Latest News

Joke

U3 Engineering student posts Facebook status about distrust in new SSMU executive, citing ‘predominantly female executive’

by Audrey Carleton on

More in Joke:

U3 Engineering student Jack Martin recently posted a status on Facebook expressing his distrust in the newly elected Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) executive team for the 2017-18 school year. 

“I don’t usually post things like this on Facebook, but recent events have alarmed me to a place that I feel like I need to comment,” Martin’s status read. “I’m disappointed in the student body for its choice to elect an executive that is not truly representative of the student body. McGill’s campus is so truly diverse—how will an executive that consists almost solely of one gender address the needs of myself and fellow brethren next year?” 

Martin’s status raised questions among his friends and followers about his views on gender equality. One friend quickly responded to this in the comments section, alleging that his claims were misogynistic and distrusting of female leadership. Martin quickly responded to this, citing his views on gender equality.

“Look, I’m all for female equality, and I even consider myself pretty liberal—but ultimately this campus is only 51 per cent female,” Martin wrote in the comment thread. “A SSMU executive that doesn’t represent the true demographic makeup of this campus is really not OK. Call me a snowflake, but I don’t feel like I can trust the new SSMU. Where do I fit into this? This doesn’t feel like a safe space for me. Men’s issues matter too.” 

Martin went further in the comment thread to refer to himself as a feminist at a later point, citing his love for women, especially for his mother and sister. 

“I don’t know why what I’m saying is so bad, guys,” Martin wrote. “I’m a feminist. Hands down. I have a mother and a sister. I’ve loved every woman I’ve ever dated—though some of them may have been crazy. I still think that feminism is gender equality. EQUALITY. That means equal men, equal women. Not an all-female SSMU. When will people understand this?” 

Though six of the seven 2016-17 SSMU executives were male, this seemed not to be a factor in Martin’s line of thinking. According to his roommate, Emily Sanders, with whom he shares a modest apartment on Avenue Lorne, Martin did not know about this, and seemed unmoved after hearing about it.

“[Martin] has been complaining about this all-female SSMU executive thing for literal days now,” Sanders said. “When is he going to learn to shut the fuck right up? I asked him how he felt about this year’s [mostly] male SSMU and he said he didn’t know about that, but that he didn’t think that was a relevant fact to consider. Now, I myself am not sure where I stand on this whole ‘gender’ thing, but he’s just annoying as shit and I think he needs to move the fuck on.” 

When approached for comment after the fact, Martin declined, citing a lack of time due to his rigorous engineering program. Though his status received significant backlash in the comments section, he remained unbent when navigating through the comments, taking the time to respond to each one. Boasting four likes and one “Wow” reaction, Martin left his status up publicly even after the commenting died down.

This article is a work of satire and is part of the Joke Issue.

Joke

New McGill passwords require six letters, three numbers, and $5 donation

by Lydia Kaprelian on

More in Joke:

With a mandated password reset for McGill students, the administration has found the perfect opportunity to ameliorate the university’s budget concerns. When students go into Minerva to enter in a new password, $5 will now be charged to their student account. Following the grand success of McGill24, the McGill PR department is re-invigorated to demand more money from its students.

“It’s only $5,” McGill Financial Officer Burt Smith explained. “Seeing how many Fac-O bracelets were on campus we know that all our students can afford this small contribution.”

The new campaign will be dedicated to facility improvements, such as the staircase outside of the Brown Building.

“We recognized that the walk outside from the University Centre to Dr. Penfield has not been aesthetically pleasing for many students,” Smith admitted. “From the revenue generated from the password reset, we’ll be able to tile the staircase.”

The password resets were ordered after the administration discovered phishing attempts made by amateur hackers. The extra “!” character at the end of McGill passwords will hopefully stave off future security concerns.

However, the $5 charge added to the password reset has not come without controversy.

“I’ve already had to add an extra emoji to my password,” Stew Jones, U0 Arts, said. “I don’t want to pay $5 on top of that!”

Administrators have issued thinly veiled threats that if students fail to create a new password, with the mandatory $5 fee, they may be locked out of their McGill accounts or face minor security threats, including pop-ups.

“We still have the power to send Farmville invitations,” Smith warned.

This article is a work of satire and is part of the Joke Issue. 

Joke

McGill releases ‘Fill-in-the-blank’ statement to be used for next McGill scandal

by Wade Wilson on

More in Joke:

On March 27, the McGill administration released a partly-blank statement for students to use when condemning of any future scandals. An explanation accompanying the statement clarifies that after the series of recent scandals involving McGill and the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), the administration has decided to no longer release individual statements.

Now, if students would like the university to issue a statement condemning any future scandals, they can simply print out the statement template, and fill in the blanks with the details of the new controversy. 

“Dear Member of the McGill community,” the statement begins, “We were shocked and disappointed to hear of the recent [insert behaviour that is considered reprehensible] by [name of individual/organization here].”

The statement goes on to explain that this hypothetical offence constitutes an infringement of whichever values the university currently stands for.

“We would like to remind the community that McGill stands in steadfast support of [value or principle that this action violated], and/or strongly condemns [prejudice or misconception that this action furthered].”

When asked for comment, McGill Principal Stephanie Fournier explained that the new statement policy would save the administration the valuable time it currently spends issuing condemnations of the various missteps of its students and faculty.

“With students filling out our statements of condemnation for us, administrators will now be able to focus on more important issues facing the University.” Fournier said. “I’m personally looking forward to our project to increase the incline of University Street, and the upcoming unveiling of our memorial for Flood Girl.”

If the new statement does not solve McGill’s public relations issues, Fournier noted that she would consider releasing a statement disassociating the University from itself. 

This article is a work of satire and is part of the Joke Issue. 

Martlets, Men's Varsity, Sports

Know Your Athlete: Marty the Martlet

by Nicole Spadotto on

More in Martlets:

McGill is known for fostering success stories in academia and athletics alike and, proof that birds of a feather flock together, Marty the Martlet is no exception. Marty is just like most McGill students: He juggles the rigour of school with having fun and a full-time job—one that isdesigned to entertain us loyal McGill sports fans. But Marty wasn’t always a silly goose; he used to chicken out every time he was in the spotlight.

“Believe it or not, I was really shy when I was a wee hatchling,” Marty said. “I couldn’t fly as well as the other birds, I wasn’t as smart, and I’d be teased about that.”

Salvation for Marty came through dance. He began shaking his feathers and listening to musicals at which point he heard the song “Dancing Through Life.”

“That beat just got me grooving and made me smile, it’s a pretty ‘wicked’ song,” Marty said.

Since 2005, Marty has been on a mission to spread the song’s message and make people stop worrying about school. Though his dance moves might be strange, crowds flock to see him.

“I love seeing people excited when I show up,” Marty said. “I get bombarded to take pictures and dance with them. I love seeing people laugh at my silliness, [….] even [McGill Principal] Suzanne [Fortier] says I have great dance moves!”

While the prancing around is certainly fun, Marty trains hard to be there. Despite his cuddly exterior, he works his tail off to stay in shape.

“I have to hit the gym often to really keep my muscles tight and my cardio up, or else I can’t dance and cheer,” Marty said. “No one wants a soft Marty.”

When he’s not putting in reps  at the gym or dancing around campus, Marty is grinding out his school work at McLennan.

“I’m a busy bird with big dreams,” Marty said. “I’m keeping my GPA in the 3.6 to 4.0 range.”

Marty somehow also finds the time for other endeavours and the occasional chick flick. 

“I’m actually collecting research and drafting my first book!” Marty said. “But of course when I’m not sticking my beak in books and research, I’m in front of the TV watching Netflix.”

Marty certainly sets an admirable example for all high achieving McGill students. On one wing, he’s known for having fun and letting loose, but on the other, he pushes himself to soar to new academic heights. In this respect, Marty’s advice to McGill first-year hatchlings could also benefit upper-years.

“Come out and support your [McGill] teams!” Marty says. “The games are so fun and you get so much McGill swag. Also, take risks with your classes. You’ll never know when that random elective you pick will become your favourite class!”

Indeed, sometimes the best ideas can come from just winging it.  For everyone at McGill, you need to leap from your nest if you want to fly, and don’t be afraid to ruffle some feathers along the way. 

 

McGill Tribune: Cardio or weights?
Marty: Both! Got to keep my heart healthy to keep up the sick dancing, but got to keep my body trim for the ladies.
 
MT: Favourite Montreal poutine?
Marty: Duck, sugar coated fries, and lots of maple syrup. My cousins weren’t too happy about the duck, but man those little floaters are tasty!
 
MT: “McGill once McGill twice” cheer or “I’d rather be a Redman” cheer?
Marty: “McGill once McGill twice” because I can dance around to that. I can’t speak, which is why I love to dance. I let my sick moves do the talking.
Hockey, Sports

The NHL’s point system woes

by André Morin on

More in Hockey:

With five minutes left to play in the third period, the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens are tied 2-2. In the midst of a close playoff race, both teams are looking to grab any precious points they can to push them into the postseason. In such a tight contest with back-and-forth chances all game, the final minutes should have the crowd on the edge of their seats, squeezing anyone around them as the teams go full throttle trying to pull ahead. Instead, both retreat into a defensive shell, no longer taking any chances, as they let the final few minutes wind down before overtime.

This is the reality of most NHL games that are tied in the final minutes of regulation. Teams take advantage of the NHL’s point system, staying cautious and stalling until they can get a guaranteed one point in overtime. Since a win in overtime, or in the shootout, is worth the same two points as a regulation win, and a loss in this scenario grants one point, there’s no reason to risk losing in regulation and miss out on a point that requires just holding out a few more minutes. Essentially, a game that ends in regulation is worth two points, but for some inexplicable reason, overtime or shootout games dole out a combined three points—two for the winner and one for the loser.

With nearly 25 per cent of NHL games from 2005 to now going to overtime, this system makes it difficult for teams to try and move up in the standings when their opponents can just stall until overtime and clinch at least one point. It’s commonplace for teams with less than five minutes remaining in regulation to just buckle down and wait for the third-period buzzer when the game is tied. The NHL needs to change this point system in order to prevent teams from taking advantage of this flaw.

An easy solution to the league’s problem would be the switch to the aptly-named “three points for a win” system. Similar to European soccer leagues, an NHL team that wins in regulation would receive three points while an overtime winner would be awarded two and the extra-time loser would still receive one. Thus, winning a game in regulation would be worth more than winning a game in overtime or a shootout. According to a 2007 Canadian Press article, NHL general managers flirted with this idea back in 2004, but support for the measure vanished while other, more drastic rule changes such as the shootout, were adopted.

Adding an extra point for a regulation win would provide an extra incentive for teams to try to push forward in the third period of games that are tied, especially for those fighting for playoff berths. Games approaching overtime would once again become exciting, with some teams on the brink of the postseason possibly pulling their goalie in order to get all three points. A team that looks bound to be eliminated from postseason contention could suddenly be back in the race by stringing together a series of regulation wins. Fans may be disappointed to see less overtime hockey and fewer shootouts but the added intensity at the end of regulation will make up for the lack of extra time.

Science & Technology

What’s the deal with CRISPR?

by Sam Min on

More in Science & Technology:

CRISPR offers the potential to cure presently untreatable cancers and diseases. Moreover, it could revive an extinct organism, such as the mammoth, using tiny bits of genomic information that scientists have collected through their serendipitous discoveries.

“CRISPR is a gene editing technique that allows investigators to alter the gene sequence of an organism using a technique that is based on a genome surveillance mechanism employed by bacteria.” Dr. Richard Roy, Molson Chair of Genetics and a professor in the McGill Department of Biology, said.

The scientific community and the general public are elated by the CRISPR technology’s recently realized potential to edit genomes precisely.

What exactly is CRISPR?

In 1987, a team of scientists at Osaka University discovered five consecutive 29 nucleotide-long repeats in bacteria DNA, interspersed between non-repeated sequences that were 39 nucleotides long. Surprisingly, the word CRISPR—which stands for “clustered regular interspaced short palindromic repeats”—does not denote the fanciful technology itself; rather, CRISPR refers to the unusual DNA sequence that originally tipped off geneticists to the bacteria’s potential. At this time of the discovery, repeated sequences in bacteria were known to be rare. Hence, it did not take long before more labs followed suit in investigating the purpose of these unprecedented repeated nucleotides.

Non-repeated intervening sequences closely resemble viral genomes. Therefore, these sequences essentially serve as a memory storage for bacteria. With CRISPR, bacteria ‘remember’ the viral genomes’ profiles and lay out specific defences against the formerly exposed virus type.

Bacteria’s peaceful lives can be devastatingly disturbed upon viral intrusions. The extraordinary diversity of viruses can render the defences of the bacteria helpless.

However, oftentimes, not all of the bacteria are killed. If some survive, they activate enzymes that are responsible for cleaning up the remnants of viral genomic components. These enzymes grasp and insert the viral remains in between the CRISPRs of the bacterial genome. If the same type of virus were to attack the surviving bacteria, the bacteria would know what to do. Instead of using CRISPR as a defensive mechanism, scientists have harnessed the bacteria’s ability to replicate gene sequences to modify genomes with specific genes of interest.

Whose idea is it?

With such a radical new technology, there is extreme financial opportunity. Rights of ownership over the CRISPR technique have lingered since its initial discovery. Recently, the CRISPR patent disputes were partially settled between the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard, and the University of California (UC) Berkeley. On Feb. 15, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favour of the Broad Institute. As a result, the Broad Institute won the patent pertaining to editing eukaryotic genomes, a patent that UC Berkeley considers to be interfering with its claim.

“The dispute was about who the patent belongs to,” Roy said. “Feng Zhang [of the Broad Institute] got the patent, leaving the scientific community perplexed. Jennifer Doudna [of UC Berkeley…] quickly saw that there were ways to co-opt the process to provide a means of directing it to whatever sequence an investigator might want to target.”

What’s next?

CRISPR will soon be more sophisticated. What would happen to our children if we are armed with a refined and reliable CRISPR technology? For example, eggs and sperm are fertilized on a petri dish instead of in the mother’s fallopian tube during in vitro fertilization (IVF). Although IVF was initially deemed unethical, most people who vehemently disagreed with the technology now accept it. This could be the case with CRISPR as well. For now, however, CRISPR holds several unresolved ethical issues. For instance, altering genes in the human population could be irreversibly consequential as the modified genes will carry on for generations.

“The future is hard to predict, but CRISPR is likely only limited by the imaginations of the end users,” Roy said. “This is still ethically very nebulous, so lawyers, philosophers, policy makers, and scientists will have to engage in a long and active discussion as to how to proceed and what will be off limits.”

Joke, Private

‘Hey, can you watch my stuff for a sec?’ now legally binding verbal agreement

by Ariella Garmaise on

More in Joke:

In an updated version of its Charter of Student Rights, McGill has amended that, “Hey, can you watch my stuff for a sec?”, “I’m just going to get coffee, will you be here for the next ten minutes,” and “Sorry, could you…” are all legitimate, legally binding contracts. 

The clause amends "Part I: Fundamental Rights and Freedoms," Section 8 of McGill’s Charter. Section 8 originally reads, “The University has an obligation to ensure that adequate measures are taken to protect security of students on University property.” Section 8.1, effective as of Fall 2017, will add, “such ‘adequate measures’ include, but are not limited to, ample security guards, security cameras, a student judicial system, and casual but nonetheless legally binding verbal conversations between students who before coincidentally choosing seats next to one another were total strangers.” 

Ivan Dubé, McGill’s procurement legal counsel, explains the purpose of this amendment. “McGill is an academically rigorous institution, but social interaction plays a tremendous role in the University’s educational mandate. With section I.8.1, the University administration seeks to instill in its students a sense of collective responsibility.” 

One financial analyst suggested that the provision might be related to the recent slash in McGill’s operational expenses budget; however, Dubé was unavailable for comment. 

Amendment I.8.1 was procured after years of legal battle, following 2013’s “Morrison vs. Schulich Floor 5”. On Oct. 17, amidst the Fall midterm season, Claire Morrison, U2 Sociology, alleged that she requested that students around her keep an eye on her laptop while she left to get coffee, yet when she returned, her Macbook Pro was missing. 

While three of the students involved are legally prohibited from commenting, exonerated defendants Iman Azzari, U1 Chemistry, and Jason Klein, U0 Science, agreed to speak to the Tribune. Azzari, who left the library before Morrison returned, renounces any responsibility. 

“She said she’d be back in five minutes, but like, four hours later, she’s still gone. I’m supposed to watch her stuff because she didn’t feel like bringing a backpack with her?” Azzari said.

“How was I supposed to know the guy who picked up her shit wasn’t like a friend or her boyfriend or something?” asked Klein, echoing Azzari’s comments. 

McGill hopes that in securing provision I.8.1, the University will be able to provide a legal framework to support students like Morrison. 

For students with similar concerns to those of Azzari and Klein, Dubé offers a list of what constitutes a valid legal agreement. 

“Agreements to such a request need not be verbally explicit. Vague head nods, irritated shrugs, and weak half smiles are all legally binding.” 

As Fall 2017 approaches, McGill is preparing an administrative council to review the success of the implementation of provision I.8.1. The motion will be voted upon at Senate at the Sept. 20 meeting. 

In the interim, McGill’s legal counsel prepares to tackle “Silent vs. Talking: What is the Appropriate Level of Volume in the Ambiguously Labelled First Floor Redpath?”

This article is a work of satire and is part of the Joke Issue. 

Editorial, Opinion

Beyond zero-tolerance: McGill needs a new approach to deal with hazing

by McGill Tribune Editorial Board on

More in Editorial:

On March 13, The Globe & Mail published an article detailing a hazing incident that occurred in September 2015 involving McGill’s men’s and women’s basketball teams. The piece, based on the testimony of an anonymous member of the Redmen basketball team, alleged that first-year players were forced to drink various alcoholic drinks, and then “ordered into sexual games with semi-nude female athletes.” News of this most recent incident comes more than 10 years after McGill adopted a “zero-tolerance” policy toward hazing after a widely-publicized 2005 case involving the Redmen football team.

This latest hazing incident reveals the problems inherent in McGill’s current hazing policy, and the need for McGill to develop a better procedure for responding to and addressing instances of hazing. 

First, the administration demonstrated an unacceptable delay in its response to the incident. The university received word of the hazing during the 2015-2016 season, which ended in March, yet McGill didn’t form an ad-hoc committee to investigate the violation of the Varsity Code until August 2016. By the time the committee released its report in December 2016, it noted that team-wide sanctions were not appropriate since many of the players involved had already graduated. If McGill wants to hold athletes accountable for hazing—regardless of what sanctions it decides on—it needs to respond more quickly in order to reach its decision while those athletes are still on the team. 

Additionally, McGill’s response to the 2015 incident suggests that the university is no longer following the strict anti-hazing policy it outlined in 2005, as those procedures were not fully implemented in this case. After the 2005 hazing, McGill stated, as part of its “zero-tolerance” policy, that any team engaged in hazing would automatically be suspended for the season. However, McGill did not suspend the basketball teams implicated in this incident. Instead it placed the Redmen on probation two seasons and the Martlets for one, and suspended one player from the men’s team for one game—a clear departure from the zero-tolerance policy. While on probation, a second offence by the team would result in its suspension. The administration also specified in its report that it was imposing sanctions that “revolve around education, awareness, and prevention,” like having both teams attend a “Safer Partying” workshop to learn about the risks of hazing.

McGill’s move from a zero-tolerance to an education-centred policy has the potential to be a more effective way to address the problem. Punishment without prevention is unlikely to lead to progress, and the policy of automatic suspension may discourage athletes who have been hazed from coming forward, as they may worry that in seeking help they are hurting themselves and their teammates by bringing down a suspension on their whole team. 

Regardless of the benefits, having one policy in theory and another one in practice makes the university’s stance appear to be contradictory. Either McGill has a policy of zero-tolerance and automatic suspension or it does not. This needs to be made clear as athletes, coaches, parents, and members of the McGill community look to the university for a clear outline of how it plans to deal with hazing. The way the administration handled this most recent incident suggests that it is aware of the flaws of its 2005 policy. If so, it needs to make this clear while crafting a new policy. 

Hazing is a serious issue, and McGill needs to ensure that its policy addresses hazing in an effective, supportive, and flexible manner in order to reduce the harm hazing can cause. Hazing is an issue both rooted in and normalized by the culture of university-level athletics; as such, it requires a response that is focused on education, awareness, and prevention, rather than relying solely on punitive measures. The policy should not mandate automatic sanctions and respect the wishes of athletes who come forward so that mechanisms of recourse do not discourage athletes from reporting instances of hazing. Finally, the university must conduct the re-examination of its hazing policy in a proactive and transparent manner—McGill should show initiative in addressing this issue rather than waiting for another report like that of The Globe & Mail to prod it into action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 … 661 662 663 664 665 … 1,364

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue