The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) and the administration signed a new Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) on Feb. 28, outlining the terms of their relationship. However, a newly added clause barring students with any disciplinary record at McGill from serving as executives at SSMU has put current Vice-President (VP) University Affairs Abe Berglas at risk of removal from their position.
Under clause 14.4 of the new MoA, executives and directors at SSMU cannot have a disciplinary record at the University, cannot have been suspended from McGill, and cannot have been found responsible for an infraction of the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures. There is no recent precedent of an MoA between McGill and SSMU containing a clause pertaining to the disciplinary record of a student society executive.
In a March 14 disciplinary hearing with the Committee on Student Discipline, Berglas was found to have violated the Code based on an action they spearheaded at the start of the school year. Berglas told The Tribune that in August, they and four other students entered School of Religious Studies professor Douglas Farrow’s classroom and passed out pamphlets with select quotes from the professor’s published work which the demonstrators believed to be transphobic and homophobic. At the bottom of the pamphlet, Berglas wrote a note that students seeking support could reach out to their VP University Affairs email. This demonstration, which Berglas claimed took no more than two minutes, resulted in a charge of violating articles five and 10.c. of the Code.
“One of the arguments I made in the [disciplinary] hearing was that this sort of awareness campaign of handing out flyers is part of my role, it’s part of the Trans Advocacy Plan,” Berglas said in an interview with The Tribune.
Article five states that it is a violation of the Code to intentionally interfere with university activities and 10.c. writes that students cannot “create a condition that unnecessarily endangers or threatens or undermines the health, safety, wellbeing, or dignity of another person, [or] threatens to cause humiliation.” At the disciplinary hearing, the committee ruled that while Berglas had not violated 10.c., they had breached the Code under article five.
“The MoA makes the consequences of a finding of guilt much more severe—essentially puts my job at risk,” Berglas said.
“The question is now whether McGill will try to enforce [the ruling],” they continued. “It’s possible that because the agreement was signed in the middle of my disciplinary process, I’ll be sort of grandfathered in, but there’s certainly nothing in the MoA that suggests that. So I have no idea what’s going to happen next.”
SSMU President Dymetri Taylor wrote to The Tribune that he doubts McGill will enforce clause 14.4 in this instance given their term will end on May 31.
“Executive terms for this year are close to being concluded. Creating more work for the remaining Executives would only earn the ire of the current team,” Taylor wrote.
According to Berglas, McGill inserted clause 14.4 into the new MoA 14 days before the old document was set to expire. This gave SSMU little time to contest the clause, as if the parties did not rapidly reach an agreement, SSMU would lose access to the University Centre and other rights afforded by the MoA. Berglas claims that SSMU tried to extend negotiations but that McGill refused.
Responding to these allegations, the McGill Media Relations Office (MRO) wrote that the MoA reflects the interests of both signatories. McGill did not respond to questions on the timeline of 14.4’s insertion into the agreement.
“These provisions are rooted in McGill’s view—presumably shared by the SSMU as a signatory to the MoA—that students who hold significant fiduciary responsibilities […] should be credible, trustworthy leaders whose reputation and record are unblemished by a recent and/or serious offence under the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures,” the MRO wrote.
Berglas contested the idea that the Code serves as an appropriate indicator of what defines a model student, and maintained that the clause could have a “chilling effect” on executives’ activism in the future by limiting avenues for dissent.
“Activists are so frequently told […] ‘if only you were less disruptive, you would be more effective,’” Berglas said. “And if I am doing the most minimal action I can think of […] and they’re deciding that even that two-minute silent handing out of flyers gets the level of obstruction, there’s really nothing any student can do to voice their discontent in a situation like this.”
