The Manfredi Report, made public on Oct. 10, 2012, was a direct response to the Jutras Report’s recommendation calling for a campus-wide discussion on the meaning of “free expression and peaceful assembly on campus.” It roughly outlines the escalation of our campus politics since the events of Nov. 10, and further includes his recommendations for action in this period of relative calm.
“Recommendations” have become a familiar theme at the administrative level; the Jutras Report, issued in February, made sweeping recommendations as well. It is all too easy to brush these recommendations off by arguing they don’t provide direction towards tangible progress. Important lessons go unlearnt without ascribing some value to them. In her email on the report, Heather Munroe-Blum accepted Christopher Manfredi’s recommendations, and this project has taken on a much-extended timeline; a smart move from the McGill administration, as a means to sustain this period of calm.
[pullquote]… protestors on Nov. 10 were obviously upset with McGill’s concept of ‘protection’.[/pullquote]
In the interest of sustaining calm on campus, what is truly needed for the community right now is a chance to restore a certain level of faith in the administration. To do so, it would also be good to be reminded of the values that McGill stands for. This is why the Manfredi Report is, to a certain extent, a welcome addition to discussion of campus politics—its first two recommendations implicitly do just this. The first, which calls for clarification of terms like ‘disruption’ in the Code of Student Conduct, aims to provide a framework for how to continue living peacefully in school. By setting clear boundaries in the student code of conduct, mutual respect, understanding, and dialogue can be ensured within the context of a society that prioritizes “education, service, and social, cultural and personal opportunities” (SSMU’s Mission as stated on its website). The second, which calls for a revision to security procedures and access to the James Administration Building, demonstrates McGill’s ability to identify a source of tension in our society, and as a result, facilitate letting people feel less isolated from the senior administration.
However, there is a need to look at the third recommendation more closely. It pertains to McGill Security and the need for “reviewing our current training program for both permanents and temporary personnel” on campus. In the report, Manfredi says that McGill Security is important because “they are usually at the forefront during protest and demonstration situations, charged with protecting individual members of the community (including protestors and demonstrators) and University assets. They are often the first to witness behavior that potentially violates University regulations.”
On one hand, Manfredi wants to ensure uniformity in Security’s reactions, and to ensure that any action against disruption they take is legitimate and based on the Code of Conduct. On the other hand, however, this is clearly a point of contention; protestors on Nov. 10 were obviously upset with McGill’s concept of ‘protection.’
Can McGill students and the McGill administration agree on a concept of protection for our community as a whole? Manfredi seems to have left this out of his report’s recommendations. Sure, McGill Security’s reactions to the student occupation in February were much more passive, suggesting a step in the right direction, but perhaps, in the interest of student politics, there is another discussion that needs to take place.
