The McGill Daily Vol. 111 Issue 21

Volume 111, Issue 21 | Monday, March 28, 2022 | mcgilldaily.com spring worms since 1911

The McGill Daily is located on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka territory.

Published by The Daily Publications Society, a student society of McGill University.

2

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

table of Contents

EDITORIAL

Volume 111 Issue 21

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

3

editorial board

3480 McTavish St, Room 107 Montreal, QC, H3A 0E7 phone 514.398.6790 fax 514.398.8318 mcgilldaily.com

The McGill Daily is located on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka territory. coordinating editor

Pandora Wotton managing editor

Nicole Huang news editors

Abigail Popple Saylor Catlin commentary + compendium! editors

Will Barry Meena Thakur culture editors

Olivia Shan Anna Zavelsky features editor

Emma Hébert

science + technology editor

Vacant

sports editor

Vacant

video editor

Vacant

photos editor

Rasha Hamade illustrations editor

Eve Cable copy editor

Catey Fifield design + production editor

Hyeyoon Cho

social media editor

James Cohn radio editor

Vacant

cover design

Eve Cable

contributors Simone Brown, Eve Cable, Saylor Catlin, Ariane Fournier, Zoe Lister, Randa Mohamed, Abigail Popple le délit

Philippe Bédard-Gagnon

rec@delitfrancais.com

Published by the Daily Publications Society, a student society of McGill University.

The views and opinions expressed in the Daily are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of McGill University.

The McGill Daily is not affiliated with McGill University.

3480 McTavish St, Room 107 Montreal, QC H3A 0E7 phone 514.398.690 fax 514.398.8318 advertising & general manager

Boris Shedov

sales representative

Letty Matteo

ad layout & design

Mathieu Ménard dps board of directors

Simon Tardif (Chair), Abigail Popple, Philippe Bédard-Gagnon, Kate Ellis, MarcoAntonio Hauwert Rueda, Asa Kohn, Thibault Passet, Boris Shedov, Pandora Wotton

All contents © 2018 Daily Publications Society. All rights reserved. The content of this newspaper is the responsibility of The McGill Daily and does not necessarily represent the views of McGill University. Products or companies advertised in this newspaper are not necessarily endorsed by Daily staff.

Printed by Imprimerie Transcontinental Transmag. Anjou, Quebec.

ISSN 1192-4608.

McGill Ignores Sexual and Gender-Based Violence content warning: mentions of sexual violence, gender-based discrimination

M

cGill’s Policy Against Sexual Violence, instated in 2016, is up for review this month. Yet the university has failed to communicate this to the community – a reflection of its policies and culture of silence regarding gendered and sexual violence. One thing is clear: when it comes to gendered and sexual violence, McGill and its institutions fail to protect, support, and compensate survivors.

A Daily article published March 21, titled “‘No one reached out to me’: A survivor’s experience reporting sexual assault on campus,” describes the shortcomings that Alice*, a survivor of sexual assault, faced in seeking insitutional support from McGill. She recounts learning that her counsellor at the Office for Sexual Violence Response, Support, and Education (OSVRSE) would no longer have time to see her, how she was not notified about being unable to receive support upon leaving Quebec at the onset of the pandemic, and that she was not informed of other resources to turn to for support. Alice told the Daily that OSVRSE “[is] survivor-centric, but limited because of the resources that they have.” It is unacceptable that OSVRSE, defined by the university’s Procedure for the Investigation of Reports of Sexual Violence as the primary facilitator of support for survivors and respondents, is not granted adequate resources and oversight. If McGill truly cared about honouring survivors in cases of sexual assault, they would ensure that OSVRSE is properly equipped to provide necessary care, communication, and support. The repeated cases of survivors receiving inconsistent support from university services demonstrate a lack of adequate funding and attention from administration for services students need.

Alice explained that the university assured her that she would not encounter her abuser on campus. Yet, Alice reported seeing known abusers on several occasions at different university events. Alice’s experience demonstrates the retraumatization that can result from seeing abusers on campus, and highlights how McGill fails to provide support to survivors due to Quebec’s stringent privacy laws. While the university is bound by these regulations and is unable to share details of abusers’ identities with student unions, their silence in regard to these laws speaks volumes.

While SSMU is not under McGill’s jurisdiction, another article published in the Daily this week describes a disturbing reality for those who have experienced gender-based discrimination in the organization. SSMU President Darshan Daryanani was suspended from his position in September 2021 before being reinstated in February 2022; in “Investigation Against Daryanani Botched,” sources allege Daryanani was suspended for allegations of sexism and psychological harassment. An ensuing HR investigation did not interview all the women who reported “feeling uncomfortable or unsafe working with Daryanani,” failing to support and validate the experiences of those harmed by such genderbased discrimination. It’s important to note that Daryanani is not facing allegations of sexual violence – nonetheless, his reinstatement risks the safety of women and gender minorities at SSMU, as testified by representatives in the February 17 Legislative Council meeting and subsequent consultative forum. Allegedly, SSMU has offered accommodations to those

who expressed discomfort with Daryanani’s return; doing so acknowledges the harm enacted by reinstating the President, and that it’s “clearly [not] fine,” as pointed out by one source.

However, offers for “accommodations” do little to feasibly protect women and gender minorities from Daryanani’s alleged acts of gender-based discrimination, as many executives are mandated to attend the same meetings as him. Overall, Daryanani’s reinstatement signifies a complete failure in the investigation and validation of the allegations and a disregard for the continued safety and well-being of women and gender minorities working at SSMU. These two examples, although differing in jurisdiction and scope, reveal the continued failures of the McGill administration and SSMU to support and protect survivors of sexual and gendered violence. SSMU must reckon with the prevalence of gender-based discrimination in the organization and act accordingly to support those affected by it. To say that survivors speaking out against such violence have “personal grudges,” as an anonymous SSMU director expressed in an email to the Daily, is not only inaccurate but incredibly harmful and dismissive of the experiences and trauma of survivors. Future executives must be familiar with and lobby for policies that protect survivors, such as SSMU’s Involvement Restrictions Policy, which restricts abusers from attending campus events. The failure of all three of this year’s VP Internal candidates to speak to this policy in election interviews is worrying; staff and executives tasked with event planning must prioritize the safety and well-being of survivors of sexual and gendered violence.

At the administrative level, the failure of the university thus far to solicit student feedback in the renewal of the Policy Against Sexual Violence, much less communicate its renewal to the community, is troubling. By doing so, the university is ignoring the needs and input of survivors, whose safety the policy should prioritize. The university should serve as a model for student-led institutions such as SSMU, and they are failing to do so.

As the Policy Against Sexual Violence is up for renewal, advocate for the university to strengthen its commitment to supporting and protecting survivors through structural change.

Call for more funding to OSVRSE and the implementation of policies that support survivors throughout their experiences. If the university opens channels for student feedback regarding the policy, participate and advocate for such improvements.

Additionally, encourage the university to use their institutional power to campaign against restrictive privacy laws in Quebec that harm survivors, such as the “code of silence.”

If you or someone you know has experienced sexual violence or harassment and needs support, you can contact: • Office for Sexual Violence Response, Support, and Education (OSVRSE) • Sexual Assault Centre of the McGill Students’ Society (SACOMSS) • Reporting Sexual Violence • Sexual Violence Support * Names have been changed to protect anonymity.

Read us online Website Facebook Instagram twitter

contact us Coo rdinating news commentary culture feature scitech sports

www.mcgilldaily.com www.facebook.com/themcgilldaily @mcgilldaily @mcgilldaily

coordinating@mcgilldaily.com news@mcgilldaily.com commentary@mcgilldaily.com culture@mcgilldaily.com feature@mcgilldaily.com scitech@mcgilldaily.com sports@mcgilldaily.com

managing photos illustrations design + production copy web+social media multimedia

managing@mcgilldaily.com photos@mcgilldaily.com illustrations@mcgilldaily.com design@mcgilldaily.com copy@mcgilldaily.com web@mcgilldaily.com multimedia@mcgilldaily.com

4

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

News

Floor Fellows on Strike McGill only offering minimum wage

Abigail Popple Coordinating News Editor On March 7, Floor Fellows in the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE) voted in favour of a strike mandate. Negotiations with the university have been ongoing since June 30, 2020, when the union first met with McGill to discuss its priorities for the next Collective Agreement (CA) – the previous CA expired shortly thereafter, on July 2, 2020. The union’s proposals have included both monetary and non-monetary requests: among the monetary requests are raised wages, an improved meal plan, and retroactive pay for the bargaining period; the nonmonetary request for McGill to allow harm-reduction practices in residence has been conceded for now, in order to focus on the union’s monetary requests.

As of writing, McGill has not met the union’s demands. The university is offering minimum wage – which is currently $13.50/ hour – for 13 hours of work per week. In an interview with the Daily, AMUSE President James Newman explained that the union initially asked for $18/hour (the same wage the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec is advocating for), to which McGill countered a $13.64/ hour wage. Later, the university retracted this offer, returning to the minimum wage. On May 1, the minimum wage in Quebec will be raised to $14.25/hour; Newman said that the university dropped their $13.64/ hour offer in anticipation of this raise. McGill told the union that the provincial minimum wage increase exceeds the university’s initial bargaining mandate, Newman claimed.

According to a presentation* by Student Housing and Hospitality Services (SHHS), SHHS makes $62 million per year, so the university should be able to afford an $18/hour wage, Newman said.

“Suzanne Fortier makes $860,000 a year and she’s not even first aid certified,” he joked, pointing out that paying Floor Fellows $16/ hour (what the union is currently proposing) would cost 47 per cent less than this salary.

McGill has pointed to the fact that Floor Fellows are provided housing as a justification for their low wages, Newman said.

According to calculations which the university sent to AMUSE, the hourly value of housing, combined with the current hourly wage, amounts to around $30/ hour for downtown campus Floor Fellows and around $25/hour for Macdonald campus Floor Fellows.

In an interview with the Daily, VP

Floor Fellow Christian Tonnessen highlighted that room and board is a taxable benefit, resulting in tax deductions from Floor Fellows’ pay checks. “We’re taxed at full fair market value, which [...] is astronomically high,” Tonnessen said, estimating that his own taxes are around $1,600/month. These deductions have resulted in netzero paycheques for many Floor Fellows, and when the deductions exceed one paycheque, McGill deducts money from future paycheques. “We have a snowball effect where we have high deductions and high taxes, which then cause a rollover to the next paycheck and the next paycheque,” explained Tonnessen.

When a Floor Fellow’s paycheque does not cover the high deductions for their housing, McGill may also deduct money from other university jobs held by the Floor Fellow: “Floor Fellows who have other jobs are seeing their pay from those jobs deducted to cover the absurd deductions from their Floor Fellow jobs,” Newman told the Daily. “We have never gotten a clear answer from McGill about why this is happening [...] People are paying for the privilege to work at McGill,” he continued.

Tonnessen recounted that one former Floor Fellow had to take on multiple jobs at McGill to pay for the deductions associated with his Floor Fellow job, and he claimed that he has spoken to many Floor Fellows with similar experiences. While this has been a common occurrence this year, it is highly unusual: “I’ve never had paycheques this low before [...] having worked this job for three years I’ve never seen it this absolutely buck wild before,” Tonnessen said. However, the university has maintained that the way they pay for deductions has not changed, per Tonnessen.

Alongside housing, the university provides a meal plan to floor fellows; however, Newman drew attention to several shortcomings in the current plan which the union hopes to rectify in the CA. According to him, the meal plan has remained stagnant at about $4,500 per academic year – by Newman’s calculations, this comes out to about one and a half meals per day, given the rising prices of cafeteria food caused by inflation. Moreover, the meal plan is only valid in McGill cafeterias, but not all residences have a cafeteria nearby: while Solin Hall includes kitchens in every unit and residents at the Macdonald Campus make use of communal kitchens, these residences lack cafeterias. As such, Floor Fellows at these residences must travel to the downtown campus if they

Abigail Popple | Coordinating News Editor wish to use their meal plan – and McGill does not compensate Floor Fellows for the cost of commuting to campus from a faraway residence, Newman said.

Tonnessen explained that in the case of Solin, Floor Fellows are provided with a saver meal plan, which has less money allocated to it than a traditional meal plan; the rest of the plan is made up of grocery cards.

Newman also pointed out that the university did not change Solin Floor Fellows’ meal plans to account for remote activities during the 2020–2021 academic year – Floor Fellows still had to travel to campus to use their meal plans despite the lack of on-campus activities. The union has been advocating for the option of receiving meal plans entirely in the form of grocery cards, but McGill has refused.

Furthermore, the fact that McGill houses Floor Fellows gives the university “a kind of leverage that very few employers have over their employees,” Newman said. During the strike vote, members raised concerns that the university may cut striking workers off from their meal plans or evict them from their dorms; anticipating these concerns, AMUSE requested that their parent union – the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) – fund alternative accommodations for striking Floor Fellows. During the strike actions of St. Patrick’s Day weekend, PSAC arranged access to housing and food outside

of McGill to “neutralize [the potential] threat” of McGill evicting striking workers, per Newman.

McGill is also refusing to retroactively pay AMUSE members, which Newman said “is highly unusual [...] Retroactive pay is a basic component of every CA.” Typically, once a new CA has been signed, any new wage increases will be made retroactive to the expiry of the previous CA. This way, employers do not get the advantage of a wage freeze, which may encourage them to stall negotiations so they do not have to pay higher wages.

While refusing retroactive pay is unusual, McGill has now done it twice this year – McGill is refusing to retroactively pay MUNACA members who retire prior to the signing of a new CA. Working an emotionally taxing job at minimum wage has led many Floor Fellows to become disenchanted and burned out, sources told the Daily . “McGill has never really come around to taking seriously the notion that what Floor Fellows do is work,” Newman said, adding that he’s gotten the impression that the university thinks of Floor Fellows as “special students [...] who should be happy with whatever McGill gives them and jump at the opportunity to do extra work.” He added that the university’s opposition to harmreduction practices has caused “moral injury” to many Floor Fellows, who are now being treated as “discount security

guards” mandated to report drug paraphernalia despite their opposition to criminalizing drug use. “If you’ve ever been curious about what burnout is like, apply to be a Floor Fellow.”

SHHS makes $62M per year, so the university should be able to afford an $18/hour wage.

“Suzanne Fortier makes $860,000 a year and she’s not even first aid certified,” AMUSE is circulating an open letter which students can sign to support the strike efforts. Newman hopes that the AMUSE strike empowers other workers: “We are hoping for a victory here that will inspire other workers, especially residence assistants in universities without unions to organize and fight for a living wage and fair working conditions. Your support for us today will pay dividends for all workers tomorrow.” * This presentation was not leaked to the Daily by Newman or Tonnessen.

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

news

5

Sexual Violence Policy Renewal Zoe Lister News Reporter

Assessing the Policy and Culture Around Sexual Violence at McGill

content warning: mention of rape and sexual assault

T

his month, McGill will review the Policy Against Sexual Violence, which was last reviewed in March 2019. According to Émilie Marcotte, a Sexual Violence Response Advisor at the Office for Sexual Violence Response, Support and Education (OSVRSE), the upcoming review process will involve looking at the implementation of reports, evaluating whether the education and reporting processes have shown success, and making other recommended adjustments.

The last review, in March 2019, was a “big overhaul in the policy,” according to Marcotte. Bill 151, a Quebec law passed in December 2017, required all post-secondary institutions to adopt a policy to prevent sexual violence by January 1, 2019, and to implement it

by September 2019. In 2019, McGill, UQAM, and several CEGEPs missed the adoption deadline. At the time, McGill Principal Suzanne Fortier told the Daily that the university did not miss the deadline set by the province, as McGill adopted a sexual violence policy in 2016. Regardless, Quebec Liberal MNA and former minister for higher education Hélène David – who put forth Bill 151 – called out institutions like McGill for lagging behind the province’s deadline, characterizing this lag as “unacceptable.”

The university is not soliciting student feedback beyond the presence of [...] stakeholder groups on the committee and Policy Working Group.

McGill has formed an implementation committee in accordance with Section 9 of the current Policy. This committee is composed of various administrators, representatives from the Student Assault Centre of the McGill Students’ Society (SACOMMS) and OSVRSE, and student representatives. As Marcotte told the Daily in an interview, “That [implementation] committee

has been meeting on a regular basis for the past three years to evaluate the implementation of the policy [and] to make recommendations. And so the boarding group will be looking at those recommendations as well as the recommendations of the different stakeholder groups,” such as SSMU and the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS). The university is not soliciting student feedback beyond the presence of these stakeholder groups on the committee and Policy Working Group.

In Spring 2021, McGill launched the Office for Mediation and Reporting (OMR), which now serves as the main site to receive formal reports of sexual violence. Other resources for survivors currently include OSVRSE and SACOMSS. Since 2019, McGill has also implemented a mandatory sexual violence education program called “It Takes All of Us,” modelled after a course at Concordia University. This four-module program is online and all students, staff, and faculty are expected to complete it. Students have taken issue with the sexual violence education program since it was released. The recommended duration of the program is 45 minutes, but there are options that can allow students to complete the program in a matter of minutes.

Incompletion of “It Takes All of Us” will result in a hold on add-drop functions for students. Students who have already registered for Winter courses are immune to this consequence, as well as students graduating at the end of the semester. It is unclear whether there is a consequence for staff and faculty.

In December 2020, five McGill students started a petition for the university to “take action” against a first-year male student they accused of sexual assault. Two of the five allegations included rape while the survivor was intoxicated. Within three days, the petition gained over 50,000 signatures.

Throughout the investigation, the administration received several complaints about the ongoing presence of the accused student in residence and in classes. This is contrary to the current sexual violence policy, which states that a student that poses as a risk of harm to any member of the university community can be subject to preemptive disciplinary action – meaning it would be permissible to remove this student from residences and classes where survivors were present.

McGill is bound by Quebec privacy laws, or the “code of silence,” to not share information on any particular case, ongoing investigation, or outcome related to allegations of sexual assault.

Because of this, survivors are not informed of the nature of the sanctions imposed on the aggressor – or if the

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor aggressor was sanctioned at all. The annual report on the sexual violence policy in 2020 – the same year as the aforementioned petition was distributed – states that the disciplinary measures imposed on aggressors that year included admonishment and conduct probation, formal reprimand, and orders to cease and desist communication and contact. The report also states that only eight of the nine found sexual violence cases were disciplined by McGill.

Section 99 of Bill 64 will mandate institutions of higher education in Quebec to allow survivors to request information surrounding the details and outcomes of disciplinary processes on a confidential basis beginning in September 2023. However, it is unclear whether this new legislation will allow survivors to request information about past cases. Community members have been advocating for an end to the code of silence for a long time: an online petition to end the code began in Fall 2020, and Bill 64 was enacted a year later, in Fall 2021.

McGill’s sexual violence policy states that a “Special Investigator shall conduct and complete an investigation within 90 Days” of a report of sexual violence. When asked if this could change, Marcotte told the Daily that this time frame is not up to the university. The 90 day time frame is set by Quebec law for educational institutions to investigate reports of sexual violence.

However, Marcotte added that “there are interim measures put in place to ensure the safety of the participants while they’re studying or working on campus. And that is something in which the person [...] filing the complaint has a lot of say. They are asked what their concerns are, what their needs are, and what we need to be. But then also due to the code of conduct, they’re not going to know

what’s happening on the other end.”

According to the current policy, reported cases are meant to be immediately filed with a special investigator trained in “trauma-informed processes and in the manner in which persons of diverse identities might experience Sexual Violence” and procedural fairness.

According to Marcotte, McGill works with two law firms and has contracts with the firms to do sexual violence investigations.

There have been concerns about how COVID-19 has affected the response

According to the 2020 annual report, “12 investigations were completed within the 90-day delay set by the Policy. 4 investigations started in mid-March 2020, just as Quebec began lockdown measures, and exceeded the 90-day delay.”

In this current review of the Policy Against Sexual Violence, representatives from various groups are involved in the “working group” process, according to the policy itself. These include OSVRSE, SACOMSS,

McGill is bound by Quebec privacy laws [...] to not share information on any particular case, ongoing investigation, or outcome related to allegations of sexual assault. to sexual violence cases. Marcotte told the Daily, “I think it was obviously a surprise for everybody in terms of how serious the pandemic was. And there was an adjustment period that I think was felt there, as with any office in terms of moving online and continuing to offer services.” Marcotte added, “That said, there was no gap in services in terms of either offering support or helping people through the policy itself.” Prior to the pandemic, certain cases were done at a distance, according to Marcotte. “The person who is a survivor – the person filing the complaint – does not have to be a current McGill member. So, sometimes that meant that people who are in different cities or even countries could file a complaint if they wanted to. And so we’ve offered interviews via distance and support.” However, one survivor interviewed by the Daily last week explained that their case “fell through the cracks” at the onset of the pandemic.

Human Resources, SSMU, PGSS, and University Residences/Student Housing, among others. Each group is represented by just one representative, and the review of the policy is chaired by the Provost or a delegate. The working group also looks at recommendations made by the Implementation Committee, which contains student and staff representation.

The 2021 annual report on the sexual violence policy states that the March 2022 policy review “will be an important opportunity to strengthen the Policy and associated resources further.” It adds that “any proposed revisions to the Policy that result from this review process will be presented to Senate and the Board for review and approval.”

Resources for survivors of sexual violence can be found in the online edition of this article.

6

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

News

“We cannot stay silent” Saylor Catlin News Editor

Students rally outside James Administration for Palestine Solidarity Policy

O

n March 25, students gathered in front of the James Administration Building in response to a Media Relations Office (MRO) email sent by Deputy Provost Fabrice Labeau on March 24 titled “SSMU referendum outcome.”

In the announcement, Labeau expressed disappointment in the adoption of the Palestine Solidarity Policy and threatened to dissolve the university’s Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU).

In a written press release, rally organizers expressed that “we cannot stay silent while the McGill administration attempts to blackmail our student union, and crush the democratic will of our student body!”

At the rally, calls for “Free, free, Palestine!,” “No peace on stolen land,” and “the students, united, will never be divided” bounced off the exterior walls of the James Administration Building, echoing t h rough ca mpus.

At tendees waved Pa le s t i n ia n f la g s , wh i le one individual mounted the scaf folding in front of the building ’s entra nce to lead the crowd in chants. Multiple spea kers delivered speeches to t he crowd, celebrat ing the passing of the Palestine Solidarity Policy, shaming the universit y, a nd encourag ing SSMU to stand its ground.

“Anything that can actually bring some form of representation to Palestinians is deemed as controversial” – Erin*, SPHR member The Palestine Solidarity Policy was passed in the most recent SSMU referendum, announced March 21. The policy mandates that SSMU boycott corporations complicit in settler-colonial apartheid against Palestinians and advocate for the university to do the same, that SSMU campaign for the university to publicly condemn Canary

Mission and other surveillance or smear campaigns against Palestinian and pro-Palestinian students, and that SSMU form a Palestine Solidarity Comittee, among other points. The referendum received a 71.4 per cent “yes” vote, meaning it was passed with a supermajority.

“It’s the first initiative to actually represent and make Palestinian activists and their allies feel seen and supported on campus,” commented Erin*, an SPHR member, on the policy.

They continued to tell the Daily that it’s the bare minimum that Palestinian activists are emboldened to “advocate without fear of repurcussions, fear of falling to a smear campaign, or just being blatantly doxxed.”

In the MRO announcement, Labeau claimed that the policy echoes the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. He continued to characterize it “as an initiative that can only bring more division to our community,” arguing that the policy will “create excessive polarization in our community, encourage a culture of ostracization and disrespect due to students’ identity,” and is “in contradiction with the university’s values of inclusion, diversity, and respect.”

“I’d like to draw attention back to our policy and ask where exactly in that policy do we threaten Jewish identity,” Erin commented, “where we promote discrimination, and how sanctioning [and] divesting from companies complicit in settler colonialism is going to affect students on campus.”

Furthermore, Labeau claimed that the initiatives described in the policy are “in contradiction with the principles expressed by SSMU in its own constitution.”

He explained that he had communicated this to SSMU leadership and “advised them to take prompt and appropriate remedial action.” At the March 24 Legislative Council meeting, SSMU President Darshan Daryanani, who was unable to attend live, shared a message with the council explaining that Labeau had sent him a Notice of Default on March 22 in regard to the MoA. According to article 12.2 of the MoA, in the event of such a default, the defaulting party has 30 working days to “remedy such default.”

In his notice, Labeau allegedly claimed that “in no way can such a policy be considered to ‘facilitate communication and interaction between all students from all McGill communities’ or to ‘act

Saylor Catlin | News Editor in the best interests of [SSMU’s] Members as a whole.’ It will also clearly lead to discrimination based on characteristics such as race, national or ethnic origin, and religion.” Daryanani commented that “[SSMU] requires a certain degree of autonomy to effectively carry out our roles, and we fear that the statement made by McGill University severely encroaches on this ability.”

“Democracy that McGill has championed so much ends where discourse that challenges the administration begins,” said Erin.

“That’s such a fucked up, fragile demonstration of democracy [...]

it reveals that McGill does not actually champion democracy, but only extends it to narratives that don’t threaten its position,” they continued.

In the MRO, Labeau further communicated that if SSMU leadership fails to “take prompt and appropriate remedial action [...] the University will terminate this Memorandum of Agreement.”

Daryanani comments that the threat to terminate the MoA is of “particular concern.” The MoA allows SSMU to work alongside the university on many matters, namely the assessment and collection of fees from students and the operation of university

accounts for such fees. Essentially, the termination of the MoA would prevent SSMU from receiving the fees that it currently solicits.

“Anything that can actually bring some form of representation to Palestinians is deemed as controversial [...] it’s ridiculous,” says Erin. According to them, the terms outlined in the policy are necessary, “and for McGill to condemn that [...] and for that to be conflated with anti-Semitism, [it is] very clear on McGill’s part that it’s willing to do absolutely nothing for Palestinian students on campus.” * Name changed to protect anonymity.

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

commentary

7

The Impact of Eating Disorders on Our Studies

Simone Brown Commentary Contributor

content warning: mentions of eating disorders

I

n my first year of university, I was ignoring an eating disorder. Leaving high school with an unhealthy relationship with food, as my body was continuing to grow and develop, I refused to believe anything could go wrong. It turned out that uprooting my life and throwing myself head-first into campus activities led me further into my mental illness. I took the metro to campus every day, passing by advertisements of young, thin white women smiling or contorting their bodies to show off a new product. Once at school, I sat between well-meaning classmates who complained about the calories in the pizza they had while drunk, trying to connect over that “secret crime” we have all committed of daring to nourish our bodies. In between classes, I would meet up with friends in the library and watch as they studied for hours without stopping to eat.

On my breaks I walked to the bathroom, only to be greeted by girls who complimented each other only by pointing out their own insecurities.

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor

The biggest learning opportunities in my first year had nothing to do with my major but everything to do with my body, my behaviours, and my mentality.

Self-deprecation and disordered eating habits covered the campus like a thick smog choking me out. It is normalized to spend hours scrutinizing yourself. Friends gathering around a dinner table, eating while simultaneously complaining about the horrific “freshman 15,” enabled me further. The biggest learning opportunities in my first year had nothing to do with my major but everything to do with my body, my behaviours, and my mentality. Absorbing any other information became harder as my brain struggled to balance the work I needed to do against the meagre energy

I was providing it. By the time midterms had begun, I was struggling to climb the hill to class and was leaning against cars to stop from collapsing.

During presentations, I would forget what I was saying in the middle of my sentences, too nervous about the eyes on me and my body. Frequently, I knew I had the knowledge and the critical thinking skills to speak on a subject, but I kept quiet because I knew I would sound scattered and fatigued rather than strong and articulate.

It was so frustrating to lose out on so many experiences and opportunities, and it was even more frustrating that no one seemed to notice how much it hurt me. University should be a chance to grow as a person – it should not drag you further into your bad habits.

In my moments of clarity, I begged for support from the McGill Student Wellness Hub, only for my struggles to be dismissed as a normal part of the university experience.

A doctor’s appointment in October 2019 concluded with me being told my weight disqualified me from getting help through the Wellness Hub for an eating disorder. My first psychiatry appointment was cancelled the morning of, and I was pressured to cancel my

rescheduled appointment once secretaries learned I was on a waitlist for private care.

This is not simply a case of societal pressures bleeding into an institution; McGill has completely failed to adequately help its students struggling with eating disorders. Over one million Canadians have been diagnosed with some form of an eating disorder. Statistically, eating disorders remain the most deadly group of mental illnesses, with suicidal ideation affecting 10 to 35 per cent of those diagnosed. There has been a 15.3 per cent increase in eating disorder incidences due to the COVID -19 pandemic, which psychiatric services at McGill are not equipped to handle. They are understaffed, overworked, and undertrained to handle so many students with such serious concerns. Unable to address these inadequacies,

the Student Wellness Hub simply passes its struggling students off to private clinics and treatment programs at often inaccessible prices. The administration claims that through the Wellness Hub, McGill students will have access to dietitians, doctors, nurses, and psychiatrists, but most students can attest to the near impossibility of getting an appointment. After two years in a pandemic which has spotlighted personal health and wellness like never before, why has McGill not prioritized its students’ care more? Even the recently-reinstated Eating Disorder Resource and Support Centre is completely run and funded by SSMU, following McGill’s complete defunding of its own program in 2017.

After more than two years of active recovery and the privilege of private treatment, I am safer participating in campus life. Still, I have to ask, what about those of us who are not so lucky – those who cannot afford private care, who are picking up disordered eating habits, who are constantly redirected from the Wellness Hub, and who think they are the only ones struggling at McGill?

Will McGill University ever put aside its business ventures and invest in its students’ mental health? I hope that if we continue to call on McGill to give more funding to the Wellness Hub and expand its mental health resources, we will be able to address the culture of disordered eating that is festering on our campus. If you don’t think you know someone with an eating disorder, start to look critically at the campus around you and talk with your friends. If you or someone you know is struggling with an eating disorder, please reach out for help.

Remember that there are resources for you, virtual and local, and you do not have to feel alone in this fight.

This is not simply a case of societal pressures bleeding into an institution; McGill has completely failed to adequately help its students struggling with eating disorders.

8

features

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

“We only see it when it’s too late, or when the ambulance shows up”

A Floor Fellow’s experience of anti-harm reduction policy in McGill residence

Christian Tonnesen | The McGill Daily Eve Cable Illustrations Editor

J

ust over two years ago, McGill made changes to its Code of Community Living (CCL), shifting from a harm reductionist framework to one that required those living in residence to report fellow residents for illicit drug use.

Harm reductionist frameworks support those who choose to use substances in a safe way, rather than advocating for abstinence. McGill’s current policies attempt to eradicate possession of substances on campus and to limit the use of legal substances such as marijuana and alcohol. “The CCL came into effect in 2010,

and what it essentially was was a policy and penalty book.

Before that, there was really no outlined residence handbook guide […] We basically grieved the entirety of that document,” says Christian Tonnesen, VP Floor Fellow at the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE). “And then a funny thing happened, where the CCL suddenly did not exist anymore. There was this new document called the Residence Handbook.”

Tonneson spoke to the Daily last week, at the beginning of the Floor Fellows’ strike against the university and in light of the administration’s meagre wage offerings and refusal to reach a collective agreement. Harm

reduction in residence, Tonneson explained, has been a key focus of the strike. “We’re really just trying to get to the root of why [they decided] to, in recent years, take a harder stance on drugs and an even harder stance on alcohol.” Tonneson references the strict rules regarding alcohol and drug consumption that can be found in the Residence Handbook, which bar students from consuming alcohol in public spaces such as common areas, limiting open alcohol to private areas like residents’ rooms, or, in the case of Solin Hall, apartments. The handbook also prohibits “mass consumption,” only referencing drinking games, and specifies that residents can be sanctioned with a verbal or

written warning, or Residence Probation.

The Residence Handbook fails to specify the details of Residence Probation, only citing the reasons a student may be placed on it and clarifying that, if violated, there may be an escalation of a disciplinary case.

“That only got worse in 2020– 2021, it’s the COVID year. So on top of all these rules, we also get a new rule that says if you don’t open the door to someone who knocks, you can be subject to disciplinary action under the Student Conduct Code. It was essentially in response to students who maybe had one other person in their room not opening the door out of fear of being disciplined. And so then they’re like, oh, we need

some way to get into these kids’ rooms […] They basically took the Student Disciplinary Code and said, how can we morph this to where you have to obey authority in order for us to be able to check that you’re not breaking the rules?”

The Community Living Standards (CLS) outlined in the Residence Handbook make it so that students are confined to their rooms if they want to consume alcohol, something that was virtually impossible to do with others during the pandemic, particularly during the 2020–2021 year, where no guests were allowed whatsoever.

And during the strictest period of guest policy implementation, the alcohol-related section of

features the Student Conduct Code was enforced strongly: “No more drinking in any space that is not your room, period. No drinking games within residence, period.

No socialized drinking events in the residence, period. And finally, we are limiting the size of the bottles you can bring into residence to be a certain size.”

With no guests allowed in rooms, including guests from within the same residence, this meant that students were forced either to drink alone, to drink secretly, or to leave residence and drink in other spaces.

“So, of course, then you start to see the next part of students doing stuff in secret, because they’re afraid people will bust them,” Tonnesen explains.

“Whereas before, if a student was drinking too much in the common room, the Floor Fellows could see it while they were on duty and keep an eye on it. Now, we only see it when it’s too late, or when the ambulance shows up, which is rough and pretty much anti-harm reduction.”

This attitude was the opposite of what many Floor Fellows took the job expecting, especially those that joined prior to the implementation of this policy, who experienced things like floor teas with alcohol and residence parties hosted by the InterResidence Council, featuring alcohol with a ticket. “It’s not that drinking was encouraged, but it’s like the opportunity was there, and we were treating you like an adult making adult decisions.”

The pushback in recent years has made McGill residences more difficult to consume alcohol in, ultimately making things less safe for the very students in residence McGill claims to protect through its draconian policies.

Students being forced to consume “illicit” materials in secret has, unsurprisingly, proved dangerous. In one such case, students found fentanyl in their drugs after testing, and when Floor Fellows reported the incident to staff, they were told that McGill would only send out a vague and generalized memo concerning fentanyl in supplies in the city, rather than specifying where and with what drug the incident took place.

Floor Fellows also asked for drug testing kits to help keep their residents safe, but McGill refused. Floor Fellows were told that providing drug testing kits would be a tacit admission of drug use in residence – McGill administration was not willing to face that reality, preferring instead to prioritize its image over the safety of its students.

It’s hard to trace exactly when the McGill administration shifted its attitude toward

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

McGill banning all marijuana consumption in residence, and strictly enforcing this rule, forces students to go off-campus to experiment with drugs. substance use in residence, but Tonnenson believes it was after the legalization of marijuana in October 2018. “McGill had what one could say was a kneejerk reaction,” Tonnenson explains, “and they essentially said, kids can smoke now, how can we relate that to us?”

According to Tonnenson, McGill originally planned to not allow for possession of marijuana anywhere on campus. After acknowledging the illegality of that demand, the university instead decided to make it so that students could own marijiana but could not consume marijuana in residence. “I was like, even sprays or gummies or anything?

And they said no, no drugs. And we said, okay, that’s kind of against everything we stand for.

But sure.”

McGill banning all marijuana consumption in residence, and strictly enforcing this rule, forces students to go off campus to experiment with drugs. Not only this, but McGill demands a medical certificate for the consumption of marijuana on its properties – something practically unheard of in Montreal – and impossible to obtain for someone using cannabis for common medical needs, such as to help with cramps or nausea. Consuming marijuana can be a negative experience for some people, especially when consumed in an unfamiliar or uncomfortable environment. These restrictions put students in a situation where they are unable to experiment in a safe space, something that can have a real negative impact on students, particularly when administration knows that students will experiment with drugs during their time at university regardless of their own regulations. Being far from Floor Fellows and the safety of their own dorm can make a common university experience frightening for students.

The Residence Handbook’s regulations regarding possession of “drug paraphernalia” further stigmatizes relatively innocuous recreational drug use, particularly of marijuana. The handbook states, “Possession and storage of drug paraphernalia in residence is prohibited. This includes bongs, pipes, vaporizers, and any other device associated

with the consumption and usage of drugs,” and “consumption of an illegal drug or nonprescribed medication will result in residence sanctions.”

This means that students are entirely unable to store items used for consumption of drugs, even if those students are not intending to use those drugs in residence. Under this definition, drug testing kits would be considered “drug paraphernalia” as they are “associated with the consumption and usage of drugs.” McGill has therefore created an environment where students cannot be sure that they can keep materials that would ensure their safety should they choose to consume drugs, thereby endangering students’ lives and wellbeing.

Tonnenson notes that there’s no clear way students can know what types and styles of sanctions they may receive upon violation of the Community Living Standards: “That depends on the RLM [Residence Life Manager] you talk to.

There’s no set standard for that.”

The Residence Handbook lists a variety of disciplinary measures, which all have vague definitions.

For instance, two of the sanctions are named “Community Repair” and “Educational Sanction,” with one suggesting that a student may be made to make “promotional materials to raise awareness” and the other suggesting “educational posters” be made by the student being disciplined ­– the lack of clear differentiation between these types of “educational sanctions” demonstrates the vagueness of McGill’s policy regarding disciplinary measures.

The section also explains that RLMs may choose to enforce “Discretionary Sanctions,” which could include “room reallocation, access restrictions, restitution damages, or fines.”

For students found to be violating a policy that either directly or indirectly relates to COVID-19 policies, their case will be managed under the McGill Code of Conduct disciplinary process instead of by their RLM, creating further confusion about the complaints process and a lack of clear standardization of sanctions. The policy does not make clear which of these sanctions qualifies “Residence

Probation,” as mentioned elsewhere in the Handbook.

Tonnesen believes that this has led to a “very toxic culture” in McGill residence, particularly in regards to regulations that he states technically require him to report any violation of the Community Living Standards to higher-ups: “There was another rule that came out […] it said, hey, if you’re a residence student, and you see someone breaking these rules, or have an object [for example, bongs or pipes] and you don’t report it, you could also be liable then if it gets found out. So, essentially, snitch or you could get in trouble.” Tonnesen believes that this has contributed to an environment of fear in residences, where students are afraid of the sanctions they might face should they not report drug usage in residence.

He notes that, “We have this culture, then, of fear of drugs, which works in McGill’s favour, of course, because for them the less drugs in residence the better. That means less liability that they have to hold on to.”

9

It’s important to remember that it is not just the student residents who have been harmed by these policies. It is also the Floor Fellows who have had their job expectations completely turned around by the anti-harm reductionist framework McGill has decided to work under. “It’s something Floor Fellows have to be really careful about – how they do the messaging for now. We have to say, listen, I want to support you, but obviously if you come to me and are like, Christian, I’m going to do coke later, I may or may not have to tell my boss that someone’s going to do an illegal substance in residence, which is pretty dangerous [...]

Telling me puts me in a weird position of either I break the rules and don’t tell my boss and I support the student, or I have to tell my boss and potentially make quite a difficult relationship with a student who might not trust me.”

Students can no longer rely on their Floor Fellows in the ways they could before – McGill has harmed that relationship.

“We have this culture, then, of fear of drugs, which works in McGill’s favour, of course, because for them the less drugs in residence the better. That means less liability.”

- Christian Tonnesen “For Floor Fellows, though, it puts us in a really rough position,” Tonnesen explains, shedding some light on how hard it has been for those charged with protecting students throughout this period of strict drug and alcohol policy.

“How am I supposed to take a harm reduction approach when my students are scared to talk to me because they’re afraid I’ll narc on them to my boss?,” Tonnesen asks, making clear how badly the policies have harmed the relationships between Floor Fellows and the residents they care for. Floor Fellows reportedly miss the days before these policies, where there was a more transparent culture and communication of trust in residences. “There was an open culture of, I might be doing drugs, and I want you to know about it,” Tonnesen explains. “Floor Fellows at that point weren’t restricted. We were like, okay, you can talk to me about doing drugs. I can talk to you about ways to do it safely, and perhaps share our own experiences about that.”

Ultimately, McGill’s policies make things dangerous for student residents and for students working as Floor Fellows. It’s no secret that drug use is prevalent in universities – it’s estimated that about 54 per cent of McGill students will at least try marijuana during their time at university, and studies by institutes such as the Higher Education Policy Institute consistently demonstrate that students will participate in illicit drug use during their college years. It is not about whether or not students will take drugs during their time at McGill – they will –, but it is up to McGill whether or not they want to put students in danger while they consume.

Right now, McGill’s intense desire to not be held liable for drug use on campus creates a “culture of fear” in residence, according to Tonnesen, and this makes residence life unsafe for both student residents and Floor Fellows working to supervise them.

10

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

culture

Reading Between the Lines Celebrity book clubs reveal the unsurprising misogyny of modern literary culture

Ariane Fournier Culture Contributor

O

n September 17, 1996, Oprah Winfrey announced she was starting a book club.

The beloved television personality introduced the venture on that day’s episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show, stressing she wanted to “get the whole country reading again.” At the time, few would have predicted the massive success the project would accumulate. By fair means, it seemed unlikely that a middle-ofthe-afternoon talk show host’s book recommendations could influence the way the average American reader discovers and purchases books, let alone have any impact on the course of literary history. Nonetheless, from its first 1996 installment, the club transformed into a cultural and commercial phenomenon – members were enthralled by Winfrey’s recommendations, leading some books to become bestsellers overnight. Fast forward to the 2020s, celebrity book clubs are all the rage. Reese Witherspoon, Sarah Jessica Parker, Lena Dunham, Emma Watson, Florence Welsh, Kaia Gerber, and Noname, among others, now represent a new generation of literacy facilitators.

[Toni] Morrison empowered Winfrey’s readers by applauding their willingness and authenticating their efforts rather than belittling the way they approach literature.

Celebrity book clubs are popular for a reason: they are easy to join, require little engagement, and provide intimate access to Hollywood’s biggest stars. You can read and follow along on your own or create a small group with friends and family. In any case, the book club figurehead will accompany you through the reading process and lead discussions on important themes.

Because their celebrity status grants them access to key players in the literary field, many of these stars organize sit-downs with authors to discuss novels even further.

This factor is especially important

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor in understanding the power of the celebrity book club. Winfrey’s model remains successful because it was marketed towards one group in particular: the “middlebrow,” as referred to by scholar and professor Beth Driscoll. This group consists of readers that occupy a space in contemporary literature that is considered less elite than literary fiction. Namely, they are working professionals with a university degree who have time to read recreationally.

The middlebrow is also feminized and ambitious; they have the drive to increase their status but rely on cultural mediators to help them break into the elite cultural sphere. In fact, this orientation towards women readers, characters, and subject matter is the reason the club’s status was considered middlebrow in the first place.

In The New Literary Middlebrow, Driscoll asserts that women’s reading has historically been degraded because it tends to emphasize emotional connections rather than literary quality and innovation. In response to those beliefs, Oprah’s Book Club created a mediated model where women could engage with popular literature and interrogate the critical values of their patriarchal societies. Winfrey offered women a safe space to exchange ideas and her public persona gave the club credibility as a model for literacy.

Her charismatic demeanor laid the foundation for an unintimidating and accessible setting where pleasurable

and complex novels could be explored without judgment.

The massive success of the celebrity book club has provoked the classist response that if a written work is accessible, then there is little cultural capital to be gained from it. In other words, book clubs have no serious literary value because they were created for the masses. This criticism follows a long line of condescending responses to cultural forms targeting and consumed primarily by women.

Strictly speaking, these criticisms hide discrediting attitudes towards the activities women tend to partake in. Winfrey chose to empower diverse groups of women by telling them they are capable of exploring various literary works. Such examples of support and personal growth abound.

For instance, in January 1998, Oprah’s Book Club studied Paradise (1997) by Toni Morrison. At the time, the novel was fresh off the press and represented Morrison’s first novel since winning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1993. Winfrey expected the reading

experience to be arduous and invited the award-winning author to lead a formal seminar for her audience. In conversation with Winfrey, Morrison was quick to offer comfort: “That you got it is what I’m trying to tell you. You got it and you didn’t believe you got it.” Morrison’s intention was to validate the audience’s disorientation, to reassure them that it was normal not to “get” everything in Paradise. However, she also sought to change the way these women approached their incomprehension.

She incited them to think of “not getting it” in a way that focuses less on the author’s intention and more on personal interpretation.

In the end, Morrison empowered Winfrey’s readers by applauding their willingness and authenticating their efforts rather than belittling the way they approach literature.

Like Winfrey, she recognized the eagerness of the crowd and pushed for their accreditation.

Today, similar discussions continue to take place on social

media. According to Instagram director of fashion partnerships Eva Chen, the platform has shown “a significant spike” in literaturerelated content in recent years, with the hashtag #bookstagram being excessively popular during the first week of every month, when Reese’s Book Club and Well-Read Black Girl announce their new picks. In 2019, Noname started the Noname Book Club, which “is a Black-led worker cooperative connecting community members both inside and outside carceral facilities with radical books.” More recently, Kaia Gerber uploaded a video of her chat with the playwright Jeremy O. Harris. The talk, watched by thousands, brought Harris to share a list of Black and queer theory texts, thereby granting her millions of followers access to graduatelevel discourse. Now more open and public than ever, women-focused book clubs serve as powerful mediums that push many to refuse their marginalized positions.

The massive success of the celebrity book club has provoked the classist response that if a written work is accessible, then there is little cultural capital to be gained from it [...] This criticism follows a long line of condescending responses to cultural forms targeted toward and consumed primarily by women.

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

culture

11

Motherhood(s); Motherland(s)

Unburying the Past in Almodovar’s Parallel Mothers

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor Randa Mohamed

P

edro Almodóvar’s latest film, Parallel Mothers (2021), is a thrilling homage to the healing of yesterday’s wounds. The film features brightly coloured set and costume design, with character relationships that are equally as striking. The film follows Janis (Penelope Cruz) as she seeks to investigate the whereabouts of her late grandfather Antonio’s missing remains. Antonio and others were abducted for political reasons during the era of fascist rule in Spain, led by dictator Francisco Franco – the regime lasted for four decades, beginning in 1939 and ending in 1975. In the modern day, Arturo (Israel Elejalde) is the forensic anthropologist tasked with this historical inquiry. Arturo and Janis’ relationship becomes complicated when the two sleep together, as a result of which Janis becomes

pregnant. The title of the film, Parallel Mothers, refers to Janis and a woman named Ana (Milena Smit), who meet when they are placed in the same delivery room. As the two navigate their separate lives as new mothers, they have chance encounters in a way that can only be described as serendipitous. Their lives intertwine, and we follow them as their pasts come back to haunt them.

Amidst countless startling revelations, a sense of calmness is maintained throughout the film that lets us know things will reach their intended endings.

Characters’ pasts are continuously reconciled, rectified, or peace is somehow made; this maintains the hopefulness for the future that this film conveys. Ana, Janis, and all the supporting characters are simultaneously tangled in the web that is the aftermath of the Franco regime, while they also sort through their own unresolved

histories. Almodóvar brings us along for a story celebrating that which is unexpected, unfinished, and imperfect. The film touches on both personal and national histories, presenting the viewer with a collection of interconnected lives in which uncertainty is neutralized by acceptance and persistence.

Confronting the past in order to uncover the nature of the present day is a general message that the film conveys. Almodóvar makes it clear, however, that he wishes to express this precisely in the context of Spain’s sociopolitical climate. This film is his most direct exploration of historical and political factors, yet in his 1999 film All About My Mother, the director also touches on social change through a metaphor of the body. In an article titled “The Body and Spain: Pedro Almodóvar’s All About My Mother,” film critic Ernesto AcevedoMunoz discusses the body and Spain, where Almodóvar explores cultural anxieties surrounding the notion of change and the use of transgender

Almodóvar brings us along for a story celebrating that which is unexpected, unfinished, and imperfect. The film touches on both personal and national histories, presenting the viewer with a collection of interconnected lives in which uncertainty is neutralized by acceptance and persistence.

The Franco regime, a dark and fascist period of Spanish history, was responsible for many deaths and missing person cases. With the excavation of Janis’ grandfather and the other men who went missing during the Franco regime, his latest film is quite literally a digging up of the past.

characters to explore this pertinent topic. Agrado, a transgender woman who has proudly undergone many cosmetic surgeries, states compactly an essential message of All About My Mother; “Well, as I was saying, it costs a lot to be authentic, ma’am. And one can’t be stingy with these things because you are more authentic the more you resemble what you’ve dreamed of being.” This iconic line demonstrated to viewers in 1999 that Almodóvar has hopes for the future of Spain – hope that, through change, perhaps the actualization of longheld desires will be possible. With the excavation of Janis’ grandfather and the other men who went missing during the Franco regime, his latest film is quite literally a digging up of the past. With Janis’ quest seeking to have several decade old remains dug up and examined for the sake of

closure, the starting note of the film is one that bears political weight.

The Franco regime, a dark and fascist period of Spanish history, was responsible for many deaths and missing person cases. Almodóvar stated in an interview with Indiewire that “[t]his movie is a way of saying to the youth that they have to look to the past.” Rather than forgetfulness or ignorance, this film advocates for the reconciliation of that which lingers from unresolved histories.

Almodóvar shows us resilience in action, and it proves to be beautifully bitter-sweet.

Parallel Mothers proclaims to us that to be unhindered we must come to terms with the historical problems embedded in our lives and the personal trials that cling to us as well. Through seeing Janis sift through layers of history, a story of the future emerges.

March 28, 2022 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

compendium!

12

HOROSCOPES Aries

Taurus

(Mar 21 Apr 19)

(Apr 20 May 20)

Slugs will bring you good luck this week. look out for them, this is time for new beginnings.

You might feel like a lonely little cow this week. eat more clementines and avoid redpath at all costs.

Cancer

Leo

(Jun 21 Jul 22)

(Jul 23 Aug 22)

you are going to go on an emotional journey but will learn nothing. think season 2 of Euphoria.

Libra (Sept 23 Oct 22) the word “procrastinate” comes from the latin “cras,” which means “tomorrow.”This is relevant.

Capricorn (Dec 22 Jan 19) wouldn’t it be weird if we were the mirror images of people on the other side of the mirror?

Viola Ruzzier | Staff Illustrator

your time in the sun is coming. you will reap what you sowed.

Gemini (May 21 Jun 20) the metal bit that holds the eraser and the pencil together is called a “ferrule.” remember this.

Virgo (Aug 23 Sept 22) expect the unexpected from yourself this week. add to your private story discerningly.

Scorpio

Sagittarius

(Oct 23 Nov 21)

(Nov 22 Dec 21)

this week is not about you. do your thing and get yours quietly.

Aquarius (Jan 20 Feb 18) you are fucking crazy this week. don’t make any big life decisions.

there is a very good noodle place on sherbrooke if you haven’t been.

Pisces (Feb 19 Mar 20) go through a cookbook and discover a new recipe to make this week. you will gain friends.