By Anonymous

Recently, the McMaster Students Union de-ratified the McMaster Chinese Students and Scholars Association due to its “alleged links to the Chinese government” according to the CBC News. The report from the news article was unprecedented for the MSU and alarming for me and other members of the McMaster community. Based on the online meeting notes (2002-2019) of the MSU’s governing body, the Student Representative Assembly, an alleged connection with a foreign government has never been a factor in the de-ratification of a visible minority group. 

While Columbia University and the University of Cambridge had previously banned their CSSA clubs, both universities re-ratified the clubs in a matter of weeks after resolving their violations. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, it would be one of the first times that alleged connections to the Chinese government have played a role in the de-ratification of any CSSA.

If the MSU is now deciding to factor in an alleged association with a government as a reason to ban a student club, then they need to come up with an exclusion list of “unacceptable” countries. If that list starts with China, where does it end? And what kind of campus environment will it create?

The CBC article may not fully reflect the true process of the Mac CSSA de-ratification — the meeting notes record the decision as being based on a violation of Section 5.1.3. of the MSU clubs operating policy, aka “actions, which endanger the safety or security of any person or property.” The CBC article politicized the de-ratification, demonizing China with absolute certainty. Yet the SRA did not make any public statements to provide a counter narrative

The CBC article politicized the de-ratification, demonizing China with absolute certainty.

As a result, this sent a hurtful and damaging message to the Chinese community on campus. Most of my Chinese friends are angry and confused at this attempt to openly disenfranchise them. Some have discussed their frustration in private with tears in their eyes, assuming that taking pride in China is not allowed in Canada. Some people believe that they have to lie low to abide by Canada’s rules. Some question if they will be able to extend their visa, find a job or apply for immigration if they express opinions different from the MSU. 

As a proud Chinese student who was born and raised in China and decided to make Canada my new home after great consideration, I was shocked at how this decision goes against every value I believe Canada stands for. What the MSU did, in my opinion, is a classic example of racism, even though it is covert. While criticising the Chinese government alone is not racist, disbanding a Chinese student group based on their political expression, free speech and ancestral origin is absolutely racist and unacceptable. 

Here is how: it is almost like dictating to us, you must be anti-Chinese government to become one of us, otherwise you should go back to China. In my view, even the anti-government Chinese students are also affected by such restrictions, as their right to freely determine their political beliefs is also compromised. No one should need approval to hold a lawful political stance. Under the SRA’s rhetoric, members of the Chinese community, regardless of their political stance, have become second-class citizens as we must have our beliefs certified to enjoy the freedom of association.

The real test for racism, in my view, is not in how you treat “model citizen” minority groups who align with your beliefs, but in how you treat those who don’t agree with you, and who do things that make you uncomfortable. 

The real test for racism, in my view, is not in how you treat “model citizen” minority groups who align with your beliefs, but in how you treat those who don’t agree with you, and who do things that make you uncomfortable.

The CSSA incident is precisely the test. At the centre of this incident is the open letter claiming that Mac CSSA notified the Chinese consulate about a public speaker in McMaster who supports Uighur separatism in China — the letter turned out to be prepared by an alumnus without informing Mac CSSA, as the alumnus had instead consulted the prior president of Mac CSSA. Disregarding the fact of who prepared the letter, I would still have great sympathy for their impulse to speak out. As China has gone through centuries of blood and wars, a unified China is precious for many Chinese students and other peace-seeking people on campus. Regrettably, this letter was interpreted by the SRA as extremist, dangerous and instructed by the Chinese government

Additionally, the SRA meeting notes claimed that there would be “no consequences” of disbanding CSSA. What about the thousands of Chinese international students who were denied a service they came to rely on under the MSU? What about the support CSSA provides to the international students who will be “shamefully neglected” if it were disbanded? As stated in the meeting minutes, no one from Mac CSSA was contacted to speak at the de-ratification meeting. Since the SRA effectively barred CSSA from the meeting without telling them about it, no one was left to advocate or to help the Chinese community at McMaster. 

Since the SRA effectively barred CSSA from the meeting without telling them about it, no one was left to advocate or to help the Chinese community at McMaster. 

The SRA's decision to de-ratify CSSA was an example of the racism that Chinese students routinely face. It is assumed that because we are Chinese, we must have the worst intentions. Because we are Chinese, we must be silent and submissive and never “rock the boat”, even when our services are denied. And because we are Chinese, believing in a unified and prosperous China means that we are brainwashed and should not be embraced by Canada. This is the message the MSU sent by this exclusion. 

This is why it is important to tell the Chinese students that McMaster needs their voices. My dear Chinese students, the MSU owes you the right to speak your mind on these issues. My dear Chinese students, whether you support the Chinese government or not, please step forward. In this country, no one should have the power to dictate your beliefs based on your Chinese origin. My dear Chinese students: be independent, be loud and be proud.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

Graphic C/O Ember

By: Ember, Contributor

I have previously written about how institutional ableism affects me and other students, but there’s another topic that is also overdue for discussion: casual ableism.

There are things that myself and other physically disabled people face on a consistent basis that an able-bodied person may not even realize are ableist. Using elevators, ramps and public transport, as well as navigating the campus in general — these activities are imperative to my everyday life, but are also an absolute nightmare.

The McMaster University Student Centre is home to many student services and it also acts as one of the main social hubs on campus, so it makes sense that it is very busy. I’m involved with and use multiple McMaster Students Union services within MUSC which span multiple floors of the building. I have lost count of how many times during those between-class rushes as well as during lunch hours that I have been bumped into, almost knocked over or completely plowed past by students and staff alike when walking to the elevators or using the ramp.

My cane is purple, it is loud, and it is very unlikely that able-bodied folks cannot hear it. I know you can see me — it is hard not to. My disability does not afford me the luxury to be subtle and small, so when you push past me, you’re making it clear that you have chosen to ignore my existence for your convenience. Is getting to your destination a few seconds earlier really worth disregarding basic human decency for myself and other physically disabled people?

Speaking of elevators, stop pressing the button and then walking away to take the stairs when it takes too long for the elevator to arrive. The reason why it is taking so long is because there are people on every other floor doing the exact same thing, and when I finally get on the elevator, it stops at every single floor. Somehow going from the first floor to the second floor of MUSC suddenly takes five minutes instead of 30 seconds. If you can take the stairs, just take the stairs — what have you gained by attempting to use and delaying accommodating utilities?

A side note: pressing the button for the elevator only to have it filled with able-bodied people who refuse to make room — all bearing sheepish or indifferent looks on their faces — is humiliating and degrading. The selfishness and misplaced entitlement to disability resources and accommodations make it that much harder for disabled people to exist and get around in public spaces.

Now let’s talk about public transit. Fellow students, I know that you love taking the bus for a couple of stops from inside campus into Westdale Village, but when you push past me to get on the bus when the bus driver specifically stops right in front of me to let me on first, know that I see you. When you fill up priority seating, placing down your bags or groceries beside you on another seat, I see you. I’ve lost count of the number of times that I end up standing on a crowded eastbound bus.

Not only do I feel pain, but I feel ashamed and dehumanized when able-bodied students see my physical form but refuse to acknowledge my need for accommodations. It wears me down and weighs on me day after day — my disability is hypervisible as I cannot hide it, but able-bodied people choose to not perceive me and my presence in order to absolve them of their guilt and responsibility for their actions.

Just because you hold the door open for me or press the automatic door button once does not mean you are at the apex of disability allyship. Check yourself, reflect on your actions, and deconstruct your saviour complex. You are not as perfect as you think you are.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

As much as inclusion and diversity have become buzzwords in elections and values upheld by student unions, measures to implement equitable services and plans are often met with resistance.

Recently, the University of Toronto Student Union (UTSU) introduced an Equity Plan which, if fully implemented, will remove representation for most colleges and faculty programs and add ten constituency directors. These directors will represent indigenous students, LGBTQ students, racialized students, women, athletes, international students, mature students, students with disabilities, first years, and commuters.

Although the UTSU’s plan is in its beginning stages and has not yet passed at their Annual General Meeting, it has already become a controversial topic at U of T and beyond.

In an article in the National Post, post-secondary education commentator Robyn Urback condemned the UTSU’s plan for all the wrong reasons. She called it “harrowingly stupid,” and aimed to expose the plan for what she thinks it truly is: an attack on white men. Urback’s article has unfortunately served as a reference point for many U of T undergrads and others who are outraged by this plan. It’s been cited in comments in U of T’s student newspaper The Varsity and other social media platforms as an acceptable rationale for why UTSU’s plan is so “stupid.”

Yet, Urback is missing the point, as are many of those disagreeing with UTSU’s plan. While there are many things to criticize about this Equity Plan, none of these criticisms will be taken seriously if they continue attacking “equity” instead of the “plan.”

The UTSU’s plan is clearly a decision based on inclusion and the desire to give marginalized communities on campus a voice. Since representation of minorities and democratic bodies elected by the majority don’t always go hand in hand, introducing ideas that aim to better represent marginalized groups is an incredibly difficult task.

This attempt to introduce something new and unheard of before in student governments should be criticized constructively and given credit for its radical effort. The exclusion of marginalized identities from student government is undoubtedly an important issue in post-secondary representation.

Can the UTSU’s plan fix this systemic problem? I don’t think so. But I think the UTSU’s board understands the level of reform that needs to take place in student unions.

The plan will certainly increase descriptive representation on student council, making marginalized identities visible, yet it will encourage a culture of placing the responsibility of meeting minority needs to minority members. It limits representation as something that can be achieved only by those whose experiences are identical to their constituents. This assumption of similarity is extremely flawed, given that our reliance on democratic systems is based on our belief that our representatives are capable of addressing our needs regardless of differences.

Instead of emphasizing the idea that women, LGBTQA+ individuals, racialized or disabled students are present in all faculties, across the entire campus and catering to their needs is only the just and equitable thing to do, it will instead encourage the idea that placing one queer, or disabled, or indigenous student on a governing body to represent their communities will create larger cultural impacts. Sure, that one director for racialized students might offer some insight on a policy, but are the creators of this plan hoping that somehow the one voice in the assembly will be more than that? Will it cause an increase in the number of racialized directors elected for other positions on the assembly, for president?

The UTSU’s plan assumes that guaranteeing a seat at the table for these identities will solve complex problems of representation. We want our communities represented, but true success would mean achieving proportional representation in the current structure of student assemblies. It would mean members of marginalized communities being elected by students to represent them without the student union creating mandatory positions. This plan would not work towards breaking down barriers and prejudices that cause the underrepresentation of these groups in the first place.

It seems as though the UTSU forgot what the goal of their plan really is: to create a campus where equity is the norm and marginalized identities no longer have to be referred to as marginalized. By restructuring their student union assembly to have boxes for these marginalized identities, the UTSU will be building a system that secures representation but ignores the deeper problems they are trying to address.

Subscribe to our Mailing List

© 2024 The Silhouette. All Rights Reserved. McMaster University's Student Newspaper.
magnifiercrossmenu