By Anonymous
Recently, the McMaster Students Union de-ratified the McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association due to its “alleged links to the Chinese government” according to the CBC News. The report from the news article was unprecedented for the MSU and alarming for me and other members of the McMaster community. Based on the online meeting notes (2002-2019) of the MSU’s governing body, the Student Representative Assembly, an alleged connection with a foreign government has never been a factor in the de-ratification of a visible minority group.
While Columbia University and the University of Cambridge had previously banned their CSSA clubs, both universities re-ratified the clubs in a matter of weeks after resolving their violations. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, it would be one of the first times that alleged connections to the Chinese government have played a role in the de-ratification of any CSSA.
If the MSU is now deciding to factor in an alleged association with a government as a reason to ban a student club, then they need to come up with an exclusion list of “unacceptable” countries. If that list starts with China, where does it end? And what kind of campus environment will it create?
The CBC article may not fully reflect the true process of the Mac CSSA de-ratification — the meeting notes record the decision as being based on a violation of Section 5.1.3. of the MSU clubs operating policy, aka “actions, which endanger the safety or security of any person or property.” The CBC article politicized the de-ratification, demonizing China with absolute certainty. Yet the SRA did not make any public statements to provide a counter narrative.
The CBC article politicized the de-ratification, demonizing China with absolute certainty.
As a result, this sent a hurtful and damaging message to the Chinese community on campus. Most of my Chinese friends are angry and confused at this attempt to openly disenfranchise them. Some have discussed their frustration in private with tears in their eyes, assuming that taking pride in China is not allowed in Canada. Some people believe that they have to lie low to abide by Canada’s rules. Some question if they will be able to extend their visa, find a job or apply for immigration if they express opinions different from the MSU.
As a proud Chinese student who was born and raised in China and decided to make Canada my new home after great consideration, I was shocked at how this decision goes against every value I believe Canada stands for. What the MSU did, in my opinion, is a classic example of racism, even though it is covert. While criticising the Chinese government alone is not racist, disbanding a Chinese student group based on their political expression, free speech and ancestral origin is absolutely racist and unacceptable.
Here is how: it is almost like dictating to us, you must be anti-Chinese government to become one of us, otherwise you should go back to China. In my view, even the anti-government Chinese students are also affected by such restrictions, as their right to freely determine their political beliefs is also compromised. No one should need approval to hold a lawful political stance. Under the SRA’s rhetoric, members of the Chinese community, regardless of their political stance, have become second-class citizens as we must have our beliefs certified to enjoy the freedom of association.
The real test for racism, in my view, is not in how you treat “model citizen” minority groups who align with your beliefs, but in how you treat those who don’t agree with you, and who do things that make you uncomfortable.
The real test for racism, in my view, is not in how you treat “model citizen” minority groups who align with your beliefs, but in how you treat those who don’t agree with you, and who do things that make you uncomfortable.
The CSSA incident is precisely the test. At the centre of this incident is the open letter claiming that Mac CSSA notified the Chinese consulate about a public speaker in McMaster who supports Uighur separatism in China — the letter turned out to be prepared by an alumnus without informing Mac CSSA, as the alumnus had instead consulted the prior president of Mac CSSA. Disregarding the fact of who prepared the letter, I would still have great sympathy for their impulse to speak out. As China has gone through centuries of blood and wars, a unified China is precious for many Chinese students and other peace-seeking people on campus. Regrettably, this letter was interpreted by the SRA as extremist, dangerous and instructed by the Chinese government.
Additionally, the SRA meeting notes claimed that there would be “no consequences” of disbanding CSSA. What about the thousands of Chinese international students who were denied a service they came to rely on under the MSU? What about the support CSSA provides to the international students who will be “shamefully neglected” if it were disbanded? As stated in the meeting minutes, no one from Mac CSSA was contacted to speak at the de-ratification meeting. Since the SRA effectively barred CSSA from the meeting without telling them about it, no one was left to advocate or to help the Chinese community at McMaster.
Since the SRA effectively barred CSSA from the meeting without telling them about it, no one was left to advocate or to help the Chinese community at McMaster.
The SRA's decision to de-ratify CSSA was an example of the racism that Chinese students routinely face. It is assumed that because we are Chinese, we must have the worst intentions. Because we are Chinese, we must be silent and submissive and never “rock the boat”, even when our services are denied. And because we are Chinese, believing in a unified and prosperous China means that we are brainwashed and should not be embraced by Canada. This is the message the MSU sent by this exclusion.
This is why it is important to tell the Chinese students that McMaster needs their voices. My dear Chinese students, the MSU owes you the right to speak your mind on these issues. My dear Chinese students, whether you support the Chinese government or not, please step forward. In this country, no one should have the power to dictate your beliefs based on your Chinese origin. My dear Chinese students: be independent, be loud and be proud.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Photo C/O Kyle West
On Nov. 3, the Student Representative Assembly rejected the McMaster Chinese Student and Scholars Association’s appeal to have their club re-ratified.
The SRA passed a motion on Sept. 22 to de-ratify MAC CSSA for violating section 5.1.3 of the Clubs Operating Policy by endangering student safety. This decision was partly based on evidence documents and a student testimony provided at the meeting. The evidence claims that MAC CSSA had surveilled and harassed the speaker of a Feb. 11 event, which discussed the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Western China.
Most of the meeting was spent on a presentation from the CSSA’s legal council, Samantha Wu, and a question and answer period. Wu, on behalf of MAC CSSA, requested that the SRA reconsider its decision to de-ratify the club.
“The CSSA is a McMaster University club with thousands of members. It has benefited numerous newly arrived international students in the McMaster community for 35 years. The club organizes events celebrating Chinese holidays, food and performances as part of McMaster’s diverse community,” said Wu in her presentation.
During the Sept. 22 meeting where the SRA de-ratified MAC CSSA, the SRA presented what they believed to be evidence in support of MAC CSSA’s connection with the Chinese government. This evidence came from a 2018 report from the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The U.S. report stated that CSSAs across the U.S. have governmental ties with Chinese embassies and consulates, noting that similar operations could be taking place in US-allied countries.
While SRA’s final motion to de-ratify MAC CSSA did not point to governmental ties as a factor in the SRA’s decision, Wu discussed concerns raised about MAC CSSA in the SRA evidence report.
Wu refuted allegations that MAC CSSA had reported on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, stating that communication occurred between MAC CSSA and the Chinese consulate to raise awareness of consulate services.
“[The CSSA] has not informed on, and will not inform on any McMaster students or events critical to the Chinese government … the CSSA is an independent McMaster club and is unaffiliated with other CSSAs or the Chinese government,” said Wu at the SRA meeting.
In response to questions that the SRA sent to MAC CSSA on Oct. 8, MAC CSSA sent the MSU speaker a document of their answers on Oct. 27. In this document, MAC CSSA denied that Chinese authorities played a role in the club’s membership, elections, meetings and other activities.
MAC CSSA stated that Chinese consulate officials have attended informal MAC CSSA events.
“Recently, for example, MAC CSSA club organized an informal event that occurred on September 2, 2019. During this event, two Chinese consulate officials visited the McMaster campus to meet briefly with new international Chinese students attending McMaster to discuss adjusting to living in Canada,” wrote MAC CSSA in response to the SRA’s questions.
Wu claimed that the decision to de-ratify MAC CSSA was based on procedural unfairness, as the SRA failed to follow the procedures outlined in the MSU Clubs Operating Policy.
She also argued that the decision to de-ratify MAC CSSA violated the MSU Clubs Operating Policy, referencing sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 in the Clubs Operating Policy. The policy states that the Clubs Administrator may sanction an MSU club, and in the event of a more serious infraction the CEC may decide on a more severe punishment. According to Wu, this procedure never took place.
However, “Clubs Operating Policy section 5.3.2 is in reference to disbandment, not deratification, though it should be noted that the disbandment is subject to SRA final approval as SRA is the only body that can ratify the decision to disband the club,” according to a document titled “CSSA Statement,” dated Nov. 3.
At the Nov. 3 SRA meeting, MSU President Josh Marando clarified that all clubs are contingent on SRA ratification when asked by The Silhouette if the decision to de-ratify MAC CSSA followed the Club Operating Policy.
Marando also added there is no policy that states an appeal process for de-ratification is mandatory.
“The SRA decided to grant an appeal process in this case to ensure that the CSSA has the opportunity to present their side of the story,” said Marando.
Despite the time spent considering MAC CSSA’s alleged connection to the Chinese government, this was not a part of the final motion to de-ratify the club. The final de-ratification motion was based on the concern that actions taken by MAC CSSA members had endangered members of the McMaster community.
On Feb. 13, MAC CSSA was among the signatories of a letter that accused the event of publicizing national hatred. The letter stated that signatories had contacted the Chinese consulate in Toronto about the Feb. 11 event discussing the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Western China.
The SRA deemed the act of contacting the consulate to be dangerous. Citing a report from Human Rights watch, members raised concerns that students’ safety could have been jeopardized if the Chinese consulate found out that they attended the event.
When asked about whether they played a role in releasing the Feb. 13 statement and contacting the Chinese Consulate, MAC CSSA claimed that a McMaster alum, who was not currently a member of MAC CSSA, had contacted the consulate on Feb. 11. In addition, they claim that the same alum prepared and obtained consent from the then-president of MAC CSSA to place the club’s name on the Feb. 13 statement.
Even though they deny having contacted the consulate, MAC CSSA admits that they signed the letter.
“MAC CSSA agreed to place its name on the Statement out of concern for the safety of McMaster students and in order to exercise MAC CSSA members’ freedom of expression rights. By signing the Statement, there was no intention by MAC CSSA to censor or intimidate anyone in the McMaster community,” MAC CSSA wrote in their answers to SRA questions.
During the Nov. 3 SRA meeting, the SRA denied MAC CSSA’s appeal to reconsider the club’s de-ratification.
“The main sentiment coming out is that regardless of intent, we are talking about the actual action and that we are upholding the decision that we’ve made because students have come forward and said they feel unsafe,” stated VP (Education) Shemar Hackett.
Photo by Cindy Cui/ Photo Editor
* Names and identifying details have been altered to protect the privacy of individuals*
The Oct. 22 Lennon Wall demonstration at McMaster was intended to raise awareness for the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill protests happening in Hong Kong and to express solidarity with Hong Kong protestors. An individual interrupted the demonstration at around 4 p.m. and attempted to damage the signs on the Lennon Wall and remove protestors’ face masks.
However, there is a consensus — both among those who support the cause and those who do not — that what happened on Oct. 22 is much bigger than a one-time event.
In the days since, the incident has raised issues of inaction, censorship and the isolation of international students on campus.
One of the demonstrators, Cameron*, called the altercation a clear attempt to use violence and intimidation to silence the protest. Jamie, another demonstrator, pointed to a pattern designed to silence protesters who are supporting the democracy movement in Hong Kong, which has been demonstrated by incidents in Simon Fraser University, the University of British Columbia and the University of Queensland.
Leslie*, a student from the Chinese mainland, disapproved of how the individual who disrupted the demonstration expressed their disagreement.
“Instead of tearing things down, [the individual] should have called the campus police in the first place, and ask them to check this masked protest,” said Leslie.
Alex, another student from the Chinese mainland, maintains that the Oct. 22 incident did not undermine anyone’s freedom of speech. They assert that the individual who interfered with the demonstration was justified in being upset, as the content of the protest dealt with separatist activities, which are frowned upon in China. Alex believes that since there was this justification, the individual’s actions were not against anyone’s freedom of speech.
“If you want me to try to understand why that student committed this so-called violent action, I would only say if I were him, I would be doing that because I'm not content, I'm feeling even offended by the way they did that, the Hong Kong protesters on our campus,” said Alex.
Leslie acknowledges both sides of the problem. They believe that what the individual did was not civil — but that neither is wearing masks and promoting what Leslie perceives to be violence committed by the protesters in Hong Kong. Leslie refers to the masks as a symbol of the “anonymous violence” happening in Hong Kong.
Leslie and Alex also highlighted a difference in beliefs that render the situation even more complex. While the Oct. 22 situation happened within McMaster’s campus, it may point to differences in upbringing that go beyond our campus’s walls.
Alex deplores the instinct of many Canadian locals to generalize international students from the Chinese mainland, adding that there is a misunderstanding between the mainland students and other people on campus. Alex believes that this generalization fails to consider how different Canadian norms are for those who did not grow up with Western ideologies.
“[Someone said] ‘Oh, the Chinese students, they are so used to the government telling them what to do … so when they are outside China, they don't know what to do so they have to contact their government. They have to let the government tell them what to do.’ Well, first off, that is damn wrong … Sometimes, we just feel very lonely in our power of speech. We've been isolated by Western media stuff … We're definitely not used to the so-called liberal, democratic way of saying something. When there's a problem, we go solve that. We don't go on [the] street, we don't go on any form of protest … Here [in Canada], whoever has the bigger voice wins,” Alex said.
Leslie believes that Canadians’ belief in Western liberal democracy prevents them from entertaining other political ideologies and from carrying out dialogue with those who come from the mainland of China without the use of words such as “dictatorship” or “authoritarian”.
One SRA member pointed out that the Lennon Wall incident violated the McMaster Student Code of Conduct, which protects students’ right to safety and security. The Code is meant to ensure an environment free from intimidation and discrimination, and to protect students’ right to security of their personal property. It also condemns threats and acts of vandalism — labels that the demonstrators have attached to the individual who initiated the altercation.
In an SRA meeting on Nov. 3, the McMaster Lennon Wall demonstrators urged the SRA to release a public statement.
“We just hope [the SRA] will speak up for vulnerable students who face violence on campus by releasing a public statement and speak up for our rights … We hope that you will stand in solidarity with us, as demonstrators whose rights to safely protest and dissent on campus were violated,” they declared.
In response, the SRA promised to release a statement regarding the Oct. 22 demonstration.
Since then, MSU president Josh Marando has published a statement through his president’s page on The Silhouette. He affirmed the MSU’s support of the students’ right to protest peacefully and exist safely on campus.
“The MSU is always working towards creating a safer and more inclusive environment for students. As such, actions, activities or attitudes that work against that notion should not have a place in our campus discourse,” said Marando.
The McMaster administration also provided a statement. Gord Arbeau, director of communications at McMaster, emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough investigation.
McMaster security, who were called to the demonstration after the incident took place, are conducting an investigation.. Only when the investigation is complete can the university determine what policies are relevant and what further actions, if any, are needed. The Code might be one of the policies considered, should further action be required.
“Thankfully, these types of incidents are rare on our campus,” added Arbeau.
However rare such incidents may be, Cameron believes that a statement of support from the university could have a large impact.
“McMaster’s name is a big deal, and if they legitimize what we're doing, then that means a lot to certain people. That means that the institution has put their faith in us as a cause,” said Cameron.
Cameron added that the altercation during the Oct. 22 Lennon Wall demonstration should not be seen as an isolated incident, but rather as a part of a systemic problem in which protesters are silenced through violence and intimidation. Jamie also agrees that silence and inaction are dangerous when the issue is so deeply rooted.
“This should not be treated as just a one-off incident. I think the university and the McMaster Students Union needs to realize that there was a more systemic issue here as well and therefore also develop more long term solutions as possible,” said Jamie.
Jamie, Cameron and the other demonstrators are not giving up on protests any time soon. They want protestors in Hong Kong to know they are not alone, that there are students that stand with them.
“There's a perception that Canada is very far away from Hong Kong [and] maybe it doesn't matter so much, but we want to say ‘Hold on a second, no, it does matter’. It matters because there's lots of Canadians living in Hong Kong. There's lots of Hong Kong students here at McMaster,” Jamie explained.
The demonstrators’ ultimate ideal goal is to educate people about the protests in Hong Kong and for McMaster students to understand enough about Hong Kong to show support and solidarity.
“Us [students] here in Canada, we're lucky we don't have to live with the consequences of what of what we're doing, right? And so the most important thing to us is for every single person to fully understand the situation unfolding in the city across the sea,” said Cameron.
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]
By Nicholas Marshall, Contributor
This article has been edited as of Oct. 5, 2019
In February 2019, the McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice and the Muslim Students Association hosted an event called “The Genocide of Uyghur Muslims — Talk by Uyghur Survivor”. During this event, activist Rukiye Turdush spoke about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Western China.
MMPJ co-presidents Batool and Elaaf, who requested to have their last names omitted from this article, explained that the event was meant to be a vehicle through which Turdush could share her experiences. Batool added that the event was also meant to raise awareness for the severe human rights abuses happening against Muslims in China.
The Turdush event came just a few months after reports were published of “re-education camps” in the Xinjiang region of north-western China, where Uyghur Muslims were being forced to abandon their religion and face abuse as detainees. In addition to reports of Mosque demolitions, the camps stand as a record of the Chinese Communist Party’s resistance against heterodox opinions in China.
On Feb. 13, McMaster’s Chinese Students and Scholars Association made a public statement accusing Turdush of inciting national hatred, stating that MACCSSA had contacted the Chinese consulate in Toronto about Turdush’s speech. Having anticipated the subject matter of the Turdush event, a group of Chinese students at McMaster created a group on the social media app WeChat specifically for the purpose of opposing the event. Student protestors filmed and protested against the Turdush event. Turdush herself was harassed.
International CSSA organizations have either openly admitted or been proven to be affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. Based on information that CSSAs at universities around the world have publicly released, the Chinese government has provided funding for individual CSSAs as incentive to populate overseas political events. For instance, the George Washington University CSSA received funding from the Chinese embassy in Washington as motivation for members to attend events welcoming President Xi Jinping to the city.
On Sept. 22, a CSSA Evidence report was submitted to the SRA in favour of revoking the McMaster CSSA’s status.
At this same meeting, SRA representative Simranjeet Singh delivered a presentation to the rest of the assembly called “Why We Should Revoke Club Status For The [MAC]CSSA”.
Singh’s presentation cited a 2018 report from the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The report stated that CSSAs across the U.S. have governmental ties with Chinese embassies and consulates, noting that similar operations could be taking place in US-allied countries.
“The nature of the [CSSA] ties [with Chinese government] appears to involve direct subordination and political direction rather than mere affiliation or cooperation,” stated the Commission’s report.
When asked about their role in contacting the Chinese consulate following the MSA/MMPJ event, MACCSSA stated that they did not have an official relationship with the Chinese embassy. However, in a letter responding to questions from the SRA in July 2019, MACCSSA stated that they had cooperated with the Chinese embassy on issues related to cultural exchange and safety education for international students.
The MACCSSA evidence report presented to the SRA took notice of this contradiction, alleging that the use of the word “official” was an attempt to obscure MACCSSA’s ties to the Chinese embassy.
According to the report, MACCSSA’s failure to fully report any links outside of the MSU was in direct violation of an MSU club operating policy. The policy in question required clubs to disclose any affiliations with bodies outside of the MSU.
As of June 19, 2019, this MSU policy now includes affiliations with political parties or governmental bodies, regardless of whether the non-MSU organization is Canadian or international.
Singh cast MACCSSA’s act of contacting the Chinese government, which the SRA deemed to be a dangerous action, as a key detail in his decision to vote in favour of de-ratifying MACCSSA. According to Singh’s presentation to the SRA, contacting the Chinese government was an attempt by MACCSSA to intimidate students into avoiding discussions that criticized the Chinese regime.
During the Sept. 22 SRA meeting, a Chinese student’s testimony highlighted the lack of action from MSU representatives in response to MACCSSA’s reporting of student affairs to the Chinese government.
“If you are privileged enough to not know what it feels like to live under an authoritarian regime — one where saying something critical of the ruling party is often enough to land you and your family in prison — then please, I implore you, please listen to those who do,” said the student.
Slides from Singh’s presentation warned: “Expert testimony, including from Human Rights Watch, has confirmed that students’ safety could have been endangered if the Chinese government … got info about them attending the MSA/MMPJ event.”
“That was enough grounds for us to decide that they are a threat to free expression on campus and may be a danger to students … We cannot normalize the extremist ideologies behind the CSSA’s actions,” said Singh.
The SRA sided with Singh, voting to de-ratify MACCSSA and cut off the club’s access to MSU resources and services.
Over seven months after Turdush’s initial talk, she returned to McMaster on Sept. 27 in response to an invitation from the MMPJ to speak about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China. According to Batool, the event was a success, with over 100 spectators and no disruptions.
A previously published version of this article stated that MACCSSA’s act of contacting the Chinese government was considered an attempt by the SRA to intimidate students. This has since been corrected to state that it was considered an attempt by MACCSSA to intimidate students into avoiding discussions that might disrupt the Chinese regime.
A previously published version of this article stated that WeChat is a Chinese multi-purpose app used by members of the McMaster Chinese community. It has since been corrected to state that a group of Chinese students at McMaster created a group on the social media app WeChat specifically for the purpose of opposing the event.
A previously published version of this article stated that no evidence was provided to directly connect the CSSA with the Chinese Communist Party. This has since been removed, and evidence has been presented.
A previously published version of this article did not reference CSSA’s response to questions from the SRA. This has since been updated.
A previous version of this article stated that Turdush returned to McMaster seven months after the de-ratification. This has since been corrected to state that she returned after her initial talk.
This version of the article has been updated to differentiate between MACCSSA and CSSAs around the world.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Content warning: white supremacy
At an emergency meeting last night, the Student Representative Assembly voted unanimously to de-ratify the Dominion society due to concerns that the club had neglected to disclose its affiliation with an external organization with alleged ties to xenophobic individuals.
The Dominion society was ratified alongside 337 other clubs at the July 24 SRA meeting. Prior to ratification, concerns were raised about the club’s affiliations, but SRA members stated that they had no way to verify these claims.
Two days after the club was ratified, an anonymous Twitter thread published photographs of the Dominion society leader attending events hosted by the MacDonald cultural and historical society, an external organization with no stated ties to McMaster. The thread also showed pictures of other people attending the group’s events, and posted screenshots of explicitly xenophobic comments that these individuals had allegedly made in private Facebook groups.
The Dominion society, formerly called the MacDonald society, states that its aim is to celebrate Canadian culture and history. The leader of the Dominion society denies that the club has any connection to white supremacist individuals or organizations.
The release of information sparked considerable community backlash. The day after the Twitter thread was posted, McMaster students union president Josh Marando issued a statement urging SRA members to de-ratify the club in light of the new information.
During the emergency meeting last night, Marando reiterated that he had recommended de-ratification because the Dominion society did not disclose its alleged ties to the MacDonald cultural and historical society, and because people tied to that organization had allegedly expressed white supremacist beliefs.
Despite a delayed start while waiting to meet quorum, the meeting lasted only 15 minutes. All SRA members who spoke during the meeting agreed that the club should not be allowed to exist on campus.
For SRA (arts & science) representative Catherine Hu, this incident highlights the need to reform the ratification process so that the same thing does not happen again.
“If we have adjustment to our policy of how we go about ratifying clubs, it would solidify why we should or should not ratify certain clubs,” said Hu.
SRA (social science) member Vania Pagniello stated that the SRA needs to take concerns of white supremacy more seriously. Pagniello noted that, while not explicit, there were warning signs in the Dominion society’s application that warranted closer investigation. In previous meetings, concerns were raised about the club’s plans to run events celebrating Canadian colonial history, given Canada’s history of colonization and state violence.
“In the future we need to be a lot more thoughtful and stringent about the people that we’re giving resources to,” stated Pagniello.
The vote to de-ratify the Dominion society was unanimous.
“We made a mistake, but we’re going to fix it,” said SRA (science) representative Armand Acri.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Photo C/O Kyle West
By: William Li
Content Warning: White supremacy
On July 21, the Student Representative Assembly briefly discussed concerns about clubs engaging in foreign surveillance and white supremacy — but in a shocking move, put these concerns aside and simply ratified all proposed clubs anyway, triggering an intervention just three days later by McMaster Students' Union President Josh Marando.
Although Marando’s quick response to concerns of white supremacy and threats to marginalized students is a good start, this incident remains problematic: Why did the SRA ratify the Dominion society in the first place, even though these exact concerns were brought up in the SRA meeting prior to the ratification vote?
Currently, the clubs administrator processes club applications and provides a list of clubs to the SRA, which usually votes to approve all at once. However, the clubs administrator is an unelected person, and they are historically either unwilling or unable to act when clubs promote or endorse actions that put students at risk.
For example, they declined to take action in February, when the McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) publicly declared that they reported an event on campus to the Chinese government for discussing China’s human rights violations against Uighur Muslims. Soon, there were international headlines and concerns that such surveillance on campus puts Uighur and Chinese students at risk, since criticism of the Chinese Communist Party is often grounds for imprisonment in China.
The clubs administrator then took months to prepare a memo in response, which the SRA quickly overlooked as they re-ratified the CSSA at their July 21 meeting without addressing the memo’s concerns of surveillance and harassment.
The still-unresolved CSSA fiasco is a great example of how the Dominion society is not a one-time thing, but rather, just the latest symptom of a much more serious problem: the MSU’s glaring inability to manage clubs, and an urgent need for major reform.
Although we have a new clubs administrator now, the systemic issues with this model of governance persist: the SRA expects the clubs administrator to manage problematic clubs, but the clubs administrator does not do much beyond preliminary research and providing information to the SRA upon request.
The result is that nobody does anything. Anybody who can successfully fill out forms simply gets stamped and approved. Clubs get away with everything from foreign surveillance to peddling false medical information, while MSU officials busy themselves tossing political hot potatoes at one another.
We saw such political runaround in action when SRA members tried asking clarifying questions about certain clubs, and the clubs administrator wrote in their response, “I strongly recommend ratifying the majority of clubs such that the MSU Clubs Department can move forward with our activities for the year. If there are still concerns about certain clubs, it would be better to bring your questions directly to them.”
Given this apparent urgency for SRA members to stop bothering the clubs administrator with questions about clubs and just move on, there should be no surprise that the Dominion society escaped the proper scrutiny that should have happened before—rather than after—the rushed ratification vote.
While the SRA and clubs administrator have rightfully gotten flak over these decisions, we must remember that the problem is systemic. The clubs administrator job description does not explicitly require them to supervise clubs, ensure truthfulness in club applications or even enforce the clubs operating policy. Meanwhile, the SRA appears ill-equipped to pick up the slack on this front.
In order to address this, the SRA should not simply rubber stamp whatever is put in front of them by the clubs administrator; rather, they should take the time to do research and get fully informed before voting. Additionally, as our elected representatives, they should make the political decisions that the clubs administrator cannot, which includes exercising their power to withhold club status.
Although some may argue that revoking club status should not be used as a tool for censorship, we must remember that club status is a privilege, not a right. If clubs expect to access funding, ClubSpace and other such perks paid for with student fees, then the SRA should hold clubs to the same standard as other MSU departments.
Next, the SRA must revisit the rushed July 21 ratification vote and actually scrutinize clubs properly (perhaps at the emergency meeting that Marando has called for, though it remains to be scheduled). Instead of having the MSU President intervene each time there is a problem or waiting for issues to blow up in the media, the SRA should proactively resolve issues. The consequences of inaction can be clearly seen in how Chinese nationalists have instigated violence on other university campuses, while white nationalists have been provoking violence right here in Hamilton.
Finally, in the long-term, we need systemic change. Even though the clubs operating policy was recently amended in June, the updated policy quickly flopped in action when it failed to prevent the Dominion society ratification about-face. Furthermore, even Human Rights Watch has felt compelled to provide recommendations for more substantial change to address the Chinese government’s threats to academic freedom. The recent amendment’s stunning failure, the recommendations from HRW, and Marando’s intervention show that band-aid solutions will be insufficient — the entire clubs operating policy is no longer viable and must be overhauled.
The SRA must now show leadership so that these troubling incidents do not happen again. If nothing significant is done, then this cycle — where the MSU condones clubs that endanger students and then pauses to reflect only after enough controversy is attracted — will simply continue.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Photo C/O Kyle West
Content warning: white supremacy
On July 24, McMaster Students' Union president Josh Marando issued a letter urging the student representative assembly to revoke a new club’s status due to its alleged connections to people and organizations with white supremacist ties.
The Dominion society, originally named the MacDonald society, describes itself as a club aimed at celebrating Canadian culture and history.
“The independence of Canada as a sovereign nation in its own right, its colonial history, and its British, French and First Nations heritage will be prevailing themes in this club’s activity and pursuits,” the club stated in its cover letter.
The club was first introduced to the SRA at their June 23 meeting alongside 337 other clubs applying for ratification.
At this time, some SRA members raised concerns about the club’s mandate of celebrating Canadian colonial history, given Canada's history of colonization and state violence.
“The celebration of Canada as a sovereign nation in its own right is absolutely false. Canada’s sovereignty is based off the genocide of Indigenous peoples,” said SRA (Social Science) member Vania Pagniello. “We have to think about McMaster as a space that we are trying to decolonize.”
There was also speculation about the group’s connection to the MacDonald cultural and historical society, an organization with no explicit connection to McMaster. The society has held recent events in the Hamilton area, according to its public Facebook page.
According to the MacDonald cultural and historical society’s social media accounts, the purpose of the group is to celebrate Canadian heritage and culture.
“The Macdonald cultural and historical society is a brotherhood of Canadians who hold dear the sympathies of our Founder; that above all else, our nation must be united together under shared bonds of loyalty, strength, perseverance and courage,” says the society’s description on Facebook.
McMaster community members raised concerns to SRA representatives that the MacDonald cultural and historical society used language that could be symbolic of white nationalist ties. In particular, the celebration of John A. MacDonald and the use of the red ensign were flagged as signs of potential white supremacist attitudes within the society.
There was discussion at the SRA meeting that there may be connections between the MacDonald cultural and historical society and the proposed McMaster club. However, some SRA representatives stated that they were unable to be certain that such a connection existed.
The SRA was hesitant to deny ratification outright. SRA (Science) member Simranjeet Singh stated that all viewpoints should be permitted, noting that it is not necessary for the SRA to agree with every club that they ratify. According to Singh, SRA members were working with the presumption that applicants were acting in good faith.
“We didn't want to prevent people from allowing their group to exist because of what a lot of us thought was hearsay and may not have been fully representative of the entire community as well,” said Singh.
The SRA considered further delaying ratification, but it was brought up that this would prevent the Dominion society from participating in clubs fest, a major opportunity for recruitment.
As a compromise, SRA members suggested monitoring the club over the course of the year to see whether their activities aligned with the clubs operating policy. It was noted that the SRA has historically never been responsible for monitoring clubs, and the monitoring strategy was not determined.
SRA members also suggested inviting Indigenous professors to speak to the Dominion society about decolonization and reconciliation, in the hopes that this would provide further context to the conversation around Canadian history. No SRA members indicated that they had done consultation with Indigenous people about the risks and feasibility of this suggestion.
On July 21, a month after the clubs were first pitched to the SRA, the SRA voted almost unanimously to ratify the MacDonald society.
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
On July 23, a Twitter thread was published showing a series of photos from the MacDonald cultural and historical society’s social media accounts. The thread identified certain individuals pictured attending events hosted by the society. It then posted a series of screenshots from a private Facebook group showing explicitly fascist, white supremacist comments allegedly made by the individuals in the photographs.
The thread also provided photographic evidence that the leader of the Dominion society had attended multiple events hosted by the Macdonald historical and cultural society.
The photographic evidence linking the Dominion society leader to the MacDonald cultural and historical society was visible to the public on the group’s Facebook page. However, neither the clubs administrators nor SRA members found this evidence while researching the club.
A day after this information was released, MSU president Josh Marando released a statement urging SRA members to deratify the club in light of the new information.
One major concern was that the group seemed to misrepresent its connections to an outside organization. This violates the clubs operating policy, which states that clubs must disclose all third party connections.
“Based on documentation circulated online and forward to us, it appears to me that applicants of this club misrepresented their connection to a third party, which is a condition of ratification and hence why I am recommending its revocation,” said Marando in an emailed statement.
In addition, Marando stated that the club seemed to have connections to other organizations or people with white supremacist attitudes.
“Such attitudes have no place in the MSU Clubs system or in campus discourse,” he wrote in his July 24 statement.
In a statement to CBC news following the release of Marando’s statement, the leader of the Dominion society denied connections to the Macdonald historical and cultural society was non political and stated that the club had no ties to white supremacist organizations.
IS IT ENOUGH?
In his statement, Marando highlighted the need to improve the clubs application process in order to prevent hate groups from using clubs as fronts for organizing. He called for an emergency SRA meeting, which has not yet been scheduled.
According to MSU general manager John McGowan, however, the situation does not represent a problem with the current approval process, which allows for deratification when new information comes to light.
“What's occurring now is proving that the system does work with regards to decisions being made but then being reflected on based on accurate information is being provided by the community,” said McGowan.
For others, however, the club should never have been ratified in the first place. According to the Hamilton student mobilization network, a local activist organization, the university has not done enough to oppose the growing threat of white supremacy on campus.
In their statement, the HSMN noted that white supremacist organizations are gaining traction on university campuses, and urged the MSU to meaningfully oppose these organizations.
“Had they treated concerns about the MacDonald Society’s white supremacist ties with the gravity they deserve, we would not now be in this situation to begin with,” said the statement. “We are calling on the MSU to permanently ban any organization that promotes white supremacy and implement measures to prevent this from ever happening again.”
The SRA has not yet scheduled an emergency meeting to vote on deratification. As the start of the school year draws near, the Dominion society’s club status remains uncertain.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Two long weeks after The Silhouette released an article regarding the gaps within the McMaster Students Union sexual violence disclosure processes, MSU President Ikram Farah finally released a statement.
The statement, which reads as a rambling pat on the back, condemns sexual violence and commits to a systematic review of the Maroons and the MSU as a whole, something that two Maroons representatives brought forward when they suggested a full audit of the service back in September 2018.
In the fall, a regularly scheduled service audit was conducted in which Maroons representatives made it known that an additional reporting tool would be useful. They also noted that the MSU’s workplace policy on harassment, discrimination and sexual violence should be more survivor-centric.
In response, the MSU vice president (Administration), Kristina Epifano, developed an online reporting tool and reportedly consulted with volunteers, staff and experts to update the workplace policy. But once released, it was discovered that this online reporting tool was not nearly as thorough or inclusive as the Maroons representatives had hoped.
Additionally, there is no evidence that the board of directors made any effort to lay the groundwork for investigation of sexual assault within the Maroons.
These Maroons representatives spent six months advocating for a full service review of the Maroons that focused on sexual assault. It was only when they made a public report to The Silhouette that the MSU president pledged to begin investigating sexual assault within the service.
Farah’s statement comes two weeks too late and six months after the fact that the two Maroons representatives reported the culture of sexual assault within the Maroons to Epifano.
The fact is that over the course of the two weeks following release of our article, the Maroons were actively hiring new representatives and ignoring the calls to action from the McMaster community.
Though Farah stated that Maroons events will be suspended for the time being while the review is underway, it is unclear whether the Maroons will be involved in Welcome Week this fall.
There’s a lot to say about the statement. We could mention that within the statement, Farah makes a note that she personally has not found any “actual reports” of sexual violence within the Maroons team this year. While she does acknowledge that the lack of reporting does not mean that harassment or assault hasn’t occurred, this tangent is absolutely unnecessary and self-praising.
What’s more is Farah’s claim that the MSU’s “practices and disclosure protocols are exemplary of the sector.”
What does exemplary mean if the practices and disclosure policies have not been consistent, thorough nor inclusive before these past few months? In what way is taking two weeks to release a statement regarding the matter exemplary?
Within the MSU, the lines between personal and professional are constantly blurred. Given that the MSU has consistently protected individuals accused of sexual assault, it is no surprise that survivors may not feel comfortable disclosing their sexual assault.
Whether the perpetrator was a member of the Student Representative Assembly or a presidential candidate, the MSU has continuously failed to support survivors.
This is indicative of a larger issue within the MSU: there is no independent human resources department to respond to complaints and initiate reviews.
Maroons representatives spent six months advocating for change, and it took two weeks and dozens of community members, volunteers and MSU employees taking to social media to demand a response from the Maroons coordinator and have the MSU commit to a full service review.
In order to properly address sexual assault at a systemic level, the MSU needs to overhaul its sexual assault policy and oversight process.
The MSU has proven time and time again that it is poorly equipped to properly respond to sexual assault allegations. It is left entirely up to the board of directors to ensure that policies are upheld, but they are not trained or qualified to respond to issues of this magnitude.
The MSU needs an independent HR department to consistently and proactively address concerns so that students do not have to turn to public disclosure in order to initiate a review process.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
When I started out as the Opinions Editor for The Silhouette this past year, I admittedly didn’t care much about student politics or governance. I was unfamiliar with the policies of the McMaster Students Union and had no idea what happened during Student Representative Assembly meetings.
Nowadays, I regularly watch the SRA livestreams and perform my due diligence to be aware of changes occurring within the MSU. A large part of that is for my job, but I’ve found that staying informed has benefits beyond finding something to write about.
The purpose of the MSU is to “represent you and to help build a better community for all students”. As the governing body of the MSU, SRA members have a responsibility to represent and lobby on behalf of their students.
It’s only fair then that we as students hold these members, and the MSU in general, accountable for their actions. In doing so, we are ensuring that any changes occurring are truly reflective of the needs and desires of students.
There’s many ways for students can hold these organizations accountable. They can attend SRA meetings, speak to their SRA representative, voice their concerns online or even protest for change.
Alternatively, you can do what I do, and write about your concerns for the campus newspaper. Perhaps some of my criticisms have been harsh or slightly misguided. But at the end of the day, I’m proud of the articles that I’ve written and edited for The Silhouette. Even if they have stepped on some toes, I’d like to think they’ve helped incite some positive changes on campus.
Whether these changes are a fully-stocked Union Market or investigations into MSU-recognized clubs, it’s evident that speaking out on issues is important.
Not everything the SRA or MSU has done has been negative. In fact, they have made some great, positive changes that are deserving of praise, or at the very least, of respect.
A few weeks ago, I had plans to write about the SRA’s contradictory playing of the national anthem and delivery of a land acknowledgment at their meetings. To my surprise, I found that they passed a motion to stop playing the national anthem at their meetings altogether. Things like these are positive changes that students should be aware of.
Of course, there is only so much that students can do. Given the record eight students who attended the General Assembly on March 20, it is obvious that the MSU must do a better job at engaging with their student constituents.
But just because the MSU and SRA have much to improve doesn’t mean that students are off the hook for staying informed. Without student input and advocacy efforts, organizations are given too much power and can make decisions that negatively impact us all.
For example, without the efforts of a few brave survivors telling their experiences with sexual assault within the MSU Maroons, it’s unlikely that the service would be doing anything to account for the issue, much less propose developing a long-overdue sexual assault and harassment policy.
I encourage students to get engaged with their university’s politics. It might seem overwhelming, and the information is certainly not easy to navigate, but it’s important work.
Especially in light of the upcoming changes to post-secondary education made by the provincial government, it is in the best interests of all students to be engaged with their union’s activities.
My term at The Silhouette is reaching a close. I’ve learned a lot during my time working for the newspaper but my biggest takeaway is that student politics affects us all, including those outside of the MSU bubble. For our own sake, we ought to keep our student organizations accountable for their actions.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
