In light of rapidly unfolding legal, political, and administrative developments affecting students, the ɫ Executive Team has prepared the following statement and FAQ section.
Dear ɫ Members,
As is now widely known, McGill administrators have announced their intent to terminate the recently signed Memorandum of Agreement with the ɫ, following the historic student-led strike in support of Palestinian liberation. The strike, held from April 2 to 4, 2025, was facilitated by the ɫ per a democratically adopted motion brought forward by its members. This motion mandated the organization of alternative programming during the strike while reaffirming longstanding calls for McGill to divest from apartheid and military technologies—consistent with existing ɫ policy and international . A detailed timeline of events, legal context, and next steps can be found in this attached and accompanying FAQ.
Towards the end of the student strike, university administrators cancelled scheduled meetings with ɫ Executives. They initiated a series of legal and procedural actions, citing an incident in which a staff member was sprayed with paint by an unidentified individual—while notably omitting cases of violence against students, including the assault and hospitalization of a student by McGill security during the strike. The ɫ wishes to highlight this and the other four actions mentioned below as indicative of a broader pattern of escalating institutional control, targeting not only pro-Palestine organizing but also student political expression and representation.
First, on April 4, 2025, Interim Deputy Provost Angela Campbell issued a Notice of Termination of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) to the ɫ President, and this decision to the student body on April 7. This notice came even after the ɫ released a public statement on April 4 that McGill administrators had insisted would help avert a NoT. Thus, the ɫ Executive Committee was blindsided by university administrators’ decision to nevertheless initiate MoA termination. University administrators then submitted these very statements as and in court filings, using them to justify to chill future student mobilization.
Campbell’s April 7 communication omitted critical information—chiefly, that as an accredited student association, the ɫ’s existence is , independent of any MoA. The lack of clarity on this aspect and others led to widespread uncertainty among the ɫ’s members, personnel, and private subtenants of the University Centre—triggering significant misinformation in online and print media. To be clear, access to essential services, insurance, and employment security for ɫ members and staff is unaffected. Furthermore, this communication alleged the ɫ “could and should have” intervened to prevent the strike motion’s passage, a claim we reject as unfounded and contradicted by McGill’s own lawyers in court during the proceedings mentioned herein.
Second, on April 10, 2025, McGill petitioned the Quebec Superior Court for a 10-day to prevent any demonstrations near its buildings or on campus paths, streets, or walkways—pro-Palestine or otherwise. Although allegedly motivated by concern for students’ and faculty’s well-being during exam season, the application lacked evidence of planned disruptions that the injunction could prevent. Affidavits by and several teaching unions at McGill—AMURE, AGSEM, AMUSE, and AMPFA—opposed the injunction and challenged its scope and necessity. These sworn statements from students and staff stood in stark contrast to the administration’s case, which relied solely on sworn statements from university administrators. Nevertheless, the injunction was granted on April 15, forcing the ɫ to circulate its terms on social media—amplifying constraints on academic freedom and indicating the political nature of administrators’ legal strategy.
Third, on April 15, 2025, at 2:11 PM, Campbell sent a targeted email to elected student leaders titled Campbell acknowledged in her email that “it is understandable to feel compelled to take action” in response to human suffering, yet urged student leaders to retract and refrain from adopting political stances which might be subjectively perceived as problematic.
This argument is unconvincing, particularly in light of of students and their associations speaking out against and —issues that were deeply controversial in their time. If Campbell’s framing is to be taken at face value, it raises the paradox of how “associations with mandates to serve all students” can fulfill that mandate if doing so requires muzzling themselves the moment any disagreement arises. The Supreme Court of Canada has already rejected this untenable standard, which affirmed that “freedom to express harmless opinions that reflect a consensus is not freedom.”
Fourth, shortly after Campbell’s message to student representatives, President Deep Saini emailed the entire McGill community announcing that McGill’s anti-protest injunction had been granted—strategically linking the court ruling to amplify its repressive effect, as the injunction applies to anyone with knowledge of it. In the same message, Saini claimed the University was committed to contradicting both the injunction’s expansive scope and the administration’s heavy-handed legal strategy. By framing peaceful protest as a threat to campus unity, his email signals efforts to redefine academic freedom: not as a space for dissent and democratic engagement, but enforced institutional complicity.
Across these four escalating actions, university administrators’ claims that they do not seek to suppress dissent are increasingly indefensible. The ɫ Executive Committee does not make this observation lightly. This pattern of ultimatums, legal threats, and coercive messaging points to a pernicious effort to silence student political engagement. This is further compounded by the administration’s use of Islamophobic and Arabphobic sources——in court filings, all while asserting the strike itself was antisemitic—a problematic political position refuted by the many participating Jewish students affirming that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.
In light of the administration’s affirmation of these harmful stereotypes, which appear to violate McGill’s own policies on discrimination, the ɫ echoes the Tribune’s assertion that McGill’s administration is . It has instead escalated tensions by refusing to pursue non-legal avenues—such as divestment—that it has previously embraced, both in response to apartheid and . Yet when it comes to the Palestinian genocide, the administration and Board of Governors would rather obscure their complicity than take any meaningful steps to confront it.
Through this difficult moment, the ɫ Executive Team remains steadfast in its commitment to defending student voices and protecting democratic expression. We are committed to negotiating with McGill in good faith while defending the interests and rights of students.
Finally:
- For any feedback on the mediation process or the broader role of the ɫ and the MoA, you can fill out or contact the ɫ President directly at president@ssmu.ca.
- To participate in consultations coordinated by the Negotiations Committee, reach out to the VP External at external@ssmu.ca.
- Public sessions of the ɫ Board of Directors remain open to all members—email speaker@ssmu.ca for details on how to attend and/or participate.
Cordially,
The ɫ Executive Team
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. Q: Does the ɫ require the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) to exist?
A: No. The ɫ’s legal status as an accredited student association is protected by Quebec law, not by McGill.
McGill must continue to recognize the ɫ and transfer student-approved fees unless accreditation is lost—a process wholly outside the scope of any MoA termination with the University. Specifically, the MoA governs logistical matters like space access and use of the McGill name for the ɫ’s clubs, but the ɫ remains a legally recognized, elected student body.
Unlike McGill, most other undergraduate student unions in Quebec—including those at do not operate under a time-bound MoA. Instead, institutional regulations and provincial accreditation framework govern their recognition by and relationship with the
2. Q: What is a Notice of Termination (NoT) of the MoA?
A: is a new mechanism introduced in , replacing the older, more punitive “ system. Under the previous MoA, McGill could place the ɫ’s finances into a trust and impose strict oversight—essentially allowing McGill to exert disproportionate control over the ɫ’s operations.
The current Notice of Termination clause allows either McGill or the ɫ to terminate the agreement for any reason, triggering a mandatory mediation process of six (6) sessions over two (2) months. While the name sounds severe, it indicates the start of a standard contractual process without effect on the ɫ’s accreditation, fee collection, or operations.
3. Q: What is the history of these kinds of actions (NoT and NoD) at the ɫ?
A: The current Notice of Termination (NoT) continues a broader historical pattern of pressure tactics by McGill against the ɫ, previously carried out through the former Notice of Default (NoD) mentioned above. A summary of these previous notices From approximately 2019 to 2024, McGill issued NoDs against the ɫ on a near-annual basis—most often in response to expressions of solidarity with Palestine, rather than clear procedural breaches.
Notably, these notices were usually confidential and not disclosed publicly. Many were triggered by broad constitutional values clauses, such as those in the ɫ preamble, which McGill administrators alleged had been violated when the ɫ supported political causes. However, in a 2025 ruling, the Quebec Court of Appeal cautioned against interpreting such values clauses in a way that preempts student expression.
4. Q: What are the immediate and long-term impacts of losing the MoA if the mediation process is unsuccessful?
A: If mediation fails and the MoA is terminated, students may see significant short-term disruptions, particularly in relation to space and naming rights. The University may also choose to revoke ɫ’s access to the University Centre at 3480 McTavish Street (the UC) or restrict student-run clubs and services from using the “McGill” name—both of which are privileges specifically granted by the MoA.
However, the ɫ would retain its legal status as the official accredited representative of McGill undergraduates and would continue to operate independently. In the event of eviction from the UC, the ɫ could lease alternative space near campus to continue housing clubs, services, and student operations pursuant to members’ preference through referenda.
Importantly, even if the MoA ends, the administration could still allow the ɫ to continue functioning within the UC by written agreement Furthermore, university administrators have previously reneged on their contractual obligation to guarantee a lease, doing so even while the previous Memorandum of Agreement was in effect and explicitly included such a guarantee, unlike the current one. Given that the ɫ contributed financially to the University Center’s renovation, the ɫ remains hopeful that the administration will recognize ɫ’s essential role in student life and uphold access to the space in good faith.
5. Q: Can McGill stop the ɫ from expressing political views?
A: No. The ɫ is a democratic body governed by its Constitution and the will of its membership. Further, it is a violation of students’ rights under both Quebec and Canadian law for McGill or any other party to attempt to coerce political neutrality. Specifically, the ɫ’s governance structure includes democratic referenda which must be respected unless they violate concrete and narrow legal standards—not the kind of general disagreement mentioned in As the Quebec Court of Appeal has held, “Absent compelling reasons, the courts have no jurisdiction over the internal management of private, non-profit corporations as long as they are acting in good faith and within their powers.”
6. Q: What will the mediation process look like?
A: Following McGill administrators’ decision to issue the NoT, the ɫ will engage in a mediation process as set out in . Each side has named two senior representatives within the stipulated three working days, and an impartial, mutually agreed-upon mediator is currently being appointed to oversee six mediation sessions over two months. The mediation period may be extended by mutual agreement, and the MoA remains fully in effect during this time .
The ɫ’s negotiation team includes President Dymetri Taylor and Internal Counsel, with oversight and guidance from the ɫ Board. A Negotiations Committee composed of elected representatives and members-at-large from across McGill student associations has also been organized in conjunction. The ɫ commits to participating in mediation in good faith and treating all discussions as confidential .
7. Q: How can I submit feedback or get involved in the mediation process?
A: For any feedback on the mediation process or the broader role of the ɫ and the MoA, you can fill out or contact the ɫ President directly at president@ssmu.ca. To participate in consultations coordinated by the Negotiations Committee, reach out to the VP External at external@ssmu.ca. Public sessions of the ɫ Board of Directors remain open to all members—email speaker@ssmu.ca for details on how to attend and/or participate.
