Archive for Erin Millar

Students defy the laws of physics—just to prove their school is better than yours

The quintessential university prank comprises two elements: first, the feat should be technically ambitious. In the words of the legendary pranksters at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), exemplary stunts require “making possible the improbable.” Since MIT students coaxed a live cow onto the roof of a dorm in 1928, engineering students across the continent have made cars, telephone booths and even full-sized sailboats appear in the most unlikely places.

Second, a good dose of competitiveness—sometimes bordering on vindictiveness—is the hallmark of a quality hoax. A famous example: at the annual Yale-Harvard football game in 2004, Yale students, disguised as the fictional “Harvard pep squad,” distributed white-and-red placards to 1,800 unsuspecting Harvard fans. The fans were told that when they lifted the placards, they would read, “Go Harvard.” They actually spelled, “We suck.”

While the foundation of the pranking tradition can be fairly claimed by American students, Canadian students have begun to challenge their pre-eminence as tricksters.

When the morning light began to filter through thick fog in San Francisco on Feb. 5, 2001, viewers at Vista Point on the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge spotted an unexpected sight: hanging from the bridge, some 10 stories above the water, was a Volkswagen Beetle. The stunt, attributed to anonymous engineering students from the University of British Columbia, caused traffic jams and stopped boats from passing beneath the bridge for hours.

The feat commemorated the 20th anniversary of the first VW Bug prank, when UBC engineers hung a car off Vancouver’s Lions Gate Bridge to celebrate the skills of engineers and tradespeople who build bridges. The tradition recently spread to UBC’s satellite campus in Kelowna, B.C. In February 2010, a giant red fibreglass “E” (for engineering) was hung from a bridge that spans Okanagan Lake.

The bridge escapades are, of course, a variation of the earliest type of prank pioneered at MIT—the elaborate installation. In 2009, a secretive club called the Brute Force Committee, made up of engineers at the University of Toronto, honoured their predecessors by rebuilding a monument—a huge sword in the stone some 12 feet tall—that once stood on campus as a symbol of the faculty of engineering. The nocturnal unveiling of the sword, led by a student wearing a black mask and cape embroidered with the committee’s crest, involved lighting the sword on fire.

For all their efforts devoted to making the improbable magically appear, university pranksters are also preoccupied with making objects mysteriously disappear. In 1978, after much planning, a trio of enterprising engineers from UBC broke into the British Columbia legislature in Victoria, entered the assembly chamber, and stole the Speaker’s chair.

Engineering tricksters have not only vented their larcenous urges on inanimate objects. UBC engineers were at various times rumoured to have kidnapped former prime minister Kim Campbell and former Maclean’s columnist Allan Fotheringham.

In 1967, a group of female dorm-mates at Dalhousie University actually nabbed folksinger Gordon Lightfoot, releasing him only after receiving a ransom of canned food for charity.

Hostilities between faculties and universities often enter the equation when pranking. One snowy night in March 2006, members of U of T’s Brute Force Committee stealthily constructed a five-metre-long Trojan Horse in the central square of the McMaster University campus. McMaster’s engineers re-gifted the horse to the University of Guelph, and Guelph returned the favour with a huge fabric griffin, their mascot. McMaster intended to return what they referred to as a “duck” after “toasting” it, but the structure proved flammable.

In recent years, some of the most creative practical jokes haven’t been performed by engineers, but consisted instead of a large group of seemingly unconnected people suddenly congregating to perform an unexpected act: the so-called “flash mob.”

That includes one of 2010’s biggest pranks, which was organized by University of Victoria psychology student Shawn Slavin. Nearly 1,000 people showed up on campus at 7:30 a.m. on a Saturday in September to participate in a giant “lip dub” (a music video of people lip-synching) of Michael Bublé’s Haven’t Met You Yet. UVic gets points for competitiveness, too, as the video was essentially a response to another lip dub recorded by a Spanish university also called “UVic”. Rivalries and displays of engineering genius aside, Slavin’s motivation for coordinating the event speaks to what is perhaps the one commonality underlying all of these pranks: “We wanted to get a whole bunch of people to do something—just for the hell of it.”

Will David Johnston bring attention to post-secondary education from his new post at Rideau Hall?

David Johnston, president of the University of Waterloo and Governor General-designate, has education on his mind. In an interview with the Waterloo Record published this weekend, he declined to speak about his upcoming move to Ottawa and instead focused on the future of education in Canada.

The profile, written by Luisa D’Amato, describes Johnston as “a man transformed by education and its opportunities,” having eventually found his way to Queen’s University, Cambridge University and Harvard University after having grown up in a family of “modest means.” As a former principal of McGill University and after having served at Waterloo for 11 years, he’s got some ideas about how to improve education in Canada — the primary and secondary education system as well as higher education.

Johnston is in support of government goals to increase the percentage of people who pursue university and college education. But he sees weakness in master’s- and doctoral-level programs, which leads to talented students leaving the country for academic opportunity. He blames Canada’s post-graduate shortcomings for a shortage of skilled, highly-educated workers and poor research capacity.

When it comes to proposing solutions, however, Johnston is less detailed. He doesn’t believe a master strategy will do the trick, rather he points to small institutional changes, such as Waterloo’s recent invitation to a group of Indian post-graduate students to visit the university during the summer to participate in research.

So while his selection as GG suggests that Prime Minister Harper looked to academia for the right person to represent the monarchy, Johnston’s comments in the Record suggest that, as others have already noted, the man knows his place. While his insight into the education system may attract some attention to the file, Johnston likely won’t be the guy to lobby for needed changes. And rightly so. As this publication noted when Governor General Michaelle Jean pushed the government to open a university in the north: the GG should reign, not govern.

For first-year students, the transition from high school to university can be difficult

If you’re a third-year student you probably won’t start thinking about the new academic year until mid-August − or maybe not even until the evening of September 6. Many first-year students, however, are getting nervous already, wondering what university is going to be like.

After having spoken to dozens of students and professors the verdict is in: it’s going to be really different than high school. But the news isn’t all bad. While there will be some difficult transitions, many parts of university life are much better than at high school. Students say there is less social pressure (it’s no longer cool to bully people), they like having freedom from parents and teachers who take attendance and university campuses offer limitless opportunities for having a great time. But the one thing that everyone agrees on: it is up to you to make your university experience a good one, and much more so than it was in high school.

This new-found responsibility to take care of oneself starts in the classroom. Rey Buenaventura, an academic advisor at Simon Fraser University, says, “No one is checking that they’ve done their homework. Nobody is checking on their attendance that closely. Sometimes students feel like there is no one who really cares about what they do, whether they even show up. That can be a problem.” By seeking out professors and TAs during office hours, setting up study groups with classmates and participating in seminars and class discussions, students can create a more meaningful connection with a class that may have 300 or 400 people in it − but it’s up to the student. “In a class of 500 students, the professor isn’t going to come to you; you have to go to the professor,” he says. “You can create your own experience.”

Some students, particularly those who went to a relatively small high school, feel like they get lost in the crowds of people. No longer do their professors know their name and they may spend the whole day on campus without running into anyone they know. But other students found this aspect of university life a relief. “It was easier to find people that shared similar goals, values and interests,” said Michael, a student at McMaster University. Kady, a McGill University student, says, “A big difference for me was the new establishment of myself. Coming into school without any connections to specific people, teams or clubs gave me the opportunity to reconstruct my McGill life exactly how I wanted it to be.”

For the experienced university students out there: what were the biggest differences you noticed between high school and university? How did you cope with the transition?

At a cost of $20-million, the UPass is no longer about post-secondary affordability

When British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell announced the creation of a universal $30/month transit pass for all post-secondary students in the province yesterday, the Canadian Federation of Students applauded the move.

“The U-Pass is an investment in the next generation, in the economy and the environment,” Nimmi Takkar, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students–BC was quoted as saying in a press release. “This program is going to make a major difference in students’ lives and go a long way towards building a transit culture in British Columbia.”

Just as fast as the CFS media machine cranked out its press release, opponents to the move started decrying the U-Pass announcement as a draconian, paternalistic move typical of our “nanny state.” One reader who responded to On Campus’s news story argued that “students are forced to pay whether they ride the bus or not” despite Translink’s “crappy” service, and who the hell are you anyways to tell me I shouldn’t drive my car?!

Such critics are right about one thing: the policy is not so much allowing students to “access” affordable transportation as it is compelling them to buy in. Nevertheless, none of the schools will sign on until the U-Pass is approved through a student referendum. Although I’m sure it’s annoying for car-loving, suburb-dwelling students out there to be outnumbered by their more green-conscience colleagues, that’s how our democratic society works–so live with it.

The U-Pass isn’t a new idea, but this announcement marks an interesting deviation from the original intent of the program that is worth noting. Originally, the program was intended to be revenue-neutral; basically, Translink would add up its cost of providing transit to a campus then split that cost among the students of that school, regardless of whether they took the bus or not. Translink didn’t make any money off the deal, but they didn’t lose any either. In essence, non-transit-using students subsidized the cost of a transit pass for everyone else. This is why negotiations for U-Passes at other colleges and universities in the Lower Mainland broke down; while the economics of the program made sense at big schools like UBC and SFU, the cost per student was significantly higher elsewhere, and student unions there wouldn’t accept the higher cost.

And so yesterday’s announcement represents a major shift in the philosophy of the project. The $30/month U-Pass is set to cost the provincial government some $20 million. No longer is this a revenue-neutral feel-good program, but a significantly expensive one. And, if this is truly about lowering expenses for students, it’s worth considering whether that $20 million would be better spent on, say, provincial needs-based grants.

But that argument is moot. Because the reality is that the U-Pass program is no longer about affordability, if it ever was, but about promoting a shift towards the “transit culture” Takkar refers to in the CFS release. Using economic means to push people into making more environmentally-friendly choices is par for the course here in B.C., where the country’s first carbon tax was implemented and where car-drivers have long subsidized transit through Translink’s gas tax.

My point is that this program should be recognized for what it is, rather than congratulating ourselves for supporting broke students. And that’s where The Province newspaper hits the nail on the head: “But why should students be singled out? Why is a 19-year-old university student any more worthy of government support than another 19-year-old starting out in life in a job? If the aim is to promote post-secondary education, a more direct way is to further subsidize tuition.”

If we accept the notion that the U-Pass isn’t the best way to subsidize post-secondary education, then the question becomes: is it fair to force students to purchase transit passes that they may not use in the name of promoting transit? Is it appropriate for universities to administer a fee that is fundamentally driven by the desire to shift society?

I don’t have the answer to those questions. But, for the record, I rode my bike to the office today in the rain.

Ontario’s salary leaders aren’t current university presidents, but senior administrators who stepped down

Salary figures released Wednesday under Ontario’s “sunshine law” showed that the province’s most well compensated university officer was not a president, the traditional top university job. Surprisingly, vice presidents took the first and third prize for highest paid university employee in the province—or, rather, former vice presidents.

Related: The high cost of status

The highest paid academic in Ontario in 2009 was Amit Chakma, vice-president academic and provost at the University of Waterloo, who bagged a whopping $737,640 in compensation plus $3,505 in benefits. But his annual take didn’t end there. He left Waterloo mid-year to accept the position of president of the University of Western Ontario starting on July 1, 2009. Western added $220,000 in salary and $9,294 in benefits to his annual pay, for a total nearing the $1 million mark.

The second highest paid university official was William Moriarty, president and CEO of the University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation, who was paid $605,728 in 2009. In the past two years senior financial managers have topped the salary list.

Right on Moriarty’s tail is yet another vice president who stepped down. Feridun Hamdullahpur, former vice president research and international at Carleton University, earned $503,247 plus $12,000 in benefits before leaving in July to assume top earner Chakma’s former position at Waterloo.

2009’s top earners are the latest examples of a trend that has been receiving growing attention in recent years: senior administrators receiving ultra sweet severance packages worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although details aren’t available on Chakma’s severance package, he made a more modest $408,456 plus $5,955 in benefits in 2008 compared to a total Waterloo compensation of over $740,000 in 2009. Hamdullahpur made $230,434 at Carleton in 2008.

McMaster University attracted criticism in 2008 when it released president Peter George’s contract to the Hamilton Spectator after nearly two years of fighting against public disclosure. The contract detailed the generous package George will receive starting when his contract ends in July of this year. In addition to his pension, he will be paid nearly $1.4 million after he retires.

George’s contract was particularly controversial because he will be paid $99,999 per year for 14 years. Because Ontario universities did not fall under freedom of information legislation when the contract was signed in 2005, McMaster would have avoided having to disclose his compensation because it was one dollar short of $100,000. All public sector compensation in Ontario over $100,000 must be disclosed.

Paul Davenport, former president of Western who retired in 2009, is also set to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars as part of a retirement package. Davenport—who became president of UWO in 1996—will collect a regular university pension, as well as what the contract describes as a “Supplemental Pension Arrangement” (worth 5 per cent of his salary since 1996) and a “Special Executive Pension” (worth $123,030 per year if he begins drawing from it after his 65th birthday).

Lorna Marsden, former president of York University, is also one of the top paid administrators in Ontario, even though she stepped down in 2007. Despite the fact that she retired in 2007, she is listed for the second year in a row as “president emerita” and earned $394,980 in 2009.

Two universities vote to leave CFS; Ontario Superior Court rules that Guelph students can vote on CFS membership

Students of Concordia University voted Friday to end their membership in the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), Canada’s largest student lobby group. However, disputes over referendum scheduling and unpaid membership dues may mean the CFS won’t accept the outcome of the referendum.

According to the McGill Daily, 2312 members of the Concordia Student Union (CSU) voted to cease membership in the CFS, while 855 students voted against defederation. The CFS stands to lose approximately $300,000 in annual membership fees if it recognizes the vote.

Whether the referendum is binding is not yet clear. Although the CSU filed a petition requesting a membership referendum in the fall, as per CFS bylaws, continued disputes over ratifying signatures and outstanding membership dues stalled referendum planning. After the CFS refused to approve the referendum dates, president Amine Dabchy pushed the vote forward despite the CFS’s position. “We’ll see what happens and we will make use of all of our legal options and rights,” he told Maclean’s at the beginning of March.

The CFS and CSU will likely face off in court over the referendum results.

For more see “The case of the missing million dollars“

Meanwhile, the Ontario Superior Court ruled last week that students at Guelph University may vote on continued membership in the CFS, putting an end—for now—to a legal conflict between the CFS and the Central Student Association at Guelph (CSA).

The legal dispute arose when both the national and provincial arms of the CFS refused to schedule a referendum. The CSA claims a referendum petition was delivered to the provincial chapter of the CFS on September 29. CFS-Ontario denied receiving the petition.

The national body of the CFS refused to schedule a referendum at Guelph because of a dispute over verifying signatures.

CFS treasurer Dave Molenhuis told Maclean’s earlier this month that the national executive faced a lack of support from Guelph’s student association in verifying student signatures on the submitted petitions. When the CFS contacted the Guelph student executive concerning the validation of the signatures, the CSA was unwilling to cooperate, Molenhuis said.

“There’s some obstructionism going on there,” he said. “I requested assistance of the students’ union in validating the signatures and reviewing them and they . . . refused to engage in any dialogue.”

However, the CSA told Maclean’s that they produced a letter from the university registrar verifying signatures from 10 per cent of Guelph students.

Not only did the Ontario Superior Court grant the CSA the right to go ahead with the referendum, but also to set its own rules for the vote.

Last fall, referendum petitions circulated on 12 campuses across Canada. Disputes between the CFS and students’ unions over scheduling and organization of referenda have stalled the majority of the campaigns to cease membership in the national organization. Originally only two universities were approved by the CFS to hold votes. As many as nine student unions may go forward with their referenda in the next year with or without a blessing from the CFS, meaning many of the results will likely end up in court.

The first of the referenda occurred last week when graduate students at the University of Calgary voted overwhelmingly to end their membership in the CFS.

-with files from Jennifer Pagliaro

Canada’s only Aboriginal university may face insolvency by end of the month

Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl says that the federal government will not restore funding to First Nations University despite significant changes made to the institution. Supporters of the university met with Strahl in Ottawa on Thursday to plead their case.

“I did meet with the First Nations University delegation today,” Strahl told the House of Commons. “I repeated our position that the current funding formula for First Nations University ends as of March 31.” Teachers, students and Aboriginal leaders who met with Stahl said that he turned down their request for the federal government to reinstate $7.2 million in federal funding.

First Nations University (FNU) has been facing an uncertain future since January when the government of Saskachewan threatened to cut off funding because of financial irregularities and governance problems. In early February the provincial government announced it would no longer provide $5.2 million in annual funding starting this April. “For years, there has been uncertainty swirling around this institution. Instead of getting better, frankly most recently we’ve seen the intensification of that trouble,” Advanced Education Minister Rob Norris told reporters after the decision was made at a provincial cabinet meeting.

FNU has been under a cloud of controversy for five years. There have been ongoing issues with the way the school is managed and allegations of financial irregularities. A wrongful dismissal suit filed by Murray Westerlund, a former financial officer at the university who was fired in December 2009, alleges there were questionable travel expenses and paid vacation time. A financial audit has been ordered and is to be completed this month.

Since February, university administrators and Aboriginal leaders have been scrambling to propose a solution that would allow students to continue studying at FNU after the April cutoff. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations met Monday to discuss recommendations. On Tuesday they handed management of the school’s finances over to the University of Regina and a new management plan was adopted. But, judging by Stahl’s response, the changes came too little too late.

The Saskatchewan government’s position is less clear. Norris congratulated those involved in proposing the changes but made no promises about provincial funding.

FNU may face insolvency by the end of the month unless either government steps up to provide emergency funding. The federal Liberal and NDP opposition parties called for the Conservatives to reinstate funding. Stahl committed to helping Aboriginal students directly, but would not budge on the government’s decision to cut off funds to the institution.

FNU’s financial and governance problems have plagued the university for years. In September 2008 the school announced a deficit of $1.2 million, marking the second year in a row the school was more than $1 million in the red. The announcement came as a surprise as FNU had previously estimated a $100,000 deficit that year.

The year before FNU was put on probation by the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada (AUCC) after allegations that the school wasn’t operating independently of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. AUCC cited concerns about the university’s independence, institutional autonomy, and academic freedom.

The concerns were linked to a 2005 incident when the board of the university fired two administrators (and suspended a third) in connection to a forensic audit. In the months that followed, several high-ranking officials were fired or suspended and others resigned. Senior staff, including one of the fired administrators Wes Stevenson, alleged political interference in the operation of the university by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and its vice-chief, Morley Watson.

Stevenson was charged with fraud over $5,000 in June 2008 and his trial is pending. He maintains that he is innocent of any wrongdoing, and said that he is looking forward to his day in court so that he can clear his name.

Although FNUC has since been reinstated to full status with the AUCC, not everyone is convinced that the autonomy problems have been resolved. In 2008, the Canadian Association of University Teachers censured the institution, asking the academic community to boycott it because of alleged limits on academic freedom.

The drama that has been FNU’s finances continued this week when Norris asked Saskatchewan’s Justice Ministry to look into whether a scholarship fund was misused. Of $390,000 that was in the fund a year ago, only $15,000 remains.

A letter sent to Norris by the university’s acting chief operating officer says the money was used for general operating costs during times of low cash flow. The letter says the “inappropriate” use of the trust fund happened under the previous administration.

- with files from CP

Is CAUT’s crusade against religious universities really about its opposition to private universities?

As the Canadian Association of University Teacher (CAUT) casts its web wider in its investigation of hiring practices at religious universities, new issues are being raised about the role of these types of institutions in Canada’s post-secondary community. According to Nick Martin, education reporter for the Winnipeg Free Press, the question now is: “Should a university that restricts the hiring of faculty according to religious beliefs be receiving the same level of scarce public operating money as public colleges and universities?”

Martin’s article published late last week discusses CAUT’s latest probe into hiring practices, which puts the focus on Canadian Mennonite University (CMU). In October 2009, CAUT released the results of its first investigation that looked at whether Trinity Western University (TWU) was acting appropriately by requiring its professors to sign a “statement of faith.” CAUT—a union of sorts, representing faculty associations across the county, that has fought sometimes controversial fights over academic freedom since 1951—placed TWU on its blacklist of universities that violate academic freedom, effectively calling into question the school’s dedication to the very heart of what it is to be a university.

While no evidence has yet been published suggesting that CMU has a similar “faith test,” CMU president Gerald Gerbrandt told the Free Press that the province of Manitoba gave the school a mandate “to be more restrictive” by only hiring “people who are clearly Christian, that is clearly the expectation,” he said.

This practice will surely attract the disapproval of CAUT, which considers universities to have violated academic freedom if they “seek to ensure an ideologically or religiously homogeneous academic staff,” which TWU and CMU are clearly doing. CAUT is currently investigating CMU.

This is where CAUT’s argument takes a confusing turn. Martin reports that CAUT is demanding that governments only fund public institutions. At the conclusion of its TWU investigation, CAUT censured the university by placing it on its blacklist of institutions that violate academic freedom—which amounts to a virtual slap on the hand, if you will—and said no further action was planned. So by calling into question whether these schools should be funded with public dollars, CAUT is upping the stakes in its battle against religious schools.

CMU enjoys existing in a gray area by claiming to be part private part public. Interestingly, when CMU became a member of the Association of University and Colleges of Canada—which acts as an unofficial accreditation body in Canada—it claimed to be both private (it is a federation of three private colleges) and public in that it sees itself “as serving the province of Manitoba.”

CAUT executive director James Turk told the Free Press that funding for private universities is funding denied to public schools. “Canada really has no need for private institutions. They should not be receiving public money,” Turk said.

What is confusing about Turk’s comments is that there is no logical connection between being a private institution and hiring professors according to their beliefs. By going after private religious universities (most of which are non-profit, by the way) in this way, CAUT appears to be waging a broader war against these schools specifically, rather than being solely concerned about the issue of how faculty hiring affects academic freedom.

Back in January when Maclean’s published an article about TWU, the university’s president Jonathan Raymond questioned why CAUT seemed to be specifically targeting Christian universities when there have been no specific complaints from from faculty of academic freedom violations. Raymond’s question implies what Turk’s above comments seem to confirm: that CAUT’s campaign against hiring practices at religious universities is secondary to the association’s opposition to this type of institution, that its “faith test” investigations are only one part of a broader battle. Whether CAUT’s battle is against the ideology of religious universities or against private universities remains to be seen.

The CFS says Concordia can’t hold membership referendum until it pays $1-mil the union says it doesn’t owe

When Concordia Students’ Union president Amine Dabchy received the letter, he burst out laughing. “How did they pick such a specific number?” he recalls thinking. The letter informed the students’ union that it owned over $1 million to the Canadian Federation of Students—a huge sum Dabchy does not believe his organization owes.

The disagreement over $1,033,278.76 in unpaid fees is the latest episode in a months-long conflict between the Concordia Students’ Union (CSU) and the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), the largest student lobby group in Canada. Since the fall, the CSU has been attempting to put in motion a student referendum that would allow the union to cease its membership in the CFS. According to Dabchy, the CFS has been doing everything in its power to prevent a referendum, including demanding payment of this sum. “We believe this is a political tactic to prevent us from having a referendum,” he says.

When asked whether the debt is a political tactic Dave Molenhuis, treasurer and chairperson elect for the CFS, replies, “Definitely not.” He goes on to explain that the CSU was made aware of the debt years ago and that clearing outstanding fees has long been standard procedure before a referendum. “The rules around outstanding membership dues are very clear. It’s nothing new.”

The CSU—which pays over $200,000 annually to the CFS—is one of 13 students’ unions at 12 universities attempting to end its membership in the CFS. As the battle for student votes heats up, it seems inevitable that the CFS and multiple students’ unions will find themselves in court over the results.

Read about the disputes over referendums at other universities here

The trouble at Concordia started when the newly elected executive of the CSU started the process to leave the CFS. After over 16 per cent of the Concordia student body signed a petition asking for a vote on their continued membership in the group in October 2009, the CSU attempted to schedule a referendum. CFS bylaws at that time required that at least 10 per cent of the student body sign such a petition and that the petition be delivered six months in advance.

However, the CFS has repeatedly rebuffed the CSU’s efforts to get the ball rolling. In January, more than two months after receiving Concordia’s petition, the CFS requested that the university registrar verify that the nearly 5,500 signatures were signed by full-time students with valid student numbers. The registrar disqualified only 269 ineligible signatures, leaving enough eligible signatures to trigger a referendum.

The CFS then requested a copy of the petition that the registrar used when verifying signatures. The CSU responded and asked the CFS to confirm its proposed referendum dates by January 28. That deadline came and went without a response.

That’s why Dabachy couldn’t believe his eyes when he received the CFS’s letter detailing the staggering debt owed by the CSU. “We are denying that this is true,” he says. Dabachy wasn’t able to find any record of the debt in CSU books or meeting minutes. In the letter, the CFS states no referendum can be held until the CSU has paid the amount in full.

The disagreement comes down to a Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by former CSU president Keyana Kashfi in April 2009, less than two months before Dabachy took office. The MOU—a copy of which accompanied the CFS’ letter to the CSU—stated that the CSU owed the money for unpaid membership fees and laid out a payment schedule to start in September 2010.

With the exception of Kashfi, no director of the CSU was aware of the document, according to Dabachy. “When we look through our records, we have paid our membership fees since we first became members,” he says. Kashfi appears to have signed the MOU without consulting the CSU council.

Molenhuis says that it is impossible that the union was unaware of the outstanding fees. “It’s common knowledge amongst previous executive members of Concordia,” he says.

Dabachy believes that Kashfi’s actions are a clear violation of CSU bylaws and Quebec laws. CSU lawyers sent a letter to Kashfi last week informing her the CSU would be holding her liable for over $1 million for entering the agreement on her own.

In an interview with the student newspaper The Concordian, Kashfi explained that the debt was incurred in part because the CSU hadn’t adjusted its membership fees for inflation. The CSU also allegedly didn’t pay fees for business and engineering students.

“It’s a lot of money, but it’s what’s owed,” Kashfi told the Concordian. “If anything I did a service to the CSU by stopping the CFS from collecting the debt all at once.” She also said she was not in violation of CSU bylaws because she wasn’t making a purchase, rather paying what was owed for services rendered.

In a statement emailed to Maclean’s OnCampus, the CFS states: “In fairness to all other dues paying members of the Canadian Federation of Students and in accordance with the Federation’s Bylaws, any outstanding dues must be remitted prior to holding a vote on the question of continued membership.”

So what’s next for the CSU? Dabachy says that he plans to go ahead with the referendum regardless of whether the CFS agrees. “We’ll see what happens and we will make use of all of our legal options and rights.”

Latest move to silence abortion debate at UVic will likely lead to legal showdown

The University of Victoria Students’ Society (UVSS) cranked up their fight against the pro-life student club Youth Protecting Youth (YPY) last week by revoking the club’s status. Previous efforts to silence the club’s controversial message only went so far as to deny the club funding. This latest move denies the very existence of the group, upping the stakes significantly in a conflict that is sure to end up in court.

The spat began in October 2008 when the university’s students’ society refused to give YPY the same meagre funding all UVic student clubs receive. Clubs approved by a committee are entitled to $232 each year in addition to such perks as banner supplies and free room bookings. Upon review in 2009, the committee approved funding for YPY. But the students’ society board stepped in and once again revoked the funding, yet still permitted it to operate on campus.

In an October 2009 meeting, the society’s directors accused YPY of “harassing” female students with anti-abortion posters. Those opposed to YPY have also complained about a YPY sponsored event that featured the controversial pro-life activist Stephanie Gray debate distinguished medical ethicist Eike-Henner Kluge. Director Tracey Ho summed up the society’s position by saying, “No one should debate my rights over my own body.”

YPY fought back by contacting the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), in hopes the organization would defend its right to freedom of speech. BCCLA agreed and in late 2009 threatened to launch a lawsuit on behalf of YPY if the UVSS didn’t reinstate the club’s funding. The UVSS brushed the BCCLA off. (Read our previous coverage here.)

In a UVSS meeting that stretched past 11pm last Monday night, the student society decided to revoke the club’s status for one year, meaning that in addition to losing funding, YPY can no longer rent rooms or access other perks available to clubs. YPY may be able to regain status if it complies to certain restrictions. The catch is that the UVSS hasn’t yet determined what those restriction are, so YPY’s status won’t change until the restrictions are written at some unspecified time in the future.

The decision was in part a response to a complaint filed by the UVSS Women’s Centre. “Reproductive rights are elemental in women’s collective and individual potential for equity in all realms of social life,” the complaint letter states. “Access to abortion free from harassment is one of these reproductive rights that YPY continually undermine through the proliferation of inaccurate information and the creation of hostile environments.”

“YPY’s identity and actions as a pro-life organization inherently discriminates against women. Through intimidation tactics and moralist evangelizing, YPY limits the ability of women on campus to access accurate information about abortion free from harassment.”

John Dixon, president of BCCLA, finds this argument illogical. “It is worthwhile to consider, for a moment, what this really means,” he wrote in an email. “It means that the very civil, moderate pro-life YPY club at UVic doesn’t even have to get out of bed in the morning to discriminate against women; it means that no matter how mild, moderate, and circumscribed its advocacy, it discriminates against women. There is no appeal to reason here, but a weird evocation of a kind of secular flavour of sacrilege.”

In a Thursday email to UVSS chairperson Veronica Harrison, YPY president Anastasia Pearse asked the UVSS to call a special general meeting to reconsider their status. “We are unaware of any policy or bylaw that gives the Board discretion to withhold club status indefinitely based upon a yet-to-be-developed policy,” Pearse wrote. “We refuse to participate.”

Harrison has maintained that the UVSS has every right to deny funding to YPY. “Freedom of speech of course can happen, but not when it’s harassing or oppressing other people,” she said in December.

UVSS Director Nathan Warner was one of the minority who voted against revoking YPY’s status. “I’m pro-choice but I’m also pro-debate,” he told Maclean’s. “Abortion is not an easy topic for anyone and I believe that no matter what you ask it will likely offend someone. I don’t think that is reason enough to merit banning a club from campus.”

Warner concedes that YPY is asking tough questions in its anti-abortion campaign. But, as he points out, YPY’s posters don’t include graphic images that have been associated with other pro-life campus activism. “This attack on freedom of expression is unfounded and needs to be stopped,” he said.

It seems unlikely that the BCCLA will back off either. According to Dixon: “At the University of Victoria, the values of freedom of conscience, opinion, religion, and expression are decried as quaint residues of an irrelevant past.  The Board of the Student Society has drunk deeply at the well of post-modernist ideology, and they are determined to drive the very moderate and civil student pro-life club from the campus. What certainly seems separate from this university is the faintest memory of the very idea of a ‘university’ as a place dedicated to the preference of dialogue over force.”

Related: Closed for debate. Also see, Uvic’s pro-choicers up the ante against pro-life club

- With files from David Foster