Editorial: Concordia Admin Needs to Review the ABCs of Communication

Graphic Madeleine Gendreau

Concordia administration needs to deal with its serious inconsistencies in planning, assigning, withholding and unnecessarily prolonging tribunals.

The disparity in their handling of recent issues is unprofessional and creates apprehension and distrust between students and administrators.

In the wake of last spring’s student strikes against the Quebec government’s austerity measures, three Concordia professors filed formal complaints against 25 student protesters.

Some of these students entered and disrupted professor Graham Dodds’s political science class on April 1, 2015. Students from the political science department had voted in favour of a weeklong strike at a general assembly.

The professors said that the students had violated article 29G of the university’s Code of Rights and Responsibilities, which states members are free to engage in peaceful and orderly protest as long as classes are not disrupted.

While the university initially said they would remain uninvolved, they became co-complainants alongside the professors at the end of May. By choosing to become a co-complainant with the professors one whole month after the formal complaints were filed, the university did not remain impartial depriving the students of a fair tribunal.

This was the beginning of a jumble of inconsistent activity from the university, including charging students, assigning them to tribunals, postponing these tribunals, scheduling mediations between professors and the charged students at the same time as the tribunals and suspending the prior mediations for an undetermined amount of time.

Despite saying that the intentions of the university were to protect students from harm, Concordia president Alan Shepard and other university administrators disregarded Concordia Student Union General Coordinator Terry Wilkings’s encouragement of their attendance at the mediation meetings last semester.

Without a representative of Concordia administration present, both the students and professors were unable to see the university’s perspective in a time meant for reconciliation.

This could be why the mutual agreement to hold these mediations was annulled. In an instance where professors are formally filing charges against students, the university must be present in order to represent the administrative perspective—especially when the university supports the professors’ decision enough to become co-complainants.

The first step in order for the university to better deal with a similar situation next time is to improve their communication.

Concordia Against Tribunals, a student organization, emerged from these events after eight students were given letters of reprimand from the university.

CATs’ mandate features two key demands: that all charges against students by professors and the university be dropped immediately, and reparations made, including a letter of apology, amnesty for all charged students and support for the mental health of those who were put through tribunals.
Agreeing to meet with an organization does not mean you will comply with all of their demands—it shows that you are willing to hear them out, see their side and come to a mutual agreement. By muddling and staying out of it, the university isn’t helping anyone.

When two opposing sides are quietly building tension without being able to see the other’s perspective, something is bound to burst. In this case, that could mean anything from more protests to student expulsion—both not ideal solutions.

Addressing the inequalities and mistakes made is another way the university could have improved this situation on both sides. According to Wilkings, there is no section of the Code that outlines consequences for teachers who interrupt classes by striking.

This implies that the university prioritizes professors over students. Had this been addressed, perhaps CATs would not feel as unfairly treated, and the professors would think twice about their complaints. Again, we see a missed opportunity for further mutual understanding.

The austerity protest tribunals are not the only example of administrative fumbling.

Concordia has also postponed the tribunal for a student involved in a sexual violence case against her ex-boyfriend. These inconsistencies are a huge problem because they create a feeling of anxiety in the student body as it waits for the university’s next move. They are creating a culture of apprehension and mistrust.

When organizing tribunals and deciding whether they should be put in place, the university should be as consistent and clear as possible.

Concordia needs to get organized. These tribunals are seriously affecting students and professors alike. The university needs to better handle strike instances by communicating and looking for active solutions, rather than clinging to the Code.