Are Student Politics a Popularity Contest?

Take the ballot. Mark the box. Chances are you, like so many of us, are not entirely familiar with the platform you are supporting but still feel confident you’re making the right choice. You think he or she will do a good job in x position: you know them personally, they’re outgoing, talented, and a person you’re happy to be acquainted with. Of course, you trust your own character judgment, which compels you to make a decision like voting for your friend in the upcoming student election. 

Now here’s the thing: what if we all did that? Gave into our bias and voted for a friend, but not necessarily for the person who is the best equipped or qualified for the position they are running for. 

If we simply choose the person we trust and know the best, is the election still a fair contest of charisma and leadership skill? Or, at that point, is it simply a popularity contest? More importantly, how does this affect our school and the Students’ Union’s platforms?

From my point of view, most elections, especially those in a small community, are simply matters of popularity. It makes sense. If people love you, they will elect you their leader. This is something that I think most people who went through high school noticed – there was a strange correlation between one’s participation in Student Council and his or her social ties. If you were pop, you were prez. It was rattling for me back then. In reality, however, I’m not sure it was actually such a big deal. I look back on all four years of my high school career with equal amounts of disdain and indifference, but frankly they were all the exact same, or at least very similar. What I take from this, in reflection, is that even if the elections back than were based off popularity - and they were, mark my words - it really did not make any difference in everyday life. 

In my three semesters spent at StFX thus far, I look back on my time here in a somewhat more positive light. The community is certainly more mature, but I dare say we are still subject to the same biases. Frankly, when I asked a few students who they were voting for as Vice-President -since the President is essentially pre-determined - most gave somewhat different answers, but generally the reason was the same: they knew the candidate. 

So while we are all mostly voting for the person we are most comfortable with and trusting of - the candidate we share the closest interpersonal relationship with - how detrimental is that to our school and the Students’ Union? 

When I look back to my frosh year, I didn’t really pay much mind to the U or who was running it. I thought the programs they put on where great, but I was under a veil, a fish fresh out of the pond thrown into the ocean. Everything about StFX was so awesome, simply because it was something new to chew on. For that reason, I can’t really say that who was running the U last year had any effect on my thoughts of the school. 

This year, having been habituated to life around here a bit more, I’m now in a better position to critique, ever so slightly, how this place is managed. As in high school, I feel like when you get down to the nitty gritty, the platforms are all so similar that it doesn’t make a difference who you elect so long as they are the slightest bit competent – or at least that’s what I’ve seen so far. This year has been just as good for me, maybe even slightly better than last year, but I feel like the government of the U has not had much of an effect on this improvement.   

So perhaps yes, when voting in these small, closed community elections we are subject to some bias. Perhaps in the end, it really is just a matter of the candidates’ social network that really pulls in the votes. And to that I say so what? So far this year the U has gotten us a new convenience store in the SUB, which, as opposed to having two outlets that sell clothing, is a huge improvement. At the very least, I do not believe anything crucial to student life has been slashed. So if those who were elected last year were elected out of popularity I would be one to argue that it has not been detrimental to the school. 

Alongside that, the individual I’m putting my money on to win this year is definitely the most popular of the three choices. Without naming said individual, I can’t actually say he or she would do a bad job, because from what I’ve seen of their performance, they seem more than capable of taking on the position. 

This leads me to believe that perhaps being more socially affluent or popular isn’t a bad thing for someone holding such a position. They would certainly be highly sociable, and if people in a community such as ours seem to like them then there must be a reason for it. The only downfall would be that others who may be equally or even better suited for the role may not have the chance to acquire it, due to being caught in the shadow of those more connected. 

I feel like that’s just part of how human society works though, and since the problem is not going anywhere, nor does it seem to cause much harm, I will finish on this note. My proposed solution is simple: vote for whomever you feel truly deserves the position. Whether it be friend, acquaintance, or someone you don’t even know. Often times, our leaders are not chosen, they simply are.

What we’ll tell our grandkids

Canada was once the international community’s poster child for ice hockey (although that was tossed out the window during the World Juniors) however this years diversified successes helped cultivate an evolved athletic culture we now identify with. 2015 was an explosive year for Canadian sports however some moments mark it as particularly triumphant for our over friendly population. 

Connor McDavid was drafted first over all in the 2015 NHL draft to the Edmonton Oilers. The forward is a stunning presence on the the ice only rivalling the entrance into the pros to that of Crosby’s. The next most exciting day for Edmonton will probably be McDavid’s return to line post broken collar bone recovery. 

Canadian basketball’s great one retired: Steve Nash. There is no denying his unbelievable talent, with two MVP trophies to back up his 19 year career, however his greatest impact might be that which has served as a role model and mentor for Basketball Canada. Although we shed a tear as we saidgoodbye to Nash, we should be comforted knowing his legacy will live on in the form of Toronto native Andrew Wiggins. The Timberland forward was drafted first overall in 2014 (which has only been done by one other Canadian), has stats rivalling that of Kevin Durant and Lebron James and won NBA rookie of the year in 2015, the only Canadian to acquire such title. 

Finally, there is not a moment inside an arena that ignites a Canadian’s heart more than the Jose Bautista bat flip. Toronto does not possess a positive reputation in any societal branch among Canadians, however by late summer of 2015 the Blue Jays were our baby and like most moms on Facebook we were flooding our friends on social media with images to point out just how special our child was. It was a romantic tale from Kawasaki’s hilarious interviews, to Josh Donaldson winning the American League’s most valuable player award and late comebacks against the Texas Rangers. The only part missing was a spot in the World Series, but nonetheless the Jays run sent a surge of pride and optimism through the country, stamped with the hashtag “come together.” 

A new year is upon us and so is the chance to dominate an even wider range of sports. In 2016, we can look forward to a comeback from Genie Bouchard, further success from golfer Brooke Henderson on the LPGA and medals at the Rio Olympics from track stars like 800m Melissa Bishop and sprinter Andre De Grasse.

Read This

The Syrian refugee crisis is one of the greatest challenges of this decade. The community of Antigonish has responded by forming SAFE, a non-profit group which will provide care 2 Syrian refugees when they arrive in 2-3 weeks.

SAFE reached out to StFX this past Monday by requesting donations and volunteer services which will help the families adjust.

“We want to raise $100 000,” says Lucille, a SAFE representative. This $100 000 would be used to settle either a third family, or extended family members in the coming months. $100 000 is a large sum, until it’s divided by the 5 000 or so members of the StFX community, then becomes $20/ person. This isn’t difficult and would certainly follow StFX’s tradition of helping those less fortunate (i.e. Moses Coady leading the Antigonish movement during the depression).

Maybe your aid will come through alternative ways such as tutoring the children. Maybe that’s by going to SAFE meetings and what brainstorming what issues these families face in adjusting to life in Canada. Maybe it’s simply practicing our social skills by saying ‘hi’ and being friendly when we see them.

There are many ways to get involved. Donations can be made to SAFE at its account at the Credit Union. Tax receipts will not be given as SAFE is still applying for charitable status. Rotary Interact is already involved, if you wish to contact them. A new society “StFX for SAFE” is being led by Emma Greer, who can be contacted at x2011sks@stfx.ca. To directly contact SAFE, please e-mail safamiliesembrace@gmail.com. 

Happy Holidays!

Food for Thought

It’s the most wonderful time of the year; X-ring is here! Although I’m only a sophomore, I too shiver with anticipation. Only two years (three if I don’t get my shit together) and I’ll have mine! However, I shall inherit mine from my Grandfather. My primary reasons are: keep it in the family, and save that sweet cash money! Upon reflection though, there is a deeper sentiment.

The X-ring can be a symbol of everything this school is and what the bearer gained while there. Your X-ring will be different from every other, but let’s talk about what they all should symbolize.

They should all symbolize X’s history, X began as a covenant between the Catholic Church and the newly arrived Scottish refugees of Nova Scotia. With education, these people would gain the tools to end their poverty and their discrimination. This is StFX’s historical mission, and was the reason why my Grandfather came here.

I’d like to think that’s why I came here, and that an X-ring will bring that to my mind when I wear it. But, does X still hold true to its founding mission?

I don’t think so, how are we honouring that mission when graduation now comes after an $80 000 bill ($40 000 if you’re getting half-of-an engineering degree)? I don’t think that makes university education at all accessible to the poor. The few and far between scholarships are paid for by alumni. Thus, a new X-ring symbolizes a school that has abandoned its founding mission, not kept it. 

Perhaps the X-ring symbolizes how we have reached the same level of academic excellence that was required of Xaverians past. This is false. Truthfully, my grandfather did not graduate from X. He flunked chemistry and opted to go home rather than repeat the whole year, as was required of engineers at the time. He did not earn his X-ring, yet he’s in the same prestigious club as though who do. Has that changed since then? 

I am still excited to get my ring, but because it’s a reminder that failures do not always reflect in one’s life. After flunking, my grandfather became an entrepreneur, fathered six children, sent four of them to get the education he didn’t, he’s in his 55th year of successful marriage - he’s even a patented inventor! His ring to me is a symbol of him – not his school. It was worn by a man who failed and came back from that failure on his own merit. Hopefully, when I fail in life, I’ll look to his ring, and be inspired to find success. The ring has almost nothing to do with this school, besides the desire to earn it before parading with it. That is what my X-ring means to me, what does yours mean to you?

It's Not Over

The prevailing issue of racism in professional and collegiate sports

A dominant ideology that strings together athletes, coaches and fans is the notion of sport,”being pure and good,” an arena separate from corruption. Unfortunately the FIFA administration, ruthlessness of fantasy football (see John Oliver’s rant) and continued socioeconomic inequity on the field have destroyed this desired sociological reputation. Although we yearn for sport to be the branch of culture free from prejudice, it appears that issues particularly those driven by racism are reflecting back onto the spheres of our athletes in a forthright manner. 

Sports history is defined by the moments where athletes such as Jackie Robinson, Jesse Owens and Thommie Smith overcame obstacles grounded in the colour of their skin and ignorant mindsets. Although these athletes’ successes dramatically contributed to a transformation in the perception of differing ethnicities, the use of racial slurs to eliminate an individual’s power during a competition persists. In North America we see this most clearly at the collegiate and professional level. 

 Last year, Donald Sterling former owner of the NBA’s L.A. Clippers was recorded saying to his significant other, “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people”, and, “You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want”, but “the little I ask you is ... not to bring them to my games.” These astonishing statements were followed by an (obvious) protest by his players, fan uproar and lifetime ban from the NBA issued by commissioner Adam Silverstein alongside a $2.5 million fine. 

Racism in sports is hardly left behind the scenes. In fact its often displayed in the most public manner: social media. Following a game winning goal by PK Subban against the Boston Bruins in 2014 a flood of discriminatory tweets flood the internet on behalf of Bruin fans to the point that the n-word was trending. 

CIS is renowned for producing individuals driven equally by character, athletic and academic success but even this group of reputable leaders are not segregated from incidences of racism as experienced by X-men hockey player Trey Lewis.  When Trey is not in Antigonish he resides in Elsipogtog First Nation in New Brunswick (his mother is Mi’kmaq). Playing major junior and in the AUS Lewis has encountered slurs aimed at his native roots, experienced mostrecently in a game against the University of Moncton. When asked how the scenario with the opposing player evolved Lewis states, “After a whistle in the game against Moncton I was talking to one of the Moncton players when another one of their players skated by calling me a *bleep*-ing Indian. It wasn’t the smartest decision because the linesman again was right beside us and heard the comment, (Trey politely substituted the word fucking for a kinder option).” He continued by describing his response to the remarks, “I turned to see if the linesman or ref had heard it, and then I’ll admit I overreacted and was quite mad at the player, but he was kicked out of the game, so nothing more came of it. I wouldn’t hold a grudge or anything, usually if anything like this happens I understand that it is a heat of the moment decision, and more often than not the player is not truly racist.”  Although this athlete displays an uncanny level of sympathy that can only be associated with incredible maturity he doesn’t deny that ignorance flows from the ice to everyday life regarding his heritage, “I have experienced more or less uneducated comments, for example someone upset that Natives get a treaty day holiday, or someone thinks it’s unfair that Natives have reduced taxes. I think this simply comes out of lack of education, throughout grade school and such we’re not taught nearly enough about Aboriginal histories and issues. This can lead to “accidental” racism in my opinion.” 

There is no denying racism is prevailing throughout Western society via police brutality, continued cultural appropriation and absurd Islamaphobia propaganda on Facebook. However our idea that the world of sports is isolated from this cruel, disempowering language is wrong and must be acknowledged if we desire to one day completely abolish racism.

No More Good Cop?

Why I celebrate my father and condemn assholes with guns

I am the granola crunching, anti-Lowell Green, tree-hugging daughter my father was scared to raise. Although I have oscillated dramatically between both ends of the political and social spectrum, I now simply adhere to the facts and policies that best align with my set of national priorities and reflect my continually evolving morals, regardless of the political label they technically earn. 

Whilst engaging in small talk over the last two years, I have found myself hesitant to discuss what my parents “do” whenever the question gets brought up. My father is a former sniper and staff sergeant for a metropolitan tactical unit. He dressed in a uniform that seemed to be the cross of a ninja, soldier, and Inspector Gadget each morning and set out the door with a full heart and clear intentions to get the bad guy. In the past, his career would pump adrenaline through my body when I had the opportunity to profess all the evil he confronted and combatted. However, as increasing stories and videos of police brutality began to flood the media, I began to silence this familial pride.

My rifle-holding father is a feminist - whether he labels himself as one or not - who continually advocates for equal pay, texts me about the latest documentaries on sexual assaults across campuses, and is a major proponent for increased female leadership among athletics. He dedicates hours to ensure raids happen smoothly and without disturbing innocent bystanders. Throughout his entire career, my father has argued for an increase in tasers, not because he believes officers should have more power, but in order to eliminate as many reasons as possible to reach for a gun. 

My father was the first person to oppose the relaxed laws surrounding pedestrian gun use in the United States. His understanding of guns is that they are deadly weapons to be used in times of dire need, not for unnecessary and brutal, prejudiced violence on behalf of those who wear a badge. 

We seldom see the pedophiles he and his coworkers have removed from society, the physical force he didn’t use after being spat at during a protest, the criticism he gave his fellow officers when poor choices were made, or the confrontations he has had with cruel individuals who have yet to trump his bravery. 

My father is a police officer. Michael Slager, Randall Kerrick, Daniel Pantaelo, Ben Fields and those who have unrightfully injured or killed while on the job are not police officers. They have disregarded the written code and ethical standard intended to ensure citizens are kept safe. Their actions speak to a larger issue of institutionalized racism throughout America, but when it comes down to it, they were improperly armed individuals on a narcissistic power trip. 

The media chooses to focus their reports on these cowards and in doing so drown out the voices and actions of those who fulfill their duties with a code of ethics that go above and beyond what is asked of them. In all sectors of society - religion, medicine, politics, or others - the media allows the minority who warp a thoughtful and just framework for their destructive motives to pervade and saturate our consciousness, resulting in the formation of skewed opinions. 

There is no denying that institutions like defense forces must be viewed with a critical eye, but so too do the channels through which we are fed information about them. I acknowledge that brutality by police forces driven by racial privilege persists but I refuse, just as I disregard groups like the Westboro Baptist Church as honest Christians, to identify them as true officers. I once again return to my moderate position. I protest the women and men who wear a badge and inflict inexcusable harm on innocent people, but I celebrate those who like my Dad, who refuse to be jaded and honorably follow out their role as safeguards of justice. 

Professors Give Refugees a New Home

StFX faculty members work with SAFE to bring refugees to Antigonish

As the refugee crisis in Europe and the Middle East continues to grow, governments in the European Union are facing a serious pressure to accept more displaced families. While some, like Germany, have offered to take significant numbers, many others are still hesitant to open their doors. Canada and the United States have been reluctant, committing to taking in only 25 000 and 10 000 refugees respectively. This is a fairly small number compared to Germany, which has already taken in over 450 000 and has pledged to take 800 000 this year. However, in Canada there are many people and organizations taking it upon themselves to raise money to bring refugee families to Canada. 

The Syrian-Antigonish Families Embrace, also known as the SAFE Society, has pledged to do just that, and is currently raising money to bring one refugee family to Antigonish as soon as possible. Physics Professor Michael Steinitz, however, believes that this is not enough. In late September, Dr. Steinitz sent an email decrying the inaction of Canada in the face of the refugee crisis. The was a strong response was heard, and a committee of five professors was assembled, including Dr. Michael Steinitz himself, Dr. Norine Verberg, Dr. Linda Darwish, Dr. Elizabeth McGibbon and Dr. Joseph Khoury. The committee has been named “StFX for SAFE”, and is currently working in collaboration with the SAFE society to bring many refugee families to the Antigonish area. 

At a committee meeting last Wednesday, representatives from faculty, staff, administration, and the student’s union discussed goals and fundraising initiatives in order to begin bringing families to Antigonish. The overall goal of $100 000 will allow for the support of 4 families, and with the promise of each family’s sponsorship of approximately $25 000 to be matched by the government. This funding will provide support for a year in Antigonish, including necessities such as winter clothing, housing costs, school supplies, and more. 

Dr. Kent MacDonald attended the committee meeting as well, and committee members were pleased with the amount of support received from the President, as well other members of the StFX community. English professor Dr. Joseph Khoury said he was thankful for all the support the initiative has already received, and he believes that it “speaks to the best of human impulses to help and protect”.

Nursing professor Elizabeth McGibbon added that she felt the commit was “follow[ing] STFX’s roots in social justice action and [demonstrating] our current commitment to humanitarian efforts locally and globally.”

Although the committee acknowledges it is a challenge to achieve such lofty goals in such a short period of time, StFX for SAFE believes that the St.FX community spirit will be enough to pull it off. Many members of the committee also have a personal connection to, and understanding of, the refugee crisis, whether from relatives, previous work experience or family history, making the achievement of the goal a “priority”, says Dr. Khoury. 

Those looking to get involved with the project can like the SAFE Society Facebook page, or email any committee member for more information. StFX for SAFE hopes to have specific fundraising events established soon, in an effort to reach the $100 000 goal as soon as possible. In the meantime, donations can be made directly to the SAFE Society at safefamiliesembrace@gmail.com, or via cheque, with tax receipts available for donations over fifty dollars. Any indication of involvement with the StFX community will direct funds to the “StFX for SAFE” account, helping to reach the goal of bringing at least four refugee families to the safe harbour of the Antigonish community.

Terrorism vs. Civil Liberties

Allan Gregg explores the social impact of the War On Terror

The respected pollster and political pundit Allan Gregg stopped by StFX on Nov 3 to give a speech about an issue of great relevance to modern politics and the recent election: the impact that the War On Terror has on civil liberties. His visit was part of the Allan J. MacEachen Lecture Series. He argued that the Canadian government has been using the fear of terrorism to advance an agenda of increased government surveillance and powers like searches without warrants and detention without trial. He lays a great deal of blame on the Harper Government for this situation, but he takes issue with the laws the Liberals passed in the wake of 9/11 as well. This talk was given before the Paris attacks. 

The most recent government bill Gregg finds concerning is bill C-51. The bill has been highly controversial and subject to numerous protests across the country, including one in Antigonish last March. As he explains, “Bill C-51, which is facing a Charter challenge by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and has been criticized from quarters as varied as former Prime Ministers, academics, and the federal Privacy Commissioner, lowers the bar even further on the exercise of preventative detention and investigative hearings, and adds new weapons in the arsenal to be used in the War On Terror. Under this law, threatening national security will now include ‘interfering with the economic or financial stability of Canada’; a provision that some believe threatens legitimate protest. It also criminalizes speech that glorifies or promotes terrorism; a provision that some believe poses a direct threat to free speech. “

When describing the government’s response to terrorist threats he claimed that “this over-estimation of the risk of terrorism and harbouring a fear of something that is 100 times less likely to occur than drowning in your bathtub creates a climate of hysteria that breeds calls for an equally irrational response – one that is completely out of proportion to the size of the threat.” In Gregg’s view the War On Terror is “a war that could cause more threats to our freedoms than benefits to our safety, simply in the process of waging it”.

He justifies his view that terrorism is not an overwhelming threat by citing data from the US State Department about the known casualties due to terrorism around the world. According to Gregg this data shows that “60% of the attacks and 78% of the fatalities [due to terrorism] took place in five distant countries – Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. In addition, the average attack killed only 2.5 people. So we also know that ‘terrorism’ is being played out predominately in areas of serious civil conflict and in Muslim countries. We also know that with a few exceptions, these incidents take place on a small scale and pose no immediate or consequential threat to the West. In fact, in 2014 only 24 US citizens were killed in terrorist incidents, all of them overseas.” The Western nations that have been hardest hit since 9/11 are European ones.

In his talk, Gregg outlined his fear that radicalization seems to come from elements of society that feel marginalized, and a lack of interaction between different ethnic groups. He uses an example from his own life to illustrate how people from different ethnic groups are separated in Canadian cities, even highly multicultural ones, saying, “I mean, I’m as guilty as anyone; I don’t have any Chinese friends, I don’t have any black friends, I don’t have any Arab friends. I live in Toronto! Help me! When you get on the subway it’s like the United Nations. But I live in a tiny little gentrified, hipster neighbourhood.”

He contends that this separation of groups is problematic because it can lead to radicalization and also because politicians can exploit these tensions to win votes. As Gregg says, “A vicious cultural wheel therefore is turned by a political one. A fearful, divided citizenry fights off uncertainty by protecting its own turf; politicians exploit this division by choosing sides and offering simplistic solutions to address these fears; and the population seeks solace in the simplistic solutions. So instead of trying to bridge these differences through consensus and finding compromise based on reason, what we see all too often today is the politics of polarization, over-torqued partisanship and dogma.”