Stop Sprawl Students organized farm festival to celebrate local farmlands and protest urban expansion
On Nov. 4, Stop Sprawl Students, a student-led organization promoting farmland conservation in Hamilton and throughout Ontario, held a farm festival at a local Hamilton farm.
The event was held at Manorun Organic Farm and aimed to engage students with local farms and raise awareness about the threat of urban sprawl and boundary expansion. The farm festival event had over 120 students attend and celebrate the government's decision to reverse the urban boundary mandates.
Stop Sprawl students is a McMaster University Ontario Public Interest Research Group project, which began as an academic project for a SUSTAIN 2SS3 course. The founding students have continued to work towards their goal of stopping urban boundary expansion both independently and in association with Stop Sprawl Hamilton Ontario.
The primary goal of Stop Sprawl Students has been to call for the repeal of Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. Bill 23, which received royal assent on Nov. 28, 2022 would enable developers to build homes on Ontario Greenbelt lands and force cities like Hamilton to expand their urban boundary to allow construction of suburban zones on farmland.
In September 2023, as a result of public pressure and the efforts of organizations like Stop Sprawl Students, Premier Doug Ford reversed the government's decision to build on the Greenbelt and force urban boundary expansion upon cities.
However, the threat to Hamilton’s farmland has not yet ceased. According to Sunit Toor, one of the student organizers of the farm festival, Hamilton city council will vote on Nov. 14 on whether to hold or expand the current boundary.
Due to the progression and looming threat of further boundary expansion, Stop Sprawl's Farm Festival event aimed to raise student awareness. Toor encouraged students to reach out to their city councillors and voice their opposition to urban boundary expansion.
Toor encouraged students to reach out to their city councillors and voice their opposition to urban boundary expansion.
At Manorun Organic Farm festival, McMaster students had the opportunity to meet and interact with farm animals, share a meal, engage with the student organizers, learn about the threat of urban expansion that Hamilton’s farmland is facing and come to understand the value and importance of local farms.
Emily Gaul, one of the founders of Stop Sprawl Students, expressed that students in particular ought to care about the threat to local farmland and urban boundary expansion, as the proposed plans could increase grocery prices as well as rent, contrary to the intention of Bill 23.
Emily Gaul, one of the founders of Stop Sprawl Students, expressed that students in particular ought to care about the threat to local farmland and urban boundary expansion, as the proposed plans could increase grocery prices as well as rent, contrary to the intention of Bill 23.
The fight to protect local farm land is not over and Stop Sprawl Students encouraged McMaster students to call their councillors and support the boundary remaining as it is currently.
By Clare Fiala, Contributor
Nestled in a corner on the second floor of the McMaster University Student Centre, the cozy office that is home to the McMaster Ontario Public Interest Research Group can be easy for a rushing student to miss.
Despite financial cuts propagated by the Student Choice Initiative in September 2019, the grassroots student-run organization has continued to act as a hub for many social justice and environmental causes on campus. The McMaster Students Union referendum in March 2020 affirmed OPIRG’s place at McMaster University as 60.2% of respondents voted to keep the organization funded by maintaining its $5.50 optional fee. However, some students may not be fully aware of the organization’s important work, especially incoming first-years.
A major component of OPIRG’s activities is centered around Public Interest Projects, which aim to advocate and fundraise for a variety of different causes ranging from countering the “fast-fashion industry” to feeding the hungry and beyond.
Currently, OPIRG supports eight PIPs, all run by McMaster undergraduate students. Some projects have been around for several years while others are newer, such as Warm Soles, the PIP I co-founded this school year. Even though our PIPs are different in many ways, we all strive to affect change and advocate for an issue that we believe is relevant to McMaster students and the wider Hamilton area.
Warm Soles seeks to provide socks for people experiencing street homelessness in Hamilton. Surprisingly, 20% of medical issues among this population are foot conditions. Good quality socks protect the feet and help prevent these debilitating conditions, yet they are the least donated item to clothing banks. Thus, a simple item that we often take for granted could have a significant impact on someone’s quality of life.
With OPIRG’s support, Warm Soles set up sock donation boxes in the OPIRG office and the Arts and Science Program Offices, to collect new socks or cash donations (since most people don’t carry around brand new pairs of socks). All socks will be donated to the Good Shepherd, a large non-denominational shelter and social services organization in downtown Hamilton.
Among the types of equipment OPIRG provides their PIPs for free, OPIRG has two high-quality button makers of different sizes. Warm Soles employed this resource to make a variety of different buttons, which we sold to raise money in order to purchase socks for donation. The button-makers and associated materials are also available for other McMaster student groups to use for a small fee.
All OPIRG PIPs have innovative and unique ways of raising funds and awareness. However, disruptions imposed by COVID-19 have required another pivot. For example, Bleed Free, a PIP focused on ending stigma about menstruation, conducted their popular annual fundraising raffle online. OPIRG moved their public Annual General Meeting to virtual platforms and maintained an active social media page. Here, students can find helpful online resources for dealing with the pandemic, free webinars, and relevant updates about the causes supported by the group.
More than ever, in these difficult circumstances, there is a need for organizations that prioritize humanitarian and environmental wellbeing. I encourage all students to visit the OPIRG website to see what aspect of its mission interests them. Together, we can all play a little part towards a brighter world for McMaster students, Hamilton residents and beyond.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Sarun Balaranjan, Contributor
Before I begin, I must acknowledge my conflict of interest as a member of the Board of Directors for OPIRG. This year has been troubling for OPIRG in many respects. The Student Choice Initiative forced us to terminate all of our staff. The new Board of Directors had almost no prior experience with OPIRG. Oh, and the McMaster Students Union decided to threaten our very existence.
OPIRG McMaster is a unique group on campus in that it is not a service provided by the MSU, but the MSU plays a role in the process of funnelling our annual budget from students. Because we are autonomous from the MSU, we are able to provide a platform for students who want to engage in activism that the MSU may not condone, potentially for bureaucratic reasons. We are currently supporting new groups like Divest McMaster, a student-run initiative aiming to push McMaster administration to sell the investments tied up in the extraction of fossil fuels through McMaster University’s endowment fund. A group like Divest McMaster would likely have no clear place in advocacy through the MSU, since intuitively, the MSU would protect the interests of the university. By putting OPIRG McMaster to referendum and potentially defunding this organization, the MSU is limiting the extent of student activism.
On Nov. 29, 2019, the Student Representative Assembly proposed sending OPIRG to referendum. A major reason was that we were spending too much money on staffing and administration. Granted, this was fair given the preliminary budget received by the finance committee showed that roughly 87 per cent of our funds were allocated towards staffing and administrative costs. However, upon receiving our opt-out rates, we updated our budget to reflect that only a reasonable 30 per cent of our costs would be allocated towards staffing. Despite this change, the MSU continued to cite this 87 per cent figure in proceeding OPIRG referendum documents.
On Feb. 9, The board of directors were brought in a second time to delegate on the topic of being sent to referendum on the grounds of bylaw infractions. By this time, the previously cited staffing cost issues were pushed into the background in favour of bylaw infractions. At this point, it was clear that the MSU had an agenda to push and that moving goalposts was well within their capacity. One of the broken bylaws cited by the MSU was a late budget submission. Yes, we were four days late in submitting our budget, but we had only received the opt-out numbers near the end of September with an Oct. 15 due date. In addition, our treasurer, the primary point of contact with the MSU, had been taken out of commission with serious personal issues and we were still negotiating with our Union regarding budgeting limitations. Some leniency would have been appreciated in receiving our updated budget, but we admit that there were communication issues due to these external circumstances.
In terms of the other infractions, the associate vice-president (Finance) and their committee ruled, without any consultation with the SRA, that we broke Bylaw 5, article 3.1.2 on financial transparency. Some of these bylaws are fairly vague in phrasing and describe only general tenets that must be followed. I would like to remind you that, originally, the vote to send us to referendum passed by only two votes. On Feb. 23, we returned to delegate to the SRA in the hopes of reconsidering the motion to send OPIRG to referendum on Feb. 9. The motion to reconsider the original referendum decision had seven SRA members in favour, nine members opposed, and the final six members abstained. The ambiguity and uncertainty in the room was palpable each time. It seems inherently unjust that this decision on a bylaw violation was determined by a small subset of the elected body that is supposed to prioritize student interests.
Democracy is a process. The continual reforming, reshaping and restructuring of practices are based on a common understanding of what works and what fails society. A major issue ingrained in democracy is that democratic leaders need flashy campaigns for upward mobility. Sure, whoever spearheads this movement gets to say on their resume that they managed to create “tangible corrective action” against a “financially opaque group.” Or, maybe on their next election platform, they get to flex themselves as proponents of financial transparency. Again, maybe the SRA should provide their own input as to what constitutes a bylaw violation, rather than leave it in the hands of a small, potentially biased group to act as arbiters.
We as a board are deeply aware of the importance of student choice. This is why we advertise students’ choices so that students can opt out of our fees should they feel that they want to. A referendum sounds like the MSU is putting power back into the hands of the students, but, in reality, the opportunity is being provided for the majority of McMaster students to take a platform of free speech and social justice away from a marginalized minority. Even if the majority of students do not believe in the value of OPIRG, the organization remains an important outlet of free speech and support for alienated students who want to engage in activism.
The punishment that has been carried out doesn’t quite reflect the crime.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Sarun Balaranjan, Contributor
Note: Sarun Balaranjan is a member of the Board of Directors for OPIRG.
Before I begin, I must acknowledge my conflict of interest as a member of the Board of Directors for OPIRG. This year has been troubling for OPIRG in many respects. The Student Choice Initiative forced us to terminate all of our staff. The new Board of Directors had almost no prior experience with OPIRG. Oh, and the McMaster Students Union decided to threaten our very existence.
OPIRG McMaster is a unique group on campus in that it is not a service provided by the MSU, but the MSU plays a role in the process of funnelling our annual budget from students. Because we are autonomous from the MSU, we are able to provide a platform for students who want to engage in activism that the MSU may not condone, potentially for bureaucratic reasons. We are currently supporting new groups like Divest McMaster, a student-run initiative aiming to push McMaster administration to sell the investments tied up in the extraction of fossil fuels through McMaster University’s endowment fund. A group like Divest McMaster would likely have no clear place in advocacy through the MSU, since intuitively, the MSU would protect the interests of the university. By putting OPIRG McMaster to referendum and potentially defunding this organization, the MSU is limiting the extent of student activism.
On Nov. 29, 2019, the Student Representative Assembly proposed sending OPIRG to referendum. A major reason was that we were spending too much money on staffing and administration. Granted, this was fair given the preliminary budget received by the finance committee showed that roughly 87 per cent of our funds were allocated towards staffing and administrative costs. However, upon receiving our opt-out rates, we updated our budget to reflect that only a reasonable 30 per cent of our costs would be allocated towards staffing. Despite this change, the MSU continued to cite this 87 per cent figure in proceeding OPIRG referendum documents.
On Feb. 9, The board of directors were brought in a second time to delegate on the topic of being sent to referendum on the grounds of bylaw infractions. By this time, the previously cited staffing cost issues were pushed into the background in favour of bylaw infractions. At this point, it was clear that the MSU had an agenda to push and that moving goalposts was well within their capacity. One of the broken bylaws cited by the MSU was a late budget submission. Yes, we were four days late in submitting our budget, but we had only received the opt-out numbers near the end of September with an Oct. 15 due date. In addition, our treasurer, the primary point of contact with the MSU, had been taken out of commission with serious personal issues and we were still negotiating with our Union regarding budgeting limitations. Some leniency would have been appreciated in receiving our updated budget, but we admit that there were communication issues due to these external circumstances.
In terms of the other infractions, the associate vice-president (Finance) and their committee ruled, without any consultation with the SRA, that we broke Bylaw 5, article 3.1.2 on financial transparency. Some of these bylaws are fairly vague in phrasing and describe only general tenets that must be followed. I would like to remind you that, originally, the vote to send us to referendum passed by only two votes. On Feb. 23, we returned to delegate to the SRA in the hopes of reconsidering the motion to send OPIRG to referendum on Feb. 9. The motion to reconsider the original referendum decision had seven SRA members in favour, nine members opposed, and the final six members abstained. The ambiguity and uncertainty in the room was palpable each time. It seems inherently unjust that this decision on a bylaw violation was determined by a small subset of the elected body that is supposed to prioritize student interests.
Democracy is a process. The continual reforming, reshaping and restructuring of practices are based on a common understanding of what works and what fails society. A major issue ingrained in democracy is that democratic leaders need flashy campaigns for upward mobility. Sure, whoever spearheads this movement gets to say on their resume that they managed to create “tangible corrective action” against a “financially opaque group.” Or, maybe on their next election platform, they get to flex themselves as proponents of financial transparency. Again, maybe the SRA should provide their own input as to what constitutes a bylaw violation, rather than leave it in the hands of a small, potentially biased group to act as arbiters.
We as a board are deeply aware of the importance of student choice. This is why we advertise students’ choices so that students can opt out of our fees should they feel that they want to. A referendum sounds like the MSU is putting power back into the hands of the students, but, in reality, the opportunity is being provided for the majority of McMaster students to take a platform of free speech and social justice away from a marginalized minority. Even if the majority of students do not believe in the value of OPIRG, the organization remains an important outlet of free speech and support for alienated students who want to engage in activism.
The punishment that has been carried out doesn’t quite reflect the crime.
Ontario Public Interest Research Group McMaster is focusing on more efficiently empowering students to make a difference in the community following a referendum in January 2018 that lowered students’ contributions to our OPIRG chapter from $8.07 per student to $5.50.
The organization tackles social and environmental issues through funding student projects and other community organizations.
This year, OPIRG McMaster has made two main changes: cutting staff costs and splitting the single project category of “Working Groups” into mainly “Public Interest Projects” and “Community Partners.”
The most significant effect of the decreased funding has been major cuts in staff funding. This year, salaries and benefits for the three staff members will amount to $89, 342, according to the budget.
The second change entails establishing two types of project groups to improve efficiency and accountability.
“Streamlining the Working Groups into either Public Interest Projects or Partnerships allows us to hold groups more accountable and also better provide them with the support they need,” said Parnika Godkhindi, director of publicity at OPIRG McMaster.
OPIRG offers up to $1,550 in funding for public interest projects, which are student-run and make change through clear goals and measurable results. Community partners typically have a less measurable impact, are more established and work not as closely with OPIRG, receiving less funding.
Two examples of public interest projects are Bleed Free, which supports sustainable reproductive health and awareness, and Threadwork, which calls for students to think more critically about the impact of clothing on the environment.
According to Godkhindi, historically, actively supporting the working groups was not a main priority for OPIRG. Instead, they raised money for other organizations and played more of an oversight role for groups.
That has changed this year, with more resources and attention being given to supporting public interest groups.
“We realized that getting students actively involved on campus is one of our main priorities,” said Godkhindi.
OPIRG hopes that creating public interest groups based on definitive actions and results will increase transparency and more recognition of OPIRG’s role as well.
“Before, when people used to think of OPIRG, you would know what the working groups were, but you didn’t know what they were doing,” said Faris Mecklai, OPIRG director of policies and procedures. “Changing it to public interest groups where you are able to measure results and see what is happening just makes it a lot more clear.”
This year, the group has placed a larger focus on promoting the role that OPIRG plays in supporting student initiatives that students might see.
“Lots of rebranding goes with that,” said Godkhindi. “We just want to make sure that that connection is established more clearly so people know that we are actually on campus and doing things with their tuition fee.”
OPIRG McMaster is also re-evaluating annual programming they hold. They see the lowered budget as a chance to make sure what they do is producing results. Godkhindi pointed to the annual Making Connections Week in September as an example.
In light of the funding change, OPIRG sees this year as an opportunity to shift their strategic goals to get back to their core mission: empowering students.
“There is so much potential here. Our thing is trying to harness the potential to make it more effective,” said resource centre director Katerina Simantirakis.
The deadline for public interest project applications was Oct. 22. Applications for community projects should be open in early November.
OPIRG McMaster will be presenting a report on their activity this year at the Nov. 11 Student Representative Assembly meeting. With changes to their projects, OPIRG is trying to figure out how to best use all the resources they have to enable students to ignite change in the community.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
At the Student Representative Assembly meeting on Nov. 26, the SRA and Board of Directors voted to send the Ontario Public Interest Research Group fee to referendum in January 2018.
The McMaster OPIRG fee referendum will come in the wake of the vote at the University of Toronto, which occurred in November 2017 but failed to meet quorum. It will also follow the referenda held the University of Waterloo in 2016 and at Queen’s University in 2012, where students voted to eliminate their OPIRG fee.
OPIRG is a province-wide organization that advocates for environmental and social justice. The group consists of chapters at 11 universities in Ontario. By facilitating free training workshops for students and funding working groups, such as the McMaster Indigenous Student Community Alliance, OPIRG supports grassroots activism.
Currently, McMaster students pay a $8.07 OPIRG fee, which has been included in the ancillary fees since 1995. While students can opt out of paying the fee, they may only do so by visiting the OPIRG office.
While the McMaster Students Union has not re-evaluated the OPIRG fee in the past, the Assembly has scrutinized how it has been allocated.
In November 2017, the SRA finance committee called for the impending referendum in light of OPIRG McMaster’s failure to sufficiently advertise the opt-out option.
While the McMaster Students Union has not re-evaluated the OPIRG fee in the past, the Assembly has scrutinized how it has been allocated.
In particular, in December 2016, former MSU vice president (Finance) Ryan MacDonald reported to OPIRG that the Assembly was concerned about the fact that $145,000 of the $180,000 OPIRG funding was supporting administrative costs rather than working groups.
MacDonald also noted the Assembly’s interest in making the opt-out option available online.
At the Nov. 26 SRA meeting, Brett Cox, a representative from OPIRG, noted that in September 2018, the OPIRG opt-out will be moved online and that OPIRG will increase its working group funding by $50.
The SRA ultimately voted in favour of sending the fee to referendum. The ballot will contain three options: preserve the $8.07 fee, reduce it to $5.50 or eliminate the fee entirely.
MSU vice president (Finance) Daniel “Tuba” D’Souza, who proposed the $5.50 option, explains that this number is not arbitrary.
“This fee reduction would allow OPIRG to continue functioning in a similar capacity, providing funds for one to two permanent part-time staff members in addition to a significant portion of their current funding for programming and working groups,” said D’Souza during the Nov. 26 SRA meeting.
Nevertheless, Jonathan Patterson, another OPIRG representative, highlights that this option would be problematic, resulting in the reduction of one OPIRG staff member.
Sahra Soudi, OPIRG volunteer and former board member, also believes the organization should not be sent to referendum, particularly in light of the rise of conservatism at the university.
“The skills I gained as an OPIRG board member have actually helped me and how I organize on campus as an activist as the co-president of the McMaster Womanists,” said Soudi. “OPIRG supports these groups and social justice initiatives. Without OPIRG, I’m afraid our campus will not be the same.”
The SRA voted in favour of endorsing the $5.50 fee option.
“Overall it seems the SRA thought the $5.50 option would be a way to maintain OPIRG and their services while reducing the amount that students contribute,” said Helen Zeng, SRA Speaker.
The campaign period for the referendum will start on Jan. 14, and polling will be open online from Jan. 23 to 25.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Working for the McMaster Students Union just became more lucrative, with a new pay scale introduced as of the start of the new year.
On Jan. 1, 2018, the minimum wage in Ontario was increased from $11.40 per hour to $14.00 per hour and it is set to raise once again in January 2019 to $15.00 per hour. This push is a part of the initiative for living wages by the Liberal government.
A living wage entails a wage that a person would be able to support themselves and their family while working a typical work schedule. It includes basic necessities such food, shelter and transportation but also notes that wages should be set to allow for expenses such as gifts and outings to promote social participation in a community.
Currently, Hamilton’s estimated living wage sits at $15.85 per hour, according to Living Wage Hamilton.
Living wages vary from community to community, but groups such as Social Planning and Research Council (Hamilton) have studied the living wage in Hamilton and have released reports based on their findings. In one December 2011 report, the SPRC found that the average living wage in Hamilton was $14.95 per hour.
Their research considered different home situations and factored in the basic cost of living in addition to expenses associated with social outings and skill-building. The studies do not, however, consider common expenses such as the cost of debt, pets and smoking and drinking habits. The study also assumes people will work full-time.
Currently, Hamilton’s estimated living wage sits at $15.85 per hour, according to Living Wage Hamilton.
In response to this wage increase, the MSU completed a wage review in order to maintain the general ratio part-time employees received in comparison to the minimum wage while remaining within their budget lines.
Within the MSU, all customer service representatives such as those who work at the MSU Underground, Compass and Union Market are paid slightly above minimum wage.
Under the previous wage grid, these workers were paid $11.77, which was $0.17 above minimum wage at the time. Under the new wage grid, they will receive $14.15 per hour, $0.15 above the new minimum wage.
The same may be said for all of MSU’s salaried employees, such as part-time managers and associate vice presidents. Their wages have also increased at a consistent rate above the Ontario minimum wage.
For example, employees who fall under the “C4” category were previously paid $155.16 per week. These same workers will now receive $181.80 per week for the same amount of work.
It should noted, however, that the majority of work within the MSU is part-time but only available to MSU members, who must be full-time McMaster undergraduate students. These jobs do not typically offer overtime, but do offer some perks such as discounts and retroactive pay under the right circumstances.
The MSU has not released any documents pertaining to the next wage increase, which is set to occur on Jan. 1, 2019 . For now, students working for the student union can expect to see a bump in their biweekly paychecks.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Nov. 12, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly and Board of Directors convened in Gilmour Hall for a particularly lengthy meeting.
In addition to voting on the approval of a number of policy papers, the assembly engaged in a heated discussion about whether the Ontario Public Interest Research Group McMaster student fee should be sent to referendum.
OPIRG McMaster Board of Directors member Tanya Brkic delivered the presentation on the group. OPIRG is a not-for-profit student organization that advocates for environmental and social justice.
Irazuzta highlighted the $8.07 fee that students pay for the service, but did not provide a quantitative break down of how it is allocated.
She did, however, speak about the working groups that OPIRG funds, particularly the McMaster Indigenous Student Community Alliance, and the events that they hold.
After Irazuzta concluded her presentation, she received a flurry of questions from the Assembly.
It should be noted that while McMaster students have the capacity to opt out of paying the OPIRG fee, this option is not particularly advertised by OPIRG. The option is also not available online, as students have to visit the OPIRG office in order to opt-out of paying the fee.
When asked how the organization is advertising the opt-out option, a representative from OPIRG in attendance stated that it has advertised through The Silhouette’s website and in the McMaster University Student Centre.
Chukky Ibe, MSU President, stressed that OPIRG has yet to adopt the MSU’s recommendations from last year, which include concerns about OPIRG’s high level of administrative costs and the consensus that the opt-out process should be moved online.
When the discussion shifted back to the OPIRG discussion later in the meeting, Alex Wilson, SRA member (science), noted the ambiguity concerning what constitutes good advertising in the first place.
Deshpande reiterated the concern that a significant portion of the funding OPIRG collects from students goes towards administrative costs. Ibe critiqued the lack of undergraduate involvement in the organization.
To remedy the problem of insufficient advertising, an OPIRG representative suggested that the opt-out be moved online.
Another OPIRG representative suggested the formation of a working group between OPIRG and the MSU.
By the end of the meeting, most of the tension between the Assembly and OPIRG dissipated, as both the Assembly and OPIRG staff expressed interest in not sending the OPIRG fee to referendum.
Instead, Deshpande proposed that an Ad Hoc committee be established to review OPIRG and set long-term direction, which includes compliance with bylaw 5 — financial affairs.
The next SRA meeting will be held on Nov. 26 in Gilmour Hall. The motion to put the OPIRG fee to referendum, as per finance committee recommendations, will still be on the agenda.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Sept. 24, McMaster played host to Alicia Garza, one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement.
“It was a huge, huge deal,” said Ismaël Traore, one of the event’s organizers. Traore explained that he and the other organizers began working on the initiative to bring an activist to McMaster in late 2014. “We wanted to bring in a millennial, someone who’s on the front line,” he said.
During the Black Lives Matter presentation, Garza talked about the beginning of the movement and how it has changed since its inception. “It began as a love letter to black people,” she said during her speech. Garza spoke fondly about the beginning of the movement and shared her fear about its possible slide into a passive social media phenomenon. “Hashtags are not movements,” she said.
Garza’s presentation struck a chord with many audience members, including Traore. “This is actually a civil rights movement... [but] lot of people aren’t giving it the seriousness that it deserves,” he said. He stressed, however, that the movement differs from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. “It is advocacy for all identities of blackness… The older civil rights movement was very heterosexual and dominated by men,” he explained, while BLM has a strong focus on advocating for black women, LGBTQ+ persons, and persons with disabilities.
Despite these leaps forward, work remains to be done.
During the last presentation by McMaster professor Vanessa Watts, three protesters who go under the group name Project Black disrupted the event. Kermeisha Williams, Kayonne Christy and Halima Hatimy were all involved with “Black, Brown, Red, Lives Matter,” the OPIRG-run chapter of BLM at McMaster. Christy and Hatimy were originally slated as co-facilitators of the Sept. 22 event. However, they felt marginalized and abused within the BBRLM community and chose to leave it altogether.
“Even when we would leave the group, specific members would come and try to pull us back into an abusive situation. We’d leave to protect ourselves and they would pull us back to further exploit our labour,” Hatimy said.
The trio maintained an air of professionalism throughout their protest. They stood quietly at the back of the room while Watts gave her presentation. They waited until they were noticed by Alicia Garza, who then invited them to join her outside the room to discuss their concerns. After the presentation, they marched to the stage and listed their demands.
“The demands were broken down into three sub-categories. One addressed Black Lives Matter, one addressed McMaster, OPIRG specifically, and the other addressed the city of Hamilton at large,” Christy explained. The group hopes OPIRG will hold its working groups more accountable for their actions, and check in with members of said groups to ensure they are maintaining anti-oppressive practices.
Even with these changes, Hatimy was adamant that the current organization is not working. “At this point we want BBRLM to be dismantled, the reason being it doesn’t have a good history. There were a lot of people who were hurt and oppressed,” she said. “We want it dismantled because we don’t want there to be an avenue for certain people to be able to bully and harass members of the community and obviously students at Mac.”
While Hatimy, Christy and Williams are proud of their first step in diminished the internal conflict within BLM, they feel there is much work that remains to be done.
“We feel our actions were radically misunderstood by people in the community. It was treated, specifically by the moderators of the group, like it was just another segment, so I think that really minimized the significance of why we did what we did,” Hatimy explained.
Traore, for his part, spoke positively about the disruption. “I appreciate disruptions. I am an activist myself… and these disruptions are strategically necessary sometimes,” he said. “And so I think it was great that a space was made for these three women to be able to speak, instead of [shutting them down].”
He did mention, however, that ideally the demonstration would have taken place during the question and answer period rather than during the presentations. “Vanessa Watts is an amazing speaker… and I felt hurt that the protest occurred while she was speaking,” he said. “How can we talk about the erasure of the voice of one group [when] the protest is also erasing the voice of another group?”
Krista Kruja couldn’t be happier doing what she’s doing.
Having just finished her second year at McMaster, Krista is now focused on continuing the work that began in earnest last summer, when student Jonathan Valencia and volunteer coordinator Randy Kay first started the Hamilton Street Tree Project.
One of the main summer initiatives of McMaster’s Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG), the project’s primary objective is to inform local neighbourhoods about the Street Tree Program that has been funded by the city since 2004.
“The way that the city is doing this is by offering free trees on the city line – most people’s front lawn, or at least a portion of it, belong to the city,” Krista explained. “Anywhere that’s city property, [residents] are allowed to request a tree, and so the city will plant it, and it’s the city’s job to maintain it.”
As the project coordinator, Krista’s role has been to oversee efforts in going door-to-door and canvassing specific neighbourhoods in order to inform the public. Launched in part due to a 2011 Clean Air Hamilton study, OPIRG has focused on lower-income neighbourhoods that were measured to have the poorest air quality in the city.
Hamilton’s Keith neighbourhood, the focus of last summer’s pilot project, received an average of three tree requests per year prior to OPIRG’s efforts. After last year’s canvassing and door-to-door efforts, 65 new trees were planted.
This year, the focus has been on the Crown Point neighbourhood, which is located between Gage and Kenilworth. According to Krista, they’ve received nearly 70 requests for new trees so far, and are hoping to reach 80 by the end.
By expanding the urban canopy, OPIRG hopes to have a real effect on the air quality of these areas. But that’s not all they’re interested in doing with the program, Krista explained.
“Another sub goal [for the project] is community building – last year, it was just one student who went door-to-door and got lots of tree requests. This year we’ve been trying to get volunteers from McMaster, as well as the Crown Point community and Hamilton in general.”
Krista says that this summer, they’ve had more than 10 volunteers, some of whom aren’t even affiliated with OPIRG.
“For example… one of the co-presidents of Engineers Without Borders came out to volunteer, and she got in touch with the community developer for the Crown Point neighbourhood. She wants to work [with the developer] for some events in the school year,” Krista said with an enthusiastic smile. “It’s a nice partnership.”
Although it will be years before the trees have any noticeable effect on the air quality in these neighbourhoods, Krista’s enthusiasm for the project couldn’t be dampened.
“Sure, you don’t necessarily see the fruits of your labour in that air quality probably hasn’t changed much in the Keith neighbourhood from last year to this year, but you see the little trees, and you know that they’re going to get bigger, and in a couple of decades, it’s something you’ll definitely be able to see,” she said.
“Walking through that neighbourhood, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, I’ll be like: Oh, look at that! That’s something I was involved with,” she laughed.
Krista continued, “I think one of the greatest things about it is that it’s just such a big effort on behalf of everyone: McMaster’s done a lot, OPIRG’s done a lot, and Environment Hamilton has been really involved… Without everybody trying to help improve the neighbourhood, it wouldn’t have been possible, so I think it’s really exciting.”
With the project winding down in the first week of July, Krista expressed that she’s very interested in continuing the project during the school year.
“We were thinking of ways we can expand the Street Tree Project so it’s not just for the summer,” she said. “While I’m only working on it for nine weeks, I’m really enjoying it and I think it’s a really valuable thing.”
“I’d love to volunteer and work on it during the school year as well… to whatever capacity I can.”
