This was written yesterday, December 3, then edited and published today.
As I write, the SSMU newsletter has announced the special general assembly on Thursday, to consider a motion to remove the President.
I get the frustration. I was loosely involved in the development of a gender neutral bathroom motion, to bring the number of gender-neutral bathrooms in SSMU buildings up to the same standard as those at McGill. After sending it to Steering Committee, we were told that “it had come to [their] attention” that the motion could contravene ‘McGill policy“. As I wrote in a fairly emotional return email, “Until a McGill policy is presented that contradicts the ideas proposed, this refusal is arbitrary and discriminatory…As per Robert’s Rules, and because the Standing Rules does not impose additional restrictions, I will be giving notice of motion at this Legislative Council”. Right now, the motion itself is not on the Legislative Council agenda. When I try to amend the agenda, I suspect that the chair will rule the amendment out of order or will simply ignore it. Steering Committee keeps discourse at SSMU tightly controlled, and Dymetri is a member of this committee with significant influence. Some blame for the failure of this policy lies with him, as a member of Steering. Other blame also lies with him, as the elected representative of SSMU.
But I think Dymetri is a good president. He co-signed a Senate question with me about breaches in the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Processes. He’s supported my demand letter to McGill and my use of legal assistance to advise on deadnaming. He was fundamental to our first exec communication on police brutality. My grievance with the Steering Committee is not about individual bigots, but rather a culture of conservatism and transphobia so culturally ingrained it has become invisible. It’s about the process of scrutinizing motions ahead of time, not the people doing the scrutinizing. I do think removal of people in power is a tool that should be used. I don’t think Dymetri is the right target.
Personally, this week has really sucked. I was assaulted by the SPVM while protesting a few weeks ago. I was thrown to the ground repeatedly and kicked and batoned in the thigh, ribs, and chest. I’m still physically recovering and I have a shiny new PTSD diagnosis. The worst part for me isn’t the immediate aftermath, but the re-entry into normal society, where everything in comparison to extreme adrenaline is tedious and grey. An old Vice President University Affairs told me that the worst part of SSMU is when there’s antagonism among student leaders. You expect to fight with McGill, but you don’t expect to also be fighting your peers. I’ve been thrown by students who silently vote to kill your motions, or whose prime interest lies in avoiding the perception of ideological bias. I’m disturbed by the inconsistent application of the rules. I’m tired of being the token trans person on the Board, who has to remind Directors that our demographic exists. I’m sick of unelected Directors, unelected Legislative Councillors, the ratification process that is a rubber-stamp except when Palestine is involved, the looming threat of legal repercussions that makes cowards of us all. I’m scared by my instinctive desire to prioritize the smoothness of SSMU over its obligation to its rules and principles; I need to remind myself, always, of my position of power and responsibility towards the people that try and fail to escalate issues to their appropriate scale.
I wish I wasn’t positioned against the will of the majority – that I am grateful for what I previously considered a tyrannically high quorum requirement. Perhaps if I was able to take enough steps back – like, the amount of steps back so that I’m reading 2024-2025 like I read 2009-2010 in the archives of a student newspaper – I would again be on the side of the petitioners. But I know Dymetri. He is diligent, careful, awkward and passionate. I’m too close to this issue, in a thousand ways. How can one not be?
When I learned that GA quorum was previously 100 and had recently been increased to 350, I thought it was a cheap trick from executives to consolidate power and sidestep inconvenient popular demands. I still believe it, but my position has been somewhat nuanced. With 24,000 undergraduate students, a 1 per cent quorum is 240. If students show up to a GA in force, and call for Dymetri’s removal in the hundreds, I would be won over. It would send a powerful message to future executives (and members of the steering committee) that the petition for a general assembly must be respected, and that hand-waving about legal restrictions is unacceptable. If over 100 but less than 350 people show up (presuming the majority would vote for removal) then I am truly conflicted.;
Coming from ‘the inside’ I can safely say things are more complicated than they appear. The strike motion wasn’t meant to be for the same week as the Montreal wide one. The group was able to resubmit a motion with different language. The leaked legal opinion stresses the need for consultation with lawyers. But sometimes that doesn’t matter. Sometimes things are simply unacceptable. I’m interested to know what the student body will decide. If Dymetri is removed, I will be worried about my workload, disappointed for the SSMU staff that he supports, and sad for the person who, from hours of having each others’ backs during tense admin meetings, I can’t help but care for. But I guess this isn’t about me. And I certainly don’t think I’m in the best position to be making these decisions. Maybe a special GA is.