University Affairs

Students' Society of McGill University

Author: VP UA

  • The Official Record of Senate

    The philosophy of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR) is that “the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. The minutes must never reflect the secretary’s opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done”.

    I would argue that there are only two records of meetings that won’t reflect the secretary’s opinion: minutes as described in RONR, or a transcript. It is impossible to summarize – essentially, to make a series of decisions about what can be discarded, and what the essential point of a speech is – without imposing some subjectivity onto the text.

    RONR-style minutes are safe because they avoid this injection of the personal into official records by eliminating personal choices. Motions are made and the prevailing vote is recorded. But they’re also not particularly well-suited for the structure of Senate, much of which is presentations. And much of Senate is symbolic.  Some people speak so that their point makes it into the written history of Senate, to presumably be perused by future Senators, decision-makers, or, if we’re feeling especially self-important, historians. McGill offers few interfaculty channels to bring attention to issues facing the University. It’s natural to want interventions, that do not necessarily result in official decisions, reflected in public-facing summaries of what happened.

    At the first Senate Steering meeting I attended, I took issue with how one intervention was summarised because I thought it failed to mention the crux of the Senator’s argument. I was told that minutes aren’t meant to be a word-for-word transcript.

    Since Senate minutes are an awkward in-between of RONR minutes and transcripts, they aren’t governed by any rules. The secretary could vary their level of detail at will throughout the meeting, and there is no recourse. I trust the current secretary to try approach notetaking with impartiality, but it is a position presumably hired by ‘administration’.

    One solution to this tension is for archived recordings of Senate be its new official record. Live-video recording of Senate began in March 2014. An Ad Hoc Committee on the Recording and Transmission of Senate Meetings was created in 2012, following a question from a Senator. The Committee found that recording was important, especially given the limited number of seats available in the room. The Committee mentioned that viewers should be able to see the livestream only during the meeting, but also made reference to an archiving process. This committee also recommended that the minutes stay the “official record of Senate”.

    A survey that received 220 responses was also conducted by the Committee. The report says “an overwhelming majority of the respondents favoured the continuation of livestreaming of Senate meetings, and also indicated that archiving of the live transmissions would enable more viewers.” So it was against the “overwhelming majority” of 220 respondents that recordings weren’t archived.

    Revised terms of reference for Senate were passed in 2020. Someone asked why recordings weren’t archived, and the 2014 report was invoked. But the 2014 report does not concretely end the debate. Now, ten years have passed. Our technological capacity has increased, and conflict between senators and the Secretariat team seem inevitable. Perhaps it’s worth re-opening that can of worms.

  • A Disquieting Trend for Student Input at McGill

    The SSMU VP University Affairs  supplies McGill committees with student members. I take this as a serious responsibility. Students have a stake in where our tuition goes, our education, and the services offered to us. Often we can offer personal experience and we can advocate for improvements without having alternative interests. Student participation is even vested in the McGill Charter of Student Rights and Responsibilities. It says “all University bodies constituted to make decisions of policy in matters pertaining directly to students must provide for student membership”.

    From the Senate website, committee allocation doesn’t seem like too much work. There are 14 committees that have student representation, with a total of 33 seats for students to fill. But many more bodies at McGill solicit students for their committees. When I began recruiting committee members at the start of my term, I referred to a list compiled in 2022. This list had 46 committees. Many of these groups have no public digital footprint. It makes it hard for non-members to bring questions and concerns to the committee. On my end, it’s hard to solicit future members to a committee they’ve never heard of before. Committees with this issue are largely advisory boards:  the Wellness Hub Advisory Board, International Student Services Advisory Board, Scholarship and Student Aid Office (SSAO) Advisory Board, and Office of Religious and Spiritual Life (MORSL) Multi-Faith Network. Because of the Charter, these offices maintain a mechanism for student membership, but they aren’t promoting it.

    Then there are the committees that were abolished. When I reached out to the secretary or chair of all 46  committees,  I learned that the Skills 21 Steering Committee, Skills 21 Program Committee, Universal Access Capital Projects Working Group, Course Evaluation Advisory Group, and Sustainable Labs Working Group are not  meeting this fall. It is impossible to contact the EDIC Subcommittee on Persons with Disabilities, the Subcommittee on Family Care, and the Subcommittee on Racialized and Ethnic Persons since their websites are either outdated or don’t exist. The University Teaching Labs Working Group has been absorbed by the Teaching and Learning Spaces Working Group, halving the number of SSMU representatives in the process. The Student Achievement and Accessibility Advisory Board is currently re-evaluating its existence.

    For a committee to dissolve isn’t inherently a bad thing, but it’s certainly a trend worth taking note of, especially when it’s not replaced with other ways to garner student input.  It’s disheartening to win a seat at a table only to have the table replaced by employees that are impossible to contact. One day I hope we can achieve a culture of pride in university committees that involve students. I hope that they publish reports for the community to read, that they consult with my office when making governance changes, and that decision-making power rests in part with students even as situations evolve.

    Those wishing to talk more about McGill committees – especially those interested in sitting on some – should email ua@ssmu.ca.

  • Former McGill professor Otto Klineberg delivers expert testimony in the Brown v. Board case.

  • The Institute of Islamic Studies is founded.

    [timeline_excerpt]The establishment of McGill’s Institute of Islamic Studies in 1952 made it the first such institution in North America. Founder Wilfred Cantwell Smith felt that co-education of Muslims and non-Muslims was essential to the study of the Muslim world.[/timeline_excerpt]

  • Some McGill athletic teams begin to use Indigenous people as their mascots.

    Some McGill athletic teams begin to use Indigenous people as their mascots.

    [timeline_excerpt]Beginning in 1951, McGill’s intermediate athletics teams in football and basketball started being referred to as the “McGill Indians.” In the 1960s, the men’s hockey team adopted the same name while the women’s team was referred to the “Squaws,” a slur referring to a hyper-sexualize caricature of Indigenous women. This use of anti-Indigenous slurs as sports teams names and mascots was largely abandoned by the mid-1970s. However, the current mascot “McGill Redman” is also seen by some as a reference to these archetypes for Indigenous people.[/timeline_excerpt]

  • McGill Law and Political Science professor John Humphrey drafts Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    [timeline_excerpt]Translated into 321 languages and dialects, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10 1948 and represents the first global expression of a set of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. While the declaration is not legally binding, its articles have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties and it is the most cited legal document drafted by a Canadian.[/timeline_excerpt]

    [timeline_content]

    Translated into 321 languages and dialects, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10 1948 and represents the first global expression of a set of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. While the declaration is not legally binding, its articles have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties and it is the most cited legal document drafted by a Canadian.

    John Humphrey was asked to work with a committee of the United Nations Secretariat to help the organization draft a statement on human rights. Humphrey created a 400-page blueprint that became the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the declaration itself. He acted as the Director of the United Nations Human Rights Division for 20 years before returning to McGill in 1966, where he served as a Professor of Law and Political Science. Humphrey’s contribution to the Declaration was unacknowledged until later on in his life – a French delegate was thought to have drafted the document. It was the discovery of the first draft in Humphrey’s handwriting that led to his belated recognition and him eventually be awarded the United Nations Prize for human rights advocacy on the 40th anniversary of the United Nations. Humphrey was also involved in international efforts to investigate human rights abuses in the Philippines and represented Korean women forced to act as sex slaves to Japanese soldiers in World War Two.[/timeline_content]