Tag: editorial

The Concordia Student Union byelections have come and gone and in the wake of it, we can’t help but feel that students really couldn’t care less.

A grand total of 465 Concordia students voted in the blessed event which took place Nov. 27 to 29. Needless to say, the turnout wasn’t ideal. Six candidates were elected from Arts and Science of the seven who ran, three from John Molson School of Business and zero from Fine Arts.

While council has now bulked up some in numbers, the complete lack of interest showed by the majority of the undergraduate student population is really disheartening. There were a number of problems with this round of byelections, namely the fact that it was not advertised nearly enough and the information out there wasn’t much to go on.

While candidate posters could be seen on bulletin boards around campus, it’s hard to believe the CSU put much effort into getting students out to vote. The one candidate who didn’t make the cut lost by three votes. We imagine he’s feeling pretty short-changed right now.

Besides the polling itself we worry about the lack of information available to students about the people they were electing. Seeing someone’s face on a poster and seeing their name on a ballot is not a good enough reason for them to be chosen as the right person for the job. In fact, it makes for decisions based on all the wrong reasons.

Voting for someone purely based on their attractiveness, or the heritage of their last name, or their gender or the glossiness of their poster is not okay. This isn’t the kind of behaviour that should be encouraged or allowed in a society full of disengaged voters. And yet, what other information was given to us?

Where were we supposed to read about their platforms and goals, who they were as people and what they wanted to accomplish on council? Where was the candidate debate or speeches put on by the CSU for students’ benefit? If the CSU has the attitude that students don’t care about elections and won’t vote anyway, then yeah, no one is going to vote.

If people who actually care about student politics can’t even find information about the candidates, how are students with a passing interest supposed to? The CSU has more power than one might think and the sad truth is that there were likely hundreds if not thousands of students who didn’t even know elections were happening last week.

What can be done about this, you ask? We offer no magical solution, but if the union which is supposed to represent students is content to be composed of people who get voted in based on their looks or the catchiness of their name then we have a bigger problem than poor voter turnout. But hey, we’ll have the most attractive student union in town.

Over a year has gone by since the historic day that truly kicked off the student movement in Montreal: Nov. 10, 2011. The remarkable display of social engagement from the youth seen throughout this past year has really made an impact not only on policy, but on the way many people think about our demographic.

Students did not accomplish the toppling of a government and the reformation of policy all on their own. The tuition hike would never have been repealed without the support of Quebec citizens who marched alongside us, who donated to our cause and who turned out to vote in the election.

For many, the fight is over. But walking through the streets of downtown Nov. 22, that’s certainly not what it looked like. On that day many students and supporters marched in solidarity for the global accessible education movement.

Right now tuition is frozen, the provincial government has come through on its promises and students appear to be relieved and to some extent, proud that their efforts have paid off. Despite the victories achieved so far, we are quite concerned about the prospect of tuition fees increasing for out-of-province and international students.

The government has already stated that this is an option and McGill University hasn’t bothered to refund these students in question because they expect an increase. It’s no secret that out-of-province students pay a hefty sum for tuition, but milking them for more money after all that’s happened doesn’t sit right with us.

If and when these increases come, who will be there to stand up for these students? If the student movement has indeed begun to die down, will this increase sneak by unnoticed? Do officials think that since students who aren’t from here are so used to paying more, they won’t complain when they get slapped with additional fees? Out-of-province students are still students and being treated differently because of status is unjust and unfair.

Quebec has been criticized in the past for creating an unwelcoming environment for newcomers. Raising tuition for this demographic alone will only contribute to the feeling that non-residents are “outsiders.” Is that really the impression Quebec should be giving in this day and age?

We think not. Non-Quebec residents already pay more than everyone else. When the provincial government froze tuition, no one said anything about it possibly being a selective freeze. Quebec residents weren’t the only ones fighting the hike last year and they shouldn’t be the only ones to reap from the movement’s success.

Last Monday, student journalists covering a protest march taking place in the downtown core were stopped by police and ticketed. These Concordia students protested that they were covering the event for a class and tried to show their passes, but their explanations fell on deaf ears.

This is the type of thing that really makes us mad. While the journalists ticketed were not on The Concordian’s masthead, they were journalists nonetheless and being tossed in with the rest of the protesters is extremely unfair.

Young reporters often have a hard time proving to Montreal police that they are covering a protest, and not participating in it, and the last thing any journalist wants is to be arrested or ticketed for doing their job.

This is a problem many reporters faced covering the Maple Spring last year and into this summer and it can make for some close calls. Police seem to think that just because the student press isn’t as high profile as other mainstream publications, it isn’t “real” or “legitimate.”

The same thing can happen with freelancers and young people trying to break into the field itself. Often they find themselves alone, taking photos and getting quotes, until all of a sudden, the police are surrounding the area.

The tickets people can be charged with for participating in a protest that doesn’t give a route beforehand, or doesn’t respect the flow of traffic can run pretty high, with one Concordia student getting charged almost $500.

How is the press supposed to effectively cover demonstrations like this and inform the public when we have to worry about getting arrested? The Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal is becoming more infamous than ever for brutality and reporters should not have to be scared to be out in the streets at a non-violent protest.

The other concern that comes to mind is ‘why now’? Why is the SPVM choosing to crack down on student and journalists now when protesters flooded the streets nightly only a few months ago. Now that demonstrations have become rare, and the energy of the student movement has ebbed, what message are they trying to send?

As far as we are concerned, it feels like the SPVM is trying to silence people who are simply exercising their right to protest and have their opinions heard. Our staff reporters covered dozens of demonstrations this year and it is worrying to us that police are back to treating students like dirt now that the Maple Spring has come to an end.

Rest assured, though, we have no intention of stopping anytime soon. Where student interests are at stake, student reporters will be there to cover it, and a few unfounded tickets and SPVM scare tactics aren’t going to change that.

A quick word about the Internet.

Recently we have begun to feel pretty disheartened about the way people interact with the Internet. This amazing advancement of technology which can offer us so much has actually brought out the worst in some of us.

There is so much incredible knowledge and tools that didn’t exist fifty years ago. We have so much to be thankful for in this computer-driven age and yet humanity can’t seem to stem the flow of bad news, tasteless humour and threads upon threads of trolling.

There’s a buzzword to watch out for. Not trolling, that’s not important in the grand scheme of things, the other one: humanity. If you have been following this media circus that is the Amanda Todd story, then surely you will understand where a lack of faith in the good of humanity is coming from.

Being able to hide your face on an anonymous forum is one thing, but posting mean-spirited things about a 15-year-old girl because she was sexually exploited and killed herself from your Facebook account is truly bewildering and shocking.

Someone is dead. This is a tragedy, and the fact that hundreds of people have so little compassion for her and so little shame about what they are saying, that they have the nerve to post malicious things using their own name, is bizarre. It is inexplicable.

How is anyone allowed to get away with that?

They can’t, that’s the point. One man in Ontario lost his job over a negative post he made concerning Todd’s untimely death.

We don’t mean to get on our high horse about this, but it just doesn’t seem logical or ethical. What kind of person hears about a teenager committing suicide and thinks, ‘I should probably post something degrading on her Facebook memorial page.’

Your co-workers will see that.

Your friends will see that.

Amanda Todd’s family might see that.

We wouldn’t stoop to publish some of the comments made on the multiple memorial pages that have sprung up in the last two weeks but, take our word for it, we are not overreacting.

This is an overarching problem which ties into how we view the Internet as a society. On one hand, we want to stop cyber-bullying and the sharing of child porn, on the other, we want freedom of information and privacy rights.

So where do we draw the line then? When do things become so bad that people stop and think for a minute before posting some idiotic and offensive opinion online for the world to see? It’s not your personal Internet, it’s a massive network which connects billions of people. What you say and do has an effect, and anyone with a shred of respect for other people must agree that these are not the kind of posts we want popping up in our newsfeeds.

If I had a million dollars…I wouldn’t be as rich as Alan Shepard will be after only three years at Concordia.

That’s what it’s like earning $357,000 a year, not including benefits. We hate to ask the obvious questions, but why does someone who makes all that money need extra money to pay for a house anyway? It’s not like Shepard would be on the street if the university didn’t give him a housing allowance.

As much as we appreciate the fact that he uprooted his life in Toronto when he accepted the position at the university, it remains unclear why anyone who works normal nine-to-five hours should be paid so much for doing, well, so little.

While Concordia’s presidential salary is, in fact, lower than both McGill’s and Université de Montréal’s, it’s still no justification. We don’t want to sound crazy here, but what if the university simply decided not to pay someone such an exorbitant amount for executing this job?

Concordia is a university with a lot of potential and it would bring us nothing but joy to see this institution flourish under Shepard’s leadership. However, this systemic problem of overpaid administrators really has gotten out of hand.

If the president needs to be flown somewhere for recruiting and schmoozing, fine. If he needs to charge a couple of working lunches now and then, that’s okay by us. If he wants to get French lessons to help his family integrate into Quebec society, be our guest. Call it a Christmas bonus.

What we really take issue with, namely because it isn’t just, is that the administration is sucking money out of students who are lucky if they can manage going to school and working part-time. All the while, the administration is complaining about how hard-up they are when they can still afford to pay such a presidential sum.

Clearly, Shepard’s salary is no big deal to the people in charge. In fact, his contract alots him $7,000 more than his predecessor Frederick Lowy, who is most remembered not for his actions, but for his condo.

Is this the leadership Shepard is referring to when he told The Gazette he gives governance at Concordia an “A+?” Probably not.

Last week, journalists and concerned members of the student body were asked to sit outside the Concordia Student Union’s council meeting for five hours. Five hours. Literally, outside the doors of the meeting.

This is the beauty of closed session. People attend council meetings to get informed or, Heaven forbid, inform others but they end up waiting for hours because the information being discussed is much too valuable for outside ears.

Are we the only ones getting tired of this? A person can do a lot in five hours and having to spend it wondering what on Earth is going on behind closed doors is nobody’s first choice. We understand that candidate interviews might involve private information which someone might not want broadcasted across the school, but that worst case scenario is assuming something about the student press which we don’t appreciate.

At the end of the day, journalists are not vultures circling for the kill. We are not trying to expose people for their faults, we are trying to keep them honest. Besides, if we aren’t privy to information that could prove damaging or provide a reason why someone should not be chosen for a position paid for out of students’ pockets, then you better believe we will dig for it.

As much as we’d like to assume the candidates selected to serve as Chairperson and Chief Electoral Officer of the CSU are squeaky clean and perfect for the job, we wouldn’t know either way. This, on top of the fact that in past years, students have been interviewed in open session, really pushes this over the edge.

The problem with closed session, besides it being a massive waste of our time, is that after the lengthy process has ended, the topics which people wait to discuss often get pushed to the next meeting. While being at a council meeting can be really enlightening and give a good sense of where the tensions within the CSU run high, we sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be less frustrating, and considerably more comfortable, to watch the scene unfold from afar.

The problem? What if all the journalists gave up on the CSU completely? No live stream courtesy of CUTV and no Twitter storm brought to you by the fast-fingered journalists of the student papers. The connection between council and the student body would be all but severed. CUTV wasn’t covering this particular meeting, and we can’t blame them. After all, recording equipment doesn’t grow on trees.

These things can be tedious even during open session and it’s not a good sign when the media starts to get picked off as the hours tick by. Much to her credit, The Concordian News editor stayed for the entirety of the five hour span.

Now we’re not going anywhere and neither are our colleagues, but next time closed session drags on past the fifth hour mark, don’t expect to find a happy crowd waiting on the other side of the door.

Two members of the Concordia Student Union abandoned ship this week, leaving scathing open letters in their wake. Both letters addressed the current tensions within council, throwing out words like “power games” and “personal hidden agendas.”

Former VP advocacy and academic Lucia Gallardo, we saw coming. If you’re going out, go out with a bang. Considering she’s been ousted due to status issues, it follows that as her last act before fading out of the public eye, she wanted to issue a strong statement. And strong it was.

“I’m actually partially grateful that this ended up happening to me,” she wrote, “because I would have been embarrassed to be part of a CSU that treated any student in need by closing doors and turning a deaf ear.”

The same sentiments were echoed by now former councillor for Arts and Science, Juliana Ramos.

“It is not in my interest to sit down with a council governed mostly by individuals who play power games, but don’t realize that their potential can be used to actually serve the student community: that you can only do so by putting personal interests aside,” wrote Ramos.

So what happened? Is this just a case of hurt feelings and nothing more? We are inclined to think otherwise. Rather, we are concerned that the CSU is becoming a place where tensions run higher than ever and nothing productive can be accomplished.

A council that has lost faith in its executive is one thing, but a council that has lost faith in its ability to do good is something far worse.

Unfortunately, this is not the fault of any one individual, though some familiar names keep popping up. It’s no secret former CSU VP external Chad Walcott has been stating his opinions and using his sway on council, but that doesn’t make him a villain.

The real question is this; who do these people think they are? This isn’t the big leagues, and even if it were, aren’t we, the youth, supposed to be better? Looking at such politically engaged and intelligent young people, one would think they would have a little more perspective, especially operating in a province like Quebec where residents have seen their fair share of corruption.

As far as we are concerned, it’s about time student representatives remember exactly what they were elected to do. Anyone not going to the table with the sole expectation of trying to work towards positive change and solutions to Concordia’s growing number of problems should be properly ashamed of themselves. The CSU, though it may have faults, is not a platform for disrespectful actions and those who seek to advance themselves by tearing a strip off others need one hell of a reality check.

So VP academic and advocacy of the Concordia Student Union, Lucia Gallardo, is not a student. Can’t say we saw that coming. If only this were the first instance of its kind. Anyone remember Morgan Pudwell? She was VP advocacy and outreach last year and it came to light only a few months before the end of her term that she was not registered as a student.

As shocking and frustrating as these discrepancies can be, at least Gallardo had the guts to put herself and her privacy on the line to plead her case.

The statement she released following the call for her resignation was really surprising and, dare we say, refreshing. It was a bold move which CSU President Schubert Laforest could stand to learn from, considering that he chose to explain his own academic eligibility issue in closed session of council.

This was the exact type of move we have been waiting for from this executive. From the beginning, when Laforest and Gallardo first faced registration issues publically, the team was so tight-lipped, we didn’t know what to think.

This silence or, better yet, this refusal, on the part of the execs to show weakness or admit they are in trouble has led to a multitude of problems for them in the long and short-term. Furthermore, it’s hurt their credibility substantially.

If the executive were only as forward and accessible as Gallardo in this recent statement about her personal and financial struggles as an international student, then perhaps the Concordia community would feel more trusting towards them.

This ambiguous approach is the exact opposite of what students were hoping for when they elected this team, and Council is surely feeling the same sense of resentment.

As it stands right now, the division of the CSU is clear. On one side, the current executive and their few supporters, on the other, the rest of Council.

As much as we appreciate Gallardo trying to be more open with Council, and with the media to an extent, the damage appears to be already done. Unless Council decides this Wednesday to reverse their decision about Gallardo’s resignation then A Better Concordia will have learned their lesson too late and come up short, in more ways than one.

There is no question that the current executive of the Concordia Student Union care about their jobs. They do. They clearly demonstrated their dedication and passion these first few weeks of the school year, despite some significant challenges.

There is, however, room for major improvement regarding communication and transparency, and now is the time for that change to take place.

The eight students voted into office last year, amid controversy and confusion over registration and eligibility, have been there tirelessly working to make Orientation happen. They personally served drinks to more than one of us (who was that behind the bar at The Hive handing over free booze? It was VP Loyola), they set up collapsible tables and chairs (shout out to VP Advocacy and VP Sustainability), they plugged in sound equipment and they did their best to usher drunk students, new and returning, on and off shuttle buses from one campus to the other.

There is no doubt that they are busy and they are trying. What they need to do now that the Orientation nightmare has ended, is focus on the areas they have most definitely been neglecting.

The CSU has a lot on its plate at any given time, but being available to answer questions and clarify the weekly and even daily product of the Concordia rumour mill is a priority which the CSU executive as a whole appears to have lost sight of.

While last week executives may have had perfectly valid excuses not to return phone calls for five days, or completely ignore emails and interview requests, those excuses are now all spent. We are tired of waiting patiently for our needs to be met and we, as members of the student press, are not the only ones.

With the end of Orientation and the first CSU council meeting approaching, the team should be trying to make up for lost time and make amends for the lack of transparency they have shown thus far. They have a responsibility to not only the undergraduate student population in general, but to their elected council, who will most likely be coming to the table this Wednesday with more than a few questions in mind.

People say that Concordia students don’t care about campus politics, but we think they do. They do care very much when they don’t get what they want. What we want are answers, and if our questions are not given due care, if the responses are vague and unreassuring, and if students feel they cannot rely on their CSU to be there when they have concerns, then the problem goes beyond mere availability.

There is no question that these executives care about their jobs. If they want to keep their jobs, we suggest they clean up their act before they are left without any excuses to hide behind.