Photo by Cindy Cui / Photo Editor 

By Anonymous

The Silhouette needs to do a better job of scrutinizing student politics, especially pertaining to the McMaster Students Union. A free press is essential to holding governing bodies  accountable, but unfortunately, the Silhouette is letting the McMaster Students Union get away with a lot more than it should.

Currently, the Silhouette’s news section is mostly a pro-establishment mouthpiece: it gives the MSU a platform to broadcast its messages, but rarely challenges what the MSU puts out. Critical and insightful articles on political issues, such as the Maroons investigation, are the exception when they should be the norm.

For example, last month, in the midst of the Student Choice Initiative opt-out period, the Silhouette simply summarized political talking points from the MSU board of directors, instead of seriously analyzing or critiquing what our student government had to say. As a result, the MSU is able to brush its problems under the rug, and the Silhouette rarely bothers to question what the MSU publicly says. This apathy is unfortunately not new. 

In 2016, the Student Representative Assembly ordered the MSU to lobby for the removal of Glenn De Caire, McMaster’s director of Parking and Security Services. While the Silhouette has covered two protests against De Caire and a tribunal case, the Silhouette has never reported on how the MSU responded. Even though the MSU has failed to produce results for the past three years, the Silhouette has neglected to report on why this is the case, or call out our student leaders for failing at their jobs.

In July, when MSU president Joshua Marando called for the Student Representative Assembly to de-ratify the Dominion Society, the Silhouette closely followed the MSU’s lead. Rather than asking difficult questions — such as why Marando personally voted to ratify the club on July 21, despite an SRA member publicly voicing concerns on June 23 about alleged white supremacist connections — the Silhouette simply copied and pasted from his public statement for their news headline. Rather than holding our elected officials accountable for overlooking the white supremacy concerns, the Silhouette literally parroted the words of a politician scrambling to contain a political scandal.

Finally, just last Thursday, the Silhouette reported that the SRA de-ratified the Chinese Students and Scholars Association — a full week after Hong Kong’s SCMP got there first — but quickly retracted their online article. The article failed to acknowledge the evidence in the The Globe & Mail of the CSSA’s connections to the Chinese Communist Party, failed to consider any of the documents on the SRA website and failed to investigate rumours that the MSU board has been trying to avoid or hush this issue.

I am not alleging that there is censorship — after all, these examples have each received at least some coverage in the Silhouette. Rather, the Silhouette rarely follows up on political articles, thus allowing the MSU to simply wait for controversies to blow over. What limited political coverage there is usually just summarizes or repeats what the MSU says, such as with the Dominion Society. Anything more substantial, such as last week’s CSSA article, is often not thoroughly investigated.

The articles on the MSU’s failed lobbying strategies regarding De Caire, the real reasons behind the clubs department’s recommendation to ratify the Dominion Society (after having already heard of white supremacy concerns) and the MSU board’s mysterious avoidance of the CSSA issue could all easily be front page headlines. This makes the Silhouette’s lack of reporting all the more inexplicable. 

If the Silhouette is going to prioritize sundry stories like new buildings on campus over political controversies in the MSU, then their content is insufficient. Students are kept in the dark about the MSU’s internal problems, voter turnout is low because of our student paper reporting in-depth on politics only once a year during presidential elections and the lack of public scrutiny means the MSU board feels little pressure to treat the SRA as anything more than a rubber stamp.

We need a dedicated section for student politics, like with sports or arts and culture, to provide in-depth, year-round political coverage. Alternatively, at the very least, there could be a designated political correspondent, or the news section could up the quantity and quality of their political stories.

A student paper that uncovers the ongoings of the MSU each week would significantly help improve transparency, students would be engaged with politics year-round and ultimately, the MSU would become more democratic due to improved public oversight. The Maroons investigation is merely a taste of what’s possible if only the Silhouette was more inquisitive and kept the MSU on its toes.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

In November of last year, a small act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code was introduced to the Senate. The purpose of this was to help protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources.

There are two, main situations this would apply in. The first is allowing a journalist testifying in court to refuse to disclose information, except if the information cannot be obtained otherwise and if public interest in justice outweighs public interest in the source’s confidentiality. The second is that search warrants and court orders may only be issued for that information if there is no other way to obtain it or if the tradeoff for public interest in the first case applies.

There are a few other protections and contingencies, but those are the big ones. It is a decent start that has been long overdue. Gord Johns, an MP for the NDP, noted, “We need to follow the examples of countries such as Australia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom in developing a shield law.”

While student newspapers across the country have largely been exempt from major controversy, there is a problem with this bill. How do you define what a journalist is?

This has changed over the months from being too broad to being too narrow. As of June 20, the definition of those protected with this bill is limited to only those whose main occupation is journalism. Freelancers and student journalists are not covered as a result.

While it is unlikely we would need to use anonymous sources in any circumstance in the near future, the inability to do so and the knowledge this is the case continues to put a barrier on what we can cover. If we cannot legally protect a source, why would a source ever come to us with a big story?

It is a rough situation caught up in semantics. My main fear is that we will be unable to be the check and balance McMaster deserves when the students most need it.

The only saving grace is that I, as Editor-in-Chief, should be allowed to take these stories on if these definitions persist. No one else on the Silhouette’s staff could be involved as this definition loophole may require them to reveal your identity.

Until these definitions change, please talk directly to me in-person or through [email protected] if you have a story that warrants anonymity.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Chukky Ibe, President of the McMaster Student Union, shared an open letter to the McMaster community entitled, “Trust Your Dopeness.” It is three pages long, but does not say much. At best, it is a motivational speech for you to keep doing your work.

The first page starts with a quote from “Blessings” by Chance The Rapper.

“I don’t make songs for free, I make ‘em for freedom. Don’t believe in kings, believe in the kingdom.”

The second part of this helps set up the rest of the letter well. A lot of Ibe’s points relate to this with bravado about what the student leadership throughout the extensive amount of clubs already do, the influence of McMaster and its students in the city and the want for you to reach out and tell the union what support and resources you need. It would be difficult to argue against his respect for those who are involved in the community.

The issue becomes when student leadership alone is what is on display. When you look at all the pieces and praise presented, the only point that exists is what you can continue to do for the university. There is nothing about what he can do for you or what vision he has besides you continuing efforts.

He has four points mentioned in the letter:

None of these have a quantifiable goal or measurable end result. All them have plenty of responsibilities for you.

The first mentions, “By drawing on the strengths of student societies, the power of associations, and the supportive functions of student clubs, we can build stronger communities,” but fails to mention how he will help you do that.

The second mentions, “Students should not simply be passive recipients of programs, but should be engaged in the creation, development, and delivery of said programs,” which is just telling you to do more things with programs.

The third features lines like, “Through consolidation and flexibility of resources, we can continue to meet the needs of our student body,” but it is unknown how he would do this, what he feels needs consolidation or what he thinks the needs of our student body are.

There is no vision here. The letter fails to explain what his purpose is or how he can help you with anything.

The fourth has a different focus than only student leadership and initiatives.

“We will rely on the multitude of perspectives from communities across our beautifully diverse campus, and seek external perspectives where there is a lack of clarity on any given issue,” but mentions immediately after that the MSU should not play a role in the public sphere.

It is unknown what he deems to be the public sphere, but this is awkward considering all the clubs that work on public advocacy and larger issues in general and his boasting about the effectiveness of clubs, “… who will raise funds, awareness, and volunteers for local and global initiatives.” The only justification is if these do not count as examples of student leadership throughout our campus.

The fact that he and his vice-presidents have participated in initiatives such as Walk a Mile in Her Shoes within the last month and the dramatic shift this has to last year’s active participation in advocating for the LRT also make this want to not play a role in the public sphere odd.

However, the yearlong plan is promising. At a substantial 4229 words and 14 pages, it details an extensive amount of goals, a rough timeline of what is a priority broken down by the summer, fall and winter terms and details the objectives, descriptions, benefits, difficulties, long-term goals, how they would be done and the partners needed for collaboration in a logical and systematic way.

It is great. You could always ask for more objectivity in the timeline and end results, but it is impressive nevertheless.

Where the letter fails to inspire confidence with minimal substance, a lot of tasks for you specifically instead of leadership from him and plenty of lip service, the plan should make you want to work towards those goals.

The letter is a failure without the plan, and even then does a poor job of communicating its intended message.

It does not make sense why the letter has been the emphasis to promote to McMaster students instead of the plan that takes up little more than a footnote on their website.

Give us substance and how you will lead us before asking us to take up the legwork. Complimenting what we have already been doing, then demanding we do more leaves a poor impression compared to a comprehensive package of how you are on the students’ side.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Subscribe to our Mailing List

© 2025 The Silhouette. All Rights Reserved. McMaster University's Student Newspaper.
magnifiercrossmenu