Memorial University's Student Editorial(est. 1950)

*This article first appeared in The Muse’s 75th Anniversary Print Supplement magazine, published January 2026.

In the old science building, in a lesser-used hallway on the third floor, there’s a chalkboard. I walk by it most days.

The smooth green surface has never shown signs of use. I’ve wondered before why it was put there originally, and how long it has been since it became just another part of the wall.

I was with friends one morning when I noticed something out of place — a small pink heart drawn on the board. Two pieces of chalk were sitting on the edge, just begging to be used.

We didn’t hesitate.

In only a couple minutes, we filled the board with drawings. Nothing elaborate, just some doodles.

It was nostalgic, but also a reminder that amidst the stress-filled monotony of academic life, this campus exists to be occupied by its community.

We put the chalk back in hopes that other students would add to our creations. If the board filled up and our drawings were erased to make room for something new, that would be okay.

It wasn’t the drawings themselves we were attached to, but the space for casual creation. It was a bid for connection. an acknowledgement that we are not just student numbers, GPAs, or passing figures, but that we all exist here as people.

But no more than 90 minutes later, the board was wiped completely clean and the chalk was gone. Not even a smudge or grain remained.

People create. No matter where, when, or how, people find ways to leave clues of their existence — something to say “I was here” — a sticker on a doorframe, a signature on a whiteboard, a doodle on the corner of a desk; it doesn’t matter if they’re given the space or the permission to do it, it’ll happen anyway, and it’s vital that it does.

Without these smaller forms of memory — these informal, day-to-day histories — what remains of student life? Of student culture? Yearbooks, award plaques, and newspapers reflect the academic lives of students, but what of their lives outside the classroom? Students are not the sum of their academic accomplishments.

Some students spend more time on campus than they do in their own homes, and their campus should welcome them as people, not just as students.

Despite efforts from Facilities Management to contain it, the QEII study rooms are covered with confessions, grudges, and drawings.

Many of the drawings are quite explicit, and I’ve found myself trying to settle on a video call angle where nothing unprofessional makes an unwanted cameo.

That being said, there’s a timeless culture of comedy that’s undeniable in these drawings and writings.

It’s a bizarre form of history, and one that cannot be dated. There’s no telling how long “ur mudder” has been written on the study room wall, or when the list of song recommendations began in the bathroom stalls.

In a December 1969 issue of The Muse, an anonymous author called these writings and drawings “wall pollution” and opined that students must “take the responsibility of protecting the washroom walls.”

It’s not an uncommon sentiment, and it’s reflected in the way facilities are managed on campus: bathroom stalls are painted to cover conversations between students, corkboards are exchanged for clipboards, incapable of displaying more than one thing at a time; and chalkboards are not only erased, but wiped clean so no one notices any traces at all.

But in January 1970, in The Muse’s very next issue, a response by S. Phipps read: “For God’s sake, don’t supply the janitors with iron brushes! There is nothing drearier than an undecorated lavatory. The decorated lavatory, on the other hand, is a haven… the possibilities are limitless.”

And fifty-five years later, I’m writing to argue the same.

Some things are meant to be fleeting — the erasing of a chalkboard is not the problem — it’s the refusal to allow self-expression. Why not let people draw on a chalkboard that’s no longer in use? Why not give people the space to leave proof of their existence?

It’s so much more than small acts of vandalism; it’s the memory of student life from below.

On February 20th, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down President Donald Trump’s tariffs, reigniting the debate for many in the United States. However, for countries these tariffs affect, such as Canada, the conversation never stopped. The United States’ tariffs have dominated every aspect of our political life.

Canada’s response hasn’t been bad; we’ve seen a willingness to bring down interprovincial trade barriers and shift our trade to other nations, reducing our trade reliance on America—but if we want a true game-changing shift, CANZUK is the answer.

CANZUK is a proposed economic and military alliance between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, which would see a massive reduction or elimination of tariffs between the countries. CANZUK International—a nonprofit organization that advocates for CANZUK—described it as “a comprehensive multi-lateral free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom,” and a harmonization of regulation. 

CANZUK would also mean full freedom of movement between citizens of CANZUK countries, resulting in visa-free travel and work. Similar to the long-existing Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement currently in place between Australia and New Zealand. The plan would also include deeper integration and cooperation of the countries’ military alliance.

CANZUK would have a positive effect on all four of these nations’ economies at any time in history, so just imagine the effects in the face of this new age of an unreliable United States as a partner on the world stage.

This isn’t just a fantasy; the support for CANZUK is there.

CANZUK International’s polling shows large support for CANZUK across all four potential member nations, with support for the program at 76% in Canada, 73% in Australia, 82% in New Zealand and 68% in the United Kingdom.

On top of that, the will from those in government in our country seems to be there with CANZUK. The program was officially endorsed by Canada’s Conservative Party in past elections and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre in his most recent trip to London. “The time has come for a new partnership among Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand—a modern CANZUK—a pact to open our economies further, remove barriers, recognize credentials, expand skilled labour mobility, and deepen capital markets,” said Poilievre.

Support for CANZUK was also signalled by Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Liberal leadership debate back in 2025, and although not an official endorsement, the Prime Minister did highlight the need for middle powers to come together during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The establishment of CANZUK policies isn’t unreasonable, with CANZUK being similar in scope to the European Economic Community (one of the main predecessor organizations to the European Union), as well as the freedom of movement already partially in place with the previously mentioned Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand.

The idea of CANZUK isn’t so far-fetched, especially with an increasingly unreliable United States.

So with all that in mind, yes, the efforts we have made in the face of Trump’s tariffs have been positive, but if the alliance between Canada and the United States is truly over—as Prime Minister Carney has put it—and we want to actually distance our trade from the United States, now is the perfect time for CANZUK.

*This article first appeared in The Muse’s 75th Anniversary Print Supplement magazine, published January 2026.

On Thursday afternoon in cell #12, we sat on the cool concrete floor and shared stories of how we’d gotten into activism.

It was our first day in Kt’ziot prison. We hadn’t eaten since our capture.

We were tired and on edge from the events of the day before: our ship hijacked by soldiers descending from helicopters, 12 hours of captivity in our ship’s dining room with IOF rifles trained on us.

We experienced and witnessed extreme violence and humiliation rituals at the port where they brought our ship, followed by a zip-tied and blindfolded journey on a freezing prison bus inside coffin-like metal cells.

We were talking about what brought us here to remember our dedication.

The reason was a genocide. There is a genocide happening in Palestine, and there has been for years.

Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, recently noted that the death toll in Palestine is likely close to 680,000 murdered by Israel since 2023. Currently, thousands of Palestinians remain captive in Israeli torture camps and prisons, suffering far worse than we experienced, and for far longer. Many don’t make it out alive.

The UN has determined that there is a system of racial apartheid ongoing to this day. Gaza has endured an illegal blockade since 2007.

There have been numerous massacres of Palestinians spanning from the Nakba in 1948, where hundreds and thousands of Palestinians were displaced as Zionists began their colonial project.

Despite the “ceasefire” declared on October 10, 2025, Dr. Elise Thorburn, an emergency Doctor from St. John’s, was sending messages to our group chat about mass casualty events while volunteering in the emergency room in Gaza. She attended to children who had been sniped by Israeli quadcopters.

Watching a genocide unfold in front of us was our primary motivator, but we also each had events and histories in our personal lives that precipitated our engagement with direct action.

For me, it was Memorial University exposing me to the lengths institutions and individuals will go to protect and enable complicity. I learned direct action was the most effective tool to combat their fumbling and morally corrupt attempts at “neutrality.”

Prior to the encampment, I attended a few rallies here and there, but mostly felt helpless. When there was a call for students to help with establishing a genocide resistance group on campus, I sent a DM on Instagram and got involved.

In our first meeting with the University administration, they refused to look at our requests, told us it was not their place to comment on whether a genocide was happening. The current administration refuses to discuss divestment at all.

After weeks of encampment and occupation of the Arts and Admin building, the administration finally revealed that they have money invested in weapons manufacturers and other companies complicit in illegal occupation and genocide in Palestine.

The then-chair of the Board of Regents stepped down after a scandal involving inappropriate behaviour towards student protestors.

Without adequately notifying students or the designated safety liaison, the administration called the police and used the RNC to shut down a peaceful protest and have 3 students arrested, including me.

These actions were done in the interest of maintaining their investments. Investments that enable what scholars are calling scholasticide, including the targeted killing of educators and the decimation of education infrastructure.

Ordinary people can make principled, moral choices to reject this as our reality.

When the opportunity arose to be a part of the Flotilla to Gaza, to try to break the illegal siege and bring attention to the genocide, I felt a need to partake, to reject complacency with atrocities created around the world by corrupt governments and corporations in the pursuit of profit and power.

There is no one coming to save us.

We can’t rely on the government or the law, or organizations claiming to represent and protect us. We can only rely on our own actions and the community we form.

So pay attention. Care about the people around you, and around the world, and then take action.

Editor’s Note: This article was initially written and edited in November of 2025, for publication in January of 2026. Since then, MUN administration has met with MUN Students for Palestine. Read their statement regarding this below.

The current petition to dissolve the GSU is astoundingly reckless and if it were to go through in its current state it will cause harm to countless students.

I will admit that I do not have all the details of the situation, and that is on both TAUMUN and GSU leadership for their misleading posts and lack of transparency throughout all of this. But from what I do know, I must strongly urge caution against the current petition put forward by TAUMUN for the dissolution of the GSU.

It seems to me that many students interested in the petition do not understand the risks as they relate to GSU’s and CFS’ maintenance of Greenshield health coverage for all international students. 

Yes, it is an extreme failure on the part of past and present GSU leadership that we are where we are in terms of the debt to Greenshield and other blunders of mismanagement and secrecy.

But a repayment plan is in the works and to completely dissolve the GSU at this exact moment over the fee increases places the immediate risk of losing Greenshield for students entirely, all without any prior planning toward how to secure that health insurance in the event of dissolution.

To call for this now, while the GSU is in the midst of these negotiations, is simply foolish and harmful to all. 

I don’t think some students understand just how expensive medications can be for students without Greenshield, and how little coverage there is from guard.me and MCP alone.

To think that the health coverage for international students can just ‘be figured out afterwards’ is terribly naive at best and heartless at worst. 

Should TAUMUN succeed in convincing enough grad students to get the GSU dissolved at this moment, I ask: What happens to students without health coverage in the interim while TAUMUN or some new GSU-esque group tries to figure out securing these benefits?

Will Greenshield just pretend the massive debt has gone away?

Would they be willing to negotiate a new payment plan with a different group after how relations have gone? What happens when students start losing access to their medications and other supports aided by the GSU?

Are those calling for the dissolution of the GSU willing to implement a mutual aid structure during the interim for their fellow classmates?

Make no mistake, several members of the GSU’s prior leadership must be held accountable for what has come to be, but there needs to be extensive talks and planning before giving up altogether over something as simple as a $15 increase per semester.

I’m sure that $15 saved will really make the difference when a student has to pay $500 for a refill of Rapamune — to use one example of a prescription at Shoppers when relying only on guard.me — and that’s just one medication. Many students have several prescriptions that they crucially rely on to live, the costs of which we cannot know or assume.

I would gladly pay $20 more, $50 more per semester if it meant helping the GSU maintain its benefits and ensuring that other students do not lose their health coverage. 

Further, this goes beyond the extreme risk of losing Greenshield. The $15 increase was going to happen anyway and isn’t even directly tied to the debt repayment.

GSU has not updated their fees for a decade and by design of their constitution are attempting to catch up to contemporary inflation. This is not enough of a reason alone to throw away the GSU.

There is power in a student union when run properly. To give that up completely at a time like this is incredibly dangerous. GSU does more for us than Greenshield, and we will lose a significant part of our collective voice if we dissolve the union. 

Changes absolutely need to be made within the GSU, such as a significant emphasis on transparency and communication. But it is simply too soon, too risky, and frankly ableist to call for dissolution with no prior conversations or planning.

To call a $15 per semester increase “unethical”, while simultaneously not considering or caring about the risk of losing health coverage and other benefits for their fellow students, is misleading at best.

I must urge students to be very cautious about such a brash petition at this time.

Laszlo Mark, PhD Candidate