Whenever democratic processes and principles make a splash, it’s worth discussing how and why. Democracy means that instead of acting out of self-interest, people come together and work in unison. On Sunday, September 7, with the United Steelworkers (USW) Local 1998 prepared to strike on Monday morning, the University of Toronto sent a contract proposal in the eleventh hour. The delay was the result of the union’s demands for improved working conditions and fair salaries; the deal resulted from the union’s willingness to use their collective power, if necessary, to have those demands met. Their victory—which came without the need to resort to a strike—is a victory for democracy on campus, and a lesson to all citizens.The details of the new USW contract were laid out to union members last Wednesday, and endorsed by union leadership as a good deal. The deal included an improved policy against harassment, added benefits, and regular wage increases to match inflation rates. Avoiding the strike meant a happy ending for all concerned. Yet this did not come easily.During contract talks with the University, ongoing since June, the Steelworkers’ mantra was “the University works because we do.” More than a catchy slogan, this phrase was a reminder that an institution is nothing without the people that make it function. The 3,500 USW members affected by recent bargaining are comprised of a variety of administrative and technical personnel, all of whom are relied upon. The union’s message of solidarity had clearly been effective: when contract talks reached an impasse earlier this month, 2,100 union members showed up to vote 87 per cent in favour of a strike. Had these individuals not shown up for work last Monday, the University would have been a vastly different place. There wouldn’t have been technicians available to keep ROSI and UTORmail working in the face of an onslaught of traffic. Administrative personnel wouldn’t have managed OSAP distribution, bursary distribution or the general concerns of new students on campus. In the words of Local 1998 president Allison Dubarry, the campus on the first day of school would have been “absolute chaos.”The Steelworkers were not alone, as other campus unions were ready to lend their resources and support. “We’ve been working with Steel and other locals on coordinated bargaining since February, and it’s obviously paying off. The University knows when they face one of us, they face all of us,” says Robert Ramsey, Chair of CUPE 3902.By raising their voices in solidarity with other campus unions, the members of USW gave force to their demands. Acting together, these workers illustrated the serious consequences that would result if the University failed to address them fairly.Whether a national government or a local university, it’s important to realize that we, as a collective, create the institutions that we live under. Acting individually and competitively, as we are often compelled to do, we see institutions as larger than ourselves. Acting together, we become the institution. It is our duty to participate, to assure that our university remains, above all, ours.The university’s eleventh-hour contract offer shows that they had the money and the resources to provide USW with a fair deal all along. However, the university was not willing to provide this offer unless they could be sure that the workers were resolved to accept nothing less. This instance exemplifies the crucial balance between power and citizenry. Power is, by definition, active and organized; citizens must work together if they are to have their interests accounted for by those in power. Merely hoping for the best has never been good enough, and it never will be.Maciek Lipinski-Harten is the CUPE 3902 Life Sciences Steward on the St. George Campus.
Democracy starts at home
Springtime for Elizabeth May
The Green Party headquarters received good news this past Wednesday. The broadcasters’ consortium, comprised of Canada’s top news media outlets, had made their final verdict: the party’s leader, Elizabeth May, will participate in the national debates. Her rivals, fuming over the possibility of her presence in the political spotlight, were eventually silenced as all contention was put to rest. The bold decision to welcome May to the public forum was a response to the fierce outcry that ensued when she was initially excluded. Her legion of supporters—as well as outraged citizens at the sidelines and a growing support group on Facebook—united in protest. The native Nova Scotian has built a career around environmental and social activism; when she heads to the debate podium, all eyes will undoubtedly be fixed upon her.While support for the Greens has grown incrementally over the years, the party has yet to gain sufficient representation in Parliament. May’s 2006 leadership takeover has boosted the Green Party’s appeal and bolstered its flagging votership. By putting forth policies that integrate environmental sustainability and energy reform into economic considerations, May has prioritized domestic issues like the climate crisis and poverty. Some don’t agree with her hard-line stance on the environment, and perhaps they have a right to be concerned—Canada has never seen a mainstream politician put so much emphasis on “greening” our economy. In a time of economic uncertainty, with a government that has consistently placed global warming concerns on the backburner, it would be foolish to dismiss this candidate. May brings progressive ideas to the table. While one can choose to accept or reject her platform, she should be granted the opportunity to present her positions on the national stage and express her views.It’s been awhile since Canada had a prominent female politician run for head of government. Memories of Kim Campbell’s short term as Prime Minister are still fresh, but many are looking towards a new female leader. The percentage of female political representatives in Parliament hovers around the low 20s, and minority candidates are even scarcer. While parties have made strides towards including women in the political arena, individual nominees struggle with prejudices within their ridings. For too long, national affairs and policy handling has been male-dominated. The inclusion of Elizabeth May in our dialogue, along with the Green Party platform, marks a turning point in our history and the ongoing struggle for gender equality.
A fat Albertan, a screechy liberal, and a socialist with a mustache walk out of the House of Commons. Although this sounds like the set-up for a bad joke, it’s the start of the next Canadian election.In a sudden move, Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked Governor General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve parliament on September 7. This set the political gears in motion for an October 14 election, Canada’s third in four years. If you’re confused, don’t panic—The Varsity explains the rules of the game below.
In typical, polite Canadian fashion, our modern system of government was set in place by the British North America Act of 1867. Crafted in cooperation with the UK government, it is no surprise that our system borrows heavily from their political model. Known as a Westminster system of governance, Canadian government consists of an upper house (the non-elected members of the Senate) and a lower house (the familiar, democratically-elected House of Commons, where MPs can occasionally be seen calling each other names on the nightly news).
The House of Commons is made up of 308 Members of Parliament, each representing an area of Canada. These regions, known as ridings, are divided proportionally among the provinces and territories according to population. For this reason, Ontario has the most seats in parliament with 106, and the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut have one seat each. When a citizen votes, he or she should be voting in the riding that they officially reside in.
From the battle of Ypres to the more recent World Hockey Championships, Canada has proven itself to be a nation of team players. Appropriately enough, our country employs a plurality voting system (after all, there is no “I” in “democracy”!) Rather than vote directly for a leader, as in the American system, citizens cast their ballots for party members in their riding. The candidate who receives the most votes in a riding—regardless of whether or not they receive the majority—wins that riding. This system of voting is known as a first-past-the-post system (because the number of votes needed to win can vary widely, some deem it “further-past-the-post”), and is used in some form in 43 of the 191 countries in the United Nations. Many criticize the system as being unfair, as a candidate could theoretically win a riding with a very small portion of the popular vote.The elected official becomes the Member of Parliament (MP) for that riding, directly representing his or her constituents in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party that gets the most seats in the general election. In order to vote, one must be at least 18 years of age and a Canadian citizen.There are several differences between the American system and ours. Namely, we vote for a party rather than directly for our Prime Minister (he is the leader of the party that wins), there are no Vice Presidents, and our version of the electoral college (ridings) is much, much less confusing.
In these types of parliaments, a closely contested election raises the possibility of a minority government. This occurs when no party has a majority of the seats—fewer than 155—in the House of Commons. Two things can happen: the party with the most seats can pass legislation by striking deals with opposing parties, or it can form a coalition government by official agreement with another party (provided they have a combined majority of seats in the house). Harper, who currently leads a Conservative minority government, cited his party’s inability to push through legislation as the reason for calling this election. Minority governments tend to be less stable than majorities, lasting only one year and four months on average.
The Current Situation
In a matter of a few days, polls went from predicting another Conservative minority government to suggesting a majority win may be likely. Perhaps goaded by the onslaught of aggressive Conservative attack ads flooding the airwaves—and the seemingly unready Liberal party still in debt from the last election—Canadians do not seem to see Dion’s party as a viable alternative. With the left-of-centre vote split between the Liberals, NDP, and surging Green Party, it seems likely that the prediction of a Conservative majority will come true in the short 30-day campaign that is set to unfold.
No puffin, please
If you had asked me a week ago what I thought about bird shit, it would’ve been a quick conversation: not much. This week, I might have to put it in my top ten list of amusing diversions, thanks to the Harper Conservatives’ hilarious attack ad featuring a now infamous puffin taking a shit on Liberal leader Stéphane Dion. Who knew puffins would take on such a starring role in Canadian politics?There is, of course, an expectation that elections will turn personal at some point. After all, who among us really cares about platforms and policies? It’s much more interesting to hear about the failings of our leaders than about Green Shifts, arts cuts, and arctic sovereignty. And we all know that attracting bird shit is a pretty awful quality for a would-be Prime Minister to have. Imagine, Dion actually standing there and allowing a bird to defecate directly onto his suit! Can this man be trusted? Can he lead us during these troubled times? If Dion is soft on birds, won’t he be soft on crime and terrorism as well? The implications are very serious indeed.These questions had to be raised at some point, and God bless the Conservatives for raising them early. Otherwise, we would have been subjected to weeks of awful debates about how to deal with climate change (will carbon taxes really work?) and promoting small businesses. Capital-B BORING!Of course, the Liberals are also doing a pretty good job at avoiding these boring issues. And with the help of the NDP, we were able to spend a whole week fretting over whether Elizabeth May would be allowed to debate with the boys—riveting!Though we might be outnumbered, there are those of us who value old-fashioned boring Canadian elections. There are those who are concerned that, less than a week into the campaign, the papers have been filled with meaningless diversions. There are those who are keen to know what might happen to reduce hospital wait times, help control gun-related crime, and yes, lessen carbon emissions. In short, some want to know about the issues.Perhaps Canadian elections are turning into American elections, where the most important questions are not about the economy, but about the identity of Bristol Palin’s baby daddy.There’s hope yet that the parties will have something to say about the issues confronting Canadians. There is still time to raise the stakes, however boring that might be. It is possible that matters of substance will consume the rest of this campaign and that the puffin will be forgotten.The question is, will anyone still be listening?
Bloc Party — Intimacy – Vice Records
After falling victim to the sophomore slump with last year’s A Weekend in the City, Bloc Party boldly set themselves on a new path with the electronic backbone of their one-off single “Flux.” The details of their third LP Intimacy were even more of a surprise, as they announced the completion of the album and a digital release at the end of August. Intimacy picks up where “Flux” left off, with Bloc Party sounding less like a rock band and more like house music. A wall of electronic beats clashes with deep, chanting backing vocals on “Zephyrus” and “Ion Square,” as singer Kele Okereke painfully laments romance gone wrong, his voice drenched in effects. After a number of uninspired ballads dragged down their last album, Intimacy offers hope that Bloc Party are making the slow songs work. A twinkling xylophone highlights the haunting “Signs” despite Okereke’s brutal lyricism, and Okereke and lead guitarist Russell Lissack make their axes race on “Halo” and “Trojan Horse,” in a similar fashion to the band’s propulsive debut. Intimacy boldly announces itself as a successful departure wherein Bloc Party wisely destroy the mold and refuse to be typecast.— ROB DUFFYRating: VVVV
Elliott Brood — Mountain Meadows – Six Shooter Records
The pounding sounds of Torontonian alt-country trio Elliott Brood conjure the ghost towns of Nevada in the days of the American Old West. Sounding like a whiskey-soaked 1930’s prospector, singer Mark Sasso belts out fierce ruminations amid banjo licks and distorted guitars on their sophomore album, Mountain Meadows. They’re not without some modern touches (a gun-slinging Jeff Tweedy comes to mind), but Elliott Brood trades on historicity— the namesake of their LP, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, was a terrifying 1850’s slaughter of 100 pioneers at the hands of a Mormon militia during the Utah War. It’s the type of gruesome imagery that would do Cormac McCarthy proud, as the band broods over the final resting place of their bones on the visceral opener, “Fingers and Tongues.” Other highlights, like “Write It All Down For You” and “Without Again,” showcase the band’s storytelling ability and grand melodic theatrics. Like the belly of a beer-swilling rancher, the album sags a bit in its mid-section, but it rebounds with “Miss You Now,” which mimics the bounce of a horse’s trot across a desert terrain. Just like the old west, Elliott Brood is manifestly destined to knock your spurs off, so put down that jug of malt whiskey and allow this band of bumpkins to gun you down. —JUSTIN BEAUBIENRating: VVVV
Underoath — Lost in the Sound of Separation – Tooth & Nail Records
In the interest of full disclosure, I kind of enjoyed Underoath’s breakthrough album They’re Only Chasing Safety—if only for the earnestness shining through their catchy, Christian-themed screamo. The band’s follow up, Define the Great Line, saw the Tampa-based six piece thrown headlong in a post-hardcore direction. Perhaps this dramatic shift was wrought by a text message from God telling them they were going to hell for pandering to innocent 16-year old girls. Underoath returns this fall with Lost in the Sound of Separation, adding textbook experimental flourishes to their heavier sound. The production by Killswitch Engage guitarist Adam Dutkiewicz and Matt Goldman (As Cities Burn, The Chariot), invites itself to a reverb party and never leaves, making for meandering passages of tremolo strumming and electronic samples that feel much more pointless than nuanced. Lyrically, the album charts familiar territory as vocalist Spencer Chamberlain employs trademark spiritual references that come off as borderline sententious. Overall, this collection of songs accomplishes very little other than fulfilling Underoath’s self-aggrandizing prophecies. Here’s hoping that next time the big man upstairs decides to alter the outcome of a sporting event instead. — JP KACZURRating: VV
Saint Alvia — Between the Lines – Stomp Records
This upstart Burlington mall-punk outfit scored a Juno nomination for their self-titled debut, but have since dropped the “Cartel” from their name with the release of their sophomore album. Rising from the ashes of southern Ontario underground legends Jersey and Boys Night Out, the guys in Saint Alvia are veterans who know what it takes to win over legions of suburban teenagers. Yet it never seems like they’re having any fun. There are cheesy tactics galore, be it surf-punk vibes (“Trouble Keeps Me Busy”) or annoying falsetto vamping (“Roll With It”), that consistently reach for the most obvious hook. They add predictable ska touches on “Decadencia de Civilizacion,” which also includes a pathetic Facebook reference (“His status switched to ‘It’s Complicated’”). But the most unforgivable misstep is “Americafioso,” which rails against Canada’s Security and Prosperity Partnership with the United States, including embarrassing overdubs of a speech by anti-SPP advocate Gordon Laxer, who is name dropped in the outro. Through sheer lack of personality, Between the Lines should be considered an encyclopedic document on how to make a generic pop punk album.— RDRating: VvOkkervil River — The Stand Ins – JagjaguwarSuffice to say that Okkervil River frontman Will Sheff is no longer “listening to Otis Redding at home during Christmas.” Four successful albums later, Sheff is on to bigger things, dwelling on rock n’ roll politics on 2007’s The Stage Names instead of girl trouble. This month’s The Stand Ins serves as 2007’s follow-up, preoccupied with what a musician means to the audience. Sheff is plenty self-deprecating, and the results are rarely sunny: on “Pop Lie” the man accuses himself of being “the liar who lied in his pop song.” Eschewing acoustic guitar for glockenspiels, harpsichords, and bouncy percussion, the band seems to have moved on from the orchestral grandness of 2005’s nearly flawless Black Sheep Boy. Sadly, no track can match the poignancy or flat out-catchiness of “Black,” the band’s now semi-infamous ode to incest victims and vengeance. With his perceptive eye focused on his indie-rock star self, Sheff’s self-flagellation is almost winning. And if he wants to accuse his fans of “lying when you sing along,” can you blame us?—WYNDHAM BETTENCOURT-MCCARTHYRating: VVVV
The Chemical Brothers — Brotherhood – Virgin Records
The Chemical Brothers’ new singles collection, Brotherhood, has appeared at a time when electronic music is morphing into the kind of mainstream genre no one ever anticipated it could become. Consequently, the disc functions as a welcome reminder of big-tent style electronica. For me, it all comes down to the fifth track on this collection, “Believe,” a massive attack of sequenced whistles and “huhs,” as the band’s signature wah-wah synth churns behind a vocal track that proclaims, “I needed to believe in something/I needed to believe.” The singles spanning the Brothers’ decade-and-a-half long career echo a dancing-in-the-moonlight kind of free love. And in a scene full of guest lists and cool clothes, it’s refreshing to see such a flood of fun memories come back to electronic music. —DAN EPSTEINRating: VVVVThe Varsity
ASSU’s crooked election
The Arts and Science Student Union is in deep trouble on three separate fronts. Documents have surfaced proving their sitting president conspired to overturn an election he lost and retake control of the union, aided by a chairperson he helped appoint and another powerful ASSU exec. Meanwhile, a poisonous atmosphere in the ASSU office has administrative staff filing grievances against elected executive members who are locking staff out of meetings and restricting their role in running the union. ASSU does not have a voice in choosing the Arts & Science Dean, and none of its executive members have office hours, though the union is active in social advocacy groups outside the university. Ongoing issues have polarized the union in debate over how well it represents the will of its members—the 41,000 Arts & Science students who pay the union roughly $615,000 per year in dues.—ANDRE BOVEE-BEGUNRyan Hayes, last year’s ASSU president and the winner of this spring’s scandal-ridden elections, manipulated election results with the union’s CEO and another exec, documents obtained by The Varsity reveal. Emails and chats ranging from March to May 2008 show Ausma Malik, who served as CEO briefly to conduct a review of the disputed election, received instructions and improper input from Hayes and exec Alanna Prasad throughout her tenure.ASSU is the union representing the university’s 40,000-strong Arts & Science undergrads. They receive roughly $600,000 in annual funding from a student levy, produce the Anti-Calendar, and have representatives from the course unions of every Arts & Science faculty.Hayes lost ASSU’s March 8 election to Colum Grove-White, causing an outburst that threw the meeting into recess. After Hayes demanded a review of the meeting and alleged that that Grove-White violated pre-campaigning regulations, ASSU launched an investigation. The chair of the meeting, Noaman Ali, annulled the vote and stepped down.In a March 26 email conversation, Hayes and Prasad pursued the idea of having Malik put forth as a candidate for elections chair and CEO during the investigation. Prasad asked Hayes in a email, “Confirm Ausma as the chair: Ryan can you see if she’s up to this?” Hayes also wrote of Ausma, “I would trust her 100 percent.”Throughout her review, Malik consulted Hayes and Prasad on her decisions and allowed them to edit her written verdict on the disputed election that Hayes lost. Emails sent between the three show Malik’s final report on the election to be a collaborative effort between Hayes, Prasad, and a handful of others.“I’m also coming up with an extensive list of points [sic.] consideration in terms of Ausma’s ruling,” reads an April 8 email from Prasad to Hayes and Malik. In another chat, she wrote, “Ausma’s statement in the ruling is wrong though, that’s why ill [sic.] change it.”The three discussed how to dismiss dissenting parties. Grove-White and Adler both emailed Malik, questioning her neutrality. “I do want you to know that the choice of you as an ‘un-biased’ chair/CEO had me deeply suspicious,” wrote Grove-White. “The majority of the Executive appointed you as Chair, directly undermining Council’s decision to instate Terry as Chair at the last meeting (and breaching the Constitution.) Why do you think they are doing this? Is this equitable?”Prasad told Malik: “We have to give [Grove-White and Adler] some opportunity to contribute now (in terms of writing a statement), otherwise they’ll just use that against us.”Malik emailed Adler’s and Grove-White’s formal statements on the first election to Hayes and Prasad, warning them “please delete after reading/use.”Various student politicians copied on and forwarded many of the emails include former ASSU president Ali, then-UTSU VP Michal Hay, and Sheila Hewlett, current ASSU council member and then president of the Fine Arts Students’ Union.The Varsity has attempted repeatedly to contact Hayes over the past week. Hayes refused to comment, and Malik and Prasad could not be reached by press time. Hewlett approached The Varsity to comment, denying that any interference occurred. When confronted with emails showing it had, Hewlett stated that Malik was merely checking with Hayes and Prasad over guidelines to be followed. The emails, however, include detailed strategy discussions planning for the verdict and anticipating any challenges to it. They also marginalize input from Hayes’s rival candidate.On April 8, Hayes emailed Prasad and Malik about overturning the initial election, stating it was “difficult to challenge that the election was unfair” and asking, “How is the appointment of the new chair and CEO legitimate?”Furthermore, the three pushed the recessed meeting as far into the exam period as possible in order, wrote Prasad, to “avoid an appeals process after the elections.” As course union representatives received word of a late meeting, former CEO and current ASSU executive assistant Terry Buckland emailed Malik advising her to reconsider. Buckland stated that ASSU had previously overturned course union elections “for holding them the last day after classes and during exam period.” At the April 23 meeting, Malik dismissed the Hayes’ pre-campaigning charges, citing multiple conflicting versions of campaign rules that left the issue unclear. She then called for a second election.Malik may have read the decision, but the verdict was already fixed. Earlier that day, Prasad had emailed Malik requesting her “ruling asap” so that the ASSU pair could make the appropriate changes. With a majority of his supporters present, Hayes managed to win 23-21, raising suspicions among many ASSU members. “They knew that the vocal critics of Ryan Hayes could not make it on [April 23],” wrote White-Grove to Malik in an email dated April 10, 2008.Following the election, Grove-White supporters then took their grievances to the university administration, filing a complaint with Jim Delaney, director of the office of the vice-provost, alleging an undemocratic election process. These grievances and others led Delaney to consider freezing ASSU’s funds. Delaney has since left the investigation, which is currently in the hands of U of T’s VP and provost Cheryl Misak.The provost’s office, which handles budgetary matters, can withhold funding if ASSU refuses to follow its assigned recommendations. The leaked emails and chats could have implications on Misak’s ruling, now that they are allegedly in her hands. Hayes and Prasad enlisted the help of several ASSU execs to edit the minutes from the March 18 and April 23 meetings. In a Google chat, a former ASSU exec editing minutes, Krystyne James, said she had “no idea what was said” because she was not present during the April 23 meeting.In an interview with The Varsity last week, Misak said she could not comment on the matter, but confirmed that she had been called on to determine whether ASSU was “dealing in an undemocratic manner.” Misak said at the time she expected to settle the issue shortly.
Update – September 19: The Varsity has received complaints that the correspondence originally posted with this story contains information that is impertinent, and implicates persons other than those involved. In light of the complaints, we have removed the documents and are currently reviewing them.
Possible link between immigration and stroke
With 250,000 new immigrants entering each year, Canada is becoming increasingly multicultural. Over 50 per cent of these individuals choose to settle in Ontario, and many of them experience stress associated with the process of resettlement.National data has revealed that recent immigrants are less likely to have chronic conditions or disabilities than their Canadian-born counterparts. This phenomenon has been termed the “healthy immigrant effect.” However, resettlement typically involves behavioural and environmental adjustments, including changes in diet, employment, housing, social relationships, climate, and language. These sudden changes may predispose immigrants to chronic stress.While the healthy immigrant effect may initially protect new immigrants from stroke, chronic social stress may increase their risk. This negative stress may be further worsened by a lack of emotional support or social isolation in a new country. If left untreated, it will continue to affect the cardiovascular system by increasing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system.Very little has been done to investigate a possible association between immigration and the risk of cerebrovascular disease, particularly premature stroke. University of Toronto researchers Drs. Gustavo Saposnik, Joel Ray, Donald Redelmeier, Esme-Fuller Thompson, and Patrice Lindsay have set out to explain this phenomenon in a unique study titled “PREmature risk of Stroke Associated with Recency of Immigration to Ontario (PRESARIO).”Funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the primary objective of PRESARIO is to determine whether recency of immigration, approximated by the date of receipt of OHIP coverage, is associated with a higher risk for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke in subjects 50 years and younger. The control groups will be comprised of individuals who have resided in Ontario for more than five years.Other objectives include comparing the control group to recent immigrants to determine whether, following a stroke, the latter have different hospital visit durations and a need for placement in long-term care facilities. Since new immigrants may lack economic or social stability, they may not have the resources to return to their home environment if they suffer a stroke, necessitating long-term care placement. In addition, the PRESARIO study hopes to identify which subgroups of immigrants in Ontario are at a higher risk for stroke by considering factors such as income, age, sex, and settlement area. To achieve these objectives, the study will use data from the provincial healthcare databases.According to Dr. Saposnik, leader of Stroke Outcome Research Canada (SORCan), this research may have profound implications for health policy. If a link is found between recent immigration and stroke, this may guide policy-makers to consider early access to stroke prevention therapy for immigrants. Dr. Saposnik also suggests that the PRESARIO study might help to implement quality improvement strategies that extend beyond the screening process for new Canadians, to the period after their arrival. For instance, if an association between the recency of immigration and a higher stroke risk is found, a health check-up with a general practitioner for immigrants could be made mandatory.Unfortunately, these concepts have not been properly researched. Dr. Saposnik hopes that his study will help to fill in this crucial gap of knowledge before any recommendations are made to change health policies and practices. Ultimately, the PRESARIO study has the potential to open up a whole new avenue of research, addressing whether there is a predisposed risk to cardiovascular disease for immigrants due to psychosocial stress.
Ryerson’s non-academic code of conduct takes a page from U of T
Students at Ryerson University are starting the school year with new courses, new clothes, and a new code telling them how they should behave.On September 3, Ryerson adopted Policy 61, which seeks to hold students accountable for all behaviour outside the classroom that interferes with the interests of the university or the activities of its members and neighbours.Policy 61 survived an opposition campaign led by the Ryerson Students’ Union including posters, leaflets, and petitions, but student leaders still have concerns. RSU VP Education Rebecca Rose told The Varsity that she worries the new regulations could be used to silence student voices on campus.Rose said student leaders were particularly concerned since thirteen U of T students were threatened action under the Code of Student Conduct after their involvement in a March 20 sit-in protest at Simcoe Hall this year. RSU executives noticed that the free speech provisions in Policy 61 were taken almost word for word from U of T’s Code of Student Conduct. “We came to realize we weren’t quite as safe as we thought,” she said.University of Toronto Student Union president Sandy Hudson says that Ryerson students are right to be concerned, particularly about the free speech provisions. “We find it patronizing and extremely concerning that our universities have taken to policing the behaviour of students,” she said. “I think both Ryerson and U of T students should be prepared to challenge the very existence of their respective administrations’ codes.”Hudson cites research suggesting that the aim of non-academic codes is to stifle student dissent, and notes that student unions across the country stand in opposition to such regulations.Rose also says that the language in Policy 61 is unclear about which student activities, particularly online, might get them in hot water with the university.
Both non-academic codes—at Ryerson and U of T—extend the university’s non-academic jurisdiction to students’ behaviour on the Internet, but do so only in passing, failing to specify the extent to which students’ online behaviour could be monitored. More specific Internet regulations found in an earlier draft of Policy 61 failed to make their way into the final code. Now that the regulations are official university policy, the RSU intends to educate students about their rights under the new rules. “The policies aren’t really advertised all that well,” notes Rose, “and it’s not until after the fact that they’re really thrown into students’ faces, and that’s unfortunate.”University of Ottawa dropped its code of conduct before the start of the semester due to staunch opposition from students due to similar concerns. Several other Ontario universities are in the midst of such battles, including Fanshawe College in London.