These are my initial thoughts reading the proposed revisions to the Policy Concerning the Rights of Students with Disabilities, as presented at Senate for information on January 15th. It will be approved by Senate later this semester.

A Broad Look

Revisions to the Policy About Disabilities (my name for the policy, which has changed name in its review) are much needed, given that 20 years have elapsed since it was last amended.

Reading the original policy, I saw glaring flaws that I’m glad the new policy addresses. The use of examples – especially the list of potential accommodations in ‘Modifications’ – is illustrative but falsely implies these are the only types of accommodations available.

However, the revisions don’t eliminate the problematic writing of the original policy, but all of it. I think some of these elements should be safe-guarded. Particularly, I would like to see continued use of the McGill Calendar to publicize its support services, and the continued use of educational programs for attitudinal barriers. Not every barrier at McGill can be solved on an individual basis. If this policy isn’t an appropriate place for McGill to ‘think big’, then another document should.

Small Notes

Page 1 says “The following Policy upholds the values as articulated within the University’s Mission Statement and Principles, namely those of academic freedom, integrity, responsibility, equity, and inclusiveness”. However, academic freedom, integrity, responsibility, equity, and inclusiveness are the only values. For precision, I would strike “namely those”.

In section 3.4, The Charter of Student Rights seems like a relevant document to cite, along with the Policy Against Harassment and Discrimination.

In section 6.1.2, use of the word “discomforts” invokes in me a defensive reaction, given baggage surrounding the dismissal of my disabilities. Since that seems to be a common experience, sticking to the word “challenges” gets the message across without alienating readers.

A standard is created by ‘undue hardship’ in section 6.1.3. The next sentence about an accommodation being “reasonable” seems to impose an additional standard, one that’s more restrictive than the undue hardship burden. This is confusing.

Questions

I am a fan of section 2.3 but there is a discrepancy between “educational experience” (in section 2.1) and “experience” in this section. Is this a purposeful distinction, i.e. is section 2.3 meant to be broader? Or should this phrase be standardized?

A phrase in section 5.2.2 reads, “Personal information […]  will not be shared without the Student’s or Qualified Student’s consent, or except as required or permitted by law or with a Student’s consent”. Is the mention of a student’s consent twice an error, or am I mis-parsing the sentence? If I am mis-parsing it, presuming that I’m a reasonably competent reader, could it be rephrased to be clearer?

In section 6.1.5.4, who does the “active consultation” need to be with?

To check, as per section 6.1.5.5, does every faculty have an Associate Dean Academic?

Does section 6.1.5.5 create an obligation for SAA to consult with the Associate Dean for every students’ case? If not, could that be clarified, especially since 6.1.5.5 follows the requirement that SAA evaluate students on a case-by-case basis?

For 6.1.9, are these core competencies able to be communicated to the SAA before individual accommodations are requested, to ensure that the description of the competencies are in good faith?

Given that a student is responsible for participating in discussion with course instructors about accommodations (section 7.2.4) shouldn’t this also be a responsibility of staff?

For section 8, would the director of the SAA have more information about the implementation of the policy than the DPSLL?

For section 10, could a seat be reserved for a member of the subcommittee for people with disabilities, provided that this group is active?

Bill 21 is an act that forbids many civil servants, including police officers, teachers, and government lawyers , from wearing religious symbols. The Act directly impacts all religious individuals who wear religious symbols – kippahs, turbans, hijabs, and more. However, the stakes are especially significant for Muslim women. As of November 22, 100 per cent of people who lost jobs as teachers were women wearing a hijab. 

Bill 21 was originally passed by the National Assembly in June 2019. At the time, McGill students and staff mobilized against the bill, handing out tens of thousands of anti Bill 21 pins and organizing rallies and sit-ins.  In April 2019, six unions (AGSEM, AMURE, MCLIU, MUNACA, MUNASA, SEU) and four associations (PGSS, SSMU, MACES, and MAUT) signed a statement against the Act. SSMU added a few paragraphs, writing “[t]wo years after the Quebec mosque shooting and two weeks after the same vile hatred caused another horrific mosque shooting in New Zealand, our government should be actively working to address the impacts and effects of white supremacy in our society. Instead, it chooses to actively fuel it.”

Now that energy has waned, as those most affected have emigrated out of Quebec or gave up on pursuing public sector careers. It doesn’t help that there’s overlap between demographics affected by this legislation and by the war on Gaza, circumstances ripe for burnout.

The best hope to stop Bill 21 now is the Supreme Court. In April of last year, leave to appeal was filed at the Supreme court by Ichrak Nour El Hak, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. As their factum notes, the act bars individuals from participating in public institutions based on their religion. On January 23, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.

Muslim Awareness Week runs from January 24 to 31. One of its events is a talk, ‘The Era of Law 21: Impacts on Muslim Women and the Making of a New Normal’. It will be held on 3644 Peel,  on January 31, at 16h30. Attendance is free.

As the federal elections approach, pro-immigrant and anti-Islamophobic advocacy is imperative. Some advocacy can be personal and small-scale, like intervening when you witness microaggressions or keeping religious holidays in mind when organizing events. Ideally, this support would be coupled with political engagement, to affect change at a legislative level. If you’re interested in joining efforts to counter Bill 21, email me at ua@ssmu.ca.

For religious students and staff who are struggling, McGill offers some resources. The Muslim Student Affairs Liaison can be reached at farah.chouayakh@mcgill.ca, the Jewish Student Affairs Liaison can be reached at  rachel.hatcher@mcgill.ca, and McGill’s Office of Religious and Spiritual Life can be reached at morsl@mcgill.ca, but you can also drop-in to their space during business hours.

On November 7 I attended McGill’s annual joint meeting of the Board of Governors and Senate. The theme was “Exploring Transformations to Adapt to New Opportunities and Challenges Facing McGill”. Maryse Bertrand, chair of the Board of Governors, and President Deep Saini spent about 10 minutes bantering about whether transformation was “needed” or “imperative”. I’m only a lowly undergraduate student, and so maybe nuance is going over my head, but I fail to see how these synonyms are meaningfully different.

I found the premise confusing. I don’t understand how we can be pro- or anti- change without knowing what these changes are. Sure, McGill will transform, but these transformations are not value neutral. What are our goals? The rhetoric of progress for progress’s sake is corporate-coded and reminds me of a book recently featured on the podcast ‘If Books Could Kill’ called Who Moved My Cheese? The book’s message is to be grateful for opportunities created by change, as a general concept. In practice, it’s used to repress complaints about unfair working conditions or illegal layoffs.

The last point in Deep Saini’s introductory remarks was a call for everyone at the university to start taking responsibility. He wanted us to move past the myth that it’s senior administration who bears the duty for McGill’s success. President Saini has seemed extremely unenthused when members of the McGill community have risen to that call. He was certainly not a fan of the encampment, or the many protests on campus, or conversation at Senate about campus security, or faculty’s unionization efforts. If Deep Saini is expressing a desire for a more communal approach to university governance, I wholeheartedly agree, but I wonder instead if his words are a plea for us to stop complaining.

The entire series of presentation seemed designed to soft-launch “cost-saving” measures at the expense of smaller programs or initiatives not directly related to academics. Chris Buddle started his presentation by saying that he argues everyday with people about how everything has costs. He spent the next several slides “just asking questions” about whether it could be worth it to remove programs with less than 20 students enrolled. A short while later, Vice President Labeau commented that small classrooms are empty about 50 per cent of the time. Buddle stressed that non active programs or courses could be ‘reactivated’ if there was interest, but I do wonder how interest about a non-existent program can be ascertained, if it cannot be enrolled in or applied for. I did enjoy his reference of “those of us in the James building”. I wonder if, in the spirit of blaming senior administrators less, we should relocate their offices to various buildings on campus.

During the question period, faculty expressed concern about burnout among their marginalized members and the cutting of smaller, less profitable programs. One Senator asked about the risks of a “mean and lean” approach, and as an example, “slashing poetry and beefing up corporate law”. We’re not slashing, was the response. Rather, it’s “careful reflection”. I’ve seen many questions dodged by reprimanding the question asker for hyperbolic wording. But the answer is clear: yes, program cutting is how we will save money, and yes, you should be worried.

In his concluding remarks, Deep Saini equated academic excellence and reputation. I think that’s actually a big assumption. I fear for student services, or small, experimental classes that do not earn us rankings in McLean’s or that earn Deep Saini bragging points with his Harvard buddies.

I don’t like to be paranoid, but, especially as Deep Saini concluded his speech with a request that “today [..] we start trusting each other”, I am worried that we are being manipulated into uninformed consent for the neoliberal-izing of McGill. I think we must reject the call to unconditionally embrace transformation, but that we do energetically take up the call for community responsibility to determine the destination.