MSU president opened the Feb. 25 SRA meeting, detailing upcoming referendums, new event planning software and upcoming VP elections
The recent Student Representative Assembly meeting on Feb. 25 began with a report from the McMaster Students Union president, Jovan Popovic, on his his recent endeavours and future plans.
The report discussed the Feb. 7 opening of the Hub, the MSU's newest facility and on-campus social space. Popovic reflected positively on the large turnout to the opening event, where food and McMaster Student Union merch was given away to students. Popovic also stated that though the Hub is currently open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., new staff will be hired soon so that the hours can be extended in the near future.
Popovic then spoke on the upcoming MSU referendums regarding a new bike share program and for his own food accessibility initiative.
For the bike share program referendum, students will be asked if they would consider increasing their student fees by $24.50 annually for a bike share pass. The program would enable students to use the Hamilton Bike Share for 90 minutes a day throughout the year. Popovic noted that the proposed bike share pass is significantly cheaper than the normal $200 annual rate for a bike share pass from the city. Additionally, even if the referendum is successful, students would have the option to opt out of the program if they do not believe they would make use of it.
As part of his campaign for re-election, Popovic promised to implement a soup and bread program on campus to help address food insecurity. This referendum will ask students if they would agree to a $5 increase to the MSU fee to fund the program.
Popovic continued to announce to the assembly that the MSU has decided to adopt a new event planning software called Bounce to replace the current platform Eventbrite. Popovic stated in his report that the implementation of the new software is a work in progress and the goal is to have implemented the new software before the end of this academic year. Popovic elaborated that other university bodies have considered adopting this new events platform as well.
“I’ve begun speaking with the athletics and recreation department and they have shown some interest in seeing a demo to see if they would switch as well, meaning everything [regarding events planning] on campus would potentially be through one platform,” stated Popovic.
I’ve begun speaking with the athletics and recreation department and they have shown some interest in seeing a demo to see if they would switch as well, meaning everything [regarding events planning] on campus would potentially be through one platform.
Jovan Popovic, president, McMaster Students Union
Popovic was questioned on the cost of implementing the new software and he responded by clarifying that the new software has no additional cost as they make money by charging one dollar for every ticket purchased.
According to Popovic, the new software would also save the MSU money. Popovic stated that the student unions at the University of British Columbia and Western University are currently using the Bounce platform.
Popovic then went on to address the upcoming elections for the MSU's vice presidential positions. Popovic reflected that last academic year, very few individuals applied for the VP positions and so recruiting the rest of next year’s Board of Directors has been a top priority for the past few months. In his report, Popovic stated that he is currently aware of several potential candidates intending to apply.
“We have been working very hard to ensure that what happened last year does not happen again this year so that we have a full crop of candidates. . .I believe we have been successful, we are seeing much more interest than previous years,” stated Popovic.
We have been working very hard to ensure that what happened last year does not happen again this year so that we have a full crop of candidates. . .I believe we have been successful, we are seeing much more interest than previous years.
Jovan Popovic, president, McMaster Students Union
Popovic also provided an update on the return of an on-campus homecoming event next September, another promise from his re-election campaign platform. Popovic stated that progress has been made coordinating the event with the university and it is expected to occur next September.
Popovic stated that McMaster University's administration does not want to affiliate the title "homecoming" with the event due to the potentially negative connotations, which Popovic referred to as "ridiculous." Popovic stated he is currently working with MSU VP finance Sefa Otchere to ensure that an adequate budget is dedicated to the on-campus event for next September.
Popovic’s report concluded with a statement regarding the new international student cap. Popovic stated that he will be meeting with university administrators to ask questions and learn about the impacts of the new policy on international students at McMaster so that the MSU will be able to act to support students.
To read more about from Popovic's report, the report itself and the minutes of the Feb 25th meeting are available on the MSU's website.
SRA Members discussed the progress of committee reports, discussed the use of the SRA special projects fund and adjourned for the semester.
On Nov. 26, 2023 the Student Representative Assembly met for the last meeting for the Fall 2023 semester.
The meeting commenced with Jovan Popovic, McMaster Student Union President, requesting on behalf of Abigail Samuels, MSU vice-president (education), who was absent, to push back both the University Affairs Committee report and Executive Board committee to the next SRA meeting. Only the University Affairs Committee report was pushed back through unanimous voting. Despite the unanimous voting Kevin Hu, from Engineering Academic Division, voiced a question about the lack of submission for SRA reports and year reports. The question was unanswered due to it being posed during the wrong period of meeting and Hu was encouraged to discuss this privately or at the next SRA meeting directly with Samuels.
During this SRA meeting there were summaries of the First Year Council report, Science Caucus report, Social Sciences Caucus report, Municipal Affairs Committee report, Executive Board report and VP (Administration) report.
SRA members shared a questioning period where two points were primarily discussed.
There were discussions regarding the Union Market, which at the time of the meeting had not been open. Popvic shared that the timeline has been pushed back numerous times and explicitly mentioned at the meeting that they expected an opening for following Monday but that it was the third week of the expected opening date being pushed back.
“It’s been one of the many challenges in opening the entire food and beverage department in such a rush. We’ve had, obviously, the POS issues. There’s been staffing issues. Still attempting to overcome it all,” said Popovic in the 23K SRA meeting.
There were discussions regarding the recently passed motion regarding violence in the Middle East, as described by the MSU. All of the questions were about how a donation from the motion was taken from the SRA Special Projects Fund, for which approximately $15,000 of $19,000 were utilized.
Simon Batusic, from the Social Science Academic Division, asked if there was enough consultation done when taking money from the SRA pool for SRA-specific projects. Kerry Yang, from Health Sciences Academic Division, also questioned if SRA members were informed about the use of SRA Special Projects Fund, as she had thought it would come from a different budget. Popvic answered that extensive consultation was done and that previous precedent dictates that for such a motion SRA Special Project funds are utilized.
“We spent a vast majority of the time crafting the motion as well as consulting with various different parties to fully understand what it is that the students were actually looking [for]. To make sure that student voice and student priorities were heard,” said Popovic in the 23K SRA meeting.
Nelosha Suganthan, from Sciences Academic Division, inquired what the current timeline for donations. Safa Otchere, MSU VP (finance), said there was no definitive timeline but that the process would likely commence within the next few weeks.
Overall, the SRA will have several reports and seats to discuss in the first meeting of the Winter 2024 semester. As the new year commences, students should hope to hear more updates on the opening of Union Market and successful donations to the decided charities.
Student Representative Assembly represents the undergraduate students of McMaster University to ensure equitable services and advocate on their behalf to McMaster staff. They meet bimonthly, discussing a range of topics.
Student concerns after presidential acclamation lead to SRA review of elections bylaws
C/O The Silhouette Photo Archives
The Student Representative Assembly has been discussing possible changes to Bylaw 7/A, which outlines the electoral procedures of McMaster Student Union electoral at-large elections. The change could add a vote of confidence to the procedure instead of acclamation.
The MSU's president-elect for 2021/2022 was recently acclaimed. Bylaw 7/A outlines the procedures for acclamation: “If the number of valid nomination forms submitted is fewer than or equal to the number of available positions, the [Chief Returning Officer] shall declare all nominees duly elected by acclamation.”
Nominees in this circumstance are automatically acclaimed to the position, as there is no vote of confidence available to the student body. The bylaw applies to candidates for SRA, MSU presidential and MSU First-Year Council elections.
In response to the presidential acclamation, the first in at least 40 years, the MSU Board of Directors tasked the SRA Internal Governance Committee to do a review of Bylaw 7/A. The IG committee has completed research on the bylaw and will propose updates at the March 7, 2021 SRA meeting.
In response to the presidential acclamation, the first in at least 40 years, the MSU Board of Directors tasked the SRA Internal Governance Committee to do a review of Bylaw 7/A. The IG committee has completed research on the bylaw and will propose updates at the March 7, 2021 SRA meeting.
Over the past month, general students and SRA members have expressed interest and thoughts on what the changes should look like, including the implementation of a vote of confidence for would-be acclaimed seats.
To specify what this vote of confidence would look like, SRA representatives conducted polls on social media within their faculties to collect data. Most SRA representatives asked students to identify whether a vote of confidence should be implemented, who the vote of confidence would apply to, who the vote of confidence electorate should be and which elections the vote of confidence should apply to and in which circumstances.
Considerations included whether the student body at-large or the SRA, whether it be the incoming or outgoing group, should take the vote of confidence. Further, some SRA members proposed a vote of confidence from the outgoing SRA for each incoming SRA member, including those elected by the student body.
The SRA caucus data results were presented at the Feb. 21 meeting. While each caucus had slightly different results, the majority reported a favour in adding a vote of confidence for MSU presidential elections.
There was a mixed consensus from all faculties on having a vote of confidence on SRA and First-Year Council elections, as well as whether the student body or SRA should be taking part in the vote of confidence.
In the meeting, SRA Social Sciences caucus members explained how some students’ concerns from the data indicated that they should be given more power in the vote of confidence, especially as a step towards building more trust with MSU. This data was collected by a Google Form that was circulated in Avenue groups and social media posts.
25 students responded to the survey. For the results, 84.6% of students wanted there to be a vote of confidence. Out of those who voted, 100% wanted students to have that vote. 50% of students said all elections (would-be-acclaimed and those with a surplus of candidates) should have a vote of confidence, 25% said they did not know, and 25% said they only wanted would-be-acclaimed ones.
Moreover, 83.3% of students said all elections that fall under that Bylaw (SRA, MSU President, and FYC) should have a vote of confidence, and 16.7% said only the MSU President should have a vote of confidence.
There was also a large concern from SRA Social Sciences members about potential conflict of interests with those running in elections.
These concerns were echoed by the McMaster Political Science Students Association, who worried that the change would require any incoming SRA member, including those elected by the student body, to undergo a vote of confidence by the outgoing SRA members.
“There was a universal push back [within our association] against [this] sort of move. We believe that the student voices should remain to the students and that it shouldn't be taken out from them in any capacity,” said Gurwinder Sidhu, MPSSA president.
The MPSSA has started a petition, which all MSU members can sign, against the suggestion of outgoing SRA members conducting a vote of confidence on the incoming SRA members, both elected and acclaimed.
The form states the association’s concern that these vote of confidence changes will compromise student democracy by giving the current SRA members the power to determine the members of the assembly, regardless of student votes.
“The key thing here is that people need to pay attention to what the student government is doing, because at the end of day, this affects them more broadly,” emphasized Sidhu.
During the Feb. 21 meeting, MSU President Da-Ré clarified to all SRA members that the discussion was not about SRA vetoing someone that was chosen by the student body, emphasizing that this would be very undemocratic. He explained that the voting body cannot change. For positions elected by students, such as SRA members, the voting body would remain students.
During the Feb. 21 meeting, MSU President Da-Ré clarified to all SRA members that the discussion was not about SRA vetoing someone that was chosen by the student body, emphasizing that this would be very undemocratic. He explained that the voting body cannot change. For positions elected by students, such as SRA members, the voting body would remain students.
The SRA has forwarded the student data to the SRA IG committee for further analysis and interpretation, in addition to their committee research. The IG committee has put forward their proposed changes to Bylaw 7/A along with a memo to summarize and explain the amendments.
Notably, the amendments propose a student body vote of confidence. The changes will be debated and likely voted on at the March 7 SRA meeting.
“We [SRA Internal Governance Committee] are suggesting a Vote of Confidence for FYC, SRA and Presidential Elections when the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of positions available. The vote of confidence will be conducted by the student body where there would have previously been an acclamation,” wrote Associate Vice-President (Internal Governance) Michelle Brown in the memo.
According to the SRA discussion in the Feb. 21 meeting, there cannot be any bylaw changes made to the upcoming SRA elections. However, these could be implemented in the next election cycle.
Prior to the March 7 meeting and likely vote, MPSSA plans to continue their advocacy with their petition and by reaching out to other McMaster clubs and organizations for support. They are also currently in touch with SRA members to encourage them to vote against any changes that would compromise students’ democracy.
“I have good faith that this will be solved in an adequate manner… only time can tell that,” said Sidhu.
The Silhouette will continue to follow this story. For an in-depth explanation of the 2021 Presidential Acclamation and Bylaw 7/A amendment procedures, read: “The election that wasn’t: MSU president acclaimed.”
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.
On Jan. 12, 2020, McMaster University’s Student Representative Assembly met for the first time in the new year to ratify 15 new clubs and to complete their initial review of non-MSU groups on campus.
Incite Magazine was the final non-MSU group to present their organization’s activities and budget to the SRA. According to Associate Vice-President (Finance) Jess Anderson’s report on Jan. 8, the McMaster Student Union’s Finance Committee has completed their review of all non-MSU groups on campus. These non-MSU groups receive funding from McMaster students but do not fall under the purview of the MSU Club Department.
According to the report, there are currently five non-MSU groups on campus: McMaster Marching Band, Engineering without Borders, McMaster Solar Car, Incite Magazine and the Ontario Public Interest Research Group McMaster.
“While there were a few hiccups regarding communication throughout the reviewing processes, the committee was very pleased with McMaster Marching Band, [and] have provided recommendations to Engineers without Borders, McMaster Solar Car, and Incite Magazine,” states Anderson in the report.
The Finance Committee has yet to come to a decision or provide recommendations for OPIRG McMaster. While a delegation from OPIRG attended the Dec. 8 SRA meeting, the group is still currently discussing salary and administration logistics with their union, Canadian Union of Public Employees 1281.
[pjc_slideshow slide_type="sra-jan-16-2020"]
During the meeting, 15 new clubs were ratified by the SRA after recommendation from Clubs Administrator Aditi Sharma. A list of newly ratified clubs and their mission statements was also provided on Jan. 7. These include cultural clubs such as the Indonesian McMaster Student Association and McMaster Bengali Student Union; social issues clubs such as Blackspace and Glamour Girls; and recreational clubs such as the McMaster Real Estate Society and McMaster Filmmaking Club.
Each semester, potential clubs submit their applications to the Clubs Administrator and Clubs Executive Council. Successful applicants are then interviewed by the Clubs Administrator. Potential clubs are evaluated for their uniqueness, ability to maintain significant student interest and ability to positively impact the McMaster community. Finally, recognition as an official MSU club requires ratification by the SRA.
Last semester, there were two instances that raised concerns about the process of vetting proposed clubs. On Jul. 21, SRA ratified the Dominion Society, triggering an intervention three days later by MSU President Josh Marando due to the club’s alleged connections to people and organizations with white supremacist ties. Similarly, the SRA passed a motion on Sept. 22 to de-ratify The McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association for violating section 5.1.3 of the Clubs Operating Policy by endangering student safety.
Discussion regarding club ratification lasted under four minutes. The question of the club recognition appeal process for unsuccessful applicants was also brought up at the meeting.
“One of my constituents wanted to start a club with the purpose of, if I’m remembering correctly, creating a space where the ideas of various faculties (science, humanities, etc.) could be discussed and shared openly together [...] The clubs department did not approve the club for reasons the constituent did not agree with and the constituent claims not [to] have been informed of a formal appeals process in their rejection,” wrote one SRA member wishing to remain anonymous.
According to the SRA member, the applicant was told that the proposed club fit a niche already occupied by the Controversial Texts Discussion Club, which aims to encourage discussion of academic texts and potentially controversial topics in Science, Philosophy and Religion. However, after reaching out to CON-TEXT several times and receiving no response, the applicant told the SRA member that they believe the club to no longer be active.
Section 4.13 of the MSU Clubs Operating Policy states that club applicants can first appeal to the Clubs Administrator. If still unsuccessful, applicants can make a second and final appeal to the CEC.
“In the email that [an unsuccessful club] got, they have an appeal period. They can send their appeal to the clubs administrator and CEC to be reviewed,” added MSU President Josh Marando at the meeting.
Lasting just over 42 minutes, this was the shortest SRA meeting so far in the 2019-2020 school year.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Content warning: white supremacy
At an emergency meeting last night, the Student Representative Assembly voted unanimously to de-ratify the Dominion society due to concerns that the club had neglected to disclose its affiliation with an external organization with alleged ties to xenophobic individuals.
The Dominion society was ratified alongside 337 other clubs at the July 24 SRA meeting. Prior to ratification, concerns were raised about the club’s affiliations, but SRA members stated that they had no way to verify these claims.
Two days after the club was ratified, an anonymous Twitter thread published photographs of the Dominion society leader attending events hosted by the MacDonald cultural and historical society, an external organization with no stated ties to McMaster. The thread also showed pictures of other people attending the group’s events, and posted screenshots of explicitly xenophobic comments that these individuals had allegedly made in private Facebook groups.
The Dominion society, formerly called the MacDonald society, states that its aim is to celebrate Canadian culture and history. The leader of the Dominion society denies that the club has any connection to white supremacist individuals or organizations.
The release of information sparked considerable community backlash. The day after the Twitter thread was posted, McMaster students union president Josh Marando issued a statement urging SRA members to de-ratify the club in light of the new information.
During the emergency meeting last night, Marando reiterated that he had recommended de-ratification because the Dominion society did not disclose its alleged ties to the MacDonald cultural and historical society, and because people tied to that organization had allegedly expressed white supremacist beliefs.
Despite a delayed start while waiting to meet quorum, the meeting lasted only 15 minutes. All SRA members who spoke during the meeting agreed that the club should not be allowed to exist on campus.
For SRA (arts & science) representative Catherine Hu, this incident highlights the need to reform the ratification process so that the same thing does not happen again.
“If we have adjustment to our policy of how we go about ratifying clubs, it would solidify why we should or should not ratify certain clubs,” said Hu.
SRA (social science) member Vania Pagniello stated that the SRA needs to take concerns of white supremacy more seriously. Pagniello noted that, while not explicit, there were warning signs in the Dominion society’s application that warranted closer investigation. In previous meetings, concerns were raised about the club’s plans to run events celebrating Canadian colonial history, given Canada’s history of colonization and state violence.
“In the future we need to be a lot more thoughtful and stringent about the people that we’re giving resources to,” stated Pagniello.
The vote to de-ratify the Dominion society was unanimous.
“We made a mistake, but we’re going to fix it,” said SRA (science) representative Armand Acri.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Photo C/O Kyle West
By: William Li
Content Warning: White supremacy
On July 21, the Student Representative Assembly briefly discussed concerns about clubs engaging in foreign surveillance and white supremacy — but in a shocking move, put these concerns aside and simply ratified all proposed clubs anyway, triggering an intervention just three days later by McMaster Students' Union President Josh Marando.
Although Marando’s quick response to concerns of white supremacy and threats to marginalized students is a good start, this incident remains problematic: Why did the SRA ratify the Dominion society in the first place, even though these exact concerns were brought up in the SRA meeting prior to the ratification vote?
Currently, the clubs administrator processes club applications and provides a list of clubs to the SRA, which usually votes to approve all at once. However, the clubs administrator is an unelected person, and they are historically either unwilling or unable to act when clubs promote or endorse actions that put students at risk.
For example, they declined to take action in February, when the McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) publicly declared that they reported an event on campus to the Chinese government for discussing China’s human rights violations against Uighur Muslims. Soon, there were international headlines and concerns that such surveillance on campus puts Uighur and Chinese students at risk, since criticism of the Chinese Communist Party is often grounds for imprisonment in China.
The clubs administrator then took months to prepare a memo in response, which the SRA quickly overlooked as they re-ratified the CSSA at their July 21 meeting without addressing the memo’s concerns of surveillance and harassment.
The still-unresolved CSSA fiasco is a great example of how the Dominion society is not a one-time thing, but rather, just the latest symptom of a much more serious problem: the MSU’s glaring inability to manage clubs, and an urgent need for major reform.
Although we have a new clubs administrator now, the systemic issues with this model of governance persist: the SRA expects the clubs administrator to manage problematic clubs, but the clubs administrator does not do much beyond preliminary research and providing information to the SRA upon request.
The result is that nobody does anything. Anybody who can successfully fill out forms simply gets stamped and approved. Clubs get away with everything from foreign surveillance to peddling false medical information, while MSU officials busy themselves tossing political hot potatoes at one another.
We saw such political runaround in action when SRA members tried asking clarifying questions about certain clubs, and the clubs administrator wrote in their response, “I strongly recommend ratifying the majority of clubs such that the MSU Clubs Department can move forward with our activities for the year. If there are still concerns about certain clubs, it would be better to bring your questions directly to them.”
Given this apparent urgency for SRA members to stop bothering the clubs administrator with questions about clubs and just move on, there should be no surprise that the Dominion society escaped the proper scrutiny that should have happened before—rather than after—the rushed ratification vote.
While the SRA and clubs administrator have rightfully gotten flak over these decisions, we must remember that the problem is systemic. The clubs administrator job description does not explicitly require them to supervise clubs, ensure truthfulness in club applications or even enforce the clubs operating policy. Meanwhile, the SRA appears ill-equipped to pick up the slack on this front.
In order to address this, the SRA should not simply rubber stamp whatever is put in front of them by the clubs administrator; rather, they should take the time to do research and get fully informed before voting. Additionally, as our elected representatives, they should make the political decisions that the clubs administrator cannot, which includes exercising their power to withhold club status.
Although some may argue that revoking club status should not be used as a tool for censorship, we must remember that club status is a privilege, not a right. If clubs expect to access funding, ClubSpace and other such perks paid for with student fees, then the SRA should hold clubs to the same standard as other MSU departments.
Next, the SRA must revisit the rushed July 21 ratification vote and actually scrutinize clubs properly (perhaps at the emergency meeting that Marando has called for, though it remains to be scheduled). Instead of having the MSU President intervene each time there is a problem or waiting for issues to blow up in the media, the SRA should proactively resolve issues. The consequences of inaction can be clearly seen in how Chinese nationalists have instigated violence on other university campuses, while white nationalists have been provoking violence right here in Hamilton.
Finally, in the long-term, we need systemic change. Even though the clubs operating policy was recently amended in June, the updated policy quickly flopped in action when it failed to prevent the Dominion society ratification about-face. Furthermore, even Human Rights Watch has felt compelled to provide recommendations for more substantial change to address the Chinese government’s threats to academic freedom. The recent amendment’s stunning failure, the recommendations from HRW, and Marando’s intervention show that band-aid solutions will be insufficient — the entire clubs operating policy is no longer viable and must be overhauled.
The SRA must now show leadership so that these troubling incidents do not happen again. If nothing significant is done, then this cycle — where the MSU condones clubs that endanger students and then pauses to reflect only after enough controversy is attracted — will simply continue.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Photo C/O Kyle West
Content warning: white supremacy
On July 24, McMaster Students' Union president Josh Marando issued a letter urging the student representative assembly to revoke a new club’s status due to its alleged connections to people and organizations with white supremacist ties.
The Dominion society, originally named the MacDonald society, describes itself as a club aimed at celebrating Canadian culture and history.
“The independence of Canada as a sovereign nation in its own right, its colonial history, and its British, French and First Nations heritage will be prevailing themes in this club’s activity and pursuits,” the club stated in its cover letter.
The club was first introduced to the SRA at their June 23 meeting alongside 337 other clubs applying for ratification.
At this time, some SRA members raised concerns about the club’s mandate of celebrating Canadian colonial history, given Canada's history of colonization and state violence.
“The celebration of Canada as a sovereign nation in its own right is absolutely false. Canada’s sovereignty is based off the genocide of Indigenous peoples,” said SRA (Social Science) member Vania Pagniello. “We have to think about McMaster as a space that we are trying to decolonize.”
There was also speculation about the group’s connection to the MacDonald cultural and historical society, an organization with no explicit connection to McMaster. The society has held recent events in the Hamilton area, according to its public Facebook page.
According to the MacDonald cultural and historical society’s social media accounts, the purpose of the group is to celebrate Canadian heritage and culture.
“The Macdonald cultural and historical society is a brotherhood of Canadians who hold dear the sympathies of our Founder; that above all else, our nation must be united together under shared bonds of loyalty, strength, perseverance and courage,” says the society’s description on Facebook.
McMaster community members raised concerns to SRA representatives that the MacDonald cultural and historical society used language that could be symbolic of white nationalist ties. In particular, the celebration of John A. MacDonald and the use of the red ensign were flagged as signs of potential white supremacist attitudes within the society.
There was discussion at the SRA meeting that there may be connections between the MacDonald cultural and historical society and the proposed McMaster club. However, some SRA representatives stated that they were unable to be certain that such a connection existed.
The SRA was hesitant to deny ratification outright. SRA (Science) member Simranjeet Singh stated that all viewpoints should be permitted, noting that it is not necessary for the SRA to agree with every club that they ratify. According to Singh, SRA members were working with the presumption that applicants were acting in good faith.
“We didn't want to prevent people from allowing their group to exist because of what a lot of us thought was hearsay and may not have been fully representative of the entire community as well,” said Singh.
The SRA considered further delaying ratification, but it was brought up that this would prevent the Dominion society from participating in clubs fest, a major opportunity for recruitment.
As a compromise, SRA members suggested monitoring the club over the course of the year to see whether their activities aligned with the clubs operating policy. It was noted that the SRA has historically never been responsible for monitoring clubs, and the monitoring strategy was not determined.
SRA members also suggested inviting Indigenous professors to speak to the Dominion society about decolonization and reconciliation, in the hopes that this would provide further context to the conversation around Canadian history. No SRA members indicated that they had done consultation with Indigenous people about the risks and feasibility of this suggestion.
On July 21, a month after the clubs were first pitched to the SRA, the SRA voted almost unanimously to ratify the MacDonald society.
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
On July 23, a Twitter thread was published showing a series of photos from the MacDonald cultural and historical society’s social media accounts. The thread identified certain individuals pictured attending events hosted by the society. It then posted a series of screenshots from a private Facebook group showing explicitly fascist, white supremacist comments allegedly made by the individuals in the photographs.
The thread also provided photographic evidence that the leader of the Dominion society had attended multiple events hosted by the Macdonald historical and cultural society.
The photographic evidence linking the Dominion society leader to the MacDonald cultural and historical society was visible to the public on the group’s Facebook page. However, neither the clubs administrators nor SRA members found this evidence while researching the club.
A day after this information was released, MSU president Josh Marando released a statement urging SRA members to deratify the club in light of the new information.
One major concern was that the group seemed to misrepresent its connections to an outside organization. This violates the clubs operating policy, which states that clubs must disclose all third party connections.
“Based on documentation circulated online and forward to us, it appears to me that applicants of this club misrepresented their connection to a third party, which is a condition of ratification and hence why I am recommending its revocation,” said Marando in an emailed statement.
In addition, Marando stated that the club seemed to have connections to other organizations or people with white supremacist attitudes.
“Such attitudes have no place in the MSU Clubs system or in campus discourse,” he wrote in his July 24 statement.
In a statement to CBC news following the release of Marando’s statement, the leader of the Dominion society denied connections to the Macdonald historical and cultural society was non political and stated that the club had no ties to white supremacist organizations.
IS IT ENOUGH?
In his statement, Marando highlighted the need to improve the clubs application process in order to prevent hate groups from using clubs as fronts for organizing. He called for an emergency SRA meeting, which has not yet been scheduled.
According to MSU general manager John McGowan, however, the situation does not represent a problem with the current approval process, which allows for deratification when new information comes to light.
“What's occurring now is proving that the system does work with regards to decisions being made but then being reflected on based on accurate information is being provided by the community,” said McGowan.
For others, however, the club should never have been ratified in the first place. According to the Hamilton student mobilization network, a local activist organization, the university has not done enough to oppose the growing threat of white supremacy on campus.
In their statement, the HSMN noted that white supremacist organizations are gaining traction on university campuses, and urged the MSU to meaningfully oppose these organizations.
“Had they treated concerns about the MacDonald Society’s white supremacist ties with the gravity they deserve, we would not now be in this situation to begin with,” said the statement. “We are calling on the MSU to permanently ban any organization that promotes white supremacy and implement measures to prevent this from ever happening again.”
The SRA has not yet scheduled an emergency meeting to vote on deratification. As the start of the school year draws near, the Dominion society’s club status remains uncertain.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Two long weeks after The Silhouette released an article regarding the gaps within the McMaster Students Union sexual violence disclosure processes, MSU President Ikram Farah finally released a statement.
The statement, which reads as a rambling pat on the back, condemns sexual violence and commits to a systematic review of the Maroons and the MSU as a whole, something that two Maroons representatives brought forward when they suggested a full audit of the service back in September 2018.
In the fall, a regularly scheduled service audit was conducted in which Maroons representatives made it known that an additional reporting tool would be useful. They also noted that the MSU’s workplace policy on harassment, discrimination and sexual violence should be more survivor-centric.
In response, the MSU vice president (Administration), Kristina Epifano, developed an online reporting tool and reportedly consulted with volunteers, staff and experts to update the workplace policy. But once released, it was discovered that this online reporting tool was not nearly as thorough or inclusive as the Maroons representatives had hoped.
Additionally, there is no evidence that the board of directors made any effort to lay the groundwork for investigation of sexual assault within the Maroons.
These Maroons representatives spent six months advocating for a full service review of the Maroons that focused on sexual assault. It was only when they made a public report to The Silhouette that the MSU president pledged to begin investigating sexual assault within the service.
Farah’s statement comes two weeks too late and six months after the fact that the two Maroons representatives reported the culture of sexual assault within the Maroons to Epifano.
The fact is that over the course of the two weeks following release of our article, the Maroons were actively hiring new representatives and ignoring the calls to action from the McMaster community.
Though Farah stated that Maroons events will be suspended for the time being while the review is underway, it is unclear whether the Maroons will be involved in Welcome Week this fall.
There’s a lot to say about the statement. We could mention that within the statement, Farah makes a note that she personally has not found any “actual reports” of sexual violence within the Maroons team this year. While she does acknowledge that the lack of reporting does not mean that harassment or assault hasn’t occurred, this tangent is absolutely unnecessary and self-praising.
What’s more is Farah’s claim that the MSU’s “practices and disclosure protocols are exemplary of the sector.”
What does exemplary mean if the practices and disclosure policies have not been consistent, thorough nor inclusive before these past few months? In what way is taking two weeks to release a statement regarding the matter exemplary?
Within the MSU, the lines between personal and professional are constantly blurred. Given that the MSU has consistently protected individuals accused of sexual assault, it is no surprise that survivors may not feel comfortable disclosing their sexual assault.
Whether the perpetrator was a member of the Student Representative Assembly or a presidential candidate, the MSU has continuously failed to support survivors.
This is indicative of a larger issue within the MSU: there is no independent human resources department to respond to complaints and initiate reviews.
Maroons representatives spent six months advocating for change, and it took two weeks and dozens of community members, volunteers and MSU employees taking to social media to demand a response from the Maroons coordinator and have the MSU commit to a full service review.
In order to properly address sexual assault at a systemic level, the MSU needs to overhaul its sexual assault policy and oversight process.
The MSU has proven time and time again that it is poorly equipped to properly respond to sexual assault allegations. It is left entirely up to the board of directors to ensure that policies are upheld, but they are not trained or qualified to respond to issues of this magnitude.
The MSU needs an independent HR department to consistently and proactively address concerns so that students do not have to turn to public disclosure in order to initiate a review process.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
When I started out as the Opinions Editor for The Silhouette this past year, I admittedly didn’t care much about student politics or governance. I was unfamiliar with the policies of the McMaster Students Union and had no idea what happened during Student Representative Assembly meetings.
Nowadays, I regularly watch the SRA livestreams and perform my due diligence to be aware of changes occurring within the MSU. A large part of that is for my job, but I’ve found that staying informed has benefits beyond finding something to write about.
The purpose of the MSU is to “represent you and to help build a better community for all students”. As the governing body of the MSU, SRA members have a responsibility to represent and lobby on behalf of their students.
It’s only fair then that we as students hold these members, and the MSU in general, accountable for their actions. In doing so, we are ensuring that any changes occurring are truly reflective of the needs and desires of students.
There’s many ways for students can hold these organizations accountable. They can attend SRA meetings, speak to their SRA representative, voice their concerns online or even protest for change.
Alternatively, you can do what I do, and write about your concerns for the campus newspaper. Perhaps some of my criticisms have been harsh or slightly misguided. But at the end of the day, I’m proud of the articles that I’ve written and edited for The Silhouette. Even if they have stepped on some toes, I’d like to think they’ve helped incite some positive changes on campus.
Whether these changes are a fully-stocked Union Market or investigations into MSU-recognized clubs, it’s evident that speaking out on issues is important.
Not everything the SRA or MSU has done has been negative. In fact, they have made some great, positive changes that are deserving of praise, or at the very least, of respect.
A few weeks ago, I had plans to write about the SRA’s contradictory playing of the national anthem and delivery of a land acknowledgment at their meetings. To my surprise, I found that they passed a motion to stop playing the national anthem at their meetings altogether. Things like these are positive changes that students should be aware of.
Of course, there is only so much that students can do. Given the record eight students who attended the General Assembly on March 20, it is obvious that the MSU must do a better job at engaging with their student constituents.
But just because the MSU and SRA have much to improve doesn’t mean that students are off the hook for staying informed. Without student input and advocacy efforts, organizations are given too much power and can make decisions that negatively impact us all.
For example, without the efforts of a few brave survivors telling their experiences with sexual assault within the MSU Maroons, it’s unlikely that the service would be doing anything to account for the issue, much less propose developing a long-overdue sexual assault and harassment policy.
I encourage students to get engaged with their university’s politics. It might seem overwhelming, and the information is certainly not easy to navigate, but it’s important work.
Especially in light of the upcoming changes to post-secondary education made by the provincial government, it is in the best interests of all students to be engaged with their union’s activities.
My term at The Silhouette is reaching a close. I’ve learned a lot during my time working for the newspaper but my biggest takeaway is that student politics affects us all, including those outside of the MSU bubble. For our own sake, we ought to keep our student organizations accountable for their actions.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
