Tag: opinions

Categories
Opinions

The poetics of language should be stronger than its politics

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Anglophones choosing French universities signifies a deeper change in Montreal society

“Montreal is home.”

That’s a statement I’ve heard on more than one occasion from native-Montrealers and newcomers alike. I’ve heard it from born-and-bred Torontonians and proud Vancouverites. I’ve heard it said in English, French and even Spanish.

As someone who grew up in the far-away town of Saguenay, Que., I am very aware of how great the city’s energy and culture is.

But Montreal, as one of my Canadian literature professors put it, is the centre of very complex, divisive politics. Indeed, language politics bring out the worst in people and foster a hostility I have a hard time wrapping my head around.

Last month, the Montreal Gazette published a compelling article about a Montreal lawyer who found herself choosing to study at Université de Montréal (UdeM) despite being an anglophone. According to the article, when Serena Trifiro wasn’t accepted into McGill University, she opted for UdeM. Today, Trifiro says she’s infinitely grateful for this turn of events, as it helped her pass the Quebec bar and facilitated her career in Quebec, according to the article. Trifiro suggested that she believes the perks were well worth the struggle at UdeM.

The Montreal Gazette’s piece addressed the fact that more anglophones are choosing to attend French universities. Among other statistics, the article pointed out that the number of English-speaking students at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) rose from 193 in 2012 to 519 in 2016.

I am a born-and-bred Saguenéen who loves the English side of Montreal, and I came to study English literature at Concordia with the goal of eventually leaving the province. In my opinion, the increase of anglophone students in Montreal’s French universities is significant.

Forty years after passing the controversial Bill 101, this increase shows that Montreal has successfully affirmed itself as a French-speaking city, and yet is still accessible to both French and English speakers.

Of course, Trifiro’s initial hesitation to study in French is both understandable and telling about the state of language relations in Montreal. Some francophones are often closed-off and even hostile towards English-speaking Montrealers. I myself have gotten the infamous dagger eyes for speaking English with a friend in public. Yet French can be a complex and difficult language, and many people in Montreal—especially English-speaking university students—live here with less than adequate French skills, which I think is regrettable.

Languages are meant to be learned with passion and interest. Unlike what many might think, even with Pierre-Elliott Trudeau making both English and French Canada’s official languages in 1969, Canada is not and will never be a truly bilingual country—except in Montreal.

To be fair, I’m fine with that. Not everyone needs to be bilingual, so long as we can be civil and accept each other. In a way, I do feel a sense of pride in seeing anglophones acknowledging that French is necessary to build a career in Quebec. I think that has always been the point of encouraging French education, at least for a portion of the population.

To get another perspective, I spoke with Alexandre Viger-Collins, a Concordia political science graduate. Despite what his first name suggests, he is 100 per cent anglophone. He grew up in an anglophone community where, he confessed, people don’t have much incentive to learn French.

Nonetheless, he ended up studying political science at UdeM, which was more or less an accident. While attending a French university was never his intention, he said he is now positive that it was for the best. Viger-Collins said he intends to work in provincial politics, and while studying in French will certainly have a positive effect on his career prospects in this province, he said he has also gained much more insight into Quebec’s culture. He said he now feels more integrated into the society.

The bridge between French and English in this province needs to be built on both sides. Although I believe we francophones have work to do in terms of accepting those who don’t speak French, I am confident in saying that Montreal has become a good place for both communities to live in, despite recurring tensions. Ultimately, I think the attitude of people like Trifiro and Viger-Collins encourages this generation and future generations to have a different outlook on the French language.

This recent surge in anglophones choosing to study in French seems to be an indicator that the city is changing for the better.

In light of this, my hope for the future is not only that more anglophones attend French

universities, but that they do so with motivation, for the love of the French language—not by force or as a last resort. When it comes to education, I believe we should let go of the politics and give more room to the poetics of language.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

A previous version of this article indicated that details about Serena Trifiro’s experience had been quoted from a Montreal Gazette article rather than paraphrased. The Concordian regrets the error.

Categories
Opinions

Scientific advancement is worth a bit of grass

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

As many people know, Concordia means “harmony” in Latin—but this sense of harmony was recently threatened as the university, its students and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce residents clashed over the construction of a new building on Loyola campus green space.

Concordia plans to begin constructing a $52-million science research centre on its Loyola campus this spring. The centre will take up 15 per cent of the nearly 8,800 square metre field. Some N.D.G. residents are unhappy about the green space being taken over by a building and urged the university build the centre on one of the nearby parking lots instead.

N.D.G. resident Irwin Rapoport had even garnered 95 signatures for a petition against the project. It was previously believed he only needed 12 signatures to require the city to open up a registry. This registry would have given the borough’s residents the power to call a referendum on the issue, presumably derailing the project. Just like that, the future of Concordia’s science student body would have been taken out of their hands.

Yet a discovery on Monday swept any chance of a referendum off the table. Côte-des-Neiges—Notre-Dame-de-Grâce borough officials discovered a clause in Bill 122, a new provincial law adopted in June, which states “public property intended for collective use in the education sector is no longer subject to approval by a referendum.”

It was a development in this confrontation that shocked many of those on both sides of the argument, not to mention borough officials themselves. It is a development we at The Concordian were very pleased to hear.

While the green space in question is used by students for friendly soccer games and locals enjoy walking in the grass, it is essentially useless. While we do not wish to undermine the importance of preserving green spaces, we at The Concordian believe a small section of grass is worth sacrificing for the sake of future scientific discoveries and the education of Concordia students. In fact, the two go hand in hand.

As a series of devastating hurricanes continue to ravage islands in the Caribbean and inundate the United States’ southern coastal states, it becomes harder and harder for even the stubbornest of climate change deniers to turn a blind eye to the evidence. As Montreal Gazette columnist Allison Hanes recently wrote, these meteorological disasters “should be a wake-up call that the long-predicted hazards of climate change are now on our doorstep.”

Now more than ever, the global community needs to be taking steps to limit the effects of climate change. Our way of life needs to adapt, and we need science to do this.

This is why the construction of the university’s new science centre is, in the words of Concordia chemistry graduate student Gabi Mandl, “kind of a major deal.”

While the centre won’t deal specifically with solving climate change, its purpose is to foster collaboration among researchers studying everything from biology and chemistry to engineering, health and sustainability. This is the kind of scientific collaboration our university, our community and the world needs. It is how we will move forward as a species and preserve the planet we call home. It is why we at The Concordian fully support the construction of the science centre, even if it means sacrificing a portion of our green space.

Sometimes you have to pick your battles. We at The Concordian are out to save more than just a patch of grass. There is so much more at stake.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

The inconvenient truth about white people and racism

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Munroe Bergdorf and the L’Oréal controversy highlights a deeper, systemic problem

“I’m not racist. I don’t even see colour. Plus, I have a ton of black friends.”

These are common excuses most white people choose to reiterate whenever the heavy topic of racism arises in conversations. Regardless of the excuses, there is a sense of discomfort that white people feel when discussing racism. It’s a state that’s being labeled as white fragility.

According to the Huffington Post, Dr. Robin DiAngelo, a social justice educator, created the term to describe a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defense moves.”

Some of these moves include fear, guilt, anger, silence and defensiveness. A recent example of white fragility can be seen through the L’Oréal controversy. L’Oréal hired their first black transgender model Munroe Bergdorf, but she was recently fired because of the comments she made condemning racism in response to the events in Charlottesville, Va.

In a now-deleted Facebook post, Bergdorf said: “Honestly, I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes, ALL white people. Because most of ya’ll don’t even realize or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, bloods and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism […] ”

After this post received a lot of negative attention, L’Oréal fired Bergdorf. In a statement, the company said they support diversity and tolerance towards all people—regardless of their race, background, gender and religion. The company stated: “We believe that the recent comments by Munroe Bergdorf are at odds with those values, and as such, we have taken the decision to end the partnership with her.” Bergdorf’s comments can be understood to mean all white people are inherently racist, which can be considered promoting a negative view of a certain race—ultimately going against L’Oréal’s policy.

In an article in The Guardian, Katherine Craig, a human rights lawyer and social change consultant, wrote: “If you grow up in a racist society, through no fault of your own, some of that racism is bound to stick subconsciously. It’s an unconscious conspiracy in which we are all complicit, unless we fight it.”

In a BBC interview, Bergdorf elaborated on her comments by saying that white people are socialized to be racist, just as men are socialized to be sexist. She emphasized the idea that it is each person’s responsibility to “unlearn” that socialization.

Bergdorf and Craig make similar points: white people can be inherently racist, not because they choose to be, but because they are born into a world that places their lives and wishes above everyone else’s. When we grow up, we are influenced by everything around us and the argument that all white people can be intrinsically racist is a plausible one. Whiteness has long been considered a positive thing, while darkness a negative thing. If one grows up seeing only white dolls and white actors on TV, it’s possible they might grow up with the idea that their race is better, prettier and superior to others. If that’s what our society is promoting, why wouldn’t someone unconsciously believe that?

Speaking from my own experience, growing up enthusiastically following white characters in TV and pop culture, I really believed that my brown skin made me inferior to white people. I barely saw representation of people of colour, which led me to internalize the racism I was surrounded by. If that was my reaction to these messages as someone who isn’t white, isn’t it possible that white people can feel superior due to the same exposure?

Bergdorf explained in the same BBC interview, “white people need to get over the fact that yes, [this socialization is] a really uncomfortable and inconvenient truth. Get over that discomfort. Think about how it makes us feel.”

Bergdorf’s comments were racially charged, but she was calling out white people for their racism. If you find that offensive then you are part of the problem. When Bergdorf said, “Yes, all white people,” she isn’t wrong—white people inherently benefit from the fruits of a society built on white privilege. Systemic racism, which emphasizes how white privilege is built into every level of society—like education, health care, criminal justice and housing—and will always favour white people over people of colour.

White people don’t really have to worry about being victims of violence by law enforcement. No one will ever question how you got a job—it’s assumed you were qualified and right for it. You are able to speak about a certain subject without being expected to represent your entire race. You will never walk with the weight of your skin colour bearing heavy on your shoulders.

A lot of people are arguing if the comments made by Bergdorf were made about black people, they would be considered racist. In my opinion, Bergdorf’s comments shouldn’t be labeled as such.

Racism is more complex and powerful than just discrimination and a feeling of superiority. Sure, a person of colour can feel superior to and discriminate against a white person, which isn’t right. But those are individual acts—not systemic. Racism is ultimately the result of power and prejudice. People of colour do not hold any power against white people—therefore they will never be able to systematically oppress them.

As a white person, you can walk away from prejudice. People of colour cannot walk away from racism. Wherever people of colour go, racism is an inherent part of the society we live in. We can change our hairstyles, our clothing and our mannerisms—but we cannot change the colour of our skin.

Bergdorf’s comments were harsh, yes. But they hold a grain of truth. The response it has garnered is a prime example of white fragility and white privilege. It’s a response to the inconvenient truth. In the same BBC interview, Bergdorf said, “with white privilege, if you are not actually dismantling racism, if you are not going to pull people up from the bottom of the pyramid to the top, then you are participating and benefitting from racism.”

When white people feel defensive or uncomfortable during a conversation about racism, they should ask themselves why they feel that way. What they don’t realize, or refuse to acknowledge, is that their whiteness is a privilege—and that privilege puts people of colour beneath them. But this isn’t to say white people will never be able to help people of colour, combat racism or dispel their own negative ideas about other races.

As Craig explained, “any white person who is serious about racial equality has to be anti-racist. This requires us to actively acknowledge our privilege, because that privilege—even though we never asked for it—is the very cause of the inequity suffered by others […] We have a choice: be offended, or be part of the solution.”

Graphic by ZeZe Le Lin

Categories
Opinions

Why glorifying drinking isn’t fair to either sex

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Regional campaign in York, Ont., paints an overly simplistic picture of alcohol

You’ve cut the tag off your new black dress, curled your hair, paid your Uber driver and finally got past the bouncers in front of the club. Now, all that’s left to do is wait for “prince charming” to buy you the cosmopolitan you’ve been craving all week.

From song lyrics telling us to be on our worst behaviour to Hollywood blockbusters painting alcohol as the cure to a boring existence, pop culture wants us to believe the best nights of our lives are the ones we don’t remember. Partying is labelled as the defining element

of our youth.

Infatuated by the ideas of only living once and the fear of missing out, it’s no wonder so many of us perform the role of partiers willingly. We must be confident, bold and loose—and not just with each other, but with our drinks too.

According to the Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse, women are generally more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol than men for a variety of reasons, including less overall body weight and more fat tissue.

These facts prompted the regional municipality of York, in southern Ontario, to launch a campaign against binge drinking at the end of August, right before frosh week. While this seems like a good idea, many felt the campaign was inherently sexist.

The campaign’s poster depicts a young woman staring at her cellphone in horror alongside the slogan, “Don’t try to keep up with the guys.” At the bottom of the poster, the line reads: “It’s not just about keeping an eye on your drink, but how much you drink.” While done with good intentions, it is a message that shames, guilts and blames women.

The campaign was heavily criticized for suggesting women are at fault for their own victimization. Emphasizing the idea that women must control their drinking insinuates women can prevent bad things from happening to them so long as they don’t drink too much.

As a young woman, I found the ad problematic but not for the reason it came under fire. Yes, perpetuating the myth that drunk women are “asking for it” is undoubtedly problematic and wrong. Nonetheless, I appreciated that someone at least tried to expose the pressure women feel to live up to binge drinking standards.

What disappointed me about this ad was how it completely failed to communicate that this pressure is not put on us by men, but by the media.

By focusing on sex alone, the ad ignores critical factors which impact a person’s drinking habits—what age they started, how often they drink, if they’re drinking on a full stomach. None of these considerations have anything to do with sex, yet they have everything to do with a person’s susceptibility to alcohol.

Both the media and the York ad campaign paint overly simplistic portrayals of alcohol. Cultural media, like television, music videos and song lyrics, paint binge drinking as an amazing escape. But being drunk doesn’t guarantee that you’ll feel bold or happy. In reality, being drunk triggers different responses, ranging from euphoria to depression. The ad campaign fails to communicate this, and instead paints binge drinking as a problem rooted in biology.

Even from a biological standpoint, though, the ad completely misses the point. I guess its creators forgot that tall women exist. Being 5-10 myself, I can attest to the fact that some women are able to take in more alcohol than “the guys” before ever feeling a thing.

The York campaign is problematic because it assumes that binge drinking is a pressure felt only by women. In reality, binge drinking is a pressure placed on both sexes by media which glamorizes the effects of alcohol. Pop culture places binge drinking on a pedestal. We are taught to praise alcohol for its ability to make us “go with the flow.” What many fail to realize, however, is that the media’s glamorization of alcohol instills pressures on us to behave in gender-specific ways. The stereotypical view perpetuated by mass media is that binge drinking is bold, confident and expected. Saying no is weak, boring and odd. These stereotypes apply whether you are male or female.

I believe the success of a responsible drinking campaign lies in exposing one very simple truth: the media profits off our compliance to gender stereotypes in nightlife culture. It’s up to us to reject the myth that masculinity and femininity are measured by how much you can or can’t drink.

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the organization that created the binge drinking campaign. The campaign was launched by the regional municipality of York. The Concordian regrets the error.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

Raising mental health awareness at Concordia

Graphics by Zeze Le Lin.

Although you may never have experienced mental health issues or suicidal thoughts, research shows that, in 2016, 22 per cent of Canadian teenagers considered suicide.

The Kids Help Phone Line collected data that indicated 46 per cent had even planned out their suicide. In 2012, suicide was ranked as the ninth leading cause of death in Canada, and according to Statistics Canada, over 4,000 people committed suicide in Canada in 2013.

In the spirit of World Suicide Prevention Day, which is on Sept. 10, we at The Concordian are pleased to let students know about the Buddy Project being launched at Concordia in the coming weeks. The project will shed light on mental health issues and give students the option to sign up online to be paired with a buddy.

The Buddy Project is an initiative founded by 19-year-old Gabby Frost in the United States. Frost’s goal to prevent suicide and raise awareness about mental health began when she was 15. She discovered that many of her friends from school and online were experiencing mental illness, and in April 2013, three girls she interacted with online posted on Twitter about contemplating suicide. That’s when Frost decided to create this project.

On their website, the Buddy Project explains the belief that pairing people with an online friend can help prevent suicide by offering people a peer-support system that might be lacking at home or in their community. According to their website, the Buddy Project mostly focuses on children, teens and young adults by “providing positivity, companionship, resources and education in order to reduce the stigma of mental illness, bullying and negativity on social media.” By putting emphasis on these factors, the project hopes to inspire people to become more compassionate, empathetic and educated about mental health.

The Buddy Project launched their “Bring BP to Your Campus” campaign in March 2017, which involves sending representatives to campuses worldwide. Throughout September, National Suicide Prevention Month, the Buddy Project will be hosted at Concordia, spreading awareness of mental health and the services offered on campus. The campaign will include activities such as sharing stories to encourage education and compassion, creating awareness videos, teaming up with other mental health awareness groups like Jack.org, and displaying posters that shed light on mental illness and mental health. The project is meant to allow students at Concordia to expand their education on mental health and to inspire them to speak up.

Although Concordia won’t be directly involved in pairing students together, the campaign encourages students—who feel they need support, who want to offer up their support or anyone who just wants to talk—to sign up on the Buddy Project website so they can be paired up online. According to Melyssa Aragona, a Buddy Project representative at Concordia, the project pairs people up primarily based on common traits, and your buddy might live anywhere around the world.

Suicide is still a big issue in our country and around the world, but there are many more steps being taken to help change that. On Aug. 27, the MTV Video Music Awards emphasized the importance of suicide prevention and mental health by discussing the suicides of singers Chester Bennington from Linkin Park and Chris Cornell of Soundgarden. The rapper Logic also performed his song, “1-800-273-8255,” which is the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. According to CNN, his song drove people to the lifeline in record numbers—the lifeline saw a 50 per cent increase in callers after the performance aired.

It’s difficult to understand or relate to something you’ve never experienced, but it’s easy to take the time to learn and educate yourself on a relevant social issue. Mental health and mental illness are two prevalent issues that should constantly be discussed. The Buddy Project is just one of the ways people can help others—by listening, understanding and shedding light on suicide and mental health.

The project can allow students at Concordia to step forward and share their own experiences with mental health. It creates connections between people who need support and works towards ending the stigma around mental health issues. We at The Concordian strongly encourage students to get involved with the Buddy Project, whether it’s taking steps to better your own mental health or learning how you can help those around you.

Graphics by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
Opinions

Learning when to speak and when to listen

Graphics by Zeze Le Lin.

Joseph Boyden controversy opens up a larger discussion about cultural appropriation

Joseph Boyden is one of the most celebrated Canadian writers to ever take pen to paper. He has claimed an Indigenous heritage throughout his career, and most of his work centres around this identity. Since the start of his career in 2005, with his debut novel Three Day Road, Boyden has won numerous awards, including the Canada First Novel Award, the Rogers Writers’ Trust Fiction Prize, the Scotiabank Giller Prize and the McNally Robinson Aboriginal Book of the Year Award.

However, in December 2016, the Aboriginal People’s Television Network (APTN) discovered Boyden has no Indigenous heritage. APTN reported that even though Boyden has claimed ties to Métis, Mi’kmaq, Ojibway and Nipmuc communities throughout his life, they were unable to find any specific links to these communities. According to the report, “Boyden has never publicly revealed exactly from which earth his Indigenous heritage grows. It has been an ever shifting, evolving thing.”

Some of the things the APTN researched were his family tree and a book about the Boyden family that was published in 1901. After researching his familial claims and ancestry, the network learned that his inconsistent claims lead to a lack of concrete proof of his Indigenous heritage.

Boyden himself remained relatively silent after that, until the beginning of August when he responded to the allegations made against him by writing an article in Maclean’s. He said he’d taken a DNA test that showed he’s a “mutt,” and went on to list the results of the test. Boyden claimed these results indicated he is part Indigenous.

Prior to Boyden’s response in Maclean’s, an article from Vice News featured Métis writer Aaron Paquette saying that being Indigenous isn’t about DNA. He echoed a claim Boyden himself made on Twitter in his response to the controversy: “It is about community. It is about who claims you.” But who exactly claims Joseph Boyden?

In his Maclean’s article, Boyden vaguely claimed to have been “adopted by a number of people in Indigenous communities.” Robert Jago, a member of Kwantlen First Nation, was one of the researchers who questioned Boyden’s ancestry. In an article on Canadaland, he questioned the validity of being adopted by many communities, since the term “First Nations” refers to the many individual communities that make up the broader Indigenous community. “There is no person in Canada who is Indigenous without first having a national identity,” he said. In other words, you can belong to the Indigenous community in Canada, but you can’t belong to more than one of the individual groups that make up that broader community. Boyden claimed to be just that, which highlights his misconception around what it means to be Indigenous. If he misunderstood this key part of Indigenous identity, think about the other things he could have misunderstood and the problem with him spreading misinformation like this while claiming that he himself is Indigenous.

Some may say that, despite his questionable methods, Boyden helped raise awareness for Indigenous communities, but Jago refuted that claim in the same article for Canadaland, saying: “Being Indigenous is not a requirement to stand up for Indigenous rights.”

There seems to remain some uncertainty about whether Boyden was mistaken about his heritage or purposely deceitful. Regardless, this controversy opens up a larger, increasingly present debate about cultural appropriation. Although Boyden did spread awareness for Indigenous issues, there’s a potential his actions were harmful to the community as a whole if he took away speaking opportunities, money and cultural context from genuine Indigenous voices.

There exists a fine line between spreading awareness about relevant issues and being a part of the problem when sharing Indigenous stories without belonging to that community. This situation is about non-Indigenous people knowing—or at least being willing to learn—when it’s their turn to talk, and when it’s time to step aside and allow Indigenous people an opportunity to tell their own stories. This is a lesson for not only Boyden, but for all non-Indigenous Canadians who want to right the wrongs of their ancestors—myself included.

Graphics by Zeze Le Lin.

Categories
Opinions

Are we preserving history or honouring hate?

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth

A pedestal is no place for a Confederate symbol, and taking them down won’t erase the past

An increasing number of symbols commemorating Confederate “heroes” have been taken down throughout the United States and Canada, including here in Montreal. A plaque hanging on a wall outside the Hudson’s Bay department store on Ste-Catherine Street honouring Jefferson Davis was taken down on Aug. 15. Davis was the president of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865, and he briefly lived in Montreal with his family after being released from prison in 1867.

The recent violent protest in Charlottesville, Va., encouraged even more people and organizations to remove plaques, statues and monuments that pay homage to important actors of the Confederacy. On Aug. 12, white supremacists and neo-Nazis rallied in Charlottesville to condemn a proposal to remove a statue of Confederate commander Robert E. Lee. A woman was struck and killed by a car that drove through the crowd of anti-racism counter-protesters who had turned up at the rally.

Though tensions around Confederate symbols aren’t a new phenomenon, some argue that taking down such signs threaten the preservation of history. For hundreds of years, the KKK and other white supremacist groups have used various symbols as emblems of their far-right ideologies. The Confederate flag is especially controversial because it has become a symbol of oppression and hatred of black people and other non-whites. Waving the flag is often interpreted as blatant racism in North America.

Though some argue Confederate symbols represent pride in the southern United States, they inarguably carry a heavy burden. For many, the Confederate flag is a reminder of black men, women and children being dragged off public transportation, beaten to death, locked up on unfounded rumours and assumptions and killed for defending basic civil rights.

Statues, plaques and monuments are intended to honour people who have positively contributed to society’s growth and freedom. Davis, for his part, owned hundreds of slaves and led a movement that fought against their emancipation. So, if public officials want to lessen racial tensions and reconcile with citizens of different cultures and races, they must not tolerate public displays that glorify the very people who went to war to maintain slavery and other oppressive systems.

Those who fear history will be erased by removing Confederate emblems shouldn’t worry.

Many have tried to suppress dark parts of North American history, yet they endure. Davis and his Confederate friends will always be part of our history, but they have no place on pedestals. No one has forgotten about Hitler, right? Yet, even naming a garbage dump “Adolf Hitler” was deemed scandalous and inappropriate by Oregonians in the 80s.

Closer to home, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario recently announced that they want to remove John A. Macdonald’s name from their school buildings so that Indigenous children won’t have to attend schools named after an individual who played a key role in developing residential schools and destroying Indigenous culture.

Taking down honourific plaques, statues and flags simply shows solidarity and inclusion towards ethnic groups who have been chronically oppressed and discriminated against throughout history. The goal is not to erase our past, but to reclaim a history which has been “whitewashed” for far too many years. History books are filled with one-sided stories of white heroes protecting their people from evil “savages.”

Cruelty and injustice have been excused for centuries. If dozens of government buildings and plaques have to be renamed and removed to begin righting those wrongs, then so be it.

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

It’s all violence, and it’s all wrong

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth.

Recognizing that sexualized violence against women of colour is an unacknowledged crime

Andrea J. Ritchie is a lawyer whose speciality is police misconduct. In her 2017 book, Invisible No More: Police Violence Against Black Women and Women of Colour, she reveals that there are no clear statistics on the violence perpetrated by police against women of colour in the United States. “Although national data show more black men are killed at higher rates than women,” Ritchie writes, “those numbers don’t tell the whole story […] There are no numbers counting police rape or police sexual harassment or unlawful strip searches.”

Women of colour face incidents of police violence in statistically smaller numbers than men of colour, but they are targeted in a particular way. According to the Huffington Post, in 2015, a black woman named Charnesia Corley was stopped by Texas police for allegedly running a stop sign. The officers who stopped her said they smelled marijuana in her car, which, in Texas, is grounds for a cavity search.

Corley said she “felt raped” after the officers publicly searched her vagina for 11 minutes. Her lawyer, Samuel Cammack III, said a police officer “body slammed Miss Corley, stuck her head underneath the vehicle and completely pulled her pants off, leaving her naked and exposed in that Texaco parking lot.”

The officers involved in Corley’s case were charged with “official oppression,” but those charges were later dropped. Corley is currently pursuing a civil case against them, according to the same article. This case is an example of how police violence against women of colour often takes on a sexualized tone.

The lack of statistics available on sexualized police violence seems to point to the conclusion that sexual violence against women is not considered a form of police violence in American society. In my opinion, this lack of information is to be expected in a society that, as a whole, doesn’t take sexual violence, especially against women of colour, as seriously as it should.

Here in Canada, according to Sexual Assault and Rape Statistics Canada, only six out of every 100 sexual assaults are reported to the police, suggesting that many victims don’t trust police or the judicial system. If the government doesn’t even consider it necessary to categorize these actions as violence and gather statistics on them, should we be surprised that they fail to press charges against the officers accused of committing them?

This case reminds me of a situation very far north of Texas, in Val d’Or, Que. In 2016, the Crown decided not to convict six police officers accused of sexual misconduct against a number of Indigenous women. According to the CBC, there were 37 complaints filed against local police by members of the community, including sexual harassment and rape. As with Corley’s case, this situation involved a specific type of police violence, one that is both sexualized and racialized.

These cases demonstrate that women of colour are often the victims of not only violence but a dehumanizing form of sexual violence. Both Corley’s and the Val d’Or cases reinforce the notion that sexual violence is not really considered violence in North American society, and that public officials still fail to be properly reprimanded for the disgusting acts they commit.

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

Burning out: Why students should take the initiative of self-care

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth

It’s a new year at Concordia, which means new teachers, new assignments and quite possibly new struggles. One of those struggles can simply be a lack of self-care. As university students, we’re taught at an early age to follow a certain routine when it comes to our education. Wake up, attend classes, come home, do homework and catch up on readings, sleep and then repeat.

A negative consequence of constantly following this redundant cycle is “burning out.”

According to an article by Global News, more and more psychiatrists are beginning to use this term to refer to patients who suffer from chronic stress. People can experience burnouts when they’re undergoing stressful situations everyday— it eventually builds up and causes various symptoms. These can include physical exhaustion, weight gain, loss of appetite, anxiety, depression, pessimism, detachment, increased forgetfulness, lack of concentration and a drop in productivity. Sound familiar?

There are also other symptoms that aren’t as apparent. According to the same article, burnouts can result in “shrinkage or enlargement, thinning and premature aging” of various areas of the brain.

Although the article strongly focuses on adults with high-stress careers, we at The Concordian believe university students are equally and sometimes more stressed due to school work, internships, jobs, social lives and planning for the future. Therefore, we felt it was imperative to suggest a few way students can take care of themselves this year.

Lifestyle choices and changes can allow students to relax and prevent burnouts. This can be as simple as finding a hobby unrelated to your work or school, anything from biking to reading comic books. The Global News article put a particular emphasis on choosing a hobby that stimulates your brain in a creative way in order to prevent chronic stress.

Having strong, positive connections with people outside of your family is also extremely important. Of course, we all know the struggle of finding time during the semester to have fun. But doing so can stop students from being unproductive and doing poorly in school, according to the same article, which would actually be more beneficial for your grades in the long run.

Unplugging yourself from social media and cellphones can also help. While social media and technology are great tools for everyday life, they can also be pervasive distractions preventing you not only from getting work done, but also from properly relaxing during those study breaks.

Many free apps exist to help you stay off of your devices or distracting websites. Flipd and Freedom Reduce Distractions, to name a few, block your access to certain apps and websites. An article by the Huffington Post also suggests that, before going to bed, phones and other devices should be kept away in order to get a good night’s rest.

As university students, we rarely have time to eat lunch let alone manage a schedule that includes time for breaks. But by taking care of yourself and forcing hobbies and down time back into your life can actually make you more productive and will certainly boost your mental health. Finding time during the day to walk away from your keyboard and textbook, and instead go for a walk or drink a glass of water can mean the difference between a burnout and achieving your goals—and more importantly, enjoying yourself in the process.

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

Looking back on volume 34

This past year, The Concordian saw new projects come to fruition. In the winter semester, we launched our first-ever radio show and a series of weekly spreads about part-time faculty professors at the university. We had a video team that put out content regularly—also a first. In addition, we had opportunities to interview amazing individuals, including Homa Hoodfar and Mohamed Fahmy, and attend awesome events, like South By Southwest (SXSW) and the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). We’ve even broke a few stories before mainstream media outlets did.

Among the successes and fulfilling experiences, we’ve also learned a lot about the world of journalism and the nature of writing about and for university students. Here are some of the key things we’ve learned as a team over the course of this year:

The importance of diversity

We believe diversity is important not only within our newsroom, but within the content of our articles. We try our best to give a voice to the voiceless and cover events that will help educate students on important social and environmental issues within the university or the city. We’ve also tried to cater to people with varying political views within our opinions section—we believe healthy debate and discussion is important in order for us to sympathize and understand one another. Next year, we hope to more actively report on all faculties within Concordia, to further diversify our content.

How to embrace criticism

With publishing articles comes readers, and with readers comes criticism. Not everyone is going to like every article we put out, and that’s okay. As reporters and writers, we are constantly learning—we are bound to make mistakes, despite our best efforts to be as accurate and sensitive as possible in our reporting. While criticism can be discouraging at first, over the year, we’ve learned to acknowledge it and, in turn, refine our approach to our practice. Our readers always have the option to write a letter to the editor or, if it’s in reference to an ops piece, write a rebuttal. And for the people spewing out incoherent hate messages about articles we’ve published, we ain’t got time for you.

How to be innovative

Working at a student newspaper comes with pressures to meet deadlines and the need to think on your feet when things don’t go as planned. Nearly every week, we’ve been faced with articles falling through or interview subjects not getting back to us. As a team, we’ve aimed to support one another when something goes wrong and always look for solutions. We are proud of the creativity everyone brought to every issue. Going into volume 35, we hope our team continues to be one collaborative family.

On behalf of the team, we’ve had a blast putting an immense amount of energy and love into volume 34 of The Concordian. With the recent launch of our new website, we’ll be bringing you so much more next year. It is really only up from here.

See you around,

The Concordian team

Categories
Opinions

Don’t just accommodate cultures–celebrate them

Graphic by Florence Y

Islamophobic outburst at Peel District School Board meeting signifies a deeper problem

I grew up in a part of Toronto where being white meant you were part of an ethnic minority. From the first day of kindergarten until I moved away in grade 11, my peer group was wonderfully diverse. Attending schools where religious and cultural differences were celebrated—not just accommodated—was a positive and eye-opening experience. Every group was recognized and respected for their beliefs, which created a comfortable and constructive environment.

So, when I heard people were literally ripping up religious texts at a school board meeting in Ontario in protest of religious tolerance, I was scratching my head in confusion. The Peel District School Board (PDSB) meeting on March 22 was attended by 80 individuals who were afraid of the board’s decision to allow Muslim students to write their own sermons for their Friday prayers.

To put this outburst into context, the PDSB has allowed Muslim students to pray every Friday in school spaces for 20 years, according to CBC News. The prayers are monitored by a Muslim teacher and, until the recent change allowing students to prepare their own materials, students used six pre-written sermons.

The intensity of the resistance to students preparing their own sermons is shocking. A petition calling for the end of religious accommodation in schools in the Peel region has received approximately 6,135 signatures so far, according to the petition’s website. Started by a group called Religion out of Public Schools, the petition states religious accommodation will lead to “unintentional intolerance” and “unsolicited exposure to religion.” It is an odd choice to be intentionally intolerant in an attempt to avoid the risk of “unintentional intolerance.” What’s even stranger is to argue that being exposed to another religion can have negative effects.

Respecting diversity and allowing different cultural practices to take place around you should never be seen as negative. Inclusion creates a holistic environment—ignorance creates hostility towards misunderstood groups. The hate broiling in the Peel region is a result of not blissful ignorance, but of fearful ignorance.

According to Global News, a 2016 poll found 54 per cent of Canadians viewed Islam “unfavourably.” Watching this hate gain support makes it impossible to overlook the ignorance present in the public’s view of the Islamic faith. Some of the Islamophobic comments made during the school board meeting were about Shariah law and the “Islamic indoctrination of children,” according to CBC News. None of these arguments are rational, and are only defendable when there is a significant lack of awareness about another group.

The group Religion out of Public Schools argues religious accommodation is too expensive for schools to incorporate. What isn’t clear to me is whether they consider derailing board meetings and necessitating police intervention not to be costly to the school board. Also, the group seems to forget that religious accommodation has been taking place in Peel district schools for over 15 years.

The best way to move forward from these sentiments is to address the underlying issue. It’s a big challenge to get someone to change their opinion, but it is easy to create an environment in which people can no longer hold irrational views.

Categories
Opinions

Undermining female reporters

Graphic by Florence Y

Confronting sexist rhetoric and gender-based obstacles as a female reporter

Pry your eyes off my legs—I am not here for your gaze, I am not just an object to stare at. Don’t call me sweetie, I’m not here to be your date. I’m here as a reporter—to interview you, not to put up with your excessive and inappropriate passes. I’m not here to have my credibility undermined by your overt sexism.

I’ve learned a lot of valuable lessons in my two years working for The Concordian and in my first year of journalism school. However, a hot topic I find lacking in the curriculum is how to deal with sexism, harassment and constantly trying to be taken seriously—all things that seem to come with the territory of being a female reporter.

It’s not uncommon for my attentiveness and eye contact during interviews to be interpreted not as traits of a diligent reporter, but rather, as flirting that encourages inappropriate behaviour from some. This has often made me extra vigilant when I have to interview men.

In the last year and a half as a news reporter, and naturally as an intuitive person, I’ve become familiar with the insinuation of certain types of eye contact and non-verbal communication. Oftentimes, the interviewee’s body language and eye contact are just signs of attentiveness to my questions. Other times, it’s almost impossible to ignore I am being sexualized and thought of in an objectifying way when I’m trying to do my job.

Body language is one thing, but the commentary is another. Whether it’s before, during, or after an interview, it’s never an appropriate time to ask if I’m single, free later or pose any other questions about my personal life. While my interviewee is always informed on the nature of the interview and article I’m writing, I’m never given the same outlines for the way I will be hit on or undermined as a female reporter.

The thing I love most about being a journalist is meeting and speaking with people who have a variety of opinions and aspirations. However, sometimes those in positions of power have been troublesome. I’ve found myself in situations where male faculty at Concordia think it’s appropriate to ask me invasive questions, or even to ask me out on a date. I’ve even encountered people who will request coverage of an event as a sly attempt at getting to know me better, hoping an interview will turn into a date.

There have been many times where I’ve gotten the impression that my gender undermines my credibility and judgement in the eyes of the people I collaborate with and report on. I once had a source question my choice of words in an article, only to ignore my response for a month, then eventually respond with an apology—followed by asking me out on a date.

Not only are some of my own experiences as a reporter troublesome, the language used towards female reporters is also problematic.

Too often, the response I receive when I mention I’m a journalism student or a news editor is, “I can totally see you on camera,” or “You would be a great news anchor!” Yes, these are nice comments—but when you break it down, it’s easy to see there is an immediate assumption that how I look is what makes me fit to sit in front of a camera. It undermines my capability and my work as a journalist, and is essentially presumptuous, sexist rhetoric.

Since this issue seems to be deeply rooted in our society, I believe media outlets and schools with journalism departments should take it upon themselves to better tackle sexism and address gender-based obstacles that non-male counterparts may face in the field. It’s important and necessary to learn how to professionally handle instances of sexism, racism or any other kind of mistreatment.

Graphic by Florence Y

Exit mobile version