The tactic of occupation has been cast in a negative light in multiple fora, including Provost Masi's notice to the #6party and first floor occupiers last evening. #6party maintains that occupation is a legitimate and valuable form of protest, and that any discussion of the use of occupation at McGill must be informed by an understanding of the distribution of power at McGill.

 

Let us begin with the basic premise that McGill students are entitled to some form of democratic recourse in the event that the McGill administration disrespects the integrity of our democratic processes. At present, the administration hopes to simply ignore the results of the fall 2011 SSMU Referenda regarding the existence of QPIRG and CKUT. This is not an isolated incident; the administration disregarded referenda (passed in 2006) by unilaterally placing the refund systems of QPIRG and CKUT (as well as other valuable student services) online. SSMU formally opposed this violation of student democracy at a 2007 General Assembly. Further, Dr. Mendelson ordered the popular and student-run Architecture Cafe closed in fall 2010. 

 

The administration alleges that one mode of democratic recourse is available to students: dialogue. The administration has engaged in so-called "dialogue" with students on numerous occasions, including SSMU-organized Consultation Fairs. These occasions in no way constitute actual dialogue, as the administration has no obligation whatsoever to accede to demands (however reasonable) of students. Dialogue is only valuable insofar as there is a relationship of relative power parity between the two parties in dialogue with one another. Otherwise, one party (in this case, the administration) can merely write off the needs of the other party without substantive consequences, as we saw in the cases of the Architecture Cafe and the relocation of QPIRG and CKUT's refund systems.

 

The administration, to the detriment of the McGill community, does not grant students any substantive role in university governance. Further, it provides no meaningful and accessible channel through which members of the McGill community may challenge inappropriate decisions made by the administration. Power is exercised by the administration as it sees fit, and the physical occupation of space at McGill must be considered in this context. The administration has the ability to control and manipulate students, and has no need for the tool of physical occupation; students are not so fortunate. The #6partiers have been entirely peaceful: employees were treated respectfully, and were given the choice to stay or leave at their leisure. No democratic channel has been presented to us as an alternative. Furthermore, Dr. Mendelson's resignation party did not necessitate the evacuation of the whole James building, nor does #6party accept responsibility for this baffling choice on the administration's behalf.

 

McGill's administration makes a great show of lauding its students as future leaders. Why, then, do they exclude us so pervasively from the decision-making process at McGill, and deny us the self-determination which we seek?