Seeing through the bureaucracy

Barriers to social change at UofT

Our cohort of university students has been characterized by some media as well as the political right as “Generation Snowflake.” The media is concerned that our generation will melt in the heat of opposing ideas, that we are too quick to take offense, and that we lack the backbone to withstand the demands of “the real world.” They see mandates for safe spaces and accommodations as the symptom of another issue: overprotected, coddled youth.

The snowflake narrative is constricting and disempowering, particularly for student activists and marginalized groups. It’s a strategy to control young people who are hungry for social change and who are motivated to fight for it. It’s also a logically weak argument.

It’s an ad hominem argument: an attack against people’s character that circumvents actual discussion of the systemic and societal issues motivating people to speak up. It misconstrues lobbying for progressive ideas as being overly sensitive. This misrepresentation is unfortunately all too familiar for people of colour and LGBTQ+ folks, who are told that the system works just fine, that they are just overreacting. And delegitimizing the experiences and complaints of marginalized groups is exactly how systemic injustice is normalized and perpetuated.

Media has taken an interest in explaining contributing factors to so-called millennial fragility. This narrative is also nothing new. Each generation tends to be condescending toward and dismissive of younger groups, whom they perceive as entitled, spoiled, ungrateful, and weak. Again, this narrative draws attention away from discussions about social justice.

The most glaring flaw in this narrative is the assumption that there is nothing wrong with the system and that the young people who speak out are simply exaggerating everyday inconveniences. This assumption reveals how internalized and institutionalized systemic injustice is. Not only do people experience systemic discrimination and harassment, but the system is rife with structural barriers that make social change difficult to enact—and UofT is no exception to these systemic issues.

On June 27, the Governing Council at UofT approved a policy that allows the Office of the Vice Provost to impose a mandatory leave if, due to mental health issues, a student is deemed to “[pose] a risk of harm to self or others” or is considered “unable to engage in the essential activities required to pursue an education at the University” (Article 22). Since the policy’s origin in October 2017, it has been met with opposition from student unions and student groups at UofT. In late January 2018, the Ontario Human Rights Commission wrote a letter urging the University to reconsider the policy in light of the human rights it concerns.

The policy upholds the stigmatizing and incorrect stereotype that mentally ill people are dangerous. The University claims that the policy is one of last resort, only to be used when mental health accommodations and resources have already been exhausted. But, with long wait times and convoluted information about accessing mental health services, the assumption that UofT has adequate mental health support at all falls flat. The University also claims that the policy is not disciplinary in nature, but its terms have punitive consequences. Invoking the policy and withdrawing a student from their studies can also limit their co-curricular involvement, and asking a student to leave university residence can have financial and visa-related repercussions in an already destabilizing time. The policy empowers UofT to remove supports for students in crisis, when the more effective—and more compassionate—response would be to extend help. The implementation of this policy will likely discourage students from seeking help for their mental health for fear of having the policy invoked  at the discretion of the Vice Provost.

Alarming, too, are the structural barriers to students’ ability to challenge the policy. Despite statements from multiple student unions condemning the policy, the University was prepared to vote on the approval of the Mandated Leave of Absence Policy on January 30 and only took the item off the voting agenda after the Ontario Human Rights Commission voiced their concern. The University did not take student opposition seriously, choosing only to reconsider the policy after the Commission took notice. Furthermore, the University released an updated version on April 26, inviting students to give feedback online over a period of only three weeks. These student consultations opened at the end of the school year, when students are busy with, among other responsibilities, working away from campus, relocating their accommodations, and passing on extracurricular  duties to their successors. This bureaucratic delay was conveniently timed.

It is difficult to juggle the responsibilities of being a student as well as an activist, especially at an institution as academically demanding as UofT. Furthermore, the students who are most disadvantaged by systemic inequities and who have additional academic and everyday barriers are often the ones doing the emotionally draining and thankless work of advocacy.

UofT’s response to the Mandated Leave Policy is just one example of its resistance to social change. UofT, like most universities, also faces the systemic problem of a lack of redress against sexual violence. In March 2017, Silence is Violence, a student collective dedicated to combating sexual and gendered violence on university campuses, launched a poster program as part of their “Survivors Speak Back” campaign with stories of sexual violence from UofT students, staff, and faculty members. These anonymous testimonials highlighted a trend of institutionalized silencing of sexual assault reports One of the posters read: “When I told my professor I was raped they said that university is hard for all students and I am no exception.” UofT’s response to the campaign was to remove the posters, citing the University’s postering policy. UofT should have instead taken a self-reflective look at improving their policies on sexual violence.

The University is covertly and overtly dismissive of student opposition and student voices. UofT does not want to acknowledge that it is complicit in perpetuating systemic injustices, unless there is a critical mass of negative media attention that compels them to. UofT advertises that it is committed to social change, but its resistance to confronting its own systemic biases suggests otherwise. As students, we must continue to write our own narratives and to validate one another’s experiences of oppression, especially when institutions deny the validity of these stories and hide behind bureaucracy.