View the entire gallery on our facebook page here.

Ahbi Mukherjee
The Silhouette

A new pilot program, Spark, will be a student-led, student-run service of the MSU devoted to setting the stage for student success at the University. The service was proposed by the MSU’s vice-president (education) Spencer Graham and will specifically cater to incoming first-year students at no extra cost.

Spark will begin at the start of the coming fall term and will be designed to provide students with small group environments that facilitate first-year growth and build personal development and reflection skills for undergraduate career. It will introduce students to campus services, clubs and leadership opportunities and encourage extracurricular participation. It will also connect students to their peers and upper-year students to promote increased support on academic issues and associated first-year challenges.

The program will be comprised of weekly sessions that will consist of small groups of participating first-year students and be led by two undergraduate Success Facilitators. Each session will be between 1-2 hours long and will take place throughout the entirety of each term. The topics for each week’s sessions will be planned by the Spark coordinator in conjunction with the vice-president (administration) as necessary. A session may involve leadership activities, presentations from speakers, discussions, journaling/reflection periods, games and other activities. A participating first-year student will have completed the program upon the completion of three self-directed activities within the University or broader community of Hamilton. There will be several optional, open study groups at various points throughout the week to promote building inclusive student learning communities.

Online applications will be made available for students and will ask students specific questions, which will help arrange them into groups. These groups will be created with the intention of dividing students according to diversity of goals, personality types, level of comfort and level of prior engagement.

“The idea for Spark came to me when I was running for VP (education) a year ago. I came up with the ideas through some of my old personal experiences and some things that I noticed in the school community in general,” said Graham. “Students nowadays are very much expected to go to university; its an expectation placed on them by their parents, peers and society and throughout their years at university, they have very little time to sit down and think why they are here in the first-place. That is what Spark will be all about, to open up the box.”

“The idea is that first-years come into the university and they will be put under the guidance and leadership of upper year students to be successful," Graham said. "So the program is meant to crack open the box on why you are here and what you can get out of university and what first steps I should be taking as a first-year to get to where I want to be.”

Participant spots are first come first serve for the Spark program. It will be open to students from every faculty. As the first installation of the program is a pilot project, the total number of students to be accepted will be approximately 100 per term, however this number depends on the available resources that will be deduced by the Spark coordinator.

Alexandra Sproule
The Silhouette

People tend to grow into the roles that are given to them. Stanley Milgram gave a famous proof of this in his prison experiment. He placed average, mentally healthy students into randomized roles of prisoners and guards and watched them grow into them with alarming and dangerous accuracy, speed and ‘success’ (the experiment was ended early because a ‘prisoner’ had a mental break down).

I bring this up to help explain my deep distress over the University’sresponse to a recently-discovered, shockingly vulgar, Redsuit Songbook. On the positive side, the University’s speedy denouncement of this book, as well as their call for an independent investigation, is completely appropriate. It is offensive – even a bit frightening – that the disturbing images in the songbook appear to have been written and repeated by McMaster students. However, I find it hard to justify the University’s choices to:

(1) Fail to consult the associated groups, the McMaster Engineering Society (MES) and Redsuits

(2) Disempower and publicly condemn the student leadership in the MES and Redsuits, and

(3) Punish and disempower the entire faculty by banning all events involving alcohol (it affects grad celebrations, EngMusical, and clubs and teams trying to attend/compete in events).

The thing is that the engineering songbook in question was not in popular use. Few seem to have even known of its existence. I find it hard to believe that many engineers would support the violent songs like “S&M Man,” which are receiving so much attention, or wish it to be perceived as part of their culture. Unfortunately, the University has not given students that option. The media, faculty comments, and the structure of punishments all send a clear message to all members or observers of Mac Eng: McMaster engineering is home to an extreme culture of sexism and violence, and it can only be controlled through drastic action. This is an unfair attack that puts anyone wishing to defend engineering culture against those condemning the songbook – an unnecessary division in a student culture that would already denounce the unusual vulgarity of many of the songs in question.

In addition to creating an unnecessary divide between the Faculty and some of its students, the University’s reaction is also deeply disempowering to its students. It dishonours the work of many hard-working, non-sexist, non-violent students who are trying to pursue their passions, nurture their ideas and contribute to their community. This is not an example of working with your students to build a better campus (and a better world). It is an example of unfeeling bureaucratic behaviour that I would hope the University is teaching its students to question, not obey.

It also upsets me that there is evidently a poor trust-relationship between the Faculty and its student leaders in the MES and Redsuits. This is something I hope both sides will work to address in the future. The lack of consultation with engineering student leadership seems to imply assumed guilt. This is damaging to a young person’s sense of self-esteem, justice and leadership.

If there had been sufficient trust, I believe the Faculty could have seized this upsetting incident as an opportunity to promote leadership, ethical behaviour, and partnership by bringing student leadership into their decision making process from the beginning. This could have kick-started a process in which Faculty and students work together to determine what changes McMaster eng culture needs, and how they will be executed. I want to go to a school that is training its students to engage in this kind of process, rather than responding to uncomfortable situations with wild attempts at control through discipline and fear.

Thankfully, there is still time for the University to switch strategies, and I hope they do. I am not sure why this authoritarian track was taken. Perhaps because the lyrics in this songbook do evoke an extremely large emotional reaction – this may not have been a rational decision. Perhaps it comes down to very low Faculty trust in student engineering leadership. Perhaps, the University has taken this as an opportunity to roll out an unrelated agenda. In any case, I would be hard-pressed to be convinced that the means justify the ends. When you act like an unfeeling bureaucracy, you may find yourself growing into the role. And when you treat students like poorly-cultured, untrustworthy children, you may discover you have created exactly that.

I may be the dumbest person on the planet, and unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) I’ll never know for that very reason. All I do know is that what follows below is a bumbling attempt to muster up a defence of the indefensible by understanding the Redsuit songbook – why it was made and how it fits into the larger picture.

Maybe I’m drawn to the total destruction and almost disbelief of the situation. Maybe I am just a masochist with a penchant to take on a harder stance than I can handle. Or perhaps I’m doing so because I like to imagine the students who produced the vulgar text were very much like myself with little, silly dreams, who participated in McMaster culture daily, who were educated in some of the same classes I was, and maybe I’m afraid that with these shared experiences, I might one day make the same mistakes they did. Maybe I’m afraid because I might be those same mistakes all the same.

Whatever the reason, let it be known that what happened is not a sudden resurfacing of antiquated chants long forgotten. There was no ancient map that led to a dusty shelf, no bygone translation of some eroding book found in Thode. Instead, the songs were the culmination of unchecked excess years in the making.

This fact seems to be forgotten in between the almost reactionary and certainly warranted repugnance. Though the lyrics seem to alienate, ostracize, and isolate members of its population, I don't think that was their intent. Like gladiators bellowing in the ring, they purposefully feed off the extreme, the disgusting, and the savage. The hooting and hollering is meant to strike fear and shock because in doing so, in sharing in the horror and revulsion of the text, the people singing those same songs have transcended the abhorrence together.

While this seems strange to admit, it must be remembered that the Redsuits work to facilitate the goal of Welcome Week: developing a collective experience that bridges the gap between students. These chants, though admittedly not all those copied down in the alleged songbook were known to all of the members, are the extreme perversion of such an aspiration. At the very fringe, they are insulting with a purpose. For that reason there is no apology offered. The ultimate goal is not comfort but to move beyond comfort in some contorted collective camaraderie.

This does not condone the hymns in any way, but it may point to a larger problem of Welcome Week: we are to come together at whatever the cost. More often or not, the cost is decided by those in charge, not by those participating. They do not define what is good or right; it is the others - the apparently wise, mature students - who do, and we, fickle louts at the bottom, are meant to follow their lead.

This divide between one's perception of what is tolerable and what is not is where the harm results. Part of such a divide is the consequence of Welcome Week being situated in the broader sphere of society. With its perverse notions, its over-sexualized tones, its blatant misogyny, its tendencies to idolize the foolish and inane, Welcome Week usually reflects the worst of our gluttony. Pop monstrosities such as Pitbull's "As Se Eu Tu Pego" or LMFAO's "Party Rock" croon about sex this and sex on every corner. People yell as a way to instill a forced, artificial excitement. Parties are rampant. Alcohol flows easily. And with these brute force methods where the younger of us are told that Welcome Week planners know better and isn't socializing good for you and come on, come on, have a little fun, the cost is a blubbering, messy, and insensitive cheer, if those in the book can even be called that.

Such a discrepancy between individuals is not good or bad necessarily. Part of me feels as though a person’s comfort zone should be challenged and poked at if only to grow in some ways. Of course this is coming from a person who welcomed the Welcome. Yet I can see the discomfort and creeping complications of enjoyment for the sake of it as it is defined by someone else. This gap is further muddled by coexisting under a larger social bubble: McMaster’s Welcome Week is sucked into the vacuum of unmitigated and arguably disrespectful cultural mores. Ultimately this is the cause of Welcome Week's unease, not the result of it, and the consequence is continually growing, unfiltered chaos. Point and proof: the alleged songbook.

Is there a solution? I don’t know; it's hard to imagine a social event without being social and without the problems that accompany such an identity. How to draw the line between acceptability becomes blurred too: one person's minimum is another person's excess.

Still, acquiescing to the complications is too easy. While we all can voice our disgust and incredulity, this is not enough. Neither is saying that it is one faculty's responsibility. It isn't. If anything, such isolationism is what led to the problem in the first place and it is contrary to what Welcome Week suggests - we are all connected to this place if only for a little while.

If we do not think this way, and if we alienate ourselves to our own trite faculty concerns, nothing will be different in a few years and the Engineering fubar will be the first of many. Instead all of us need to be conscious of the environment around us. We need to be aware of not only our limits, but those of others. And we need to start today.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I began the article admitting my stupidity, which might be reaffirmed by the article itself. But I like to believe, perhaps in the naivety of not knowing and ignorance and damn fool heartedness, that this is possible. We can be better, this fiasco can sober us up in every sense of the word, and we can work on strengthening a week, a faculty, an entire University that is weakened by its unrestrained mirror to society and its failings.

TRIGGER WARNING: the following article contains references to extreme violence, rape, sexual assault and child mutilation all in graphic detail and may be triggering to some people.

Following this morning's announcement by McMaster University that the Redsuits engineering student group have been suspended due to violent and sexist material in a songbook, the songbook in question has surfaced.

The 35-page document, which details the lyrics to 28 songs and chants, contains material that is extremely offensive and, in the case of explicit references to child abuse, underage sexual behaviour, sexual assault on inebriated people and physical assault, promotes illegal and inhumane activity.

One particular song, "S&M Man" (found on page 34-5), is an inconceivably grotesque account of physically and sexually torturing women. Some verses include "Who can take a cheese grater / Strap it to his arm / Shove it up her cunt / And make some pussy parmesan?" and "Who can take a chainsaw / Cut the bitch in two / Fuck the lower half / And give the other half to you?"

Informal conversations with McMaster engineering students suggest that the book is a product of a small group of students and not representative of the Redsuits as a whole. Many engineering students were not even aware of the book's existence.

The University has denounced the book in question and as a preliminary sanction, has barred Redsuits from organizing events for the remainder of the year, including Welcome Week 2014 when they are most active with first-year students on campus. A full investigation conducted by an external agency has been promised by the University.

The McMaster Students Union supports the University's decisions. "Derogatory and degrading chants have no place on this campus," said MSU president David Campbell in response to the situation.

The McMaster Engineering Society released a statement via their Facebook page, stating that "this book is not, and has never been, distributed or endorsed by the McMaster Engineering Society. The content unequivocally opposes what the MES represents."

More to come.

Engineering Redsuits Songbook - Silhouette Redacted Copy *trigger warning* by TheSilhouette

By now, you’ve probably heard about the Saint Mary’s University and University of British Columbia frosh week rape chant debacle. And, if you’re a decent human being, you’re probably also appalled by it.

In short, frosh orientation leaders at the two universities (that is, the two universities it has surfaced at so far) have come under fire for a cheer that goes, “Y is for your sister, O is for oh-so-tight, U is for underage, N is for no consent, G is for grab that ass.” It’s inappropriate, inexcusable, and frankly, inhuman. But that we already know.

What has come under less fire is how the media, the universities, and the students involved have handled the whole situation. That’s where my beef is.

To start, this article is one of only a few newspaper pieces you’ll find that actually puts into print all the verses of the chant. Most condense it, and only include excerpts – strange to me, considering it’s a whopping 26 words long. They usually eliminate the “oh so tight” part, perhaps to avoid offending readers (and yet is that not the whole point that this is really offensive?), which becomes convenient when they then water-down their adjectives to the stuff of mere “sexist chant” instead of acknowledging the vaginal violence that phrase indicates: rape.

Indeed, the National Post ran the shockingly forgiving headline “Saint Mary’s University student president apologizes for ‘sexist’ frosh chant that critics say ‘reinforces rape culture’”. So we’re relying on critics to confirm that that disgusting string of words is, in fact, offensive? And what is with those scare-quotes? Is the National Post so insecure in its values that it has to only tentatively identify that the chant ‘reinforces rape culture’? Grow up, NP, and tell it like it is.

The Globe and Mail, too, published, “Frosh video cheering on non-consensual sex is ‘sexist and offensive,’ Saint Mary’s University says.” Let me make something clear right now: sexism is stuff like believing women are worse drivers than men by the mere fact of their gender. Sexism is by no means harmless, but it’s not on the violent level of this rape promotion. This frosh chant goes way beyond sexism, and to reduce it to that is to belittle the severity of the situation.

Enough with the “non-consensual sex” language, too. Rape is rape. Let’s not dilute the violence of that word by smothering it with “non-consensual” euphemisms. Doing so decreases the urgent sense of violence and pain that the term “rape” appropriately connotes, and disrespects the countless victims of this horrible crime whose experiences are downgraded by such rhetoric.

Enough, too, with all this talk of sensitivity training. The people who chanted the rape cheer were fully aware that it was wildly inappropriate – it’s common sense. No amount of university-administered sensitivity training or bringing in bullying professionals (the actual response at SMU) will awaken them to something they already know, or solve the deep-seated indifferent misogyny that perpetuated the chant’s continuing presence at so many years’ frosh events.

What does need to happen is to hold students more accountable for their actions – upper-year coordinators and first years alike. It shouldn’t have taken days for the Saint Mary’s student’s union president – who led the cheer, among others – to step down. He should have been fired - immediately. The schools shouldn’t be promising to “investigate the incidents”; the frosh leaders involved should be suspended, and maybe even expelled.

Consequences need to apply to the youngest people involved, too. First year students are, on average, 18 years old. They are legal adults who can vote, can drive, and have achieved secondary school grades high enough for admission into a university-level institution. So I don’t care about group mentalities, or how impressionable these young adults are. They are autonomous, intelligent individuals who have no excuse for singing along, for not blowing the whistle sooner on this chant, and who then grow up to become frosh leaders who propagate this whole cycle.

I’ve never heard anything like that cheer at McMaster, and I hope I never will. But I won’t be surprised to hear about more students criticizing and publicizing similarly violent and vulgar experiences at other universities after this coast-to-coast reveal. For in a country where our media sugarcoats, our administration band-aids, and our students deny responsibility, where's the pressure for this culture to change?

View the full video that kickstarted this whole discussion, here:

[youtube id="SMY9Tqxz-Ec" width="620" height="360"]

 

A quick recap of Welcome Week events. Videography by Emily Scott, co-edited with Ben Barrett-Forrest.

Click through for some photos of Faculty Fusion, MacConnector, and the Tommy Trash concert. Photos c/o Sarah Janes.

If you’re feeling annoyed, or exhausted, or overwhelmed by Welcome Week, let me be the first to say, okay. That’s normal. That’s just fine.

One of the strongest memories I have of my Welcome Week is waking up on Sunday morning, scrolling through my phone, and realizing that I had no idea who most of my new contacts were.

I had spent the week frenetically meeting people and making fast friends and trying to do it right. In reality, I spent the next few months awkwardly eyeing people in the hallways whom I only vaguely recognized. It’s events like MacConnecter where, thanks to insubstantial 30-second interactions, ironically, you don’t connect with anyone at all.

And when I got tired of mindless cheering, or wanted a little bit of time to myself to unpack, or didn’t want to be danced up on by a loud rep for the zillionth time, I felt like I was being perceived as a boring, negative person. I felt like I would never make friends.

I get that it’s all fun and games and designed to bring people out of their shells. And to the most part, it accomplishes that goal. But there is very little room for diverse personalities in the Welcome Week approach.

Take Superfrosh, for example. We celebrate a male and female Superfrosh for every faculty, which essentially boils down to finding the loudest, most obnoxious and hyperactive teenager around, and telling everyone that they epitomize the first year ideal. Which is frustrating when one is overwhelmed, feeling alone, and is even mildly introverted.

I’m not pushing for alternative programming. We have plenty of quieter coffee houses and movie nights that are designed for the calmer person – if you’re not too exhausted by traditional WW activities to go. Rather, I’m calling for a change in attitude about what a good frosh experience means.

Coming to university provides the unique chance to reinvent yourself from who you were in high school. You can be anyone you want to be, can start over, can make totally new friends. And you shouldn’t feel limited by the narrow definition of confident first year that Welcome Week seems to insist upon.

Maybe you’ve attended every event and loved them; maybe you’re a little disillusioned but still having fun; maybe you haven’t attended a single Welcome Week event yet. What I want you to know is that it doesn’t matter – you’ll still make friends, be happy, and have an awesome year. It’ll be the little things that form friendships, like games of cards in the common room, and late night Centro runs, and walking with people to class.

Five years ago, I arrived on campus as a buzzing cocktail of excitement, nervousness and determination: McMaster was going to be fun and I would get good grades and make lots of friends and have the best time ever. And, in fact, I did. But that success was despite  – not because – of how Welcome Week made me feel.

As the first week of September rolls in, a new batch of first year students are being introduced to life at McMaster. Welcome Week 2013 is in full swing as upper-year students, campus organizations, and administration gather to welcome incoming Mac students to their new school.

The current Welcome Week marks the second year of a mandatory MacPass, a policy requiring every incoming first year to pay a $110 levy to participate in the week of events. While new to the Welcome Week, the levy was met with success by the MSU last year and a similar model has been followed this year.

“There haven’t been too many big changes, mainly small things,” MSU VP Administration Anna D’Angela said of the planning. The VP Administration is traditionally one of the main organizers of the week.

Though the week is about half done, MSU President David Campbell is already pleased with how things are going.

“I want to knock on wood saying this, but I think it’s been going pretty smoothly so far,” he said of the programming.

The 2013 Welcome Week has also continued the trend of increasing options for students living off campus.

“I do think again the focus was on trying to get more off-campus [students], because they tend to be the most prominent group of people who don’t necessarily get involved as much but are now paying to be involved,” Campbell explained.

Such events as the SOCS Sleepover, available after the Tuesday night concert so off-campus students could stay on campus, were repeated this year, having been first implemented in 2012.

The weeknight concert, a regular part of Welcome Week activities, was headlined this year by Tommy Trash, while Friday’s concert in Faculty Hollow is set to welcome Lights and The Arkells back to Hamilton.

[MORE] Storified tweets and photos from you.