page9
page11
page14
Monday, March 2, 2009
www.mediumonline.ca
UCS under fire for “Biz Frosh” chants ALI KASIM EDITOR IN CHIEF The Undergraduate Commerce Society (UCS) is currently under investigation from UTM administration for promoting discriminating and lewd behaviour during their orientation week, titled “Biz Frosh” in September last year. Last October, two students sent separate emails to UTM Student Union vp equity Saaliha Malik raising their concerns over some of the cheers chanted during the Biz Frosh event. According to Malik, complaints over the Biz Frosh cheers have been coming in for years, but no one has taken any action until this year when the two students, both of whom remain anonymous, filed a formal complaint and a statement citing that they hoped UTMSU would take some form of action on the matter. Some of the chants that have stirred up the controversy contain several explicit references of a sexual nature, such as one entitled “What do you we do.” The words to this cheer include, “UTM Boys what do we do?/ (boys make stroking motion) Cum, Cum, Cum, Cum, Cum on you/UTM Girls what do we do?/ (girls) spit, spit, spit, spit, spit on you.” Another one titled “Young,”
Photo source/facebook.com
Biz Frosh 2008: UCS have always claimed their right to party at their events in whatever manner they wish. One won ders however, after investigations by Student Affairs conclude, if such wild parties will start to tame in the future. includes a verse that is perceived to be highly derogatory towards women and highly suggestive towards underage sex: “Y is for your sister/O is oh so tight/U is for underage/N is for no consent/G is for Go to jail/Y-o-u-n-g UT boys we like em young!” According to sources within UCS, most of the chants were written by past Biz Frosh leaders, while some are universally known and practiced during orientation weeks throughout several universities in North America. At first, Malik tried to meet with
some of the UCS council members sometime in late November to get the council to act on the complaints by adapting the policy that UTMSU adapted on sexual harassment and discrimination across campus and campus events. “I met with Jyotin [Handa], president of UCS in November, and he seemed to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, and I was under the impression that he and UCS council members were willing to adopt the policy and cooperate in the matter so as to
not have this sort of incident repeat itself in the future,” explains Malik. “However, after meeting with the incoming council on February 26, it was evident that the UCS council was unwilling to recognize their responsibility to adhere to any of the policies on sexual harassment and discrimination.” The UTMSU policy was developed and implemented by Malik at the beginning of the academic year with the intention to eliminate any form of discrimination and sexual harassment
during all campus related events. Another primary reason why the policy was put in place was because of a similar incident involving the student union itself during UTM’s Orientation (Frosh) Week. UTMSU are due to submit a report to the Principal’s Advisory Committee on March 6 detailing the incidents during Frosh Week which also brought about a complaint from one student regarding certain homophobic cheers. The UTMSU Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Discrimination outlines the definitions of sexual harassment and discrimination along with the scope, objectives and complaint procedure of such incidents. It also stipulates that examples of harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination “can include sexually oriented remarks, gestures, materials, cheers, announcements including internet, telephone, fax and E-mail messages or other behaviour which may reasonably be perceived to create a negative psychological or emotional environment at an event, work, and/or campaign.” While the policy applies to all UTMSU staff, board of directors, executive committee members, orientation leaders, ministers, work-study personnel, UTMSU cannot sanction any campus club or academic society to strictly adhere to and adopt the policy. They can only mediate and advise an organization to do so, something which Malik had attempted this past week. Continued on page 2
Reading week theft at Sheridan ANDREW HAMILTON SMITH NEWS EDITOR
Over the recent reading week break, over $3,500 worth of computer equipment was stolen from the Art and Art History department’s office on Sheridan College campus. Located in the Annie Smith Centre, home to the joint degree programme between UTM and Sheridan, six computers and a recently purchased LCD projector were lost in the theft, which apparently left no signs of forced entry. According to Professor John Armstrong, coordinator of the Art and
Art History programme, the department is looking into an insurance claim, as well as college policy on the question of how to proceed. The police didn’t dust for fingerprints because they said too many people had used the area, Armstrong added. Halton Region Police Sergeant Brian Carr confirms that certain situations might not be fingerprinted for that reason, because “even though we live in a CSI-world, things are not CSI ninety-nine per cent of the time.” He stated that he was not aware of any details related to the incident, and could not offer any information on it. When asked to comment on the availability of surveillance footage or the state of security at Sheridan College, director of marketing and communication Janine Gliener declined and offered to contact The Medium at a more convenient oppor-
tunity. As of press time, Sheridan College has not responded to these questions. The entire incident appears to be a mystery, with almost no one aware of its occurrence, and no one able to explain how it happened. “We are bewildered by the disappearance of the equipment from two secure areas,” remarked Professor Armstrong. “The loss is a great inconvenience to students and faculty using the studio facilities in the Annie Smith Centre.” Since so many students depend upon the centre for project- and school-related work, the department has arranged for it to continue, Armstrong noted. “Faculty have donated used computers as a stop-gap measure, and these computers are now properly imaged and up and running.”
Photo/Matthew Filipowich
Professor John Armstrong points towards the crime scene at Sheridan College where $3,500 worth of computers were stolen. The Art and Art History degree is a joint UTM Sheridan programme.