robinson is working on a final memo to submit to the university student fees committee, outlining exactly what services the MSU wants to deem “essential.”
The government has given each institution the autonomy to determine what falls under the “essential” categories, but there will be penalties if universities are deemed non-compliant with the SCI come this upcoming fall.
“We've been working closely with the university to determine as many of our fees as possible as essential fees,” Robinson said. “The priority for me again has been that students voted at large that we should have a mandatory MSU fee.”
Complicating the budget submission is the fact that the union will not know how much they will receive in student fees until September.
Robinson is basing the official operating budget on the estimate that 35 per cent of students will opt out of non-essential student fees.
At this point, the framework is such that students will be able to choose which “non-essential” individual MSU services to opt out of, but club funding will fall under one fee item.
A source of funding that will help mitigate the loss of student fees is a ‘significant’ MSU reserve fund, which Robinson said has enough to keep the MSU running for two and a half years.
“Things like funding decreases and scale-backs are being planned right now for the budget, but it isn’t like we’re in total doomsday,” Robinson said. “How much money goes towards things will shift, but the MSU is still in a financially safe place to operate.”
The reserve fund will be used primarily to help fund services and clubs.
Robinson says there will not be ‘significant cuts’ planned for student-run services such as the Pride Community Centre and the Food Collective Centre.
The MSU executive board continues to advocate against the SCI.
MSU vice president (Education) Stephanie Bertolo said she and the board have met with nine Conservative and New Democratic Party MPPs so far.
“We don’t want the Student Choice initiative to go forward. That’s our ideal scenario,” Bertolo said. “We’ve asked if they do move forward with the Student Choice Initiative, to delay it a year, because it’s such a crunched timeline.”
Robinson will be submitting the 2019-2020 operating budget to the Student Representative Assembly for approval at the SRA meeting on April 14.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The McMaster Students Union and McMaster University are preparing to re-examine their policies and protocols on sexual violence in light of the recent Student Voices on Sexual Violence report released by the provincial government earlier this month.
The Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey was sent out last year and involved 160,000 students from over 40 Ontario post-secondary institutions outlining their experiences of sexual violence and harassment.
According to the survey, three in five McMaster students disclosed at least one experience of sexual harassment.
Sixty-one per cent of McMaster students said they do not have knowledge of McMaster’s sexual violence supports and services.
A McMaster Daily News article responding to the report states that McMaster has provided sexual violence prevention and response training to more than 8,600 students, staff and faculty over the past year.
Arig al Shaibah, McMaster’s associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion), said the university’s sexual violence education team will begin planning a bystander intervention training program in April.
In response to the report, the university will also shortly be reviewing the McMaster’s sexual violence policy, which was created in 2017.
“We are just in the beginning processes of looking at the policy,” al Shaibah said. “We know the numbers that come through our offices are not necessarily indicative of the full picture, so periodically going out there and being able to anonymously get a good gauge of people’s experiences and perceptions is really important.”
Every year, the EIO releases a report highlighting statistics on disclosures of sexual violence and harassment.
However, al Shaibah said the EIO needs to make sure that definitions used to classify disclosures are standardized.
“We have just improved the way we are collecting and centralizing data,” al Shaibah said. “Moving forward, one of the things we are doing is trying to make sure that everyone in the intake office is using the same definition so that we can start to capture trend data over time.”
MSU vice president (Administration) Kristina Epifano will be revising the current “Workplace Anti-Violence, Harassment, and Sexual Assault Prevention Policy” in response to the survey.
“With these revisions, we will host some feedback sessions, inviting student-staff and volunteers to share some of the challenges they've experienced with policies in the past and recommendations they would like to see moving forward,” Epifano said in an email. “I believe it is important to adapt the policy to highlight different options and courses of action that a survivor can take during the process.”
The provincial report comes against the backdrop of multiple allegations of sexual assault within the MSU Maroons.
On March 29, Farah released a statement addressing the subject, promising a formal investigation.
Nevertheless, Farah states that she hasn’t “found actual reports, anonymous or otherwise, of sexual violence within the Maroons team this year.”
The statement also said Epifano will be standardizing an anonymous online reporting tool used for Marrons for all MSU volunteers.
Jocelyn Heaton, the coordinator of the MSU Women and Gender Equity Network, said the MSU’s steps in addressing sexual violence are helpful, but there remains a lot of work to be done.
“The fact that less than three quarters of students know that there are supports and services available is pretty harmful for people who experience sexual violence,” said Heaton. “Also, knowing that a lot of that group is going to receive a disclosure during their time at university and they're not going to know where to refer people to is harmful as well,” she said.
Heaton also mentioned that there has been no consultation thus far with services like WGEN when it comes to the Maroons incident and revising the MSU’s workplace sexual assault prevention policy.
“As the coordinator of a service, the only service specifically meant to address sexual violence, I was never once consulted or brought in to talk about that situation,” Heaton said. “Students have not been consulted on what the policy should look like.”
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
When I started out as the Opinions Editor for The Silhouette this past year, I admittedly didn’t care much about student politics or governance. I was unfamiliar with the policies of the McMaster Students Union and had no idea what happened during Student Representative Assembly meetings.
Nowadays, I regularly watch the SRA livestreams and perform my due diligence to be aware of changes occurring within the MSU. A large part of that is for my job, but I’ve found that staying informed has benefits beyond finding something to write about.
The purpose of the MSU is to “represent you and to help build a better community for all students”. As the governing body of the MSU, SRA members have a responsibility to represent and lobby on behalf of their students.
It’s only fair then that we as students hold these members, and the MSU in general, accountable for their actions. In doing so, we are ensuring that any changes occurring are truly reflective of the needs and desires of students.
There’s many ways for students can hold these organizations accountable. They can attend SRA meetings, speak to their SRA representative, voice their concerns online or even protest for change.
Alternatively, you can do what I do, and write about your concerns for the campus newspaper. Perhaps some of my criticisms have been harsh or slightly misguided. But at the end of the day, I’m proud of the articles that I’ve written and edited for The Silhouette. Even if they have stepped on some toes, I’d like to think they’ve helped incite some positive changes on campus.
Whether these changes are a fully-stocked Union Market or investigations into MSU-recognized clubs, it’s evident that speaking out on issues is important.
Not everything the SRA or MSU has done has been negative. In fact, they have made some great, positive changes that are deserving of praise, or at the very least, of respect.
A few weeks ago, I had plans to write about the SRA’s contradictory playing of the national anthem and delivery of a land acknowledgment at their meetings. To my surprise, I found that they passed a motion to stop playing the national anthem at their meetings altogether. Things like these are positive changes that students should be aware of.
Of course, there is only so much that students can do. Given the record eight students who attended the General Assembly on March 20, it is obvious that the MSU must do a better job at engaging with their student constituents.
But just because the MSU and SRA have much to improve doesn’t mean that students are off the hook for staying informed. Without student input and advocacy efforts, organizations are given too much power and can make decisions that negatively impact us all.
For example, without the efforts of a few brave survivors telling their experiences with sexual assault within the MSU Maroons, it’s unlikely that the service would be doing anything to account for the issue, much less propose developing a long-overdue sexual assault and harassment policy.
I encourage students to get engaged with their university’s politics. It might seem overwhelming, and the information is certainly not easy to navigate, but it’s important work.
Especially in light of the upcoming changes to post-secondary education made by the provincial government, it is in the best interests of all students to be engaged with their union’s activities.
My term at The Silhouette is reaching a close. I’ve learned a lot during my time working for the newspaper but my biggest takeaway is that student politics affects us all, including those outside of the MSU bubble. For our own sake, we ought to keep our student organizations accountable for their actions.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The McMaster Students Union recognizes over 350 clubs. According to the MSU Clubs page, the purpose of these clubs is to “provide an insightful and meaningful contribution to the McMaster and Hamilton community.”
Being a MSU recognized club affords certain privileges including being eligible for funding from the MSU. This funding comes directly from the MSU organizational fee, a $130.26 fee that all full-time undergraduate students pay. Within this fee, $8.02 are collected per student to support MSU clubs.
As students are paying for the operations of these clubs, the MSU has a responsibility to ensure that these clubs are not deliberately sharing and promoting misinformation that can be harmful to students.
McMaster Lifeline is the pro-life group on campus. Their mission statement is “to advocate with loving care the legal rights and social support of pregnant women and their unborn children.”
While the presence of a pro-life group on campus is already cause for controversy, the issue at hand is not solely the groups’ existence but that they use student space and resources to share information that is factually incorrect.
The group can often be found at a table in the McMaster University Student Centre, a privilege of being a MSU club, spreading scientifically false information on abortions and reproductive health. In addition to misinformation, the group is known for distributing graphic and potentially triggering images.
Groups like McMaster Lifeline should not be given a platform by the MSU to disseminate false information about individuals’ health.
Namely, the group fails to state that abortions are safe, medical procedures that are fully legal in Canada. Instead, they spread the false rhetoric that “abortions are never medically necessary”, which is simply a lie.
In fact, any student-run group on campus does not really have the credentials to provide healthcare information or advice to students. Abortion is a serious topic that should be discussed with a healthcare professional who can provide factual, non-judgemental information, not with students who some of which have “no experience engaging with people on the topic.”
The MSU should be cautious in ratifying clubs that provide this type of information, as the results can be extremely harmful to students.
With over 350 clubs, it can be difficult for the MSU to ensure that operations of each of their clubs are aligned with the core goal of supporting students. However, that is not an excuse for allowing this behaviour to occur.
Multiple students have on many occasions voiced their concerns against these clubs’ actions. The MSU failing to take action blatantly goes against their responsibility towards their student constituents.
The MSU Clubs Operating Policy states that the MSU “will not attempt to censor, control or interfere with any existing MSU club on the basis of its philosophy, beliefs, interests or opinions expressed until these lead to activities which are illegal or which infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others”.
Due to this policy, on March 22, pro-choice students who were protesting McMaster Lifeline’s table in MUSC were removed and not allowed to distribute pro-choice pamphlets. A claimed “victory for free speech on campus” by the MSU only served to help promote the misinformation on campus.
While the actions of McMaster Lifeline may not be illegal, they certainly are harmful to students and may actually be violating the Clubs Judicial Policy, stated under the MSU Clubs Operating Policy.
Specifically, their actions may be considered to “unnecessarily cause a significant nuisance for an individual or group” (5.1.1.3), have “conduct unbecoming of an MSU club” (5.1.2.7) and most importantly, actions that “unnecessarily jeopardize the safety or security of any person or property” (5.1.3.3).
If the MSU truly wishes to provide a meaningful contribution to the McMaster and Hamilton community, it can begin with properly investigating clubs that may be found guilty of any offences described by the Clubs Judicial Policy. Only then can they truly ensure that their clubs support and protect McMaster students.
If students do wish to learn about their options with respect to their reproductive health, the Student Wellness Centre offers birth control counselling. If a student wishes to speak in a more informal setting, the MSU Student Health Education Centre offers relevant literature, referrals and peer support.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
