t
h
e
r a c g ill
Volume 4, Number 15
t
n
i
h
u
Published by the Students’ Society o f McGill University
n
e
Tuesday, January 22 1985
Students’ Council Turns D ow n T w o U n ion M otions by Michael Smart
Students’ Council has refused to guarantee the job security o f its cafeteria employees. A resolution that would have insured that the current labour agreement would be respected by Council in future years was voted down at last Thursday’ s meeting. Clubs’ Councillor Ginny Barton moved that the present contract bet ween Les Services Alimentaires C VC and its workers, which guarantees that unionized workers will not be replaced by part-time staff, be adhered to by Students’ Society (SSM U) and any other management firms they hire in the future. Union members are con cerned that their contract may become void i f SSMU terminates their agree ment with CVC. In opening debate o f the motion, V P Finance Scott Keating objected to the preamble to the motion and asked that it be stricken. Barton accepted the change as a “ friendly” amendment, but Keating later voted against the mo tion anyway. Keating argued that Council might in the future wish to negotiate lower wages with its workers in an effort to cut costs. “ It could be dangerous to have this hanging over our heads,” he warned. Barton also moved that Council resolve not to employ tactics that would impede student workers from organising a collective bargaining unit. She produced a petition signed by 222 McGill students in support o f the resolution. In response, V P External Martine Gagnon objected that it was illegal under Québec law to hinder anyone from forming a collective bargaining unit. Consequently, Gagnon said, the issue was irrelevant, “ and under R o b e rt’s Rules o f Order, I have the right ot object to anything that’ s irrele vant,” she said waving her copy o f the Rules. Gagnon’ s motion gained sup port only from other members o f the Executive and was voted down by Council.
Councillor Daron Westman, who seconded Barton’ s motion, pointed out that, since it was illegal to block at tempts at unionisation, Council could not reasonably reject the motion. Faced with a choice between suppor ting the union and breaking the law, Council quite sensibly chose to ignore the issue. A t the ingenious suggestion o f Music Councillor James Green, Council voted again on Gagnon’ s mo tion, which this time passed, 14-5. Speaker Ian Bandeen commented: “ That’ s good; we’ re saved.” In other business, Keating responded to written questions from Graduate Councillor Gracy Mimran about the status o f SSM U’ s agreement with CVC regarding Gert’ s and The Alley. Keating explained that no formal change had been made to the contract, but that in the future SSMU would
have direct imput into the operation o f the two campus pubs. Arts Councillor Andrew Diamond complained that the Executive had made the decision without consulting the Food and Beverage Committee. “ This is the second time I ’ ve come back to school to find major decisions made without my committee,” he said. The other time was last summer, when the Executive awarded the manage ment contract to C V C , he said. The meeting also featured the first report o f the Student Ombudsmen David Gibson and David Rose. In response to the student grievances he has dealt with, Gibson recommended that a system o f student advisors and dons be created, noting it would be “ like they have at several prestigious universities.” Council has taken no ac tion yet on the recommendations.
In other business, Council heard a brief from David Braun, the VicePresident o f the Dental Students’ Society (DSS). Braun objected to a resolution passed by Council last November which supported Judith Blasser and asked Senate to hear her case. This section o f the meeting was closed to the public, which is standard procedure in hearing student cases. Blasser claims she was failed out o f the Faculty o f Dentistry last year because o f a cheating scandal seven years ago. She has asked Senate to recommend to the Board o f Governors that a diploma be awarded to her. The DSS believes that Blasser’ s claims o f wrongdoing in the Faculty are exagerrated and don’t think she is sufficiently qualified to receive a degree.
Blasser Goes to Senate Again by Stephen Hum
The plot o f the Judith Blasser story becomes curiouser and curiouser as time passes. Tom orrow, Wednesday January 23, Ms. Blasser will go before the Senate o f McGill in search o f what Dr. S.O. Friedman, M cG ill’ s VicePrincipal (Academic), described to the Superior Court o f Québec as “ conve nient and alternative remedies to be heard.” Prof. Irwin Cotier, the noted international human rights lawyer at the Faculty o f Law, will request to ap pear on Blasser’ s behalf before Senate. However, the history o f her case does not lend itself easily to much op timism about Blasser’ s immediate future. Blasser and the Faculty o f Dentistry at McGill first crossed swords seven years ago, when, Blasser asserts, she failed second year Dentistry in the wake o f her exposure o f a cheating scandal in her Faculty. Since 1978, Blasser’ s education, indeed her life, has wound its way endlessly down a conveyor belt o f ad hoc grievance com-
mittees, MSS resolutions and provin cial courts. Successfully fighting her expulsion, Blasser returned to McGill and com pleted second and third year dentistry with satisfactory marks only to be judged “ incompetent” and ejected from the faculty four days before ex ams. A n ad hoc committee recommended Blasser’ s reinstatement in the fall o f 1983 over the strenuous objections o f the Dentistry faculty. The chairman o f Clinical Dentistry, Dr. R.F. Harvey charged that the ad hoc committee had overstepped its boundaries, opening the competency o f the Faculty in evaluating its own students to ques tion. “ W e are being laughed at by the whole university milieu” , he wrote at the time. Reinstated to fourth year, Blasser received three failing grades in clinical dentistry. Blasser’ s evaluators in Removable Prosthodontics added a special note in their comments: “ Because o f the
unreasonably long time taken by the candidate to accomplish any o f the phases o f her work and because we judged that there was no hope that she could do better... we decided to ter minate this examination. She had given enough demonstration o f her in competence.” Blasser charges that she is the victim o f a deliberate attempt on the part o f the Dentistry Faculty to fail her. When her case was still before the Superior Court o f Quebec, Blasser’ s represen tatives secured an affidavit from Lynn Scullion, a former secretary at the Faculty who said she was present at a meeting in late 1981, shortly before Blasser’ s expulsion from fourth year. There, Faculty members discussed provision for “ negative evaluations” o f Blasser so that she could be expelled prior to her examinations. This testimony raised some questions about the system o f evaluation in Dentistry. In fact, the ad hoc committee in recommending Blasser’ s reinstatement in 1983, questioned the substance o f continued on page 10
T h e In sid e S tone/ Dean o p S t u d e n t s R e s i g n s ........................................... page 3 T h o u g h ts FRom A - B R a in ...........................................p a g e 4
Engineers mock traffic by playing ball in the street. Intoxicants suspected as goal.
D e to U R R e v e a l e d ..................... p a g e
6
E n g in e e R in g W e e k in P h o t o s . . ..........................
page
7
R ed m e n M a s s a c R e P a t R i o t e s .................................
page 9
V
J