It would be all too easy to ignore the events of Nov. 10 at the start of a new semester. Dean Jutras’ report on the events of Nov. 10 was released to the general public on Dec. 15, just in time for most students to want to forget about the entire semester entirely.
Given the fact that the relationship between the students and the administration is lacking in trust after the events of last semester, the McGill administration ideally should have assigned a third party to conduct a parallel comprehensive investigation. It is equally unfortunate that those conducting the independent student inquiry (released Dec. 1) didn’t have access to relevant security video footage. However, we were pleasantly surprised by Jutras’s in-depth investigation, which consisted of dozens of interviews and thoughtful (albeit vague) recommendations for the administration and McGill Security. Despite his position within the university, Jutras presented an unbiased account of the events. It should be noted that Jutras’s report and the independent student inquiry reached similar conclusions regarding the order of events. The he-said-she-said debate may continue in some circles, but we view this report and the independent student inquiry and their recommendations to be solid launching points for further discussion on the university’s reform.
This dialogue must consider the following:
McGill’s priority must be to ensure the physical protection of its students and staff, as well as the protection of the right to peaceful assembly and protest. The university must create a clear framework for dealing with similar incidents in the future. The protocol should include calling the police as a final resort, only when it is clear that McGill Security cannot contain a situation that threatens the well-being of students, its staff, or a the destruction of university property. Trespassing by students desiring to occupy rooms should not, in the majority of cases, call for any police involvement. Often the best security response is one of tolerance and patience—a policy of administrators granting an audience to grievance and a means of assuring no student or security guard is harmed in any confrontations. The Montreal police have shown practically no interest in responding to the events of Nov. 10, and their track record suggests that they could act in a comparable manner if given similar circumstances, so it’s particularly important that McGill Security and students develop a better working relationship.
Many students cited a lack of transparency and consultation on the part of the administration as a reason for their discontent. This was particularly striking when no emergency email was sent to students to warn them of impending police involvement on campus—something the university was more than capable of doing in a few minutes. A student wishing to make his way back from the library deserves to be warned that he could face a cavalcade of riot police en route. Any further discussion and decision-making regarding this event, and concerning the creation of guidelines for future approaches to similar situations, must therefore involve more student inclusion. Emergency responses must to be sent out to give due warning to students wishing to avoid fogs of tear gas.
The comprehensive research of the Jutras report means we can now move past the speculation surrounding the specific events of Nov. 10 and debate the meaning of events with more clarity at the Senate this Wednesday, which, in a fitting spirit of transparency, is being streamed live online. The Jutras report must be the beginning, not the end, of a purposeful dialogue set on improving how the university responds in times of crisis.
