Latest News

Features

Curiosity in crisis

by Kellie Elrick on

More in Features:

Language, literature, and “What the hell are you going to do with that degree!?”

Written by Kellie Elrick, Arts & Entertainment Editor

Designed by Mia Helfrich, Design Editor

This fall, security guards flooded the campus, the West Coast burned, the library sat empty of books, and thousands of students walked into classrooms to study art and literature and film.

When I was applying to university, I thought I wanted to study oceanography, or marine biology, which morphed into an interest in primatology, then anthropology and archaeology, and eventually into languages and literature. I stumbled across disciplines, taking courses in physics and classics and Japanese poetry, relentlessly confused and at one point registering for a class only to discover that it was in fact being taught in Africa. I eventually landed in McGill’s Liberal Arts major, wracked with doubt and joy.

Anita Parmar, Co-Director of McGill’s innovative education space Building 21, also began university torn between the humanities and sciences, and ended up with a PhD in Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics.

“I distinctly remember in high school thinking, well, artists use art to dive into their understanding of the world. Authors or storytellers write stories. And all those philosophers use philosophy. I chose physics [….] I think there is this fundamental wanting to understand the world,” Parmar said in an interview with The Tribune.

Inversely, Anastassios Anastassiadis, a History and Modern Greek Studies Professor at McGill, studied physics as an undergraduate student at a Liberal Arts college before ending up with a Doctorate in history.

“The important elements in physics are space and time [….] And, as a matter of fact, it’s the same thing for history,” said Anastassiadis in an interview with The Tribune.

The questions I wanted to explore through science—how we understand landscapes and animals, how to change our relationship to the natural world, how we ended up in this ecological crisis—are in many ways the same ones I’m exploring now through the environmental humanities.

Disciplines are often different versions of the same questions, the same sentiment in different clothing.

“I think that I’ve learned so much more about, let’s say, philosophy, from my English degree than when I actually took Philosophy classes. And I’ve learned so much about history that I did not take away from my History classes,” Gaëlle Perron, a U3 Honours English Literature student with a Classics minor, said.

But increasingly, students do not only come to university to understand the world; they come expecting prospects in return. And what’s education for, anyway? To learn hard skills, or how to live? To become a better person, or an employed one?

“From the 1980s onwards, we had this development of the corporate university,” Anastassiadis said. “Now the idea is not that education is a public good that has to be provided, but education is a consumption.”

My friends and family will ask, for instance, why I decided to study literature in Italian, a language that is not my own, and why I decided to write an honours thesis on Natalia Ginzburg, and what within her work could possibly be so important to me. The answer is that I still don’t know—it’s the unknown that propelled me into the humanities in the first place. I read her six-page essay “Winter in the Abruzzi,” and somehow felt that when I looked up from the last page, things around me had changed—I had emerged from the text a different person. I wasn’t sure how it happened. I had to try to understand it.

I’ve heard a few times that humanities graduates make good CEOs, which never resonated with me. I didn’t want to be a CEO; I wanted to read novels. Learning languages does not come naturally to me. But, very simply, they bring me joy, and open up my life.

Pasha Khan, now an Islamic Studies Professor at McGill, initially accepted an offer to study Computer Science as an undergraduate.

“I kind of cried and wept and threw a tantrum, and my parents allowed me to do an English Lit degree. So it was out of love. It was out of desire for literature, for language. But it was never really about the English language as such. During my undergraduate degree, and even before that, I was relearning the languages of my heritage […] I learned to read Urdu. I learned to read Punjabi, both scripts,” Khan said.

I feel fundamentally that the end goal of education should not just be to make enough money that you can buy something to dry your tears with. I’ve encountered numerous times the sense that happiness is impractical; meandering curiosity is a hindrance on the path to employment; learning for joy is a treat for only society’s most privileged. However, it’s also what Ginzburg, a Jewish writer and intellectual who suffered under Italian Fascism, wanted for her children: “Not a desire for success but a desire to be and to know.” Ginzburg knew hardship; she knew pain—the Fascists tortured and killed her first husband—and yet she wanted her children, above all else, to be curious, and to love.

I often feel like the world is—for a lack of a better term—going to shit. But then I stumble across Gaspara Stampa in 16th-century Venice, writing about being heartbroken and hopeful and lost, asking and struggling with the same questions that I have now. When stories reach through time, across land and language, and somehow end up with us, I can’t help but feel that it means something.

“You’ll hear about Orpheus in Hozier’s music [….] Why are we so obsessed with this man that goes back to save his wife, and then looks back at her? Why does that speak to humanity thousands of years after the original myth was written?” Perron said.

My paternal grandmother was supposed to attend St. Olaf College and become a wife, or a Lutheran nun. Instead, she got a scholarship to attend the University of Wisconsin. She studied nursing, then education, and somewhere along the way, she read The Golden Bough. The book changed everything; she quit the Young Republicans’ Society and the Young Lutherans’ Society and joined a theatre group and started skinny dipping and married a Canadian soil physicist and travelled lots.

She’s now 87 years old and has dementia, and there are lots of things we can’t talk about anymore. But books are one of the things that stayed. We can talk about novels she read when she was young and that I’m reading now, and she remembers everything. The humanities stayed with her throughout her whole life. Perhaps the intangible, subtle, wide-ranging nature of its impact is precisely what has allowed it to last.

During an anthropology lecture, my professor sent us outside for a few minutes, asking us to look at the world ethnographically and notice things we hadn’t before.

The next day, walking out of Parc La Fontaine, it really did seem as though I had never laid eyes on these streets before: The trees and brightly coloured doors and balconies seemed completely novel. It was only when I hit Boul. St-Joseph that I realized I had in fact walked the wrong way out of the park, and had not unlocked a new register of perception; everything was actually new, and I felt very, very silly.

The humanities can teach students how to exist in the world, how to be fulfilled, how to be good. Reading has altered, on an essential level, the way I am—but this has its limits.

Fiction is much more difficult to put into practice. Tolstoy’s argument for abstinence in The Kreutzer Sonata had such an effect on one 18-year old reader that he castrated himself, and dedicated his life to farming a small plot of land. When he was 30, he went to visit Tolstoy’s estate, and discovered that the great writer—who asked “How Much Land Does a Man Need?” and concluded six feet (enough space for a grave)—lived on a sprawling estate, and had around a dozen children.

Sophia Tolstaya’s diary from Aug. 31, 1909 recounts the reader’s visit: “He was obviously very hurt, said he wanted to cry, kept repeating, ‘My God, my God! How can this be? What shall I tell them at home?’ and questioned everyone, seeking an explanation of this contradiction.”

Last spring, lectures became punctuated with protests. My classes kept going, as protestors proclaimed through the door that there was a genocide going on in Palestine; that McGill was exploiting its TAs; that there were unmarked Indigenous graves on the grounds of the university’s New Vic Project. It was hard not to feel like the real world—where the things that mattered were happening—was somewhere out there.

I didn’t know how to reconcile all the images around me, scrolling past shiny red shoes and libraries in Europe and wildfires and floods and cats on windowsills and my friends travelling and drinking and dancing and hippopotamuses and protests and rubble.

“So maybe I’m studying theories of injustice, but can I actually ever apply any of this to solve a problem of injustice in the real world?” wondered Elisia Wong, a U2 Joint Honours English Literature and Political Science Student. “I think I’ve slowly come to realize that it’s not really about whether or not that whole thing transposes onto the outside world, but I’m learning little things that […] can help me navigate it […] I think that there is real value in understanding what the consequences that you want are and what is possible.”

The realm of beauty, fiction, and language is also fundamentally imaginative, and therein lies a kind of power to think beyond material conditions and understand minds that are not our own.

There are times when big-picture thinking feels very small—I still struggle sometimes to justify my education to my family. My maternal grandparents don’t know what I’m studying. They never learned English, and no one in my family knows how to say “Liberal Arts” in Cantonese. “I told them you study history, and other things,” my mother said. “Even if I explained it, they wouldn’t understand it.”

They gave up their whole lives for their children and fled their country on foot and worked in factories, inhaling toxic fumes, and now I study paintings in buildings with stained-glass windows.

When my grandmother died, my grandfather started spouting stories about their lives before they immigrated. I didn’t know how to explain that this was what I wanted to study—people, places, languages—that the world of the humanities was not that far from ours. But justifying the study of marginalized voices, the literature of oppression and resistance, to people who had actually lived through these things somehow rang hollow.

I don’t know what my role is in all these stories and paradigms; I live at some sort of crossroads between identities and privilege and oppression that I can’t quite get at. I’ve spent most of my life terrified that I’m not “getting” what I should from my identity. That I’m not who I say I am because I’m not feeling the right kind of pain.

Grasping at these intangible things that affect me in ways I don’t understand—race, power, art, science, family, history, language, poetry—may be the only way to begin figuring out what I’m doing here. Curiosity asks us to think beyond transaction: To give yourself over to questions and problems and pain bigger than yourself and expect nothing in return.

“We have to allow people the margin of thinking uselessly. If you’re driven only by what is concrete— ‘I need to have an answer today!’—we don’t allow our minds the liberty and the capacity of being imaginative,” said Anastassiadis. “Human evolution requires the capacity for our mind not to function according to what has been passed down to us, and what we have been asked to do, but [rather] what we’ll be able to invent ourselves and to imagine.”

The lovely ambiguity and contradictions of the humanities, of studying poetry in times of crisis, trying to understand lives that we can’t live, making sense of the endless stream of information and images being thrust upon us, asking how things can be so beautiful and so terrible all at once, learning to live in new languages, dreaming of a future in a world where tomorrow is uncertain, are a fundamentally true expression of the contradictions and complications within the real world, and within my own life.

“I think anybody would say that the most interesting questions,” Parmar said, “are the ones that seem impossible.”

McGill, News

Board of Governors’s CSSR does not recommend McGill divest from companies in business with Israel

by Eliza Lee on

More in McGill:

At a Board of Governors (BoG) meeting on Dec. 12, The Committee on Sustainability and Social Responsibility (CSSR) presented a report that did not recommend that McGill should divest from companies with financial ties to the Israeli state.

CSSR Chair Alan Desnoyers presented the report to BoG, which the committee compiled in response to an expression of concern (EoC) that the Secretariat received on June 25. This EoC demanded that the university divest from companies complicit in the genocide in Palestine, which they claimed constitutes social injury. 

Desnoyers explained to the BoG that the committee did not recommend divestment because it did not find that such companies caused social injury. According to the CSSR’s terms of reference, social injury refers to “the grave injurious impact” of a person’s activities on others or the environment. As Desnoyers noted, the terms of reference state that a person will not be deemed responsible for social injury for doing business with those who directly cause it. Under these terms, the committee found that private entities with financial ties to the Israeli military do not necessarily cause social injury.

In response to a question on the university’s plan for sharing this information with staff and students, Vice-President (Communications and Institutional Relations) Philippe Gervais explained that McGill was planning on sending communications to the McGill community in the coming days. Gervais noted that many students, including those who would have otherwise protested in response to McGill’s decision, will be busy studying for exams or will be out of town for the holidays.

“We’re planning on […] a quiet communication to the community,” Gervais said. “We’re not hiding from it, but we’re not promoting it widely.”

Desnoyers went on to note that the CSSR is also working on a report in accordance with their mandate to evaluate “the question of divestment from direct investments in companies that derive a dominant portion of their direct revenues from the production of military weapons regardless of the countries in which they operate.” McGill committed to considering divestment from weapons manufacturers on June 18, during negotiations with representatives to the Palestine Solidarity Encampment. The CSSR expects to table their report on this item at the next BoG meeting on Feb. 6.

Desnoyers also shared the CSSR’s recommendation to the BoG that it endorses the 2025-2030 Climate and Sustainability Strategy. This strategy will follow the 2020-2025 strategy, and seeks to enhance McGill’s environmental commitments and sustainability. It is focused on improving four areas: learning and research, physical environment, resource management, and community building. In addition to existing long-term commitments—such as reaching carbon neutrality by 2040—the 2025-2030 strategy includes new commitments to “increase climate resilience” and “become a nature positive university.”

Provost and Executive Vice-Principal (Academic) Christopher Manfredi also gave a presentation on behalf of the Finances and Infrastructure committee to the BoG. Manfredi explained that the committee recommends a final fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget with a deficit of $15 million CAD, with a $5 million CAD contingent. Due to a number of changes in funding—including tuition hikes for out-of-province students—budget projections predict that the deficit will reach $44 million CAD by FY2026.

Manfredi also presented financial plans for FY2026, and estimated that McGill will need to make roughly $45 billion CAD in budgetary corrections during that year to have a balanced budget. Proposed methods of addressing this deficit in FY2026 include increasing tuition for out-of-province students in professional programs, reducing staff, and lowering the amount of the operating budget going toward student aid.

Another topic discussed at the meeting was the potential impacts of the provincial government’s adoption of Bill 74. This bill grants education ministers greater power in restricting the number of international students post-secondary institutions take in. In his opening remarks, McGill Vice-Chancellor and President Deep Saini stressed that capping international student numbers would diminish the rich perspectives of international students in classrooms, violate the academic freedom and autonomy of universities, and threaten the research sector—which relies heavily on international students. 

“In my view, […] this legislation poses an enormous risk to Quebec’s future,” Saini said. “[International students] enrich the nature of discourse in classrooms [and] bring talent that is not locally available.”

Moment of the meeting

Saini explained that the government will likely announce a scenario for restrictions on international students in January 2025. One potential scenario would see international student intake capped at the number who entered in Fall 2024. Saini emphasized the harmful effects of such a limit, and noted that McGill and other Quebec universities are collaborating to present alternative scenarios to the provincial government.

Soundbite

“It’s a question of reprioritizing as we reprioritize everything […] to realign our expenses to what we can afford to make sure these important points do not get dropped [….] We’re not talking about humongous investments that are going to change the face of the budget.”— Vice-President (Administration and Finance) Fabrice Labeau responding to a question on the impacts of the Climate and Sustainability Strategy 2025-2030 on McGill’s finances. Labeau expressed that he was optimistic about the plan, stressing that many of the projects it outlines entail relatively small expenses for the university.

News, SSMU

Students call to impeach SSMU President Dymetri Taylor following mishandling of students’ motions for special strike

by Amelia Clark on

More in News:

At a Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) General Assembly (GA) on Dec. 5, 356 undergraduate students passed a motion of impeachment against SSMU President Dymetri Taylor. The motion called for a referendum on the question of whether or not to remove Taylor from office on the grounds of impropriety and mishandling of duties. The motion claimed that Taylor obstructed the society’s democratic process by misrepresenting its legal limitations.

150 undergraduate students signed a motion submitted by a member of Students’ for Palestine’s Honour and Resistance (SPHR) at McGill to SSMU on Nov. 5, requesting a Special Strike GA to vote on whether constituents would participate in an international student strike for Palestine. SSMU’s Steering Committee denied this motion on Nov. 6, claiming that the wording was nearly identical to that of the Policy Against Against Genocide In Palestine (PAGIP)—a policy passed in the Fall 2023 referendum and subsequently suspended in an injunction, impeding SSMU’s ratification. The Steering Committee claimed that because of the similarities in wording, the motion seeking to hold a referendum on the strike would therefore be liable to the same injunction constraints, making it illegal to pursue under Quebec law. Taylor then stated that for SSMU to facilitate the GA the language changed in the motion would result in it having nothing to do with solidarity for Palestine, stating that otherwise he and SSMU could be held legally responsible for violating the injunction restraints. 

SPHR put forth a revised motion on Nov. 13. SSMU rendered the motion null, stating that the time required to ensure it did not violate the injunction would make it no longer feasible to hold a Special Strike GA and a referendum vote before the organized international strike began on Nov. 21.

On Nov. 27, an anonymous source claiming to be a former member of SSMU’s 2023-2024 executive board sent an email to SPHR, The McGill Daily, and The Tribune expressing concern that Taylor had misrepresented SSMU’s ability to take a stance on the genocide in Palestine in his refusal of the Special Strike GA motion. The source also provided a legal advice document from SSMU’s lawyers, including advice received on Palestine-related issues. As the former board member noted, the document outlined that SSMU and its executives could organize and participate in events showing support for Palestine without violating the injunction as long as they used terms other than those used in the PAGIP. 

“No board member or Officer of the Society should therefore be making the claim that the court order against the [PAGIP] constitutes a blanket ban on SSMU taking Palestine-related positions,” the former board member wrote. “They CERTAINLY should not be using this excuse to block students from exercising their constitutionally-mandated, democratic prerogatives.”

Outside of the Special Strike GA motion submitted, which called for all undergraduate students to strike, individual student societies such as the McGill Students’ Geography Society (MUGS), Philosophy Students’ Association (PSA), and Anthropology Students’ Association (ASA) held GAs which passed a motion to picket classes on Nov. 21 and 22. 

The student who put forward the motion of impeachment presented the case at the GA on Dec. 5, outlining how SSMU’s non-participation in the Student Strike for Palestine affected SPHR’s movement. 

“This strike motion should have placed the entire SSMU student body on strike for Palestine during the week of Nov. 21 [….] This was a historic landmark for the student movement for Palestine and Montreal. Dymetri [Taylor] knew this and denied students the right to take action,” the student said at the GA. “This constitutes an undeniable abuse of power.”

In an interview with The Tribune, Taylor explained that he had misunderstood SSMU’s capacity to support Palestine due to in-person legal advice given during and before the interrogation and examination of the PAGIP injunction, which didn’t align with the legal advice given on paper. As such, he stated that the charges made against him in the impeachment motion didn’t reflect the intent of his actions.

“Delinquency of duty, more or less, means I’m not doing my job. Impropriety means I’m purposely lying. I’m not lying when I’m saying that I did generally think and misunderstand as to the ramifications of the ‘Policy Against Genocide’ versus going on strike,” Taylor said. “I have spent around 60 to 70 hours a week in this office just trying to do what I can. […] I’m a student. I make mistakes. I’m not infallible.”

He further stated that if he remains in office, he intends to address his past actions and regain the student body’s trust through working with an Accountability Coordinator.

“There’s other things than going straight to impeachment. We have the accountability committee for a reason,” said Taylor. “And while I have my own ideas as to what I can do, I’d ask what would you [the accountability committee] recommend or mandate that I have to do to ensure that this isn’t happening?”

An SPHR representative spoke in favour of Dyemtri’s removal in an interview with The Tribune, stating that SSMU had a responsibility to represent students’ voices on Palestine-related issues when asked and able. 

“The problem we have now is that our student union functions more like a corporation than a real representative body,” the representative said. “The SSMU can publicly take a stand in support of students and their fight for divestment […] as well as operate as an organized channel through which students can do actions like striking or boycotts or otherwise organized acts of solidarity.”


On Dec. 17, SSMU announced that students voted not to impeach Taylor with 58.6 per cent of the vote in the referendum. A total of 16.9 per cent of the student constituency cast a ballot. Taylor will thus continue his tenure.

McGill, News

McGill Senate concludes 2024 with reflections on guest speaker policies and financial standings

by Jenna Durante on

More in McGill:

McGill’s policy on controversial speaker events, the university’s projected $45 million CAD deficit for fiscal year 2026, and the school’s fundraising standing were among the topics of discussion at the university Senate’s final meeting of the calendar year on Dec. 4.

The meeting commenced with two memorial tributes to the late Professor Philip E. Branton of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences and Professor Jon Bradley in the Faculty of Education. 

The Senate moved to discuss the policy on speaker events after a Nov. 25 directive paused invitations for in-person extracurricular events until Jan. 1. This policy came in the wake of outcry at McGill’s decision to host Mosab Hassan Yousef for a talk, who students denounced for his past Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian remarks. This controversy over a speaker—an issue not unique to McGill—prompted Senators to question the decision-making process, expressing concerns about the lack of transparency and consultation with academics and students. 

Interim Deputy Provost (Student Life & Learning) Angela Campbell explained the decision followed a death threat, and provided no further information. She acknowledged the difficulty in managing the situation, emphasizing the need for community consultation.  

“Between now and Jan. 1, when this pause ends, a process will have to be put in place whereby this community decides whether or not we say no to particular speakers. Senate was invited to comment on that last month, it did not,” Campbell explained. 

While Campbell suggested that some individuals have pointed to hate speech as a potential boundary for rejecting speakers, she stressed that the topic requires further discussion. 

Senator Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli replied, stating that the Senate engaged in an open discussion on the topic earlier in the month. However, Campbell clarified that no final decisions or policy was established detailing the university’s response to hosting controversial speakers. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Dean Lesley Fellows concluded the discussion in the interest of time, highlighting its significance and suggesting that it will continue in the future. 

The meeting turned to Provost and Executive Vice-President (Academic) Christopher Manfredi, who presented the budget planning report for 2025-26 and revealed a projected deficit of $45 million CAD for the 2026 fiscal year. Looking to the future, Manfredi attributed this deficit to an estimated 2 per cent annual increase in revenue juxtaposed with a 3.5 to 4 per cent annual increase in expenses for fiscal years 2026 to 2028. Several factors are contributing to the financial challenges: Declining international student enrolment, loss of revenue due to tuition policy changes for out-of-province undergraduate students, costs associated with the Canada Awards program to maintain enrolment levels, and uncertainty surrounding the provincial government’s proposed Bill 74 and the Dubreuil report. 

Bill 74 seeks to limit international student recruitment and impact graduate programs, and the Dubreuil report proposes capping anglophone university enrollment at 15 per cent or requiring 85 per cent of instruction to be in French. Manfredi underscored that both could severely affect McGill and Concordia’s future enrollment.

“I think there is a unanimous agreement among all Quebec universities that this would not be a good thing for Quebec,” Manfredi said. “I want to assure members of Senate that there’s significant engagement with the government, both with our stakeholders who are outside the university sector, but also in collaboration with other Quebec universities.”

Next, Associate Vice-President (Financial Services) Christiane Tinmouth presented an overview of the university’s financial state for the 2024 fiscal year, noting a surplus of $78 million CAD in the operating fund, primarily due to a favourable pension remeasurement gain. She detailed the breakdown of revenues and expenses, noting the operating fund surplus was achieved on a Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) basis.

Concluding the meeting, Vice-President (University Advancement) Marc Weinstein presented a report on fundraising. He announced the Made by McGill: The Campaign for Our Third Century had surpassed $2 billion CAD ahead of schedule. The campaign, launched in 2019, has funded almost 5,000 projects across the university with donations from over 113,000 donors in 132 countries. 

“We are trying to optimize our fundraising efforts to better support the emerging priorities of the university. We are reorganizing advancement as we speak, and our goal is to better support McGill philanthropically by re-working our operation, both centrally and in faculty,” Weinstein said. 

Moment of the meeting: 

Manfredi stressed that the decline in international student enrollment is particularly concerning as they pay significantly higher tuition fees than domestic students. Additionally, the Quebec government’s tuition policy changes have resulted in a $5,000 CAD per student revenue loss for each international student. These factors combined have created a significant financial strain on McGill. 

Soundbite: 

“[There is] a concern about thinking there was a lack of transparency, and wondering if there could be some way of consulting academics and students to be included when important decisions are made like this […] having designated academics and students that could be included when important decisions are made about this.” — Faculty of Dental Medicine and Oral Health Sciences Senator Alissa Levine on the directive of the Nov. 25 email and the implications of a future speaker policy. 

Science & Technology

Healing the barriers: Noa Therapeutics and the future of eczema treatment

by Sammi Lai on

More in Science & Technology:

A promising new approach to combating eczema could help millions of patients who are left unsatisfied by current treatments. The key may lie in transcription factors—a solution that was previously considered impossible.

On Nov. 19, members of the McGill Department of Chemistry gathered in the Otto Maass Chemistry Building where Carla Spina, CEO and co-founder of Noa Therapeutics, presented her research and innovative therapeutic for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), a form of eczema. 

Eczema is a complex disease that affects one in 10 children worldwide. AD is the most common form of eczema. It falls under the category of inflammatory barrier diseases, which can cause disruption of the body’s barriers—such as the permeability barrier of the skin—and leave the immune system compromised. 

Spina described three major drivers of inflammatory barrier diseases: Barrier dysfunction (breaches in the barrier itself), immune dysregulation, and microbial imbalance. She stated that current therapeutics focus primarily on the inflammatory pathway and do not directly address the above drivers of the disease or the underlying cause. In fact, 65 percent of patients with AD are non-responsive to current therapies. 

“We see that the drugs on the market are not addressing all of the underlying factors of these kinds of inflammatory diseases. We are looking [at] a more holistic approach to addressing underlying drivers, not only from an inflammation perspective, but from a barrier perspective, and addressing the potential for infection,” Spina explained.

Spina detailed the use of transcription factors as therapeutic targets, specifically the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR). Transcription factors are proteins that regulate genetic activity and influence important biochemical pathways. In the past, many scientists believed they were unsuitable as therapeutic targets, due to their inability to bind small molecules or drugs.

“Traditionally, transcription factors were thought to be undruggable. This is in part because a large number of transcription factors do not have discrete binding pockets or they are not accessible for small molecule therapeutics,” Spina said.

However, some transcription factors, including AHR, do have a binding pocket. According to Spina, AHR is even considered a “promiscuous receptor” due to its ability to bind a variety of ligands originating from both inside and outside the body. She explained how, when you hurt yourself, certain compounds can bind to AHR and promote healing pathways.  

With her company, Noa Therapeutics, Spina developed NOA-104, a leading drug compound that targets AHR. Within the first six months of starting the company, the novel therapeutic demonstrated the ability to resolve barrier dysfunction and reduce oxidative stress in human skin cells, potentially decreasing inflammation associated with atopic dermatitis. 

Spina, who studied at the University of Calgary before coming to McGill in 2003, has many loved ones who live with atopic dermatitis and said she was passionate about finding better methods of treatment for those with inflammatory barrier diseases.

“When we think about what we’re here for, we’re not here for the molecules, we’re not here for the science, although that part is really fun. We really focus on people, on patients,” Spina said.

Looking ahead, Spina and Noa Therapeutics aim for further translation of their drug into disease models, such as through validation in animal studies.  However, as the complexity of atopic dermatitis presents numerous challenges, their team requires extensive testing to have a better understanding of the impact of their therapy. 

“You always want to have a clear understanding of what the implications are in a real disease state [….] Because again, atopic dermatitis is very heterogeneous,” Spina said.

Finally, Spina opened the door to addressing a broader range of inflammatory diseases, including multiple sclerosis and inflammatory bowel disease—conditions with pathological similarities to atopic dermatitis. She emphasized the need to review current models of therapy and continue driving innovation to ensure impactful advancements that improve the quality of disease treatment.

Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Letter to the Editor: How SSMU President Dymetri Taylor Undermined a Historic Student Strike for Palestine

by Concerned Students on

More in Letters to the Editor:

Following a callout for an international coordinated student strike for Palestine on Nov. 21, McGill students initiated a process that, if successful, would mandate a week-long strike of all Students Society of McGill University (SSMU) members, which encompasses all undergraduate students. This would have been an unprecedented mobilization of over 24,000 students striking alongside tens of thousands of university and CEGEP students in Montreal.

On Nov. 5, students submitted the first draft of a motion for a Special Strike General Assembly (GA) in solidarity with Palestine, in accordance with guidelines outlined in the SSMU Constitution. The strike was prompted by Israel’s relentless genocide in Gaza and increasingly escalatory violence in Lebanon, leading McGill students to continue to demand:

  1. Complete divestment from all companies complicit in Israel’s Genocidal war on Gaza, 
  2. Halting the construction of the Sylvan Adams Sports Science Institute, including severing the associated research partnership between McGill and Tel Aviv University. 
  3. Demand that our university immediately cut ties with any academic institutions, research partnerships, corporations, and individual donors complicit in genocide, settler-colonialism, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing against Palestinians.
  4. For McGill to immediately cease contracts with private security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance firm SIRCO, ending all racially-motivated security surveillance, harassment, and physical assault on students.
  5. For McGill to enact a strict policy preventing Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) and Sûreté du Québec from being present on campus.
  6. For McGill to immediately cease any disciplinary cases and political tribunals against students involved in popular organizing, political activity, and demonstrations, and provide amnesty to all students who engage in similar protests going forward.
  7. Demand that our university cease its use of Islamophobic tropes and anti-Arab rhetoric in its communications regarding protests on campus

 This motion would have aligned with the SSMU’s mission to uphold human rights, social justice, and equity on campus as stipulated in the Divest for Human Rights Policy and Harmful Military Technology Policy and would have leveraged student democracy as facilitated through a strike vote.

However, on Nov. 6, the SSMU Steering Committee denied the facilitation of a GA due to alleged legal constraints due to the injunction placed on SSMU after the Policy against Genocide in Palestine (PAGIP). On Nov.8, following repeated attempts by a SSMU Political Campaigns Coordinators to get clarification on this decision, SSMU President Dymetri Taylor falsely asserted that the SSMU Steering Committee could not proceed with the Special GA for a strike vote claiming: “The necessary language to be changed would result in the Strike no longer having anything to do with Palestine.”

Despite the Political Campaigns Coordinator insisting that the injunction’s limited scope was specific to the PAGIP and did not prevent consideration of a strike motion, Taylor continued to obstruct the democratic process. 

Taylor continued to make vague and misleading claims about the legal review of the injunction on the PAGIP, which he claimed prevented students, legally, from enacting the GA. After encountering this, students requested to meet with the steering committee to rework the language of the motion in order to better adhere to these “legal constraints.” However, they were consistently ignored or rejected by Taylor.

Taylor continued to misrepresent consultations with legal counsel by alleging that, “[The legal counsel] have informed [SSMU executives] that actions such as striking would be against the injunction several times.”

Finally, on Nov. 21, Taylor acknowledged his errors, admitting  to making “incorrect assumptions” and “misrepresenting the SSMU’s legal limitations,” writing, “I failed to adequately consult our legal counsel or my fellow executives before making such a definitive statement.” At this point, 16 days after the policy was first submitted, a strike was no longer possible due to the continued obstruction of these processes and constrained timeline.

Due to Taylor’s incompetence, the mass strike mobilization in Montreal for Palestine lost 24,000 potential striking students. Similar to the failings of last year’s PAGIP, SSMU’s bureaucracy has cost the student movement heavily. 

On Nov. 27, an anonymous ex-SSMU Board of Directors member leaked the SSMU legal review of the injunction regarding the PAGIP. This is the legal review Taylor was referring to throughout the many email exchanges with the Political Campaign Coordinator regarding the strike motion. 

The leaked legal review highlights recommendations for the SSMU following the approval by the Quebec court for an interlocutory injunction against the 2023 PAGIP:

  • The safeguard order does not prohibit the adoption of a new policy, although we suggest that SSMU obtain our opinion on the content of the policy prior to adopting it;
  • SSMU may make public statements in support of Palestine in terms other than those used in the Policy Against Genocide in Palestine; 
  • SSMU and its executives may organize and participate in activities, workshops, and events and otherwise publicly show support for Palestine and Palestinians.

It is crystal clear that SSMU is not restricted from making “public statements in support of Palestine.” Students have had enough of  SSMU’s “bureaucratic constraints”. Students are rightfully outraged by how their representative union blocked legitimate democratic processes meant to represent their collective will. At the present moment, Gazans are preparing for a second winter under siege and bombardment. Taylor’s actions unilaterally blocked a historic mobilization in solidarity with the liberation of oppressed people going through one of the most brutal genocides in history. 

We demand that the SSMU Board take accountability for their actions, which have undoubtedly hindered student democracy and mobilization for Palestine. SSMU executives must represent the fact that Palestinian lives are non-negotiable for the student body. It is well beyond time to raise our standards and start pushing for material actions on this vital front within the student movement. SSMU has the ability to make change, and we will not be fooled by false constraints. If SSMU executives can not fulfill student demands, they must be held accountable. Taylor, specifically, must take responsibility for his negligible and damaging actions.

Opinion

Selective apathy is undermining democracy 

by Monique Kasonga on

More in Opinion:

When the American election results rolled in, McGill’s campus witnessed a surge of political interest—students refreshing electoral maps in library corners, heated debates spilling out of lecture halls, and social media feeds flooded with political commentary. This heightened attention makes sense: not only does McGill host a significant American student population, but U.S. policies ripple far beyond its borders. Decisions made in Washington influence global economic stability, international relations, and the well-being of countless individuals, particularly those affected by American imperialism and destabilizing military interventions. However, it is concerning when many students, who were hyper-focused on the U.S. elections, disengage from political discourse and action closer to home. 

Elections often bring disappointment—broken promises, unresolved systemic issues, and growing disillusionment among voters. While the anger and frustration stemming from electoral results are valid responses, merely wallowing in negativity without channeling them into sustained political engagement perpetuates the very stagnation people decry. Selective apathy, where attention is sporadic and limited to high-profile events, doesn’t foster meaningful change. Global democracy demands more than fleeting interest or periodic outrage.

Strong local community engagement at a grassroots level lays the foundation for uplifting those far beyond our borders. While it is important to engage with foreign political events, such engagement must go hand in hand with addressing local concerns. It is through building strong, informed, and resilient communities locally that productive change can ripple outward to impact the global community. 

Voting is critical, as is being aware of global politics and events. These are essential for understanding the systems of injustice that must be dismantled. However, voting and awareness cannot be the only means of engagement with democracy—they represent the bare minimum. Engaging in activities like attending community meetings, advocating for policy changes, volunteering for grassroots organizations, or supporting marginalized groups strengthens the fabric of your community. By staying passive, you risk leaving critical decisions to others, which can stall advancement on issues that deeply affect your neighbours and hinder long-term progress. Meaningful societal progression requires consistent involvement through local activism, community organizing, and advocacy for systemic reforms. This is not a solo endeavour; it’s a collective effort. Like any group project, when more people contribute, the work becomes lighter and the results more impactful.

Our globalized world complicates civic engagement—many students live and study in places where they cannot vote due to their citizenship status. However, contributing to democracy involves much more than legal entitlements alone. Becoming part of a community—especially one you’re new to, as over half of McGill students are—requires active involvement. It’s about fostering connections, uplifting those around you, and working toward shared goals. This is the essence of democracy. Real change starts with recognizing that democracy isn’t simply about election outcomes—it’s about ensuring everyone has the tools and opportunities to make their voices heard, and that these tools are used. 

At McGill, we live in a bubble, surrounded by highly educated peers with the tools and resources to engage with political systems. But this privilege is not universal. In 2012, 17 per cent of Canadian adults had low literacy skills, and 29 per cent of those with low literacy lived in low-income households. Newcomer, Indigenous, and low-income populations are disproportionately challenged by low literacy rates. Paired with economic hardship, these reading proficiency levels limit people’s ability to navigate the political system effectively. Systemic barriers such as the ongoing effects of colonialism further suppress educational and political opportunities for marginalized groups. When large segments of the population are excluded from political participation, democracy falters. National results cannot truly reflect the will of the people unless every voice is empowered to speak, which is why it is central for these communities to be uplifted and their voices amplified in the fight for justice. 

Existing in the most privileged strata, there is no excuse for McGill students to lack engagement or awareness about what is happening locally in Montreal, and in Quebec. If you can’t vote, educate yourself about the needs of those who can. Engagement extends beyond casting a ballot; it’s about taking responsibility within the community. We must challenge ourselves to engage consistently—with our communities, with local and national issues, and with the systemic barriers that prevent others from doing the same. Change begins with collective action, and the strength of our democracy isn’t measured in ballots alone, but in how we show up for our communities every day.

Opinion

Campus Conversations: Revolution

by Jasjot Grewal, Yusur Al-Sharqi on

More in Opinion:

The spirit of revolution cannot be extinguished

Jasjot Grewal, Editor-in-Chief 

In June 1984, former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered a military attack on the Sikh Golden Temple—one of the most significant sites of religious scarcity for Sikhs—in an effort to secure the site from armed Sikh militants. The attack killed thousands of civilians, primarily Sikhs. In response, Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards on October 31, 1984. These events triggered genocidal killings of Sikhs around the country, largely in New Delhi, from Oct. 31 to Nov. 3. 

Armed mobs, largely comprised of Hindu nationalists, burned Sikh-owned stores and homes to the ground; dragged Sikhs out of their houses, cars, and trains, before clubbing them to death or burning them alive; gang-raped Sikh women; and burned Gurdwaras. Law enforcement and government officials participated in the genocide, encouraging mobs to seek vengeance and providing them with weapons. Nearly 3000 Sikhs were murdered within three days, at a rate of one per minute at the peak of the violence. Unofficial death estimates are far higher. The Indian government has yet to take accountability for its role in covering up the identities of the perpetrators, refusing justice—in terms of financial compensation and enfranchisement—for Sikh victims, and allowing state actors to use government resources to systemically identify the locations and occupations of the victims they planned to harm and kill. 

Presently, Sikhs in India continue to face socioeconomic inequality, institutional discrimination in education, employment, and public services, and minimal political representation. The systematic ethnic cleansing of Sikhs persists beyond the confines of India. On June 18, 2023, police forces in British Columbia uncovered the dead body of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, president of a Sikh Gurdwara in Surrey, B.C, peppered with gunshots. The murder came after the Indian government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi had accused Nijjar of being a terrorist and leader of a militant separatist group, as he supported the formation of Khalistan—an independent Sikh state outside of repressive Indian governance. 

On Sept. 19, 2023, Prime Minister Trudeau accused agents of the government of India of being linked to the killing of Najjar, leading to the expulsion of Indian diplomats from Canada. Canada boasts the second-largest Sikh population in the world after India. For members of the World Sikh Organization, Trudeau’s words were revolutionary. 

“Today, the prime minister of Canada has publicly said what Sikhs in Canada have known for decades—India actively targets Sikhs in Canada,” they wrote in a statement on their website on Sept. 18, 2023. 

Sikhism—based on notions that entirely resist social hierarchies based on caste, race, and gender; belief in tolerance and acceptance of other religions; and principles of equality and service to others—has long been seen as a threat to hegemony in India, an order which is maintained based on the caste system, religious divide, and income inequality. Yet, Sikhs have resisted religious and nationalist struggles since the formation of their religion: The Sikh-Mughal Wars, the First Sikh War, their role in the Anti-Emergency Movement, and the Farmers’ Protests in India. 

Sikhs have continuously advocated for the working class, against secular approaches to religion which marginalize Muslims in India, and have worked to restore democracy in India. Sikhs continue to challenge all forms of domination, despite the ongoing violence they face. Sikhs remind the world that resilience is not just about survival but about striving for a more equitable and inclusive society. Their continuous fight against tyranny proves that the spirit of resistance and revolution cannot be extinguished.

The echoes of war

Yusur Al-Sharqi, Managing Editor

My mom was six years old sitting cross-legged in front of a boxy TV in Baghdad, captivated by bright cartoons and talking animals. For a brief moment, she was immersed in a world that felt safe—but these moments were fleeting. At any time, the screen could go black, replaced by images of lifeless bodies scattered across the street. A journalist’s voice would break the illusion, urging families to come to the city centre to identify and collect their dead. Her eyes stayed glued to the screen.

The horror was not confined to the TV—it came home. In Islam, when somebody dies, family members of the same sex must wash the deceased’s body. I imagine my great-uncle washing his deceased son, his 15-year-old boy, who had a bullet still lodged in his head. 

The boy had made the mistake of driving his pregnant mother, in labour, to the hospital past curfew. The American soldiers who followed them opened fire, shooting through the back window and striking him in the centre of his head. His pregnant mother watched him die. It’s been decades, and his mother still wears black every day. To her, it’s not just a colour of mourning but a silent protest, a refusal to let the memory fade as the world moves on.

They say these are mistakes of the past, tragedies never to happen again, but I don’t believe them. They lie, while families like mine are left to wash the blood from the bodies of those we love. When they talk about peace, I think about the babies of Fallujah, born with deformities after the U.S. dropped white phosphorus bombs on their city during the invasion. I think about the children of Gaza, living and dying under siege. Asking us to remain calm while injustice rages is an act of violence masquerading as righteousness.

When you talk about peace—“bridging the gap”—I wonder if you’ve ever listened to the echoes of war. I’ll tell you myself: we cannot hear you. The bombs are too loud, and the screams drown you out.

I write this not to be cynical, but because I believe that truth-telling is the most important act of defiance. I believe it is a revolutionary act in its own right. It is not that I don’t believe in peaceful revolution—I yearn for it—but I also know it can’t come without a reckoning. A revolution of truth-telling, where the stories of the silenced are finally heard and the weight of the violence we’ve inherited is confronted.

Until then, the images are the same: Lifeless bodies scattered on the street, but now it is my eyes that are glued to the screen. 

/X account, @FDefects, documents cases of severe birth defects seen across Iraq to this day as a result of the U.S.’s white phosphorus bombardments in 2003. The images are extremely graphic and disturbing, but they are many people’s realities. There is evidence of Israel’s use of white phosphorous in Palestine and Lebanon as of 2023.

The Revolution of truth

Alex*, Contributor

If I were asked to write a piece relating Palestine to revolution in the tail-end of 2023, I would have struggled. 

I was a first-year student settling into McGill life on Oct. 7, 2023. Having explored my heritage in the West Bank and the military-dominated city of Jaffa in 2019, I knew that understanding Palestinians as second-class citizens in Israel was a generous characterization. On my travels to Palestine, the day-to-day dehumanization of the population was blatant; Palestinians were herded through checkpoints like livestock while settlers living on hills threw their garbage on low-lying indigenous properties. Accordingly, my travels made it easier for me to fathom the severity of the Palestinian condition in Gaza. Under naval and aerial blockade since 2007 and alienated from the rest of the country by a militarized wall, the 2.2 million residents of Gaza were reliant on Israel alone to meet their essential needs. Thus, struggling with water and food insecurity and shortages of electricity and medical supplies, and exacerbated by intermittent airstrikes, how could I possibly dispute Israeli benevolence in Gaza?

I was hopeful that news outlets in the educated West would interpret Oct. 7 with consideration of the factors which led to it. Unfortunately, the narrative painted by Western media exhibited a convenient case of historical amnesia. In portraying the events of Oct. 7 as an unprovoked attack and disseminating false stories such as those of beheaded infants, news sources began to entrench an international belief in Palestinian inhumanity. Alas, October 2023 was not an easy month to be Palestinian at McGill. 

Nevertheless, the publication of the suffering in Gaza and Southern Lebanon since Oct. 7 has inspired a revolution of truth, or a revelation, in the West. In our current interconnected world, where the reach of social media has no bounds, Israel’s offensive in Gaza has become the most publicly documented genocide in history. 

Palestinian journalists and photographers, such as Motaz Azaiza, have circumvented having their messages diluted by traditional news sources, instead using social media to counterbalance the Western narrative. In using these platforms, journalists have found an outlet to expose the reality of Israeli aggression for what it is. Graphic videos of fathers finding the lifeless bodies of their children in the rubble, and Israeli aid deliveries exposed to have swapped sugar for sand in Gaza have amassed a captive audience online. Journalistic ingenuity and courage have given me hope and galvanised the revolution I speak of, mostly within the youth.

Alongside most Palestinians, I have been starkly aware that the Israeli government’s disregard for Palestinian livelihood did not begin after Oct. 7. Today I lament the scale of tragedy and destruction it has taken to reignite the empathy of desensitized demographics in the West.

The revelation was illustrated in the 2024 UK General Election where six independent candidates won parliamentary seats, five of whom campaigned resolutely for a firmer government attitude towards Israel. Attending a protest next to the Houses of Parliament the following day, speeches of the victorious candidates restored my hope for a ceasefire and an end to injustice. I was inspired by the words of South African activist and politician Andrew Feinstein, who championed having slashed the majority of newly incumbent Kier Starmer in Holborn and St Pancras. The Prime Minister couldn’t manage 50 per cent of the votes within his own constituency, having had 65 per cent in 2019; he is the first in UK history to enter office having had his vote share reduced from the election before. 

July 5 symbolized the Overton Window shifting in British politics; policies on Palestine can now mobilize the electorate and humanitarian politicians can garner strong enough electoral support to win seats in Westminster. Conversely, public expectation has been challenging weak stances on Palestine, such as that of the government, pressured recently towards compliance with the ICC conviction of Netanyahu. 

I attribute the shifting public opinion and its political manifestation to a resurgence of morals, urged through the images being shared on social media. Independent journalism is a beacon of hope emerging through the mist of Western mass media shrouding the truth. Regardless of context and retrospective analysis of the situation, humans can agree that no child should be sentenced to death, or a future without education, a home, a family, or freedom. I believe that my mother’s sentiments reflect fundamental human principles: “No people should suffer as we have seen. No one, nowhere in this world should be collected as parts from the ground, after being bombed, starved, and abused.” I truly believe that a revolution of truth is among the Western populace and the youth, gradually diffusing into the formal rungs of society. Change lies just beyond the horizon—whether or not we reach it depends on our commitment.

*Alex’s name has been changed to preserve their anonymity.

Off the Board, Opinion

The case for comprehensive education

by Roberta Du on

More in Off the Board:

When I applied to McGill’s Interfaculty of Arts and Science, I didn’t know what I wanted to major in, but I did know one thing: I was in search of an interdisciplinary education. I didn’t want to stay in the STEM box I had streamlined myself into during my final years of high school. With that goal in mind, I knew I had to push beyond my comfort zone and develop skills I hadn’t fully explored yet. That desire led me to McGill’s interfaculty programs, and eventually to The Tribune. 

The Bachelor of Arts and Science is a hidden gem at McGill. My peers often ask me, “Wait, that’s a thing?” It’s ironic how overlooked this degree is, given how well it represents what education should be—interdisciplinary. Too often, education feels like a series of narrow boxes—science students stick to labs, and humanities students stick to essays. But the most meaningful learning happens when we cross those boundaries. My experience in this program—and my work at The Tribune—has cemented my belief that all faculties should become interfaculties. 

When I accepted my role as Web Editor for The Tribune, I knew it wouldn’t be a typical tech job consisting of writing HTML and CSS or debugging code. I knew I would have to write—something I never practiced and avoided at all costs because it intimidated me. Writing this article, for example, has involved painfully long hours of staring at a blank Google Doc, battling self-doubt. But I also knew writing would push me to grow, help me understand the importance of communication, and change the way I approach learning. 

While my role focuses on web development, it would be impossible to ignore the larger importance of the stories we publish. What good is a beautifully designed website if the content doesn’t resonate with its readers? That realization made me appreciate writing as a cultivable and important skill. Writing this article has been an exercise in conveying complex ideas clearly and compellingly—a skill as crucial in coding as in journalism. 

Poor communication, I’ve learned, undermines brilliant ideas even in highly regarded fields such as academia. A professor of mine once described the common academic experience of watching a researcher, passionate and technically skilled, lose their audience. They dive straight into formulas and technical details, leaving the room disengaged as they fail to regard the crucial storytelling aspect of their presentation. There is importance in explaining the context behind their scientific research and the journey that led them there. It’s tragic—not just because it’s boring, but because it wastes an opportunity to educate and inspire. Every breakthrough has a story, and if no one tells it, its impact fades. 

This is why comprehensive education matters. In my data science class, I’ve learned that technical skills are only half the equation; the ability to communicate and present findings in a clear, impactful way is just as important. Failure to do so can lead to serious consequences, as misleading or poorly interpreted research can harm public understanding and decision-making. Similarly, medical students spend years mastering clinical skills, but how do they advocate for policy change or connect with patients in their most vulnerable moments? Courses in literature or ethics could help them develop empathy and strengthen their communication skills. The same principle applies across all disciplines. 

When I think about my future, I don’t want to wear a single, isolated label as either a  “science person” or  an “arts person.” I want to create, communicate, and connect; education should foster that adaptability. That’s why I believe every faculty should embrace an interdisciplinary approach, encouraging students to explore modes of expression and learning beyond their comfort zones. Ultimately, education isn’t just about preparing students for specific careers, it’s about preparing them for life. A comprehensive education builds adaptability, empathy, and the ability to connect ideas across fields. These aren’t just workplace skills—they’re human skills. If my time in the Interfaculty of Arts and Science and at The Tribune has taught me anything, it’s that the best learning happens at the intersections of disciplines.

Editorial, Opinion

McGill’s bandaid solutions don’t protect students from bigotry

by The Tribune Editorial Board on

More in Editorial:

On Nov. 25, the McGill administration announced an immediate suspension of room bookings for extracurricular speaker events until January, citing “unacceptably high” security risks and the need to protect the school’s academic mission during the exam period. The decision follows recent backlash surrounding the invitation of Mosab Hassan Yousef to speak at McGill. Yousef, a highly controversial figure, has made public statements widely criticized as hateful and Islamophobic, such as stating that he does not have any respect for Muslims, and that he believes that Islam is not a peaceful religion. He has also expressed harmful views about Palestinians, including claiming that Palestinian is not a nationality nor an ethnicity. His past appearances at other universities, such as Princeton, have sparked similar controversy. By asking students to engage in discussions with individuals who dehumanize them, McGill is both insulting and endangering students. 

This pause of in-person events also coincides with recent tensions over UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese’s academic talk on Nov. 4, where student organizers alleged that the university tried to prevent the event from taking place by relocating it multiple times, while simultaneously facing legal pressure from various campus groups to cancel her appearance entirely. 

However, the recent suspension raises concerns about McGill’s role in perpetuating division on campus. The administration has acted against the outcomes of student elections before, such as preventing the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU)’s adoption of the Palestine Solidarity Policy in April 2022, and it has failed to acknowledge its own contributions to the increasingly hostile campus environment through the increased policing of its students. Rather than creating opportunities for meaningful discussion, McGill’s approach exacerbates the divisions which they claim to want to eradicate, leaving students and student groups in an increasingly polarized environment. Thus, while McGill claims that moving controversial events online might be beneficial in protecting immediate physical security, it fails to address the deeper issues at play. 

McGill’s course of action is symptomatic of a broader issue: The administration’s unwillingness to engage with its community in a productive way. Controversial speakers have historically been a hallmark of university life, but their presence (or enforced absence) now increasingly fractures campus communities rather than fostering considerate dialogue and academic discourse. This is not simply a failure of communication—it reflects McGill’s neglect in creating a campus environment where all voices can be heard. The university’s tendency to prioritize its image over student concerns, as seen in its suppression of protests and lack of thoughtful consultation, has only worsened the situation. Further, participating in the criminalization of student activism undermines the very principles of free expression and open dialogue that universities claim to uphold. 

By staying engaged, students can challenge the false equivalence between platforming free speech and hate speech, taking a firm stand against rhetoric that marginalizes or harms vulnerable groups. SSMU also has a responsibility to represent the voices of those the administration overlooks, including holding firm on their activism against the genocide in Palestine. This is a crucial time to push SSMU to reflect the will of the student majority and advocate for inclusive, democratic practices on campus. Every student has a role in presenting McGill with demands for accountability and justice while maintaining sustained, collective pressure to ensure real change.

Rather than hiding behind a facade of neutrality, McGill must confront the flaws in its decision-making process, particularly its tendency to reactively oppose activities instead of addressing and unpacking the root causes of campus tensions. Neutrality in the face of harmful rhetoric is not impartial—it is a choice that often perpetuates harm and division. Students must hold McGill accountable for moving beyond short-term fixes and urge the university to develop transparent, inclusive policies rooted in empathy and care, instead of simply avoiding conflict through pausing in-person speakers altogether. By involving students—especially those from marginalized groups—in shaping these policies, the administration can ensure that its actions are informed by the community it serves, rather than dictated by external pressures or fears of reputational damage. If McGill truly values academic freedom, it must recognize that freedom thrives in a democratic, inclusive environment and commit to fostering a campus culture that bridges divides rather than deepening them.

1 … 97 98 99 100 101 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue