Food Fights at McGill

Exploring student activism for food affordability and accessibility on campus throughout the years

This week’s archival collections are intended to showcase the historic and continued student activism on campus regarding food accessibility and sovereignty.

Letter to the Editor: Food Problem At Mountain Hall Anonymous. November 15, 1962

Dear Sir:

I am an unfortunate inmate in this hallowed institution’s brand new, beautiful residences. I have visited twentyseven countries, and have been able to digest twentyseven different varieties of food, but I can assure you that never before have I tasted that strange substances being served at Bishop Mountain Hall, in the name of food. Not only is there a complaint about food, but within the last week, in the name of efficiency, they have changed the queue system for obtaining the “food”. Previously it took 15 minutes to get to the “food” counters, but now it takes half an hour. This situation applies only to Poison and Gardener Halls.

Please “Mr. Sandman” do something QUICK. P.S. Please don’t print my name, or they’ll give me a second helping.

To Sign or Not to Sign? Pro and Anti-CBA forces face-off on the issue of the cola exclusivity deal Jaime Kirzner-Roberts. March 6, 2000

To sign or not to sign? That was the question last Thursday for students on both sides of the CBA debate as they squared off in Leacock 232.

The Cold Beverage Agreement is an 11-year exclusivity deal between McGill and Coke worth an estimated $10 million. At the request of the company, the details of the contract have been kept secret, raising the ire of students, who organized a referendum on the issue. Those in favour of the deal emphasize the necessity of the money given the context of funding cutbacks and a crumbling student services building.

SSMU President Andrew Tischler and former President Duncan Reid defended the virtues of the pro-CBA position, while Engineering SSMU Rep Phil Gohier and former Daily editor Zach Dubinsky argued the con side of signing the deal

The opposition’s leading arguments concerned the secrecy of the deal. Gohier argued that the confidential nature of the agreement was undemocratic and violated the principle of freedom of information.

“[Pro-CBA advocates] are already giving in to this notion that Coke’s demand for confidentiality surpasses and exceeds our right to information,” he said. “The conflict of confidentiality compromises both the SSMU and McGill administration.”

But Tischlcr was quick to defend the confidentiality of the contract. “Coke doesn’t want other universities to know how good our deal is,” he explained. “All students will be able to see the contract once it is signed,” he added. At a recent Presidents’ Council meeting however, the McGill’s Director of Ancillary Services Alan Charade said that even once the deal is signed, selected terms will likely not be disclosed.

Dubinsky explained that bottled water went up in price by 76 per cent after York University and the University of Manitoba signed their own exclusivity deals.

“The problem is that we don’t know that this isn’t going to happen at McGill because we haven’t seen the contract,” he said. They tell us that we will be able to see the contract once it is signed, but I ask you, have you ever signed a contract you haven’t seen?”

Dubinsky also added that Coke has a questionable international human rights record, he referred to Coke’s involvement with the military government in Nigeria, its links to the assassination of union leaders in Guatemala, and the class action suit currently underway in the US, put forward by Black workers who say they are paid 59 per cent less than their white counterparts.

“The question is, do we want to associate our entire university with this company?” he asked. Reid did not deny any allegations about Coke’s human rights record brought forth by Dubinsky. “I really dislike the company, but seeing the advantages of the deal has really changed my perspective,” he said. “I don’t think anyone wants Coke on campus.I don’t think anyone wants to be associated with Coke. I certainly don’t.”

But Reid argued that this agreement was nonetheless necessarily in the current context of government underfunding of McGill. “1 think that people will notice that we’ve signed this deal after serious consideration of this issue, and that we only made this decision out of desperation,” he said.

“It is blatantly obvious that there is no intention on the part of the provincial government to reinvest in education,” Tischler argued.

Under the circumstances, he argued, “we have two choices. Either we sign exclusivity agreements, or we raise students fees.” But when questioned, Tischlcr couldn’t guarantee that student fees wouldn’t go up even if the deal was signed.

“Those aren’t the only two options,” contested Gohier. “There is also the option of pressuring the government to make a solid and durable commitment to quality education. I think that is the most viable option out of all of them,” he said.

“By signing this deal, we would be sending the message to government that they don’t need to increase our funding. Public funding is the only true option which won’t compromise academic freedoms and the integrity of the Student’s Society.”

One student asked pro-CBA representatives why the secrecy of the deal was necessary since the contract would lie made public as soon as it was signed anyway. Tischler responded indirectly by saying that, “student’s will be able to see the contract once it is signed.”

Another student asked Dubinsky and Gohier how they thought the Student’s Society could get money to make the student building more accessible to people in wheelchairs if not through the CBA.

Gohier answered that it is, in fact, the responsibility of the administration, and not the Student Society, to make McGill an accessible environment. “I think that the lack of accessibility represents a lack of commitment on the part of administration to provide access for students,” he said.

A student suggested that the pro-CBA position was hypocritical because, on the one hand, Tischler argued that lobbying for government funding is futile and that it is thus necessary to sign the CBA, while, on the other hand, he organized a protest held Friday in demand of more government funding. Neither Tischlcr nor Reid directly addressed this question.

In his concluding statement, Tischler asked students to vote in favour of the CBA because the money was much needed by students. “(The CBA) is a Band-Aid solution,” admitted Tischler. “But I’d prefer a Band-Aid solution, than to watch McGill bleed to death.”

In Gohier’s closing remarks, he argued that students should not vote for the CBA. “The answer to the funding problem is not to sign the CBA. A Band-Aid solution will cover a paper cut, but what we’re dealing with here is a hemorrhage,” he said. “This deal does nothing at all to reduce the financial burden put on this university, it does nothing to get us a successful quality education. Let’s look at real solutions, let’s look at quality education being funded by the government, not by Coke.”

Hyde Park: Boycott Corporate Cafeterias

Daily Editorial Board. March 27, 2008

Today and tomorrow, students will boycott McGill’s corporate-run cafeterias. It’s widely known that food services at McGill are inadequate. In The Globe and Mail’s 2007 survey of undergrads, students gave McGill a C-in overall quality of food services. Clearly, McGill’s predominantly corporate food services have failed to meet the dietary needs of its diverse community. And yet, as students are struggling to satiate themselves in a healthy, ethical, and sustainable manner, McGill has responded by tightening its grip on food services.

In an interview with the Daily, Principal Heather MunroeBlum stated that the issue of food services is “up for discussion.”

While Munroe-Blum’s point sounds forward-thinking, it is moot because the McGill administration is structured in order to rob students of any negotiation bargaining power. Town Halls are currently the only accessible forum for discussion, but these are places for empty rhetoric, not student-administration compromise.

For students to get what they need, their best option is to start up food services themselves. For example, Midnight Kitchen – which is entirely student-run – serves affordable vegan meals every day, and the Architecture Café (once autonomous, but now under the umbrella of McGill Ancillary Services) provides a creative atmosphere and relatively affordable local food options. Yet despite their ability, students and their operations are continually under threat by a power-hungry administration that views food services as an opportunity for profit, rather than as an essential service.

So, where do we go from here? Food services at McGill need to change, and for that to happen, students must take collective action. In 2004, the Coalition for Action on Food Services (CAFS) orchestrated a successful three-day, campus-wide boycott against possible on-campus cafeteria monopolization. Thanks in part to the boycott, student-run food services on campus are still “allowed” to operate and no company holds a monopoly on campus cafeterias.

While boycotting our campus’s corporate food services on a day-to-day basis is effective in the short term, it doesn’t change the system: the structure in place is designed to to shove the values and norms of capitalism down our throats. If we want to see meaningful change, we must rally together and make concrete demands. The Corporate Food Boycott, which starts today and runs through tomorrow, is more than just a demonstration, it’s also a meeting ground where students can voice their demands, and stir up support for an alternative student-run model.

The Food Services Committee of the Grassroots Association for Student Power (GRASPé) and Midnight Kitchen advocates student-autonomy, environmental sustainability and workers’ rights. We believe that students, faculty and workers have the right to determine how their food services are designed, managed and consumed; to sustainably-produced, nutritious foods; and to a fair and equitable work place. History shows that corporations and big businesses are unable to foster these rights. Corporate-run food services are not the only option. Take action and join our pickets outside Chartwells cafeterias on campus at 1 p.m. today and 12:30 p.m. tomorrow. Free food will be available. Bring your friends and your appetite; we’ll provide lunch until justice is served.

For more information, visit corporateboycott.blogspot.com.