By Suad Alad, Contributor
cw: racism, sexual assault, transphobia
“Cancel culture”, also known as “call-out culture” is a form of social and real-world boycotting of a public figure who has done wrong by an individual or a group of people. Typical celebrities and public figures that contribute to acts of social discrimination such as racism, misogyny or homophobia are so called “victims” of our “toxic cancelling”. Many argue that the existence of cancel culture is harmful and it only discourages people to grow from their past mistakes.
I, however, argue that while the intentions of cancel culture are displayed during public scandal, the entirety of cancel culture as a concept doesn’t exist. I believe that it’s only in its first stage of existing. And this first stage is not nearly as prominent in today’s society nor is it as effective in “ending people’s livelihoods” as it is often made out to be.
While I agree that there are celebrities that have had their careers ruined due to actions they have made in the past, I wouldn’t say that public figures are “victims” of this boycott. Bill Cosby and R. Kelly, two men who have commited countless sex crimes, are examples of celebrities who have been publicly cancelled and sentenced to jail for their crimes. However, two examples are not enough to prove that cancel culture exists.
If we’re going off the idea that cancel culture is once a public figure has offended a group of people, their careers are ruined and they aren’t ever allowed to change, then more than half of Hollywood and the public leaders of the world would be jobless and hated by the masses. However, this is not the case. In fact, there are many public figures who publicly defame and maliciously target groups of marginalized people whose careers have yet to be destroyed.
In fact, there are many public figures who publicly defame and maliciously target groups of marginalized people whose careers have yet to be destroyed.
Jordan Peterson, a professor and clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto, is what the far right describes as a man who says it how it is. He does many talks on the dangers and toxicity of political correctness and believes that freedom of speech is under attack by the left. However, many of Peterson’s supporters use his arguments about freedom of speech to justify their refusal to call trans students by their preferred pronouns, and to endorse or promote oppressive rhetoric without backlash.
Many U of T students disagree with Peterson’s transphobic ideologies and some have petitioned for him to be fired. If cancel culture really existed, someone like Peterson would lose their job in an instant. Not only does Peterson still have his job, he appears at many events across Ontario at universities to discuss how freedom of speech is in great need of protection. By giving Peterson the platform to express this harmful narrative, universities are essentially enabling Peterson and telling marginalized students they don’t matter to the administration. McMaster is no exception to this. Peterson gave a talk at McMaster, despite student protest, in 2017.
Former President Patrick Deane of McMaster defended the university’s decision to have Peterson come speak about political correctness stating that taking opportunities to listen to someone speak, even someone one might “vehemently disagree with” is a crucial part of education. He felt that for this reason, excluding Peterson, or any controversial figure, would be an unjust decision, even though one of Peterson’s main topics of focus is the protection of transphobic rhetoric.
What many people fail to acknowledge is what the actual purpose of cancel culture is. It does not exist to end the careers of innocent people, nor does it exist to not accept the fact that people can change. It exists to hold people accountable for actions that are inexcusable, and its intentions are to let people know that in the future, the same sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. And this sort of accountability rarely occurs.
What many people fail to acknowledge is what the actual purpose of cancel culture is. It does not exist to end the careers of innocent people, nor does it exist to not accept the fact that people can change. It exists to hold people accountable for actions that are inexcusable, and its intentions are to let people know that in the future, the same sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. And this sort of accountability rarely occurs.
Even our Prime Minister isn’t expected to own up to his problematic past, no matter how harmful and racist it may be. Just this past October, Justin Trudeau was recently under fire for having taken part in forms of black and brown face in his college years, which came to light during the Canadian 2019 Federal Election. Although Trudeau did publicly apologize for his racist actions, he barely acknowledges in his apology that they were racist. He more so plays it off as a dumb mistake he made as a teenager.
Many black and brown Canadians took to social media to express their disappointment in both Trudeau’s actions and his apology and for a short period, his numbers in the campaign polls dropped. Nevertheless, mockery of racialized people did not seem to affect Trudeau’s career. Despite his racist past being exposed so close to voting day, the public backlash he faced clearly wasn’t enough for him to experience genuine repercussions since he won and will serve as Canada’s prime minister for another four years.
I won’t deny that the intentions of cancel culture are there and that for a short period of time, the public tries to hold public figures accountable. I also won’t ever see this as a bad thing. But intention and trying to hold someone accountable doesn’t mean anything if the consequences don’t follow through. We are in the very midst of having cancel culture become real and it could be a good thing if demonstrated correctly. However, the perception that cancel culture is “toxic” and “discourages people” to change only allows room for transphobes and racists to avoid owning up to their past, but to completely ignore it. And it is important to remember that there is nothing toxic about calling out prejudice when it occurs.
If racist people can be presidents and prime ministers and white supremacists can still make a decent living and function within society without repercussions, then it’s safe to say that cancel culture is nowhere near close to existing. At least not in the way we think it does.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Sarah Homsi, Contributor
cw: homophobia
As vibrant, red poppies take residence on jackets and over people’s hearts, they act as a solemn symbol to remind us of those who have fallen during times of war.
This year, the lead up to Remembrance Day feels different. My various social media platforms have been overwhelmed with people disputing the rainbow poppy. Some are seething over its alleged disrespect to the symbolic and traditional red poppy, as they believe that breaking the tradition of having a red poppy, which represents remembrance and peace, will dishonour our veterans. Meanwhile, others are applauding its inclusion of a historically persecuted group, because it recognizes the 2SLGBTQ+ veterans that have fought for us. The Internet has not been this divided since the white/gold versus blue/black dress fiasco of 2016. As is the case for most viral internet debates, misinformation is being spread.
Never seen something so disrespectful in all my days, What does LGBTQ have to do with the war? Red represents Blood, Black represents widows and loved ones, Green represents land the blood was spilled on.
NEVER change the poppy. What right do you have?
Fuck your Rainbow Poppy. pic.twitter.com/TKwYrOgtFX
— Brooke💋 (@BrookeCutler_) November 3, 2019
The heteros are cool with white poppies for peace and purple poppies for animals but god forbid there’s one rainbow poppy in honour of the lgbt soldiers that died for this country. Smells like homophobia to me
— ella (@womeninmvsic) November 4, 2019
Images can often convey news faster than words. The image of the rainbow poppy that has been circulating online, a grainy yet colourful enamel pin on a black background, was taken from a UK-based seller’s eBay page. This seller has been selling the item for many years but has since taken it down due to the controversy.
As many of us have borne witness to people getting in heated debates over the rainbow poppy, ask yourself if you have actually seen anyone donning it. While people have been fervently accusing members of the 2SLBGTQ+ community of pushing the “gay” agenda, it should be noted that the rainbow poppy was never part of any sort of campaign from members of this community. Rather, it was something being sold on eBay that Twitter discovered, which resulted in arguments on what is the most appropriate way to honour our veterans.
Regardless of whether or not the rainbow poppy was put forward to be distributed and worn in November — even though they were not made with the intention of being widely distributed and worn — one cannot ignore the hate that was spread as a result of this dispute. Those adamantly opposed to the rainbow poppy seem to be using it as an opportunity to condemn the 2SLGBTQ+ community, promoting a fictitious narrative that there was actually a plan to make rainbow poppies a mainstay.
https://twitter.com/19Warrior85/status/1191332761208053760
Apparently, anything other than a red poppy is disrespectful to some, despite the existence of purple, white and black poppies, all holding a different meaning. Those arguing against red poppies are implying that representation has no place when we honour those who have fought. A lot of the arguments made against the rainbow poppy were instances of homophobia, masked under the guise of saying these arguments were intended to respect the vets. Some people have made it very clear that they can pick and choose which lives to honour, and which to not.
Whether or not you support the existence of a rainbow poppy, we should all take the time to reflect on why we remember, as well as refrain from propagating hate rooted in baseless claims. Remembrance Day is about remembering those who risked their lives for our country, but we must also remember the groups our history textbooks often don’t cover. Their lives have just as much meaning. Additionally, we should all reflect on how quickly we share random images on social media without giving them a second thought.
By: Rida Pasha
Whether it’s the real world being brought into the classroom by a professor, or the ease in explanation provided by a teaching assistant, there is no doubt that a good learning experience is a product of the time and energy of professors and TAs.
However, these educators are often overlooked and underappreciated for their efforts to bring life to course content. It’s time we become more active in acknowledging our professors and TAs.
The 2019 Teaching Awards Ceremony, an event run by a subcommittee of McMaster Students Union Macademics, was held on March 15, presenting nominated professors and TAs with awards for their excellence in teaching.
As someone involved in organizing and attending the event, a common remark made by the winners was that the greatest compliment they could receive was hearing appreciation from their students.
Although we generally view professors and TAs to be confident people in positions of authority, it was interesting that many of them discussed how even though it’s their job to lecture or run tutorials, they still feel a sense of nervousness before the start of each class.
Though instructors are strongly educated and qualified, it’s reassuring for them to hear that they’re doing a good job from their students.
Let’s take the time to compliment instructors that incorporate memes into their presentations, relate class material to our generation, take feedback seriously and actually make course improvements based off of them.
It’s easy to take their efforts for granted, but if you really enjoyed a class, let your instructor know after class or send them an email with follow-up questions.
Trying to be actively engaged in class is a great way to show instructors that what they’re saying is interesting. Although three-hour lectures can start to drag on, it’s great to ask questions or give your professor a nod of understanding when they look in your direction.
With course evaluations now open, spare a few minutes to describe what you like about your classes so far, and provide suggestions if you have any.
Not only is this an opportunity to give your input, it’s also a great way for professors to cater their class to their students’ needs, something many professors genuinely want to do.
When it’s Teaching Award nomination season, make sure you nominate professors and TAs that are doing a great job. The process takes no more than five minutes and can make all the difference for the educators you’re nominating.
Besides the fact that appreciating your teachers is a kind gesture, it’s also important to remember that beyond the course they are teaching, professors and TAs have industry knowledge and professional experience that could benefit you.
Whether you’re interested in learning more about the field they’re in, getting advice about graduate school or acquiring volunteer opportunities, it’s not a bad idea to start building a relationship with your instructors by showing them how they’re making your learning experience better.
Of course, be genuine and mean what you say, but recognize that sharing your thoughts and opinions about a class can result in a really great professional relationship.
There are classes you will love and others you will hate. But amongst the many that are boring, annoying and difficult, we all have at least one class that we look forward to attending, even on a rough day.
As students, let’s take the time to show our appreciation for our beloved educators that make a positive difference in our lives.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
In Dec. 2018, posters featuring the same font and design as McMaster University’s Brighter World campaign posters but instead reading “Whiter World” began popping up in various locations around campus.
According to the De Caire Off Campus Facebook page, the group behind the campaign is the Revolutionary Student Movement, an anti-capitalist student activist movement that claims to “support the peoples’ struggles against capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism in Canada and internationally.”
One poster reads “Farewell Patrick!” and accuses McMaster president Patrick Deane of promoting white supremacy and far-right groups, alleging that he was a “settler in apartheid South Africa.”
Another poster displays two photos of University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, calling him ‘anti-trans’ and ‘fascist’ and mentioning the treatment of protesters during his appearance in March 2017 and the ensuing free speech debate. It also highlights the vandalism of McMaster’s pride crosswalks.
The third poster details McMaster director of parking and security service Glenn De Caire’s history of support for carding, alleging that police presence around campus has increased dramatically.
The campaign initially began in Dec. 2015 in response to McMaster’s hiring of De Caire. In spite of the student backlash that the hire ignited and the McMaster Students’ Union Student Representative Assembly’s vote to endorse De Caire’s removal, the university stood by him, and De Caire has remained in his role since.
“The Whiter World posters outline white supremacist activity that the McMaster administration has actively facilitated on campus, as well what we see on the rise in the city,” the De Caire Off Campus group said in a statement to The Silhouette. “The campaign emerged out of the increasingly urgent need to push back against far-right and white supremacist organizing.”
When asked for an interview, Gord Arbeau, the university’s director of communications, responded by condemning the Whiter World posters.
“Our approach when there is graffiti or there are acts of vandalism is to remove the material when it is found. That’s what has happened in the handful of times these leaflets have been discovered,” said Arbeau.
The group behind the Whiter World campaign is particularly concerned about the alleged ineffectiveness of student consultation efforts by the university and the MSU and the university’s free speech guidelines, which they say have not seriously considered the concerns of marginalized communities.
In November, the SRA passed a motion opposing the Ontario government’s free speech policy mandate. MSU president Ikram Farah has been vocal in her opposition of McMaster’s free speech guidelines.
On Nov. 14, Farah, Deane, and McMaster University associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion) Arig al Shaibah hosted an open town hall to consult students and discuss the free speech mandate.
“[Consultation efforts have been] nothing more than manipulation and exploitation, and we refuse to cooperate,” the De Caire Off Campus group said.
The De Caire Off Campus campaign has also condemned the allegedly bolstered police presence in and around McMaster.
They are also in opposition to the increase in bylaw officers in Westdale and Ainslie Wood, which city council voted in favour of in 2016 and in 2017.
Every school in the Hamilton area employs at least one ‘school resource officer,’ a special police officer stationed at that location to ensure security.
“Police presence brings with it, for so many marginalized people, a constant threat of violence,” said the De Caire Off Campus group.
They also accuse Hamilton’s ACTION police teams of targeting racialized and working class residents and creating a hostile environment for marginalized students.
It is unclear whether the De Caire Off Campus group has any further plans to protest the university or consult with the student union or university administration.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Anyone who has had the pleasure of savouring ćevapi adorned with ajvar knows that good things come out of the Balkans. But for some time, a problem has been threatening the favourite sport of the southeastern European nations.
Soccer has always been plagued by organized fan violence, but it is in former Yugoslav nations like Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Albania that a bevy of right-wing nationalistic hooligans have been wreaking havoc.
If you’re any of the aforementioned nationalities, you’ll know about the 1990 riot that occurred at Zagreb’s Stadion Maksimir between not just the players of Dinamo Zagreb and Crvena Zvezda, but the thousands of Croatian and Serbian supporters there. Tensions had been rising to a boiling point, with Croatia electing a president favouring independence from the Yugoslavian communist state and the riot — which saw Dinamo’s Zvonomir Boban rise to the defence of a fan and kick a police officer in the chest — marked the turning point that saw Yugoslavia enter into a brutal war.
Being Croatian and a Dinamo Zagreb supporter myself, I’ve heard laudatory talk of Boban’s kick at family gatherings after everyone’s had a few shots of rakija. I never thought anything of it until recently when I’ve begun to grow increasingly disgusted with such nationalism. As I’m sure other Serbians, Bosnians, and Albanians raised in Canada by diaspora parents can attest to, they’ve been conditioned by their family to, if not hate, then dislike their former neighbour.
What happened at the match last week was avoidable and shouldn’t have happened. I had grimaced upon hearing that the two had been drawn in the same group, but having seen the Croatia-Serbia World Cup qualification matches go off without a hitch — with the exception of Josip Šimunić’s cynical clattering of Sulejmani — I was optimistic about the chances of these two nations sharing the same luck. UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, took no chances and allowed no away fans into the match held in Belgdrade. But all that did was create an even more toxic atmosphere in which flares were numerous and laser pointers where shone at Albanian players.
Near the end of the first half, a drone was flown over the field with a flag bearing the Greater Albania insignia. When it dipped towards the players, Serbia’s Stefan Mitrovic pulled down the flag, eager to restart play. He was subsequently rushed by several Albanian players who objected to his actions. From there, both benches erupted, and dozens of hardcore fans took to the field to throw chairs at the Albanian players and get punches in where they could.
One of the fans present on the field was Ivan Bogdanov, a Serbian member of Crvena Zvezda’s hooligan firm, the Deljie. Bogdanov is notorious for leading a massive riot in Serbia’s Euro qualification match against Italy in Genoa, and the question remains as to how such a volatile figure was allowed into the stadium let alone onto the pitch.
While the hooligans and even some of the stadium stewards were assaulting the Albanian players, most of the Serbian players gathered round the Albanians to shield them from the violence, and others like Serbian fullback Aleksander Kolarov voiced their displeasure directly to the fans who were infiltrating the field.
Despite how admirable the Serbian team’s reaction was, it should not have been needed. Allegations against Olif Rama, the Albanian prime minister’s brother, have surfaced, claiming that he controlled the drone. While nothing concrete has been established, whoever flew the drone should be ashamed of themselves. There is a place for political statements, and a soccer pitch is not one of them. The act was a rash one that endangered both sets of players and will ultimately lead to heavy fines being levied against both federations.
It is time for the Balkans to look inwards instead of finger-pointing any longer. While each nation romanticizes their past, all of their histories have been built on a dangerous brand of nationalism that is no longer needed and should be stifled at whatever cost. Although there was a heavy police presence at the match, the hooligans were able to take the field all too easily, which raises questions of corruption that may answer how Bogdanov got into the stadium.
My reaction toward the riot was similar to the one that Serbian midfielder Nemanja Matić had as he lingered on the field after both teams had disappeared down the tunnel — one of disbelief and disappointment at what had just happened. Ethnic tensions will probably always be there, but it’s the responsibility of the more levelheaded members of each Balkan country to take the moral high road and attempt to separate soccer from state feuds.
What makes an issue universally relevant to a student body? Does it have to affect every student personally? Does it have to be neutral in every ethnic, gender and social category to resonate with the most amount of people? Universal appeal sometimes means the effect on the whole rather than on the individuals that compose it.
You may not be one of the women who is intimidated by entering the ruthless world of political contests, and you may not even be involved enough to know whether you are represented by a man or a woman, but the issue affects the apathetic as much as the die-hards.
Some will criticize us for taking a seemingly one-sided approach to an issue, but it’s not our aim to lay blame, at least not in this case. We aim to explore systemic issues so that the greater student body is educated enough to discuss it among their peers.
It is in your best interest to be as knowledgeable as possible on the issues that affect the people around you, because those people will be your peers for the rest of your life, not only the next few years. These are the issues that affect my sister, my editors, my fellow human beings, so it is my responsibility to ensure that every ounce of scrutiny is expended on the topic.
We’re not asking you to solve these problems, we’re asking you to become aware that there is one, so you can become involved insofar that, as childhood PSAs would tell us, “knowing is half the battle.”
We do our best to touch upon as wide a variety of issues as we can, but like any publication, time and space are limiting factors, so if there is an issue that you think we are turning a blind eye to, just tell us. You’ll find that we are pretty receptive to new ideas, if you make the effort to inform us. It is way more effective than criticizing The Sil in your social justice circlejerks.
And if we seem a bit heavy-handed at times, it’s because some issues need an incredibly strong push.
By: Hayley Regis
You may have noticed an influx of butts in popular media. Even the prestigious Vogue is getting in on this.
Now Vogue, you know I love you, but just a heads up: I’m pretty sure butts have been around for a while now, so aren’t you just further objectifying the female body? Like, oh, thank god, I don’t have to hide my butt in shame anymore because Vogue says it’s okay. I’ll also point out that a lot of the ones you featured aren’t even that big. What about the thick chicks? I mean, I was excited at first because I thought this meant I might finally be able to find a pair of jeans that fit my butt-to-waist ratio, but then I realized hips weren’t in, and then I realized how stupid it is that a body part could be a trend. Are you telling me that my butt, kind of a constant in my life, is going to go out of style just like snap bracelets and bucket hats (I’m sorry, bucket hats are not back in style, you’re being lied to)?
Bucket hats be damned, but Sir Mix-A-Lot never goes out of style. When I heard Nicki Minaj’s Anaconda was sampling one of the greatest butt anthems of all time I knew it was going to make my shower playlist. This song is filled with innuendos and is hilarious. Clearly, she is having a great time loving her butt and that people buy her Balmain to get with it. When J.Lo and Iggy came out with “Booty”, at first I thought “alright, this could be a thing that I enjoy,” but instead I found myself watching a raunchy video with lyrics like “it’s his birthday, give him what he asks for.” Excuse you, J.Lo and the countless other writers of this song. I am not down.
Also, why has Anaconda been getting backlash since day one, but people are falling all over a video that contains J.Lo rolling around in what I can only assume is lube or honey with a very low viscosity? Vogue just said this was the “era of the big booty,” so why is a video that is heavy on big booty getting all kinds of crap about being unacceptable and crude? Is it because J.Lo and Iggy have butts with a Vogue stamp of approval? Is it because their butts are only slightly more voluptuous than average and therefore don’t pose a threat to the various Zumba and Pilates instructors of America?
If you consider yourself a butt connoisseur, I encourage you to check out Bubble Butts. A solid Major Lazer jam with some good featuring artists, and some great featuring asses.
Some students eagerly participate in elections in a partisan way by going door to door or campaigning through social media. Other students earn money by working for Elections Ontario as a Poll Clerk or Information Assistant. But when it comes to voting, it is well-known that students are one of the demographics with the lowest voter turnout for both provincial and federal elections, with only 2 out of every 5 eligible 18-24 year olds casting a ballot in the last federal election.
What is being done about it?
To combat voter apathy, the MSU has created the MacVotes campaign, aiming to both educate and engage students wishing to vote in any riding. MSU Vice President (Education), Rodrigo Narro-Perez explained, “We want students to vote regardless of where they are, whether it’s here in Hamilton or back home anywhere across Ontario.”
The MacVotes website includes a video summary of local candidate platforms and a series of FAQs for students wanting to participate in the election. On May 28, the MSU also hosted an all-candidates (from the Ancaster-Flamborough-Dundas-Westdale riding) debate on campus that was live-streamed by the Silhouette 15 days before the election. As Narro-Perez explains “the summer time is an obvious barrier but we have focused our efforts through social media to compensate”. Though the campaign is dynamic and presents a useful guide for students to vote, it is unclear whether these types of campaigns are enough to get students to actually register on the voters list and go to their local polling station to vote on election day.
The apathetic province
Ontario in particular seems to have an epidemic of voter fatigue. Less than half of eligible Ontario residents voted in the last provincial election. Dr. Katherine Boothe, a McMaster political science professor, describes how theorists like Mancur Olson (1971) argue this problem stems from the nature of democracy, “rational individuals know that their potentially significant effort to contribute to a collective or public good (like saving the environment or electing a government) will only advance the cause a small degree, and they will share the benefits whether they contribute or not”, which is coined by social scientists as the “collective action problem”.
Voting campaigns targeting youth might not provide sufficient incentive to overcome this problem. As Dr. Boothe said “recent research by Goodman (2012) suggests that young voters’ changing perceptions of citizenship and civic duty have an important role in their willingness to participate – and you probably can’t affect those with more convenient polling places or better buttons.”
The challenges of navigating the voting system are exacerbated by the Elections Ontario website. As McMaster student Sara King explains, the website is difficult to navigate “The website is problematic, it’s very hard to find what you’re looking for and the explanations are very confusing.”
Furthermore, the youth section in particular contains no compelling information or any attempt to address issues that youth in particular may face when it comes to voting, like voting in their University riding versus their home riding. As King said “The youth section is a joke”.
The initiative must be yours
If you are 18 years or older on election day, a Canadian citizen and a resident of Ontario, you can vote in the provincial election and you can choose which riding to vote in, whether that be McMaster’s riding or a home riding. However, it will be up to each individual to take the initiative to vote. Despite the MacVotes campaign, the lackluster Elections Ontario programming raises the question of how many students will end up turning out on June 12.
As much as inclusion and diversity have become buzzwords in elections and values upheld by student unions, measures to implement equitable services and plans are often met with resistance.
Recently, the University of Toronto Student Union (UTSU) introduced an Equity Plan which, if fully implemented, will remove representation for most colleges and faculty programs and add ten constituency directors. These directors will represent indigenous students, LGBTQ students, racialized students, women, athletes, international students, mature students, students with disabilities, first years, and commuters.
Although the UTSU’s plan is in its beginning stages and has not yet passed at their Annual General Meeting, it has already become a controversial topic at U of T and beyond.
In an article in the National Post, post-secondary education commentator Robyn Urback condemned the UTSU’s plan for all the wrong reasons. She called it “harrowingly stupid,” and aimed to expose the plan for what she thinks it truly is: an attack on white men. Urback’s article has unfortunately served as a reference point for many U of T undergrads and others who are outraged by this plan. It’s been cited in comments in U of T’s student newspaper The Varsity and other social media platforms as an acceptable rationale for why UTSU’s plan is so “stupid.”
Yet, Urback is missing the point, as are many of those disagreeing with UTSU’s plan. While there are many things to criticize about this Equity Plan, none of these criticisms will be taken seriously if they continue attacking “equity” instead of the “plan.”
The UTSU’s plan is clearly a decision based on inclusion and the desire to give marginalized communities on campus a voice. Since representation of minorities and democratic bodies elected by the majority don’t always go hand in hand, introducing ideas that aim to better represent marginalized groups is an incredibly difficult task.
This attempt to introduce something new and unheard of before in student governments should be criticized constructively and given credit for its radical effort. The exclusion of marginalized identities from student government is undoubtedly an important issue in post-secondary representation.
Can the UTSU’s plan fix this systemic problem? I don’t think so. But I think the UTSU’s board understands the level of reform that needs to take place in student unions.
The plan will certainly increase descriptive representation on student council, making marginalized identities visible, yet it will encourage a culture of placing the responsibility of meeting minority needs to minority members. It limits representation as something that can be achieved only by those whose experiences are identical to their constituents. This assumption of similarity is extremely flawed, given that our reliance on democratic systems is based on our belief that our representatives are capable of addressing our needs regardless of differences.
Instead of emphasizing the idea that women, LGBTQA+ individuals, racialized or disabled students are present in all faculties, across the entire campus and catering to their needs is only the just and equitable thing to do, it will instead encourage the idea that placing one queer, or disabled, or indigenous student on a governing body to represent their communities will create larger cultural impacts. Sure, that one director for racialized students might offer some insight on a policy, but are the creators of this plan hoping that somehow the one voice in the assembly will be more than that? Will it cause an increase in the number of racialized directors elected for other positions on the assembly, for president?
The UTSU’s plan assumes that guaranteeing a seat at the table for these identities will solve complex problems of representation. We want our communities represented, but true success would mean achieving proportional representation in the current structure of student assemblies. It would mean members of marginalized communities being elected by students to represent them without the student union creating mandatory positions. This plan would not work towards breaking down barriers and prejudices that cause the underrepresentation of these groups in the first place.
It seems as though the UTSU forgot what the goal of their plan really is: to create a campus where equity is the norm and marginalized identities no longer have to be referred to as marginalized. By restructuring their student union assembly to have boxes for these marginalized identities, the UTSU will be building a system that secures representation but ignores the deeper problems they are trying to address.
