Even on the other side of the globe, students can still play a part in spreading awareness
In 2019, controversy surrounding a now-former McMaster Students Union club known as the Chinese Students and Scholars Association arose.
The controversy began when activists came to the McMaster University campus to give a speech regarding the Uyghur Muslim camps in Xinjiang, China. McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice and McMaster Muslim Students’ Association invited Rukiye Turdush, an Uyghur activist, to McMaster in February 2019.
Xinjiang, officially the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, is a region in western China populated by a great number of Uyghur people and other Muslim minorities. Since 2017, reports of disappearances of Uyghur Muslims began and there were suspicions about those people being taken away to internment camps.
China initially denied the existence of these camps, but later referred to them as re-education camps aimed at alleviating poverty and extremism.
China initially denied the existence of these camps, but later referred to them as re-education camps aimed at alleviating poverty and extremism.
Turdush's speech sparked fury amongst some Chinese students, particularly because Turdush is considered a separatist. Several Chinese students filmed the presentation. The Washington Post directly translated group chat messages, letters, and conducted interviews with three event attendees. The Washington Post's translation confirms that some Chinese students contacted the Chinese Embassy. However, these students were acting independently and not acting on behalf of the CSSA.
Other screenshots, also translated by the Washington Post, showed that the Chinese Consulate of Toronto instructed those students to see whether university officials attended Turdush’s talk and whether Chinese nationals had organized the talk.
A statement signed by various McMaster Chinese clubs and organizations, including the CSSA, further evidenced that the students had contacted the Chinese Consulate of Toronto.
Here is the statement that the Chinese Students and Scholars Association at McMaster University issued after a Uighur young woman gave a talk there about the cultural genocide against Uighurs in China. H/t @ShengXue_ca for posting the original statement. My translation follows: pic.twitter.com/XSj5RT9jeL
— B. Allen-Ebrahimian (@BethanyAllenEbr) February 14, 2019
In September 2019, a report was submitted to the Student Representative Assembly in favour of revoking the CSSA of their club status due to a violation of Clubs Operating Policy, committing a Class C Offence under 5.1.3.
“Class C Offences are actions which endanger the safety or security of any person or property,” stated the MSU Operating Policy on Clubs Status. Further, 5.1.4 stated that “Class C Offences will always result in a punitive sanction.”
“Class C Offences are actions which endanger the safety or security of any person or property,” stated the MSU Operating Policy on Clubs Status.
The club was de-ratified by the MSU, stripping the club of its official club status.
In a second attempt to host a panel discussion at the university, Turdush and other experts were invited to campus once again on Sept. 27, 2019. Sara Emira is one of the students who attended the second panel.
Emira shared that during the panel, one of the presenters, Olsi Jazexhi, recounted his experience of being invited by China to visit the camps. Jazexhi had originally believed that Western media coverage of the camps and the cruelty happening inside were untrue. However, Jazexhi was shocked by what he found during his trip to China.
“Reports that China was building internment camps and persecuting the Uyghurs seemed unbelievable . . . I was very eager to go to Xinjiang because I wanted to explore for myself what is going on there. But after visiting, I found that much of what we hear in the West about China is not actually “fake news”,” Jazexhi said in an interview.
"I was very eager to go to Xinjiang because I wanted to explore for myself what is going on there. But after visiting, I found that much of what we hear in the West about China is not actually “fake news”,” Jazexhi said in an interview.
In September 2020, reports showed that China built nearly 400 internment camps. China continues to insist that the camps are meant to educate Uyghur people and that it is not a prison. While on a tour of a camp, BBC reporter, John Sudworth, spoke to a staff member.
“Doesn’t a place where people have to come, obey the rules and stay until you allow them to leave, sound more like a prison? Even if it’s a prison in which you can do art?” asked Sudworth.
“Doesn’t a place where people have to come, obey the rules and stay until you allow them to leave, sound more like a prison? Even if it’s a prison in which you can do art?” said Sudworth.
In response, the staff member said that he doesn’t know of any prison that would allow people to paint and that the camps are in fact a training centre.
In the same video, Uyghur Muslims can be seen learning Mandarin, studying China’s restrictions on religion and practicing loyalty to the Chinese government, rewriting lines such as “I love the Communist Party of China.”
In October, a House of Commons subcommittee in Canada denounced the mistreatment of Uyghurs living in Xinjiang as an act of genocide.
In the same video, Uyghur Muslims can be seen learning Mandarin, studying China’s restrictions on religion and practicing loyalty to the Chinese government, rewriting lines such as “I love the Communist Party of China.” In October, a House of Commons subcommittee in Canada denounced the mistreatment of Uyghurs living in Xinjiang as an act of genocide.
The subcommittee on international human rights said that they have heard from witnesses who survived the camps in China describe their experience as psychologically, physically and sexually abusive. Witnesses said they were subjected to forced assimilation and indoctrination into the Chinese culture.
In thinking about ways students at McMaster and in Canada, in general, can play a role in the discussion of this situation, Emira noted that it is important to begin with raising awareness and educating people.
“[A]lso a lot of the torture that [the Muslims] are put through are things like drinking alcohol or eating pork and so your average person when you hear that, it's like, “oh, that doesn't sound like torture” and it's kind of like, “okay, well now we have to kind of educate people on why this is bad and what these people's values are”,” said Emira.
“[A]lso a lot of the torture that [the Muslims] are put through are things like drinking alcohol or eating pork and so your average person when you hear that, it's like, “oh, that doesn't sound like torture” and it's kind of like, “okay, well now we have to kind of educate people on why this is bad and what these people's values are”,” said Emira.
Aside from spreading awareness, Emira suggested that in general, people can help shed light on the Uyghur culture and keep their identity alive.
For example, Emira shared that there are activists such as Subhi Bora who run campaigns to educate others on the Uyghur culture and help preserve Uyghur traditions.
View this post on Instagram
“[A]s you can imagine, this is a group that wasn't really known before. News of the camps started to kind of gain traction, so I think it's definitely important to do that and to also acknowledge that there are definitely refugees here as well from these Uyghur camps and a lot of them are running small businesses and things as well. So it would be nice to see people support them financially and have these conversations with them. Get to know them. What have they been through. It really helps to add that personal element to the issue and helps us feel less disconnected from it,” said Emira.
"Get to know them. What have they been through. It really helps to add that personal element to the issue and helps us feel less disconnected from it,” said Emira.
Correction: Dec. 7, 2020
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the McMaster CSSA was de-ratified "due to failure to report ties to external organizations". The CSSA was de-ratified due to Clubs Status Operating Policy 5.1.3 for committing a Class C Offence, action(s) which endanger the safety or security of any person or property.
An overview of the last five months with the SRA
In the summer of 2020, the Student Representative Assembly held a total of three meetings, including one emergency meeting in August.
On June 14, the meeting focused on closing nominations for multiple committees, discussing online proctoring and the issue of McMaster University’s connections with Hamilton Police Services.
Members of the assembly stated that there are privacy concerns with online proctoring and discussed the possibility of releasing a public statement requesting the university to follow the guidelines in the supporting documentation when choosing online proctoring software.
The meeting also resolved that the SRA supports the removal of Glenn De Caire, head of McMaster’s security and parking services.
The meeting also resolved that the SRA supports the removal of Glenn De Caire, head of McMaster’s security and parking services. Other resolved issues of the motion involved calls upon the university including: termination of De Caire from his position, phasing out the majority of the special constables program by Sept. 1 and full removal of the special constables program from McMaster by Jan. 1, 2021.
In the July 12 meeting, the assembly discussed clubs ratification for the 2020-2021 year, board of director and caucus year plans, as well as security concerns with using the platform Zoom.
On Aug. 23, the SRA held an emergency meeting to conduct the MSU VP Education by-election. The only nominee, Daniella Mikanovsky, was not elected due to over 50 per cent no confidence votes.
Since the start of the 2020-2021 school year in September, the SRA has now held two meetings. The first meeting on Sept. 13 had several motions including the official resignation of McMaster Students Union VP Education, Fawziyah Isah and the election of Ryan Tse as the new VP Education.
In the same meeting, Hargun Grewal and Alison Hacker were ratified as the chief returning officer and the deputy returning officer, respectively, of the MSU elections department.
In addition, SRA seats on the clubs advisory council and the internal governance committee were filled.
Several MSU committee seats were closed at the next meeting on Sept. 27. This included the teaching awards committee, clubs advisory council, elections committee, internal governance standing committee and services standing committee.
On Sept. 27, the MSU committee seats from the previous meeting were closed, leaving MSU seats for teaching awards still open. The seats will remain open for nomination until the next meeting.
The second meeting of the month also included motions to waive club operating policies. The policies include a requirement that all clubs have to have a membership list of 25 full-time MSU members and a minimum $5 club membership fee.
The policies include a requirement that all clubs have to have a membership list of 25 full-time MSU members and a minimum $5 club membership fee.
News of these membership requirements for clubs led to dissatisfaction from many, as evidenced by social media.
https://www.facebook.com/macconfessionss/posts/377807706947621
Many students believe that requiring a membership fee will put smaller clubs at a disadvantage. The membership fee will make it more difficult for clubs to recruit members and thus make it even hard to have a membership list.
The motions were moved by MSU President, Giancarlo Da-Ré and seconded by MSU VP Finance, Jess Anderson. Following voting across the assembly, both motions were passed.
Both Da-Ré and Anderson expressed that due to the circumstances regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, clubs would not have been penalized for not implementing such requirements this year either way. However, because of the concerns and confusion that had arisen, a formal motion to waive the policies should help to clear things up. Although the operating policy has been waived for the 2020-2021 year, the policies are still in place for future years.
Although the operating policy has been waived for the 2020-2021 year, the policies are still in place for future years.
During the meeting, two groups who are a part of the bylaw 5, Incite Magazine and Engineers Without Borders, also gave presentations to speak about various plans for the year and details of their budget. The next SRA meeting will be held on Oct. 18 at 5 p.m. Meetings can be viewed live on the SRA Facebook page.
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."
On June 2, Black Lives Matter — Toronto posted a livestream series on Twitter of students protesting the “violence that Black and racialized Indigenous students face” on McMaster University’s campus.
“McMaster also silences students when we protest, we get ignored and we get ticketed for speaking against basic injustices that happen here on campus,” a student on the livestream stated.
At the end of the livestream, they call for McMaster to remove the presence of special constables from campus and to cut ties with Hamilton Police Services and to immediately terminate Glenn De Caire’s contract — the former Police Chief for the Hamilton Police Services who has been employed as the Director of Security and Parking Services at McMaster since 2016.
Background:
Much debate and controversy over De Caire’s tenure as police chief came to light while in the role. In 2010, De Caire introduced the Addressing Crime Trends In Our Neighbourhood team, five high-profile groups of officers tasked with lowering crime in the downtown-core. These officers were the only ones who conducted “street checks,” a practice also known as carding.
However, in June 2015, seven members of the ACTION team were arrested, with five members being charged after it was alleged they falsified tickets. The provincial government cut ACTION’s funding in half and sparked the government to enact regulations to stop carding within all police services across Ontario.
In response, De Caire sent a letter to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services outlining his worries that Hamilton could be at risk if carding practices ceased, citing “officer discretion” as being paramount to “stop, investigate, identify and record information of individuals in the appropriate circumstances.”
“Information must be gathered before it can be analyzed and interpreted . . . [t]he result of reduced officer-community engagement can lead to increase, crime, violence, injury and death” stated De Caire.
In a response to De Caire’s letter, Ruth Goba, Interim Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission classified the police chief’’s position on carding and street checks as a “textbook description of racial profiling”.
“Racial profiling in street checks has a corrosive effect on Black and other racialized communities. As the OHRC has said repeatedly — it must be stopped,” stated Goba.
Around the same time, De Caire forwarded an email to all police members that included an anonymous note commending the HPS for their work on a case involving a Black teenager being killed downtown.
“I also wanted to say that I believe it is time for these Black kids to stop blaming the police for the problems and take responsibility for the actions of the youth,” read the anonymous note.
Included on the bottom, De Caire hand wrote: “All of our officers that responded to the recent homicide did a great job. Keep up the good work.”
In an interview with the Hamilton Spectator, then-city councilor Matthew Green, Hamilton’s first Black councilor, expressed his concern over the email. “Does the Chief not understand how that . . . might create a culture of us-versus-them when it comes to community relationships?” said Green.
City Councilor Terry Whitehead, a member of the police services board, also shared his concerns with the Spec. “When you look at that line it looks like an endorsement that the Black community is blaming the police for all their issues . . . I think that’s a dangerous ground to walk on,” said Whitehead.
In late 2015, De Caire was initially set to continue his role as police chief when the Hamilton Police Services board unanimously voted to extend his contract by an additional two years. A month later, De Caire announced that he would be retiring from his position, a move that puzzled the board as well as the mayor.
“McMaster has offered me an opportunity to contribute to their organization over a long term, and my opportunity here with the Hamilton Police Service has been limited by the contract term,” said De Caire during a press conference.
Calling for accountability:
The June 2 protest at McMaster parallels the worldwide public outcry following the deaths of several Black people at the hands of police officers, notably the murder of George Floyd, who died after former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes. Floyd’s death is one of several publicized deaths of Black people in the United States (including Breonna Taylor, Dominique “Rem’mie” Fells and Riah Milton) that sparked protests in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement internationally. In Canada, the deaths of Regis Korchinski-Paquet and D’Andre Campbell, among others, have also led to public demands for justice and accountability from police departments.
As a result, there have been many protests and riots against police brutality against Black people internationally. On a local level, students have been calling McMaster to address the racism that occurs at the university, as shown by tweets and comments by Mac students and alumni.
Oh cause I thought a school that hired a racist ex police chief as head of security said something https://t.co/LwEHixziXo
— 🌻 (@ItsIeshaa) June 1, 2020
https://twitter.com/dah0nggou/status/1268285560835264522?s=20
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBWXVN6jN9y/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
One group that has been advocating for De Caire’s removal is De Caire Off Campus. The group was established by Black women studying at McMaster when De Caire was hired in 2016 and exists to advocate for the removal of police on campus. Although the surge of support has benefited this group, they want to ensure that this movement against police is sustainable.
“This isn't a temporary outrage. It has been present for decades and will continue to exist as long as police are on our campus,” said De Caire Off Campus in an interview with the Silhouette.
Among demands for De Caire to be removed by McMaster, the McMaster Students Union has also taken heat.
“The MSU can and should keep to their abandoned commitments — that is, to do the work necessary to remove De Caire and special constables from campus,” the group said.
In March 2016, the Student Representative Assembly passed a motion to call on the university to remove Glenn De Caire as the director of security and parking services and a call to end the university’s campaign of increasing police presence on campus. However, the execution of the SRA’s call to remove De Caire and special constables off campus remains to be seen.
On behalf of the board of directors, MSU president Giancarlo Da-Ré assured that the concerns regarding De Caire have been heard “strong and clear.”
On June 14, Da-Ré moved a motion to call on faculty offices to permanently terminate all ties to the Hamilton Police Services, Halton Police Services, and any other police service. This includes internships and training or co-op placements that involve police services. In addition, an amendment was made to the motion where the MSU will consult any relevant groups or stakeholders that hire private security firms in replacement of campus constables.
Both the motion and the amendment were passed during the meeting. This motion will be binding for the 2020/2021 SRA term.
Da-Ré also mentioned that the vice president (administrative) team is developing “Equitable Hiring Best Practices & Guidelines” in order to address the underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous and People of Colour within the MSU.
“These practices will include changes to application processes, hiring committees and promotional strategies, and be created upon consultation with [the Equity & Inclusion Office], [President’s Advisory Committee on Building an Inclusive Community], the [Student Success Centre]’s Diversity Employment Coordinator and various other stakeholders,” Da-Ré explained.
The Silhouette asked McMaster University about the growing concerns students had and while providing a statement, did not directly address the concerns about De Caire.
“Equity, diversity and inclusion are critical to the university. McMaster denounces anti-Black racism and violence and supports the ideals expressed by the Black Lives Matter movement,” said Wade Hemsworth, the Manager of Media Relations for McMaster University.
Hemsworth outlined ways in which McMaster was addressing anti-Black racism and violence, such as a PACBIC and the EIO hosting a virtual check-in and conversation for Black students on June 11, the EIO hosting a virtual discussion called Let’s Talk About Race for BIPoC students, staff and faculty on June 18 and several statements made by McMaster.
What’s next:
Moving forward, De Caire Off Campus demands that McMaster “completely severs ties with Hamilton Police Services.”
“The removal of special constables cannot be followed with the hiring of private security or the enshrinement of surveillance against students,” the group said.
In addition, they demand that the budgets for special constables and security be released for transparency, to remove the university’s freedom of expression guidelines and that the MSU ensures that clubs are not forced to collaborate with security services.
As the 2020 fall term approaches, McMaster students continue to call for change on campus, holding the university and MSU accountable for their past actions and their next steps.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Sarun Balaranjan, Contributor
Before I begin, I must acknowledge my conflict of interest as a member of the Board of Directors for OPIRG. This year has been troubling for OPIRG in many respects. The Student Choice Initiative forced us to terminate all of our staff. The new Board of Directors had almost no prior experience with OPIRG. Oh, and the McMaster Students Union decided to threaten our very existence.
OPIRG McMaster is a unique group on campus in that it is not a service provided by the MSU, but the MSU plays a role in the process of funnelling our annual budget from students. Because we are autonomous from the MSU, we are able to provide a platform for students who want to engage in activism that the MSU may not condone, potentially for bureaucratic reasons. We are currently supporting new groups like Divest McMaster, a student-run initiative aiming to push McMaster administration to sell the investments tied up in the extraction of fossil fuels through McMaster University’s endowment fund. A group like Divest McMaster would likely have no clear place in advocacy through the MSU, since intuitively, the MSU would protect the interests of the university. By putting OPIRG McMaster to referendum and potentially defunding this organization, the MSU is limiting the extent of student activism.
On Nov. 29, 2019, the Student Representative Assembly proposed sending OPIRG to referendum. A major reason was that we were spending too much money on staffing and administration. Granted, this was fair given the preliminary budget received by the finance committee showed that roughly 87 per cent of our funds were allocated towards staffing and administrative costs. However, upon receiving our opt-out rates, we updated our budget to reflect that only a reasonable 30 per cent of our costs would be allocated towards staffing. Despite this change, the MSU continued to cite this 87 per cent figure in proceeding OPIRG referendum documents.
On Feb. 9, The board of directors were brought in a second time to delegate on the topic of being sent to referendum on the grounds of bylaw infractions. By this time, the previously cited staffing cost issues were pushed into the background in favour of bylaw infractions. At this point, it was clear that the MSU had an agenda to push and that moving goalposts was well within their capacity. One of the broken bylaws cited by the MSU was a late budget submission. Yes, we were four days late in submitting our budget, but we had only received the opt-out numbers near the end of September with an Oct. 15 due date. In addition, our treasurer, the primary point of contact with the MSU, had been taken out of commission with serious personal issues and we were still negotiating with our Union regarding budgeting limitations. Some leniency would have been appreciated in receiving our updated budget, but we admit that there were communication issues due to these external circumstances.
In terms of the other infractions, the associate vice-president (Finance) and their committee ruled, without any consultation with the SRA, that we broke Bylaw 5, article 3.1.2 on financial transparency. Some of these bylaws are fairly vague in phrasing and describe only general tenets that must be followed. I would like to remind you that, originally, the vote to send us to referendum passed by only two votes. On Feb. 23, we returned to delegate to the SRA in the hopes of reconsidering the motion to send OPIRG to referendum on Feb. 9. The motion to reconsider the original referendum decision had seven SRA members in favour, nine members opposed, and the final six members abstained. The ambiguity and uncertainty in the room was palpable each time. It seems inherently unjust that this decision on a bylaw violation was determined by a small subset of the elected body that is supposed to prioritize student interests.
Democracy is a process. The continual reforming, reshaping and restructuring of practices are based on a common understanding of what works and what fails society. A major issue ingrained in democracy is that democratic leaders need flashy campaigns for upward mobility. Sure, whoever spearheads this movement gets to say on their resume that they managed to create “tangible corrective action” against a “financially opaque group.” Or, maybe on their next election platform, they get to flex themselves as proponents of financial transparency. Again, maybe the SRA should provide their own input as to what constitutes a bylaw violation, rather than leave it in the hands of a small, potentially biased group to act as arbiters.
We as a board are deeply aware of the importance of student choice. This is why we advertise students’ choices so that students can opt out of our fees should they feel that they want to. A referendum sounds like the MSU is putting power back into the hands of the students, but, in reality, the opportunity is being provided for the majority of McMaster students to take a platform of free speech and social justice away from a marginalized minority. Even if the majority of students do not believe in the value of OPIRG, the organization remains an important outlet of free speech and support for alienated students who want to engage in activism.
The punishment that has been carried out doesn’t quite reflect the crime.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Sarun Balaranjan, Contributor
Note: Sarun Balaranjan is a member of the Board of Directors for OPIRG.
Before I begin, I must acknowledge my conflict of interest as a member of the Board of Directors for OPIRG. This year has been troubling for OPIRG in many respects. The Student Choice Initiative forced us to terminate all of our staff. The new Board of Directors had almost no prior experience with OPIRG. Oh, and the McMaster Students Union decided to threaten our very existence.
OPIRG McMaster is a unique group on campus in that it is not a service provided by the MSU, but the MSU plays a role in the process of funnelling our annual budget from students. Because we are autonomous from the MSU, we are able to provide a platform for students who want to engage in activism that the MSU may not condone, potentially for bureaucratic reasons. We are currently supporting new groups like Divest McMaster, a student-run initiative aiming to push McMaster administration to sell the investments tied up in the extraction of fossil fuels through McMaster University’s endowment fund. A group like Divest McMaster would likely have no clear place in advocacy through the MSU, since intuitively, the MSU would protect the interests of the university. By putting OPIRG McMaster to referendum and potentially defunding this organization, the MSU is limiting the extent of student activism.
On Nov. 29, 2019, the Student Representative Assembly proposed sending OPIRG to referendum. A major reason was that we were spending too much money on staffing and administration. Granted, this was fair given the preliminary budget received by the finance committee showed that roughly 87 per cent of our funds were allocated towards staffing and administrative costs. However, upon receiving our opt-out rates, we updated our budget to reflect that only a reasonable 30 per cent of our costs would be allocated towards staffing. Despite this change, the MSU continued to cite this 87 per cent figure in proceeding OPIRG referendum documents.
On Feb. 9, The board of directors were brought in a second time to delegate on the topic of being sent to referendum on the grounds of bylaw infractions. By this time, the previously cited staffing cost issues were pushed into the background in favour of bylaw infractions. At this point, it was clear that the MSU had an agenda to push and that moving goalposts was well within their capacity. One of the broken bylaws cited by the MSU was a late budget submission. Yes, we were four days late in submitting our budget, but we had only received the opt-out numbers near the end of September with an Oct. 15 due date. In addition, our treasurer, the primary point of contact with the MSU, had been taken out of commission with serious personal issues and we were still negotiating with our Union regarding budgeting limitations. Some leniency would have been appreciated in receiving our updated budget, but we admit that there were communication issues due to these external circumstances.
In terms of the other infractions, the associate vice-president (Finance) and their committee ruled, without any consultation with the SRA, that we broke Bylaw 5, article 3.1.2 on financial transparency. Some of these bylaws are fairly vague in phrasing and describe only general tenets that must be followed. I would like to remind you that, originally, the vote to send us to referendum passed by only two votes. On Feb. 23, we returned to delegate to the SRA in the hopes of reconsidering the motion to send OPIRG to referendum on Feb. 9. The motion to reconsider the original referendum decision had seven SRA members in favour, nine members opposed, and the final six members abstained. The ambiguity and uncertainty in the room was palpable each time. It seems inherently unjust that this decision on a bylaw violation was determined by a small subset of the elected body that is supposed to prioritize student interests.
Democracy is a process. The continual reforming, reshaping and restructuring of practices are based on a common understanding of what works and what fails society. A major issue ingrained in democracy is that democratic leaders need flashy campaigns for upward mobility. Sure, whoever spearheads this movement gets to say on their resume that they managed to create “tangible corrective action” against a “financially opaque group.” Or, maybe on their next election platform, they get to flex themselves as proponents of financial transparency. Again, maybe the SRA should provide their own input as to what constitutes a bylaw violation, rather than leave it in the hands of a small, potentially biased group to act as arbiters.
We as a board are deeply aware of the importance of student choice. This is why we advertise students’ choices so that students can opt out of our fees should they feel that they want to. A referendum sounds like the MSU is putting power back into the hands of the students, but, in reality, the opportunity is being provided for the majority of McMaster students to take a platform of free speech and social justice away from a marginalized minority. Even if the majority of students do not believe in the value of OPIRG, the organization remains an important outlet of free speech and support for alienated students who want to engage in activism.
The punishment that has been carried out doesn’t quite reflect the crime.
This article has been edited as of Feb. 11, 2019
A previously published version of this article misquoted Ikram Farah. The quote has since been updated.
Students are often at a standoff with the MSU president. A commonly held belief is that the President cannot get things done, while presidents themselves often feel that they are misunderstood by the student body. Looking back at former presidents, we can see the difficult realities of their jobs. However, each MSU president has many opportunities to enact change, and it is their responsibility to work within their limitations.
It’s hard to keep all the eggs in one basket
“When someone is running for president they are running on 12-15 platform points, but that is not your only priority, you are a CEO, you are a manager of the whole institution,” said Ikram Farah, former MSU president for the 2018-2019 school year.
Every MSU president has and will continue to struggle with balancing priorities. Consulting past presidents and critically examining a previous year’s struggles is meant to help incoming presidents plan for the year ahead. New president-elects are given the opportunity to do this during their training period under the current MSU president, which lasts from February to April of each year.
Even with this transition process, neither Marando, Farah nor Monaco-Barnes were prepared for how much time would be taken up by priorities unrelated to their platform points.
“I didn’t realize how much of my time would be taken up with chairing various meetings, SRA, clubs, committees, events, and other things that you don’t really see the president do until you are in the role yourself,” said Marando.
During the transition period, outgoing presidents still have their own responsibilities and incoming presidents have their academics. It is unclear exactly how many hours are spent orienting.
“[After March] you’re out, and the new person’s in, and it’s up to them and their team to carry on their objectives but also carry on ongoing projects to full term,” said Justin Monaco-Barnes, former MSU president for the 2016-2017 school year.
Limitations of the transition period may negatively impact a president’s future ability to establish continuity, balance priorities and prepare for unpredictability. Farah faced the impact of the Ontario Student Assistance Program cuts and the Student Choice Initiative. Responding to these events took up much of her team’s time.
“You don’t know what you don’t know,” said Farah.
Continuity is key
Longevity, according to Monaco-Barnes, can be an issue with a one-year term. A president must continue previous presidents’ work while attending to their own platform points and responsibilities. Marando, Farah and Monaco-Barnes highlighted the added pressure that comes from students wanting tangible results.
“. . . A lot of people probably don’t know I sit on groups that improve the university IT plan, or work on mental health support in classrooms. People don’t see all the time and energy that goes into working with our full-time staff and supporting business operations of the MSU. I think that if there isn’t a big promotion of something, people think nothing is happening. In reality things may span over a years — such as our new student space expansion — requiring a lot more resources than one might think,” said Marando.
The student space expansion came from Monaco-Barnes’ platform, whose Pulse expansion plans eventually evolved to include a new student center, the Student Activity Building.
“And then here we are, two years later, and it’s being built which is pretty cool,” said Monaco-Barnes.
Monaco-Barnes took an unpaid leave of absence to run two student-wide referenda and help secure funding for the expansion plans. During the second referendum, Ryan McDonald, the VP (Finance) at the time, also took an unpaid leave.
While the Student Activity and Pulse expansion are underway, future MSU presidents must see them through. Not all projects will survive this process.
At the end of Monaco-Barnes’s term, plastic water bottles were replaced with boxed water in Union Market. Union Market reverted back to plastic water bottles the following year.
“I don’t know how you control that. You hope that the continuity pieces that remain in the MSU leadership wise, you hope they will continue your original messages and ideas, but once you’re gone you can’t really control those things,” added Monaco-Barnes.
If this is a known problem, incoming and outgoing presidents should prevent it from happening as much as possible. Starting from scratch, as Monaco-Barnes noted, is a waste of time.
Who do you want in the room?
As Farah said, it can be easy to forget the significant impact that an MSU President can have in advocating for students. Advocacy could result in change that students may not link back to MSU, as such changes happen over the long-term.
“We need people with ideas and strategic vision. That’s where the Pulse expansion or student activity building becomes impactful. But we don’t always need that large action. Advocating for policies that enhance student life are incredibly important too; however, policy takes time though,” said Farah.
A president will have several opportunities to advocate for students. But it is not easy to get the job done. Monaco-Barnes said that higher-ups can wait out a president that they disagree with. There is also an intimidation factor at play, as the MSU president will interact with older and more experienced counterparts.
“It’d be very easy for a president to go in and do a lacklustre job if they are not motivated,” said Monaco-Barnes.
MSU presidents will make mistakes and struggle with their jobs. Their role is difficult to fully appreciate from an outside perspective. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t point out their mistakes and challenge them to work around limitations. If we do not hold them accountable, then we may see less work being done. Is being MSU president hard? Yes. Does that mean that they cannot accomplish anything? Absolutely not.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Jan. 12, 2020, McMaster University’s Student Representative Assembly met for the first time in the new year to ratify 15 new clubs and to complete their initial review of non-MSU groups on campus.
Incite Magazine was the final non-MSU group to present their organization’s activities and budget to the SRA. According to Associate Vice-President (Finance) Jess Anderson’s report on Jan. 8, the McMaster Student Union’s Finance Committee has completed their review of all non-MSU groups on campus. These non-MSU groups receive funding from McMaster students but do not fall under the purview of the MSU Club Department.
According to the report, there are currently five non-MSU groups on campus: McMaster Marching Band, Engineering without Borders, McMaster Solar Car, Incite Magazine and the Ontario Public Interest Research Group McMaster.
“While there were a few hiccups regarding communication throughout the reviewing processes, the committee was very pleased with McMaster Marching Band, [and] have provided recommendations to Engineers without Borders, McMaster Solar Car, and Incite Magazine,” states Anderson in the report.
The Finance Committee has yet to come to a decision or provide recommendations for OPIRG McMaster. While a delegation from OPIRG attended the Dec. 8 SRA meeting, the group is still currently discussing salary and administration logistics with their union, Canadian Union of Public Employees 1281.
[pjc_slideshow slide_type="sra-jan-16-2020"]
During the meeting, 15 new clubs were ratified by the SRA after recommendation from Clubs Administrator Aditi Sharma. A list of newly ratified clubs and their mission statements was also provided on Jan. 7. These include cultural clubs such as the Indonesian McMaster Student Association and McMaster Bengali Student Union; social issues clubs such as Blackspace and Glamour Girls; and recreational clubs such as the McMaster Real Estate Society and McMaster Filmmaking Club.
Each semester, potential clubs submit their applications to the Clubs Administrator and Clubs Executive Council. Successful applicants are then interviewed by the Clubs Administrator. Potential clubs are evaluated for their uniqueness, ability to maintain significant student interest and ability to positively impact the McMaster community. Finally, recognition as an official MSU club requires ratification by the SRA.
Last semester, there were two instances that raised concerns about the process of vetting proposed clubs. On Jul. 21, SRA ratified the Dominion Society, triggering an intervention three days later by MSU President Josh Marando due to the club’s alleged connections to people and organizations with white supremacist ties. Similarly, the SRA passed a motion on Sept. 22 to de-ratify The McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association for violating section 5.1.3 of the Clubs Operating Policy by endangering student safety.
Discussion regarding club ratification lasted under four minutes. The question of the club recognition appeal process for unsuccessful applicants was also brought up at the meeting.
“One of my constituents wanted to start a club with the purpose of, if I’m remembering correctly, creating a space where the ideas of various faculties (science, humanities, etc.) could be discussed and shared openly together [...] The clubs department did not approve the club for reasons the constituent did not agree with and the constituent claims not [to] have been informed of a formal appeals process in their rejection,” wrote one SRA member wishing to remain anonymous.
According to the SRA member, the applicant was told that the proposed club fit a niche already occupied by the Controversial Texts Discussion Club, which aims to encourage discussion of academic texts and potentially controversial topics in Science, Philosophy and Religion. However, after reaching out to CON-TEXT several times and receiving no response, the applicant told the SRA member that they believe the club to no longer be active.
Section 4.13 of the MSU Clubs Operating Policy states that club applicants can first appeal to the Clubs Administrator. If still unsuccessful, applicants can make a second and final appeal to the CEC.
“In the email that [an unsuccessful club] got, they have an appeal period. They can send their appeal to the clubs administrator and CEC to be reviewed,” added MSU President Josh Marando at the meeting.
Lasting just over 42 minutes, this was the shortest SRA meeting so far in the 2019-2020 school year.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Eric Sinnige, Contributor
Note: This article is from the perspective of an individual Student Representative Assembly member, and not representative of the whole SRA, or the McMaster Students Union.
The Sept. 22 deratification of the McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association has been a frequent topic in the Student Representative Assembly and the Silhouette for the past few weeks, and an issue that the SRA has been aware of since the inciting incident occurred back in February 2019. Since then, there have been many miscommunications about the de-ratification process and what was going on as a whole with the club to the student body, which I would like to clarify.
The current SRA members for the 2019-2020 year took office in April. I was unaware of the actions of the previous SRA with respect to the Mac CSSA incident because, at the time, I had not been very involved. In July, when it came time to ratify clubs for the 2019-2020 school year in July, I was given the impression that Mac CSSA was to be under probation for a calendar year due to the February incident upon ratification for the 2019-2020 year. Evidently, this had not been true. As there is no transition process between outgoing SRA members and incoming SRA members, and along with internal miscommunication, this caused previous meeting events to be misunderstood.
In the weeks leading up to the Sept. 22 meeting, where Mac CSSA was de-ratified, I met with McMaster students, who had contacted me to ask about what was going on with Mac CSSA and if the MSU or SRA would be taking action. Other SRA members were also contacted by their constituents, leading to an investigation and eventually de-ratification. You can find evidence from these personal investigations in SRA documents from meeting 19H, which include the meeting minutes and documents labelled CSSA. Many students I met with said that they felt unsafe as a result of Mac CSSA’s actions and concerned that they could not express their political or academic freedoms, especially in criticizing the Chinese government, without repercussions for the students I spoke to or their families.
Some people have subsequently spoken out against the de-ratification as the result of procedural unfairness or bias. I understand these concerns, as this process has been anything but clear. Please continue to hold the SRA and MSU accountable for our actions.
To clarify the procedural unfairness issues: the SRA did not disband Mac CSSA, but rather removed its status as an MSU club. Disbandment is a sanction, handed out to the club by the Clubs Executive Council so they may not operate as an MSU Club for a calendar year. The SRA then makes the decision official. Instead of disbandment, the SRA de-ratified Mac CSSA in July, rescinding its recognition as an MSU club. This meant that while Mac CSSA could still operate, the MSU would not allow them access to clubs resources such as funding and room booking. This difference between disbandment and de-ratification is important, as the latter process removes MSU club status through SRA motions, and does not go through the CEC. As such, the SRA is not required to grant an appeal period, as no appeal process exists for the SRA. However, one was granted anyways. In good faith, Mac CSSA should have received a notice that their de-ratification motion was on the upcoming agenda, despite not technically being required. In my opinion, the fact that Mac CSSA was not notified seemed to be due to a lack of communication. This needs to be changed, and the SRA’s clubs policy review, which will encompass the CEC, will include these concerns.
As for the bias concerns, these I can only address as myself. My reason for voting in favour of de-ratification was due to Mac CSSA’s support of the decision to report Rukiye Turdush’s Feb. 11 talk, which was about the Uyghur concentration camps in China, to the Chinese consulate. Disagreeing with the event is Mac CSSA’s right, but the endangerment of students, and Rukiye Turdush, is unacceptable. The SRA had also previously acted with the safety of students in mind during meeting 19F, when the Dominion Society (formerly the MacDonald Society) was de-ratified for the potential to endanger students after the SRA received evidence that linked the club to white supremacists.
While Mac CSSA claimed that the previous president had acted alone in reporting the event to the consulate, they did not rescind their statement. In addition, in the Mac CSSA ratification status memo posted by the MSU, it is mentioned that McMaster Chinese News Network, McMaster Chinese Professional Association/Society and MELD Student Association “have stated in their June responses to SRA questions that a [former] Mac CSSA executive officer invited them to be signatories of the statement”. During the appeal process, when Mac CSSA’s legal counsel was asked to provide evidence to support their statement that the previous president acted alone and did not contact the consulate, the counsel did not provide a clear answer to the the question in the SRA Meeting 19K livestream at the 1:40:30 mark.
The risk of endangering others for exercising their right to expression, especially those of marginalized groups, should not exist on this campus. Students who wish to engage in academic or political thought opposing the Chinese government, especially Chinese international students, should not be at risk. The evidence brought forward during SRA meetings highlighted how the Chinese government has monitored and interfered with students and citizens abroad, as seen in both U.S. government reports and international headlines, and as such I felt it was in the best interest of student and staff safety to remove the recognition of Mac CSSA as an official MSU club for a full calendar year.
Chinese international students should feel welcome and safe on our campus. Other groups that offer support for Chinese students are the Chinese Students Association, McMaster Chinese News Network and MELD Student Association. The SRA is doing an ongoing review of how international students are supported by the MSU and on campus as a whole. Please contact either myself or another SRA representative if you would like to be involved.
Documents regarding the meetings in question can be found at www.msumcmaster.ca/governance/sra/sra-documents.
If you wish to contact me with questions or for any clarification, you can write to [email protected] or my personal email at [email protected].
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By J., Contributor
If you need any additional proof that the McMaster Students Union made the correct decision to revoke MSU club status for the McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association, then look no further than Mac CSSA’s own lawyer.
On Nov. 3, Mac CSSA made an appeal to reverse the SRA’s de-ratification of their club, during which Mac CSSA’s lawyer revealed that “Chinese consulate officials have attended informal Mac CSSA events” and “those visits by officials were solely for the purpose of just explaining consular services … like if there’s an emergency event, contact us [the Chinese consulate]”.
This may seem benign, until you consider why Mac CSSA was de-ratified in the first place. According to Mac CSSA’s public statement, they reported Uyghur activist Rukiye Turdush to the Chinese consulate after she gave a speech on campus that criticized China’s genocide of Uyghur Muslims. Alarmingly, Mac CSSA later argued that Turdush’s talk was considered an “emergency event” due to “thousands of Chinese students at McMaster experiencing immense emotional distress” as a result of Turdush’s speech.
Mac CSSA does not represent all Chinese students, and their response is actually quite insulting to the Chinese students at McMaster, myself included, who instead condemn the concentration camps in Xinjiang. Additionally, I cannot imagine the emotional distress that Uyghur students at McMaster must be experiencing, as they risk potentially being reported to the genocidal regime currently destroying their people, should they dare respond to the Chinese nationalists who openly defend a government that commits genocide against Uyghur Muslims.
However, more importantly, the statements from Mac CSSA’s lawyer are clear evidence that Chinese government officials — while on McMaster’s campus — instructed students to inform them of emergency events, with an “emergency event” loosely defined to cover whatever causes “distress”, which apparently can include criticism of the Chinese government.
The reporting of Turdush’s talk to the consulate shows how these Chinese diplomats’ instructions have been successfully heeded. Given that consular officials hold an extraordinary position of power, their alleged dissemination of such instructions on campus is deeply problematic, regardless of how “informal” these visits are.
Currently, universities around the world are trying to fend off increasing interference from the Chinese government. Australia is formally investigating such interference amidst incidents which include a Chinese diplomat inciting death threats against a democracy activist at the University of Queensland. Meanwhile, the United States recently required that Chinese diplomats notify U.S. authorities prior to visiting universities. Similarly, we must also firmly respond to such intrusions on our campus, while also remaining measured.
This is not the time to vilify Chinese students at McMaster. Already, the McMaster Chinese Students Association has received crude comments on their Facebook page, even though McMaster CSA is completely unrelated to Mac CSSA. Homogenizing Chinese students at McMaster in any capacity is extremely dangerous, as it plays directly into the propaganda line of the Chinese Communist Party: that all Chinese people are united behind the CCP. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth.
Likewise, it is equally dehumanizing to dismiss legitimate criticism as racist or anti-Chinese, as that erases the real and valid experiences of minorities who have been oppressed by the CCP. For example, last week’s article, “CSSA-gate at McMaster: The scars of exclusion”, declared that the “real test for racism, in my view, is ... in how you treat those who don’t agree with you, and who do things that make you uncomfortable”. My response: tell that to the Uyghurs who are suffering in concentration camps for the high crime of not being sufficiently Han Chinese, or the visible minority students who, after Mac CSSA’s actions, became fearful of openly criticizing the Chinese government.
I am Chinese too, and I am proud of my heritage — but I refuse to parrot the nationalism that leads some to defend the Chinese government in oppressing my people and in inflicting horrific suffering upon millions from Xinjiang to Hong Kong. That is also why I am alarmed to see Chinese diplomats interfering in campus politics by instructing students to report on vaguely-defined “emergency” events.
Moving forward, we must improve efforts to support, integrate and include students who come from countries where liberal democracy is not the norm, and where basic rights — such as those of expression, assembly and press — are alien concepts. We must also remain wary of Chinese government attempts to monitor and control students on campus, whether through diplomats or proxy organizations.
Finally, we must remember that Chinese government interference on campus is a political problem, not a racial one. After all, ethnic Chinese voices are among those most critical of Chinese Communist Party oppression, as we are one of its main victims.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
