Another week, another success.
Seven months ago, that success was anything but certain.
After controversy and close scrutiny fell on the McMaster Redsuits for a sexist and degrading songbook connected to the organization, Welcome Week has come and gone with little issue for the Engineering reps. But that's just fine with Shane Zuchowski, one of the Redsuit planners alongside Jose Mercado, who already had their hands full with the ups and downs of the week.
Even after an improbable train of setbacks that includes mixed-up bookings, rain, fire alarms, and losing two buses for faculty night due to accident, Zuchowski has had a good attitude about it all.
"Someone should have just told me to wear spandex - the chafe is real," he said, laughing.
In terms of the first years, it's been one of the most successful Welcome Weeks the Redsuits have had.
"[For faculty night] we had a record turnout of 600 first year students,” he said. “The biggest problem was getting students to go back home. We had to get students back on the bus that were like, 'I don't want to go yet.’”
Of course, it hasn't been all rosy, and it certainly hasn't been easy. Shifting the culture of a group whose identity has been at times associated with drinking and promiscuity was going to receive some pushback. But despite a formal investigation and a rigorous selection process, the responsibility for changing the attitude was largely entrusted to the new Reds by the university.
"We never really had to have a conversation [with the university] about what we can and can't do because we both understood where that line was. Obviously, [things like] glorifying alcohol... and over-sexualizing everything the engineers have done in the past; that was something Redsuit culture was shifting [away from]," Zuchowski explained.
They've had to be creative, but small changes like changing a cheer from "smoke and drink and fool around" to "joke and think and fool around" have helped adjust their approach without neutering the brash and irreverent attitude the group is ultimately known for.
Zuchowski said, "For old Reds, at the very start, there was still the soreness from what happened because for people, Redsuits are a family. We've all been through Welcome Week together, we've all been sleep-deprived, but we've also all gone through the same program, we've all had the same struggles during exams... your friends are right there to support you."
The culture and conversation has changed outside of the controversial subjects, too. Traditions like the fake math test were changed to be called a "success portfolio" to alleviate the real stress some students had in advance of the test.
However, while the shift away from the old culture has been largely successful, other issues were bound to come to the forefront, one of which was a complaint that was submitted for a “fuck yeah” cheer.
“I will fully take responsibility for that issue,” Zuchowski said. “Since the start of Welcome Week, what we’ve focused on mainly were the things specifically outlined in the investigation, which were things like glorifying cheers about alcohol and oversexualization.”
“We realized our mistake… we got rid of it,” he said. “We wanted to apologize because we really didn’t mean anything of it.”
He continued, “understandably, everybody has a different level of sensitivity to things like that, especially curse words, but it slipped my mind [to discontinue it].”
When asked how he felt the Redsuits were able to adjust this year, Student Development Manager and member of the Welcome Week Advisory Committee Jeremy Sandor commented that he was “incredibly happy with how the week went.
“The two planners, Shane and Jose, were tireless through the summer in terms of working with staff from the Faculty of Engineering, the Student Success Centre, and the McMaster Students Union [in order] to make sure that the spirit and energy that the faculty is known for during Welcome Week was preserved,” Sandor said.
Although inclusiveness seems to have had a greater focus this year, Julia Clemens, the Welcome Week Faculty Coordinator, maintains that the philosophy has remained the same.
She said, "In some ways, we've refined behavior, and maybe there's a new perspective where a cheer that you think is harmless... and 95 per cent of students would have been ok with it - we're maybe a little more conscious of the five per cent that is made uncomfortable by it."
When looking at the lack of controversy during Welcome Week relative to the firestorm seven months ago, it’s clear that perspective took a new step this year.
Following allegations that surfaced late January, McMaster University has prepared an action plan to respond to the issue, following the results of an external investigation.
McMaster Daily News reports that the investigation was focused in two areas: behaviour surrounding songs and songbook materials, and unsanctioned events that may put students at risk. The report can be found here, and the second report, prepared by Associate Vice-President and Dean of Students Sean Van Koughnett as an outline for University action, can be found here.
"The findings in the investigator's report are disturbing," said Provost and Vice-President Academic David Wilkinson in an Daily News interview. "The behaviour is unacceptable and while the McMaster Engineering Society had indicated in a document from some time ago that its culture needed to change, it is clear that the pace of change is not sufficient. The University will be implementing all of the recommendations in the dean of Students' report."
The external report included several findings of misconduct, including but not limited to:
The second report outlined several actions the University will take to address these findings:
The MSU has released a statement clarifying that this scandal is not indicative of the kind of behaviour present in other student-led societies, nor will it be an enormous constraint on organizational autonomy. "We are an organization that is ideally situated to define the leadership orientation and training programs alluded to in the recommendations," said MSU President Teddy Saull. "Autonomous student leadership is the cornerstone of student life. The MSU will work with all faculty societies to ensure responsible student government continues to thrive for the benefit of the undergraduate students of McMaster University."
This year has been filled with some drastic examples of rape culture on campuses across Canada, McMaster not withstanding. But while the large-scale media concern around the topic is somewhat comforting, I find its coverage allows bureaucrats and image managers to polarize the issue by acting drastically, and without long-term goals in mind.
When I first heard about the engineers’ songbook, I couldn’t say that I was surprised. I knew it was just a matter of time before something like it occurred, whether it was the Redsuits, the Maroons, or a group of as-of-yet unknown students. I was more curious about how the University would respond – would they try to understand the issues surrounding rape culture on campus and help dismantle it in the long-term, or would they strike quickly, to arbitrarily reprimand the students who overstepped the line far enough to garner media attention? Again, I was not surprised.
The engineering students are being treated like children who ought to have known better, when neither the University, nor student societies have made the effort to point out this type of worrisome behaviour in the past. In fact, I will go as far as to say that both the University and the students have inadvertently endorsed it.
The question that needs to be asked about the drastic examples of the songbook is: how did the University let it get this far in the first place? Shouldn’t there have been safeguards or education mechanisms in place to help students and staff understand how these actions can create a normalized culture of exclusion and prejudice on campus?
And I am not removing myself from this jumble of blame. In fact, I have also unintentionally endorsed the engineers’ behaviour in the past. The example that stands out the most occurred during my welcome week.
But my discomfort around the memory doesn’t really come from being in that situation, rather, it comes from what I did: in that moment, I went along with the “silly antics” of those “hilarious” welcome week representatives. I reinforced something that I didn’t even know I could be a part of: rape culture.
In first year, the words “rape culture” projected an image of viewable physical violence – rape, domestic abuse, overt exclusion. At that time, I could not believe that drunken college sex, which has often been presented as a staple of the “college experience”, would be labeled something so drastic. But the definition is more complex than just a series of unmitigated action or inaction by a bunch of fumbling undergraduates, it’s much more than the engineers’ songbook and it’s much more than the University’s ignorance. Don’t get me wrong, all of those act as the nuts and bolts, but I think we fail to see how these individual actors function in relation to perpetuate and maintain rape culture on campus.
Loosely linked, events like this could onto subliminally message the individuals of the culture. Our experiences surrounding these cultural experiences range in a spectrum, given how engaged with the issue we are. There are also various degrees of influence that this cultural subliminal messaging goes on to do.
It ranges from taking the presentation as a joke, a caricature so far removed from our realities that we cannot help but uncomfortably giggle. “Who would be so stupid to try something like taking someone home drunk?” The horror of what that could mean is too ludicrous to process, and so we disengage and laugh.
Others are enraged at what this simple and comedic presentation of rape could possibly mean. They can map out the social network and influences that will go on to perpetuate this kind of thinking. They imagine the first year, who comes from a community that doesn’t talk about consent or rape, or who comes from a mindset that cannot imagine the anxious, helplessness that floods a person’s mind after instances of gendered violence.
Even others, who unconsciously adhere to the culture that assumes that the university experience is one of aggressive sexuality, are internally affirmed that their experiences or assumptions are valid. They go on to consciously commit these instances of violence without awareness of the horror they are perpetuating.
When I was in first year, I straddled the line between extreme offence and uncomfortable giggles. But I have been wondering about why I didn’t voice my discomfort in my first year. I imagine how the scenario would play out: I was a first year student, who had no idea what the protocol to report such an incident was. If voiced out loud, I could imagine comprehension dawn on the faces of my friends of 24 hours.
“Oh, she is one of those people”. You know a prude, a killjoy, a complainer. Her culture probably prevents her from doing it – they would whisper behind cupped hands.
None of the reasons for not speaking up, and expressing my discomfort, but I think there should just exist more places on campus where students can go to with these thoughts, that don’t serve to punish students or ignore the issue, but instead listen and try to help both sides understand how their actions could be perceived as hurtful. The sanctions against the engineers have only served to pit students against one another, and made the dialogue about political correctness instead of gender inequality. The students have not acted any better. It has become a blame game, which shifts the lens from the issue of gender inequity to student politics and office bureaucracy.
As university students, we’re never taught that we have a responsibility for one another. We operate under the delusion that our successes and failures result from individual action. But that’s not true; we’re constantly straddling the divide between selfhood and culture. Culture is sieved into our brain through the systems that we’re in (education, government, media) and as individuals and organizations with various lenses; we filter through this information to come to gradual conclusions. Then these organizations and individuals go on to influence culture. The process is cyclical and one from which we cannot remove ourselves.
We have a tendency to quickly cry out “but that was not my fault” but we need to start thinking about these culture-forming and culture-informed events in a different way, not in a way that framed in politically correct dialogue, but in a way digs deeper to point out where this culture festers in the first place, and in a way that recognizes that the culture outside of the university is one that permits gender-based violence in casual interaction.
Instead of arbitrarily imposing sanctions, which act to fuel the feeling of injustice in the minds of engineers, the student lens needs to shift to show the potential implications of such a songbook, and steps need to be taken to better educate all students on campus about sexual and gender-based violence before they happen.
A Change.org petition has been launched requesting that McMaster administration “withdraw discriminatory policies” against McMaster engineering students. The petition is a response to the University’s disciplinary actions against engineering student groups due to a violent, misogynistic songbook allegedly connected to members of the Redsuits.
“Currently, more than 4,000 McMaster Engineering students have been found guilty and incapable of operating in a professional manner; none of these students will be treated equally until an investigation is complete,” the petition reads.
In January, the University publicly denounced the songbook and barred the Redsuits from organizing campus events for the remainder of the year. Redsuits from the past two years are currently ineligible to help organize Welcome Week 2014.
The student-led petition, launched on Sunday March 2, argues that the University has taken severe measures that are unfair to most McMaster engineering students. As of March 5, the petition had garnered more than 1,000 signatures.
An external investigation is underway regarding the involvement of students in the songbook, which contains references to rape, mutilation, sex with minors and other graphic material. In response to possible unsanctioned alcoholic events that have come up during the investigation, the University has banned alcohol at events hosted by engineering student groups, including the annual Kipling formal for graduating students. The event is held off-campus every year following an iron ring ceremony.
“This event has had significant oversight from the Faculty of Engineering in the past, and deeming it ‘unsafe’ to serve alcohol at a rather expensive, licensed banquet hall is unprecedented,” the petition states.
Simon Almeida, a graduating student in chemical engineering, started the petition with input from other engineering students and representatives from the McMaster Engineering Society, though the MES has not officially endorsed the petition.
“It’s dangerous precedent if we say that, regardless of any evidence, the University can just single out a single faculty of 4,000 students and completely ban students from doing what’s in their civil liberties to do,” Almeida said.
“I know that there’s definitely been a shift in how other students view us and how the public views us. Even on the petition we have alumni stating that it devalues their degree to have the university step this far and associate all engineering students with the actions of four students. It really puts a black mark on a program that I’m really proud to be a part of,” he said.
“Although the MES never officially supported [Almeida’s] decision to create the petition, we wholly support our students’ rights to voice their opinions and stand by their beliefs,” said Ben Kinsella, vice-president (academic) of the MES.
In response to the petition, McMaster provost David Wilkinson said the University’s ban on alcohol for engineering student events is a necessary measure that will continue to be in place.
“The unsanctioned events that we’re investigating do have a connection with alcohol, so this seemed like an appropriate thing to control during the period that the investigation continues. We’re clearly wanting to move forward and clear the air as quickly as we possibly can but we also want to make sure we do the job thoroughly,” Wilkinson said.
“I guess I’m somewhat surprised at the importance the students place on the ability to consume alcohol at what is a great celebratory event like the Kipling formal,” he said. “I know from my own experience that engineering students have tremendous spirit and joie de vivre, and I wouldn’t think that the inability to drink at an event like that would diminish the ability of the students to have a great time.”
The petition also criticizes the University’s “decision to forego serious relations with engineering student leaders,” which Wilkinson said was an unfair comment.
“The dean of students has been meeting on a regular basis with leaders in the MES, so we are involving student leaders in the whole process and that will continue to be the case. The student leadership may wish for a broader consultative process but we’re somewhat restricted in what we can do there,” he said.
“We’re continuing to do our work and we’re doing it as quickly as we can. The petition isn’t going to have an impact on that,” Wilkinson said. “What the petition does is it brings to the fore some of the concerns brought to us by members of the student body and some of the MES leaders. I will say, however, that we’ve also gotten feedback from students who are very supportive of the approach the University is taking to address certain cultural concerns. In fact, the MES itself has outlined in a number of documents over the past few years its own concerns about certain aspects of culture within the student body.”
There is no exact date by which the external investigation is expected to be finished, though Wilkinson said he hopes a conclusion will be reached “within the next couple of months.”
This article was updated on March 5 to include comment from a MES representative.
Nichole Fanara
The Silhouette
I read once that opinions articles should encompass all the possibilities of the issue at hand and express all the potential of the future. But I also believe that the capital, the system, should always be questioned, should question itself, and ultimately, be accountable for its actions.
So here I want to make McMaster University accountable for suspending the Engineering group called “Redsuits” from Welcome Week 2014 by telling my personal welcome week story from my first year four years ago.
I came to McMaster University in September 2010. I was (and still am) a proud off-campus commuter from Hamilton, and alongside joining SOCS, I looked to my faculty to inspire school spirit within me. Unfortunately I did not find a home within the Humanities reps. I found them off-putting because I felt that they did not care. I have seen tremendous attempts by the Humanities reps to change (and I believe they are only going to get better) but four years ago, their reps were not inspired to engage with the first years (or at least, I did not meet the ones who were). So on faculty night, a fellow Hummmer and I went with our Engineering friends to their faculty night.
Now, faculty nights are traditionally off-campus, and as unofficial off-campus rules go, cheers can be sung that are not allowed on campus. I was not told anything about the Engineers having a dirty songbook. My Eng friends did not have access to a handbook that said “Prepare yourself for the scandal.” On campus during the week, we had seen their superheros running around with plungers, we even heard a rumor that their reps drink beer (all the reps?! Aren’t they, like, 20 years old?). So we were prepared for a fun night out, meeting reps and fellow first years. And then we got onto a bus. And that is when the truth came out about the Redsuits.
Reps came up to me, talked to me, tried to get to know me, my interests, what classes to take and profs to watch out for. The Engineers made me feel so accepted and included in ways my own faculty didn’t that I will always remember that night as a real welcoming to academia. It was the most amazing feeling to come to a new place and have people actually care that you are a person, not some firstie. I cannot say that for more than half of the classes I have attended at this school. But I can say that for the Engineers.
McMaster University is making a huge mistake in suspending the Engineers from Welcome Week 2014. The MSU is only backing them up because they have to. And the other faculty groups should take a stand against this if the Engineers are banned from participation. That group has the most fun and offers great help and support to so many young adults coming into school. If they are banned from Welcome Week, then I am ashamed McMaster cannot understand the great social impact they have versus the stupidity of a few students to publish such profanity.
Those cheers have been around since at least the 1980’s. Every rep group has cheers that are dirty, that go back to our parents’ time, and are not sung. They come out at reunions, sometimes off campus. But the fact that they exist within every group means that the Engineers are being persecuted for – quite literally - the sins of our parents.
The Redsuits as a whole do so much good that it is completely uncalled for the University to punish them all.
Long live the Redsuits.
Wade Genders
The Silhouette
I used to be a Mac engineering undergraduate and I'm currently an engineering graduate student. In light of the recent events involving the Redsuits, I've felt compelled to write this letter as I feel my faculty's representatives have been unfairly disciplined. I must admit, during my undergraduate time I was never a Redsuit and I even found them somewhat annoying and obnoxious. It seems a hint of sweet irony to me that I now write in their defense, but I feel the University has acted swiftly without being consistent in their judgment of student groups at McMaster. If McMaster is legitimately concerned with eliminating ideals which stand in opposition to education, sexism, violence and discrimination, then it must judge all student groups the same.
My concern is do we judge all student organizations by any material with apparent ties to the organization in question, regardless of the strength of the evidence with regards to wrong action being committed? I do not dismiss the concerns of individuals who consider the material in this document to be offensive or indecent, but I see this application of academic discipline as reflexive and biased towards the Redsuits. McMaster University has many student groups which promote a variety of causes; sports, technology and various cultures. If the Redsuits are being suspended for these materials alleged (I use the word alleged as there is no evidence that these songs were ever sung on campus) as their property, then I can easily point to other student groups who explicitly promote documents much more abhorrent who do not face such scrutiny or discipline. Two student groups in particular, McMaster Catholic Student Association (MACSA) & McMaster Muslim Student Association (MACMSA), both promote literature with language and ideas which are vile in message and incompatible with a 21st academic environment. Does McMaster University hold MACSA and MACMSA accountable for the ideas found in their respective holy books? How should any member of McMaster's LGBTQ community feel to know that MACSA and MACMSA are able to promote books, the Bible and the Qur'an respectively, which explicitly label homosexuals abominations and prescribe death for their homosexuals acts (Bible : Leviticus 18:22 /20:13/Qur'an: 7:80-81 / 27:54-55 )? Or how should the women of McMaster feel to know that both of these organizations can promote misogyny and the inequality of the genders; that women can be beaten (Qur'an 4:34), they are less than men (Qur'an 2:228b, 2:282), and should be stoned to death for pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)?
The Redsuits were basically suspended because of a document on the Internet; both MACSA and MACMSA can promote their causes which are intrinsically tied to their holy scriptures and contain the repulsive and barbaric writings which stand in direct opposition to the values that McMaster supposedly holds and is using to justify the punishment of the Redsuits. How the university can allow religious student groups to promote theirs causes, which unquestionably include the barbarity I've outlined by the sheer virtue that they exist in their scriptures, and yet punish another group for a document which isn't even officially endorsed by said group?
An inquisitive reader might respond, but the MACMSA & MACSA don't promote the specific values and thoughts I've outlined, they don't promote that specific part of the Bible or the Qur'an. It may be true that neither the MACMSA nor MACSA have posters or booths on campus promoting these specific tenants of their scripture, but by the logic expressed in the recent disciplinary actions of the University, you can't have a Catholic or Muslim student group without endorsing the Bible or the Qur'an. The MACMSA and MACSA are allowed to promote their causes freely on campus, including their literature, yet another non-religious student group has some unofficial document tied to them on the Internet and they are suspended without hesitation.
The interests of these religious groups are much more self-serving than the Redsuits. Redsuits ultimately exist to promote engineering, and this is a university after all, we teach facts about science, mathematics, engineering, social sciences, medicine, literature and the arts. Yet McMaster University seems willing to afford more protection to religious groups who promote literature full of intolerance and violence than they will to their own faculties. The arguably tenuous link between this songbook and the Redsuits is enough to get an entire student group of hundreds of engineers suspended, while these religious students preach with impunity. This action is heavy handed and is punishing the majority for something a small minority of the group did.
Given the events that took place recently at other Canadian universities, it is easy to understand that McMaster University wants to avoid being associated with any behaviour considered intolerant. However, if McMaster truly wants to cultivate an environment which is free of intolerance, if must apply its judgment in an impartial manner. It can't be denied that the Redsuits have contributed greatly to McMaster University, raising money for venerable causes via the Bus Pull (cystic fibrosis) and Santa Hog (Interval House Hamilton). Until it can be shown with evidence that the Redsuits in any official capacity distributed this document or promoted these songs on campus, it is hypocritical for them to be punished and yet allow student groups such as MACSA & MACMSA to continue operating. McMaster administration is cutting down the whole tree because of a few bad apples, bad apples that haven't even been proven to have come from the tree in question. McMaster needs to provide better evidence as to why the Redsuits are being disciplined or commit to applying this same scrutiny to all student groups, not just the ones who make a lot of noise.
“We are the engineers, so pity us."
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.
Shane Madill
The Silhouette
With their hands tied, McMaster University was forced to swiftly punish the Redsuit group for their “intolerance” and “sexist mindset.” The only tragedy of the entire event is the censorship brought on by the fear of retaliation by those who do not understand satire.
The book is crude, rude, and random in its endeavours, but what it contains is an unfiltered perspective on modern dark humour. It contains an embracement of gender roles instilled from generations prior, a willingness to break these definitions with concepts of sexuality, and shock value to smash through any other confining views in all imaginable forms. Though praise is given to Trey Parker and Matt Stone in the form of Emmys for their work on South Park and accolades given to music artists for twisted views of the world, punishment is given to similar hyperbole created by amateurs.
It is up to each individual student whether or not to embrace these open views. These Redsuits are merely one, optional part of the McMaster Engineering Society as a whole. The perception that this type of musical parody must be embraced by all is incorrect. In a Redsuit group containing several members of the larger LGBTQ community of Hamilton, the point of the songbook being about ridiculing conventionally taboo subjects rather than serious consideration is only emphasized further. Creativity can come in all shapes and forms, and this book is a brilliant and disturbing satire and portrayal of the human psyche. In any other situation not so politically correct, this would be considered art by most.
The only mistakes they made were the inability to communicate this with absolutely everyone. Though this was a differing perspective inside of a larger community, the willingness to accept and embrace these differences between people is a central part of mankind’s resilience, fortitude, and sense of community. This is an opportunity to change the mindset of the faculty and students as a whole by allowing open communication. Some were unable to make light of the larger situations that deeply affect some people’s lives, and that’s perfectly fine. Given this knowledge, we as a school will continue to grow closer to one another and embrace their perspective. The appalling nature of the vice-president’s comments stating, “The Redsuit songbook that we have learned about is highly disturbing and is the exact opposite to everything for which the University stands,” could not be any further from the desired truth and future of this university. I do not wish to feel threatened talking to another faculty’s office members about an issue; I want to promote openness and other outlooks. This university should stand for embracing both the negatives and positives of what make each of us individuals, though in a more controlled manner than this.
This event is being portrayed as a low point in our school’s history when it should be portrayed as having potential. The Redsuits know perfectly well what it feels like to be different and to have a different perspective. I trust all of them to make the right decisions towards a better future.
Udoka Okafor
The Silhouette
We all reach a point in our lives where we are faced with ideological decisions that test our conception of what we strongly believe to be right or wrong. These ideological decisions, though they wander and plummet in the realm of the conceptual, can have very pragmatic consequences. I was faced with such a decision in September, and dare I say, that my view of the ideological and the pragmatic has never been so uniformly synced.
Back in September, I received the Redsuit chant book from a source that I will not be relaying to the public. My source had come about this chant book, had read it thoroughly and was in complete awe with the content of the book. I was told that there might be a possibility that the chant book itself or some of the chants contained in the chant book were obsolete even though it was compiled as recently as 2010. My source further warned me of the ghastliness of the content of the chant book. But, no fair warning could have prepared me for what lay within the pages of the chant book. What I thought of as horrid in that moment was in relation to something wholly less vile.
These chants were abhorrence and insecurity personified and they represented discrimination at its core. The chant book went on to trivialize serious issues such as child abuse, sexual violence, and misogyny - issues that we can all agree deserve our utmost attention, no matter your internal conception of morality. All of these issues were trivialized under the pretext that they were ‘jokes’. But, no matter how I read the chant book, the fact they were written in ‘jest’ could not somehow alleviate its depravity.
I decided to publish the chant book because I recognized that its content represented bigger issues that we need to address as a community. The issue lay partially in whether the chant book was still in use or not, and this is a question whose answers remain coloured. Although many have categorically denied ever using the chant book, I have received a few messages on my blog that make me think otherwise. A few people have said that on some occasion they have vocalized some of the chants and saw nothing wrong with them. But I will not assume to make what may turn out to be unfair presumptions at this point.
The bigger issue that I recognized was how a community of persons could actually presume to compile such revulsion in jest. What lay at the core of the case was the empathy gaps that seem to exists within persons of unshared realities and how this gap makes some people feel unsafe. But, when we learn to, as a community, lessen these empathy gaps, until they are virtually irreducible, then we can make our society a better and safe place for everyone.
When we address serious issues such as this in jest, we ought not to simply take our perverse tickle for humour into account, but we ought to consider what people, whose realities are being represented within these ‘jokes’, will think. What you feel is irrelevant insofar as you do not take into account the victims/survivors of those experiences.
I absolutely recognize that the Redsuits as a society have done a lot of good things and nothing anyone says can discount that good. But morality is not a sliding scale. The good things that you have done don’t somehow work against and balance out the harm you have caused, whether intentional or otherwise. Your good and bad interact with each other in ways that can help people understand the type of community you want to be. But, to the extent that they are being judged, your good and bad ought to stand independently.
I have been receiving a lot of angry and harassing messages on my blog and hate mail.
I can tell that quite a few of you hate my guts, and some of you might even hate me as a person. People have said the most horrid things to me. They have frustrated my mental composition and left in a constant fear of confrontation, verbal or otherwise. This endured state of trepidation is affecting my ability to focus and it is continually accompanied by sleepless nights.
I try to appear calm and composed but I am neither of those things. However, I will not apologize for doing the right thing and I will not give in to the fear, irrespective of the personal costs to myself. I do not dance to the tune of intimidation and fear. I dance to the tune of morality and a search and fight for justice and what I believe to be right.
I have been told that everyone will be better off if the chant book had remained hidden. Now that I have exposed it, I am responsible for the injustice that follows. But an injustice is not an injustice because it is somehow known and widely propagated. An injustice can occur whether anyone knows about it or not, and we must all as a community find ways to deal with these issues, whether we care for it or not. Yes, when a tree falls in the forest it does make a sound regardless of how many people are there to hear it.
I will not be privy to a cover-up especially when I believe accountability and transparency to be one of the greatest virtues. My stance on this issue will remain unchanged irrespective of how much you try to intimidate me and make me feel unsafe. I want to use this opportunity to thank my friends for their support through this ordeal.
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.
