According to the presidents of all four universities – Bishop’s, Acadia, St. Francis Xavier, and Mount Allison – the partnership is intended to better communicate to the public the immeasurable benefits of attending a small, primarily undergraduate university. In looking to confront shortfalls in their enrolment numbers, the universities will hit the recruitment trail together, fanning out slick brochures side-by-side in an attempt to attract many of the brightest high school graduates from across the country and around the world.

Yet, once again, while the presidents of our liberal arts institutions busy themselves boasting to national newspapers of our acquired ability to think critically, they’ve failed to recognize that when students acquire these skills, they use them.

So while on the surface the Maple League of Universities appears to be an ambitious project with somewhat respectable goals, beneath its shiny façade, it’s nothing more than a concrete example of the increasing corporatization of Canadian universities.

Let’s put aside the fact that the partnership openly admits to drawing inspiration from the most elitist post-secondary schools in the world, and consider what this rebranding exercise tells us about the priorities and the distribution of power at these universities.

Amid financial constraints, institutions across the country are responding by shrinking academic programs’ budgets and rolling back their tenure-track positions—a response that Mt. A students and faculty know all too well. Yet, suspiciously, the resources being funnelled into administrative ranks are rarely being cut in these times of purported financial distress. Instead, funding allocated to university administrations has remained steady and, in many cases, has even grown. But what could possibly justify the expansion of administration at the expense of full-time faculty? Well, initiatives that look eerily similar to the Maple League.

In order to validate and strengthen their roles, administrators across North America are channelling their energy into projects like the Maple League that redefine the mission of the university to better serve their administrative interests. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg says, “college administrators imitate the practices of their corporate counterparts,” and what’s more corporate than a good rebranding exercise, buoyed by administrative conferences, gala dinners and weekend retreats?

The creation of the Maple League is arguably little more than an image-polishing project that fits into a larger trend of employing media relations staffers over full-time faculty, and prioritizing the creation of glossy magazines over rigorous course syllabi.

Yet, perhaps the most sickening part of the entire partnership is its willingness to co-opt the political orientations and social justice commitments of its students and faculty to the benefit of corporate expansion. As Ginsberg puts it: “Issues that to many professors represent moral imperatives have been transformed into powerful instruments of administrative aggrandizement.”

While a few of the initiatives deserve our applause, the ability to video-conference into courses held by partner institutions should be met with skepticism. The ability to learn Mik’maq should exist at every institution occupying Mik’maq land. But what will compel Mt. A to finally hire Indigenous scholars – or diversify its faculty at all – when it’s able to piggyback on the offerings of other institutions?

Finally, in boosting the partnership, President Robert Campbell told the Globe and Mail, “If you look at schools like ours that are deeply wedded to liberal arts and science, but also very collegial … [students] are more likely to develop sensibilities that are not going to tolerate racist or sexist arguments.”

Now, in considering the long list of racist and sexist aggressions that take place everyday at Mt. A, I find it deplorable that such predominately white institutions would leverage anti-racist sentiment for marketing purposes, while simultaneously failing to address such issues on their own campuses.

If our universities are truly committed to having exceptional learning environments with diverse student bodies, they will recognize that the key lies in tearing down financial barriers to student access and increasing full-time faculty contracts, not in booting up Skype and rolling out flashy recruitment videos.

This past Friday and Saturday, ahead of International Women’s Day, Mount Allison University hosted its first ‘Women in Leadership Conference.’ Co-chaired by fourth-year students Eilish Elliott and Heather Webster, sponsored by the Ron Joyce Centre for Business Studies, the Mount Allison Alumni Board and several other branches of the university administration, the conference’s intent was to “start a discussion on campus around women in leadership and the barriers women face in leadership roles, as well as provide participants with the opportunity to develop tangible skills that they will be able to use in getting involved and taking on leadership roles.”

The problem with the conference wasn’t that it asked how women could take on more leadership roles. The problem was that it continued to spread the myth that women can end sexism so long as they’re willing to step up and do so. It advanced the all-too-common “If women work hard we can run the world” mentality, without ever stopping to ask the question, “But what kind of world would we be running?”

The conference’s website begins by asserting that “despite Mount Allison’s population being 60 per cent female, we see few females seeking and obtaining leadership positions on campus, and this extends into the professional workforce.”

After spending four years at Mt. A, I can assure you that there is no lack of female leadership at this institution. In fact, I would argue that women make up the majority of the individuals and groups at Mt. A who are committed  to and working towards progressive social change, both on campus and beyond.

If we continue to define leadership in a restrictive and hierarchical way which sees “leaders” as only those who have a seat on the Students’ Administrative Council, or an executive position in a club or society, we’ll never bring about the transformative change that will benefit all women. By adopting such a restrictive view of leadership, we’re telling others, “This is success and these are the skills you need to get there.” But we are not stopping to broaden our gaze and reflect on the very real female leadership that is taking place around us.

“Female leadership” at Mt. A is the 22 young women who brought women’s lived experiences to the stage in The Vagina Monologues.

It is the executive of the Black Students for Advocacy, Awareness and Togetherness who, after dealing with years of racist micro- and macro-aggressions, pulled back Mt. A’s ‘accepting community blanket’ and catalyzed a critical conversation on racism at this institution.

It is the six female co-ordinators of Divest MTA who have navigated the rhetoric of fiduciary responsibility and have called into question the moral responsibilities of this institution.

Female leadership is Madeleine Kruth, who, after opening an administrative email dismissing reported sexual assault rates on Canadian university campuses, had the courage to publicly come forward with her experience of rape and demand concrete action from this university’s administration.

This is leadership at a deeper level. It is leadership that may not directly translate into CEO titles or ‘chair of the board’ positions, but it is transformative in nature. It is leadership that doesn’t assume our work is over once we’ve closed the wage gap and have reached gender equality within the current social system. Instead, it is leadership that doesn’t measure gender equality in the bank accounts of privileged women, leadership that might not be in step with the socially-accepted definition of what ‘success’ is for all women.

We need to move away from this ‘keeping up with the men’ mentality that the conference advanced so well. On their website, they posted a quote from Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg’s book Lean In, a New York Times bestseller that created its own branch of feminism. In giving Facebook a sociopolitical cause to champion, Sandberg throws a feminist blanket over capitalism and tells women that if they want to change the world, they need to sit at the boardroom table and “lean in.”

It was a message echoed by the conference’s keynote speaker, Nancy McKay, a physiotherapist and three-time Progressive Conservative party candidate, who opened the conference on Friday evening with a clear message: “Women need to be in positions of leadership and in order to get there, they need to step up.”

This type of feminism isn’t about asking corporations or organizations to dismantle their institutionalized sexism, it’s about telling women to suck it up and get over it. When McKay was asked how she handles sexism in the workplace, she responded by saying that a good sense of humour goes a long way.

Intentionally or not, in saying this, McKay was really saying that laughter is an appropriate response to a guy sitting in a fourth-year sociology seminar equating women being raped while walking home alone to getting shot while driving a Cadillac through the Bronx. With this, we’re told that humour is an appropriate response to not only sexist jokes but also to racist, homophobic and transphobic ones alike. We’re told that whether it’s in the classroom or the boardroom, sexism is a reality that we, as women, need to get used to.

However we wish to put it, whether it be “stepping up” or “leaning in,” we’re failing to acknowledge the fact that privileged white women can’t step up or lean in without doing so at the expense of others. As author Laurie Penny puts it, “Lean In is predicated on the notion that you’ll also be leaning ON immigrant women, women of color, and poor women.”

While the Women in Leadership Conference may be willing to acknowledge this is a problem that must be overcome, it doesn’t take away from the fact that their 20-plus guest speakers, panellists and networking participants were all well-educated white women and men.

We need to stop pretending that we’ll have achieved gender equality when we have a white female corporate elite sitting in the boardrooms of multinationals around the world. Instead, we need to remember that the visionary feminist goal is not for women to run the world, but for women to collectively and co-operatively change the world into one which extends freedom, justice and opportunity to all people.

In reality, taking action on climate change at the institutional level isn’t our choice, at least not yet. As our generation is confronted with the greatest challenge that the world has arguably ever faced, Mt. A continues to stand on the sidelines, refusing to take the bold action required to prevent catastrophic climate change.

In keeping our endowment fund invested in the fossil fuel industry, Mt. A is directly supporting an industry whose business model is incompatible with a livable future on this planet. Divestment therefore stands not only as a product of moral imperative, but also as a future-oriented financial decision. In a low-carbon future, the top 200 oil, gas and coal firms will be unable to bring two-thirds of their proven reserves to market. Mt. A is locking us into a future that presents costs we cannot afford to bear.

This Friday, on global divestment day, we, as students, faculty and community members, will stand together to send a clear message that this is unacceptable. Together, we’ll make it known that we are positioning ourselves on the right side of history, and that we won’t stand down until Mt. A does the same.

The task at hand isn’t easy. In fact, it’s really, really hard but complacency is no longer an option. Each day we stand by watching Mt. A uphold the status quo, listening to the oft-cited excuses of ‘fiduciary responsibility’ and ‘political neutrality,’ is another day of emissions, another day of building infrastructure for a fossil fuel-based economy and another day that places our future at further risk.

So here’s our call to action.

To our professors:

On Dec. 5., 2014, you voted unanimously in favour of a Mount Allison Faculty Association motion to support fossil fuel divestment at this institution. In doing so, you positioned yourselves as active allies of this cause. You sent us a clear message that you not only listened to our concerns, but that you saw value in demonstrating what you have taught us: the importance of thinking critically, of recognizing our privilege, and of doing whatever we can, within our power, to build a future that we will be proud of. But a motion of support only goes so far unless it is backed by action. Tomorrow, show us that you not only believe in the education you have provided us with, but that you are actively working to ensure that we have every chance of putting those lessons to use.

To our fellow students:

We know that climate change is the issue of our generation and that no university degree, no matter how prestigious, will insulate us from its effects. As First Nations communities and other marginalized groups occupy the frontlines of climate change, the fossil fuel industry continues to bet on international inaction. This industry is betting on our collective failure to act on the greatest challenge we have ever faced. And until now, the odds have fallen in their favour. But we’re better than this. We will rise to the challenge of climate change, and we will begin building a world that isn’t predicated on social injustice. Only we can’t get there alone. We deserve action from those in power. Our generation, and those that follow, deserve to graduate from Mt. A knowing that this institution is doing everything it can to ensure its students are positioned for long-term success.

To Dr. Campbell:

There is little left to be said that hasn’t been said before, so instead I’ll leave you with a suggestion for what Mt. A can say when it decides to divest from fossil fuels:

“Mount Allison University prides itself on being not only a place of learning, but also a place of action. It is an institution that encourages students to think critically and to engage with the world’s most pressing issues. It is for this reason that Mount Allison University has chosen to divest its endowment fund from the fossil fuel industry, understanding that it is time for higher education to take a stand on climate change. As Canada’s top undergraduate university, every year, Mount Allison graduates students with the utmost confidence that they are prepared to take on the world’s greatest challenges. For this reason, we no longer believe that it is morally tenable for this institution to invest in an industry that undermines the future success of our students. Instead, we are choosing to lead by action and to invest in a world that we feel proud to graduate Allisonians into.”

The logic behind the divestment movement is simple. If it is wrong to wreck the planet, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage.

Let’s be clear: the climate crisis is no longer an issue reserved for future generations. Since the beginning of your contract at Mount Allison University, typhoon Haiyan—the largest storm in recorded history— ravaged the coast of the Philippines, Hurricane Sandy barreled into New York City leaving 75 billion dollars worth of damages in its wake, and a drought in the Sahel left 10 million people in a state of food insecurity. In Canada alone, a heat wave in 2010 baked Southern Ontario and Québec, heavy rainfall in 2013 devastated the city of Calgary, and heavy flooding inundated Toronto’s subway system just earlier this year.

These are our homes. As a university that draws students from across Canada and around the world, we have collectively become all too familiar with climate change’s indiscriminate reach. In 2013, students from High River, Alberta were left wondering whether they’d have a home to return to and just this past summer, Hurricane Arthur left Mount Allison students from across Atlantic Canada without power for days. Research from our own institution indicates that future flooding in the Town of Sackville will leave huge swaths of land underwater, compromising the houses of citizens who share our love for this town.

Climate change is the issue of our generation and no university degree, no matter how prestigious, will insulate us from its effects.

Dr. Campbell, it should be of no surprise that the fossil fuel divestment movement has reached the small town of Sackville, New Brunswick. For 175 years, Mount Allison University has taken pride in shaping young people into national and international leaders in their respective fields.

For years, our professors have taught us to think critically. They have taught us to recognize our privilege and above all, they have taught us that we, as fortunate, educated, and empowered citizens, have the power to change the world.

It is often difficult to believe them. Universities can transform students into cynics and Mount Allison is no exception. But fossil fuel divestment is a concrete action. It is a tangible change and it is something that we can and will achieve.

Mount Allison University students have a great deal to be proud of. Every day, we are surrounded by peers who inspire us and professors who expand our knowledge to a point we never thought possible. In many ways, this alone should compel us to be proud of our title as “The #1 Undergraduate University in Canada.” But in reality, until we begin to dismantle our ivory tower, we don’t deserve this title. As an elite institution, we have a fundamental responsibility to use our privilege for the better.

Climate change is – first and foremost – an environmental justice issue. At the international level, it is already wreaking havoc on the Global South. While in North America, indigenous groups, low-income communities, and disempowered individuals are being hit hardest by its impacts. As educated citizens, we have an obligation to act.

Many will argue that university endowments should be reserved to advance the institution’s academic mission. Last year, Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard’s president, said, “The endowment is a resource, not an instrument to impel social or political change.” But her words ring hollow. Universities, including Mount Allison, have, for years, cultivated strong relationships with businesses, donors, and governments to fulfill commercial and political purposes. University presidents, such as yourself, understand that our mission statement does not exist in social isolation. In fact, the urgency of climate change has compelled hundreds of institutions, from Unity College in Maine to Stanford University in California, to embrace divestment.

Many of the world’s leading political figures support the cause. The President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon; and the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney have all urged major institutions to consider how their investments can transition the world toward a renewable energy economy.

Dr. Campbell, you’ll be proud to know that Mount Allison University is preparing us to take on the challenge of climate change. Science students are being taught to understand its complex dynamics and effects. International relations students are being equipped with the skills they need to negotiate international environmental agreements. Business students are being prepared to build a green economy rooted in the understanding of an ecological bottom line. Fine arts students are being given the tools they need to create art that mobilizes communities under a common cause. Finally, our English students are being prepared to write the success story when the time comes to celebrate what we have achieved.

But without action, climate change will undermine the very education Mount Allison has provided us with.

Dr. Campbell, you have the opportunity to place this institution on the right side of history. Divest now and know that in doing so, you are affirming your belief in our futures.

The search for any trace of the 240-foot plane has led search crews to the edge of the Indian Ocean Gyre, an oceanic landfill holding Australia, India, and Indonesia’s trash. There are four or more of these gyres in the world’s oceans. They are the calm centres of rotating ocean currents that have become floating patches of garbage. The most famous among them is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which floats between Hawaii and California, and is said to be the size of Texas. In light of the recent search, sea captain Charles Moore, who is credited with discovering the patch in 2003, has insisted that “the ocean is like a plastic soup, bulked up with the croutons of these larger items” that are obscuring the search for the plane.

The larger objects tend to be fishing-related, but it’s not unusual to see shipping containers and their contents floating at sea. No definitive records exist, but it’s believed that of the 100 million shipping containers that traverse the sea annually, anywhere between 700 and 10,000 end up overboard. According to Seattle oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer, while the majority of them sink, other containers are able to float around for months, buoyed by trapped air or plastic goods contained inside. Many of the large objects that have been retrieved in the search for MH370 are speculated to have been shipping containers, however, they are still only one part of the distractions. Various sources estimate that more than 10 million tonnes of debris washed into the sea following the 2011 tsunami, and much of this debris has become tangled together, forming rafts that attract sea life. Billions of people are currently living in low-lying coastal regions around the world in cities such as Dhaka, Bangladesh. With sea levels expected to rise several feet by 2100, it is likely that garbage in these areas will be flushed out to sea more often than ever before, particularly during storm surges.

Ultimately, as the search for MH370 moves into the southern Indian Ocean, an area with weaker currents but more debris, the world will continue to be reminded that even the most remote stretches of the world’s oceans are littered with garbage.

In late September, Quebec’s environment department lifted a drinking water ban for several communities that rely on the Chaudière’s water supply. The Quebec Environment Minister Yves-François Blanchet has, however, assured the public that the department is continuing to monitor the safety of the water and that sampling and analyses have not stopped. 

The train that derailed in Lac-Mégantic on July 6 was carrying over seven million litres of crude oil, of which 5.9 million is estimated to have been released into the environment. It remains unclear how much of this oil ended up in the town’s lake and in the Chaudiére River. The environment department has estimated that roughly 100,000 litres likely contaminated the river, but Greenpeace’s Patrick Bonin questions this figure. Following their testing, Greenpeace Quebec and SVP have stated that samples taken 4.7 kilometres downstream from the lake were found to have pollutant levels twenty-seven times higher than what is deemed acceptable. Blanchet has responded by saying that the area the group chose to sample is known to have been highly contaminated, and is therefore not representative of the current condition of the river.

But Rosa Galvez-Cloutier, a decontamination expert from the Université de Laval, has added her voice, pressuring the government to do further testing on toxicity levels. She says that the tests done by SVP and Greenpeace show significant amounts of crude oil, which could have an impact on the river’s ecosystem. 

Daniel Green from the SVP is concerned that future contamination will occur in the spring. He warns that spring flooding could stir up oil located along the riverbed and overflow onto surrounding agricultural lands. 

Environment Canada has also been collecting samples from the site. However, last week a spokesperson stated that the results, “will only be released when appropriate, as investigations are ongoing and all samples collected may become subject to future legal proceedings.”

 The environmental groups are not satisfied and they have been calling on Quebec to release information on what contaminants are in the river and where they have been found in concentrated levels. The groups are also asking for the government to make the work they have done public information.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions,” Bonin said. 

In response to this conference, the Council of Canadians hosted a counter-summit from October 2 to 4. The conference brought together multiple stakeholders to engage in a panel discussion, workshops, and a rally centred on the future of energy in the Atlantic provinces.

In a statement describing the Energy for Everyone Summit, Council of Canadians board member Leticia Chair said that “[F]racked gas, tar sands pipelines, and nuclear energy aren’t the future—they’re the past. The Atlantic Energy Summit promotes this extreme energy to industry insiders. Energy for Everyone brings people together to learn and organize for the sustainable Atlantic energy future we deserve.”

People from across the Atlantic region and the country attended the Energy for Everyone Summit. Many of the attendees came from environmental groups, such as 350.org and the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, while others attended as concerned citizens, landowners, and as political representatives. Nine Mount Allison students from Brad Walters’s environmental activism class also attended the conference.

The event began on Wednesday evening with a panel discussion featuring Maude Barlow, the Council of Canadians National Chairperson; Alma Brooks, a member of the Maliseet Grand Council from Saint Mary’s First Nation; and Catherine Abreau, the Regional Coordinator of the Atlantic Canada Sustainable Energy Coalition. Popular topics of discussion included the proposed Energy East pipeline, hydrofracking in New Brunswick, and a renewable energy future for Eastern Canada.  

Alma Brooks opened the discussion by emphasizing that the creation of a sustainable energy future for New Brunswick will rely on pressure and participation from all communities, regardless of origin. Maude Barlow, who is currently on her national book release tour of Blue Future, followed speaking to the water contamination risks associated with many of the fossil fuel projects currently taking place in the Atlantic region. 

“There is no such thing as a pipeline that doesn’t leak,” she said in reference to TransCanada’s proposed Energy East line. 

Catherine Abreau rounded off the discussion with an optimistic tone, highlighting the immense potential and leadership that Atlantic Canada holds in wind, solar, and tidal power.  

On Thursday afternoon, while David Alward was speaking inside the Delta, the counter-summit participants marched in the streets of uptown Saint John. Dressed as ‘fracked fries’ and raindrops, they shouted, “no pipelines, no tankers” as the RCMP escorted them to outside the Brunswick Square Shopping Centre where Maude Barlow and David Coon, the leader of the New Brunswick Green Party, spoke. Two Mt. A students also addressed the crowd, voicing their concerns over the Energy East pipeline and what they described as Canada’s over-reliance on fossil fuels. The students voiced their support for a renewable energy future and called on other youth to become involved and informed on current environmental issues.

While the majority who attended the Energy for Everyone Summit were over the age of thirty, third-year international relations and geography student Sharoni Mitra said, “the conference really validated that youth can work with older people on these issues,” continuing that “as a young New Brunswicker, five years ago I never would have seen the province as a hotbed for environmental activism, but today it clearly is.”