Many may be familiar with the story of Icarus. His father, Daedalus, built him wings to soar through the sky, leaving just one word of warning: go too high, too close to the sun, and the wax affixing the wings to your body will melt. We know how the story ends. As a child, I remember being absorbed in this tale of hubris and humility.
Last Monday, SSMU held the first General Assembly (GA) of the academic year. Two motions concerning a climbing wall and a room re-naming were passed before quorum was lost (which, set at 100 for a body representing over 20,000 students, is not a particularly high bar). However, debate raged on, and though the resulting motions were non-binding, they will be revisited at the next SSMU Council meeting, where presumably they will become binding regardless.
One of these motions concerns SSMU’s official policy in the event of a Canada-Iran war. As an editor, what struck me first was the misspelling of “defense” [sic] in the version on the SSMU website; the Americanization was sadly appropriate in a document that hints at a fallacious equivocation between our two countries. As a student, what struck equally hard was the existence of such a motion in the first place.
The modesty necessary to limit the motion’s scope to one commensurate with its setting eluded our illustrious representatives. To be fair, clauses expressing concerns over McGill’s research for defence industries—though dubious in their ability to actually impact policy, while also being a dead horse of a debate from three years ago—are at least fairly relevant. It remains to be seen whether the nation of Iran has simply been opportunistically hijacked by students yearning to proclaim their non-militancy, or whether commenting on a hypothetical war between Canada and Iran was a moral imperative for campus politicos.
The question isn’t whether one ought to “firmly oppose Canadian aggression towards Iran and oppose any military action that may be taken.” The question is why our student activists and leaders even debated it.
Does anyone truly believe such clauses, in this context, are anything more than impotent strings of words?
Let us remember that this is the GA of the Students’ Society of McGill University—a group of (now less than 100) students, moving to “create a policy opposing military activity.” This is a motion SSMU’s own Steering Committee deemed well outside its authority. One can almost see melting wax and feathers dripping onto these pages; in the corner are Daedalus and Common Sense, crying on each others’ shoulders.
But aren’t these clauses simply symbolic?
Yes—but they are symbolic without merit. Many motions passed in the history of SSMU, such as 2011’s Motion Regarding Accessible Education are also symbolic, but that subject matter at least stays within the purview of SSMU as an entity of McGill. Comments on non-existent wars lie far outside this modest jurisdiction. Insofar as they deal with hypothetical events that student leaders will in no way influence, such clauses amount to little more than self-worship and self-deception.
So maybe they’re pointless, but what harm could they do?
The answer to this lies in the long-term. Campus leaders cannot lament general apathy towards student politics, yet simultaneously bring forward motions that undermine our faith in student politics. One proposed amendment to the Iran motion called upon SSMU to venture into questions of regime change, and proudly proclaim that our noble association will only stand for revolution if organized at the grassroots by the Iranian people. I’m sure the people of Iran are flattered. But we should not confuse a GA of SSMU with a GA of the United Nations. In seeking solidarity with the citizens of Iran in such a context, these students are losing the solidarity of their peers at home.
Our time sees humility as a forgotten virtue; over-ambition is no longer a vice. Unfortunately, the Iran motion is indicative of a prevailing attitude, one particularly virulent on this campus; an attitude that is the result of comparatively privileged upbringings; that expresses in form what it lacks in substance; a magical elixir that, once imbibed, renders its drinker immune to the possibility that one’s reach may exceed one’s grasp.
Yes, principles and aspirations are important. But take yourself too seriously, and no one else will. Surely there is a happy medium.
