Categories
Opinions

Letter to the Editor

For over 3 decades, the Centre for Gender Advocacy has been fighting against gender oppression in its various forms. The staff of the Centre care deeply about ensuring that all Concordia students have equal access to education.

When students face gender oppression due to sexism, transphobia and/or homophobia (each of which are often compounded by other systems of oppression such as racism, ableism and classism), they are not able to derive as much benefit from their education as those who do not face these barriers. Students who face oppression have to work so much harder just to get through their university experience.

This is why we are encouraging all students to vote for candidates on the RiZe slate. For the position of Academic and Advocacy Coordinator, we encourage you to vote for independent candidate, Jane Lefebvre Prevost (although this should not be understood as meaning that there is a reason you should not vote for her RiZe counterpart, Harvin Hilaire who is also well-qualified for the job). The RiZe candidates and Jane are the only candidates who have addressed fighting sexual violence, the importance of intersectional feminism, the need for expanded mental health services, the importance of accessibility, the needs of international students and the necessity of paid internships from the very beginning.

With respect to every aspect of our work at the Centre for Gender Advocacy, we see a reflection of our values in the RiZe team as well as in Jane. These are candidates who care about survivors of sexual violence, who prioritize the needs of the most marginalized students and who understand that no one gets through their university education if they don’t have the support that they need and deserve.

One of the competing teams, Cut the Crap, has run a campaign branded with Trumpian references and promises to implement a system of online opt-outs that would defund our centre and many other groups that students depend on. If you care about the work that we do, if you or a loved one has ever benefited from our services, please vote for RiZe and Jane Lefebvre Prevost. Our continued operation depends on your support!

 

Signed,

 

Dayna Danger, Programming and Campaigns Coordinator

Hikaru Ikeda, Administrative Coordinator

Jada Joseph, Peer Support Coordinator

Dalia Tourki, Trans Advocate and Public Educator

Shayna Hadley, Mapping Project Coordinator

Julie Michaud, Outreach Coordinator

Categories
Opinions

Letter to the editor

On March 23, Concordia celebrated the completion of the final phase of the Webster Library Transformation project with great fanfare. Quebec’s Minister for Higher Education and Concordia administrators spoke of the significant government funding for the project and of the university’s commitment to the fundamental role of the library in support of world-class teaching and research. After enduring three years of renovations, students, staff and faculty can now enjoy amazing new study spaces and cutting-edge technology.

Not mentioned at the event, however, was that during this same period library staff have been forced to take a major pay cut, the direct result of the same Liberal government’s new pension bill and Concordia’s management priorities.

The library’s transformation can never be complete without real investment in staff. Our union’s collective agreement expired many months ago. It is time for the university to make a commitment to collective bargaining and to finally acknowledge the contributions of support staff to Concordia’s next-generation library.

Kent Cluff

President, Concordia University Library Employees Union (CULEU)

 

Categories
Opinions

Letter to the editor

I aspire to join one of the most gratifying professions there is, a job where I take care of people in every aspect of their lives and where I make sure they can live in the best way possible. I’ve chosen a trade, not a calling—I saw it as a job, rather than a choice that requires me to give away all parts of my life. I’ve chosen to help others, but not at my expense.

I study nursing, and I work to afford school since I do not qualify for loans or bursaries and my parents cannot contribute financially to my studies. Not only do I work to study, but I take on debt to study. Finding a work-study balance is hard when my school and internship hours keep me from working as much as I should.

I never stop. The concept of a weekend no longer exists for me. On weekdays, I go to school, I have my internships. In the evenings, I study, I do my homework, I prepare for my courses and internships. On weekends, I work night shifts, day shifts, evening shits, on rotation and always according to the hospital’s needs. After my work shift, I study more, I prepare for my courses more and I start over, endlessly.

In this never-ending hustle, I have to find time for daily tasks like anybody else would, such as cleaning, doing laundry, running errands, making lunches, washing dishes, dealing with my landlord, calling my bank and my insurance company—all of that on a budget calculated down to the penny. Things add up during these endless weeks: sleep deprivation, malnutrition and stress. Stress, because my budget is already tight enough when my tuition fees come up, along with my winter electricity bill, the pile of books that will cost me three months worth of rent and my bus fare for the semester. Stress, because I need to decide what I won’t be capable of paying this month: internet, my credit card bill, my driver’s license?

My internships represent over 1,000 hours of unpaid work and are required for my training by my program. More than 1,000 hours where I do not study, but work. Yet I am not paid. I can say that I work because I accomplish the same tasks as the nursing staff. Even though I’m not paid, I’m legally responsible for my patients and for the care that I give, just the same as any other nurse, because I am a professional. I am there for over eight hours a day, and I must remain smiling, comprehensive, efficient, precise, impeccable. I am required to be just as good as the regular staff. And yet, I am not a nurse. I am a student. I am not protected by labour standards.

There is no consideration for the fact that I work to afford school, that I live under the poverty line and that I am accumulating a financial and sleep debt that are both growing day by day. I am told I need to deal with it, that my internship will prepare me, that my working conditions won’t be much different than my current conditions as an intern. I am told that lack of sleep on top of psychological and work overloads await me when I become a full-time nurse.

During our internships, just like at work, nursing students must arrive 30 minutes before and leave 30 minutes after our eight-hour shift so that continuity of care is assured for our patients. An extra hour every day. Everyone is under pressure. If an error occurs, I am just as responsible as the nurses. I may be expunged, even if I am just a student. I may be sued, even though I am in training. I am treated like a nurse from a legal standpoint, and I am asked to be a nurse from a professional point of view. I am told to be irreproachable, even though I am learning.

I do the same tasks as the hospital staff: the vital signs, the hygienic care, the medication, the checkups, educating beneficiaries and much more. I have access to the same insufficient resources, the same dysfunctional spaces—where one-patient rooms are transformed into two-patient rooms, where each act of care requires moving an entire set of equipment. It’s an environment where everyone is caught up in the gymnastics of doing more with less. I am subjected to the same conditions, the same cuts that I am told are just the tip of the iceberg.

Teachers and society are trying to force students into a defective mould instead of changing it. The solution does not reside in more budget cuts to a system that is already choking from having to tighten its belt. I work and I study in public fields that are crying out for help, accustomed to seeing their budgets amputated year after year. In these fields, many take it upon themselves to deal with these burdens. We tell ourselves that beneficiaries should not be the ones having to pay and suffer for these budget cuts, so we suffer blow after blow. As a woman, a student, a worker, a recipient and giver of care, as a citizen, I speak out in opposition of this oppression.

I am opposed to this endless austerity. I advocate for the women in every field, for the student-parents, for those who take on debt, for those who go back to school for a better future, for those who work two jobs during their studies just to get by.

I am often asked why I carry on, why I’m an activist, why I chose the nursing trade. I have chosen to discuss the issues, the problems, the solutions, to get involved and to go on strike. I have chosen to refuse to work for free and without better rights and working conditions. I am doing it to make a difference, be it for the beneficiaries, the students, the workers or the parents. I believe that by choosing to give wages to interns, we can all make a difference for interns and, as a result, the patients they care for.

By Kaëlla Stapels, Collège de Maisonneuve

Letter to the editor

I’m writing in response to an article by The Concordian titled ”CSU housing co-operative may fail” which was published on Jan. 30. The article suggested the Concordia Student Union (CSU) might have to cancel Concordia’s co-operative student housing complex project due to a $200,000 cost overrun which will be incurred because of a recent demand for a brick facade made by the Plateau-Mont-Royal borough.

I was a CSU councillor and voted in favour of this project’s budget when it was presented in Fall 2016. We took money from the Student Spaces funds which, at the time, had millions of dollars in its account to pay for this project. And this is exactly where my question and confusion arises: why not take another $200,000 from the same fund and transfer it to the student housing project?

This project is worth further investment. I understand if the CSU is hesitant to invest further and is, perhaps, trying to call on its partners for a solution before making another investment, but whether or not there’s enough money in the Spaces fund for an additional $200,000 investment needs clarification: can we not afford another $200,000 investment for student housing? If the answer to this question is no, in the context of our surplus net worth as an organization, I wonder where exactly our priorities as a student union lie.

Sincerely,

Armani Martel

Categories
Opinions

Letter to the editor

I write to voice my support for the Oct. 3 editorial, “Curriculums and Classes: Where Diversity Falls Short at Concordia.” I think it is crucial that students forthrightly address the insufficient diversity of faculty and curricula, challenging faculty and administration to address this problem as directly as possible.

In the Department of English, where I teach, there are presently 28 tenured or tenure-track faculty. Only two of these are people of colour—a figure wildly disproportionate to the diversity of Concordia students. Last year our department hired an Indigenous scholar in the field of Indigenous literature, and this is an important step forward. Yet in the department’s two previous job searches, none of the finalists were people of colour. Since one of those searches was in the field of Global Anglophone Literature (i.e. postcolonial literature), this is particularly troubling.

Unfortunately, efforts to advocate for diversification of faculty and curricula are too often met with anxiety and defensiveness. Last year an English department graduate student proposal for a research assistant position to help diversify syllabi was rejected by faculty. When a hiring committee made diversification of the department a key consideration in a search last year, they were rebuked by a higher committee for prioritizing diversity too much—hardly plausible given the composition of our faculty mentioned above. The English department’s proposal for a cluster hire in Black Studies to support the development of an interdisciplinary minor in that field was not selected among cluster hiring initiatives. It is always possible to gesture toward one recent hire or another in order to indicate progress on these issues, but it is also necessary to point out instances in which such progress has been impeded—especially given the structural reality of neglect on this front over recent decades. Sometimes the same diversity initiatives that are met with initial suspicion and resistance, then blocked at the level of implementation, are lauded as signs of progress because they have been proposed. That isn’t good enough.

The Collective Agreement of the Concordia University Faculty Association states that “The Parties agree that Concordia University would better advance the essential functions of the University, namely the pursuit, creation and dissemination of knowledge through teaching and research, if the diverse composition of Canadian society were better reflected in the bargaining unit. Therefore the Parties agree to encourage an increase in the proportion of members of under-represented designated groups as defined in the relevant legislation.” My view is that faculty and administration at Concordia need to do a better job of prioritizing this stipulation. It is heartening to see students insist on this point.

Nathan Brown
Associate Professor of English
Canada Research Chair in Poetics
Concordia University

Letter to the editor

Among a variety of recent diversity initiatives, the Department of English successfully advertised for a tenure-stream appointment in Indigenous Literature and Culture; presented to the Faculty of Arts and Science a detailed proposal for a cluster hire in Black Studies; and submitted a second proposal for a tenure-stream appointment in the 19th Century Black Atlantic. Though neither of the latter bids was approved, we are confident that the University will respond again to our promotion of such priorities. We have submitted to the Faculty a Letter of Intent detailing a proposal for an Interdisciplinary Minor in Black Studies, supported by the Departments of Geography and History, and are now preparing the formal proposal.

The Department consults with its student associations on matters of curricular development, but note that, by citing only those courses that explicitly and exclusively treat issues of race, gender, and sexuality, your 3 October editorial elides their pervasiveness in the English curriculum.  It is not only our courses on e.g. African Literature, Caribbean Literature, Gender and Sexuality, etc. that historicize and theorize these issues, so too do those on traditional subjects, such as Beowulf, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton.  This is no less true of our courses on the graphic novel, electronic media, and literary theory.  Our required Introduction to Literary Studies outlines theories of race, sexuality, and gender.  Any synoptic, national or historical subject we teach is the occasion for sustained treatment of these issues.  The editorial did not mention, for instance, our courses on Modernism and American Postmodernism; yet, though the editorial may neglect the fundamental contributions of African-American writers to modernist and postmodernist literature, these courses most certainly do not.

Whether or not it should be axiomatic, as the editorial proposes, that courses on subjects directly concerning BIPOC students “should be taught by those who identify as such” or “should be led by black professors,” such insistence would prevent us from offering those courses until the University endorses our requests for further hires in these areas.  Furthermore, all of us want to avoid a patronizing racial calculus whereby those members of visible minorities on our faculty would be typecast to teach according to pigment.

Students continue to play a signal role in fostering a responsible, effective, and compelling policy of inclusive excellence in our department, for which your impetus is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Andre Furlani, Chair

Department of English

Tuition Hike

In response to Concordia University’s statements to the Concordian regarding the administration’s proposal to increase tuition for incoming international students in deregulated programs through cohort pricing (“Concordia responds to possible tuition hikes,” Tuesday November 18), as an elected representative of the Concordia Student Union I feel obligated to present clarifications of our own.

University spokesperson Chris Mota’s assertion that there would be student input regarding the proposal is very questionable. Yes, “all members of the board, student governors included, will vote on the proposal;” but of 25 members of the board, only two students are eligible to vote, and only one is an undergraduate. A single representative vote at the point of adoption is not the opportunity for proper undergraduate input.

The CSU, like the Concordian, has been told that the cohort pricing proposal is justified by feedback from surveys with prospective international students. We are still waiting, however, on any basic details regarding these surveys, including when and where they were conducted and what exactly were the questions asked. In any case, market surveys are not a substitute for consultation which those who represent the memberships that will be affected.

We are confused by President Alan Shepard’s statement that “historically, [Concordia has] been setting the tuition to be exactly identical to the tuition rise prescribed by the Quebec government for Quebec residents and the rest of canadian [sic] students, which is still regulated by the government,”

We do not know if he referring to one of two different rates of annual tuition increase: for example, in 2015 the increase was 1.5 per cent for Quebec residents, and 3.8 percent for Canadian students out-of-province.

Regardless, we read this statement as false, since Concordia has been setting the tuition increase rate for international students in deregulated programs the same as the rate for regulated programs, with the exception of major tuition hikes for some deregulated programs implemented in the 2008/09 and 2009/10 academic years. This is why international undergraduate students in JMSB currently pay an extra $186.26 per credit ($717.69 instead of $531.43), and undergraduate international ENCS students pay an extra $62.62 per credit ($656.21 instead of $593.59), compared to the regulated programs (refer to http://www.concordia.ca/admissions/tuition-fees/how-fees-are-billed/undergraduate/fees.html).

We agree with Dr. Shepard in that we “regret [this] being played out […] like we’re debating international tuition in the press,” since we at the CSU would prefer that conversations regarding decisions that impact members of our community be open, transparent, and bring representatives of affected stakeholders to the table. We invite direct conversation with the University administration in place of conversation through the proxy of the student press. However, it is better that these ‘debates’ happen at all than have no conversation prior to the Board of Governors’ adoption and its presentation as a fait accompli.

This past Wednesday we heard international students at our public Town Hall talk about their own experiences with financial precarity and disenfranchisement within the institution, and we suggest that Concordia listen to its students as well.

– Lucinda Marshall-Kiparissis, General Coordinator of the CSU

Exit mobile version