Tag: editorial

This year has felt like an all-time low for student engagement. Concordia Student Union candidates ran largely unopposed, debates were poorly attended and voting polls looked like ghost towns throughout the election. On an even wider scale, events organized by the CSU have seen low turnout, the Stingers are playing half-empty arenas and the overall campus atmosphere feels less like a community and more like a time-card-punching establishment where people go to do their time and move on.

This is partly the fault of event organizers but, for the most part, it’s students who can’t be persuaded to pay attention or care about anything outside of themselves.

Concordia president Alan Shepard says he has encountered a “hunger” from the campus community to know what makes the university special, what defines us. This is something we can all relate to: we’re not McGill, we know that, but that’s about it. At the moment, there is no unity at Concordia.

It is incredibly ironic to be named for a word that means agreement and harmony, when there is so little to go around.
This is something that a little clever rebranding could do a lot to change. Once you find out what people like about this university, and more importantly, what they don’t like, then the possibilities are endless. Knowledge is power, and creating an environment where people want to spend time, and want to promote and recommend to others should be the school’s top priority.

President Shepard is concerned about the reputation of the university, as he should be. Finding an image-conscious public face for Concordia was a brilliant move and he is absolutely correct when he says that changing the way this school is perceived starts with changing the way people inside the community see it.

Concordia has all the makings of a great university. This year has shown a really serious change in tone from the one before and new management has a lot to do with that. It’s going to be a while before the ugly stains of Concordia’s history are washed away and, realistically, they may never be fully forgotten. But we like the idea that just because the old girl has made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean she can’t improve now.

We all make jokes about Concordia being a second-rate institution that’s plagued by mismanagement but it’s that exact attitude that keeps us where we are. Every year new students, staff, faculty and administrators come to Concordia and see something entirely different from what may have been there the year before. It is hard to get a clear picture of what Concordia is but we appreciate the people who bother to ask the question in the first place and care enough to take on the challenge of finding out.

A year after the March 22 protest that took place during the height of the student movement in 2012, the atmosphere couldn’t be more different. A protest which was organized to commemorate the incredible turnout from the year before (a whopping 200,000 people marching from one end of the city to the other) came to a depressing close mere minutes after it began. To date, three Concordian journalists have been kettled and handed $600 fines while reporting on protests during the last two weeks alone and we say that is vastly unacceptable.

What’s really bizarre about this is that even though the reporters were identified by the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal as journalists and let out of the kettle — they were still slapped with tickets. It’s an insult to journalism and a very dismaying attempt on the part of the Montreal Police to scare off not only protesters, but also journalists who are trying to cover the events. For all the respect our press passes get, they might as well be drawn with crayons.

While the SPVM can be intimidating and deeply frustrating, the fact of the matter is that in most cases they are just doing their jobs. What’s even more difficult to swallow is that we as student journalists do our jobs just as diligently and yet we end up having to pay the price, literally.

Covering protests during last spring’s ‘printemps érable’ was one thing — but facing this absolutely unreasonable approach from the SPVM during recent demonstrations is another entirely.

The whole practice of kettling already lands the top spot for the most bewildering and ill-advised police strategy imaginable. Minutes after dispersion orders are given over a loudspeaker, police encircle crowds of people regardless of who they are or whether or not they are involved in the protest.

This tactic operates under the assumption that violent or not, every demonstrator within a given area is guilty of some crime. Since the implementation of bylaw P-6 which states that all demonstrations must provide an itinerary 24 hours before a protest, the police have the unbridled power to declare any assembly that does not conform to these rules illegal.

Clearly, police are abusing this power by shutting down protests before any real cause for concern materializes. This ongoing effort to quell the dissent of the public and strike fear into the hearts of potential protesters is disgraceful. Quebec should not be known as a province where freedom of expression is regularly infringed upon.

Last year this type of rampant power-trip from the police would have been considered wildly inappropriate and widely publicized. Now, this injustice barely makes headlines anymore. Just because abuse has become commonplace doesn’t mean it is acceptable.

To the SPVM we have this to say: you can try to scare us off, protesters and journalists alike, but don’t make the mistake of underestimating us, because we are not going to give up so easily.

The headline is a quote from Mae West which perfectly sums up our feelings about campaign period. The Concordia Student Union campaign period is like the honeymoon phase of the relationship: everyone is all smiles and promises. It happens every year. Candidates come forward, they say they want to see substantial changes to the CSU and all we can do as students is mark our ballots, cross our fingers and try to believe them.

The problem is that it is always easier to criticize something from the outside than working to improve it from the inside. Trying to pull the CSU out of the slump it has fallen into will be a near-impossible task; to call it an uphill battle is a huge understatement.

Much like the image problems Concordia is facing based on its less-than-squeaky-clean history, the CSU has had a very tough year management-wise and is paying the price for it. Once people get the idea that the union is poorly run, ineffective and a black hole for student money, it isn’t so easy to change that perspective.

This year we have seen screw-ups of all kinds, shapes and sizes. Some have been laughable and some have been deeply disappointing. Our advice to those brave souls whose interest in student politics has remained intact despite the very convincing arguments to stay away; let this year be a lesson to you.

Consider the mistakes of those who have come before you to be your biggest advantages. Don’t fall into the same negative patterns and foolish miscommunications that others have because you can’t afford to repeat them. In other words, there is no reason not to do better when you can prepare for the worst.

Controlling Concordia student’s money and making decisions that will affect the whole community is a serious thing and not to be taken lightly. Outgoing executives may not have the highest approval rating from council now, but they have a year’s worth of experience under their belts which shouldn’t be overlooked.

They say you don’t learn nearly as much from your successes as you do from your mistakes, and if that is indeed the case, the 2012-13 CSU executives should be experts by now. And basically anyone who was watching from the sidelines should be too.

The students at Concordia deserve representatives who will be transparent, who will make communication a priority and who will organize themselves and their events carefully.

Candidates: we hope you follow through on your promises because a CSU executive that is united and effective benefits everyone, and if you don’t, we won’t hesitate to remind you of them later on.

In last week’s editorial, we conjectured that perhaps being president of the Concordia Student Union was the worst job in the world. This week, we can’t help but wonder if indeed, being a professor at Concordia is also in the running for that coveted title.

For those who don’t know, the Concordia University Faculty Association voted 74 per cent in favour of a strike mandate this weekend.

This means that CUFA members have now joined the ranks of the part-time professors’ union and the university  steelworkers union who have already held strike mandates for months. It’s not news to anyone that Concordia has had difficult labour relations in the past, but with this newest development, things are looking especially dire.

How university administrators think that they can get away with financial scandals upon scandals and still refuse to pay professors a fair wage is beyond us. It is not administrators who are responsible for the product that students take away from their “Concordia experience.” On the contrary, they act more as shadowy figures who make decisions behind the scenes and shy away from accountability at all costs.

There’s a reason why no student at Concordia (in their right mind) has a favourite administrator. But everyone has had a teacher that made an impact on them. Someone who inspired actual learning instead of textbook memorization and regurgitation.

What is most frustrating about the ongoing conflict between the university and its unions is the fundamental lack of respect shown towards educators. We are entirely fed up and frankly, pissed off with the way this school treats the people who strive to make it great.

Concordia may not be built on a gold mine but there is no argument to be made that the money to pay professors, both full-time and part-time, doesn’t exist.

Declaring a strike mandate is an excellent bargaining chip to bring back to the table, but if this step doesn’t produce concrete results soon, a full-scale establishment-crippling strike may become a reality.

Concordia has more than 1,000 full-time professors and a solid majority of them turned out to vote this weekend. What do the university higher-ups think they’re going to do when every single professor on campus (excepting those who are not in favour) walk out of their classrooms? Is anyone with an office in the GM building truly foolish enough to believe that this place can run without faculty?

We hope not. Because we sure as hell wouldn’t cross a union picket line if all that’s waiting on the other side is a lousy Concordia degree.

You’d think being president of the Concordia Student Union was the worst job in the world. That’s how it seems when executives are running scared at the sheer mention of the open position. The CSU has been without a leader since former President Schubert Laforest resigned in February due to health reasons.

The ongoing tug-of-war between CSU council and the executive concerning who to appoint as a new president is, at its core, tiresome and illogical. Clearly, no executive other than VP internal and clubs Nadine Atallah wants to take on the role. It’s a wonder to us that she is willing in the first place.

Taking on “presidential duties,” whatever they may be, seems to be an undertaking which makes other executives shake in their boots. If someone is willing to grin and bear it while passing their own portfolio off to someone else, then why create needless obstacles?

Then again, the objections to Atallah’s candidacy are legitimate; primarily that she is not a suitable choice because she cannot sit on the university’s Senate and Board of Governors. While there is no question that the person representing Concordia’s undergraduate student body should be sitting on its governing bodies, people are too quick to forget that Laforest wasn’t eligible to sit on either for the duration of his time in office.

The fact is, the decision of council not to accept Atallah’s candidacy, whatever the justification, should be respected. All year we have seen a systematic approach by the CSU executive to make decision behind closed doors and then try to force council’s stamp of approval.

Clearly councillors have picked up on this and are choosing to take a stand. They have been picking their battles all year and this, it seems, will be the final standoff.

After a member of the executive threatened to sue council if they did not approve Atallah’s bid for the top spot, we can understand and even sympathize with council’s frustration. What we don’t understand is why the executive think even for a second that they will be able to push their candidate of choice through, despite the objections, by sheer force of will.

Forcing a candidate is unfair to council and unfair to the students the CSU represents. Atallah was shot down, they should accept it. Time for a new plan.

In the meantime, while the CSU wastes weeks on a Judicial Board decision over the interpretation of bylaw 7.4 and procedure for choosing a new president, the title of president and accompanying duties go untouched. This is not remotely the quality of service which students deserve. If a president is needed, then someone has to step up. It may not be the most appealing job but someone has to do it and all things considered, an unpopular president is better than no president at all.

So, the provincial education summit began Monday and to the surprise of no one, it was declared by Quebec Premier Pauline Marois that despite the current freeze on tuition, fees would be going up in the future.

Using words like “indexing” may differentiate this increase from the one put forward by the former Charest Liberals, but the difference is superficial. The Parti Québécois’ plan amounts to a three per cent annual increase, meaning that tuition will rise by $70 per year. It may not be as much as the hike presented last year, but it provides little comfort to a movement whose members are demanding free education.

Another point worth mentioning is the feelings of betrayal some may be experiencing at the hands of the government. When the PQ came into power, they ran on a platform of a tuition freeze and some would argue that this attributed greatly to their success. By going back on their promise and creating a plan to raise fees, it is only reasonable that voters would feel anger and mistrust towards the government.

Those in attendance at the summit may also be upset by this news, considering the “open dialogue” they were promised has just been narrowed quite substantially. Student groups like the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec have been vocal about wanting to co-operate with the government towards what they hoped would be the common goal of a freeze. With this announcement, the FEUQ may not be so willing to support the government and could start encouraging its members back into the streets.

Quebec Higher Education Minister Pierre Duchesne says that the province can no longer afford to keep tuition so low, and that a continued freeze would force a crisis. This proves a tough pill to swallow considering the financial mismanagement of publicly-funded institutions throughout the city.

The protests, which took place Monday, are just the beginning if Marois continues to push an increase. Quebec saw what students and concerned citizens can accomplish when properly motivated. Does anyone really want a repeat of the violent protests, the nightly disturbances, the vandalism and the discontent from last spring?

Accessible education is clearly something many people in Quebec are passionate about and the battle ahead will not be an easy one for Marois to win. After all, education is a right and people across the province have clearly demonstrated their interest in preserving the current tuition model.

Whether it be $325 or $70, students feel they shouldn’t have to pay any more for education and the PQ should be prepared for that. Spending thousands on a two-day summit to allow all parties to voice their opinions won’t make much of a difference if the government isn’t listening.

If anything, the point of Monday’s three separate demonstrations was to show Marois that the red square movement is alive and well, and that if the government chooses to take a page out of Charest’s book, they will be ready to speak up and fight back.

Education seems to be all anyone talks about these days. This is particularly the case within the university sector, but with the upcoming education summit scheduled for Feb. 25, tuition and university governance are popping up in headlines across the city.

Some people think students should have to pay more, some say less and many say that the government ought to keep it frozen as is. There is one faction, however, who believes that none of these options are good enough.

Indeed, in true Quebec fashion, some groups argue that in order for education to be truly accessible, it should be free. This idea tends to get lost in the shuffle, as Quebec Premier Pauline Marois declares the issue to be on and then off the table from one day to the next.

Quebec Minister for Higher Education Pierre Duchesne has stated publicly that he is not in favour of discussing free education and the Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante has said that they don’t want any part in the summit if that is the case.

All parties seem to be waiting with bated breath for the summit to take place in the hopes that it will foster a miracle.

At this point that is what Quebec needs to end this politicized power-struggle between universities, students, taxpayers and politicians. In the midst of all the opposing views, press conferences and vague statements, the ideas brought forward can be dramatically overshadowed.

Objectively, people are giving too much weight to this one event. While an opportunity for all parties to get together and hash it out seems like a good enough idea, it’s not the kind of environment that leads to tangible solutions. Especially not solutions that will please everyone. We can’t stress that part enough.

There are people out there who want to pay a total of zero dollars for education and they will never be happy with anything higher. It’s not because they don’t believe their education isn’t valuable, it’s quite the opposite. It’s part of an ideology that entitles anyone and everyone to the same opportunities in life; the same classes, degrees, teachers and experiences made available to more than just those who can afford it.

That is not something that a person should have to compromise — and deep down that is not what Marois wants when she says she aims to find common ground. The government of Quebec is humouring universities for the time being and scheming behind closed doors about how to get re-elected.

Whether or not you think education should be free, frozen or raised to reflect the rest of Canada, this is one thing we can all agree on: we all want more than empty words and stalling tactics from our government. Whether or not we get what we want, only time will tell.

This week, it became brutally apparent that members of the Concordia Student Union executive and council representatives do not know the organization’s own standing regulations. Nor do they seem to be able or willing to consult these regulations when in doubt of the rules. This we have long suspected, but now, with the most recent council resignation announced Monday evening, there is no escaping the cold hard truth.

The people who run the CSU either don’t understand or don’t care about the rules which govern the union and it has lead to yet another bump in the road for this year’s set of student representatives. And it has been one hell of a bumpy road.

Early in the year, Councillor Ramy Khoriaty was hired as the fall 2012 orientation director. According to standing regulation 225, article C, a candidate for employment can be disqualified from eligibility if hired after taking office. This was the case with Khoriaty and hours before the Judicial Board hearing to deliberate on the matter, he officially resigned, claiming that he had not been aware of the regulation until it was brought to his attention.

Considering Khoriaty’s experience with the CSU, one could make the argument that the blame in this case lies with him for applying to and accepting a position which he was not technically allowed to have. And yet, is it not the duty of the people doing the hiring to know these rules beforehand and adhere to them?

The answer is an unequivocal yes. The hiring committee, made up of VP student life Alexis Suzuki, VP Loyola Stefan Faina, and VP sustainability Andrew Roberts were responsible to know what was required of them and should be held accountable for the consequences of their mistake.

Why should Khoriaty have to step down when he was not the only person at fault? If the executive wanted to change the standing regulations regarding the hiring process, they should have brought that before council. Side-stepping the rules and pleading ignorance later on is no way to get things done. Whether they knew at the time or not, it is reasonable to expect that at least one of the three of them would have read and understood the implications of the document which governs the CSU.

At its core, this isn’t even about Khoriaty. This is about the systematic neglect of the standing regulations and bylaws of the CSU and the laissez-faire attitude towards accountability. On top of that, it’s not clear to us why this issue took so long to be addressed. Councillor Chad Walcott confirmed that he knew about it in October 2012 and yet no one took any action for months.

Why does this even matter anyway, you ask? Excellent question. It basically doesn’t. If the rules aren’t respected then they may as well not exist. Sure, they were created for a reason, but if the students who make up the CSU executive continue to ignore the rules to suit their agendas, then there is no point trying to keep them honest.

In the real world people who don’t do their jobs get fired. It happens all the time. In the world of the Concordia Student Union they are rewarded, continually covered for and paid very well.

At the last CSU regular council meeting some student representatives expressed concern over the performance of the VP student life, Alexis Suzuki.

By our count Suzuki hasn’t been doing all that great a job. We’ve lost track of how many meetings she’s missed (and been excused from). We’ve heard time and time again about the botched fall orientation and the insufficient post-mortem report.

While the duties of VP student life are not as clearly defined as they could be in the bylaws, this much is clear to us: when we see council trying to appoint someone to do Suzuki’s work for her while she collects the vice-presidential paycheck — we aren’t impressed.

When we find her to be the most reluctant of all VPs on the CSU executive to speak with the media, reach out to student faculty associations or even make appearances at council — we aren’t impressed.

When we read over her campaign promises as quoted in the March 13, 2012 issue of The Concordian, we don’t feel like we’ve gotten our money’s worth.

“My main focus would be collaborating with clubs and faculty associations to make sure both are incorporated in all aspects of student life,” said Suzuki last spring. “I want to be the liaison between these student groups and the CSU. I am really excited to revitalize student life at Concordia, to reach out and get students involved.”

The above quote reads like a roadmap for what Suzuki has not done. At last Wednesday’s CSU meeting, representatives from Concordia’s Engineering and Computer Science Association and the Fine Arts Student Alliance openly criticized her for her failure to communicate.

We’re done with the excuses from A Better Concordia and the way they struggle to protect one another from any outside criticism. Some members of the CSU will throw around terms like “dereliction of duties” and “impeachment” and that’s fine with us. We can keep up.

But for students who don’t have the time, energy or inclination to sit through hours of meetings or scroll through pages of tweets, let us boil it down for you: there is an argument to be made that VP student life isn’t doing her job, either well or at all.

If this situation doesn’t bother you, then by all means, stop reading here and enjoy the rest of your day. If the idea that your student fees, a whole $28,000, are going into the pocket of someone who is not executing their duties nor making any notable effort to correct past mistakes frustrates you, then join the club.

This isn’t meant to be taken as a tirade against Suzuki, nor a call for her impeachment. We simply feel that something needs to be done if the interests of students are to be properly represented and respected. We are the ones who pay her salary after all and reap the potential benefits from her work. If students say they want more, there’s no arguing with them. That’s the nature of the relationship.

Frankly, we don’t want to see Suzuki asked to clean out her desk, but we fear that’s the direction the CSU is heading. Either she should recognize that she is not currently able to execute the job to the best of her ability and resign, or she should realize that her supporters have grown few and she needs to step up to the plate.

That’s what you do when people are counting on you. You go big or you go home.

The people in the ivory towers over at McGill University must think they are pretty special. According to an article published Jan. 19 by The McGill Daily, McGill’s administration is seeking a motion to be exempt from answering access to information requests filed by select student journalists.

Publically-funded, government-run institutions are required by Canadian Law to release documents like reports, budgeting information and much more. McGill has no right to pick and choose which requests to honour and which to reject.

Now, student journalists who are using this resource as it was meant to be used are being targeted for allegedly overloading McGill with “systematic” requests in “retaliation” against the university. What’s more, not only have 14 respondents been named in the motion filed with the Commission d’accès à l’information, it goes on to claim that The Daily and The Link have been abusing the system, perhaps for some nefarious purposes of their own.

If we weren’t up in arms about that, imagine our reaction to the news that The Concordian is also being named as a source which provides evidence to support the university’s case.

Contrary to whatever the authors of the motion believe, The Concordian has never indicated in any way that ATI requests were being made “as a retaliation measure against McGill in the aftermath of the 2011-2012 student protests.”

The very idea that the university is requesting the right to deny legal ATIs filed by certain individuals and accept others is astonishing.

What’s laughable about this whole situation is that if, and this is a big if, the motion is allowed and the people and organizations mentioned are no longer allowed to make requests, what stops anyone from filing under a different name or having the request filed for them?

How dare the university even consider putting journalists in a position where they have to intentionally misrepresent themselves in order to gain the same access to documents that any person off the street is entitled to?

Without a doubt, McGill is behaving like a spoiled child and we only wish to offer our most sincere condolences to the public relations department. This is a vastly unfair move by the university, it’s illogical and based primarily off of conspiracy theories.

From here, it looks like McGill is scrambling for any excuse to avoid releasing sensitive documents they would rather not see made public.

And what of the university’s claims that the amount of requests received are straining their “limited resources?” If McGill can’t logistically handle the incoming ATIs, fine. We accept that this type of paperwork takes time and money. So hire another person to do the work. We’ve seen your landscaping, McGill, we’re pretty sure you can afford it.

After a slew of missteps, Concordia has finally done something proactive to address the problems within the Concordia China Student Recruitment Partner Program. It shouldn’t be news to anyone who reads the papers or listens to the water cooler talk that allegations of mistreatment were flooding in from international students against CCSRPP director and head of Orchard Consultants Ltd., Peter Low.

If indeed this name is not familiar by now, we’ll summarize by telling you that Low was accused of misrepresenting services at Concordia and improperly transferring and managing student funds. While these claims remain informal and unsubstantiated, we’re pretty sure it’s safe to say these issues stem from more than a simple miscommunication as the university would have us believe.

In announcing this week that Concordia will be ending its relationship with Orchard Consultants Ltd. and seeking proposals from new recruitment agencies, the sky ahead begins to look a little clearer. It seems obvious to us that a company who is accused of taking advantage of vulnerable students coming to study in Canada is not one which this university, or any for that matter, should be associated with. Perhaps it took Concordia a while to come to this conclusion, but they did come to it and that is what’s important.

While part of us wishes Orchard would be investigated for their alleged crimes and left out to dry by the higher ups, we are faced with the sad reality that this is not likely to occur.

Then again, is it really enough that Low, if he is in fact guilty of the things we’ve heard, get out of this one scott free? Yes, his company will lose the business of Concordia and it may suffer financially for it, but what of his personal situation? Will he be made to apologize or repent in any way for the damage and hurt that the students coming forward feel he has caused them? Probably not.

So what can we do about it? Who will lead the charge to bring justice where there is none? Key members of the Concordia Student Union executive have made a point of taking these concerns seriously and doing their best to follow-up, but the organization as a whole is nowhere near the level of strength and competence needed to chase the answers. The university administration is not offering any more explanation about Orchard or Low and the man himself isn’t about to come forward and confess.

For the time being it looks as though the smoke has cleared and Concordia’s recruitment problems are on the mend. The only questions that remain are: how do we ensure that this type of violation doesn’t happen again? Who will hold the responsible parties accountable? How do we as concerned citizens keep students safe when no one seems to be willing to drop everything to pursue the truth?

For some, New Years resolutions have become synonymous with failed gym memberships and two-week-long self-improvement kicks, but we like to view this time of year more as an opportunity to kick the old habits and move on.

When it comes to Concordia, old habits die hard and sometimes come back to haunt future generations for years. With a fresh face at the helm and a new cycle of students filing through the hallowed halls year after year, there’s really no reason why the university can’t start improving its image. The old girl has waited long enough and may she rise like a phoenix from the ashes. Or at least, when it comes to scandal, may the powers that be finally realize that in this case less is indeed more.

From the cramped Concordia Student Union offices to the spacious upper floor board rooms in the GM building, we want to see change on the horizon. We aren’t asking for a miracle, simply offering some friendly advice that Concordia should take this opportunity to lay low and keep its proverbial nose to the grindstone.

New Years is not a clean slate maker by any means, but it does come with a certain inclination for reflection and re-evaluation. Changes need to be made, attitudes adjusted and dated ways of management tossed aside. Out with the old, in with the new.

The point of all this, we suppose, is to say that there is hope for Concordia yet. Institutional change like the kind we hope to see does not happen overnight nor does it happen as a result of some silly resolution made at 12:01 a.m. after ingesting one too many glasses of cheap champagne. Change like that happens because everyone wants it to and everyone works for it.

Universities are undergoing a period of uncertainty and believe it or not, times are changing. The way people think about post-secondary education is changing. There is a movement towards new, youthful innovations and transparency where before there was facade. This is the right time for things to get better and that will absolutely require effort on the part of every group and individual who is part of this community.

Students and faculty cannot have a pride in an institution which they feel is untrustworthy or out of control, and the perception and reception of Concordia’s public image will not improve unless those fears are put to rest.

In the university community, people like to toss around terms like “good faith” and that is exactly what is needed in this instance. A university is not a business, it is a place of learning. There may be an awful lot of men in suits and books to balance, but that does not change the core nature of what a university is and what it ought to be.