The crisis at McGill: who called riot police onto campus?

On November 10 – last Thursday – approximately 100 riot police from the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) marched onto the campus of McGill University, beating billy-clubs against shields.  They did so in order to drive student protesters gathered in front of the James Administration Building off of their own campus.  In the process, they pepper-sprayed, clubbed, and tear-gassed hundreds of students and at least one faculty member (philosopher Greg Mikkelson, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, on his way to pick his kids up from daycare).  These events have sent shock-waves through the University community.  Not since March 1969, when the “Opération McGill français” brought 15,000 nationalist protesters to the gates of McGill, had riot police been on the campus of the University.  This time, it didn’t require external intervention: the administration of McGill seems to have called the cops on its own students.

Neither McGill Principal Heather Munroe-Blum nor anyone else from her administration has taken responsibility for the actions of riot police on campus, including  beatings, macings, and the eviction of students from the campus.  In an e-mail to the entire University community 24 hours after the fact, the Principal claimed that “security personnel called Montreal police,” and that “the presence of the riot squad, which dispersed the protesters by its usual means, was entirely directed by the Montreal police service.”  This response has not won anyone over.  For the Principal to declaim any responsibility for the actions of security services reminds us of nothing so much as when our son knocks over a glass of milk and then excuses himself by saying that his arm did it.  And if the police sent their riot squad onto campus without any invitation from or consultation with the administration of the University, then the Principal ought to be outraged at the invasion, and ought to be leading the charge against the SPVM. 

Unfortunately, it is all too easy to believe that this administration asked the police to intervene.  An increasingly oppressive and adversarial atmosphere has characterized life at McGill this fall.  The use of riot police against protesting students is the culminating point of a noticeable trend, not at all a sudden interruption of peace and tranquility.   

McGill has been profoundly affected since September 1 by the strike of its 1700 member-strong support staff union, MUNACA.  The union represents the people who shelve the library books, handle the room assignments for classes, track and organize the files of prospective students, respond to student transcript requests, and do many of the other things that keep universities functional from day to day.  While students and faculty had held varying opinions of their contract demands, the strikers enjoyed vocal and visible support from many on campus.  Their picket lines and rallies were loud, boisterous, and well-attended.  In response, the administration secured multiple injunctions – from a judge with ties to the University – preventing picketers from being within 4 meters of any entrance to McGill, from using any amplified noise, and from inviting or encouraging anyone to demonstrate on their behalf on McGill property.  In e-mails to the entire University community, the administration claimed that the strikers were impeding access to campus, posing a threat to students, and interfering with academic pursuits.  At the same time, the administration threatened faculty with immediate suspension without pay should they decide to teach classes off-campus in order not to cross the picket lines.  Two student organizers faced a disciplinary hearing for being associated with a teach-in on campus.  Security personnel film faculty and students who show up to rallies.  Faculty and students have been told by security to remove their MUNACA buttons, and posters supporting union struggles on faculty doors have been systematically torn off.

It was in light of these developments that a group  of 14 students decided to occupy the executive floor of the James Administration Building, including the Principal’s office, on November 10.  That day had seen a Quebec-wide student strike against a bill raising tuition by 75% over five years.  Munroe-Blum has been a vocal supporter of the measure, which further contributes to the sense among students that she doesn’t care about their concerns.  The occupiers’ own account can be read here, and compared with the Principal’s account.  There is also a radio interview with one of the occupiers, which is available here. We do not know all of the details, but the occupying students seem to have sent texts and calls out to friends reporting that they were being assaulted by McGill security staff.  A crowd of students rapidly gathered around the building in response to these messages.  They formed a human chain around the building, to prevent police from intervening in the occupation, and when twenty or so bike cops showed up to disperse the crowd, the students held the line.  The cops retreated, but only to bring in the riot squad, which, as Principal Munroe-Blum put it, “dispersed the protesters by its usual means.”

Three things stand out from these events:

First, the university administration’s denial of responsibility for the welfare of students protesting on campus.  Many have noted since Thursday that, where faculty and students of universities once organized themselves as militias to protect themselves from bands of armed townsfolk, now the universities’ for-hire security services call in the armed townsfolk to protect themselves from the students and faculty.  The autonomy of the university, and the sense of concern and responsibility for students are in mortal danger.  Any university administrator who fears the students, and sees them as a threat, ought to find a new line of work, or be compelled to do so.

Second, the mutation in the university’s response to student protest also marks a mutation in the protests themselves. In 1997, students occupied the same offices as last week.  They came with a list of demands, stayed for three days, and left peaceably when the administration refused to negotiate on the demands.  The occupiers last week made no demands.  Occupy everything, demand nothing.  That is their watchword.  This is not the frightening or confusing development people seem to think it is.  If occupations do not make demands, that means they are not engaging in mercenary activity.  The occupiers were not holding the Principal’s office hostage.  They just want to talk and be heard.  They occupy to short-circuit the usual channels by which concerns get mediated and diluted, and arguments get muted to the point of inaudibility.

Finally, the administration’s response, if it going to do anything but reinforce the divide, also has to ignore the usual channels.  There is little hope of this.  The day after the invasion by the riot police, the administrators did not reach out to the students.  They barricaded themselves behind locked doors and security staff, drafted a self-serving e-mail about the catastrophe of the previous night, and refused to meet with or talk to the hundred or so students and faculty who gathered outside the administration building in the November chill.  The faculty and students have to know who called the police.  They have to know whether the cops consulted with anyone in the administration before trying to disperse the protesters.  And they have to know why the administration allowed or encouraged or was ignorant of riot police invading the University.  No matter what the answers are to these questions, the students and faculty of McGill will not abide the lethargic legalese of commissioned reports and internal investigations.  The university – not just McGill, but the very institution of the university – is in danger, and may not survive these continuing assaults on its mission and members.

----

Hasana Sharp, Assistant Professor of Philosophy

William Clare Roberts, Assistant Professor of Political Science

McGill University