opinion editorial
THE Mcgill
Editor-in-Chief Carolina Millán Ronchetti editor@mcgilltribune.com
York accommodation quandary highlights institutional failure
Religious freedom is one of a host of rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of association, that are protected as “Fundamental Freedoms” under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Like those rights, the neat ideal of religious freedom is frequently confronted with the messy reality of its implementation. The recent controversy at York University is a perfect case in point of this tension. The basic outline is well known; a professor of an online course received a request from a student asking to be exempted from a group project, claiming that his religious beliefs did not allow him to work together with women. After initially rejecting the request, the professor was compelled by his superiors in the university to reverse course and accommodate the request, triggering a national uproar. Owing to its place as a university with a notably diverse student body, it is worth looking at the policies McGill has in place for these sorts of situations. What made the case at York University so disconcerting to observers—including the original pro-
fessor, who characterized his reluctance to accommodate the request as not wanting to be an “accessory to sexism”—was the fact that carrying out the request required acceding to the wishes of an individual student to not interact with an entire demographic of other students. While the media controversy may have been inevitable, York University’s conduct on the matter was made worse by the clear institutional failure. For one, from the start of this situation back in September, there was a lack of a unified front on the matter as conveyed to the student. After the student made the request to not complete a group assignment for an online course, the professor, according to a report in York University’s Excalibur, wanted to decline the request and looked to superiors in the university for a more formal response. Instead, the order to grant the request was made not because of any apparent doctrinal validity to the request, but because another student in the class had received accommodation on the grounds of living too far away to commute for campus. What makes the decision to
off the board
compel the professor to comply with the request even worse is that it was simply predicated on the granting of an accommodation to another student for wholly different and arguably unrelated reasons, thus showing considerable intellectual laziness in considering the optics of the decision.
“While the media controversy may have been inevitable, York University’s conduct on the matter was made worse by the clear institutional failure.” Were such a situation to arise at McGill, it is imperative that all of the institutional actors be not only informed of the situation but engage in consultation as to a unified stance before responding to any such requests. Additionally, these issues should be handled in a more timely manner than displayed by York University; outside of the most frivolous requests, taking over a month to render a decision that has yet to
be settled shows a lack of respect for the time and beliefs of the student in question. McGill’s own policies on religious accommodation vary. For final exams in the centrally scheduled exam period, students have two weeks before any listed date on the calendar of holy days to raise conflicts. Situations such as the one at York, however, are far more complex. McGill will soon give a presentation at the Quebec government’s hearings on Bill 60, also referred to as the Quebec Charter of Values, outlining the university’s opposition to the bill and its commitment to freedom of religious expression. Whatever the future of the charter, in implementing policies and practices on religious accommodation, the university would do well to remember the lessons of this debacle; at the intersection of issues of gender equality, religious accommodation, and access to education, care should be taken to ensure that not one of those three values is disregarded in the process of formulating solutions.
Jessica Fu
News Editor
There is a buzzing excitement that accompanies otherwise regular movie outings during this time of year. The experience becomes fraught with glowing expectations, brought on by compulsive IMDbmonitoring, the constant bombardment of film posters, and the onset of awards season. Just last week saw the announcement of the 2014 Oscar nominees, the same week during which the Golden Globes and the Critics’ Choice awards took place. The excitement is accompanied by an uneasy trepidation for all of us who grow too easily attached to certain films or actors and take a certain loss or lack of nomination
Production Manager Steven Lampert slampert@mcgilltribune.com News Editors Jessica Fu and Samuel Pinto news@mcgilltribune.com Opinion Editor Abraham Moussako opinion@mcgilltribune.com Science & Technology Editor Caity Hui scitech@mcgilltribune.com Student Living Editor Marlee Vinegar studentliving@mcgilltribune.com Features Editor Jenny Shen features@mcgilltribune.com Arts & Entertainment Editor Max Berger arts@mcgilltribune.com Sports Editors Mayaz Alam and Remi Lu sports@mcgilltribune.com Photo Editors Alexandra Allaire and Wendy Chen photo@mcgilltribune.com Creative Director Alessandra Hechanova ahechanova@mcgilltribune.com Design Editors Hayley Lim and Maryse Thomas design@mcgilltribune.com Copy Editor Adrien Hu copy@mcgilltribune.com Advertising Executives Spoon Jung and Daniel Kang ads@mcgilltribune.com Publisher Chad Ronalds
TPS Board of Directors
Shadi Afana, Anand Bery, Jonathan Fielding, Abhishek Gupta, Adrien Hu, Steven Lampert, Chris Liu, Carolina Millán Ronchetti, and Simon Poitrimolt
The most wonderful time of the cinematic year as a sign of great injustice. Such is the inevitable disappointment of the awards season. Between the saddening absence of Woody Allen and the frustrating grand total of one non-white Best Actress winner, I try very hard throughout the year to pass the award shows off as trivial; subjective; wastes of time. As Allen is quoted as saying in the film “Woody Allen: A Documentary,” “I think what you get in awards is favoritism. I mean, people can say ‘my favourite movie was Annie Hall,’ but the implication is that it’s the best movie. And I don’t think that’s possible—I don’t think you can make that judgment.” Allen’s movies, including Annie Hall, have won wide acclaim from viewers and shows, yet he appears adamant about refusing acceptance of any kind of award.
Managing Editors Ben Carter-Whitney bcarterwhitney@mcgilltribune.com Erica Friesen efriesen@mcgilltribune.com Jacqueline Galbraith jgalbraith@mcgilltribune.com
Despite the shortcomings of the various awards, with each new year, I find myself excited to watch the shows all over again, eager to try and predict the recipients of various accolades. My excitement begins in the early months of fall, when the first batches of good movies begin to roll into theaters. This excitement builds until the holiday season, which commonly sees the greatest number of “the good movies,”— films made with critical acclaim and awards in mind—in comparison to the largely critically underwhelming releases of the spring and summer. I find the awards to serve many purposes: a second vacation from the burden of already knee-high readings assigned, a distraction from the bitter weather; an antidote to my homesickness for the West
Coast. But to be more honest, I love following the awards shows because they are the perfect entertaining conclusion to an entertaining year—a grand finale to months and sometimes years of dedication that go into making two hours of whatever heartbreaking, surreal, exciting, or sobering narrative ends up on our screens. The shows are potent in their glamour and exclusivity, both of which draw so many of us to observe and admire, as if we can imagine ourselves seated across from teasing hosts, handsome announcers, and celebrated entertainers. It’s a bright, grand end to the year. And although the Best Picture award may not accurately describe its recipient, its announcement is a satisfying conclusion to a long year of movie-going—and a fitting prelude of things to come.
Staff Writers
Prativa Baral, Max Bledstein, Wyatt Fine-Gagné, Osama Haque, Eman Jeddy, Alycia Noë, Kia Pouliot, Aaron Rose, Julie Vanderperre, Elie Waitzer, and Cece Zhang
Contributors
Drew Allen, Chloé Baruffa, Laurie-Anne Benoit, Leah Brainerd, Dan Gilbert, Abhishek Gupta, Laura Hanrahan, Zoe Hoskin, Danny Jomaa, Paniz Khosroshahy, Max Mehran, Arid Montana, Jack Neal, Cassandra Rogers, Zikomo Smith, and Christine Tam
Tribune Office Shatner University Centre Suite 110, 3480 McTavish Montreal, QC H3A 0E7 T: 514.398.6789 The McGill Tribune is an editorially autonomous newspaper published by the Société de Publication de la Tribune, a student society of McGill University. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of The McGill Tribune and the Société de Publication de la Tribune, and does not necessarily represent the views of McGill University. Letters to the editor may be sent to editor@mcgilltribune.com and must include the contributor’s name, program and year and contact information. Letters should be kept under 300 words and submitted only to the Tribune. Submissions judged by the Tribune Publication Society to be libellous, sexist, racist, homophobic or solely promotional in nature will not be published. The Tribune reserves the right to edit all contributions. Editorials are decided upon and written by the editorial board. All other opinions are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the McGill Tribune, its editors or its staff.
Write for Opinion .
Meetings Mondays at 6 p.m. in the Tribune office (Shatner 110) opinion@mcgilltribune.com
Please recycle this newspaper.