Tag: CSU

Categories
Opinions

Freedom of expression on campus

Archive graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Why the JCCF’s findings on Concordia’s free speech policies are not credible

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has published their 2017 Campus Freedom Index. The index grades universities and student unions on their defence of free speech on campus—on paper and in practice. According to the index, Concordia’s policies regarding free speech receive a B, while its practices earn a C for 2017. The Concordia Student Union (CSU) was given an F for its policies and a C for its practices.

These findings seem quite concerning. As I’m sure most people would agree, universities are meant to be bastions of free speech. Various media outlets seem to share this concern. Articles by Maclean’s and the CBC have outlined the supposed demise of free speech on Canadian university campuses, citing the Campus Freedom Index as evidence.

As with so many discussions in the media about the free speech debate, these articles fail to critically engage with the ideology behind the Campus Freedom Index and other free speech crusades. In particular, considering the known ideological leanings of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, it’s imperative that we frame any of their findings appropriately.

So, in the interest of free speech, here is the other side of the argument. The JCCF is an organization that spends much of its time defending campus anti-abortion groups. We must remember that abortion rights in Canada are not a given. Many groups are still actively working to undermine and reverse current protections. Last month, the membership of the second-largest federal political party in Canada nearly voted to revoke restrictions on anti-abortion legislation being introduced in Parliament.

When abortion rights are limited or revoked, mothers die. It’s as simple as that. Moreover, the tactics used by anti-abortion groups frequently cross the line into direct harassment. Even so, the JCCF is actively defending a group that set up a prominent anti-abortion display in the middle of the University of Alberta campus. Vulnerable members of our communities are targeted by such displays. And so, by giving a platform to these sorts of ideas, we risk further marginalizing people and silencing their voices and ideas.

Universities and student organizations have a duty to protect their students. They are responsible for creating a space where everybody can engage in academic debate and discussion. If universities allow harassing, violent speech on campus—if they help foster unsafe spaces—they are limiting the number of voices that will be heard in any given debate.

Paradoxical as it may seem, reasonable limits on speech are necessary for free speech to thrive. Limits on paper are necessary to eliminate greater restrictions in practice by those with more structural power. I am proud to be a member of a student union whose policies actively bolster the voices of the marginalized. I am proud to study at a school that understands that totally unfettered speech on campus is not a standard to which we should aspire.

The debate over free speech on campus likely won’t end anytime soon. In a political and philosophical minefield, there aren’t any easy solutions. What I do hope for, at least, is that we can lift the veneer of neutrality in calls for “free speech on campus.”

In particular, when the free speech debate enters the world of actual policy—such as Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s threat to withhold funding from universities that do not comply with his government’s narrow definition of free speech—we need to engage with the deeply ideological frameworks that calls for free speech rest upon. Free speech, as championed by the JCCF and the Ford government, among others, limits the speech of the marginalized. Media that report on these groups must grapple with that reality, lest they be complicit in that same marginalization.

Archive graphic by Zeze Le Lin

 

Categories
Concordia Student Union News

CSU approves $50,000 drug cap

Graphic by @spooky_soda

The insurance limit will safeguard its plan from large claims.

The Concordia Student Union (CSU) has approved a $50,000 cap on prescription drug coverage for every student under its health insurance plan.

In a special council meeting on Wednesday, Aug. 22, the union voted to introduce the cap following the recommendation of its health insurance provider, Alliance pour la santé étudiante au Québec (ASEQ).

In a letter to the union, the ASEQ said the $50,000 maximum is necessary to safeguard the health plan from abnormally large claims. “We are not aware of any students who have made claims to this level,” the organization said. “While the risk is abstract, it is not zero, and an overall limit is therefore recommended as a precautionary measure.”

“Recent developments in pharmaceuticals have led [ASEQ] to reassess the risk for the CSU,” the letter said. “Specifically, we are concerned about new specialty medications, including biological medications, which can be extremely expensive.”

Under the new rules, students who take prescription drugs will only be reimbursed up to $50,000, after which point they will have to cover any extra costs. The cap applies to all prescription drugs covered by the health plan.

Under the previous regulations, one abnormally high prescription drug claim could have led to a fee increase for every student, from 5 per cent for a claim over $25,000, to 35 per cent for a claim over $300,000.

The letter from the ASEQ further states that the CSU was the last student union in Quebec without such a cap on prescription drug claims. CSU Finance Coordinator John Hutton said the previous administration was approached by the ASEQ in January to change its regulations, but action was never taken.

Hutton said this limit is well above any claim a student is likely to make. According to documentation provided by the CSU, the highest claim made by any student since 2012 was $33,572.89 in the 2013-14 academic year, followed by $16,810.99 in 2014-15.

“This policy will not mean that people will be denied healthcare,” said Hutton. “It means that when the insurance plan the student has is insufficient to cover [their condition], it will give them opportunities to activate what’s called a compassionate care clause that a lot of pharmaceutical companies are required to have.” Such clauses offer coverage for drugs not covered by public healthcare or insurance, with the exact terms and conditions varying from company to company.

“We are there to help make sure compassionate care clauses get activated,” said Hutton.

Although the new rules also prevent intentional exploitation of the system, Hutton said this was never the primary goal of the cap.

Other forms of insurance provided by the CSU already have limits. According to the ASEQ, the union’s dental plan has an annual maximum of $750, and its travel plan can cover claims up to $5 million.

All Canadian undergraduate students who have not opted out are covered by the plan. International students are covered by a different plan, which is not administered by the CSU.

Students can learn more about the CSU’s health and dental plan on the union’s website.

Graphic by @spooky_soda

Categories
Concordia Student Union News

Unauthorized $24,000 expense leads to CSU investigation

Former CSU General Coordinator Omar Riaz. Photo by Etienne Lajoie

Concordia Student Union (CSU) executives are seeking further information involving the actions of former general coordinator Omar Riaz who allegedly incurred an expense of more than $24,000 without proper approval on July 17, 2017. The payment was made to Deloitte and Stantec, two consulting firms, to consider the viability of purchasing a building to extend club spaces.

Deloitte conducts the CSU’s annual audits, but Deloitte and Stantec were contracted on-and-off for this project. The union’s finance coordinator, John Hutton said that when Riaz signed the three letters of engagement with Deloitte and Stantec, the letters needed to be approved by the financial committee. The committee consists of the CSU council and the Student Space Accessible Education and Legal Contingency (SSAELC) fund committee.

According to Hutton, so far, there is no proof Riaz consulted with any of the three bodies.

General coordinator Sophie Hough-Martin said the CSU currently has an outstanding debt to the two firms because of the consultation. The payments to Deloitte and Stantec are still pending and are to be paid through the SSAELC funds. Hough-Martin added that council felt Riaz should be held accountable for his actions.

On June 14, 2017, council voted against a motion to buy a new building for club spaces. According to Hough-Martin, at the time, council did not believe sufficient research, planning or visioning had been conducted to warrant purchasing the building.

During the first council meeting of the following academic year, however, council faced three invoices totaling at $24,033.32 to be paid to Deloitte and Stantec for conducting a consultation on purchasing a building on Bishop Street. The invoices were filed under the names of Omar Riaz and Robert Henri, the CSU’s current general manager. The invoices were commissioned on July 17, 2017.

During the 2018 council meeting, finance coordinator Hutton presented the invoices, since he needed council’s approval to pay the consultation fees. Hutton told The Concordian that he spoke to Riaz during an informal meeting shortly after the invoices were brought to his attention in May 2018.

According to Hutton, the executives didn’t know about the invoices or the letters of engagement earlier, because Riaz had ignored them for many months.

According to the CSU’s standing regulations, an approved amount between $10,000 and $50,000 must be further approved by the finance committee. The finance committee is comprised of the finance coordinator, four councillors and one member-at-large.

Former general coordinator, Omar Riaz said that several councillors pushed for professional advice. “Council overwhelmingly requested that the executive [team] seek professional opinion in regards to what is included in the reports,” Riaz told The Concordian. “The building was not in our interest, and [we] finally did not buy it. This was not a unilateral decision as council requested it and executives were aware of it.”

Nonetheless, Hutton said Riaz still needed approval from the three parties. “I believe Omar when he says he believes that he had a mandate to reach out to professionals for opinions,” Hutton said. “He still had to get approval to initiate the contracts.”

On June 18, Hutton sent Riaz an email with specific questions to clarify the situation, since his inquiries had not been answered during their informal meeting. In the email, Hutton asked Riaz to confirm whether or not he consulted the necessary parties before incurring the expenses.

On June 13, council moved that the outstanding debt should be paid from the SSAELC fund, which is usually used for renovations of student spaces and unforeseen legal issues.

The executives have consulted their legal team on the extent to which the CSU’s bylaws

were violated and how to respond to the violation, as mandated by council during the 2018 meeting. According to Hutton, their lawyer advised them to investigate the matter and obtain all of the facts. The CSU has not yet commenced any legal action.

“As a team, we are coming up with a solution to make sure that actions like this don’t happen in the future […], and that we come up to a reasonable solution to this issue, because we don’t believe student money should be spent in this way without proper accountability and oversight in the future,” Hough-Martin said.

Photo by Etienne Lajoie

Categories
Concordia Student Union News

CSU judicial board overturns disqualification of Speak Up team

The CSU judicial board has overturned the chief electoral officer’s decision to disqualify the Speak Up slate. Photo by Kirubel Mehari

Speak Up slate defended themselves at a judicial board hearing on April 6

The Concordia Student Union judicial board overturned the union’s chief electoral officer’s (CEO) decision to disqualify the Speak Up slate, whose candidates received the majority of the votes in the 2018 CSU election. On April 9, the judicial board called for a recount of the ballots.

“We are pretty happy with the decision,” said Sophie Hough-Martin, Speak Up’s candidate for general coordinator, after her team found out about the decision on Monday morning.

“We remain of the opinion that our disqualification was baseless and lacked evidence.”

CEO Nicholas Roberts disqualified Speak Up on March 30 in the middle of the ballot count, citing the election standing regulation Article 316 which states that, while student media are allowed to publish material related to the election during the polling period, “no new correspondence between candidates or referendum committee members and student media can be published during the polling period.” Despite disqualifying the Speak Up slate, Roberts was not present at the hearing on Monday.

In an email obtained by The Concordian, Roberts claimed his decision to disqualify the team came after The Link published an editorial endorsing Speak Up on March 27, the first day of polling. According to Roberts, Speak Up’s claim that they were unaware of the editorial and had no role in its publication “could not be taken seriously.” He claimed, based his experience as a contributor to The Link’s opinions section, that the editorial must have been prepared at least a week beforehand, making it unlikely that the endorsement was kept secret.

Journalists from The Link disputed these claims both at the hearing and in an online article about the election results. They claimed Roberts’s familiarity with the newspaper is based on The Link’s previous publication cycle, which changed dramatically following their shift from a weekly publication to a monthly print magazine with daily online content. Currently, editorial topics are selected by the masthead on Friday, and the article is published on Tuesday. The Link’s editor-in-chief at the time of the hearing, Kelsey Litwin, told The Concordian she was displeased “that the independence of student media was questioned.”

The small room in the Hall building where the hearing took place was packed with members of Speak Up, their witnesses and interested students on the night of April 6. Speak Up’s Hough-Martin testified first on behalf of her team. In her testimony, she claimed her team was unaware of the endorsement prior to its publication.

Hough-Martin reminded the judicial board that the burden of proof is on Roberts to provide conclusive evidence that her team was involved in the publication of the editorial.

“The editorial did not provide any new information that was not publicly available already or information from past interviews that would have been validly conducted during campaign period,” she said. “We don’t have control over what journalists or editorial boards pursue.”

Although Roberts was not present at the hearing, the judicial board questioned him about the decision on April 5, and read his statement aloud at the hearing.

“It was clear to me that […] Speak Up was aware that a major campus newspaper would be disseminating info on the first day of elections that strongly promoted their platform,” Roberts said. “It was clear to me that this was a fact that Speak Up could not be unaware of.”

Despite his insistence, Roberts was unable to present any evidence that Speak Up collaborated with The Link on the article.

Four members of The Link’s staff were present at the hearing, and Litwin testified. She insisted the editorial was decided by 15 members of the newspaper’s masthead, and Speak Up did not participate in its publication in any way. Litwin provided evidence that The Link has produced editorials and endorsements regarding students elections since 1984, and the reason the endorsement was published on the first day of polling was simply because the paper always publishes editorials on Tuesdays.

Speak Up also brought forward two witnesses to help support their case: former CSU general coordinator Lucinda Marshall-Kiparissis and former CSU councillor Eamon Toohey. Marshall-Kiparissis, who worked on the 2015 CSU policy committee that introduced Article 316, said the standing regulation was designed to reduce—not increase—ambiguity surrounding press rights and elections.

“I’m going to be honest […] I’m a bit baffled that standing regulation Article 316 is being interpreted this way, and it’s also unprecedented,” Marshall-Kiparissis said after explaining that the standing regulation was designed to clarify that student media are allowed to publish editorials and other material during the polling period, and that this media involvement does not qualify as campaigning.

On behalf of the Speak Up slate, Hough-Martin requested the disqualification be overturned, the ballots be kept in a safe location for at least six months, and that a judicial board member be assigned to oversee future correspondence between Speak Up and electoral staff.

During her testimony, Hough-Martin warned the judicial board that, “the decision to uphold the disqualification [would undermine] the democratic will of hundreds of undergraduate students at Concordia and call into question the integrity of the CSU and its democratic elections.”

This is not the first time Hough-Martin has been disqualified by Roberts. In November 2017, Roberts claimed Hough-Martin did not submit her election expenses form in time for the CSU by-election, according to emails obtained by The Concordian. CSU standing regulations indicate that a candidate must submit the documents within four business days after the polls close. The decision was overturned because the judicial board determined Roberts had incorrectly considered the weekend as business days.

In an email to Hough-Martin at the time of the 2017 by-election, Roberts wrote: “As you did not hand in the form, and I could not get ahold of you, you have been disqualified. This will be my final email.” According to Hough-Martin, it took six days for the by-election results to be updated once Roberts’s decision to disqualify Hough-Martin was overturned by the CSU judicial board.

Photo by Kirubel Mehari

Categories
Opinions

Keep Concordia in mind this summer

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin.

It’s the end of another great year at The Concordian. While we’re sad to say goodbye, we thought we could dedicate this final editorial to the important issues that have been discussed on campus throughout the year.

We know how easy (and satisfying) it is to finally leave exam halls, submit final assignments and close the doors on Concordia at the end of each semester. It’s an exhilarating feeling to embark on our summer vacations, whether they consist of binge-watching Netflix or travelling the world. But, we at The Concordian think it’s vital to keep some things in mind even while we step away from our university this summer.

This year was…eventful, to say the least. We’re proud to have covered and highlighted important issues in our newspaper, from the significance of sustainable foods, to Concordia’s ways of handling sexual misconduct allegations. We think it’s important to leave you with a few key issues to keep in mind while away from Concordia.

First, the Task Force on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Violence will be taking place until May 2018. These allegations regarding Concordia’s creative writing department were significant in raising awareness about sexual misconduct at our university. It highlighted how power abuses can lead to dangerous environments for students. Ultimately, it opened our eyes to how Concordia can sometimes fail at addressing such allegations in the first place.

Although we won’t be surrounded by the news every day this summer, it’s still important to check up on the Task Force’s progress addressing sexual misconduct at our institution. It’s our responsibility, not only as students, but as citizens, to remain aware and engaged in these issues at our university. While we commend Concordia students for speaking out against sexual violence and shedding light on this issue throughout the year, we hope students can continue to talk about sexual assault every day—since, unfortunately, it happens quite frequently.

We also hope Concordia students remain interested in the Concordia Student Union’s (CSU) Daycare and Nursery Project. Although it was initially proposed in 2011, and has experienced many setbacks such as obtaining construction permits, we at The Concordian are still keeping an eye out for the project’s final establishment. According to a 2017 article by The Concordian, the daycare was supposed to open in March 2018. As we’re already into the month of April, it’s clear to see the project is still experiencing difficulties and obstacles.

The daycare would be an outstanding achievement by the CSU, and more importantly, it would help student-parents feel more supported by the school. According to a study commissioned by Concordia in 2011, student-parents comprise about 10 per cent of our university’s population. That 10 per cent of students are more likely to feel stressed by missing classes and exams and handing assignments in late because of their responsibilities as parents. This is all due to the university’s lack of safe and affordable childcare options, which is why CSU’s daycare project is so important.

We at The Concordian hope that this daycare can be established in the upcoming months. We hope students can continue to talk about this project, support it and help actualize it. It would be extremely beneficial for so many student-parents, and it will be a positive addition to our school.

There are many important discussions and projects happening at Concordia. Throughout the year, we saw students speaking out against unpaid internships, the importance of voting and environmental abuses. One such group highlighting environmental abuses is Divest Concordia, an initiative that calls on our university to end its investments in fossil fuels. The group has called on the university to make a decision on divestment and to announce whether or not they will be taking concrete steps towards more environmentally-friendly investing. Unfortunately, however, Concordia has been postponing the announcement—and still has yet to comment on its divestment. We believe that even though Concordia hasn’t made an announcement yet, we cannot forget about Divest Concordia and its important stance. We need to support such groups and initiatives in order to better our time at Concordia, and to contribute positively to our world.

So this summer, keep the conversation going. Keep speaking out against sexual assault; keep shedding light on racism and discrimination; keep supporting groups pushing for a better university; remind yourself to check up on Concordia’s steps in building a better environment for students. We know how easy it is to say goodbye, but we at The Concordian hope you choose to keep our university in mind this summer.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
News

Speak Up wins most votes, disqualified from election

Written by Matthew Lapierre and Étienne Lajoie

CSU judicial board to hold a hearing on April 6 to address the ruling

Speak Up, the slate whose candidates won the most votes in every position for which they ran in the CSU executive elections last week, was disqualified by Nicholas Roberts, the union’s chief electoral officer (CEO) on Friday afternoon, while the votes were still being tallied.

In the unofficial results released by Roberts on his personal Facebook page, candidates from the Accessibility, Transparency and Community slate (ACT) were tentatively announced as elected to all of the executive positions.

According to John Hutton, Speak Up’s candidate for finance coordinator, the slate will be contesting the disqualification. According to the unofficial results announced Friday, Hutton received 515 votes compared to the closest runner-up, Nichita Bobic, who had 335. In an email to The Concordian, Safa Sheikh, a member of the CSU’s judicial board, said the board will have a hearing on April 6 to discuss the disqualification.

On Friday, March 30, Roberts sent an email notifying candidates in the election of his decision to disqualify Speak Up. He based his decision on an editorial endorsing Speak Up published by The Link on March 27, the day polls opened. Roberts also claimed an email he received from The Concordian’s reporter asking if he had informed Speak Up of the location of the ballot counting was proof that Speak Up had communicated with student media during the polling period. The Concordian did not publish any correspondence with CSU candidates during the polling period.

Roberts cited article 316 of the CSU’s standing regulations: “No new correspondence between candidates or referendum committee members and student media can be published during the polling period.”

Roberts alleged in the email that Speak Up must have been aware of The Link’s editorial and that the editorial was considered unapproved campaigning.

In an article published Friday, The Link wrote, “Despite Roberts’ claims, The Link did not correspond with the Speak Up slate regarding the endorsement. The decision to endorse or not endorse specific candidates is made by The Link’s editorial team alone, without input from outside parties. Decisions are then kept secret until editorials are published.”

According to the unofficial results, the next CSU executive team will be composed of Andrei Bochis, Daniel Jolicoeur, Nichita Bobic, Myriam Bourgeois, Jamie Lewis Mella, Vivi To, Lida Sonylam Aman and Gabriel-Louis Guppy.

Bochis and To were all previously members of the Concordia Model UN delegation. Bochis, the unofficially elected CSU general coordinator, acted as president of the delegation. In an interview with The Concordian, Bochis said he firmly believed Concordia students would see “a lot of positive change in the upcoming year.” The unofficially elected general coordinator said his team would focus on unfinished projects, like the CSU daycare, which current general coordinator Omar Riaz said would open in March. Bochis added that the CSU needs “to focus on transparency and on fostering trust within the organization.”

Referendum questions approved

All four of the CSU’s referendum questions were approved by voters.

One dollar per credit will continue to be given to the Library Services Fund, which allows 24-hour access to the Vanier and Webster libraries and various services, including laptop and tablet lending and access to course reserve textbooks.

An increase in the fee levy for Concordia’s co-op bookstore was also approved by voters. The fee will increase from $0.10 to $0.14 per credit for every undergraduate student starting in the fall of 2018.

Voters confirmed the CSU’s motion for a two-round voting system to be used if the student union has to internally elect a candidate to fill a vacant executive position.

Concordia voters also approved the expansion of club and student spaces.

Results:

Executive

General Coordinator

Andrei Bochis—Elected

Yes: 346

No: 245

Abstain: 188

Omar Riaz

Yes: 342

No: 141

Abstain: 183

Sophie Hough-Martin—Disqualified

Yes: 523

No: 197

Abstain: 181

Student Life Coordinator

Michèle Sandiford—Disqualified

Yes: 509

No: 187

Abstain: 207

Daniel Jolicoeur—Elected

Yes: 345

No: 220

Abstain: 207

Yara Karam

Yes: 342

No: 209

Abstain: 207

Finance Coordinator

John Hutton—Disqualified

Yes: 515

No: 188

Abstain: 240

Nichita Bobic—Elected

Yes: 335

No: 205

Abstain: 240

Kathy Du

Yes: 300

No: 221

Abstain: 239

External Affairs and Mobilization Coordinator

Camille Thompson—Disqualified

Yes: 499

No: 169

Abstain: 255

Gabriel Guppy—Elected

Yes: 360

No: 197

Abstain: 256

Mustafa Bokesmati

Yes: 284

No: 205

Abstain: 256

Loyola Coordinator

Alexis Searcy—Disqualified

Yes: 448

No: 171

Abstain: 256

Jamie Lewis-Mella—Elected

Yes: 322

No: 199

Abstain: 251

April Tardi Levesque

Yes: 275

No: 209

Abstain: 256

Felicia Da Conceicao

Yes: 98

No: 249

Abstain: 256

Sustainability Coordinator

Myriam Bourgeois—Elected

Yes: 405

No: 203

Abstain: 223

Akira De Carlos—Disqualified

Yes: 493

No: 182

Abstain: 219

Sebastien Martinez De La Garza

Yes: 284

No: 217

Abstain: 219

Academic and Advocacy Coordinator

Mikaela Clark-Gardner—Disqualified

Yes: 515

No: 171

Abstain: 251

Lida Sonylam Aman—Elected

Yes: 337

No: 200

Abstain: 251

Aouatif Zebiri

Yes: 305

No: 216

Abstain: 251

Internal Affairs Coordinator

Princess Somefun—Disqualified

Yes: 516

No: 176

Abstain: 218

Vivi To—Elected

Yes: 360

No: 202

Abstain: 218

Fatoumata Binta Balde

Yes: 303

No: 215

Abstain: 220

Referendum Questions

Library Services Fund Fee Levy—PASSED

Do you agree to contribute $1 per credit to the CSU for the Library Services Fund for the next ten years (2019-2029), in order to maintain and increase existing services funded through the Library Services Fund? The contribution would be collected in accordance with the university’s tuition and refund policy.

Yes: 724

No: 321

Abstain: 237

Two Round Electoral System—PASSED

Do you as a CSU member agree with adding by-law 7.3.2 such that the Concordia Student Union Council establish an internal Two-Round Electoral System when voting on vacant executive seats?

Yes: 629

No: 234

Abstain: 424

Concordia Community Solidarity Co-op Bookstore Fee Levy Increase—PASSED

Do you agree to increase the fee levy of the Concordia Community Solidarity Co-op Bookstore by $0.05 per credit to a total of $0.14 per credit, effective Fall 2018?

Yes: 666

No: 326

Abstain: 300

Expanding Campus Space—PASSED

Do you support the CSU expanding and improving student spaces for clubs on campus?

Yes: 948

No: 140

Abstain: 196

CEO barred candidates access to ballot counting

The Concordia Student Union’s chief electoral officer (CEO), Nicholas Roberts, barred candidates from witnessing the election ballot count and tried to prevent student media from interviewing a candidate who had not been allowed in the room on Friday, March 30.

According to chapter four, section nine of the CSU’s standing regulations, candidates are allowed in the room to witness the ballots being counted.

On the morning the votes were counted, Patrick Magallanes, a sitting councillor from the Faculty of Arts and Science who was running for re-election, and John Hutton, Speak Up’s candidate for finance coordinator, were present to oversee the counting of the ballots in addition to a reporter from The Concordian. Roberts allowed Hutton and the reporter into the room, but told Magallanes he was not allowed to enter. When The Concordian reporter tried to leave the room to ask Magallanes why he wasn’t allowed in, Roberts told the reporter that if he left the ballot counting room, he would not be allowed back in.

“Either you’re in or you’re out,” Roberts said. He refused to comment or answer any questions concerning the incident.

Magallanes later told The Concordian that Roberts denied him access to the room on the basis that, if he were allowed in, then Roberts would have to allow other candidates in as well.

“This, in my mind, is an abuse of the power that he has,” Magallanes said. “It made me feel emotionally upset.”

Magallanes said he felt his rights as a candidate were violated because he was not allowed to witness the ballot count. He requested a ballot recount but received no response from Roberts. He said that if Roberts did not respond to him by April 2, then Magallanes would file an official complaint against him with the CSU’s judicial board.

Although Hutton was allowed in the room, Roberts did not allow him to approach the ballot counters or scrutinize any ballots. According to Hutton, the Speak Up candidates wanted to have more people witness the ballot counting, but Roberts notified them that only one member of each slate would be allowed in the room because there wouldn’t be enough space. The ballots were counted in H-535, an auditorium with approximately 100 seats. At least 75 seats were empty while the ballots were being counted.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

* A previous version of this article stated that Lida Sonylam Aman had been a member of the Concordia Model UN delegation. This is inaccurate and we regret this error.

Categories
Opinions

The importance of independent newspapers

All levels of student government should support student news media at Concordia

I think most people would agree that a free and independent press is important. This is true in national, provincial and municipal contexts, but it is also true at our university. Concordia is fortunate to have two strong student news publications. They provide us with a platform to express ourselves, and they hold the university administration accountable. Most importantly, they keep our student organizations honest.

I have sat on committees and council meetings for the Arts and Science Federation of Associations (ASFA), and I can say firsthand that the Concordia community is better for the existence of The Link and The Concordian. Yet, our student governance organizations don’t always seem to recognize the important role the student news media plays.

During the polling period of the most recent Concordia Student Union (CSU) elections, The Link published an editorial endorsing Speak Up, one of three slates running for the CSU executive. The Link is not affiliated with the CSU, and it is well within their right to publish whatever they want, whenever they want, so long as it abides by their code of ethics. Even so, in light of the editorial’s publication, CSU chief electoral officer Nicholas Roberts disqualified the entire Speak Up slate. He claims the editorial qualifies as campaigning during the polling period. By disqualifying Speak Up on that basis, Roberts is implying candidates have control over what The Link publishes. That implication directly contradicts the principle of free press.

This incident with the CSU and The Link is just the latest in a long line of infringements by student organizations. Last February, the ASFA executive cut ties with The Link because of a disagreement with the paper’s editorial slant and practices. The Commerce and Administration Students’ Association (CASAJMSB) considered following suit. These actions are inappropriate to say the least. ASFA has since apologized and reversed their decision, but none of it should have happened in the first place. To withhold access and demand changes from the student news media is an imposition on the media’s ability to report freely and accurately. Their ability to do so is always important, but it’s particularly important when the organizations involved are in charge of large amounts of student money.

The CSU and faculty organizations need to take a stronger stand on press independence. Article 425 of the CSU’s Standing Regulations states that the CSU “respects the role and independence of student media and believes that they play an essential role in the University community.” However, that stance is incompatible with other CSU regulations, including Article 316 which seeks to limit what our student news media can and cannot publish during elections.

ASFA is no better. Its governing documents make no mention of press independence or freedom. This has led to confusion over what role the student press plays during ASFA’s elections.

It’s well within the student body’s right to criticize the student news media. We are free to comment and hold it accountable. But, it needs to be made clear that, from a legal standpoint, the student press is free to publish what it pleases, within reasonable ethical standards. It’s not the role of any external organization to dictate what those standards are. Student group candidates cannot—and should not—control what is published, and organizations should not act as if they can.

All levels of student government need to enshrine a commitment to the independence of student news media in their governing documents. They also need to ensure that other regulations, like those governing elections, are in line with that stance, both in writing and in practice.

As a current ASFA executive, I will be working to implement these changes within the federation. I am now calling on my counterparts in other organizations, including the CSU, to do the same. We all benefit from a free press; it’s about time we support them.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Concordia Student Union News

Concordia students with disabilities deserve better accommodation: CSU councillor

Photo by Alex Hutchins

Rory James wants students to share their concerns about the Access Centre for Students with Disabilities (ACSD)

“You don’t look disabled; I don’t see what’s wrong with you.” Rory James says that’s exactly what one professor told him.

James is registered with the Access Centre for Students with Disabilities (ACSD), a resource that supports over 2,000 Concordia students who have physical disabilities, learning disabilities or mental illnesses by providing them with academic accommodations and connecting them with relevant resources.

According to James, their support isn’t enough.

James is a marketing and finance student, a John Molson School of Business councillor in the Concordia Student Union, and the council chairperson of the Arts and Science Federation of Associations. Over the past year and a half, he has been informally surveying students and faculty about their experiences with the ACSD. Drawing on these conversations—he has spoken to about 30 students and 10 faculty members—as well as his own experience, he plans to approach the ACSD after final exams with suggestions on how to improve their services.

One of the ACSD’s main services is providing students with accommodations during their exams. However, James said there needs to be an ACSD exam “bill of rights,” an institutional framework that outlines the exam rights of every student registered with the centre. “Almost all the students I’ve talked to have mentioned invigilators changing things last minute, or not respecting accommodations,” he said.

James cited a personal experience in which an invigilator chastised him for using Microsoft Excel during an exam, even though his professor’s approval of his use of the software was indicated on his exam sheet.

Alexandre St-Onge-Perron, the president of the Teaching and Research Assistants at Concordia (TRAC) union, said his organization, which represents invigilators, has never heard of the allegations described by James before.

“If students have felt that their specific needs were not answered properly, they should refer to the ACSD so that the centre can make sure their needs and rights as student are respected,” St-Onge-Perron told The Concordian. “I have heard that some invigilators would like to have even more extensive training, as they want to make sure they give the best possible service,” he added.

James would also like to see the ACSD do a better job of communicating students’ needs to professors. When a student is registered with the centre, each of their professors receives a letter notifying them that a student in their class requires accommodations. However, the letters do not include the student’s name or the nature of their disability, meaning students must explain their need for accommodations to their teachers themselves. James said this sometimes makes professors reluctant to grant accommodations to students like him, who do not have visible disabilities.

James said he has spoken to teachers who take issue with this policy as well, since it makes providing proper accommodations more difficult. He cited one second-hand account of a professor who was unaware one of his students was epileptic, and as a result, didn’t know how to intervene when the student had an epileptic seizure during class.

Anne-Marie Sénécal is registered with the ACSD for chronic tendonitis in her left arm. However, she said she regularly receives emails from the centre advertising conferences for ADHD and other disabilities she does not have. In addition, Sénécal is allowed a computer during exams, but she said the keyboards provided by the centre have enlarged letters for students with visual impairments, which she finds more difficult to use.

“The people who are on the autism spectrum, the people who are in a wheelchair, the people who have ADHD—we’re all put in the same boat,” she said. Nonetheless, Sénécal praised the openness and generosity of the centre: “They’re really willing to go far [for students].”

Registrations with the ACSD have more than doubled in the last 10 years. In October 2007, The Concordian reported that between 700 and 800 students were registered with the centre, compared to the more than 2,000 today. However, the ACSD’s website lists just nine staff members, five of whom are advisors. These advisors meet with students to recommend appropriate accommodations, connect students with relevant resources and provide adaptive technologies for classes and exams. James said he spoke to students whose requests for appointments went unacknowledged for weeks. “Sometimes they’re registered three or four weeks into the semester,” he said.

Even the language used by the centre can be a barrier to students seeking accommodations, James said. Since the ACSD bills itself as a resource for students with disabilities, some students may not seek help because they do not see their own condition as a disability, he explained.

Other improvements James would like to see include stronger self-promotion on the centre’s behalf, the inclusion of parents and pregnant students in the accessibility policy, and more comfortable exam facilities, which he said are often uncomfortably hot.

According to James, about half of the students he surveyed reported positive experiences, although some of them still had concerns about the centre. Other students have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with the centre. Justin Occhionero, a second-year English literature student, is registered with the ACSD for physical impairments caused by a stroke he suffered eight months ago. “They have been very responsive to my needs,” he said, adding that he has never had trouble receiving accommodations from any of his teachers.

Once he has collected enough feedback, James said he would like to meet with the ACSD’s manager to discuss possible areas of improvement. “As a student senator and as a CSU councillor, this is part of my job: representing students and their concerns,” he said. At the end of the fall 2017 semester, James raised many of his concerns with the centre’s administration, but did not feel his concerns were acknowledged.

James said he is not worried about pushback from the centre. “I’m assertive about voicing my rights,” he said. “So if anyone discriminates [against me] or treats me differently because I spoke out against the centre, I am okay.”

The ACSD did not respond to The Concordian’s request for comment in time for publication.

Photo by Alex Hutchins.

Categories
Concordia Student Union News

CSU has four referendum questions for Concordia students

Library and bookstore funding, two-round voting and more student spaces on the ballot this week

From March 27 to 29, Concordia students will go to the polls to elect representatives and executives for the Concordia Student Union (CSU), but candidates’ names will not be the only things on the ballot. There are four issues students will be asked to vote on this week.

Library services

The Library Services Fund is due for renewal. According to Veronika Rydzewski, the CSU’s internal affairs and clubs coordinator, the fund was first established in 2009 but was only ratified for 10 years. The contract will expire in 2019. Without the fund, students would lose 24-hour access to the Vanier and Webster libraries and services, including laptop and tablet lending and access to course reserve textbooks.

This week, students will be asked if they agree to continue contributing $1 per credit to the Library Services Fund. A Quebec resident student who completes a major (90 credits) will contribute $90 to the fund during their time at Concordia. If approved, the project will be funded for another 10 years, until the fall of 2029.

Two-round voting

In January 2018, the CSU resolved to adopt a two-round voting system for electing executives to fill positions vacated before the end of the mandate. This week, a referendum question will ask students if they agree with that decision.

According to the motion, the two-round system would guarantee executives are voted in by a majority of representatives on the council. According to CSU documents, there is currently no system in place for choosing an executive to fill a vacant position, which caused delays when electing a finance coordinator to replace Soulaymane El Alaoui, who resigned for personal reasons in November 2017.

Co-op bookstore fee increase

Question three on the ballot will ask students if they agree with an increase in fees to fund the Concordia Community Solidarity Co-op Bookstore. If accepted, the fees alloted by the CSU to the bookstore would increase from $0.10 to $0.14 per credit for every undergraduate student. The bookstore also asks shoppers for a one-time $5 fee to become a member of the co-op.

“It’ll pay for itself,” said Eamon Toohey, a part-time employee at the co-op bookstore. According to Toohey, co-op shoppers collectively saved $3,500 through subsidized textbook purchases during the winter semester.

“The bookstore is growing in popularity as textbooks get more expensive,” he said, noting that the co-op bookstore currently has over 7,000 members.

According to Toohey, the additional funds would allow the bookstore to sustainably pay its employees a livable wage of $15 per hour, increase their inventory and expand into online book sales. The bookstore currently employs three Concordia undergraduate students, but with the funding increase, Toohey said they might be able to hire more.

More student and club spaces

The final question put to voters will be whether or not they support the CSU expanding and improving spaces for students and clubs on campus. “This is purely to mandate the future CSU executives to start investigating what is needed to improve current club spaces,” Rydzewski said. “There is no cost associated to it.”

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

Put down your textbooks and vote

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

Put down your textbooks and vote

Will you walk past the polling stations set up around campus from March 27 to 29 or cast your vote for the new Concordia Student Union (CSU) executive?

With finals on the horizon, student union elections likely sit near the bottom of many students’ priority lists. This is counterintuitive. For any student hoping to flourish in university and make the most of their experience at Concordia, the CSU election is arguably the most important election to participate in.

With more than $6.5 million in revenue from fees in the 2016-17 academic year alone, it’s clear the CSU has the money and resources to significantly impact the university experiences of the more than 35,000 undergraduate students it represents. By casting a vote in the CSU election, students can have a real say in how the student union is governed and how those resources are distributed.

But it’s not just about the money. The CSU and other student associations are often the ones directing the university administration’s attention to serious problems on campus. Most recently, the CSU successfully demanded the right to recruit the undergraduate members of the Task Force on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Violence, and is continuing to advocate for more student seats on the task force. The CSU also hosted a congress on Feb. 28 to give all students the opportunity to voice their concerns and suggestions for policy changes about how sexual misconduct on campus is dealt with.

It is the CSU’s top mandate to defend the rights of students and ensure our voices are heard. This is at the heart of their past and present campaigns for paid internships, climate justice and fossil fuel divestment, anti-austerity and ending tuition hikes. Services provided to students through the CSU range from the health and dental insurance plan to the legal information clinic to the daily free lunches offered at the Loyola Hive Café. The Housing and Job Resource Centre (HOJO) helps students find jobs and educate themselves on tenant and workers’ rights. The Student Advocacy Centre promotes student rights and assists students with issues of academic misconduct or violations of the Code of Rights and Responsibilities.

Among the responsibilities of the new CSU executive will be ensuring a smooth beginning for its downtown daycare centre and the successful completion of the $14 million housing co-operative.

Regardless of your outlook on student politics, it’s nearly impossible to be an undergraduate at Concordia and not be impacted in some way by the CSU. As with any other election, it is important to participate in the democratic process. Unlike other elections, however, your vote carries weight. You are one of 35,000 students, rather than one of about seven million eligible Quebec voters or one of over 25 million eligible Canadian voters.

So put down your textbooks, close Facebook, grab yourself another cup of coffee and take a minute to learn about the candidates and their platforms. What changes do you want to see on campus? Who’s advocating for the things you care about? Who do you want to be your voice for the next year?

Now, more than ever, there is proof that students can make an impact when they stand up and speak up for what they believe in. Students are no longer expected to follow the status quo and accept their circumstances. It may not seem like much, but casting a vote from March 27 to 29 is a step toward making Concordia a more engaging, safe and positive place for everyone.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
News

President claims no disconnect between university and students

Concordia president Alan Shepard sat down with The Concordian to discuss funding, pension plans and sexual misconduct allegations. Graphic by Zeze Le Lin 
Article written by Étienne Lajoie and Megan Hunt

Alan Shepard says he is interested in the results of the CSU student congress

In an interview with The Concordian on March 15, Concordia president Alan Shepard offered no comment in response to a recent CBC report revealing that two Concordia part-time instructors, Jon Paul Fiorentino and David McGimpsey, were the subjects of complaints in a third-party investigation.

“I wouldn’t be able to make any comments about any investigation,” Shepard said. The university has not made a comment regarding the complaints since the report was published on Feb. 28.

Although Fiorentino and McGimpsey were originally scheduled to teach this semester, their classes have been reassigned while the allegations against them are being investigated. Shepard told The Concordian on Feb. 15 that professors are not allowed to teach while they’re under investigation.

Lack of faculty attendance at student congress

When asked if he felt the university’s administration was disconnected from the student body, Shepard said: “Absolutely not.”

As previously reported by The Concordian, only one Concordia faculty member was present at the congress organized by the Concordia Student Union (CSU) to discuss proposals on potential sexual misconduct policy changes. Kate Bligh, a part-time faculty member in the School of Irish Studies, as well as the theatre and English departments, said that in her 20 years of teaching, she had never been asked to attend any consent training similar to what the CSU wishes to implement for all students, staff and faculty within a reasonable time frame.

“The same way we hold discrimination and violence to this standard, we have to do the same with sexual assault and violence,” Bligh said.

Shepard said he was “very interested to see the results” of the congress, adding that Bill 151, provincial legislation requiring universities to take certain steps to address sexual violence, will require consent training for faculty and staff in all universities.
“We have to comply by September 2019 and I anticipate that we’ll do it this coming year, so it’ll be early,” Shepard said. According to him, the university is already doing “a huge amount of voluntary consent training” for students, but whether or not the training will become mandatory depends on the findings of the newly created sexual assault task force.

He also said the university’s Sexual Assault Research Centre, whose employees were not present at the congress, “does a great job [and] has been training hundreds, if not thousands of students. Probably thousands at this point.”

Shepard told The Concordian he hasn’t received an invitation from the CSU to meet with executives, but said if they want to speak with him, he is “always willing to talk to them.”

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
News

Students discuss proposals for policy changes

Speakers discuss mandatory consent training at student congress. Photo by Mackenzie Lad
Article written by Matthew Coyte and Megan Hunt

Concordia students and department association representatives voiced their thoughts on potential sexual misconduct policy changes at a student congress hosted by the Concordia Student Union (CSU) on Feb. 28. At the end of the night, attendees voted on which demands would be included in a proposal the CSU will present to the university’s administration.

Following the congress, Leyla Sutherland, the CSU student life coordinator, said that despite the discussion not taking place in an official student union setting, the approved proposals will have a real impact and will be presented to the administration “very soon.”

“When the details are plugged into these proposals, they will be very effective ways of addressing and hopefully combating campus sexual violence,” Sutherland said. “I didn’t know what was going to come from [the congress]. I’m happy to have so many proposals to dig my teeth into.”

The congress took place in the downtown Webster Library lobby. The chairs that had been set up were quickly filled, and many attendees had to stand. Audience members candidly discussed their concerns about sexual misconduct at Concordia, as well as the administration’s response to the allegations plaguing the creative writing program.

A recurring concern was the lack of mandatory training on issues such as consent, power dynamics, sensitivity and disclosure. Although Concordia’s Sexual Assault Resource Centre (SARC) offers consent workshops, students and staff are not required to attend. SARC did not have a representative at the congress.

Following a lengthy discussion, which saw the proposal go through multiple iterations, the congress attendees voted on a demand for the university to fully fund mandatory consent training for all students, staff and faculty within a reasonable time frame. The demand received unanimous approval from attendees, meaning it will be fully endorsed by the CSU and included in their proposal to the administration.

The congress attendees also voted to approve a demand for the university to accept all the policy recommendations made by Our Turn, an organization that works with student associations across Canada to prevent sexual violence. These recommendations include developing and adopting peer-to-peer sexual violence prevention and training. Another proposal included lifting the current rule that all applicants to the university’s Task Force on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Violence fulfill the vague requirement of “good academic standing.”

Concordia students gather to discuss policy changes at student congress. Photo by Mackenzie Lad

One of the many student associations present at the congress was the Concordia Association for Students in English (CASE).

“I think it was important for CASE to participate because, obviously, a lot of the attention has been surrounding cases that are specific to the English department, even though it’s happening in various places at Concordia,” said CASE president Debby Gemme. “This particular executive team is committed to helping fix these issues […] and I think this went really, really well.”

A Concordia student employed by the Montreal Sexual Assault Centre (MSAC) said they wanted to participate in the congress after receiving a spike in calls to the centre from Concordia students and others following the #MeToo movement.

“It has come to our attention that there’s a problem with the Concordia administration and how it addresses complaints,” said the student, who wished to remain anonymous. “I’m hoping that numbers have power, and it’s going to put enough pressure on the administration to give us more leeway or liberty in defining these new policies that work better to address students’ rights.”

The congress was attended by numerous student politicians, including councillors, Senate and executives members. Jonathan Roy, the president of the Arts and Science Federation Associations (ASFA), also attended the meeting. He said he is happy to be able to present these proposals to ASFA members, as well as to the Senate of which he is also a member.

“These are very acceptable, realistic requests. We want to feel safe in our own school; that’s not a wild thing to ask for,” Roy said. “We need to take action and hold the administration accountable.”

Despite the congress being open to faculty, only one professor showed up to voice her opinion. Kate Bligh is a part-time faculty member in the School of Irish Studies, as well as the theatre and English departments. She shared input that helped the congress shape their proposal, including insight that the university could not legally force part-time staff to undergo this training, as it would violate their contracts. All training at the part-time level would have to be voluntary. She also suggested the congress add these proposals under the health and safety regulations already in place, which the congress did.

Bligh said that, in her 20 years of teaching, she has never been called to attend any training like the kind the CSU is hoping to implement.

“The same way that we hold discrimination and violence to this standard, we have to do the same with sexual assault and violence,” Bligh said. “We need to decide what sort of culture our school should have.”

Photos by Mackenzie Lad

Exit mobile version