By: Neda Pirouzmand
One of the key issues that the MSU points out in the “Health and Wellness” policy paper is that referrals from the Student Wellness Centre are not tailored to the needs of students.
The MSU suggests that the SWC neglects to account for how students will reach community referrals or how much it will cost them.
The policy paper brings forward a number of recommendations to combat these issues, proposing the SWC connect with MSU peer support services to provide support for McMaster’s diverse student population.
The MSU also recommends that the SWC offer harm reduction services and feedback opportunities to students.
The policy paper also includes recommendations for other university stakeholders, suggesting that professors and teaching assistants be required to undergo mental health first aid training.
According to this policy paper, McMaster off-campus resource centre resources are underused by students. The OCRC has not posted on Facebook since April 2017.
Another issue is that demand is overtaking supply in the student housing market. The quantity and quality of available housing opportunities is on the decline.
In light of these issues, the MSU recommends the city of Hamilton to proceed with its proposed investment of $347,463 to hire three full-time employees for a two-year rental licensing pilot project beginning in 2019 to annually inspect buildings in Hamilton.
The MSU also suggests that McMaster seek more public-private partnerships to improve the supply of nearby student housing.
This policy paper first notes that McMaster has a ten year plan to make its campus “car free,” which would reduce accessibility by moving the HSR bus stop from University and Sterling Street to the McMaster Go bus station.
According to the paper, another accessibility concern lies in the fact that most McMaster professors neither consider nor actively incorporate strategies and recommendations outlined in McMaster’s accessibility resources.
The paper also points out that learning materials are often inequitable and the university has significant work to do when it comes to promoting and implementing accessible pedagogy.
The MSU puts forward a number of recommendations to improve the university’s accessibility practices.
The paper argues that all professors teaching in rooms fitted for podcasting should post podcasts and use accessible formats for supplementary class material.
In addition, the paper suggests that intramurals reduce their pre-playoff participation requirement from 50 to 30 per cent, as students with disabilities may not be able to make all games.
According to the paper, student accessibility services should have an open catalogue for student notes, where students in need would not be limited to resources from one student.
The dominant issue highlighted in this policy paper is the fact that faculty staff and many student groups do not receive mandatory anti-oppressive practices training.
In addition, according to the paper, McMaster Security Services has been involved in the excessive carding and racial profiling of students.
Another issue concerns the fact that there exists no record-keeping system of student demographics in relation to enrollment and dropout rates by faculty.
Students are also largely unaware of the McMaster Religious, Spiritual, and Indigenous Observances policy.
Some recommendations in the paper call for McMaster to explore alternative enrollment application streams for underrepresented groups.
The paper also suggests that applicants looking for research funding from Mcmaster identify how their research will appeal to or account for marginalized populations.
According to the paper, McMaster should mandate equity and diversity requirements for all undergrads.
Chairs of hiring committees, security staff, teaching assistants and faculty members should undergo mandatory AOP training.
Another recommendation calls for the EIO to investigate carding and racial profiling trends centered around McMaster Security Services.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Lauren Olsen
Last January, McMaster University’s president Patrick Deane took a stand and banned all forms of smoking on school grounds, making McMaster Ontario's first 100 per cent tobacco and smoke free campus. This included banning the on-campus use of cigarettes, cigars, hookah, pot and most importantly, the ever-popular vape pens.
The ban on campus was a welcome sight for those opposed to tobacco, however, the ineffectiveness of enforcing this policy rendered the ban as a bland suggestion rather than a legitimate rule.
You can witness this phenomenon simply by walking around campus. You won’t make it far before encountering students vaping in direct violation of the McMaster ‘ban’, with their discretion being non-existent. Students can be found vaping in classrooms, lecture halls, residences and around campus.
Recently, there was an opening of the 180 Smoke Vape Shop in Westdale which will only further support and make accessible the habits of smokers. The store offers everything including e-cigarettes, vape juice, pens and portable vaporizers, and is located just a short walk from McMaster University.
They are attracting not only smokers who may be trying to quit, but others who lack the proper information about the hazards associated with vaping, and may only be concerned with becoming part of the current trend. They are promoting this product as a commercialized, socially-acceptable activity rather than a helpful addiction quitting strategy for tobacco smokers.
For McMaster students, it’s just a short stroll to a readily-available addiction which is now a booming industry. According to BBC News, the number of vapers has increased rapidly — from about seven million in 2011 to 35 million in 2016. The global vaping products market is now estimated to be worth up to $22.6 billion USD.
The rapid growth of the industry is not a victimless development. New products need new users and stores like 180 Smoke Vape Shop will likely be getting their customer base from McMaster.
Other than perpetuating the ‘look’ and fueling the industry, students are playing with fire and risking addiction. Although e-cigarettes do not contain any tar, carbon monoxide or other chemicals found in tobacco smoke, they still mimic the familiar action of a smoker and can be addictive. What used to be a method to quit is now becoming a method to start, and making smoking acceptable again.
The smoking population who are slowly cutting back their nicotine addiction to quit smoking have made way for the young adults who are peer-pressured by the new “cool” thing to do and, in turn, are becoming dependent on the addictive drug.
Harvard Health Publishing describes the side effects of vaping to include the potential of diabetes, loss of impulse control, impairment of brain development and elevated heart rate and blood pressure. Thus, the antidote is quickly becoming the poison.
I am not advocating that McMaster shutdown 180 Smoke Vape Shop, or campaign to influence public policy. Rather, the university should enforce the very rule they promised in early 2018, in order to make McMaster a safer environment and community.
Creating a ban was a novel idea, but not following is more than just lazy enforcement — it is potentially dangerous to student health.
More and more youth will be exposed and persuaded to try vaping, which easily perpetuates an addiction whose lasting health implications are still being determined. Moreover, the campus itself is not an inviting space with smoke billowing from its hallways and paths. It’s time to inhale the future and start enforcing the smoking ban on campus.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Drew Simpson
As of Oct. 17, Canadians 19 or older, including the majority of McMaster students, will be able to legally possess up to 30 grams of cannabis and purchase weed from the Ontario Cannabis Store and regulated retailers. However, despite the update in federal legislation, McMaster is staying firmly committed to its smoking ban.
As defined by McMaster’s “Tobacco & Smoke-Free University Policy,” smoking includes “inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any cigar, cigarette pipe or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product… including hookahs and cannabis whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form.”
When it comes to students’ ability to smoke in their off-campus houses, landlords have the authority to permit or disallow cannabis. However, landlords cannot limit any other forms of cannabis consumption.
Students living in residence at the university have to sign the Residence Act. Surprisingly, the 2018-2019 Residence Act outlines restrictions on alcohol consumption and possession in residences, but does not mention cannabis at all. Despite this, Sean Van Koughnett, the dean of students at McMaster, has referred to those same alcohol consumption rules as a framework for regulating cannabis within residences.
Specifically, Van Koughnett says that students will be allowed to possess cannabis in residences and on campus as long as what they carry adheres to specific amounts specified in legislation. The specific amount stipulated in the cannabis act is up to 30 grams. It appears that the rules for cannabis consumption in residence will follow those for alcohol consumption.
Regarding edible possession, universities like the University of Toronto limit edible and oil consumption to the privacy of one’s residence room. However, Andrea Farquhar, assistant vice-president of McMaster communication and public affairs, speaks of potentially only allowing manufacturer labelled edibles and oils, with the goal being to limit mixing.
According to Farquhar, if cannabis is consumed straight from the container it was sold in, it must be labelled by the manufacturer. Consuming cannabis oil from any unlabelled container is not permitted. For instance, one cannot leave unlabelled edibles in a residence refrigerator.
Farquhar understands how difficult it is to enforce rules like this, but still aims to make the expectation known.
Edibles will not be sold by regulated stores until July 2019, however, giving McMaster and other universities much more time to clarify their rules regarding edible cannabis.
Moreover, the Cannabis Act allows possession but limits the transportation of cannabis. In particular, cannabis cannot be readily available to any person within a vehicle. This section fits neatly into McMaster’s rules as the university’s policy also bans smoking, including cannabis, within vehicles on McMaster property.
A concern that the university’s policy fails to address is growing cannabis. Nevertheless, it is clear that Canadian universities are largely seeking to prevent students from growing cannabis in residences. Odour is the most popular argument backing this decision.
Currently, McMaster’s smoke-free policy also does not address research-related smoking. While the Cannabis Act allows research as an exception to smoke-free policies, McMaster has never addressed research as an exception to its rules.
After Oct. 17, as long as students are over 19, purchase cannabis from regulated stores and consume it privately, they are within the law. However, key questions remain unanswered and some McMaster rules may need fresh examination amid legalization.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
by Ruchika Gothoskar
Doug Ford, Ontario’s new premier, has set out guidelines that give Ontario universities until Jan. 1, 2019 to develop a free speech policy on campus, a hot-button topic among the Progressive Conservative party after several high-profile incidents involving speakers with conservative views.
McMaster is no stranger to such engagements, after the highly contentious appearance of controversial psychology professor Jordan Peterson at McMaster in 2017, when his lecture was shut down by protestors.
The PC government made it clear that Ontario colleges and universities must come up with free speech policies that “include a definition of freedom of speech and adhere to principles based on the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression”.
The University of Chicago’s document currently states that colleges and university are places for open and free discussion, that institutions should not shield students from ideas they disagree with or find offensive and that university or college community members cannot obstruct the freedom of others to share their views. Should Ontario post-secondary institution fail to implement this policy, they risk facing major funding cuts.
The reality of this situation is that we have had this conversation before, many times. McMaster began creating an anti-disruption policy in 2017, a draft that outlines acceptable methods to protest appearances by polarizing figures. The document was created by the university's committee on protest and freedom of expression in response to an increasingly polarized political and social climate where protests on campus are becoming more common place.
The question now is not whether or not McMaster will adhere to Ford’s demands on free speech policies, simply because we know that McMaster’s already been eager to shut down disruptions and allow for “free discussion” from the jump. What needs to be thought about now is who this policy is hurting, and what kind of dog whistle is embedded in the creation of policies like these.
Implementing school wide policies that do not allow for things like trigger warnings or safe spaces are ultimately harmful for everyone involved. These content disclaimers and spaces allow for individuals to decide how or if they want to engage. For people who experience trauma, such as sexual assault or attempted suicide, unexpected re-exposure to traumatic events can provoke a strong negative emotional response, impeding on their ability to learn and interact appropriately.
Furthermore, the threat of cut funding is one that hits home for many. Playing around with an institution's funding is a bold declaration. Many, if not all, post secondary institutions admit students, hire staff and create boards on the sole and main expectation that they can honour employment contracts or periods of study. This makes non-compliance with the free speech policies high risk, putting not only students’ livelihoods at stake, but also administrators’ and educators’.
Realistically, when implemented, policies like these do nothing but reduce advocacy for minority groups and the left hand political spectrum, leave students without a voice and further silence those who already come from marginalized backgrounds. Activist and writer Nora Loreto says it best, “free speech is freedom from reprisals from the state. This [policy], instead, is a stunning attack on the free speech of anyone in the university of college community.”
Oftentimes, when individuals speak out on acts of oppression, such as sexism or ableism, they are told that they are being politically correct. This ultimately derails the conversation and forgoes an opportunity for a mutually beneficial learning experience, counterproductive to the nature of university. With political correctness and trigger warnings, we are still able to have difficult conversations. And we should; being uncomfortable is often necessary in learning as it means we are challenging what we know and critically engaging with what is presented to us. Adopting a politically correct perspective ensures that these conversations are constructive and that we recognize our words for what they are: impactful.
Against the backdrop of federal and provincial government efforts aimed at addressing sexual violence, McMaster University implemented a sexual violence policy in January 2017 and the Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey in February 2018. According to the McMaster Students Union, however, the university needs to take a more intersectional approach to the problem of sexual violence.
In February and March 2018, students at post-secondary institutions across the province were invited via email to complete the Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey, which was mandated by the Ontario government as part of the “It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment” legislation.
Included in the Ontario government’s plan are amendments to the ministry of training, colleges and universities act of 1990, which requires post-secondary institutions in the province to participate in a student survey pertaining to sexual violence.
The legislation also calls for Ontario universities to construct a sexual violence response policy and report on sexual violence and student support to the minister of advanced education and skills development.
“The plan is the foundation for a public education and awareness campaign on sexual violence, harassment and other unwanted and inappropriate behaviour. We launched this plan because every person in this province has the right to feel safe — whether at home, work or school or in their community,” said Yanni Dagonas, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development.
The Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey was developed in consultation with members of student groups, private career colleges, public colleges and universities and sexual violence researchers. CCI Research refined the survey and approved it for pre-testing and focus groups in the fall of 2017.
In addition, since 2015, the ministry’s sexual violence reporting advisory committee has been giving the ministry involved with the survey insight about the prevalence of sexual violence at post-secondary institutions in the province.
The survey will be used to guide institutions towards addressing issues related to sexual violence and improve services, policies and awareness about sexual violence.
“The Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey is an important tool for gathering information from postsecondary students about their experiences, general attitudes, and beliefs related to personal safety and sexual violence,” read part of a statement on the website of the survey.
The survey will allow post-secondary students to report on issues pertaining to sexual violence on campus, including sexual assault, sexual harassment and sexual exploitation. Questions in the survey concern topics such as awareness of protocols and services available to survivors and students’ experiences with unwanted behaviours and sexual violence.
The implementation of the survey comes in the wake of the federal government’s recent promise to improve financial support for sexual assault crisis centres in Canadian post-secondary institutions. In particular, as part of its 2018 federal budget, the Trudeau government called for $5.5 million to be provided through the ministry for the status of women Canada to universities over the next five years.
Nevertheless, the federal government explicitly stated that universities that do not adopt “best practices” may have their federal funding stripped as early as 2019.
Although the Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey was developed and released in February 2016, predating the federal government’s announcement, the recent implementation of the survey at universities including McMaster has raised questions about the motivations underlying it.
However, according to Meaghan Ross, McMaster’s sexual violence response coordinator, the university has yet to be informed about what the government means by best practices. When asked if she believes that McMaster is implementing best practices, Ross said that the university has been taking a number of steps to support survivors and tackle the issue of sexual violence.
For instance, in 2015, Ross was hired as the sexual violence response coordinator at the university’s office of human rights and equity services office. In her role, Ross facilitates the implementation of McMaster’s sexual violence response protocol to address disclosures of gender-based and sexual violence, responds to individual disclosures and launches prevention and education initiatives in the campus community.
When asked if she believes that McMaster is implementing best practices, Ross said that the university has been taking a number of steps to support survivors and tackle the issue of sexual violence.
In January 2015, the university released its sexual violence response protocol, which guides members of the campus community to respond to individuals who disclose incidents of sexual and gender-based violence in a consistent and survivor-centred fashion.
Two years later, McMaster ratified its sexual violence policy, which stipulates the university’s commitment to addressing sexual violence and explains what options survivors and complainants can take to obtain support and disclose and report incidents of sexual violence.
Specifically, the policy highlights how survivors can take a criminal reporting route or a non-criminal one. It specifies that individuals who opt to take either a criminal or other path may have to attend a hearing, either through the university, arbitration or criminal court.
The policy also outlines Ross’s role, the importance of confidentiality, support services for survivors and investigation and adjudication processes that may take place should an individual file a complaint of sexual violence to the university.
“The start of 2018 marked the first full year that all of Ontario’s publicly assisted colleges and universities had a standalone sexual violence and harassment policy in place,” said Dagonas. “This milestone marks a crucial foundational step in the work we’re doing together to address and prevent sexual violence on campuses across the province.”
The McMaster Students Union, however, believes that Ontario universities need to be doing more to tackle the problem, something their advocacy team highlighted in their sexual violence prevention and response policy paper which was presented to the Student Representative Assembly on March 11.
The paper was researched and written over the course of the last few months and completed at the last MSU policy conference. According to the policy paper, the university should be bringing a more intersectional approach to address the problem of sexual violence.
“The services provided by McMaster University should be informed by a recognition of the intersectional nature of sexual violence, in which individuals’ race, ability, indigeneity and socio-economic status, among other factors, can render them vulnerable on multiple fronts,” reads part of the report.
The policy paper includes initiatives aimed at preventing sexual violence, such as inviting guests who help dismantle rape culture rather than normalize it. It also emphasizes the need for improvements to campus infrastructure, such as increased lighting at night, citing a Laurier University study that revealed that women and marginalized students tend to feel less safe.
The paper also calls for more accurate tracking of data, inclusion of specific data such as students’ demographic information, increased transparency with the public through the release of yearly sexual violence incident reports and the addition of counselors who are trained in anti-oppressive practices.
The policy paper includes initiatives aimed at preventing sexual violence, such as inviting guests who help dismantle rape culture rather than normalize it.
The paper argues that McMaster’s sexual violence policy lacks consideration of how the policy may need to be applied differently in the context of racialized men as opposed to white men as racialized men are increasingly subjected to racial discrimination in the judicial system.
“Traditional narratives of racism, and their role in propagating inequities in criminal convictions, must be acknowledged in the language used within the McMaster policy, and McMaster must further make an effort to propose strategies to address and prevent biased rulings,” read part of the paper.
The paper also argues that university should implement mandatory bystander intervention training and consider that institutions such as police services, which may be involved in a criminal reporting context, may limit people of colour from reporting incidents of sexual violence to the university.
McMaster has made strides in its response sexual violence. According to the research done by the MSU, however, the role that identity plays in shaping students’ perceptions and experiences of sexual violence continues to be overlooked.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Feb. 15, the university released its first draft of guidelines highlighting McMaster’s commitment to freedom of expression and what it deems acceptable limits to protest. Campus activists are concerned that the guidelines unfairly constrain dissent and silence marginalized voices.
The guidelines were based on a report developed by the ad hoc committee on protest and freedom of expression. Members were selected by Patrick Deane in consultation with groups including the McMaster University Faculty Association, McMaster Students Union and Graduate Students Association.
McMaster announced their intent to consider issues of protest and freedom of expression on May 3, 2017, two months following the Jordan Peterson protests on campus.
The report outlines a number of recommendations for the university, such as the development of an online lecture series aimed at improving education about topics such as free speech and activism. The report recommends that the series be sponsored by the MacPherson Institute.
“I have found the MacPherson Institute useful, with getting help and expert knowledge about teaching, active learning and the like,” said Neil McLaughlin, a member of the committee. “I have improved my own teaching working with them, but there has not yet been a concerted effort to address directly some of the most controversial issues.”
“We are dealing with more issues than was the case in the past. We all have things to learn, and debate.”
Neil McLaughlin
Committee member
Ad hoc committee on protest and freedom of expression
The guidelines list examples of what the university would consider acceptable and unacceptable protest. Generally speaking, the guidelines list any sort of behaviour that would impede an event’s progression as unacceptable, such as blocking the audience’s view by standing or preventing the audience from paying attention to the speaker.
“I think universities across Canada, and certainly in the US, could benefit from more attention to the dynamics of dealing with highly controversial and politically contentious issues than we have given to the topic,” said McLaughlin.
“We are dealing with more issues than was the case in the past. We all have things to learn, and debate.”
In addition to articulating the university’s stance on freedom of expression and protest, the new freedom of expression guidelines stress the responsibility for event organizers to communicate and enforce them.
In particular, in the event that dissenters do not adhere to the guidelines, organizers or moderators are asked to first inform the individual or group that they are disrupting the event and will be asked to leave should they persist. If they continue to interfere, Security Services can take action.
Although it is stated in the guidelines that speaking events should only be cancelled in extreme cases, it remains unclear what constitutes an extreme case.
Campus activists are concerned that the guidelines will unfairly constrain protest and harm marginalized groups in the community.
According to one activist, who asked to be anonymous, the guidelines excessively infringe on the right to civil disobedience.
“As an organizer, this puts me both in a dangerous position and in a position that forces me to keep silent, narrowing what I can and cannot do or say,” said the activist, who argues that white supremacy and bigotry will persist in the face of a lack of accountability.
While the university believes the new guidelines will curtail disruption efforts, activists are encouraging students to reject them.
The university secretariat will receive feedback on the guidelines until March 30.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The original image used online for this article was not the one used in print, and has been switched for consistency.
McMaster has released the first public draft of its guidelines on protest and free speech on campus, in which it outlines what the university considers acceptable forms of protest at campus events. The university released two documents: a report of their own findings and a guideline draft.
In the report released from the ad hoc committee on protest and freedom of expression, McMaster laid out the rationale behind recommending the creation of a statement from the university on freedom of expression.
The report argues that the university needs a formalized process to address issues that arise as the political climate becomes more polarized and is meant to address the conflict the right to expression may have with commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion.
In addition to recommending a formalized protest policy, the report also recommends the university create an online lecture series on topics such as free speech and activism to better inform the public and develop resources for instructors who teach controversial or potentially challenging material.
According to the guidelines document, The rules and recommendations laid out are meant to commit McMaster to creating an environment that harbours a free exchange of ideas and respectful debate. In its current form, the guidelines would be applied to all members of the McMaster community and any invited guests. According to the report from the ad hoc committee and stated in the guidelines draft, events will only be shut down in extreme cases where student safety is at risk.
“The temptation to ‘shut down’ or prevent events from occurring is troubling. Censorship is not an option. There are very narrow grounds under which McMaster should restrict or stop a speaker or an event, essentially those dealt with in federal and provincial laws governing harassment, libel, slander and hate speech,” the report stated.
The guidelines lists examples of what it deems acceptable and unacceptable dissent, meant to guide those curious on what behaviours are acceptable. For example, the guidelines lists picketing as acceptable, so long as it does not impede on the access to the event.
In addition, the guidelines address the manner in which events should occur and encourage event organizers to include question and answer periods, encourage open lines of communication with dissenting groups before and throughout the event, arrange formal responses from dissenting groups in advance if deemed appropriate and use non-partisan moderators in the case that the subject matter is particularly controversial.
The guidelines also advise event organizers to ensure their events are safe and accessible by working with the Environmental & Occupational Health Support Services and McMaster Security Services.
The guidelines list using or threatening violence either the audience or speaker, inciting violence or hatred either verbally or through visuals, physical intimidating audiences or speakers, endangering safety and causing damage to property as unacceptable behaviour.
If dissenters are found to violate these recommendations, event organizers are encouraged to first ask individuals to stop and then ask them to leave before getting McMaster Security Services involved. The guidelines state that those who violate or appear to violate laws or university policies will be investigated in accordance to the university’s usual processes.
For those who wish to submit feedback to the guidelines, the university encourages the McMaster community to email the university secretariat ([email protected]) by Mar. 30, 2018.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Vanessa Polojac
On Jan. 18 and 19, the SRA by-election took place. This is when Student Representative Assembly, the governing body of the MSU that is composed of undergraduate students elect new members inside specific academic faculties.
During these elections, Josh Arbess was elected as a representative for SRA (Engineering) and Kenzie Shin as a representative for SRA (Kinesiology). Sergio Raez Villanueva claimed the SRA (Science) seat, with no others running for the position.
The McMaster Students Union serves students in two main areas: political representation and the enhancement of student life. They provide political representation and advocate for decisions that are in students’ best interests at the university, municipal, provincial and federal levels.
Josh Arbess is a Level I Engineering student. During his time on the SRA, Arbess plans to introduce and advocate for many initiatives that will benefit Engineering students, and the entire undergraduate body on campus.
He advocates for better representation of diversity by raising attention to groups supporting minorities in engineering, and ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard through a more coherent system for religious and spiritual accommodations in regards to academics.
“Through the SRA, I can advocate for the needs and requests of the faculty ensuring that engineering students voices are heard,” said Arbess.
Transit is another issue that Arbess is willing to address while on the SRA. He hopes to increase bus service on key university routes and promises to improve religious, Indigenous and spiritual observances with more diversity in university clubs and initiatives.
Additionally, Arbess plans to educate the faculty body on what the SRA does, and how they can get more involved in MSU operations.
“Speaking with a number of my peers, very few of them knew what the SRA did, or even what it was, before this election,” said Arbess.
Arbess believes that accountability measures, such as increasing the use of social media to publicize initiatives and meeting information, will get more students involved in the governance that affects their university experience.
Arbess also believes accessibility and communication are crucial to being a student leader. To become an active advocate, Arbess will also hold and participate in office hours, attending all times mandated in addition to chatting with peers about issues affecting them outside of regular office hours.
“Speaking with a number of my peers, very few of them knew what the SRA did, or even what it was, before this election.”
Josh Arbess, SRA (Engineering)
Third time’s the charm for Kenzie Shin who has already run twice prior to her third and final election run. Shin is a Level IV Kinesiology student. Shin’s platform focuses on transit and cost reduction in regards to university hospitality services.
Shin promises to uphold her position and represent all kinesiology students.
Shin hopes to advocate for the installation of WiFi to inaccessible spaces on campus such as bus stops. Her platform also focuses on lowering food costs and reducing taxes.
Both Arbess and Shin will work to provide the best possible MSU services and departments, represent and address the concerns of undergraduate students, and lobby the university to improve McMaster’s academic quality.
The representatives are vocal about getting the McMaster community involved with the MSU. To find out if there is a position open in your faculty, or for further information on running for a position within the SRA, contact the MSU chief returning officer at [email protected].
By: Alex Bak
A university is a place of academia and should serve to prioritize the enhancement of knowledge and provide opportunities for character growth.
Last year when University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson came to lecture on free speech and political correctness at McMaster, he was met with student protestors and was unable to deliver his complete lecture.
Seeing as he had to move the lecture outdoors and would abruptly interrupted, McMaster was met with a poor reputation in protecting free speech.
Freedom to speak one’s mind is an integral aspect to understanding complex issues by developing ideas on different perspectives.
McMaster’s forthcoming anti-disruption policy addresses the global criticisms that the university has had with censorship and the lack of protection for freedom of speech.
With outstanding rankings globally and nationally for academics, the dismissive “D” in protecting free speech that McMaster received needs to be addressed.
Seeing as he had to move the lecture outdoors and would abruptly interrupted, McMaster was met with a poor reputation in protecting free speech.
This policy will work to McMaster guests like Peterson to share their ideas and perspectives without being met with a bullhorn.
Though this may limit speech in one capacity or another, the policy will ultimately allow for a more respectful manner of speech and controlled discussion where one’s views can be shared in a more organized manner. The policy will protect free speech, not limit it.
The anti-disruption policy usually deals with anti-protesters and is often charged with increasing marginalization of minority groups and attenuating their voices.
McMaster’s forthcoming anti-disruption policy addresses the global criticisms that the university has had with censorship and the lack of protection for freedom of speech.
This topic brings out a very important and controversial debate on whether unregulated, resolute freedom to speak one’s mind is necessary for equality or if there needs to be a change to enable equity in speech.
Given the ethical framework that the policy will undergo in the development process, marginalized voices will still be heard just as equally as other voices deserve to be.
The policy will merely prevent students and others from blocking, obstructing, disrupting or interrupting speech at campus events.
According to Patrick Deane, the new policy will be tailored to engage “in developing guidelines around the limits to acceptable protest intended to assist event organizers and participants, as well as those seeking to engage in protest, rather than an anti-disruption policy”.
Although this sounds more like a political response than a forward answer, it sparked a thought that perhaps a policy built around set indices for the topics discussed by guest lecturers and protest governed with set parameters and recommendations may be the solution for the unique McMaster community.
An adoption of a policy that is balanced between assessing acceptable levels of protest and gauging the ethical values of the guest speaker can produce a healthy medium for learning; one in which neither of the groups are overly censored or their voices unheard.
The policy will enable for guests and groups to be respected and allow for diversity of opinion to be heard rather than shut out by the sound of protesting bullhorns.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Following the events of Homecoming, particularly the streetwide party on Dalewood Ave. on Sept. 30, ward 1 councillor Aidan Johnson has tabled to permanently add more bylaw officers to the Westdale and Ainslie Wood area, the two neighbourhoods surrounding McMaster University. This pilot program began in Dec. 2016.
The motion passed, with only ward 3 councillor Matthew Green and ward 15 councillor Judi Partridge opposed.
Vice president (Education) Ryan Deshpande and associate vice president (Municipal Affairs) Stephanie Bertolo spoke on behalf of the McMaster Students Union, arguing that the proposal unfairly targets students who are still learning bylaws.
Councillor Green argued that over-policing of students only worsens student retainment for the city, a sentiment echoed by Deshpande.
When the initial program was proposed last year, the MSU was consulted during its planning. During the Dec. meeting, Johnson said he had contacted all of the neighbourhood groups, which is true if one follows the list on his website, which does not list the MSU as a neighbourhood group.
Deshpande maintains that the bylaw officer program wrongfully targets students instead of addressing absentee landlords in the area that contributes to property devaluation.
The cost of fines is just offloaded to students, says Ryan Deshpande, MSU VP education. It does nothing to crack down on absentee landlords
— Samantha Craggs (@SamCraggsCBC) October 3, 2017
For those interested in learning more, contact ward 1 councillor Aidan Johnson or vice president (Education), Ryan Deshpande.
https://twitter.com/rydesh/status/915237366129991681
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
