Latest News

a, Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV

Inside the Echo Chamber

We are in the midst of a culture war where the personal and the political are becoming increasingly intertwined. A new discourse of social consciousness is emerging as the generation that was born in a world with ostensible equity across racial, sexual, and gender lines comes of age and realizes that things aren’t as equally represented as the people at the top claim they are be. This has manifested itself in a million different ways across the McGill campus, from womens-only gym hours to ‘Farnan-gate.’ Beyond McGill, issues of proper representation abound; we can see that these issues are endemic of the culture at large. 

This problem extends to popular media in that representation of women and minorities in media is nowhere near what it should be. To wit: Recent data shows that 90 per cent of major motion picture leads in a given year are white, and 75 per cent are male. Close to 90 per cent of television writers are white. Seven of the nine major television network heads and seven of the eight major film studio heads are white males. This is, of course, grossly out of line with how demographics are distributed in terms of population, so why has this been happening? Civil rights have made decidedly huge leaps in the last several decades, but it seems like television and film have been changing at a much slower rate than the rest of the world. The problem begins at the top.

“[Lack of diversity] is typical of North American power in general,” says Dr. Morton Weinfeld, professor in the McGill Sociology Department. “This would be true of Fortune 500 companies. This would be true of leaders of the major Ivy league universities, et cetera.”

A lot of this comes from the fact that demographic difference is split along socioeconomic lines. White males are more likely to earn more and be placed in positions of power than any other demographic. This creates a sort of echo chamber in which the perspectives of the majority are constantly reaffirmed while non-majority perspectives are not given an equitable footing to showcase their stories.

The race and class hegemony also has secondary effects in terms of the type of media that gets produced and how people react to it. 

“An image is not just an image,” remarked professor Margaret Campbell, at the Concordia Department of Sociology. “It’s really close to people—the way they perceive themselves, their sense of identity, their personhood, the way they perceive others.” Thus, when a young black male watches television and sees that a huge proportion of black actors are being typecast as criminals, part of that gets internalized and the boy’s world gets a little smaller.

The same principle applies to how the society is influenced by content, which is what leads to such intense and vitriolic backlash against any changes in the status quo. While the actual number of people protesting increased diversity is small, it accounts for some of the most fervent and regular dissent—be it against women’s gym hours or what Lena Dunham’s antics on Girls. This problem stems from two things. One is that the majority has been used to having a monopoly on what airs for so long that any alterations to it are perceived as a threat. The other is that people of the overrepresented majority misread the messages of content as labelling them as tacitly or overtly racist or misogynist. It puts people on the defensive—since nobody wants to be called prejudiced—and sparks backlash and aggression towards the media that they think is criticizing them.

There’s also an uneasy clashing of genuine improvement and institutionalized discrimination at the executive level of entertainment. While some studios seem to be legitimately trying to produce content that more accurately reflects the demographic makeup of North America, it can be unclear whether the increase is due to valid positive change or a desire to appease the public. For instance, take the case of Sasheer Zamata, who was hired as a Saturday Night Live (SNL) cast member amid a public controversy that the show was not diverse enough. Now she is rarely used at all. SNL has, it seems, filled its quota. This sort of lip service clearly doesn’t benefit anybody—it only makes it more difficult for consumers to discern who is truly committed to diversity. 

However, it’s important to note that things may be getting better.

“[I remember] exactly when the number of leading visible minority characters on television was zero—an easy number to remember,” recalls Dr. Weinfeld. “The number of such characters as leading roles in film was zero. The number of [minority] newscasters was zero.” 

It’s easy to forget this fact when there’s so much that needs correcting, but things are changing quickly and noticeably. In television, we seem to be exiting an era where prestige dramas are defined by white men doing terrible things, and entering one where there’s a lot more balance in representation. Content creators like Tina Fey, Shonda Rhimes, Mindy Kaling, and Justin Simien (to name just a few) are engaging with their ideologies and struggles while dispelling the myth that feminist and racial perspectives come in one monolithic form. For example, shows like Black-ish and Fresh off the Boat succeed not because of their representation of minority culture, but in their portrayal of a very specific and singular family dynamic.

Real change is coming from the bottom-up, as well. Empirical data reveals that shows with an accurate amount of minority representation are watched more than shows that have less than the average, and television is slowly changing to meet those demands. Campbell extolls the virtues of social media as a place where everybody is on an even playing field. Mediums like Twitter offer an opportunity for broad social movements to organize with relative ease and influence the people at the top. While there’s the irony that most of the worst, least progressive speech also comes from these platforms, social media is ultimately doing more good than harm. Hate increasingly falls on deaf ears, getting lost in the white noise of the sheer volume of social commentary. What gets left over and recycled and reblogged and retweeted is a critical analysis of the present and a hope that we may live in a world that is as equal as we dream it to be. 

a, Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV

Pop Rhetoric: A fresh perspective? It’s a boat time

The airing of the show Fresh Off The Boat (FOTB) on ABC was met with much fanfare and hype. The show—based off the life of chef Eddie Huang, as numerous blog sites were quick to note—was the first TV show in American mainstream media starring Asian Americans since All-American Girl (1994) starring Margaret Cho. Though Cho’s show was cut from the network after one season, FOTB currently has strong ratings and is being applauded for its ability to make racial jokes without being racist.

I had always been slightly dismissive of the numerous studies connecting media representation and self-validation. Growing up as an Asian Canadian, I had known no shows starring people who “looked like me,” but I didn’t feel deprived. I prided myself on being race-blind, focusing on the universal themes of shows instead of jibes about the race of my protagonist. But I surprised myself with the fervour with which I approached this show. When I read about its inception on media sites, I scrambled to watch the first episode, and then the next. I had not realized my craving for a protagonist who looks like me until I had access to one. I didn’t realize how good it felt to see Jessica Huang, portrayed by Constance Wu, eat sliced apple straight off the blade of a knife while home tutoring her children. All the “Asian mom” moments I had joked about with my friends—the shared moments of, “Your mom does that too?”—were finally on the screen for thousands of people to see. I had not realized how much I needed that validation, of what constituted ‘normal’ behaviour for ‘normal’ families. 

There has been plenty of discourse regarding how FOTB should not be the messiah of representation of Asian North Americans. Both the creators of the show and the actors have come towards the media denying their intention to be representative of all Asian American family experiences. Instead, they urge critics to promote a more diverse range of Asian talent and diffuse the need for FOTB to be a beacon of representation. 

In many respects, I should not be able to relate to this show at all. I could add my two cents to the babble of complaints of the show’s fake Taiwanese accents or the forced frugality jokes. A “stereotypical Asian” child like myself would have still been hard pressed to understand the hardships of young Eddie, who deals with being an Asian minority in suburban Orlando—I grew up in a racially diverse neighbourhood of Toronto. But universal themes of childhood isolation, and even the first brush with racism (Eddie is called a “chink” by a classmate in the third episode of the show—I was the target of bullying as “that Chinese kid” in third grade), not to mention the show’s absurd twists of humour, make FOTB generally excellent in its own right.

Although I support the arguments against putting pressure on FOTB to be the “model show” for the “model ethnicity,” I can also empathize with the clamour of voices urging the show to depict their families in such-and-such scenarios. The voices are urgent and impatient, vibrant with the sense of possibility that this one show has conferred, as if trying to make up for 20 years of lost time. However, what they are asking of FOTB would be called, in my mother’s words, “trying to reach the sky in one step.” It’s important to take a breath and channel those newly realized energies into other channels—supporting new media initiatives with minority majority casts, becoming patrons of upcoming talent, and continuing the dialogue around racial issues. Here’s to hoping that in the near future, shows and movies starring minorities will become so common that casting choices won’t be the primary label they are known for.

a, Science & Technology

A guide to the galaxy

On March 19, McGill students and the general Montreal public were taken on a tour of the solar system—while never leaving 103 Rutherford. Dr. Richard Léveillé, a planetary scientist who has worked on NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory mission, presented to a packed room on what scientists have learned about our planet’s neighbours. 

Léveillé started the night by addressing the number one question plaguing space scientists: Why explore space?

“Space is a very dangerous venture,” Léveillé stated. “Sometimes there are risks involved; sometimes there is loss of life.” 

But ultimately, as Léveillé explained, it is innate human curiosity that drives space exploration forward. By answering questions about space, people can answer questions about mankind’s very own origins. 

 “What are the origins and evolution of the solar system?” asked Léveillé. “Why are there all of these different bodies in the solar system? Why are they different in some ways, and why are they similar in others, and how did they get that way?”

It turns out that the search for life, though exciting, is not the driving motivator for space exploration.

“The only mission to go to another planet and search for life […] was the Viking mission in the 1970s,” said Léveillé. “The missions now are not designed to go looking for life. They’re exploring and doing all kinds of wonderful things.” 

Today’s missions typically have the much more achievable goal of improving our understanding of the solar system. After its success with the moon landings, NASA has since branched out to send probes to the farthest reaches of our planetary neighbourhood, and even in the case of Voyager I, beyond the edges of the solar system.

Léveillé’s journey through the solar system started off with the closest planet to the sun—Mercury—and continued outwards to explore Venus, Mars, and Jupiter. 

Each planet is incredibly unique and as technology evolves, scientists are learning new things about their surfaces. In the depths of Mercury’s craters, scientists believe there may be ice. Spaceships have allowed scientists to observe lightning in Venus’ atmosphere, and recent evidence indicates that the planet may have been more volcanically active than previously thought. 

Mars is the target for a startling number of missions, including a number of orbiters and rovers such as Opportunity—whose 11-year mission was originally intended to last only a few months—and Curiosity, a project that Léveillé helped work on. Although there haven’t been any signs of life on Mars, its similarity and proximity to Earth, along with the presence of ice on its surface, make it an attractive target for missions. 

Some of the more ethereal and interesting parts of the solar system lay in the moons of planets. One of Saturn’s moons, Titan, is host to both an unusually thick atmosphere and, as observed by the Cassini spacecraft, hydrocarbon seas.

“It’s so cold on Titan that you can actually condense hydrocarbons—things like methane, ethane, propane,” explained Léveillé. “On Earth we have the hydrologic [water] cycle. We think we get something similar on Titan, only with methane.”

As evidenced by Léveillé’s talk, the Earth, albeit unique, is but one wonderful planet in a wonderful solar system.

 

a, Arts & Entertainment

Album Review: Marina & the Diamonds – Froot

Welsh singer Marina Diamandis (stage-name Marina & the Diamonds) has previously been somewhat unsuccessful in cultivating her own identity within the much-crowded pop music scene. Her debut, The Family Jewels (2010), was a rather garish, cock-a-hoop record, and 2012’s Electra Heart suffered from over-collaboration due to Marina’s route-one scramble for a ‘pop’ sound. Thankfully, on her third album, Froot, she’s finally gotten it right.

 Leaving the shrill vocals and half-fleshed-out characters behind, Marina has progressed by taking a step back in every sense of the albums’ creation, re-focusing on the things she does best. The lyricism is introverted and tackles more nuanced themes of loneliness, feminism, and self-worth. The production is immaculate, taking on a noticeably ’70s/’80s sound which does a superb job of showcasing Marina’s much-improved and streamlined vocals.

 “Blue,” an irresistible 1980s track, describes a vulnerable dependency: “Give me love, give me dreams, give me a good self-esteem,” while the upbeat music tries to veil the sadness hidden within the lyrics. On “Forget,” she sadly admits that, “I have lived my life in debt, I’ve spent my days in deep regret.” During the standout track, “Solitaire,” she compares her career to more successful artists: “All the other jewels around me astounded me at first [….] but I’m not cursed/ I was just covered in dirt.” 

Froot showcases Marina’s acceptance of her rather off-kilter place within not just the music industry, but society as well. It’s an incredibly introspective and self-aware record: One that has enabled her to face the fears she’s seemingly avoided on her previous work, and with that, wash off the dirt and progress onward triumphantly. She confidently states on the eponymous track, “Finally I have found a way to be,” and that, “Life couldn’t get much sweeter,” and with the release of Froot, it’s clear that she means it. 

a, From the BrainSTEM, Science & Technology

From the BrainSTEM: The mammoth cometh

In February 2012, Harvard college professor and genetic engineer George Church hosted a symposium at the Harvard Medical School titled: “Bringing Back the Passenger Pigeon.” The talk centred on the use of new genome-editing technology that could change the concept of reversing extinction from being a dream to a reality. The technique, known as CRISPR—described as “jaw dropping” by Nobel scientist Craig Mello to the Independent—allows scientists to make precise changes to DNA with ease. Church, who was one of the first scientists able to successfully employ the process in both human and mouse cells, has successfully used this technique today to create functioning elephant cells coding for mammoth DNA. 

This achievement marks the beginning of easy, accessible, and precise genetic modification—a possibility feared by many. While the fear of the unknown is normal—if not expected—acting on these fears will come at a cost. 

When considering genomic editing, it’s easy to slip into the trap of cinematic exaggeration. We imagine the results given in Splice, the 2009 science-fiction horror film featuring a terrifyingly beautiful humanoid creature that is the product of the work of two genetic engineers that went amuck. Or in Gattaca, where doctors quantify inferior and superior people based purely on their genetic code. In both, we are meant to perceive the notion of genetic modification to improve the human genome—a concept known as eugenics—to be bad. This concept, almost two decades later, somehow still lingers. 

In light of Church’s recent success in combining the extinct mammoth’s DNA with that of the very alive elephant, it is easy, if not natural, to immediately consider the ramifications of genetic modification on humans and as such, put a stop to it.

  On March 19, 18 scientists, including David Baltimore and Jennifer Doudna, CRISPR/Cas9 co-discovers, published an editorial in Science outlining their fears for the future of gene modification. The editorial, titled “A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification,” urged for the transparency and caution of scientists.

“The possibility of human germline engineering has long been a source of excitement and unease among the general public, especially in light of concerns about initiating a ‘slippery slope’ from disease-curing applications toward uses with less compelling or even troubling implications,” the authors explained. 

How are we meant to move forward then? 

The implications of genomic modifications for humans is riddled with countless debates in law and bioethics, slowing the progress of scientists—akin to the controversy facing the use of embryonic stem cells. When considering the potential to alleviate human suffering through the understanding of genetic diseases via controlled and intelligent genetic modifications in animal subjects, there is no consideration: Genetic modification must continue, unequivocally. 

However, when considering changes to the human genome, the lines become increasingly blurry. An editorial published in Nature echoed the sentiments of those presented in Science by suggesting a ban on all edits to the human germ line. But these types of sentiments place those in the scientific community on the edge of a very steep cliff in which we are allowed to look over, but never jump. 

It’s easy to imagine that the use of genetic modification tools will lead into an age of super-humans where we modify our embryos to create children that are smarter, faster, and stronger. Instead, we must imagine that these tools will enable the understanding, and eventual curing, of horrible diseases and aliments afflicting people everywhere. But, like with all new technologies targeted for human use, we must tread carefully. Checks and balances must be implemented to limit—but never halt—the forward progress of tools like CRISPR.

Today, if we possess the skills, the knowledge, and the tools to bring back an animal that was last seen on earth 4,500 years ago, then how can we so nascently predict what will come tomorrow? By stopping, we are failing to meet the very basis of scientific inquiry. 

 

a, Behind the Bench, Soccer, Sports

Behind the bench: Mourinho, soccer’s witch doctor

Henry Winter of the Daily Telegraph once said, “When [José] Mourinho walks into a press conference, he makes Machiavelli look like an innocent schoolboy.”

It’s a hyperbole, but it’s not untrue. Over the course of his illustrious career, Mourinho—the self-proclaimed ‘Special One’—has turned every team that he has coached into champions. His psychological impact on his players and opponents is unquestionable. He is a living legend; and looking at each of his teams, one begins to truly appreciate the aura of magnificence he has built around himself.

Mourinho’s first professional coaching job was with little-known FC Porto in Portugal’s Primeira Liga. In the span of two years, Porto went from being unknowns to European Champions, beating heavyweights like Real Madrid and Manchester United on their way to the title. Even after shedding its underdog status, Porto continued to roll, winning six titles in two years. Mourinho’s uncanny ability to instill confidence in his players was a central factor in Porto’s early success. Though Porto had always been successful in Portugal, its success on the world stage only came under Mourinho. Thanks to him, Portuguese soccer was back on the map.

Shortly afterwards, Chelsea came calling with a huge contract and a promise to spend big on new transfers. Mourinho accepted the offer and moved to West London. Chelsea hadn’t won the Premier League in 50 years and had always struggled against the likes of Arsenal, Manchester United, and Liverpool. That all changed with the arrival of Mourinho. New players from his old club, Porto, and a few big signings created a strong team that would go on to win seven titles in three years. By the 2005-2006 season, Chelsea had become the unquestioned hegemon in the Premier League. Rival managers Arsene Wenger (Arsenal) and Alex Ferguson (Manchester United) had become mere spectators of Chelsea’s meteoric rise.

He has the desire to win by any means necessary, and he ingrains it into every player he coaches.

After his relationship with Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich soured, Mourinho departed for sunny Inter Milan in 2008. Inter had a good team at the time, yet could never quite overtake top teams such as AC Milan and Juventus. Over the next two years, Inter won five titles, including Mourinho’s second Champions League title. Mourinho once again instilled discipline into his players, and Inter pulled of a historic upset against Pep Guardiola’s near-unbeatable Barcelona squad. Barcelona’s ‘tiki-taka’ system was undone in spectacular fashion for the first time, and Inter had officially risen to the pinnacle of European soccer. According to Mourinho, Inter was an average team, but it never, in his words, “ran away from pressure.”

After winning the Champions League in 2010 with Inter, Mourinho resolved to move onto what would be the greatest challenge of his career: Coaching Real Madrid.

The Galáctico superstars of Europe—Cristiano Ronaldo, Karim Benzema, and Kaká—provided Mourinho with a world-class supporting cast. Unfortunately, Mourinho ran into Messi’s Barcelona team at the height of the latter’s dominance, and not even the greatness of Mourinho could prevent the attacking prowess of Guardiola’s revamped tiki-taka system. Nonetheless, he did manage to win three titles with Real Madrid, including the league title and the Copa del Rey.

Mourinho has built every team with a unique blend of discipline and unwavering confidence. In press conferences, his catchphrase is: “We cannot lose.” He has the desire to win by any means necessary, and he ingrains it into every player he coaches. He is a strategic genius who can adapt to any opponent, on any stage. His impact on the game of soccer today is undeniable and before all is said and done, he will go down as one of the best coaches ever.

a, Opinion

Commentary: Unveiling the fight against religious extremism

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently vowed to appeal the Federal Court’s decision to lift a ban preventing women from wearing the niqab during the Canadian Oath of Citizenship ceremony. In light of the recent terrorist attack at Parliament Hill, Harper has taken an iron pillar stance in the fight against religious extremism in Canada, highlighted by his proposal of Bill C-51. Setting aside the discussion of exactly how and to what degree the banning of the niqab would benefit this cause, it is worth discussing the prime minister’s recent statements in context. It seems quite clear that Harper’s latest move in his battle against extremism is a regressive and dangerous step for Canada.

Understandably, many Canadians want to see the promotion of secularism and agree with Harper that a religious garment has no place in a governmental ceremony. However, in cases such as this, there is a dangerously thin line between secularism and oppression. To quote the National Secular Society, “[The first principle of secularism..] ensures that religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of state, and makes sure the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs.” Clearly, Harper is failing to abide by the second part of that principle. Essentially, he is interfering with a religious practice which poses no real threat to the political process of the ceremony.

In fact, Harper previously claimed repeatedly that the niqab was more of a cultural issue rather than a religious one. This claim might be convincing if not for the fact that his main points of argument regarding the issue were ridden with phrases like, “Muslim extremists,” and “Jihad terror.”

Harper also criticized the niqab, calling it an offensive symbol of oppression which is “rooted in a culture which is anti-woman.” This is a sentiment which the majority of Canadians seem to agree with, according to a poll by the Toronto Star. However, it is difficult to miss the intolerant and regressive nature of this kind of close-minded thinking. This belief readily assumes that all women who wear a veil are either brainwashed or oppressed, and are forced to do so by a male patriarch, whereas in reality many women wear it because they consciously choose to, whether it is to express their faith or their character. Furthermore, the logic behind banning an object which women wear to feel comfortable, both physically and spiritually, in order to promote freedom and equality, is flawed. Holding the niqab up as a symbol of oppression and inequality is a short-sighted action which promotes intolerance.

Harper’s latest move in his battle against extremism is a regressive and dangerous step for Canada.

With regards to intolerance, it is important to discuss the societal effect of these secular government policies. This is especially relevant to Quebec, which has a long history of trying to balance secularism with the diversity of religions and cultures present within the province. Perhaps the most notable example was in 2013, when the Parti Québécois proposed a Quebec charter of values, which would restrict public employees from donning religious articles, such as niqabs. What followed was a storm of public racist attacks on Muslim women in the province. It seems to be a trend that the government’s implementation of secularism is often taken by radicals as a green light to spew their blatantly racist, bigoted ideals. Coincidentally, it is often this kind of intolerance and sense of superiority against other cultures that serves as both the foundation and fuel for religious extremism. Therefore, a policy banning religious symbols inevitably does nothing but reinforce the self-righteous anger on both sides of the argument.

Canada should learn from the failures of Quebec and tread carefully. Harper’s strategy for fighting religious extremism is paving a dangerous future for Canada and threatening its identity as a progressive and multicultural nation.

a, McGill, News

Floor fellow contract negotiations to ask for minimum wage

Negotiations between the floor fellow bargaining unit of the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE) and McGill continued on March 20, following an offer presented by the administration on March 13.

One of the issues is a change in floor fellow remuneration so that it complies with the Quebec Labour Standards Act (QLSA), which outlines working conditions for all employees in Quebec. According to the QLSA, the general minimum wage for employees who do not receive tips is $10.35 per hour. 

Evan McIlroy, bargaining representative for the floor fellows, explained that the QLSA mandates that floor fellows are paid a minimum wage. McIlroy indicated that the problem of wage was discovered during the course of negotiations and that the administration was open to amending the current situation. 

“Remuneration is not our focus right now,” he said. “We expect this issue to be solved rapidly as we are not asking for a raise, but rather that [our agreement] complies with Quebec labour laws. It was [not] a concern when we unionized in the first place; we have simply discovered that the remuneration system in place right now was not standard.”

According to McIlroy, the issue will be addressed at the end of the bargaining discussions.

The contract negotiations have been marked with setbacks. The inclusion of core values, such as anti-oppression and harm reduction, into the floor fellows’ collective agreement led to the boycott of a training session on Jan. 24 and 25.

“Normally, a collective agreement only defines the working conditions of the union members, so the attempt to include the ‘values associated with the role of floor fellows’ in the collective agreement is a significant departure from the norm,” explained McGill Director of Labour and Employee Relations Robert Comeau to the Tribune in January.

According to Vice President floor fellow for AMUSE Christina Clemente, the updated proposal from McGill includes mention of the core values.

“The proposed collective agreement presented on March 13 includes a clause related to another document which defines the core values,” she said.

The negotiations are likely to continue over the next couple of weeks. Several points remain to be discussed according to Clemente. 

“We have decided to break it down by issues, so further negotiations on different topics are expected later,” she said. 

a, Campus Spotlight, Student Life

Campus Spotlight: MyVision

MyVision (MV) is a global enterprise of young people with a mission to find a solution to the world’s social issues through social business. MV McGill came to fruition in 2012 thanks to business partners and McGill undergraduate students Yashvi Shah and Joanna Klimczak. It has since evolved into a global network and is one of the largest networks in the world of young leaders building social business.

“Social business” is a novel business model, developed by Professor Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. It is characterized by a non-dividend, non-loss structure with a goal of resolving a social problem. 

“Social business is something that falls between a business and a charity,” said Clément Ponsonnet, Vice President of University Affairs at MV McGill. “It has the same goal as a charity […] but it works exactly like a business. It generates profit and it’s sustainable, but it also works to solve a social problem.”

Yashvi Shah, president of MV McGill, believes there is a lot of potential with regards to the social business model on campus. 

“At McGill, we’re increasingly realizing that there are a lot of social entrepreneurs on campus [who] don’t necessarily follow this [social business] model […] but are still doing social good in the community,” Shah said. “So what we stand for is social business as a whole.”

MV’s platform rests on three central pillars: Education, creation, and connection. With 17 chapters across the world, MV aims to educate students about social business, to create their own enterprise, and to connect talented youth with mentors in the social business space around the world.

All of these pillars come together in one of MV McGill’s social enterprise, Learning Is For Everyone (LIFE). Aiming to reduce the high school dropout rate in Montreal, LIFE is a yearlong project that connects university mentors with high school students. 

“By paying [the mentors], it’s sustainable and it has a social impact, [thus] making it a social enterprise,” Shah explained.

Mehreen Perwaiz, a member of the communications sector, explained the different sections of MV McGill: Youth engagement, communications, university affairs, and social business and consulting. According to Perwaiz, the education aspect works to inform students on campus and beyond about the growing field of social business through youth engagement, which works with high school and CEGEP students through workshops and mentorship. 

“We’ve reached around 200 students, and what’s impressive is now Dawson [College] even has [its] own [MV] chapter,” Perwaiz said.

MV McGill is hosting their second Social Business Summit on Tuesday, March 24 at the Notman House. According to Ponsonnet, there is a speaker series, a networking period, and a dinner. The speakers include Anita Nowak, Director of Operations for McGill’s Social Learning for Social Impact massive open online course (MOOC); Henry Mintzberg, internationally renowned academic and author on business management; Richard St-Pierre, the president of the C2 Montreal conference; and Bernard d’Arche, a McGill student and a social entrepreneur, who created an enterprise to assist the rebuilding of Lac Mégnatic. This idea won the Dobson cup, and d’Arche plans on raising approximately $1 million by the end of this year. 

“[After the tragedy that left this Quebec community destroyed,] d’Arche created a business incubator, which is a business centre for all those business owners who had their offices destroyed, as well as for new entrepreneurs, providing a place where they can all work and create a network of businesses,” Ponsonnet said.  

Yunus has guided Shah, Klimczak, and hundreds of young people from around the world towards a better future. With the help of Yunus, Shah said she hopes MV McGill will expand across the whole campus.  

“We are almost exclusively a management club at McGill, so in five years, we’d like to […] expand away from Bronfman to a base that is more central and more easily accessible for everyone on campus,” Shah said. “We know the value that interdisciplinary cross-collaboration can bring to social entrepreneurship. That way, if anyone has an idea, [MV] McGill can make it happen for them.” 

a, Arts & Entertainment, Music

Deep Cuts: Songs for my future wedding

God Only Knows

Artist: Beach Boys

Album: Pet Sounds

Released: May 16, 1966

This wonderful, harmonically complex, feel-good track is not always rightfully recognized as one of the greatest tracks of the 1960s. According to the songwriters, it is a story told from the point of view of a man contemplating life after death and professing his eternal love for his paramour. The Beach Boys are the perfect addition to any wedding soundtrack due to their affinity for songs about all-consuming love. This track would be the perfect end to the big day with a couple professing a larger-than-life love for each other, for “as long as there are stars above [them].”

I Think of You

Artist: Rodriguez

Album: Coming From Reality

Released:  November 1971

Released in 2012, the documentary Searching for Sugar Man detailed the story of Cape Town fans trying to find their favorite musician, Sixto Rodriguez, who was rumoured to be dead. In reality, they found the legendary musician working construction in Detroit. Rodriguez’s music never took off in the U.S., but became the soundtrack to the lives of many young South Africans with the anti-Apartheid movement as a backdrop. This track, with its soulful guitar and haunting lyrics, might be one of the greatest love songs ever. Its slow pace and smooth guitar makes it perfect for a walk down the aisle on that special day. 

Modern Love

Artist: David Bowie

Album: Let’s Dance

Released: April 14, 1978

There is no better way to get the party started than an old-school ’80s dance track. David Bowie created a true masterpiece with this iconic track. The song is youthful and rebellious, and can easily relate to any couple’s love story. It brings us back to the comedic torture of teenage years portrayed in films like The Breakfast Club. Although more mainstream, this track has a significant alien edge, which makes both a surprise and a favourite track on the dance floor.

Ritual Union

Artist: Little Dragon

Album: Ritual Union

Released: July 25, 2011

Little Dragon is a small electronic band that earned its name due to lead vocalist Yukimi Nagano’s tendency to throw “fuming tantrums” in the recording studio. The band’s unique sound earned them a feature on Gorillaz’s excellent album Plastic Beach (2010). This track has a wonderfully sexy, alluring style, making you want to dance close to that special someone. Its title alone makes it the perfect song to include in a wedding, but its balance of energetic and mellow makes it an ideal song for fun dancing while dressed in classy attire. 

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue