Segacs's World I Know

Archive for the ‘Concordia’ Category

It’s been nearly five years since I graduated, and since then, it appears that CSU politics at Concordia haven’t improved by much:

For the second year running, copies of Concordia University’s student newspaper, The Link, vanished overnight at the height of the campaign for a new student government. And while editor-in-chief Misha Warbanski doesn’t know who to blame, she’s sure of one thing — this is no coincidence.

Back when I was a student there, the Link was blatantly biased, being controlled by pro-Palestinian students who would get involved in the paper with an eye towards influencing campus politics through the media. I don’t know the current landscape, but if today’s campus politics are anything like what they were then, the things reported by the campus and mainstream media are only the tips of the iceberg. Corruption, dirty tricks, propaganda, “joke slates” designed to slander the opposition, and the ever-present ripping down posters are just some of the things that students seem to confuse with democracy.

I must say I’m glad to be out of there.

Two Montreal universities, Concordia and Université de Montréal, have announced that they will take in students who were supposed to be studying in Lebanon this fall:

With the largest population of Lebanese-Canadians on their doorstep, Concordia University in Montreal and the University of Montreal have reopened closed application processes to students stranded by the war in the Middle East.

The two Quebec universities say they are fast-tracking applications from students who had planned to attend institutions in Lebanon this fall.

“It’s important that the current generation still have access to education,” said Guy Berthiaume, vice-rector of development and alumni relations at the University of Montreal.

[ . . . ]

Since Friday, Berthiaume said they’ve received more than 100 calls, mostly from local Lebanese-Canadians and many who were recently evacuated from the war-torn region.

The university is waiving tuition for the exchange students and is also raising funds for them.

“They will need money to live, pay rent and buy food,” said Berthiaume.

Meanwhile, an Israeli-Canadian friend of mine is having trouble getting her student loan and bursary application sorted out, because her parents live in Haifa and they can’t send in a bunch of the related paperwork because they’re, you know, living in bomb shelters.

Don’t expect any special treatment or fast-tracking there, though.

Lowy out. Lajeunesse in.

And for the student unions, it looks like it’s no more mister nice guy:

A grandfatherly Al Pacino lookalike with a non-confrontational style mirroring his training as a psychiatrist, Lowy was admired for his warmth, grace and intelligence.

Yet critics sometimes pined for a leader with a harder edge willing to stare down fractious students and quell faculty rivalries.

When the time came to replace him, Lajeunesse, bilingual engineer and president of Ryerson University in Toronto, who spent seven years heading the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, was alone on the short list.

Search committee chairperson Alain Benedetti cited Lajeunesse’s research credentials, “excellent management skills and track record in managing change.”

In other words, enough with the excitement already.

In other words, the student unions are going to have a hard time walking all over this guy, or so it seems.

He hasn’t wasted any time stirring the pot, either. His office isn’t even finished, and already he’s beating the war drums:

Concordia students may be taken aback by Lajeunesse’s blunt endorsement of higher tuition.

“If you go to university, your income is going to be vastly superior to that of someone who didn’t. I think it’s only fair you should pay for that privilege.

“I’m not saying I think students should graduate with $100,000 in debts. But I think it’s a bit unfair that those who don’t go to university should be paying for those who do.

“Socially, it’s not the best way. I’m not one to support zero debt, necessarily.”

He notes Quebec tuition is a third what Ontario students pay.

“Tuition rates are not a deterrent to going to university. Maybe at $20,000 they would be, but not at $5,000.

“Obviously, when it’s cheaper to send your kids to university than daycare, something is out of whack.”

Finally, some sensible talk on the tuition issue. But those are also fighting words. And my experience with the Concordia Student Union tells me that they’re not going to take this sort of challenge lying down.

Because this guy doesn’t.

Steve Brandon has a merciless deconstruction of an article in this week’s Link that glorifies homelessness:

Ah, this is why we’re not seeing the word “homeless”, because Olivier used the magic “l” word, “lifestyle”, which, if you’re a liberal, is a magic talisman against all criticism of the way one lives, unless combined with one of the evil “c” words, “capitalist”, “consumerist”, “Christian”, or “conservative”, in which case your lifestyle is an open target for derision. Olivier calls the way he lives a “lifestyle”, so we’re not allowed mentioning any of the negative aspects or possible consequences lest we be painted as close-minded and judgemental.

[ . . . ]

Yup, a whole article about a homeless guy talking about his “lifestyle” in only the most positive terms, not mentioning any drawbacks to living on the street or daring to suggest that this guy might not be playing with a full deck. That would be downright insensitive and judgemental and mendicantophobic. Hooray for “diversity and culture”, the subject of this week’s Link!

Embracing diversity and culture does not mean we have to condone lazy, parasitic, or just plain unbalanced behaviour… a fact long lost on student rags like the Link. Someone who belives it’s more noble to mooch off friends than to actually do an honest day’s work is not exactly a wonderful role model for a bunch of university students.

After Concordia allowed the Netanyahu riot to set a precedent by initially not allowing Ehud Barak to speak, it seems free speech is now only a privilege of the side of rioters. A planned speech by US Ambassador Paul Cellucci at UQÀM was cancelled for “security concerns”:

Following on Concordia University’s decision last month to call off a speech by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the Universite du Quebec a Montreal yesterday cancelled an address by the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci.

Cellucci was to have spoken at 2 p.m. yesterday at a conference organized by the Raoul Dandurand chair in strategic and diplomatic studies.

[ . . . ]

Nobody was able to say what the nature of the security risk was, but this week a group calling itself Bloquez l’empire (Block the Empire) sent out a statement by e-mail urging Montrealers to rally to “stop Cellucci from speaking.”

The University claimed that RCMP and US Security Officials recommended cancellation. But spokespeople from both deny that claim, and say the decision was made by the University.

The violence-rules contingent is crowing over their success:

Cellucci represents a regime whose ambitions to political and economic domination are expressed ruthlessly, but have the merit, at least, of being openly acknowledged. His legitimacy, especially after the concerns raised about election fraud in the US, should not be recognised. The only place Cellucci should be allowed to speak is before a tribunal, trying him for complicity with crimes against humanity.

The cancellation is a minor victory, and a little indication of what can be done – especially around the coming visit of Bush to Ottawa (30 November-1 December).

If this keeps up, it will kill free speech everywhere. Mob rule is being permitted far too much success. Eventually, only one viewpoint will be represented: that of the groups willing to resort to violence to suppress all speech besides theirs.

Concordia has set a very dangerous precedent. What people need to realize is that yesterday, it was an Israeli former PM who wasn’t allowed to speak. Today, it was a US ambassador. Tomorrow, it may be your speech that’s suppressed.

This is an issue that affects us all.

After reversing its decision to allow Ehud Barak to speak on campus, Concordia is now trying to claim that they didn’t really change their minds:

Nov. 5, 2004 — Media coverage of a statement issued by Federation CJA yesterday may have caused misunderstanding about Concordia’s position regarding inviting Ehud Barak to speak at Concordia. Concordia’s position has not changed and the university’s primary concern remains the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and our guests.

As Dr. Lowy outlined in his update to the community of Oct. 25 and subsequent opinion page pieces in the Toronto Star, The Gazette and Le Devoir:

“Concordia is presently reviewing its physical plant and general environment. Changes recommended by experts will be considered so that all speakers can then be welcomed on campus. And this will be done in a timely fashion with an eye towards implementing the necessary changes this academic year. Until then, we will continue to hold off campus under Concordia auspices any event considered not secure in our present facilities. Freedom of expression will continue to be supported as it always has been at Concordia.”

This has been Concordia’s position and remains Concordia’s position.

The university is examining possible locations from a security viewpoint with the intent of making the necessary modifications so an event of this kind can be held with the proper level of security, dignity and respect that such a visit demands.

In the light of the work that remains to be done, this will certainly not be possible in this calendar year. The university will try to make this possible before the end of the academic year.

This is spin 101: try to please everybody and offend nobody by saying contradictory things in the same statement.

The fact is, Concordia initially said no to the Barak speech, citing security concerns. Now they’re saying they hope they can host him in the current academic year on campus. Whether they admit it or not, that’s a reversal. And the right thing to do. But I wish they weren’t so cowardly about admitting it.

Concordia University has had a change of heart. Reversing its initial decision to disallow the speech due to “security concerns”, now Barak will be allowed to speak on campus:

Backtracking on a decision that fuelled a furor over free speech, Concordia University in Montreal has agreed to invite former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to speak on its campus.

The university reached the decision after “extensive discussions” with Jewish community leaders, according to a press release yesterday. Concordia says it will welcome Mr. Barak once it can upgrade security in one of its buildings.

Federation CJA has applauded this decision, and I hope that the support that the university receives from the public will convince them that they are doing the right thing by allowing the former PM to speak.

Many students will be upset by this decision, and I can understand why. They don’t want more tensions, more headlines, or the risk of another riot. They just want the situation to calm down and go away.

But ultimately I believe that this is the right decision. I hope that the average student can understand the importance of defending free speech – not just for rioters, but for everyone.

If the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh had any kind of lesson, it’s that certain kinds of speech are very dangerous, because certain groups have ensured that this is so. Upon hearing that news, Damian had this reflection:

It’s worth remembering a scene in Martin Himel’s Global TV documentary, Jenin: Massacring Truth, in which a cartoonist for The Independent is asked about his cartoon showing Ariel Sharon eating a baby, and why he wouldn’t draw Arafat in such a manner. He responds, glibly, that “Jews don’t issue fatwas.”

Martin Himel, you will recall, was also behind the controversial documentary Confrontation at Concordia, about the 2002 Netanyahu riots.

The point here is that certain people are willing to resort to violence in order to shut down speech they disagree with. They cannot be allowed to succeed. Otherwise, they will grow bolder and bolder, until eventually the only speech permitted will be their point of view.

Concordia made the wrong decision at first. I believe that strongly. And their change of heart is a case of better late than never.

To all of you out there who may have written leaders or participated in the awareness campaign about this event, I believe you had an effect. Thank you.

To the students and alumni who will be upset or angered by this decision – including some members of a divided Hillel – please try to understand the larger implications of this decision, and realize that defence of free speech – while not always smooth – ultimately benefits us all.

And to anyone considering rioting: you may have thought you were victorious. This new decision proves you were wrong. If you disagree with Barak’s message, feel free to mount a peaceful protest. That’s what freedom of speech is all about. But I hope you think long and hard before resorting to violence again. That has absolutely no place in a free society.

The Concordia administration has answered back with their side of the whole Ehud Barak mess:

Let’s be fair and truthful. We have not compromised freedom of speech by our decision regarding Mr. Barak. We simply do not have the facilities that allow us to hold this particular event in a safe environment without disrupting the normal academic activities on-campus or those of our neighbors whom we consider an important part of our community. Nevertheless, freedom of speech remains alive at Concordia University as does our responsibility for the security of the community.

To support that claim, they point to a number of “controversial Jewish and Arab speakers” who have been hosted on campus.

Sadly, they have once again missed the point. It’s not enough to claim that a few controversial speakers equals freedom of speech. True freedom doesn’t exist selectively. Hosting speakers who the rioters find “acceptable” and calling that freedom is, de facto, allowing the rioters to dictate what speech is allowed and what speech is not allowed.

Concordia made a bad choice, and now they’re trying to defend it with faulty logic.

Well, we didn’t have to wait long to find evidence that the Concordia debacles have affected free speech elsewhere. A planned speech by Premier Jean Charest at Université de Montréal was cancelled due to protests:

Protesters rushed into a university building where Quebec Premier Jean Charest was scheduled to speak on Wednesday afternoon, forcing organizers to cancel the speech.

The premier had just entered the hall where he was scheduled to address a cultural conference when about 150 students crowded into the area and chanted slogans. The students were angry at recent government cuts to bursaries.

The sad thing is, these students didn’t even have to let their protest turn violent. They just had to mass and threaten violence… and the university decided they couldn’t risk it.

Here is solid evidence that violence – or even the mere threat thereof – works like a charm in shutting down any viewpoints they oppose. This isn’t just about Israel, it’s about any kind of free speech… and the evidence took less than two days to appear.