It’s crucial to ensure things do change at McGill
Plan for external investigator is welcome, but complacency would be a mistake, Ariella Garmaise says.
A month after the end of McGill University’s winter semester was disrupted by students protesting against alleged mishandling of complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence, McGill has finally chosen to respond. In an email sent out to university faculty and students on May 10, Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) Christopher Manfredi wrote that McGill will appoint a special external investigator to address complaints of sexual harassment and violence, and will create an ad hoc committee to examine policy regarding studentprofessor relationships.
However, while some of the students’ demands may appear to have been met, now is not the time for complacency. Rather, McGill students need to see that specific changes to McGill’s policies are indeed made, and to continue to hold the administration accountable.
McGill has repeatedly maintained that the sexual violence policy covers both faculty and students. However, when it comes to pursuing disciplinary action, different procedures have applied. Whereas the sexual violence policy refers students to the Student Code of Conduct, complaints against professors are filed using the Tenure Policy. Under the tenure policy, disciplinary measures are often kept confidential — a barrier McGill claims is due to Quebec laws. In effect, this means that when filing complaints against professors, students are often left in the dark about what exactly comes of their cases. It is to be hoped that the new external investigator will be able to provide more transparency.
The processes for filing complaints is in dire need of reform. Navigating the multitude and complexity of the pertinent documents can be harrowing. This is an issue that the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) outlined clearly in its April 4 open letter. Ideally, a sexual violence policy should be consolidated into one document, making it as clear and concise as possible. In October, I was assigned to examine this policy in a piece for the McGill Tribune, yet despite having weeks to research and an entire editorial team at my disposal, I found the task nearly impossible. For survivors, traversing this web of legal jargon while coping with emotional and or physical trauma, can be devastating.
The appointment of a special investigator will shift not just the university’s policy, but also the structure of its administration, and the chain of command for reporting sexual harassment. This is welcome. Formerly, harassment assessors fell under the purview of the associate provost’s (Equity and Academic Policies) office. This meant that when investigating claims of harassment, assessors reported directly to the university, an institution they were supposed to be holding accountable. Moreover, there existed no body to hold senior administration accountable — it’s difficult to file a complaint against a member of the senior administration when they’re the ones to whom harassment officers report. The appointment of an external investigator will help avoid any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflicts.
SSMU’s open letter was successful precisely because it identified exactly what is lacking in McGill’s current procedures. Policy jargon and bureaucratic intricacies often confuse students into submission, but McGill’s student government and student body have accomplished a tremendous feat in studying these documents, and specifying exactly what changes need to be made. Students rejected the administration’s insistence that existing procedures were sufficient, and in turn, presented a call to action.
Even as the university takes welcome steps in preparing to appoint a special investigator and form ad hoc committee, it is crucial that students remain vigilant to ensure that things really do change. Ariella Garmaise is a fourthyear student at McGill University studying English and History. She is also a managing editor at the McGill Tribune.